Produce Nutrition News

Emphasizing Nutrition in Medical Education is Welcome and Overdue, Meat Institute Says

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 14:30:20 GMT

The Meat Institute applauded the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Education’s announcement urging leading medical education organizations to provide more comprehensive nutrition education and training.

“Americans trust their doctors for advice, including advice on nutrition,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a release. “This initiative should make nutrition and medical advice synonymous for the well-being of the patient and the consumer.”

Potts believes this initiative can help counter confusing and misleading information about nutrition, including the vital role of meat and poultry in health dietary patterns.

“Meat and poultry products provide consumers with a convenient, direct and balanced dietary source of all essential amino acids,” the Meat Institute said earlier this year. “Per serving, meat, poultry and fish provide more protein than dairy, eggs, legumes, cereals, vegetables or nuts. Protein is critical for developing, maintaining and repairing strong muscles; is vital for growth and brain development in children; and is essential to prevent muscle loss during aging.”

In February, Meat Institute President Vice President of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Susan Backus said a modified Healthy U.S.-Style Dietary Pattern risks the potential for unintended consequences for nutrient and energy intakes.

“Americans need to improve their eating patterns to promote health,” Backus pointed out. “Considering dietary choices based on taste and cultural preferences, health and economic status, and food availability will be key to improving the dietary habits of Americans. A recommendation to reduce, limit or avoid nutrient dense products like meat and poultry will have significant unintended nutritional consequences across all life stages.”

Potts said improving nutrition education for medical professionals is “welcome, commonsense and overdue.”

Treat calf scours early for best results

Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:12:19 GMT

Diarrhea in neonatal calves is one of the leading causes of morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death) in North America and Europe and continues to be a major cause of economic loss to the beef cattle industry. There are five major infectious causes of diarrhea in calves less than 21 days of age: E. coli K99, Rotavirus, Coronavirus, Cryptosporidia, and Salmonella. Other factors such as inadequate colostrum, poor sanitation, stress, and cold weather can make calf survival almost impossible. Regardless of the cause, diarrhea results in loss of electrolytes and water in the feces of calves and decreases milk intake. Ultimately, this leads to dehydration, metabolic acidosis (the blood is more acidic than normal), electrolyte abnormalities, and a negative energy balance from the lost nutrients and lack of milk. Oral electrolyte solutions have typically been used to replace fluid losses, correct acid-base and electrolyte levels in the blood, and provide nutritional support with the added benefit of being relatively inexpensive and easy to administer. Recent research has resulted in better methods to assess and treat a calf with diarrhea as well as better guidelines for choosing an oral electrolyte solution.

The most common mistake made in the use of oral electrolyte replacement therapy is waiting too long before administering these formulas or not giving them often enough to affected calves. Administered early and frequently, these fluids help the calf maintain strength and normal body temperature and allow it to continue nursing. Administering fluids too late, when the calf is already depressed and down, or administering too little so that the calf continues to lose more fluid than it is receiving orally, allows the dehydration to worsen and the calf’s condition to deteriorate. When dehydration and acidosis get severe enough, the gastrointestinal tract loses function and orally administered fluids are no longer of any value. In these cases, the only effective means of preventing death is to have a veterinarian administer intravenous fluid therapy.

A quick assessment of a calf with diarrhea will determine if oral fluid therapy or if intravenous (IV) is needed. The choice depends on the severity of both dehydration and metabolic acidosis (low pH of the blood). Dehydration is relatively easy to monitor by how far the eyeball is set back into the skull and the loss of skin elasticity. Metabolic acidosis is assessed by the calf’s ability to stand and suck. In general, a standing calf with a strong to moderate suckle reflex or that demonstrates a “chewing action” can be given oral fluids. Mildly dehydrated calves showing mild skin tenting when the skin on the neck is pinched, minimal sinking of the eye into the head, eyes and mucous membranes are still moist, and extremities are still somewhat warm are ideal candidates for oral fluids.

Thumb rules for the use of oral electrolyte fluid supplements for scouring calves:

1. Reconstitute the oral electrolyte supplement and administer it according to manufacturer’s recommendations.

2. Administer the reconstituted fluid formulation at approximately 5% of body weight, which is 2 quarts for an 80 pound calf. How many times per day this is necessary depends on how much fluid the calf is receiving by nursing and how much fluid is lost through the diarrhea. In many cases, the progression of the disease is not very rapid and the problem lies only in the missed opportunity to administer oral fluids at an earlier stage when response is best. Continued assessment of the scouring calf’s condition is required in order to make good decisions regarding the frequency of fluid administration.

3. Only administer oral fluids if the calf still has a suckle response. It is usually better to administer oral fluids by bottle with voluntary suckling. This enhances passage of the fluid to the abomasum via the esophageal groove. Oral fluids can be given by esophageal feeder when the suckle reflex is weak, but this method places fluids into the rumen. Any calf with a very weak or absent suckle reflex should be given IV fluid therapy because, if oral fluids are given to a calf with ileus (no gut motility), the fluid is not absorbed but instead pools in the rumen resulting in bloat and/or rumen acidosis. ANY calf that is severely depressed and unable to stand requires intravenous fluids.

4. It is extremely important that the oral fluids chosen for rehydration will be able to increase blood pH from an acidic state to a more neutral state. This is normally accomplished by alkalinizing agents such as bicarbonate, acetate, or propionate found in oral electrolytes. Although all have similar effects, acetate and propionate are preferred over bicarbonate in nursing calves because they do not interfere with milk digestion.

5. If calves are depressed and refuse to nurse, a hypertonic oral electrolyte product such as Calf-Lyte II HE or Enterolyte HE can be used. A “hypertonic” oral electrolyte product has a very large amount of glucose (sugar) in the preparation and has “HE” on the label (for “high energy”). Hypertonic solutions can give greater nutritional support because of the higher glucose level yet they can cause abomasal bloat and increased diarrhea if the calf is unable to absorb this large amount of sugar. If nursing is not resumed within 12 hours, calves will get too weak to respond to oral treatment alone.

6. Milk or milk replacers should NOT be withheld from scouring calves. None of the oral electrolyte formulas provide adequate protein and energy to replace milk. Some experts used to recommend a “rest the gut” approach, suggesting that continued milk feeding worsens diarrhea. However, research has shown that milk feeding does not prolong or worsen diarrhea, nor does it delay healing of the intestines. Calves should be maintained on their full milk diet (continue nursing) plus oral electrolytes when possible as long as they exhibit diarrhea.

Electrolyte fluid administration is by far the most effective treatment for calves with scours. Because affected calves are often weak and chilled, additional nursing care may be necessary for survival. In this regard, providing warmth, dry bedding, protection from the elements, and adequate nutritional support are all critical. Fluid therapy is most effective when it is administered aggressively and early in the course of the disease. The most critical factor may be the early recognition of affected calves. Caught early, most calves will respond very favorably to oral fluid therapy. Remember milk is better at maintaining a normal blood glucose level than any electrolyte solution so allow the calf to continue nursing. If the calf becomes so severely dehydrated it is weak and unable to rise, or if it has no suckle, intravenous fluid therapy may be the only way to save the calf’s life. Other treatments, such as antibiotics, may be beneficial but they are far less important than fluid and electrolyte replacement when it comes to calf survival.

Improved diagnostics are now available to ascertain the cause of neonatal calf diarrhea. The UKVDL has a Calf Diarrhea Multiplex PCR panel which tests for the major diarrhea pathogens in calves less than 21 days old including: E.coli K99, Rotavirus, Coronavirus, Salmonella spp., and Cryptosporidia. Submit one fecal sample per calf early in the course of disease and before any treatment has been given. The test is highly accurate as it detects the DNA or “molecular fingerprint” of the various pathogens and results are available within 1-2 days. At least 5 grams of feces must be submitted in a labeled, leak-proof container maintained at a cool temperature during transport. Do not submit fecal samples in gloves; screw cap tubes or vials are preferred in the laboratory. Call the UKVDL (859) 257-8283 or check the website

http://vdl.uky.edu for more information.

Grass Versus Grain: Question 12

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:31 GMT

By: John Maday

Drovers recently received an inquiry from a college student conducting research for a public-health class project. She sent a list of questions regarding the relative merits of finishing cattle on grass versus grain-based rations. Her questions, while somewhat biased, reflect common misperceptions of grain feeing and the kinds of question consumers are asking. For that reason, we have adapted the questions and answers into this article, to serve as possible “talking points” for our readers as you encounter similar questions from the public.

We’ve been posting the 13 questions, along with our answers, over the last couple weeks. Here is question 12:

Student

How do you think corn affects the price of cattle? Do you think this is having a greater impact on the health of Americans?

Drovers CattleNetwork

Because grain finishing improves production efficiency, it helps keep the price of beef competitive with other meats. This is positive for the health of Americans, who have access to affordable, nutrient-dense food.

For example, a March 8 price check with Omaha Steaks , a leading online retailer of premium meat products, shows a package of four nine-ounce grass-fed New York Strip steaks on sale for $89 (The regular price is $179.99.) Using the sale price, that is $22.25 per steak. For comparison a package of four nine-ounce conventional New York Strip steaks on the same site sells for $59.99, or $15 per steak.

The Omaha Steaks site also lists a package of four six-ounce hamburger patties for a sale price of $24.99. The regular price is $45.99. At the sale price, each burger costs $6.25. For comparison, a package of eight five-ounce conventional burgers is sale priced at $19.99, or $2.50 per burger. The site lists the normal price for the same package of conventional burgers at $34.99, or $4.37 per burger, compared with $11.50 per burger for the grass-fed burgers at their usual full price of $45.99 for four six-ounce patties.

See question 11 from this series here .

Grass Versus Grain: Question 9

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:31 GMT

By: John Maday

Drovers recently received an inquiry from a college student conducting research for a public-health class project. She sent a list of questions regarding the relative merits of finishing cattle on grass versus grain-based rations. Her questions, while somewhat biased, reflect common misperceptions of grain feeing and the kinds of question consumers are asking. For that reason, we have adapted the questions and answers into this article, to serve as possible “talking points” for our readers as you encounter similar questions from the public.

We’ll be posting the 13 questions, along with our answers, over the next couple weeks. Here is question 9:

Student

Do you think in 10 to 15 years from now there will be more cows fed on pasture?

Drovers CattleNetwork

Not significantly more, but cattle might spend more time on pasture and less time on feedlot rations. The time cattle spend on pasture and in feedlots varies from year to year and region to region based on grain prices, cattle prices and forage availability. Corn prices likely will trend higher over time, which could result in cattle spending shorter times in feedlots.

Also, consumer demand in the U.S. for grass-finished beef likely continue growing, but the higher cost of production, and thus higher retail price, probably will limit the market share of grass-finished beef.

See question 8 from this series here .

Grass Versus Grain: Question 10

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:27 GMT

By: John Maday

Drovers recently received an inquiry from a college student conducting research for a public-health class project. She sent a list of questions regarding the relative merits of finishing cattle on grass versus grain-based rations. Her questions, while somewhat biased, reflect common misperceptions of grain feeing and the kinds of question consumers are asking. For that reason, we have adapted the questions and answers into this article, to serve as possible “talking points” for our readers as you encounter similar questions from the public.

We’ll be posting the 13 questions, along with our answers, over the next couple weeks. Here is question 10:

Student

Why do you think other countries do not primarily feed cattle corn?

Drovers

In countries where grain finishing is not practiced, there can be several reasons including local traditions, consumer preferences, and in many cases, lack of infrastructure for transporting grain or cattle significant distances. Some countries that have traditionally produced grass-finished beef, Brazil in particular, are increasingly building a feedlot sector and moving toward more grain finishing to improve efficiency and meet demand among their export customers.

In some beef-producing countries, incorporating some grain finishing along with other modern production technologies could improve efficiency. According to a report from Oklahoma State University , two recent analyses of global livestock systems indicate that North American beef production systems and those in other developed countries have carbon footprints per unit of beef production 10 to 50 times lower as compared to many nations in Africa and Asia. These improvements, according to the report, are “driven by higher-quality (more digestible) feeds, lower impacts of climate stress (heat) on animals, improved animal genetics, advancements in reproductive performance, and the reduced time required for an animal to reach its slaughter weight.” Grain finishing is just one factor in the difference, but it can, in some cases, help improve overall production efficiency.

See question 9 from this series here .

Grass Versus Grain: Question 7

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:27 GMT

By: John Maday

Drovers CattleNetwork recently received an inquiry from a college student conducting research for a public-health class project. She sent a list of questions regarding the relative merits of finishing cattle on grass versus grain-based rations. Her questions, while somewhat biased, reflect common misperceptions of grain feeing and the kinds of question consumers are asking. For that reason, we have adapted the questions and answers into this article, to serve as possible “talking points” for our readers as you encounter similar questions from the public.

We’ll be posting the 13 questions, along with our answers, over the next couple weeks. Here is question 7:

Student

Can you describe the toxicity of the antibiotic Rumensin, which is given to cattle to begin their tolerance to corn? Also, how is it hurting human, cow and environmental health?

Drovers CattleNetwork

Rumensin (monensin) is classified as an ionophore, and is not related to any antibiotics used in human medicine. It improves feed efficiency in cattle on forage or grain-based diets by helping regulate the microbe populations in the rumen, and thus aid digestion. It also is used for prevention and control of coccidiosis, a parasitic disease in cattle and other animals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that monensin is safe for cattle, people and the environment.

See question 6 from this series here .