Soapweed
Well-known member
Yes, Blkbuckaroo, that is a very good post and does fit well on this thread. Thanks for looking at both sides of the issue with an open and unbiased mind.
A few random thoughts on the topics at hand
- Thread starter Soapweed
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed said:Pig Farmer said:
Pig Farmer, I commend you for being a conservative. Otherwise, I could find it very easy to get plumb disgusted with you. :wink:
Pig Farmer said:
Believe it or not, we follow the exact same procedures with our cattle. Right now, I am holding two cows that I wanted to sell, but they mistakenly got shots of Alpha 7 when we worked our cows. There is a sixty day withdrawal on this vaccination, and I won't be selling these cows until in January because of our mistake.
In your statement, you say you give antibiotics "only as a treatment." That is the only time we give them, also. Here is a question for your excellence. On the cattle that you give antibiotics "only as a treatment," do you sell the beef, or do you dispose of it because it is "tainted"? If you sell it, someone undoubtedly eats it, and then you are just as guilty as the rest of us.
I do realize there is a problem with antibiotics no longer working in people. One major reason this happens, is because doctors generously prescribe too many antibiotics. They are afraid not to because they will be sued for malpractice if things go wrong. They prefer to err on the side of caution, which boils down to too much antibiotics. Then if people quit using these antibiotics too soon, their bodies build up an imunity. Yes, there is a definite problem in the medical field.
The Beef Industry has made many major changes in recent years to clean up their act. I am doing all I can at my level to help in this mission. I hope you can honestly say the same.
Soap I guess going from 100 percent antibiotic to 80 percent is progress.
We sell to our customers what I quoted. A shot of antibiotics for treatment is not the problem in the industry. If the withdrawal time is followed there are no residues. the residues are from maintenance or preventative medication in the feed. Hope that clears that up for you.
As far as being disgusted with me. I am not the problem of the consumer. Rather one that is aware of the problem and will call a ace a ace and spade a spade.
If anyone has a problem with that so be it. Because the consumer is who and what is important at the end of the day not me.
RobertMac
Well-known member
Point taken...like I said, we don't need added hormones to grow good beef and consumer acceptance is more important.Pig Farmer said:
Pig Farmer said:
Oh bullshit. Milk prices started droping when the economy began to tank and milk was near $5 a gallon.A strong US Dollar also curbed exports along with foriegn demand droped due to their own economic woe's. We have 5 kids at home and you could'nt afford them to drink 2 gallons of milk a day just for drinking pleasure. Koolaid was alot cheaper and we started buying that our kids never had koolaid before last summer. It was'nt something we bought now we have a jug of it in the fridge all the time.For every consumer thats worried like you are there's one like me who is'nt.
Sexed semen is another big culprit in the over suppley of milk. The bull calf to heifer ratio in alot of these herds has really changed. I know guys implanting heifer calf embryos in beef cows to raise springers.Over suppley and low demand is what hurt the dairy industry. BST is a extension of a cows lactation then most of those cows see a kill pen they get milked over 700 days on one lactation never bred back and off to the kill plant.
Big dairies have a poor attention to detail. When a large dairy has a hard time keeping a 40# tank average and a smaller well managed one can get an 80# tank average there's a problem with management.Bigger is'nt always better. The large dairies go thru help left and right and if anyone knows dairy cows take a little better treatment than an old range cow.
Bst is'nt the demise of the dairy farms poor world economy and over priced product is. The average consumer only makes so much money if you can't afford $5 milk you'll drink free tap water.
I don't agree with BST but to give it all the blame is assine.
High Plains
Well-known member
Pig Farmer, you make some very emotionally charged statements that are broad and unfounded. Like you, I would prefer to see our industry go without growth promotants. However, it's not because I think that they are unsafe. I have not seen any science that links growth promotants in beef cattle to early puberty in girls or anything of that sort. Yes, there would be strong suspicions and opinions out there, but I have yet to see a scientific study to prove it out. As well, the amount of estrogen in a hamburger patty is miniscule as compared to estrogen that exists naturally in many food products and the levels that occur naturally in the male and female body. I'd have to find that graphic to reference it specifically for you. I've seen it but just don't have it at my fingertips.
To me, it's these emotional opinions that are not science based that create a good deal of the mis-information for consumers and producers alike. The media won't share the fair and balanced science and Pig Farmer, you're in the same camp.
Kind of brings to mind the concept of irradiation of beef as an intervention for E. Coli O157-H7. It's a wonderful science that will just flat take care of that bug. However, it sounds too much like "radiation" and the industry couldn't get it through. This method would have done a lot to protect against this food-borne illness, but silly politics and perceptions stymied it. The big, bad evil packers and processors were on board with trying to create a good and useful intervention. It was not to be... :roll:
The reason that I'd like to see growth promotants go away is that they are being priced into the margin-operators' price model. Basically, the feeder can factor in an extra 25 pounds of gain from the same feed inputs if he implants the cattle. This makes the feedlot steer cheaper to feed and now that steer is profitable at a lower price for everyone beyond the feedlot to the end user. The one good part about that is that the feeder can pay the rancher more for that steer since he can get better feed efficeincy. So there's a silver lining there somewhere.
Just some thoughts.
HP
To me, it's these emotional opinions that are not science based that create a good deal of the mis-information for consumers and producers alike. The media won't share the fair and balanced science and Pig Farmer, you're in the same camp.
Kind of brings to mind the concept of irradiation of beef as an intervention for E. Coli O157-H7. It's a wonderful science that will just flat take care of that bug. However, it sounds too much like "radiation" and the industry couldn't get it through. This method would have done a lot to protect against this food-borne illness, but silly politics and perceptions stymied it. The big, bad evil packers and processors were on board with trying to create a good and useful intervention. It was not to be... :roll:
The reason that I'd like to see growth promotants go away is that they are being priced into the margin-operators' price model. Basically, the feeder can factor in an extra 25 pounds of gain from the same feed inputs if he implants the cattle. This makes the feedlot steer cheaper to feed and now that steer is profitable at a lower price for everyone beyond the feedlot to the end user. The one good part about that is that the feeder can pay the rancher more for that steer since he can get better feed efficeincy. So there's a silver lining there somewhere.
Just some thoughts.
HP
A
Anonymous
Guest
Denny said:
You believe your way I WILL have concern for the health of the consumer and their wishes. At the end of the day they are the voice to be reckoned with. You see there really are people that understand margarine is one step away from rocket fuel. That hormones and antibiotics cost more at the end of the day with the consumer and his health compromised.
oh and then letsnot be barn blind to the facts that exports are hurt because of Johnes and bst as well as preventative meds.
You whine about 5 dollar milk but will pay a dollar for bottled water I bet. At 5 dollar milk and a 1.50 fat cattle no one will suffer. Its all about properly spreading the profits.
burnt
Well-known member
Pig Farmer said:
Pig Farmer, sometimes you are kinda over the top, but this post was just plain funny!!!
P.S. - like maybe Psalm 117 get read oftener than Psalm 119?? :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
A
Anonymous
Guest
High Plains said:
JUST FOR YOU HP
Is Our Food Production Poisoning Us
Ranchers.net's Bull Session Forum Index -> Bull Session
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Econ101
Rancher
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 7060
Location: TX
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: Is Our Food Production Poisoning Us
This is the html version of the file http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9760/9760.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:OpoiaBnBQAEJ:www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9760/9760.pdf+Beyer+coccidiostat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: beyer coccidiostat
Page 1
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES
ehponline.org
What Do We Feed to Food Production Animals?
A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their
Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota, Lisa Y. Lefferts, Shawn McKenzie and
Polly Walker
doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 (available at http://dx.doi.org/)
Online 8 February 2007
Page 2
1
What Do We Feed to Food Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota
1,2
, Lisa Y. Lefferts
1,3
, Shawn McKenzie
1
, Polly Walker
1
1
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St.,
Room E2150, Baltimore, MD 21205
2
Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, 2306 HHP Building, College Park, MD 20742
3
Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, 526 Mountain Field Trail, Nellysford, VA 22958
Corresponding author:
Amy R. Sapkota, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health
College of Health and Human Performance
University of Maryland, College Park
2306 HHP Building
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-2438
Fax: 301-405-8397
Email: [email protected]
Page 3
2
Short running title: Animal Feed Ingredients and Human Health
Article Descriptor: Exposure Assessment
Keywords: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding operations, fats, human health
effects, non-therapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses
Acknowledgements and Grant Information: We have no competing financial interests to declare.
The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public Health funded this
research. We thank R. Lawrence, E. Silbergeld and S. Josephfor providing many insightful
comments.
Abbreviations:
AAFCO
Association of American Feed Control Officials
AsIII
arsenite
AsV
arsenate
BSE
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
GAO
United States General Accounting Office
IARC
International Agencyfor Research on Cancer
NRA
National Renderers Association, Inc.
PCBs
polychlorobiphenyls
Page 4
3
PCDDs
polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDFs
polychlorodibenzofurans
PrP
Sc
protease-resistant protein
SRMs
specified risk materials
TSEs
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
TEQs
toxic equivalents
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
vCJD
variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
WHO
World Health Organization
Page 5
4
Outline of Manuscript Section Headers:
Abstract
Introduction
U.S. Animal Feed Production
Animal Feed Ingredients and Feeding Practices
Rendered animal products
Animal Waste
Plant- and Animal-based Fats
Antibiotics
Metals
Biological, Chemical and Other Etiologic Agents Detected in Animal Feed
Bacteria
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria
Prions
Mycotoxins
PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs
Potential Human Health Impacts Associated with Etiologic Agents Present in Animal Feed
Bacterial infections
Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
Arsenic-related human health risks
Mycotoxin-related human health risks
PCDD-, PCDF- and PCB-related human health risks
Conclusions
References
Page 6
5
Table 1
Table 2
Page 7
6
Abstract
Objective: Animal feeding practices in the U.S. have changed considerably over the past century.
As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the predominant model for animal
husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered animals
and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. This article reviews current U.S. animal
feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current
feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated. Data Sources:
Published veterinaryand human health literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic
agents present in feed and human health effects was reviewed along with proceedings from animal
feed workshops. Data Extraction: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books
identified using PubMed, Agricola, USDA, FDA, and CDC databases. Data Synthesis: Findings
emphasize that current animal feeding practices can result in the presence ofbacteria, antibiotic-
resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a
range of potential human health impacts that could ensue, there are significant data gaps that
prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited
data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients used in
animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to monitor etiologic agents "from farm
to fork." Conclusions: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health surveillance
systems, and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers and veterinary
and public health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues.
Page 8
7
Introduction
Animal-based food products derived fromcattle, swine, sheep, poultry and farmed fish
constitute a significant portion of the current U.S. diet. In 2003, the U.S. per capita consumption of
total meats (including beef, pork, veal, lamb, poultry, fish and shellfish) was 90.5 kgper year [U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2005a]. Data from animal production researchers demonstrate
that the quality of these products is directly related to animal feeding practices (Capucille et al.
2004; Gatlin et al. 2003; Zaghini et al. 2005). Therefore, given the high consumption ofanimal-
based food products in the U.S., the ingredients used in animal feed are fundamentally important in
terms ofboth the quality of the resulting food products and the potential human health impacts
associated with the animal-based food production chain.
In the early 1900s, animals produced for food in the U.S. were raised on small family farms
where cows predominantly grazed on pasture, and young chickens were primarily fed a corn-based
diet (Erf 1907). However, in the past 60 years, farms and animal feed formulations have undergone
significant changes. Small family owned and operated farms have been replaced almost entirely by
a system of large-scale operations where individual farmers contract with vertically integrated
corporations. High rates of food productionhave been achieved through these systems where the
scale of operations requires the high throughput generation of animals for processing. Animals are
raised in confinement and fed defined feeds that are formulated to increase growth rates and feed
conversion efficiencies. These present day animal feeds contain mixtures ofplant-based products,
as well as other ingredients ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and
organoarsenicals. The inclusion of these ingredients in animal feeds can result in the presence of a
range of biological, chemical and other etiologic agents in feed that can affect the quality and safety
of animal-based food products and pose potential risks to human health.
Page 9
8
Since December 2003, when the first U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) was identified in a dairy cow in Washington State, there has beenincreased attention from
veterinaryand public health professionals regarding the quality and safety of U.S. animal feed, as
well as the safetyof subsequent animal-based food products. Yet, the focus of suchattention is
oftenlimited to one particular facet of animal feed and its associated animal or human health effect
(i.e. the impact of rendered animals in feed formulations on the risk of BSE, or the impact of
bacterial contamination of animal feed on human bacterial illnesses). However, if one is to begin to
understand the broad range of potential human health impacts associated with current animal
feeding practices, it is necessary to examine the full spectrum of feeding practices and assess their
potential human health implications collectively.
This article reviews U.S. animal feed production practices, animal feed ingredients and
biological, chemical and other etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. In addition,
evidence that current feeding practices may be associated with adverse human health impacts is
evaluated, and the data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks
associated with animal feed are addressed.
Page 10
9
U.S. Animal Feed Production
The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest producer of animal feed in the world (Gill
2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary animal feed, including mixes of feed grains, mill
by-products, animalproteins and microingredient formulations (ie. vitamins, minerals and
antibiotics) were produced in the U.S. (Gill 2004). In the same year, the U.S. exported nearly $4
billion worth of animal feed ingredients (International Trade Centre 2004).
The structure of the U.S. animal feed industry is complex with a multitude ofindustries and
individual producers contributing to the production, mixing, and distribution of feed ingredients and
complete feed products. However, there are a few firms that play principal roles in the manufacture
of U.S. feeds, including feed mills, rendering plants and protein blenders [U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) 2000]. Feed mills combine plant and animal based feed ingredients in order to
produce mixes designed for specific animal species (U.S. GAO 2000). Rendering plants transform
slaughter by-products and animals that are unsuitable for human consumption into animal feed
products using grinding, cooking and pressing processes [U.S. GAO 2000: National Renderers
Association, Inc. (NRA) 2005a]. Protein blenders mix processed plant and animal based protein
ingredients from many sources into animal feeds (U.S. GAO 2000). Once animal feed ingredients
are mixed, an estimated 17,500 U.S. animal feed dealers distribute the final feed products to
individual feeding operations (Feedstuffs 2005).
Page 11
10
Animal Feed Ingredients and Feeding Practices
Animal feed ingredients that constitute complete feed products are derived froma multitude
of raw materials of plant and animal origin, as well as pharmaceutical and industrial sources. While
specific feed ingredients vary depending upon the animal (ie. poultry, swine, cattle), Table 1
provides an overview of feed ingredients that are legally permitted and used in U.S. animal feed.
Readers interested in more specific information about feed ingredients listed in Table 1 are
encouraged to refer to the Official Publication of the Association of American Feed Control
Officials, Inc. (AAFCO) that is published annually (AAFCO 2004) and Lefferts et al. (2006). The
present review focuses on feed ingredients listed in Table 1 that raise specific concerns for public
health, including rendered animal products, animal waste, plant- and animal-based fats, antibiotics
and metals.
Rendered animal products
In 2003, the U.S. rendering industry produced over 8 million metric tons of rendered animal
products, including meat and bone meal, poultry by-product meal, blood meal and feather meal
(NRA 2005b). Most of these products were incorporated into animal feed. However, data
concerning the specific amounts of rendered animal protein that are used in animal feed are difficult
to obtain because the information is neither routinely collected at the federal or state level nor
reported by the rendering industry. The latest available data, collected by the USDA in 1984,
estimated that over 4 million metric tons of rendered animal products were used as animal feed
ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes these ingredients are listed on animal feed labels as "animal
protein products." Thus, it is difficult to discern precisely which animal protein products are
included in a particular animal feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006).
Page 12
11
Animal waste
Another major animal protein-based feed ingredient is animal waste, including dried
ruminant waste, dried poultry litter and dried swine waste (AAFCO 2004; Haapapuro et al. 1997).
As with rendered animal products, there are no national data on the total amounts of animal waste
included in animal feeds, although some states have collected limited data concerning this practice.
In 2003, it was estimated that approximately one million tons of poultry litter were produced
annually in Florida and an estimated 350,000 tons of this litter were available for use in feed
(Dubberly 2003). Yet, informationconcerning the precise amount of this "available" poultry litter
that was actually incorporated into Florida animal feed was unavailable.
Recycling animal waste into animal feed has been practiced for over 40 years as a means of
cutting feed costs. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not officially
endorse the use of animal waste in feed and has issued statements voicing the agency's concern
about the presence of pathogens and drug residues in animal waste, particularly poultry litter (FDA
1998). In line with these concerns, AAFCO, an organizationthat develops guidelines for the safe
use of animal feeds, advises that processed animal waste should not contain pathogenic
microorganisms, pesticide residues and drug residues that could harm animals or eventually be
detected in animal-based food products intended for human consumption (AAFCO 2004).
Nonetheless, these guidelines are not adequately enforced at the federal or state level.
Plant- and Animal-based Fats
In addition to animal protein-based ingredients, fats originating from both plant and animal
sources are included in animal feed (Table 1) and may contain contaminants, such as dioxins and
polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), whichare harmful to human health. In 1988, the USDA (1988)
reported that approximately 1.3 million metric tons of fats were used in the production ofU.S.
Page 13
12
primary animal feed. Unfortunately, as with many other animal feed ingredients, we were not able
to obtain recent data. Yet, since as much as 8% of feed could be comprised offats alone (Schmidt
2004), the quality (ie. contaminant levels) of both plant and animal fats used in animal feed could be
important factors in the ultimate safety of animal-based food products.
Antibiotics
The use of antibiotics in animal feed is also a public health concern. Antibiotics are
administered at non-therapeutic levels in feed and water in order to promote growth and improve
feed efficiency. This practice has been shown to select for antibiotic resistance in both commensal
and pathogenic bacteria in: 1) the animals themselves (Aarestrup et al. 2000; Bager et al. 1997;
Gorbach 2001; Wegener 2003); 2) subsequent animal-based food products (Hayes et al. 2003;
White et al. 2001); and 3) water, air and soil samples collected around large-scale animal feeding
operations (Chapin et al. 2005; Chee-Sanford et al. 2001; Gibbs et al. 2006; Jensen et al. 2002).
While the use of non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in animal feed is approved and
regulated by the FDA (FDA 2004), there is no U.S. data collection systemregarding the specific
types and amounts of antibiotics that are used for this purpose. In response to this significant data
gap, several estimates of non-therapeutic antibiotic usage have been published based on USDA
livestock production data and FDA antibiotic usage regulations. For example, Mellon et al. (2001)
estimated that as much as 60-80% of antibiotics produced in the U.S. are administered in feed to
healthy livestock at non-therapeutic levels. Many of these antibiotics are the same compounds that
are administered to humans in clinical settings, and include tetracyclines, macrolides,
streptogramins and fluoroquinolones (FDA 2004). Readers interested in additional information
regarding the types and amounts of antibiotics used in U.S. livestock are encouraged to refer to
AAFCO (2004), FDA (2004) and Mellon et al. (2001).
Page 14
13
Metals
Metal compounds are also administered in animal feeds, and the compounds currently added
to both swine and poultry feeds that are particularly concerning from a public health perspective are
organoarsenicals. The most commonly used organoarsenical, Roxarsone (4-hydroxy-3-
nitrobenzenearsenic-acid), is administered to feeds at concentrations ranging from 22.7 g/ton to 45.4
g/ton to promote growth and improve feed efficiency (Chapman and Johnson 2002). When used in
combination with ionophores, Roxarsone also act as a co-coccidiostat to control intestinal parasites
(Chapman and Johnson 2002). Once roxarsone is ingested by animals, the parent compound can be
degraded into inorganic arsenite (AsIII) and inorganic arsenate (AsV) in animal digestive tracts and
animal waste (Arai et al. 2003; Stolz et al. 2007). Both AsIII and AsV are classified by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as Group A human carcinogens. Many other
metallic compounds are also mixed into feeds, including copper, manganese, magnesium and zinc
compounds, as well as metal amino acid complexes (AAFCO 2004).
Page 15
14
Biological, Chemical and Other Etiologic Agents Detected in Animal Feed
Due to current animal feeding practices, biological, chemical and other etiologic agents have
been detected in animal feeds (Table 2) (Hinton 2000; Orriss 1997). These agents include bacterial
pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, metals, mycotoxins, polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs), polychlorodibenzofurans (PCDFs) and PCBs (Crump et al. 2002; Dargatz et al. 2005;
Eljarrat et al. 2002; Lasky et al. 2004; Moreno-Lopez 2002).
Bacteria
There is substantial evidence that U.S. animal feeds are oftencontaminated with important
human foodborne bacterial pathogens such as Salmonella spp. (Crump et al. 2002; Davis et al.
2003; Krytenburg et al. 1998), and Escherichia coli, including E. coli O157:H7 (Dargatz et al.
2005; Davis et al. 2003; Lynn et al. 1998; Sargeant et al. 2004). Studies of Salmonella spp. indicate
that this pathogen can enter animal feeds at severalpoints throughout the feed productionprocess
including the primary production of feed ingredients, milling, mixing, and/or storage (Maciorowski
et al. 2006). However, it is acknowledged that a main source of Salmonella spp. contamination in
animal feed is often the specific feed ingredients (originating from both plant and animal sources)
that are combined at feed mills (Coma 2003; Davis et al. 2003). Once complete feeds are delivered
to animal feeding operations, additional contamination with Salmonella spp. can occur if the feeds
are disturbed by insects and wild birds or animals that harbor Salmonella spp. (Maciorowski et al.
2006).
One of the first reports of the presence of non-typhi serotypes of Salmonella enterica in U.S.
poultry feed samples was published by Edwards et al. (1948). Since then, researchers have detected
S. enterica in a variety of feed ingredients and complete feed products; however, the results from
these studies have been variable. Astudy by McChesney et al. (1995) found that 56% of 101
Page 16
15
animal protein based feed samples collected from 78 rendering plants, and 36% of 50 vegetable
protein based feed samples collected from 46 feed mills were positive for S. enterica. In contrast,
Krytenburg et al. (1998) detected S. enterica in 9.8% of 295 feed samples from commercially
prepared cattle feeds present at feedlots in the Northwestern U.S. More recently, Dargatz et al.
(2005) detected Salmonella spp. in 24% of 175 samples of mixed feed collected from a cattle
feedlot in Colorado, and another study identified Salmonella spp. in 14% of meat and bone meal
samples collected from a poultry feed mill (Hofacre et al. 2001).
E. coli also has been detected in animal feeds (Davis et al. 2003; Dargatz et al. 2005; Lynn
et al. 1998; Sargeant et al. 2004). In a study by Lynn et al. (1998), 30.1% of 209 samples of cattle
feed—collected from 13 dairies, 1 calf research facility and 4 feed mills—were positive for E. coli;
none of the samples were positive for E. coli O157:H7. In contrast, Sargeant et al. (2004) isolated
E. coli O157:H7 from 14.9% of 504 cattle feed samples collected in the Midwestern, U.S. More
recently, Dargatz et al. (2005) recovered E. coli from 48.2% of 1,070 cattle feed samples collected
in Colorado.
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria
A limited number of studies also have detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animal feeds.
Schwalbe et al. (1999) tested poultry feeds and isolated Enterococcus faecium that were resistant to
vancomycin, gentamicin, streptomycin and ampicillin. Ina study of cattle feed ingredients, 38.7%
of 514 E. coli isolates were resistant to cephalothin, 24.7% were resistant to ampicillin, 16.6% were
resistant to cefoxitin, and 12.1% were resistant to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (Dargatz et al. 2005).
Among the 57 Salmonella spp. recovered from cattle feed ingredients, 34.5% were resistant to
sulfamethoxazole, 15.5% were resistant to cephalothin, 13.8% were resistant to cefoxitin, 12.1%
were resistant to ampicillin, 10.3% were resistant to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and 10.3% were
Page 17
16
resistant to ceftiofur (Dargatz et al. 2005). Multiple antibiotic resistant E. coli and Salmonella spp.
were also detected in this study (Dargatz et al. 2005).
In another study, 165 rendered animal protein products originating from poultry, cattle and
fish were sampled from a poultry feed mill and tested for antibiotic-resistant bacteria (Hofacre et al.
2001). Eighty-five percent of all feed ingredients sampled contained bacteria resistant to one or
more of the following four antibiotics: ampicillin, amoxicillin, clavulanic acid or cephalothin.
Poultry meal and bone and meat meal (non-poultry) samples represented the greatest number of
feed ingredient samples containing bacteria resistant to five or more antibiotics (Hofacre et al.
2001).
Prions
In addition to bacteria, animal feeds (in particular, cattle feeds) can be contaminated with the
infectious agent associated with BSE (Gizzi et al. 2003). BSE, which is commonly referred to as
mad cow disease, belongs to a group of progressively degenerative neurological diseases called
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) (Deslys and Grassi 2005; Smith 2003). The
causative agent of TSEs is believed to be an infectious proteinaceous entity called a prion, which is
comprised largely of a protease-resistant misfolded protein (PrP
Sc
). Infectious prions can be present
in animal feed as a result of using rendered animal products from diseased animals as feed
ingredients. While prions maybe present in all body tissues of diseased animals, it is generally
acknowledged that prions accumulate in highest concentrations in central nervous system tissues
(Smith 2003; U.S. GAO 2002) that are referred to as specified risk materials (SRMs). As defined
by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, SRMs include the skull, brain, eyes, parts of the
vertebral column, spinal cord, trigeminal ganglia and dorsal root ganglia of cattle older than 30
months, as well as the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle (USDA 2005b). In 1997, the FDA
Page 18
17
banned SRMs from use in cattle and other ruminant feed (U.S. GAO 2002). Nonetheless, SRMs
were allowed to be incorporated into feeds for non-ruminants (including poultry), and subsequent
waste products from non-ruminants are still permitted in ruminant feeds (USDA 2005b).
As of yet, there are no definitive tests for BSE infectivity in live animals (before symptoms
appear) (Deslys and Grassi 2005; U.S. GAO 2002). However, a number of rapid screening tests
based on ELISA or Western blot analyses have been approved for post-mortem BSE testing in
cattle. Currently, the USDA is conducting a national BSE testing program; yet, only high-risk cattle
are included in the program and there are no plans to test animal feed samples (that could include
animal protein from asymptomatic rendered animals) in this surveillance effort. A variety of tests
do exist for the detection of animal tissues (in general) in animal feed, including microscopic
analyses, polymerase chain reaction, immunoassay analyses and near infrared spectroscopy (Gizzi
et al. 2003); nonetheless, these methods are not robust enough to distinguish between bovine
products that are permitted in ruminant feeds (ie. milk and blood) and bovine products that are
prohibited from ruminant feeds (Momcilovic and Rasooly 2000; U.S. GAO 2002).
Mycotoxins
Mycotoxins unintentionally appear in animal feed as a result of the inadvertent use of
mycotoxin-contaminated feed ingredients such as cereal grains. Mycotoxins are toxic secondary
metabolites produced by filamentous fungi (molds) that can invade crops while they are growing in
the field and while they are being processed and stored (Bhat and Vasanthi 1999). The mycotoxins
of greatest agricultural and public health significance include aflatoxins, ochratoxins,
trichothecenes, fumonisins, zearalenone and ergot alkaloids (Cleveland et al. 2003; Hussein and
Brasel 2001). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC) has classified
aflatoxin as a Group 1 human carcinogen; ochratoxins and fumonosins as Group 2B possible human
Page 19
18
carcinogens; and tricothecenes and zearalenone as non-carcinogens (Group 3) (WHO IARC 1993).
Tricothecenes are highly toxic to humans and zearalenones are recognized endocrine disruptors
(WHO IARC 1993).
Due to these classifications, the FDA has established recommended maximum levels for
aflatoxins and fumonisins in animal feed (FDA 2001). For swine, ruminants and poultry, the
recommended maximum levels of total fumonisins in complete feeds are 10, 30, and 50 µg/g,
respectively (FDA 2001). Nonetheless, while recommended maximum levels exist, it is very
difficult to determine the extent of mycotoxin contamination in feedstuffs. Mycotoxins are
unevenly distributed in feed, introducing a significant amount of sampling error into sample
analyses (Hussein and Brasel 2001). In addition, there is wide geographical and temporal
variability in the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed that is partially attributed to
environmental factors (ie. rainfall, humidity) (Hussein and Brasel 2001).
PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs
Other unintentional contaminants of animal feed include dioxins such as PCDDs and
PCDFs, and PCBs (Eljarrat et al. 2002). Based on human epidemiological studies, IARC has
classified dioxins as known human carcinogens (WHO 1999). The presence of PCDDs, PCDFs and
PCBs in the environment is largely attributed to human activities, including the incineration of
plastics and industrial processes involving chlorinated compounds. Whendioxins and PCBs are
released into the environment they can contaminate plant-based animal feeds through a variety of
pathways, including the airborne deposition of particles onto plant and soil surfaces (Fries 1995).
When these lipophilic compounds are ingested by food production animals, they bioaccumulate in
fat tissues, making the use of rendered animal fats and oils in animal feed a significant source of
Page 20
19
exposure to dioxins and PCBs among food productionanimals (Eljarrat et al. 2002; Institute of
Medicine 2003).
The most severe example of dioxin- and PCB-contaminated animal feed occurred in
Belgium in 1999 (van Larebeke et al. 2001). A fat-melting company inadvertently incorporated
mineral oil containing 40-50 kg of PCBs and approximately 1g of dioxins to a mixture of animal-
based fats that were subsequently distributed to 10 animal feed producers, resulting in
approximately 500 tons of contaminated feed (van Larebeke et al. 2001). The levels of PCBs and
dioxins detected in contaminated animal feed were 1,658.4 ± 23,584.4 ng/g of fat and 2,319.8 ±
3,851.9 pg toxic equivalents (TEQ)/g of fat, respectively, and resulted in higher levels of these
compounds in animal-based food products such as eggs, poultryand pork (van Larebeke et al.
2001). Beyond this incident, several European studies have described elevated levels of PCDDs
and PCDFs in eggs from free-range chickens raised on dioxin-contaminated soils (Schoeters and
Hoogenboom 2006). In the United States, a significant episode of dioxin-contaminated feed
occurred in 1997 (Hayward et al. 1999). Elevated levels of dioxin were detected in chicken eggs
and farm-raised catfish and the source of contamination was traced to ball clay that was used as an
anti-caking agent and pelleting aid in poultry feed, bovine pellets and catfish nuggets (Hayward et
al. 1999). Once the source of contamination was identified, the FDA issued a statement to
producers requesting the elimination of ball clay from feed ingredients (FDA 1997).
Aside from these accidents, there have been little data generated in the U.S. concerning
levels of dioxins and PCBs that are typically found in U.S. livestock feed. However, numerous
studies have documented higher levels of PCBs and dioxins in farmed salmon versus wild-caught
salmon, and these elevated contaminant levels have been attributed to contaminated commercial
salmon feed (Eastonet al. 2002; Hites et al. 2004). For example, Easton et al. (2002) detected total
Page 21
20
PCBs at mean concentrations of 51,216 pg/g and 5,302 pg/g in farmed and wild-caught salmon,
respectively, and a mean concentration of 65,535 pg/g in commercial salmon feed.
Page 22
21
Potential Human Health Impacts Associated with Etiologic Agents Present in Animal Feed
In order to determine whether the presence of biological, chemical and other etiologic agents
in animal feed impacts human health, it is necessary to integrate data from robust veterinary and
human health surveillance systems that monitor agents in feed, health effects in animals,
contaminants in animal-based food products and illnesses in humans. However, to date, these
integrated systems are largely lacking in the U.S. Thus, the current evidence regarding human
health risks associated withU.S. animal feed has been obtained mostly from isolated case reports
and outbreaks published in the peer-reviewed literature. Some of this evidence is described below
and outlined in Table 2; yet, as a result of significant data gaps, it is important to note that this
information may represent only a small proportion of potential human health risks associated with
animal feed.
Bacterial infections
In a paper by Crump et al. (2002), the authors cited the emergence of S. enterica serotype
Agona infections in humans in the U.S. as an example of human foodborne bacterial infections that
have been definitively traced to contaminated animal feed. S. enterica serotype Agona infections
are characterized by fever, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and vomiting, and the illness can be fatal in
infants, the elderly and immunocompromised individuals. Prior to 1970, only two cases of S.
enterica serotype Agona infection had been reported in the U.S. (Crump et al. 2002). However, by
1972, S. enterica serotype Agona was among the top ten most frequently isolated S. enterica
serotypes from human infections (Crump et al. 2002). An epidemiological study identified the
source of these S. enterica serotype Agona infections as chicken meat that originated from a poultry
facility where Peruvian fish meal was used as a feed ingredient (Clark et al. 1973; Crump et al.
2002). A study by Clark et al. (1973) found that the fish meal had been contaminated with S.
enterica serotype Agona prior to being incorporated into the poultry feed. Crump et al. (2002)
Page 23
22
estimated that since the introduction of S. enterica serotype Agona in poultry feed in 1968, this
serotype has likely caused over 1 million human bacterial illnesses in the U.S.
Besides the S. enterica serotype Agona example, there are insufficient data available to
understand the extent to which other human bacterial illnesses arising in the U.S. are the result of
contaminated animal feed. Outbreaks of human bacterial illness often canbe traced to food
production animals or facilities; however, due to surveillance inadequacies, it is difficult to
determine the initial source of bacterial contamination (ie. animal feed or other factors) within the
animal production environment. Moreover, unlike S. enterica serotype Agona--whichcould be
traced to poultry feed in 1968 because it was a newly identified serotype--it is much more difficult
to understand the associations between more common, widespread serotypes or bacterial species
present in animal feed and human illnesses. Nevertheless, with the use of annual U.S. foodborne
illness data, estimates concerning the contributions of contaminated animal feed to human bacterial
illnesses have been made (Angulo 2004). Based on the assumptions that 1) food production
animals are the source of 95% of human non-typhoidal Salmonella cases; and 2)10% of food
production animals are infected by Salmonella spp. through the ingestion of contaminated animal
feed, it has been estimated that approximately 134,000 cases of human non-typhoidal salmonellosis
(including 55 deaths and 1,560 hospitalizations) could be attributed to contaminated animal feed
each year (Angulo 2004).
Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections
Similar to the challenge of determining whether human bacterial illnesses are associated
with contaminated animal feed, there are insufficient data available to determine the percentage of
antibiotic-resistant human bacterial infections that are attributed to animal feeding practices versus
practices and behaviors occurring in human clinical settings. This is largely the result of 1)
Page 24
23
insufficient agricultural antibiotic usage data available in the U.S.; 2) insufficient surveillance data
concerning the dissemination of antibiotic-resistant isolates from food production animals to
humans; 3) insufficient investigations regarding the original sources of resistant infections
diagnosed in hospital settings; and 4) under-reporting of community-acquired antibiotic-resistant
bacterial infections.
Nonetheless, there is evidence that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be transmitted from
swine and poultry to humans (Aarestrup et al. 2000). Sorensen et al. (2001) reported that after the
ingestion of antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecium originating from contaminated chicken and
pork, the resistant bacterium can be isolated from the stool of infected individuals for up to two
weeks, indicating that antibiotic-resistant E. faecium can survive and multiply in the human
gastrointestinal tract. In addition, there is strong temporal evidence suggesting that some
domestically-acquired antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in humans emerged in the U.S. only
after the approval of specific human antibiotics for use in animal feed or water. For example, prior
to 1985 there were little to no fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni isolated from either
poultry or humans in the U.S. (Smithet al. 1999). However, after FDA approved the use of
fluoroquinolones in poultry production in 1995, fluoroquinolone-resistant C. jejuni were detected in
both poultry and human isolates. The Minnesota Department of Healthcompleted an analysis of C.
jejuni isolates from humans and retail poultry products and found that the proportion of
fluoroquinolone-resistant C. jejuni isolated from humans increased from 1.3% in 1992 to 10.2 % in
1998 (following the 1995 fluoroquinolone approval) (Smith et al. 1999). In contrast, in Australia,
where fluoroquinolones have never been approved for use in animal agriculture, no fluoroquinolone
resistance has been detected in C. jejuni isolated from domestically-acquired human infections
(Unicomb et al. 2003).
Page 25
24
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
Beyond bacterial infections, a chronic human health risk that has been linked to animal
feeding practices is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a novel human neurodegenerative
prion disease that is currently untreatable and fatal (Collinge 1999). vCJD was first described in
1995 in two teenagers in the United Kingdom and was believed to be caused by infection with the
causative agent of BSE or mad cow disease (Smith 2003). Molecular strain-typing studies and
experimental transmission studies in mice published in 1996 and 1997 confirmed that vCJD is
caused by the same prion strain that causes BSE (Collinge 1999).
The primary routes of human exposure to prions remain debatable; however, the most likely
route is through the ingestion of beef derived from cattle that were infected whenrendered animal
proteins from diseased cattle were included in their feed. It is hypothesized that the UK population
may have experienced the highest exposures to BSE from 1989-1990, when the incidence of BSE
was still increasing in cattle and specific bans on high-risk rendered bovine products were still being
implemented (Collinge 1999). From 1995-2002, there were 121 fatalities out of 129 diagnosed
cases in the UK (Smith 2003). To date, domestically-acquired human cases ofvCJD have not been
identified in the U.S. However, since BSE was first identified in the U.S. in 2003, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have enhanced national surveillance for all types of CJD in
the U.S. through the analysis of multiple cause-of-death data derived from death certificates (CDC
2005). Active CJD surveillance is also being implemented through the Emerging Infections
Programs established in 4 sites across the U.S. (CDC 2005).
Arsenic-related human health risks
Since inorganic AsIII and AsV are known human carcinogens, there is considerable concern
regarding human exposures to these compounds. Chronic arsenic exposures occurring through the
Page 26
25
ingestion of contaminated drinking water and dietary sources have resulted in skin cancers, lung
cancers, bladder cancers and prostate cancers, as well as hypertensive heart disease and nephritis
(WHO 2001). While several research groups have begun to elucidate the effects of arsenic use in
animal feed on environmental concentrations of arsenic in areas where animal waste has been land-
applied (Bednar et al. 2003; Garbarino et al. 2003; Jackson et al. 2006; Stolz et al. 2007), only one
study to date has explored how the presence of arsenic in U.S. meat products could potentially
impact the health of consumers (Lasky et al. 2004).
In a study by Lasky et al. (2004), concentrations of total arsenic in poultry samples were
determined using data from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, National Residue
Program. National chicken consumption data were then used to quantify exposures to total arsenic,
inorganic arsenic and organic arsenic resulting from the consumption of poultry meat. The findings
of this study indicated that individuals who consume average amounts of poultry (60 grams per day)
could ingest 1.38 to 5.24 µg/day of inorganic arsenic from the ingestion of poultry alone (Lasky et
al. 2004), an amount that represents a high proportion of the tolerable daily intake of inorganic
arsenic recommended by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives (2 µg/kg/day). Clearly, additional studies are necessary to further
understand the associations between the ingestion ofarsenic-contaminated meat and cancer risk.
Mycotoxin-related human health risks
There are numerous peer-reviewed studies regarding human health effects associated with
exposures to mycotoxins. These effects range from carcinogenic and nephrotoxic health effects to
dermonecrotic and immunosuppressive health effects (Orriss 1997). While the main route of
human exposure to mycotoxins has been identified as the direct ingestion of contaminated cereals
and grains (Orriss 1997), there are few and conflicting studies about whether the ingestion of meat,
Page 27
26
milk and eggs originating from mycotoxin-exposed food production animals is an additional
exposure pathway for mycotoxins among humans.
Researchers from the USDA Division of Epidemiology and Surveillance have articulated
that the ingestion of mycotoxin-contaminated animal-based food products could pose a concern to
public health (Hollinger and Ekperigin 1999). Several studies have identified elevated levels of
aflatoxin M1 and other mycotoxins in cow milk (Ghidini et al 2005; Sorensenand Elbaek 2005). In
addition, in a studywhere pigs were fed 100 mg of fumonisin B1 per day for five to 11 days, mean
fumonisin levels in edible muscle tissues were 43 µg/kg (Meyer et al. 2003). While fumonisin
levels administered to pigs in this study are significantly higher than levels ingested under normal
agricultural conditions, the findings suggest that the consumption of meat from animals
inadvertently exposed to elevated levels of fumonisin in feed could be a potential pathway for
human exposure to these toxins. Others have found that trace levels of ochratoxin A in pork and
poultry samples were likely to pose insignificant risks to consumers (Guillamont et al. 2005;
Jorgensen 1998).
PCDD-, PCDF- and PCB-related human health risks
There are numerous studies indicating that animal-based food products (including fish and
dairy products) are the largest dietary contributors to PCDD, PCDF and PCB exposures in the U.S.
population (Huwe and Larsen 2005; Schecter et al. 1994). In a study by Schecter et al. (1994), daily
dioxin TEQ intakes associated with the ingestion of dairy, meat and fish were estimated by testing
samples collected from a grocery store in upstate New York. When combined with 1986 U.S. food
consumption rates, these estimates translated to an average daily dioxin TEQ intake ranging from
18 to 192 pg TEQ for an adult weighing 65 kg (Schecter et al. 1994). In another study that analyzed
beef, pork and poultry samples collected from 9 cities across the U.S., the estimated daily dietary
Page 28
27
intake ranged from 5.3 to 16.0 pg TEQ (Huwe and Larsen 2005). These levels represent a
considerable portion of the tolerable daily intake for dioxin (2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-para-
dioxin) (1 to 4 pg/kg body weight) recommended by WHO (WHO 1999).
Chronic exposures to PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs can result in adverse health effects ranging
from cancers to impairments in the immune system, endocrine system and reproductive organs
(WHO 1999). As stated above, animal-based food products are known to be major dietary sources
of human exposure to dioxin-like compounds; yet, the specific role that contaminated animal feeds
play in this exposure pathway is unclear.
Page 29
28
Conclusions
Food animal productionin the U.S. has changed markedly in the past century, and these
changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed formulations. While this industrialized
system of food animal production may result in increased production efficiencies, some of the
changes in animal feeding practices may result in unintended adverse health consequences for
consumers of animal-based food products.
Currently, the use of animal feed ingredients including rendered animal products, animal
waste, antibiotics, metals and fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic and dioxin-like compounds in animals and resulting animal-based food
products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human health effects among consumers
could include increases in bacterial infections (antibiotic-resistant and non-resistant) and increases
in the risk of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases such as vCJD.
Nevertheless, despite the wide range of potential human health impacts that could result
from animal feeding practices, there are very little data collected at the federal or state level
concerning the amounts of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed.
In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on complete U.S. animal feeds;
insufficient testing is performed on retail meat products; and human health effects data are not
appropriately linked to this information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to
conduct rigorous epidemiological studies and risk assessments that could identify the extent to
which specific human health risks are ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For
example, as noted above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human foodborne
bacterial illnesses besides those caused byS. enterica serotype Agona are associated with animal
feeding practices. Likewise, there are insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-
Page 30
29
resistant human bacterial infections that are attributed to the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in
animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to determine whether the use of
organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products
(Lasky et al. 2004), contributes to increases in cancer risk.
In order to address these research gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within
the U.S.: 1) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific amounts and types of
feed ingredients of concern to public health that are incorporated into animal feed, including
antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered animal products, fats and animal waste; 2) funding and
development of robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical and other etiologic
agents throughout the animal-based food production chain "from farm to fork"to human health
outcomes; and 3) increased communication and collaborationamong feed professionals, food
animal producers and veterinary and public health officials.
Page 31
30
REFERENCES
AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials, Inc.). 2004. Official Publication. Oxford,
IN: Association of American Feed Control Officials.
Aarestrup FM, Agerso Y, Gerner-Smidt P, Madsen M, Jensen LB. 2000. Comparison of
antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and resistance genes in Enterococcus faecalis and
Enterococcus faecium from humans in the community, broilers, and pigs in Denmark. Diagn
Microbiol Infect Dis 37:127-137.
Angulo FJ. 2004. Bacterial contamination of animal feed and its relationship to human foodborne
illness. HumanHealth Safety of Animal Feeds Workshop. January 23, 2004. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Available:
http://www.cdc.gov/narms/mce/animalfeeds.htm [accessed 18 September 2006].
Arai Y, Lanzirotti A, Sutton S, Davis JA, Sparks DL. 2003. Arsenic speciation and reactivity in
poultry litter. Environ Sci Tech 15:4083-4090.
Bager F, Madsen M, Christensen J, Aarestrup FM. 1997. Avoparcin used as a growth promoter is
associated with the occurrence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium on Danish poultry
and pig farms. Prev Vet Med 31:95-112.
Bednar AJ, Garbarino JR, Ferrer I, Rutherford DW, Wershaw RL, Ranville JF et al. 2003.
Photodegradation of roxarsone in poultry litter leachates. Sci Total Environ302:237-245.
Page 32
31
Bhat RV, Vasanthi S. 1999. Mycotoxin contamination of foods and feeds. MYC-CONF/99/4a.
Third Joint FAO/WHO/UNEP International Conference on Mycotoxins. Tunis, Tunisia, 3-6 March
1999.
Capucille DJ, Poore MH, Rogers GM. 2004. Growing and finishing performance of steers when
fed recycled poultry bedding during the growing period. J Anim Sci 82:3038-3048.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2005. Questions and answers regarding bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/vcjd/qa.htm#monitoring [accessed 24 February2006].
Chapin A, Rule A, Gibson K, Buckley T, Schwab K. 2005. Airborne multidrug-resistant bacteria
isolated from a concentrated swine feeding operation. Environ Health Perspect 113:137-142.
Chapman HD, Johnson ZB. 2002. Use of antibiotics and roxarsone in broiler chickens in the USA:
analysis for the years 1995 to 2000. Poult Sci 81:356-364.
Chee-Sanford JC, Aminov RI, Krapac IJ, Garrigues-Jeanjean N, Mackie RI. 2001. Occurrence and
diversity of tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and groundwater underlying two swine
production facilities. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:1494-1502.
Clark GM, Kaufmann AF, Gangarosa EJ, Thompson MA. 1973. Epidemiology of an international
outbreak of Salmonella Agona. Lancet 302:490-493.
Page 33
32
Cleveland TE, Dowd PF, Desjardins AE, Bhatnagar D, Cotty PJ. 2003. United States Department of
Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service research on pre-harvest prevention of mycotoxins and
mycotoxigenic fungi in US crops. Pest Manag Sci 59:629-642.
Collinge J. 1999. Variant Creutzfeldt -Jakob disease. Lancet 354:317-323.
Coma J. 2003. Salmonella control in pork: effect of animal nutrition and feeding. Pig News Info
24:49N-62N.
Crump JA, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ. 2002. Bacterial contamination of animal feed and its
relationship to human foodborne illness. Clin Infect Dis 35:859-865.
Dargatz DA, Strohmeyer RA, Morley PS, Hyatt DR, Salman MD. 2005. Characterization of
Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica from cattle feed ingredients. Food Path Disease 2:341-
347.
Davis MA, Hancock DD, Rice DH, Call DR, DiGiacomo R, Samadpour M, et al. 2003. Feedstuffs
as a vehicle of cattle exposure to Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica. Vet Microbiol
95:199-210.
Desyls JP, Grassi J. 2005. Screening tests for animal TSE: present and future. Pathol Biol (Paris)
53:221-228.
Dubberly D. 2003. Substances prohibited from use in animal food or feed; animal proteins
prohibited in ruminant feed, Docket: 02N-0273, Comment Number: EC -31. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available:
Page 34
33
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020603/8004e16e.html [accessed 5 January
2006].
Easton MD, Luszniak D, Von der GE. 2002. Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in
farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere 46:1053-1074.
Edwards PR, Bruner DW, Moran AB. 1948. The genus Salmonella: its occurrence and distribution
in the United States. Bull Kentucky Agric Exp Sta 525:1-60.
Eljarrat E, Caixach J, Rivera J. 2002. Determination of PCDDs and PCDFs in different animal feed
ingredients. Chemosphere 46:1403-1407.
Erf O. 1907. The hen's place on the farm. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State Agricultural College,
Agricultural Experiment Station. Available:
http://www.ithaca.edu/staff/jhenderson/chooks/chlinks.html#history[accessed 7 December 2005].
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 1997. FDA requests that ball clay not be used in animal
feeds. Rockville, MD: U.S. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine. Available:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/ballclay.html [accessed 23 January 2006].
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 1998. Information for consumers: The use of recycled
animal waste in animal feed. Rockville, MD: U.S. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine. Available:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/litter.htm[accessed 22 May 2006].
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2001. Guidance for industry: Fumonisin levels in
human foods and animal feeds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied
Page 35
34
Nutrition and Center for Veterinary Medicine. Available:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/fumongu2.html [accessed 18 January 2006].
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2004. FDA approved animal drug products.
Blacksburg, VA: Drug Information Laboratory, Virginia/Maryland Regional College of Veterinary
Medicine.
Feedstuffs. 2005. Feed marketing and distribution. Feedstuffs 77:4.
Fries GF. 1995. A review of the significance of animal food products as potential pathways of
human exposures to dioxins. J Anim Sci 73:1639-1650.
Gatlin LA, See MT, Hansen JA, Odle J. 2003. Hydrogenated dietary fat improves pork quality of
pigs from two lean genotypes. J Anim Sci 81:1989-1997.
Garbarino JR, Bednar AJ, Rutherford DW, Beyer RS, Wershaw RL. 2003. Environmental fate of
roxarsone in poultry litter. I. Degradation of roxarsone during composting. Environ Sci Tech
37:1509-1514.
Ghidini S, Zanardi E, Battaglia A, Varisco G, Ferretti E, Campanini G, et al. 2005. Comparison of
contaminant and residue levels in organic and conventional milk and meat products from northern
Italy. Food Addit Contam 22:9-14.
Gibbs SG, Green CF, Tarwater PM, Mota LC, Mena KD, Scarpino PV. 2006. Isolation of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria from the air plume downwind of a swine confined or concentrated
animal feeding operation. Environ Health Perspect 114:1032-1037.
Page 36
35
Gill C. 2004. Top ten feed makers worldwide. Feed Management 55:38-40.
Gizzi G, van Raamsdonk LW, Baeten V, Murray I, Berben G, Brambilla G, et al. 2003. An
overview of tests for animal tissues in feeds applied in response to public health concerns regarding
bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Rev Sci Tech 22:311-331.
Gorbach SL. 2001. Antimicrobial use in animal feed--time to stop. N Engl J Med 345:1202-1203.
Guillamont EM, Lino CM, Baeta ML, Pena AS, Silveira MI, Vinuesa JM. 2005. A comparative
study of extraction apparatus in HPLC analysis of ochratoxin A in muscle. Anal Bioanal Chem
383:570-575.
Haapapuro ER, Barnard ND, Simon M. 1997. Review—Animal waste used as livestock feed:
Dangers to human health. Prev Med 26:599-602.
Hayes JR, English LL, Carter PJ, Proescholdt T, Lee KY, Wagner DD, et al. 2003. Prevalence and
antimicrobial resistance of enterococcus species isolated from retail meats. Appl Environ Microbiol
69:7153-7160.
Hayward DG, Nortrup D, Gardner A, Clower M Jr. 1999. Elevated TCDD in chicken eggs and
farm-raised catfish fed a diet with ball clay from a Southern United States mine. Environ Res
81:248-256.
Hinton MH. 2000. Infections and intoxications associated with animal feed and forage which may
present a hazard to human health. The Vet Journal 159:124-138.
Page 37
36
Hites RA, Foran JA, Schwager SJ, Knuth BA, Hamilton MC, Carpenter DO. 2004. Global
assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in farmed and wild salmon. Environ Sci Technol
38:4945-4999.
Hofacre CL, White DG, Maurer JJ, Morales C, Lobsinger C, Hudson C. 2001. Characterization of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria in rendered animal products. Avian Dis 45:953-961.
Hollinger K, Ekperigin HE. 1999. Mycotoxicosis in food producing animals. Vet Clin North Am
Food Anim Pract 15:133-165, x.
Hussein HS, Brasel JM. 2001. Toxicity, metabolism, and impact of mycotoxins on humans and
animals. Toxicology 167:101-134.
Huwe JK, Larsen GL. 2005. Polychlorinated dioxins, furans and biphenyls, and polybrominated
diphenyl ethers in a U.S. meat market basket and estimates of dietary intake. Environ Sci Technol
39:5606-5611.
Institute of Medicine. 2003. Committee on the implications of dioxin in the food supply. Dioxins
and dioxin-like compounds in the food supply: strategies to decrease exposure. Washington, D.C:
National Academies Press.
International Trade Centre. 2004. International Trade Statistics: Exports 2000-2004, Product group:
081 - Animal Feed EX UNML CER. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development and the World Trade Organization. Available:
http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/ep081.htm [accessed 3 January 2006].
Page 38
37
Jackson BP, Seaman JC, Bertsch PM. 2006. Fate of arsenic compounds in poultry litter upon land
application. Chemosphere 65:2028-2034.
Jensen LB, Agerso Y, Sengelov G. 2002. Presence of erm genes among macrolide-resistant Gram-
positive bacteria isolated from Danish farm soil. Environ Int 28:487-491.
Jorgensen K. 1998. Survey of pork, poultry, coffee, beer and pulses for ochratoxin A. Food Addit
Contam 15:550-554.
Krytenburg DS, Hancock DD, Rice DH, Besser TE, Gay CC, Gay JM. 1998. A pilot survey of
Salmonella enterica contamination of cattle feeds in the Pacific northwestern USA. Anim Feed Sci
Technol 75:75-79.
Lasky T, Sun W, Kadry A, Hoffman MK. 2004. Mean total arsenic concentrations in chicken 1989-
2000 and estimated exposures for consumers of chicken. Environ Health Perspect 112:18-21.
Lefferts L, Kucharski M, McKenzie S, Walker P. 2006. Feed for food producing animals: A
resource on ingredients, the industry, and regulation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for
a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Lynn TV, Hancock DD, Besser TE, Harrison JH, Rice DH, Stewart NT et al. 1998. The occurrence
and replication of Escherichia coli in cattle feeds. J Dairy Sci81:1102-1108.
Maciorowski KG, Herrera P, Jones FT, Pillai SD, Ricke SC. 2006. Cultural and immunological
detection methods for Salmonella spp. in animal feeds - a review. Vet Res Commun 30:127-137.
Page 39
38
McChesney DG, Kaplan G, Gardner P. 1995. FDA survey determines Salmonella contamination.
Feedstuffs 67:20-23.
Mellon M, Benbrook C, Benbrook KL. 2001. Hogging it: Estimates of antimicrobial abuse in
livestock. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists Publications. Available:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotics_and_food/margaret-mellon-on-hogging-
it.html [accessed 15 September 2006].
Meyer K, Mohr K, Bauer J, Horn P, Kovacs M. 2003. Residue formation of fumonisin B1 in
porcine tissues. Food Addit Contam 20:639-647.
Momcilovic D, Rasooly A. 2000. Detection and analysis of animal materials in food and feed. J
Food Prot 63:1602-1609.
Moreno-Lopez J. 2002. Contaminants in feed for food-producing animals. Pol J Vet Sci 5:123-125.
NRA (National Renderers Association, Inc.). 2005a. Description of a continuous rendering system.
Available: http://www.renderers.org/Continuous_rendering_system/index.htm[accessed 4 January
2006].
NRA (National Renderers Association, Inc.). 2005b. US production, consumption and export of
rendered products, 1998-2003. Available: http://www.renderers.org/Statistics/index.htm[accessed 5
January 2006].
Orriss GD. 1997. Animal diseases of public health importance. Emerg Inf Diseases 3:497-502.
Page 40
39
Sargeant JM, Sanderson MW, Griffin DD, Smit RA. 2004. Factors associated with the presence of
Escherichia coli O157 in feedlot-cattle water and feed in the Midwestern USA. Prev Vet Med
66:207-237.
Schecter A, Startin J, Wright C, Kelly M, Papke O, Lis A, et al. 1994. Congener-specific levels of
dioxins and dibenzofurans in U.S. food and estimated daily dioxin toxic equivalent intake. Environ
Health Perspect 102:962-966.
Schmidt CW. 2004. Diet and dioxins: the need to cut back. Environ Health Perspect 112:A40-43.
Schoeters G, Hoogenboom R. 2006. Contamination of free-range chicken eggs with dioxins and
dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls. Mol Nutr Food Res 50:908-914.
Schwalbe RS, McIntosh AC, Qaiyumi S, Johnson JA, Morris JG Jr. 1999. Isolation of vancomycin-
resistant enterococci from animal feed in USA. Lancet 353:722.
Smith KE, Besser JM, Hedberg CW, Leano FT, Bender JB, Wicklund JH, et al. 1999. Quinolone-
resistant Campylobacter jejuni infections in Minnesota, 1992-1998. N Engl J Med 340:1525-1532.
Smith PG. 2003. The epidemics of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease: current status and future prospects. Bull WHO 81:123-130.
Sorensen TL, Blom M, Monnet DL, Frimodt-Moller N, Poulsen RL, Espersen F. 2001. Transient
intestinal carriage after ingestion of antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecium from chicken and
pork. N Engl J Med 345:1161-1166.
Page 41
40
Sorensen LK, Elbaek TH. 2005. Determination of mycotoxins in bovine milk by liquid
chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci
820:183-196.
Stolz JF, Perera E, Kilonzo B, Kail B, Crable B, Fisher E, et al. 2007. Biotransformation of 3-nitro-
4-hydroxybenzene arsenic acid (Roxarsone) and release of inorganic arsenic by Clostridium
species. Environ Sci Tech doi: 10.1021/es061802i[Online 10 January 2007].
Unicomb L, Ferguson J, Riley TV, Collignon P. 2003. Fluoroquinolone resistance in
Campylobacter absent from isolates, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis 9:1482-1483.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1988. The formula feed manufacturing industry, 1984
(SB-785). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/crops/89005/ [accessed 5 January2006].
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2005a. The economics of food, farming, natural resources
and rural America. Food consumption (per capita) data system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/ [accessed 7 December 2005].
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2005b. Production and inspection: BSE rules being
strictly enforced. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection
Service. Available:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/BSE_Rules_Being_Strictly_Enforced/index.asp [accessed 17
January 2006].
Page 42
41
U.S. GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2000. Food safety: Controls can be strengthened to
reduce the risk of disease linked to unsafe animal feed. GAO/RCED-00-255. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. General Accounting Office. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00255.pdf[accessed 3
January 2006].
U.S. GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2002. Mad cow disease: Improvements in the animal
feed ban and other regulatory areas would strengthen U.S. prevention efforts. GAO-02-183.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. Availa
burnt
Well-known member
Whoa Pig Farmer, that was almost bigger than the whole BOOK of Psalms! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
High Plains
Well-known member
Okay, I didn't read every single word of that piece, but I did read quite a bit. The conclusions section pretty much says it all. Insufficient data and the human health effects are "not appropriately linked to this information". Clearly more work should be done!
I have dealt with a good many cattle feeders, which would be most likely the area that folks want to point toward with regard to "What's in the feed". The vast majority feed a ration that is about 98% corn, distiller's by-product, corn silage and hay. The last one or two percent of the ration is protein supplement. I don't know exactly what's in the protein supplement, so I won't comment on that. A little bit of Aeromycin to get cattle started healthy and then that's generally removed.
Don't know where all of those other items listed in the research paper would be introduced to the cattle diets being fed in the feeding belt.
HP
I have dealt with a good many cattle feeders, which would be most likely the area that folks want to point toward with regard to "What's in the feed". The vast majority feed a ration that is about 98% corn, distiller's by-product, corn silage and hay. The last one or two percent of the ration is protein supplement. I don't know exactly what's in the protein supplement, so I won't comment on that. A little bit of Aeromycin to get cattle started healthy and then that's generally removed.
Don't know where all of those other items listed in the research paper would be introduced to the cattle diets being fed in the feeding belt.
HP
I have followed most of this thread, and I still have to agree with Soapweed's beginning post. Back years ago, when my folks didn't have any extra money, we did most things the hard way. I grew up digging post holes cutting firewood, feeding silage, pitching hay by hand, and milking cows (when my younger brothers weren't home). I hated milking. My point is... after I worked my butt off in a town job, I was able to buy some of the equipment to make life easier. A PTO post hole digger, a feed truck, a "good" loader tractor, and other things so I didn't have to manually do it. Back when we were technology challenged, I could eat anything and everything, and never gain weight, now that I can use my brain, so to speak, instead of my brawn, I have to watch what I eat. Its not that I ever ate "All Natural" in the past. Matter of fact my folks thought they would be nice and bought us a half of beef that was grass fed. It was good meat, but I prefer my beef to have some grain in them. Its just what I prefer. I am getting to where I kinda like fried chicken. Hated it when I was a kid. Why, cause I had to kill and clean the sorry buggers!
When I had my town job, I came to the conclusion that the American public has NO CLUE what good beef is. And it is EXPENSIVE!! My food budget was nearly half of my monthly budget.
So how do I change the public's opinion on Beef? For my part, I give beef to my relatives that live in town, that don't have access to the quality of beef that I do. Sometimes it takes some figuring, as to getting it shipped from northern Nebraska, to south eastern Texas, but they all sure enjoy it.
When I had my town job, I came to the conclusion that the American public has NO CLUE what good beef is. And it is EXPENSIVE!! My food budget was nearly half of my monthly budget.
So how do I change the public's opinion on Beef? For my part, I give beef to my relatives that live in town, that don't have access to the quality of beef that I do. Sometimes it takes some figuring, as to getting it shipped from northern Nebraska, to south eastern Texas, but they all sure enjoy it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
LazyWP said:
WP my goal is not to receive agreement or high 5's. Rather when someone reads the posts I make I hope there is a seed planted that makes people think. If just one out of many that reads that post thinks about what they are producing then I HAVE BEEN SUCCESFUL.
Or said another way. When a man goes fishing he don't catch every fish that his lure passes in front of. But he does catch some fish. I could care less about the ones that get away. Its the seed that grows that matter to me. :wink: :wink: :wink:
Kosmo
Member
Pig Farmer Wrote:
Sounds to me like you should be a crop farmer instead of a pig farmer with all those seeds that your planting. :wink:
Sounds to me like you should be a crop farmer instead of a pig farmer with all those seeds that your planting. :wink:
coyote
Well-known member
Very Interesting thread.
I guess we all know what happens when there is a lot of food around, producers don't make much, leading to conversations like this thread.
I have wondered what is going to happen when there is a real shortage. How much are people willing to pay?
Are we producers going to be rich?
Is Government going to take our food and distribute it?
Do we have to lock the gates and put the guard dog at the chicken coop?
Are only the very rich able to afford Shorthorn beef?
and so on
I guess we all know what happens when there is a lot of food around, producers don't make much, leading to conversations like this thread.
I have wondered what is going to happen when there is a real shortage. How much are people willing to pay?
Are we producers going to be rich?
Is Government going to take our food and distribute it?
Do we have to lock the gates and put the guard dog at the chicken coop?
Are only the very rich able to afford Shorthorn beef?
and so on
RobertMac
Well-known member
I think the bottom line to this thread is that we, cattlemen, don't need to be fighting among ourselves...we need to be fighting to put a better image out to the public of our product, BEEF. Beef has been wrongfully maligned from many direction...truth is, beef is the most health beneficial food for the consumer. That is the message we need to be presenting.
Whether WE agree or disagree with the issues we have discussed here is irrelevant...what matters is what the consumer believes. They don't care about OUR "sound science" because it has been proven time and again that science, on both sides, can be bought. If we don't do it/use it, we can't be blamed for it. There has to be changes in the system to address consumer concerns...E.coli recalls must stop! The customers we pick up because of making changes that address their concerns will far out weigh those we lose because of price...after all, pork and poultry are already priced cheaper than beef.
Whether WE agree or disagree with the issues we have discussed here is irrelevant...what matters is what the consumer believes. They don't care about OUR "sound science" because it has been proven time and again that science, on both sides, can be bought. If we don't do it/use it, we can't be blamed for it. There has to be changes in the system to address consumer concerns...E.coli recalls must stop! The customers we pick up because of making changes that address their concerns will far out weigh those we lose because of price...after all, pork and poultry are already priced cheaper than beef.
flyingS
Well-known member
Maybe it is just safe to say that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Everyone has a difference in there operation. Bottom line is that rather than trying to always look out for #1, we need to look at the big picture. What is best for everyone and what can we contribute to make it better. Come together, educate our consumers, market our products honestly. Once everyone is on board things will change. United we stand, divided we fall.
There are lots of reasons why we all do the things we do. One thing that we should all remember is that the average cow herd in the US is only 20 to 25 head. Soapweed, that means there are a lot more people that own 10 or less hd than there are that own 500 or more doesn't it. We tend to overlook that a lot in the Sandhills. I would have to conclude that when someone has pretties in the backyard they are probably less conscious of what quality of product they are producing. It is not their livelyhood it is a hoby. It is not only these people, we have some right here at home, that do not pay attention to growing concerns. There are several producers that do not know what BQA stands for and have no idea why it is important to implement those practices. Asks your neighbors if they are BQA certified. I guess maybe we need to make sure that all producers are educated as well so that we can all have a common goal. Next time you go to a Cattleman's meeting or Phizer program ask a neighbor to go along. Visit with the someone about there operation and look for an "AH HA" (something that really turns on a light), instead of judging their practices. Even the smallest and poorest producer have as much to contribute as the largest and richest. It isn't always good sometimes it is an experience you do not want yourself, it will be way easier to learn from someone else than to try it yourself.
There are lots of reasons why we all do the things we do. One thing that we should all remember is that the average cow herd in the US is only 20 to 25 head. Soapweed, that means there are a lot more people that own 10 or less hd than there are that own 500 or more doesn't it. We tend to overlook that a lot in the Sandhills. I would have to conclude that when someone has pretties in the backyard they are probably less conscious of what quality of product they are producing. It is not their livelyhood it is a hoby. It is not only these people, we have some right here at home, that do not pay attention to growing concerns. There are several producers that do not know what BQA stands for and have no idea why it is important to implement those practices. Asks your neighbors if they are BQA certified. I guess maybe we need to make sure that all producers are educated as well so that we can all have a common goal. Next time you go to a Cattleman's meeting or Phizer program ask a neighbor to go along. Visit with the someone about there operation and look for an "AH HA" (something that really turns on a light), instead of judging their practices. Even the smallest and poorest producer have as much to contribute as the largest and richest. It isn't always good sometimes it is an experience you do not want yourself, it will be way easier to learn from someone else than to try it yourself.