• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Promoting Healthy Livestock

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Ditto with the intensive ranching we see these days. I keep large pens with few animals in each in order to minimize sickness, and they are only in pens during calving season, but certainly others do not. And if the margins keep shrinking, beef production will soon go the way of hog and chicken barns. Thousands of animals crammed into small barns, loaded full of antibiotics and new strains of viruses cropping up nearly daily. Its the corporate mentality, and probably even "more efficient in the long run", but at what cost?

Rod

I agree with you Rod. Have you thought about ways to present and promote alternatives?

Therein lies the difficulty. The best science promotes all these drugs, pour-ons, and intensive livestock methods as being completely safe. No residues left behind, no problems.

While I believe in the old-fashioned (ie: organic) methods of food production, its difficult to present those ideas and not be thought a quack because we have a dozen "flat earth" scientists bellaring that current production methods are perfectly fine.

So, I think a starting point would be an organic producers organization. Not separate splinter groups like we have now with grain producers in one, fruit producers in another and so on, but 1 large organic producers association entailing every segment of food production: grain, proteins, fruit, dairy. And the spokespeople must be realists. No radical "we must change everything today" types, but rather pragmatists who can work within the current system while trying to enforce reasonable change.

The initial purpose of this organization would be to get public and private grants to fund research into the true side effects of the current production methods. There must be sound science involved and ready proof. The scientists that are hired must be of "sound mind and judgement". No sky is falling quacks who jump on the latest environmental bandwagon, but rather scientists who are truly interested in the truth.

When, or rather, IF proof is found, the second purpose of the organization will be to deseminate the information to the people, and to the powers that be though radio, TV, Internet, and papers.

Your question left me unprepared; to tell the truth, I hadn't given alot of thought to the promotion of healthy food production. My first thought was that this big ol' organic producers association would first head to the farms and promote organic methods of production, however without real proof, real evidence, I suspect that would be counter-productive. Organic beef has been tried, and has by and large failed miserably. Its not economically feasible, and if the organic association sat and screamed murder, without solid proof, they'd just fade away and be background noise.

While I'm sure most beef producers would prefer to not be injecting their cattle with arrays of drugs, its an economic reality right now. Margins are very slim, and getting slimmer all the time, and producers have families to feed. So your best 8 month pregnant cow comes up with a bug, and you shoot her up to preserve her, her calf, and all the calves that come later. Its pretty tough to convince a producer that that animal should be culled out since she's shown that she is susceptible to a certain kind of disease.

So we're left with getting solid evidence as a first step.

Maple Leaf Angus said:
And while you are thinking, have you tried thinking the current trends through to their inevitable outcomes?

Maybe this should be a new thread.

My crystal ball doesn't work all that well but I think we're going to see beef production slowly go the way of the hog barns and chicken plants. I saw a horse meat ranch once in Montana and was sickened by it. Horses that were rarely allowed to exercise, all crammed into small pens, fed medicated feed to keep them on their feet.

And with the move towards assembly line beef production, I think we're going to keep seeing more and more virulent strains of bacteria and viruses, but I also think that medical science will prevail, if the bean counters let them. I don't believe the doomsdayers who tell of an evil virus that will wipe out mankind. The human species will survive and adapt, but I'm not sure if I like where we'll be a couple hundred years from now.

Rod
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
I know guys who in the last ten years have tried to move away from traditional ranching.
They did this because as profits got smaller they figgured the only way to make the same amount of money as before was to get bigger.
Around here its the cost of land that prevents anyone from expanding. So they figgured if they ran a more intensive opperation they could improve the bottom line.
So they bought dirt farming gear and made the non dirt farming part of there outfits look a lot like fead lots. Spent there summers irragating, fixing tractors, got there cattle all cramed together so now they are doctoring all the time.
Seems like they work twice as hard and make even less money because all the profit goes into machinery and gear.
Now there dirt farming gear is getting wore out and they dont figgure it will ever pay them to replace it. So now they are going back to the way they used to do things. Atleast this way what they make they keep.
The best bet is to marry a woman who owns a lot of grass and who has a good paying job in town.
About hormones
I dont know anything about them. Nobody uses them around here. Maybe this is something that the feedlots use? Or are hormones the same thing as steroids? Nobody uses steroids on cows that I know of. But when it comes to horses and people we sure use them. Im trying to make a go of it training horses. Injuries, injuries, injuries all the friggen time! Thats why im spending so much time on this computer lately, because of injuries. Im to old. At 37 things just take to long to heal. My doctor has me taking steroids all the time. I dont like the idea of taking them but I have no choice.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Maybe this is something that the feedlots use? Or are hormones the same thing as steroids?

Growth hormones (calf implants) are generally not used in open range/grass operations, however many feedlots implant calves as soon as they roll off the trucks. Just a quick way to boost feed efficiency, although from what I've seen, its just a good way to make up for poor genetics. An ex's father used them and was bragging about his ADG and trying to get me to use them. When I told I was getting better gains than he was with implants, he shut up.

Rod
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Does organic beef have antibiotics in it?
Hey wouldnt organic beef be kind of a market niche? A way for the producer to market his own beef retail?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Rod have you looked into the Quality Starts Here, Verified Beef production program?

Yes, I actually follow many of the guidelines laid out by that program. To be honest, when I read much of it, my first thought was: why did they need to write down this common sense stuff, since much of what they teach I was taught years ago by my grandparents and uncle?

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Does organic beef have antibiotics in it?
Hey wouldnt organic beef be kind of a market niche? A way for the producer to market his own beef retail?

Roper, I'm not sure of all the rules on organic beef, but it can't have ever been treated with anti-biotics.

As for a niche market, there are some niches available, but not enough demand to make it viable. Some supermarkets have tried it and lost their shirts.

For the time being, most people who preach organics are thought to be whack jobs, by and large. While I don't agree with the tree huggers and vote for change by next year, I do believe that cattle producers need to gradually reduce their dependence on antibiotics, vaccinations, pour-ons, etc etc etc, and rely more on aggressive culling to breed resistant animals. Natural remedies are also available to cure some of the other problems, like ticks, lice and worms. I haven't started using them yet, but have every intention of doing so this year.

Rod
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
My wife put up a website a couple years back to sell grass lamb. Welll, some of the pictures also had our beef cows in the background and we started getting calls on them too. In order of preference people wanted mo hormones/antibiotics, organic and in the end grass finished and grass fed. The fact that they have never been implanted or feed antibiotics is the big thing for them. Most folks have no real issues of treating a calf for pneomia and than selling him 6 months later but they really don't like the idea of hormoned beef and antibiotic beef. You can tell these consumers all you want about how the additional level of hormones is negligable, how it is safe but they really don't care. They know what they want to know. You get into the urban markets and you will see lovely artiles in sunday magaizines and such about meat... The favoruite around here was when they called Rumensien a powerfull antibiotic.. Usualy I read those articles and just shake my head at how informed yet uninformed the writer is...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
AMS Seeking Comments on Grass Marketing Claims



American Meat Institute

May 12, 2006



The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking comments on a revised proposed voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed livestock marketing claims. The proposed standard incorporates revisions made after receiving comments during an earlier published proposed standard.



The proposed voluntary standard would allow livestock producers to request that a grass (forage) fed claim be verified by USDA. Verification would be accomplished through an AMS audit of the production process.



Comments on the rule must be received by Aug. 10, 2006. To review the proposal, go to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-7276.htm





meatami.com
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Rod have you looked into the Quality Starts Here, Verified Beef production program?

Yes, I actually follow many of the guidelines laid out by that program. To be honest, when I read much of it, my first thought was: why did they need to write down this common sense stuff, since much of what they teach I was taught years ago by my grandparents and uncle?

Rod

Most of us do follow the guidelines as they are common sense approach to what we do be they also verify your production practices. They don't tell you what you have to do ie. natural or organic versus other ways, just how to do what you do properly.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Rod said:
While I don't agree with the tree huggers and vote for change by next year, I do believe that cattle producers need to gradually reduce their dependence on antibiotics, vaccinations, pour-ons, etc etc etc, and rely more on aggressive culling to breed resistant animals.

BINGO :!: :D

Econ said:
AMS Seeking Comments on Grass Marketing Claims

My protocol on file with them already meets the new requirements. 8)
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
RoperAB said:
Does organic beef have antibiotics in it?
Hey wouldnt organic beef be kind of a market niche? A way for the producer to market his own beef retail?

Roper, I'm not sure of all the rules on organic beef, but it can't have ever been treated with anti-biotics.

As for a niche market, there are some niches available, but not enough demand to make it viable. Some supermarkets have tried it and lost their shirts.

For the time being, most people who preach organics are thought to be whack jobs, by and large. While I don't agree with the tree huggers and vote for change by next year, I do believe that cattle producers need to gradually reduce their dependence on antibiotics, vaccinations, pour-ons, etc etc etc, and rely more on aggressive culling to breed resistant animals. Natural remedies are also available to cure some of the other problems, like ticks, lice and worms. I haven't started using them yet, but have every intention of doing so this year.

Rod

Im not sure what the conection is but Liberals seem to be into alternate medicine<herbs, chiropractors> and weird foreign religions like Pagan, Wicca stuff. I have to admit that when I hear the word organic I think Liberal wack job because they seem to be into everything they see with a natural label on it.
LOLs But if we could get them off of vegtables and onto the Atkins diet we could expand the beef market :lol:
Gosh no antibiotics or vaccinations to be labeled organic. That would be tough! Maybe producers could just say no implants and label it "Natural Beef" instead of organic to break into the tree hugger market :lol: ?
Packers could even put a "Green" label on the packaging :wink:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Gosh no antibiotics or vaccinations to be labeled organic. That would be tough!

It would be tough, but no tougher than our fathers or grandfathers had it. In the current market conditions, it would be nearly impossible to switch to fully organic beef production and have it pay. It requires heavy culling of breeding stock to ensure that only the hardiest animals are being bred. Heavy culling is expensive, and most producers simply do not have the necessary margins to allow for it. Certainly with cull animals being valued at a couple dimes/lb, I can't expect anyone to cull aggressively. I know I certainly don't. Should the cull animal market come back, I'll happily start culling aggressively again, but I doubt I'll ever switch to fully organic beef production. I can't afford organic hay or grain to feed my animals, and I know some organic beef lines require all inputs into an animal to be completely organic.

As far as the implant free beef is concerned, there simply isn't enough medical evidence available to convince consumers that all that hormone laden garbage is bad for you. Companies, especially food production companies, have learned that you simply do not create a product if there is no market for it. If science is able to ascertain that those hormones are slowly bringing about negative changes to people, then perhaps we'll see a market develop.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Hormones are outlawed in poultry because their abuse was apparent and the medical effects were dramatic. You need only read about the Puerto Rico experience to see the reason. Medically significant and obvious to regular people are two different things. With poultry and hormones those things came together.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCoIt would be tough said:
Vacinations
With horses its always the good ones that will get sick and die. A dink horse can live to be 30yo and never see a vet or get vacinated.
Seems like years ago you did not have to vacinate horses but now-a-days you have to. Seems to be way more stuff going around.
Vets push antibiotics like crazy. I end up giving my horses antibiotics lots of times just to prevent a secondary infection. Most of the time I question if its necessary. Truth is I have quite a bit of money<to me> in these horses and im scared not to give them anti biotics when the vet tells me to.
Another thing that happens is a horse will get sick so they will tell you to give antibiotics even when we dont know whats wrong with the horse.
Now we could get lab work done but by the time we get the results back two months later the horse will be better or dead by this time.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Organic regulations for cattle are interesting. The guidelines published by USDA are the size of a dictionary.

Some things allowed, pour on insecticides in the first 2/3 of gestation. Up to 25% of the feed can be traditionally grown sprayed fertilized etc.

My traditional protocol is a higher standard than that, but I don't meet organic specifications. :???:

One fellow in the area that is certified is selling ground beef at $5 a pound, he isn't getting rich doing it because his costs are so much higher. He does manage to move 2-4 beef per month in a population area of over 1 million people.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Greetings Ranchers et al,

i am living proof of antibiotic resistant infection, i.e. MRSA, 7+ weeks 1000 to 1250 mgs vancomycin straight to the heart via longline PIC. nasty stuff. this time around, i will tell them to dip me in monkey blood, with follow-up bath in 100% bleach ;-) yep, a few disposable tools and grinder, no cadaver bone and or blood, all my own, just to make sure no friendly fire from TSE, and what the hell do you suppose happened, yep, they infect me with another super bug, MRSA. THAT was Dec. 2001. since then, a new super bug that is resistant to even vancomycin. this is called VRSA, and trust me, you do not want to tango with that one, and i will throw the dice again soon. you just never know, and i know more than i ever wanted too. all i wanted was a fat juicy steak and a cold beer... that was long ago, things have changed since the good old days. ...TSS


here are a few warning letters for just this past week ;



WARNING LETTER
2006-DT-22

May 9,2006

Mr. Kenneth L. Wagler
Wagler Farms
7085 Homestead Road
Morgantown, IN 46160

Dear Mr. Wagler:

An inspection of your dairy. operation located at 7085 Homestead Road, Morgantown, Indiana 46160, conducted by a representative of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 1418, 2005, confirmed that you offered an animal for sale for slaughter as food that was adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links of FDA's web page at www.fda.gov.

On September 13, 2005, you, sold a bull identified with back tag number 32UP 9127 through [redacted] to [redacted] then delivered the bull to [redacted] where, it was slaughtered for human food use on September 15, 2005. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of [redacted] (ppm) gentamicin in the kidney of this bull. No tolerance of gentamicin has been established for residues of gentamicin in the edible tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 C.F.R.), Part 556.300 (21 C.F.R 556.300). In addition, USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of [redacted] [which is equal to [redacted]] in the liver of the bull. A tolerance of 125 ppb has been established for residues of flunixin in the liver tissue of cattle as codified in 21 C.F.R. 556.286. The presence of gentamicin and fIunixin in the edible tissues of this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] of the Act. ................snip............end



http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5836d.htm





May 4, 2006

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 06-27

Ed M. Pomeroy
7304 Vista Drive
Ferndale, WA 98248

WARNING LETTER

Dear Mr. Pomeroy:

An investigation at your dairy operation, located at 2343 Willeys Lake Road, Custer, Washington, conducted by a representative of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on October 18, 2005, and December 5, 2005, revealed that you caused the new animal drug, Neomycin 325 (Neomycin Sulfate powder packet), and the medicated feed, "Instant Amplifier Max MT Medicated" milk replacer (containing neomycin), to become adulterated within the meaning of sections 501(a)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)] and 501(a)(6) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(6)], and unsafe under section 512 of the Act [21 U.S.C 360b]. You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on the FDA's web page at www.fda.gov

Our investigation determined that on August 12, 2005, and August 26, 2005, you delivered calves to[redacted] a livestock collector, who subsequently tagged the animal with back tags #1007 and #0818, respectively, and delivered the calves to [redacted] on the same dates. The calf with back tags #1007 and #0818, identified on USDA Case #05-0652-WA and further identified on USDA-FSIS lab reports #217272 and #217273, respectively, were delivered for slaughter as human food to [redacted] by [redacted], also on August 12, 2005, and August 26, 2005, respectively. USDA analysis of tissue samples collected from the calves identified the presence of neomycin in the kidney at detectable levels in the calf with back tag #1007 tissue, and at 5.41 ppm in the calf with back tag #0818.

A subsequent investigation revealed that you adulterated the drug, Neomycin 325, within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 351 (a)(5)] when you used it in a calf to be processed for veal, which is contrary to the warning on the label. Specifically, you administered the drug, Neomycin 325, by adding it to Instant Amplifier Max NT Medicated Dairy Herd & Beef Calf Milk Replacer, the liquid milk replacer supplement that you feed your calves, contrary to the directions set forth in the approved labeling that clearly state that it is not for use in liquid supplements and contrary to the label statement that it is not to be used in calves to be processed for veal.

Because the Act does not permit the extralabel use of drugs in or on medicated feeds, your actions cause the neomycin to be unsafe under Section 512(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360b(a), and adulterated within the meaning of Section 501(a)(5) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(5).

You also caused the adulteration of an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug under section 501(a)(6) of the Act [21 U.S .C. 351(a)(6)} when you failed to use the milk replacer in conformance with its approved labeling by feeding it to calves to be processed for veal and by adding the drug neomycin to it.

The above is not intended ..........snip.......end



http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5835d.htm



http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=I



http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=D



http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=E



http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/actionplan/index.htm



http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/1.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/2.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/3.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/4.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/5.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/6.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/7.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/8.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/9.htm



National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Antibiotic Resistance - How much is used in food-producing animals?
NARMS Home > FAQ Antibiotic Resistance > How much is used in food-producing animals? In the United States, data on the quantity of antibiotics given to food animals is not available to the public or to government agencies. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org), about 25 million pounds of antibiotics and related drugs are used every year in livestock for nontherapeutic purposes. The Animal Health Institute (www.ahi.org) estimates that 20.2 million pounds of antibiotics were produced for use in farm and companion animals in 2003.




http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/10.htm



National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Antibiotic Resistance - Which antibiotics used in food-producing animals are related to antibiotics used in humans?
NARMS Home > FAQ Antibiotic Resistance > Which antibiotics used in food-producing animals are related to antibiotics used in humans? The majority of antibiotics used in food animals belong to classes of antibiotics which are also used to treat human illness; these include tetracyclines, sulfonamides, penicillins, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicols, and streptogramins. Because these classes of antibiotics are similar, then bacteria resistant to antibiotics used in animals will also be resistant to antibiotics used in humans.
Date: June 1, 2005
Content source: National Center for Infectious Diseases



http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/11.htm





National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Antibiotic Resistance - How do resistant bacteria spread from animals to humans?


NARMS Home > FAQ Antibiotic Resistance > How do resistant bacteria spread from animals to humans?

Resistant bacteria may be transferred to humans through the food supply or direct contact with animals. For example, Campylobacter lives in the intestines of chickens. People get Campylobacter diarrhea primarily from eating undercooked chicken. In 1989, none of the Campylobacter strains from ill persons that CDC tested were resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics. In 1995, the FDA approved the use of fluoroquinolones in poultry. Soon afterwards, doctors found Campylobacter strains from ill persons that were resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics.



Date: June 1, 2005
Content source: National Center for Infectious Diseases




http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/12.htm



National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Antibiotic Resistance - What is the human health consequence of increasing antibiotic resistance in foodborne bacteria?
NARMS Home > FAQ Antibiotic Resistance > What is the human health consequence of increasing antibiotic resistance in foodborne bacteria? When an ill person is treated with an antibiotic to which the bacteria is resistant, the antibiotic will not help and may even make the illness worse. Also, increasing antibiotic resistance in the bacteria harbored by animals makes it more likely for humans who do get infected to have a resistant strain. The illness may last longer, be more serious, or more expensive to treat.
Date: June 1, 2005
Content source: National Center for Infectious Diseases



http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/13.htm



National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Antibiotic Resistance - What can be done to slow antibiotic resistance?
NARMS Home > FAQ Antibiotic Resistance > What can be done to slow antibiotic resistance? Decreasing unnecessary or imprudent antibiotic use will decrease the pressure on organisms which are exposed to them to become resistant. Ongoing efforts in human and veterinary medicine are needed to decrease the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, so that the efficacy of antibiotics is preserved for as long as possible. For example, medical and veterinary professional organizations have issued recommendations to promote appropriate therapeutic use of antibiotics by physicians and veterinarians. A Task Force of 11 government agencies issued a Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance in 2001. The Public Health Action Plan and annual progress reports on implementation of the plan are available at www.cdc.gov/drugresistance.
Additional information concerning food safety issues related to antimicrobial resistance can be found at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine website.


Date: June 1, 2005
Content source: National Center for Infectious Diseases



http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq_pages/14.htm



GET SMART: Know When Antibiotics Work on the Farm
Educational Activities to Promote Appropriate Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Animals
The Get Smart on the Farm campaign will have five major areas of activity:
1) Distribute current practices and educational materials
2) Fund sites and provide technical assistance to develop, implement, and evaluate local campaigns
3) Support development and testing of veterinary medical curricula for students
4) Fund a national advertising campaign promoting the appropriate use of antibiotics
5) Develop an efficient and accurate means of measuring antimicrobial use in veterinary medicine and agriculture

Appropriate Use of Antimicrobial Agents: Course Materials for Veterinary Students and Veterinary Continuing Education
This interactive web-based program combines aspects of microbiology, pharmacology, infectious disease and public health to promote appropriate use of antimicrobial agents by veterinarians. Working in partnership with human health professionals, food animal producers, animal owners, and the general public, the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents by veterinarians can help to mitigate further development and spread of resistance in human, animal, and zoonotic pathogens and commensal bacteria. The program consists of two parts:
A Background module that provides an introduction to the global, ecological nature of the antimicrobial resistance problem.
Species-specific modules that contain interactive case scenarios aimed at providing practical, clinical applications for the appropriate use guidelines as set forth in the WHO Global Principles for the Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance in Animals Intended for Food.

Specific topics addressed in the program include:
Mechanisms of resistance
Diagnostic tools and tests
Guidelines for empirical treatment
Client education
Alternatives to antibiotics
Resistance in animals secondary to use of antimicrobial agents
Public health risks of use of antimicrobial agents in food animals and in companion animals and the connection to antimicrobial resistant infections in people

State Demonstration Project: Collaborations Between State Public Health and Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories
To foster collaborations on antimicrobial resistance between state public health laboratories and state agriculture (veterinary diagnostic) laboratories.
To establish local surveillance of antimicrobial resistance among enteric bacteria from humans and animals.
To develop community-based programs on appropriate use of antimicrobials in animals.
CDC is currently supporting a project between Michigan Department of Community Health and the Diagnostic Center for Animal Population Health at Michigan State University.

For more information contact GET SMART: Know When Antibiotics Work on the Farm :

Stacy Holzbauer, DVM MPH
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
1600 Clifton Road, MS-D63
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 404-639-3399
Fax: 404-639-3535
Email: [email protected]

For more information on the overall Get Smart program, please click HERE.


Date: January 30, 2006
Content source: National Center for Infectious Diseases



http://www.cdc.gov/narms/get_smart.htm



TSS
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Interesting thread going here.

Thought I'd tell about my attempt to get organic milk brought into our local store.

First, they told me it would cost about 2.69 (Canadian) per litre. Almost double regular milk. Then they phoned me back a few hours later, and told me it would be somewhere between 3-4 dollars.

It ended up costing me 3.55 per litre. Will I get it in again? probably not. If it had been the 2.69, I certainly would; but, it almost appearred as though they weren't too interested in bringing it in.


We looked into the Quality starts here, beef programs. The vet running the show that day, specifically stated, that this program was of not designed for organic producers (as there is nothing to trace in the form of meds and hormones).
 

Latest posts

Top