Reading Feed Labels

Lauren Bills

Reading Feed Labels

I chose my topic on the importance of feed labeling for animals and how the wrong product beening delivered,sold to or fed to horses can cause serious problems. Chapter 13.of the Wyoming statue I found legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?.../T11ch13.htm. What if the local coop or sales you the wrong feed or accidently loads the wrong feed or delivers it you, who would be respsonsible,liable for damages if the mistake isn’t caught ? I hope you find the research on the product to be helpful in the importance of labeling for feed products and for education purposes of the people who sale the product and the ones who load it.

            Rumensin kills horses by interfering with the normal function of a horse’s heart, nervous system, and other body systems.  Rumensin was developed for use in finishing cattle before they are sent to market for slaughter, it is also used in poultry in order to control coccidiosis.  Rumensin is the generic name for monensin, which is the way it will be listed on the feed labels found on bags of feed that contain it.  Typically, most horses that are exposed to rumensin or monensin share a common feed source with cattle.

I. Monensin Development

            The IUPAC name for monensin is 2-5-Ethyltetrahydro-3-methyl-5-[tertahyrdo-6-hyrdoxy-6-(hyrdoxymethyl)-3, 5-dimethyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]-2-furly-9-hydroxy-beta-methoxy-alpha, gamma, 2,8-tertamethyl-1,6-dioxasprio[4.5] decane-7-butyric acid; monensic acid (OSHA).  Monensin is produced by a strain of Streptomyces cinnamonensis,  a form of mold.  The precursors involved in this process are methylmalonyl-coenzyme A (CoA) and ethlmolonyl-CoA (monensin A). The common

form for monensin in nature is in a crystal form.  See appendix A for a diagram of monensin.

            When used in feeds it is referred to as an ionophore, which modifies the movement of monovalent (sodium and potassium) and divalent (calcium) ions across membranes.   The outer surface is composed of many nonpolar hydrocarbons that are highly soluble in the lipid components of membranes.  The membrane itself determines how the ionophore will be expressed.  It may improve the use of nitrogen in the body and increase the dry matter digestibility of ruminants. 

II. Differences in the Digestive systems of cattle and horses

            Every animal on the farm has different requirements for nutrition, and over the years, many different types of feeds have been developed in order for each animal to reach the optimal growth potential.  Monensin was originally developed for use in cattle in order to increase their rate of gain per pound per head per day. It has also been shown to improve the growth rate of grazing cattle.  The stomachs of cattle are designed to hold large amounts of food and for the animal to be able to ferment that food.  The stomach of a cow is divided into four different compartments that each have there own function the reticulum, the rumen, the omasum and the abomasums.  In the rumen of the cow is where fermentation of foodstuffs is achieved due to microbial activity.

            The horse on the other hand has a simpler stomach and digestive tract.  Given the average size of an adult horse, the stomach is small for that animal.  In comparison to cattle the horses stomach will only hold about three to three and a half gallons, where as a cows stomach will hold forty to fifty gallons (Jackson, Greer, and Baker 137).  There is limited digestion that occurs in the horse’s stomach the majority is done in the small intestines.  Because of the limited digestion that actually takes place in the horses stomach is one of the key factors for the effect that monensin has on horses. 

            When used in cattle feed monensin is designed to interact with the microflora in order to achieve the benefits previously mentioned it also, increases propionic acid, and decrease acetic and butyric acids.  When a horse consumes feed that has monensin in it, they will develop monensin poisoning with one common affect being vacuolization

(Mollenhauer, Morre, and Rowe abstract).  This is where the mitochondria will start to swell in the spleen, lungs, liver, and the kidneys. 

III. Symptoms and Signs to Diagnosing Monensin Poisoning

            Animals that have been exposed to monensin will exhibit a wide range of symptoms depending on the amount ingested.  One of the key signs to be watchful for in healthy horses is the refusal to eat mixed grain feeds.  Some animals will exhibit signs of colic and go off their feed because they have ingested monensin that is mixed into a ration at thirty grams to a ton of feed.  As the amount of monensin is increased in the feed per ton, more horses will show signs of going off their feed and in some cases, one will die.  Monensin poisoning should be considered when there is a change in the feed that is fed daily that leads to a refusal to eat or reluctance on the part of the animals to eat and when sudden death occurs within eight to twenty four hours of consuming the feed.

            Symptoms in some animals include mild diarrhea, colic, weakness, and incoordination in the rear leg, stiffness, wide stance, and occasionally reluctance to move (Lewis 361).  Some animals will also press their heads against a solid object, show signs of profuse sweating and form blindness.  As the symptoms, progress the horse may shows signs of urinating often, then a decrease in urination with blood.  The majority of the mucous membranes in the horse’s body become severely congested with fluid leading to an increase in the heart rate and an irregular heart beat.  The heart itself will change color to a light link from dark red.  In those that show signs similar to colic there is the lack of gastrointestinal sounds, also some horses will begin to hyperventilate.  Some animals will attempt to lie down and will keep getting up until they are finally able to lie down.  Once

the animal is, down they tend thrash their legs and are quite alert and aware of the surroundings.   Shortly before death, the animal will begin to have trouble in breathing.

Other symptoms to watch for are horses that develop a form a form of anorexia, cardiac failure with signs of tachycardia, as well as myoglobinuria.  For animals that have died from rumensin, poisoning the necropsy showed the heart to have the look of meat that had been slowed cooked and then shredded.  The heart itself will change color to a light link from dark red.  Also seen during the necropsy was sign of pulmonary congestion. 

            In the animals that less severely affected there is the possibility for a partial recovery to begin within three to four days of the ingesting the monensin..  For most animals, death comes with the first twelve to twenty four hours.  For those that do survive there is still the possibility of death in the next few months due to complications from the poisoning, due to a weakened heart and respiratory system.  For animals that are repeatedly exposed to small doses, there is the potential for the animal to become listless, lose conditioning and for the hair coat to become rough.  Some animals become very nervous when they are handled and may start to drag their hind legs.

Older horses are less likely to suffer from the effects of rumensin poisoning because they will tend to avoid feed that has it in it.  Older horses have a more developed sense of taste; they are more able to determine bitterness than a young horse.  Younger animals tend to eat almost anything they can get into their mouths and chew.  If available older horses will eat pasture or hay until the only thing left is the feed that contains the rumensin additive, they will eat it as a last resource in order to keep from starving.

IV. Treatment and Recovery

            If there is no permanent damage done to the horses liver and heart there is the potential for a full recovery for that animal.  Unlike many of the diseases that affect horses there is no treatment for monensin poisoning, it can only be treated symptomatically. If there is damage to the heart or any other major organ of the body than the damage is permanent and cannot be healed, and is the damage is severe enough than the horses usefulness will be affected (Blake 36).  Young animals that have ingested monensin can have their growth stunted and become listless as they grow older.   Typically, death from monensin poisoning rarely affects just one animal, it tends to affect the entire herd of horses that have access to the feed. 

V.  Feed Label Requirements

            The United States Department of Agriculture requires all companies that manufacture feeds to print on there label what is in the feed.  Also, they must list the percentages of the additives that are placed in the feed.  Refer to Appendix B to see an example of the MFA feed label for rumensin.  Each label must also contain any warnings that may effect what animals maybe fed that mix.    It is important for all producers that may have both cattle and horses eating in the same area, that they read the label closely in order to prevent ionophore poisoning. 

            Any company that mixes feed that maybe harmful to different types of livestock must take great measures to be sure that cross contamination of the feeds do not occur.  Since the late nineteen seventies when monensin was first approved for use in livestock feeds there have been documented cases of where a feed manufacture has had cross

contamination of the feeds that they are producing.  It has either occurred from human error, and not checking to see all one product has been run threw before the next is started.  In most cases of this happening the mill started by running feed intended for use with beef cattle and failing to get the machine completely cleaned before starting a ration for horses.  During the first few occurrences people often mistook it for colic or similar gastrointestinal diseases.  Most mills tend to use whole a “cleaner” for their machines during the transition of one feed to the next.  In some of the plants located here in Missouri the owners will run feed with rumensin in it, and then turn around and start to run sweet feed or something that has whole or crimped corn ran into it.  Because of the size of the corn and the roughness of the seed coat it helps to gather what feeds have gotten caught in the crevices of the machine and flush it on into the system. The ideal situation for plants that make horse feed would be to have a separate system in order to blend, grind and form pellets of the feed.  But, do to the cost of the equipment most small mill operators are unable to do this.  In those cases they must be more careful to watch what feeds are mixed after each other.

People who face the greatest risk of exposing their animals to rumensin are those that buy their feeds from plants that do mill both cattle and horse feeds.  If a person is not familiar with rumensin poisoning or their veterinary is unfamiliar with the signs they have to look for things that have been changed in the horse’s diet in order to determine what is making the animal sick.  Veterinarians in the western portion of the United States where the first to start to recognize that the horses aliments where related to the feed that they where sharing with the herds of cattle.  One of the keys to rumensin is that it is not a

drug that will accumulate in the body of animals, which is why it has become so popular with cattle producers.  The producer does not have to worry about having to withdraw the animals from it for a period of time before selling the animal for slaughter.  Unfortunately for horses that are fed with cattle, it is the repeated expose that causes the long term damage or death of the animal.  A continual dosage of rumensin in horses causes greater internal damage to the horse’s systems. 

To summarize the key points of this rumensin is just the generic name for monensin and the two names are often interchanged with each other.  For people who own both horses and cattle and prefer to buy a feed that can be fed to both animals, the must remember to read the feed label and be sure that it is approved for all the animals that will be receiving it as a food source.  Animals that have been exposed to rumensin will never be the same as they were before the exposure.  

Works Cited

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?file=titles/Title11/T11CH13.htm

Jackson, N., Greer, W., and Baker, J. (2000).  Animal Health.  Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, Inc.

Lewis, L. (1995).  Feeding and Care of the Horse (5^th edition).  Media, Pa: Williams & Wilkins.

Perry, T., Cullison, A., and Lowery, R.  Feeds & Feeding (5^th edition).  Prentice Hall.

Pilliner, S. (1992).  Horse Nutrition and Feeding.  Blackwell scientific Publications.

Allen, D., Anderson, D., Jeffcoat, L., Quesenberry, K., Radostits, O., Reeves, P., and Wolf, A.  Merck Veterinary Manual (9^th edition).  Merck & Co., Inc.

Blake, L.  Rumensin: Death in a Feed Bag (1981).  Horseman 25, 33-40.

Zhang, W., and Reynolds, K.  MeaA, a Putative Coenzyme (2001). Journal of Bacteriology, 2071-2080.

Mollenhauer, H., Morre, J., and Rowe, L.  Alteration of intercellular traffic by monensin.  Science Direct.  www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.missouristate.edu/science

Chemical Sampling Information. OSHA.  www.osha.gov

Rumensin Dairy Pak. MFA Incorporated.

California's Prop 2 vs. Missouri's Prop B

By: Alison Bos

After personally witnessing the heated debate on Proposition B here in Missouri, curiosity inclined me to research California’s Proposition 2 from 2008. This particular proposition dealt with standards regarding the confinement of farm animals and was backed by organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States (Proposition 2- Standard for Confining Farm Animals, 2008). It appeared on the 2008 ballot in California and passed with 63.5% of the voters voting yes (YesonProp2.com is Available, 2008). With 2010 Election Day drawing near, people need to be aware of similar legislation in other states that have been introduced and passed. Even though California is hundreds of miles away, Missouri voters need to know what Proposition 2 means to the state of California and its agriculture industry.

So what is Proposition 2 exactly? When Proposition 2 was introduced, this question was presented. “Shall certain farm animals be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around?” (Proposition 2- Standard for Confining Farm Animals, 2008).  The proposition affects egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows and sets standards stating that these animals will have enough room to “lie down, stand, turn around and fully extend their limbs” (AVMA, 2008). From one viewpoint, this appears to be a fair proposition. Shouldn’t animals be able to perform these things? 63.5% of California voters thought so.

According to the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association website, Proposition 2 was a “landmark victory for animals” and will allow approximately 20 million farm animals freedom. Since this proposition passed, farm animal confinement regulations are going to be drastically changed. Beginning in 2015, state law will prohibit the full confinement (which means not being able to lie down, turn around freely, stand up and fully extend their limbs) of pregnant sows, veal calves and egg-laying hens (Proposition 2- Standards for Confining Farm Animals). This appears to have a positive impact on California agriculture. Or does it?

Now that I have shared the positive aspects of Proposition 2, I must present you with views coming from the opposing side. The American Veterinary Medical Association was a group that was against this proposition. They made this statement in a response to Proposition 2-

We are concerned that legislating isolated, arbitrary and emotion-based criteria to implement farm animal housing systems may actually do more harm than good for the well-being of the animals while compromising the sustainability of production systems that are essential to ensure we continue to have the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world (AVMA, 2008).

I chose this direct quote because it expressed concern about the welfare of farm animals, but also expressed concern about the potential results if the proposition was passed. The well-being of the farm animals would be threatened. For example, pregnant sows were specifically included in this proposition. Pregnant sows are put into crates for a reason (McGlone, 2001). Chickens are kept in confinement to reduce the exposure to outside sources of disease, which calls for safer eggs (Proposition 2- Standards for Confining Farm Animals, 2008). The main argument that I found on the Smartvoter and AVMA websites were that California already had pages of laws protecting animals from abuse. The point that I want to strongly state through these examples is that there are some legitimate reasons for practicing the housing methods of farm animals that farmers currently do. (Saying this, I do not support methods that are harmful to animals. I do believe some farming methods need to be improved and revised. If someone abuses an animal, they should be punished.) It is for these reasons that I express my concern about Proposition 2.

            Now that I have discussed the pros and cons of Proposition 2, I would like to point out some similarities between Proposition 2 of California and Proposition B of Missouri. First of all, they are both backed by animal rights organizations, especially the Humane Society of the United States (The Truth about Prop B, 2010). Also, just like California, Missouri has pages of regulations regarding the proper treatment of animals. Proposition 2 of California was very emotion-based. Supporters of Proposition B are using a similar approach. They have commercials showing innocent puppies and abused dogs. Whose heart would not soften when pictures of these dogs are displayed?

            After completing my research on California’s Proposition 2, I truly have a deep concern for Missouri’s Proposition B if it is passed. If a proposition that dealt with the treatment of animals was passed in California, that means a similar proposition in Missouri has the potential of being passed as well. Right now is a very crucial time for animal agriculture not only in states such as California and Missouri, but the entire United States. I am very curious and anxious to see if Missouri will follow in California’s footsteps. We will know for sure after Missouri voters decide on November 2^nd.

References

AVMA Concerned about California Ballot Initiative (2008, August 26). Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/x080915b.asp

McGlone, J. J. (2001). Alternative Sow Housing: Driven by legislation, regulation, free trade and free market systems (but not science). Thesis, Pork Industry Institute, Lubbock. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/pdf/bab13s03.pdf

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals (2008, November 4). Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/2/

The Truth about Prop B (2010). Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.thealliancefortruth.com/

Veterinarians and California’s Proposition 2: An Unprecedented Partnership (2008, November 5). Retrieved October 21, 2010, from http://www.hsvma.org/advocacy/news/veterinarians_and_proposition_2.html

Yes on Prop2.com Is Available (2008). Retrieved October 24, 2010, from http://www.ballotmeasuredomains.com/domains/yesonprop2com.aspx

To Graze or Not To Graze

By Jessica Sokolic

Can you imagine losing 157 million acres, covering 16 Western States, of public land used for livestock grazing in the United States? To give you an idea of the size of the amount of land I am talking about, know that the approximate total land mass of the state of Texas is a little over 167 million acres. This possible loss has become a largely debatable topic. A large group of people, led by radical environmentalists, have created the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign. This Campaign is focused on ending grazing on public lands by offering a grazing permit buyout program. The members of this Campaign believe that grazing livestock destroy natural ecosystems, take food away from and spread disease to natural wildlife, trample vegetation, spread invasive weeds and pollute water sources. They have taken these beliefs to Congress in 2005 in the form of the Multiple-Use Conflict Resolution Act (H.R. 3166), which never became law. They haven’t stopped there and are still fighting to end the use of grazing permits on public lands.

            The use of grazing permits found it’s beginnings as far back as the 1930’s. In response to the issue of overgrazing on Western public lands due to the homesteading era, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Taylor Grazing Act established the first regulated grazing districts and eventually led to the creation of the Bureau of Land Management in 1946. Within these grazing districts, grazing management practices, including the use of fences and water projects, were used to increase the production of the land and decrease the erosion of the land. Grazing management practices are continuously studied and upgraded by the Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Forest Service, to ensure the best and safest use of public land grazing.

            The National Cattleman’s Beef Association fears that by losing the use of grazing permits, not only will we lose valuable grazing areas that are essential to the cattle industry; we will lose the wide open spaces that the West has become known for. They worry that by buying out grazing permits and permanently retiring public lands from grazing, ranchers will be forced to downsize, selling land adjoining these public areas, bringing developments into the heart of the West’s wide open spaces. It is then feared that these developments will have a detrimental effect on established natural ecosystems, altering not only vegetation but also animals and their habitats. The National Cattleman’s Beef Association believes that well managed grazing can be very beneficial to the natural ecosystems of the West and evidence of this is shown by the awarding of the National Environmental Stewardship Award.

            The Environmental Stewardship Award Program, ESAP, has been honoring U.S. cattle producers who have shown outstanding efforts in conservation and land management for almost two decades. A recent winner of the 2009 award, Leavitt Lake Ranches of Vina, California, manages 25,000 acres of public land through the Bureau of Land Management grazing permits. Dave Petty, chairman of the Environmental Stewardship Award selection committee and 2001 award winner, made this statement in regards to Leavitt Lake Ranches, “The Leavitt [Lake Ranches] family has taken a leadership role through the cohabitation of endangered species and cattle. They show that cattle ranching supports these species better than non-use of the land” (Angus Journal).

The loss of 157 million acres of public land available for grazing will not only have a detrimental effect on the cattle industry, natural ecosystems and the vast open spaces of the West, according to a study done by the Society for Ranch Management, it will also have a big impact on ranching operations. In this study, interviews were done on 49 people, 33 ranchers and 16 agency personnel, in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Western United States. They were asked questions regarding their potential motivations for participation in a buyout program and potential consequences of the buyout program. Out of these 49 people, only 17% claimed that they would participate in such a program. The possible consequences of this program included substantially large financial, ecological and administrative costs.

If a program to buyout grazing permits and permanently retire public lands from livestock grazing were put into place, the livestock industry will lose a grazing area slightly smaller than the state of Texas. While the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will fight to make this happen, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association will fight to make sure that it doesn’t. Both sides offer arguments that are definitely worth consideration.

Sources

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ncba%20esap%2003.10.pdf

http://www.beefusa.org/govegrazingpermitbuyouts.aspx

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Statefacts/TX.HTM

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.2111/05-132R2.1?journalCode=rama

Antibiotics in Meat

Jerrid Cunningham

I have always wondered about the argument over antibiotics being used in meats. I had always heard that it was just to fatten up the cattle, and that none of the medicines could affect the consumer of the products. After reading an article by Ethan Huff, I found out that the USDA had gone in front of a committee and announced that by using antibiotics in cattle, for treatment of illness, or growing purposes, could lead to antibiotic resistance later down the road with the people that consume the antibiotic injected meat. Why have we all been told for so many years that there was no harm with injecting cattle with antibiotics for growth, if there has been signs that people are building up a resistance to other antibiotics due to the injections in the meat?

As a member of agriculture, I have always agreed with the injections, because I had never been told different about the outcome of the meat.  According to Des Moines Register report, John Clifford, who is the chief veterinarian for the USDA told the committee that the use of antibiotics in animals does lead to some cases of antimicrobial resistance among humans and in the animals. I do not agree with the injection of antibiotics in cattle, for growth purposes. I believe that the animal should grow at a normal rate, not be pumped full of drugs that in the end are hurting the consumer in the end.  I do believe in the use of antibiotics in cattle that are sick. If the animal needs treatment, that’s fine give them the dosage that they need and that is all.

Throughout Mr. Huff’s article he says that most conventional livestock operations are highly unsanitary, and the animals are raised within confined animal feeding operations. I do not agree with this statement. Yes there might be a few operators that run a filthy operation, but not all feedlots are run like the feedlot description in his article. Before you go saying that most of anything is being run bad, you should go around and check multiple operations.  

I found Mr. Huff’s words interesting, when he said that excessive use of antibiotics for both treating illness, and weight building has lead to the emergence of “super” bacteria that are resistant to many of the traditional antibiotics that Americans have been using for years. I could see how this information could be important. I feel that the antibiotics need to be administered correctly, and that the use of weight building antibiotics should be banned.

Resources:

http://www.naturalnews.com/029337_antibiotics_livestock.html

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-breaking-news/2010/07/15/hearing-examines-use-of-antibiotics-in-animals-and-impact-on-human-health.aspx

Trichomoniasis

Trichomoniasis or Trichs was an uncommon disease a few years ago.  Now it is fairly common.  “Trichomoniasis is a venereal disease of cattle characterized primarily by early fetal death and infertility, resulting in extended calving intervals” (Merck Veterinary Manual).  Trichs is caused by a protozoan and is found in the genital tracks of cattle.  An infected bull spreads the disease from cow to cow. 

“Bulls of all ages can remain infected indefinitely but this is less likely in younger males” (Merck Veterinary Manual).  Bulls older than 3 years tend to chronically have trichs.  Cows immune system will eventually destroy the protozoa but this process can take up to 20 weeks.  The immunity is very short lived so the cow can be reinfected. 

Bulls show no outward symptoms of the disease.  Cows on the other hand may have a white discharge but not in every case.  The most common sign is infertility within the herd.  Cows that should be pregnant are cycling again.  The reason for this is that the protozoa causes an abortion of the fetus a few weeks into the pregnancy.  Cows can have live calves while infected with trichs but it is very rare. 

There is a test to see whether the bulls are positive or negative.  The test involves putting a pipette up the bull’s sheath and scraping the interior.  Modern tests use PCR (polymerase chain reaction).  This method is faster and more effective at determining whether there is a trichs organism.  However there is no effective test for females. 

There is no safe and effective treatment.  The only way to control the spread of the disease is to cull the positive animals.  Trichs does not affect the meat of an animal in any way. 

http://cattletoday.info/trichomoniasis.htm

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-BE_cca/INF-BE_cca97/INF-BE_cca9706.html

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/depts_waddl/dx/trichomoniasis.aspx

http://farmtalknewspaper.com/editorials/x1941093352/Trichomoniasis-a-disease-to-watch-for

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/animpest/v1342w.htm

The New Beef?

By: Heather Hegel

As population continues to grow rapidly more and more people are becoming concerned with the idea that some day we will not be able to produce enough food to support ourselves. More people are going hungry every day. As the Malthusian catastrophe theory states, human population grows exponentially while agricultural production increases linearly. This is becoming more evident every day. Human beings are not yet at the maximum for agricultural productivity, as shown by the great distance between state record yields and state average yields, but it will come sooner than many of us think. Groups such as the United Nation realize this and are looking for creative ways to find sustenance.

                Recently the United Nations launched a campaign promoting the use of insects as a source of food worldwide.  Insects are actually very nutritious and a great source for cheap protein. In fact, a few small grasshoppers contain almost as much protein as ground beef.  It is also much less intensive and more cost effective to raise insects over cattle or hogs. It can be done on less land as well, making this absurd idea suddenly become more realistic.

                This is by no means a new idea, though. Human beings have been eating insects since we evolved. It is not unheard of even today in cultures around the world. In Mexico many rural families enjoy a mixture of roasted crickets and lime juice with other spices. They eat it on tortillas like we would beef.  In many countries in Asia fried grasshoppers are eaten. In Africa insects such as caterpillars, grubs, and termites are eaten to supplement protein. This is actually not that rare of an idea at all. In Canada, Montreal’s Insectarium hosts an insect taste testing event where insect dishes are prepared by top chefs. Many of the people who try insects there enjoy them.

                So are these insects really nutritional enough to replace meats like beef or chicken? 100g of small grasshoppers has 20.6g of protein, 36 mg Calcium, 5mg Iron, 238mg Phosphorus, 3.9g carbohydrates, 6.1g fat and 153 calories. A 100g serving of giant water bugs has 62 calories, 19.8g protein, 2.1g carbohydrates, 8.3g fat, 226mg phosphorus, 44mg calcium, 14mg iron, and 8.3g fat. Cicadas are high in protein, low in fat, and contain no carbohydrates.

                I shook my head in disbelief the first time I heard this idea. Eating bugs on purpose? No way. I had to look further into it. It turns out its actually quite realistic. I’m not saying that I could see myself eating cricket burgers for dinner, but for countries where finding protein is more of an issue, this could be a very beneficial program. It could help a lot of people get better nutrition at little cost to them.

Sources:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/360609/Thomas-Robert-Malthus

http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/special/creepy/#axzz12SL4Umuv

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/08/eat-the-beetles-with-special-bug-recipes.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_tvinsectfood.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0503_040503_cicadafeast.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/insects-as-alternative-food-a278697

Low Stress Cattle Corrals

Low Stress Cattle Corrals

By Rance Tanner Clark

            For all those farmers and ranchers out there that are looking into building new or updating their cattle corrals I would recommend watching a very influential movie first.  Last year a new movie came out called Temple Grandin.  Many people in Agriculture know that name, but if you don’t Dr. Temple Grandin is a designer of livestock handling facilities and a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University (2009,Grandin.com).  Dr. Grandin is a world leader in livestock handling and corral design.  According to the Committee for Sustainable Farm Publishing, over half of the cattle in North America pass through working facilities that she designed.  Dr. Grandin is autistic which allows her to see and think like a cow which in turn has helped her be more influential on livestock handling strategies.

            Thanks to Dr. Grandin we are now better able to understand cattle and therefore are able to develop working facilities that are more productive and less stressful.  Dr. Grandin has a web site called Grandin.com and at this site you can look at many corral designs and even shows their dimensions if you would like to build your own.  When you look at these designs you will notice a lot of curves and fences built on an angle.  Dr. Grandin was the one that discovered that cattle move better in circles, because they think that they are returning to the herd (2009, Grandin.com).  Knowing this, she made several designs that use tubs and curved alleys with various widths.  Doing this keeps the cattle moving forward and not bunching up which in turn makes a lower stressed working environment. 

            When you start planning your next corral system some things that you might keep in mind is start with the basics and then move forward.  If you work in a chronological order then I think that you will find that you’re next working system will work very nicely for you.  Where you will want to start with is where your cattle are coming from and where they are going.  After you have that figured out try to use curves and cattle flight zones to your advantage. Something that you might find helpful is in high traffic, high activity areas to use solid sides on your tubs and alleyways.  This will also be a good time to think about the chute and loading ramp placement.  After you have a good steady cattle flow, go back and put in your man gates and walkways.  If you keep cattle flow a first priority, then you will find that the cattle will work for you instead of you working the cattle.  By doing this it will lower cattle stress, speed up processing time, and make cattle working a much more enjoyable experience.                                                    

  

Work Cited

Grandin, Temple. "Livestock Behaviour, Design of Facilities." Temple Grandin's Web Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.grandin.com/>.

 "Low-Stress Livestock Handling." Ibiblio.org - Storytelling. Committee for Sustainable Farm Publishing, 1997. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.ibiblio.org/farming-connection/grazing/features/lowstress.htm>.

Let A Horse Be A Horse

By: Laura Correnti

Horse slaughter has been a hot topic in the United States for many years. There were three horse slaughter houses in the US that were closed in December of 2007; two in Texas and one in Illinois (American Veterinary Medical Association) . With the ban on horse slaughter in the US, more horses are being shipped to countries like Mexico and Canada for slaughter. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), since the closing of these plants in 2007, 45,000 horses were shipped to Mexico for slaughter which is a 312% increase over 11,000 horses shipped in 2006. With the ban on horse slaughter in the US and the risky travel to other countries for slaughter, many horses are finding themselves as “unwanted horses”. However, before owners consider shipping horses off for slaughter, they should look into other forms of euthanasia and other places to send them.

According to the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), an “unwanted horse” can be defined as “those no longer wanted by their current owners because they are injured, old, sick, unmanageable, or fail to meet the owner’s expectations.” The horses that fell into the unwanted category in 2007, were processed for slaughter in the US, shipped to Mexico or Canada for slaughter or were adopted (AAEP). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), funds long-tem sanctuaries for horses that are too old for adoption, feral, or neglected.  This is a good solution to keep horses out of slaughter houses but it comes at the cost of $38.8 million dollars a year to fund (BLM).

In the past when a horse was lame, old or generally unwanted the owner would send the horse off for slaughter. However, that is no longer the case because most owners are looking into different forms of euthanasia and disposal of their horses. Euthanasia can be termed as when a good death occurs with minimal pain and at the appropriate time in the horse’s life to prevent unnecessary suffering and pain (Lenz).  However, the request from the owner to end their horse’s life because they do not want it or cannot afford to take care of it anymore may not be an option in the future. Bans on putting a horse down because they are old and lame are in the talks because there is not a medical purpose to kill the horse, such as disease or infection (Lenz). This might shift the owners back to sending their unwanted horses to a slaughter house for money or just to get rid of them.

According to the AVMA, there are three ways to euthanize a horse; one is an overdose of barbiturates, two a gunshot between the eyes, and third a penetrating captive gun bolt (Lenz). For euthanasia described in method one, sodium pentobarbital is the most commonly used drug because it is fast acting and causes minimal discomfort to the horse. The drug is administered intravenously, depresses the central nervous system and causes unconsciousness which then progresses to respiratory and cardiac arrest (Lenz). The disadvantages of administering the drug are; the horse must be restrained, there are muscle spasms, gasping and vocalization that occur before death, and with the high level of barbiturates in the horses system disposal of the body is limited (Lenz). This also means that the horse cannot be sold as meat with the levels of barbiturates in its system making this method of death unacceptable in slaughter houses.

The physical methods of euthanasia are a gunshot and penetrating captive bolt, that both cause trauma to the cerebral hemisphere and the brainstem, resulting in immediate unconsciousness and a painless, humane death (Lenz). When using gunshot, the best site for penetration of the horse’s skull right between the eyes. The impact should be made perpendicular, where the gun is held horizontal in proportion to the horse’s vertical face, 2 to 6 inches away with a .22 caliber long rifle (Lenz). The penetrating captive bolt gun is either powered by gunpowder or compressed air that provides enough energy to penetrate the horse’s skull and cause trauma to the brain resulting in instantaneous brain death (Lenz). Both of these methods are used in slaughter houses and when they are preformed correctly there is no pain to the animal and it results in a humane death.

With the slaughter plants closed in the US, horses are being shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. The meat from these plants is then shipped to Europe and Asia for human consumption. The horse slaughter plants in the US were subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 which required the USDA to inspect all equines slaughtered and processed into products for human food (Congressional Research Service). The meat inspectors were also required to enforce the Humane Method of Slaughter Act that required livestock be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter (Congressional Research Service). With the slaughter houses following these rules to the letter, the horses were killed humanely and the meat was sold overseas. However, some of the slaughter houses in Mexico and Canada do not have the same rules and regulations the US does so who knows how the horses are treated there.

The best solution over euthanasia and slaughter is a retirement home for horses that are funded by private companies. Horses that are government property (seized by law enforcement and rescued by Humane Societies), old or were used in other programs can go to a retirement home for horses and live out their lives being a horse (Mill Creek Farm). The horses at these farms are put up for adoption and adopted by people that have a need for them. These farms are across the country and the adoption fees vary based on the horse. This is the best way to keep a horse alive and let them die from having too much fun with other horses.

References

Lenz, Tom R. DVM. The Unwanted Horse in the United States: An Overview of the Issue. May 2009. The Journal of Equine Science: Volume 29, Issue 5: pgs 253-258.

http://avma.org/

http://www.dcboa.com/

http://habitatforhorses.org/

http://millcreekfarm.org/

All Its Cracked Up To B?

All It’s Cracked Up To B?

Scott Mackey

Signage, letters to the editor, and television commercials abound; even on this blog, a solid article, all attempting to bring to light the many sided issues of Proposition B. The topic is so controversial because it’s both drastically good and devastatingly bad. No one likes the idea of mistreated animals, and few people like for the government to have much say in their business efforts.  Proposition B, also known as the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” sounds great on paper and on the commercials; but how is it going to work, and who might it hurt the worst?

            The first order of business in a topic such as this would be to read the legislation! So often in situations like this voters and contributors are lead to the slaughter because they listen to the hearsay information spewed by biased parties from both sides. Propaganda works because it moves people without them being fully aware of where they’re being herded. Propaganda, as it is so defined by animal wellness advocates, is passion without science. So, is there passion behind Proposition B? You had better believe it; but is there science? Well, kind of.

             Proposition B intends to regulate the fair treatment of animals; meaning that they will have the basic rights which animals deserve: food, water, shelter and room to play. These are all well and good but the argument doesn’t end there. Proposition B would also relegate the number of dogs a breeder could own and house to fifty animals. A secondary measure of the bill provides specific measurements for the size of kennels and pens for specific sizes of dogs. Also, the bill adds that the exercise area of each dog must be twice the area of their pens. (Missouri)

On the basis that this is a piece of state legislation, it is therefore an extension of the regulations proposed by our federal government, in this case the United States Department of Agriculture. Even more specifically, the legislation which defines the best general treatment for animals is the Animal Wellness Act (AWA), which is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.  The Animal Welfare Act clearly defines and regulates such animal husbandry processes as grouping, primary enclosures, outdoor housing, feeding, watering, exercise, cleaning of pens and even employee standards.(Department) Finding these standards to be quite strict and with the backing of the USDA, a department whose business is specifically related to the topic of Proposition B, a person can’t help to wonder why an animal would need states’ rights which are already guaranteed by the federal government.

The science necessary to alter the opinions of those farmers, ranchers and breeders who ask for a “no” vote on Proposition B has yet to be presented, or even really hinted at. There has been plenty of publicity however; and this publicity is very limited in information, but chalked full of pity. So, the people pushing for the “yes” vote on Proposition B ask us to go farther than what’s deemed adequate by the Federal government, for no reason backed by science. A person might very well conclude that people who support Proposition B wish to make it more difficult for the breeders, rather than making it easier for the animals. Also it might be pointed out, that in no way will Proposition B sincerely affect those people who don’t already operate within the law.

Who will enforce the legislation? Will the law breakers stand up and identify themselves; of course not, it will be those breeders who operate within the bounds of current laws who are impeded and who will have the size of their businesses and profits cut. More important for some is the question who will pay for this new enforcement? Will it be deemed the duty of the overworked police departments, or will it perhaps create new jobs in an already stressed state budget?

A few alternatives to Proposition B might be mentioned which are already in practice in several other states. First it should be mentioned that, just as with Proposition B, these all go beyond the bounds of what the AWA states is necessary. However, these other laws seem to be comprehensive to the scale of breeders rather than impedimentary. In Indiana, a regulation allows for several different divisions of breeder classification based on number of dogs. Colorado on the other hand has inspections based on risk related to the operation. So kennels with a higher number of dogs have a significantly higher rate of inspection. With these two alternatives in place of the ones suggested in Proposition B, it would be possible for breeders within the law to raise and sell as many dogs as they wish, as long as they are efficiently kept and proper licensing fees are maintained. (State) This change in legislation would accommodate large scale breeders and make a non-licensed operation open to state criminal charges.

A bit of propaganda to consider, if both sides of the Proposition B table would’ve committed the resources and man hours spent on campaigning for and against useless legislation, how many noncompliant breeders and “puppy mills” could’ve actually been found and shut down.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal and Animal Products. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Missouri Secretary of State (SOS). (2010). 2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri-Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders , 1. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from Missouri Secretary of State (SOS): www.sos.mo.gov

"State Puppy Mill Laws." Humanesociety.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/state_puppy_mill_laws.pdf>.

Missouri Black Bears

By: Adam Miller

Hunting bears is currently off limits. The population of black bears in Missouri isn’t large enough so they are still protected, but a new study might be changing that.

“So far, researchers have trapped 14 bears and put collars with GPS trackers on eight of them. The cooperative study between the conservation department and Missouri State University will continue into 2011 and will play a role in considering a hunting season for an animal that is currently off-limits, department spokesman Jim Low said.”

One thing to consider before hunting bears is when to do it. Around half the states in the US allow bear hunting but only a few allow a spring hunting season. Hunting in the spring can leave cubs to fend for themselves. While bears can survive, they will not have their mothers to teach them where to feed. If the bears don’t know their natural feeding grounds they may be urged to roam into populated areas to find easier food, such as garbage. Wandering bears would be contradicting the reason for the hunting in the first place. Bear hunting is done for the same reasons as other hunting, populations need to be controlled. Too many bears in one area can be detrimental to other species in the ecosystem, and if too many bears occupy the same territory they will again be forced to roam into populated areas to find food.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101003/NEWS01/10030350/State-tracking-black-bears

Service Animals

By: Dana Willis

What is a service animal?

According to the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA) a “service animal” is any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability.

Now, the rules have changed, and this will affect many with disabilities!

The new rule as of September 15, 2010, states that a “service animal” is now defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals.

There are many people with disabilities that use other animals rather than dogs as a service animal. This knocks out the use of helping hands monkeys, ponies, parrots, and many other animals.

One person that this will affect immensely is Ann Edie. She has a seeing eye pony named Panda that has helped her for many years. Tabitha will no longer be able to use her. She will now have to retrain and bond with a service dog, even tough ponies have a longer life span and are known to be smarter then dogs.

One other example would be Sandie, the African grey parrot, who helps Jim Eggers. Egger suffers from a bipolar disorder. His parrot Sandie, helps calm him down and helps him be able to go out in public place. Whenever Eggers starts to feel anxious or uncomfortable, Sandie talks to him and tells him it is going to be alright.

These are just a few examples and now that the rules have changed, these individuals will have to make big changes in their life. The changes will not be for the better and it will cause major tension on them and their once called service animals. They will have to go through a long process on finding a new animal, training it, and bonding with it. This is going to cause a major stress in their life and may cause them to not even go out in public.

For more information on service animals and ADA regulations:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98958273 http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/title2_factsheet.html

http://premierinc.com/informatics/tools-services/safety/topics/guidelines/downloads/20_animal-soar_00.pdf

Caged Egg Production

                                        By Derek Hedges

          The recall of over 550 million eggs for salmonella contamination recently from Wright county egg and Hallandale farms gave the humane society another chance to exhibit their biased views on modern agricultural production methods.  They used this incident to try and further their agenda of trying to do away with confinement animal production methods regardless of the cost or the true facts.  These methods have already been successful in getting California and Michigan to pass laws to begin phasing out caged egg production and other states are considering this.

        The humane society had two videos on their website, “High Risk Eggs.”  And “Animal Abuse at down egg factory.”   After watching these videos of supposedly normal cage egg production facilities I have a few thoughts that I would like to share.  I find the portrayed of these operations as to being very deceitful.  I have had the privilege to tour MO ARK’s egg production facilities in Neosho MO and found them to be just the opposite of what is portrayed in the videos.  The hens were healthy, fully feathered and well cared for.  Plenty food and water were always available for them.  Yes hens do sometimes die in the cage but hens raised free also die and any dead bird is quickly removed.  The human society want you to believe that the operation in the videos are normal, profitable one while anyone with knowledge of animal production knows that a healthy comfortable animal is much more profitable than a sick, uncomfortable one. 

                There also was no way to verify where these videos were shot.  It is apparent that they were probably shot at night due to how the lighting looks.  This would make one believe that these videos were probably shot without the knowledge or consent of the owners which means they probably shot without the knowledge or consent of the owners which means they probably trespassed to obtain the videos.  With the conditions in these videos so unlike the normal conditions of caged birds which are usually inspected on has to question whether these videos were even shot in the United States and the Humane Society should be pressed to provide proof of the location of these facilities.  This has the potential of causing problems for them the videos are identified as to location and they did not have permission to film on the property. 

References:

www.aeb.org/foodservice../egg.../facts-about-egg-production

http://www.uepcertified.com/media/pdf/UFP-brochure.pdf

http://www.helium.com/items/1934732-eggrecall-2010-samonella-found-iu-feed-ou-egg-farms-investigation-ongoing

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confiuement-farm/%22--------/vidieo/

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press-releases/2010/08/egg-recall