IPM in Aquaculture

by: Heather Hegel

Aquaculture was developed as a more sustainable way to raise fish for food. Since its development several issues concerning aquaculture have come about. One main problem is the bioaccumulation of compounds and elements such as magnesium, ammonia, and iron in these fish farms.

IPM is a program that has swept all of agriculture, including aquaculture. One IPM method in aquaculture is that of aquaponics. Aquaponics is the practice of hydroponically growing plants and rearing fish together in recirculating systems (Harmon). This cuts down on the fertilizer necessary for plants because the fish waste, when broken down, provides nutrients for the plants. The plants help by removing substances such as ammonia, phosphorous, and nitrate-nitrogen from the water, which can be harmful to the water quality for the fish. On top of the nutrition and cleaning benefits, this greatly reduces the space used, since it is acceptable to grow plants for human consumption on this system.

The plant, however, doesn’t always have to be to human consumption. It some cases, after the plants absorb nutrients they become food for the fish. This is apparent in integrated systems with tilapia and duckweed. Duck weed is a very small, fast growing aquatic plant with no leaf or stem structure that grows in thick mats on the water surface in ponds or streams with high organic matter (AquaSol).

Duckweed is introduced into the recirculating tilapia systems where it very efficiently absorbs excess nutrients, such as ammonia, zinc, and chlorine. If the system is designed properly, duckweed can absorb as much as 99% of these nutrients and dissolved solids (Aquasol). As the duckweed absorbs nutrients and gains in size, it is consumed by the tilapia. This is a very sustainable system and can even be considered natural.

In Walt Disney World in Florida tilapia are grown beneath leafy greens such as lettuce. This nutrient recycling reduces the need for fertilizer for the plants and filters the water for the fish.

There are many examples of integrated aquaculture out there, and more and more are being developed every day. IPM in other areas of agriculture has been being studied for some time now. It seems the use of IPM in fish farming is a relatively new idea. I believe we have a lot more IPM advances to look forward to in the field of aquaculture.

Sources:

http://www.fishfarming.com/duckweed.html

https://www.was.org/meetings/AbstractData.asp?AbstractId=7933

http://www.aquaponics.com/

http://www.growingedge.com/tag/aquaponics

http://inhabitat.com/2007/07/26/mickey-mouse-sustainable-farming/

Thanksgiving Turkey

By: Weston Paulik

      Thanksgiving is right around the corner and many people are getting ready for a great meal that will include foods like yams, corn, mashed potatoes and gravy, and of course a turkey. Often times many people have no idea where that turkey came from or who raised the turkey they are eating. During the summer of 2009 I had the opportunity to work on a turkey farm and to help raise turkeys just like the one you are going to eat for Thanksgiving. Confinement turkey farming is a misunderstood industry and turkey farmers are often depicted as bad people who do not care about their animals at all. I am here to tell you that is not an accurate perception of turkey farmers. Turkey farming also has some areas that it could work on to make conditions better for animals and workers.

The first area in confinement turkey operations that many people do not like is the fact that the birds are confined to a building. According to PETA “Before ending up as holiday centerpieces, these gentle, intelligent birds spend five to six months on factory farms, where thousands of them are packed into dark sheds with no more than 3.5 square feet of space per bird.” PETA does make a valid point that each bird is only allowed about 3.5 square feet. According to my math a 750 foot long by 50 foot wide grow out barn is 37,500 square feet. Assuming there are 10,000 birds in the barn that equals out to 3.75 square feet per bird. That does not sound like a lot of room to most people, but one thing to remember is that turkeys prefer to live in a flock. I remember the first time I walked into a barn I thought “man these turkeys really are just crammed in here”, then when I got to the other side of the barn there was a maximum of five turkeys in the last fifty or sixty feet of the building. I found this odd that the turkeys would choose to literally be on top of each other when there was plenty of room at the end of the barn. It was exactly the same temperature from one side of the building to the other, the feed line ran the entire length of the building and there was plenty of access to water at that end of the building. After talking to several turkey farmers about why the birds cram in together, they explained to me that it is probably due to the fact that turkeys are an animal that tends to flock together. According to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology “several hens and their broods may join up into bands of more than 30 birds. Winter groups have been seen to exceed 200.” This is actually describing wild turkeys, but couldn’t domestic birds have the same flocking behavior. It actually makes sense that the turkeys would flock together, as there is safety in numbers. Another point that PETA makes is that “Turkeys won't have the opportunity to breathe fresh air or feel the sun on their backs until they're shoved onto trucks bound for slaughter.” While they may not get to feel the sun on their backs they do have the opportunity to breathe fresh air. The barns have large curtains on the side and once the turkeys are old enough that they can handle cooler temperatures the farmer lowers the curtains to allow fresh air in the building. In fact on hot days I preferred to be inside the grow out barns working, they are designed to allow air to flow through them and even if there was not a breeze the fans kept the air moving.

According to animal rights organizations confinement turkey operations do not allow turkeys to be turkeys. What I mean by that is that the turkeys cannot run, or fly or do things that they normally would if they were outside. From my personal experiences I can tell you that domestic turkeys can and do run. When I would walk through the barns the hens would chase after me; I have also seen turkeys chase each other around the barn. I have actually been chased out of a barn by a territorial tom (a male turkey), so believe me when I say they can run. Turkeys on confinement operations can also “dust”, which is when the turkeys get down and basically roll around in the dirt. According to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department “dusting” may be a way for turkeys to deal with parasites. This is a natural behavior and I have seen wild turkeys “dusting” on several occasions. Confinement raised birds may have limited opportunities to roost; it depends on who is raising them. Roosting is when turkeys fly up into a tree or other high area to sleep. While there are no trees in turkey barns, I have seen turkeys climb on top of the feed lines or even onto ladders and vehicles left in the barn. Some farmers run a strand of electric fence on the feed line to keep birds from roosting on it. Using electric fence to keep birds off the feed line sounds cruel, but they are expensive to fix and the weight of several turkeys can cause the feed line to collapse. In my opinion some kind of provision should be made to allow the turkeys to roost and get up off the ground if they choose to do so. Turkeys also have plenty of opportunity to eat insects like they would in the wild. It goes without saying that there are lots of insects in turkey barns so the birds have plenty of opportunity to look for and eat insects. It can actually be quite comical watching turkeys chase after flies, especially when five or ten of them decide to chase one fly across the barn.

Turkey farming does not come without some problems and there are practices that I do not agree with. One of these is how “cull birds” (birds that are sick, injured, or that will be rejected for some reason) are dispatched. There are two methods that are considered acceptable in the confinement poultry industry. One method is breaking the animal’s neck. In order to do this you grasp the head with one hand and the body with the other, then twist its head until your hear a the neck break. If done properly the animal dies in seconds and will not feel anything. This method is primarily used on small birds while they are in the brooder house. The second method is using either a piece of wood or plastic and hitting the bird in the head. This method is not always effective, and in my opinion it can be cruel. Cargill Turkey Products puts a poster up in the barn that shows how to dispatch the birds and it also has written instructions on how to do it. The poster also says the method of dispatching the bird cannot draw any blood.  If this is going to be the industry standard, they should train the producers and their employees on the best and quickest methods of dispatching the birds instead of just giving them a poster.

While confinement turkey farming does have its problems, it is a viable and ethical form of agriculture. Turkeys raised at confinement operations are safe to eat and they are treated very good. Hopefully the industry will continue to come up with ways of raising turkeys and keeping the things safe for the birds and employees at the farm.

Sources Cited

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Wild Turkey Life History. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds. Cornell University, 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wild_Turkey/lifehistory>.

PETA "Turkeys Used for Food." Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/turkeys.aspx>.

"Eastern Wild Turkey Fact Sheet." Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Vermont Fish and Wildlife, 2004. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/turkey_facts.cfm>.

Agriculture Future of America Leaders Conference

Claire Dohmen

Agriculture Future of America Leaders Conference (AFA) is a four day conference dedicated to the education of agricultural majors throughout the country.  I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to go.  We spend four days discussing the issues and problems facing the agricultural industry will.  Not only do we talk about the issues but we also discuss how to handle them.  Every situation is different and agriculture is the underdog, so we need know and understand the facts.  Like all conferences there were some fascinating times and some boring times.  I wanted to highlight two of the speakers who I think are most prevalent to this blog. 

Charlie Arnot from the Center for Food Integrity spoke on what agriculture needs to do to improve our image. 

Agriculture needs to be ethically grounded, scientifically verified, and economically viable.  Producers and farmers need to tell the public they care by reinforcing what is important to the consumers.  We, as agriculture, also have to depend on the practical side of people as well.  Producers and farmers take care of the land and animals because that is when we get the best return on our investment. We have to remind the public that we comply with all the environmental regulations and laws.  The agricultural industry has made strives with technology: producers and farmers have tractors with low emissions, we use no till practices to lower erosion, we minimize waste runoff, and that’s just a few examples.  We also have an ethical obligation to consumers, employees, and the environment.  The public forgets that people farm and produce cattle.  We, as agriculture, are one of you. 

~ My personal observation of Charlie Arnot

with the Center for Food Integrity

The second speaker was Daren Williams from the National Cattlemen’s Association.  He spoke on the distance between consumers and producers. 

Agriculture in general needs to own up to what we have done.  Our consumers have been distanced from the farm which means they don’t understand why we do the things we do.  We have to be able to explain what we do and why.   There is a disconnect between the consumer and producer that needs to be rectified.  Agriculture has stopped listening to the consumer and we need to start again.

Producers don’t let anyone in anymore.  We have lost our transparency so it looks like we are being secretive even when we aren’t.  Agriculture has become very suspicious of everyone because of everything that has happened.    We don’t trust the people and the people don’t trust us.  We need to start from scratch, and find common ground again. 

Change in agriculture comes in the form of regulations. We don’t implement change because agriculture is a conservative industry.  But we need to learn to respond to the change and explain our standpoint.  We need to learn to stick together and work together.  We are a individualized industry and we need to form a community. 

Our enemies have grown clever, they twist truths and don’t tell the whole story.  Agriculture is left to finish telling the story so that everyone knows the truth. 

 ~ My personal observation of Daren Williams 

with the National Cattlemen’s Association

Williams and Arnot make good suggestions but we, as agriculture, have to start implementing them.  We need to go on the offense and get the information out there so that the truth is accessible to the general public.  We have started a movement throughout agriculture and everyone is joining in and taking the initiative.   At the AFA conference 500 college students from around the nation came together to learn about the issues facing agriculture and what we need to do to solve them.  At Missouri State in the Agriculture department students are doing this everyday.  We have started and that is half the battle, now we just have to keep going. 

Management of America’s Wild Horse population

By Derek Hedges

The wild horse, what vision of America’s frontier past is more symbolic.  Who amongst us can not remember watching classic western of the American cowboy in or childhood.  The wild horse herd is one of the few remaining direct living links with the western frontier and all its history.  Unfortunately, the maintaining of these herds and their management has become an issue between horse lovers and the Bureau of land Management, the government agency directed by a law in 1971 to manage the wild horse herd.

                Wild horse herds are found on scattered public lands throughout the western United States.  Wild horse activist believe that they should be allowed to roam and breed at will and that any capture for adoption should be returned to their range if not adopted within a given time frame.  They also think that grazing permits for other livestock on public lands held by ranchers should be reduced to allow for all wild horses.  Under no circumstances do they feel wild horses should be killed.

                The Bureau of Land Management was designated by a 1971 law to oversee the management of the nation’s wild horse herd and its 20 million acres of habitat.  They are also required to keep herd under certain population to protect the habitat of public lands and to keep the horses healthy.  The 108th congress authorized the Bureau of Land Management to sell any wild horses caught and not adopted to be sold without restrictions.

                The area of conflict is the Bureau of Land Management will remove excess horses to achieve a herd with the desired management level for an area.  The wild horse herd grows at an annual rate of 20% therefore many horses must be removed and sent to holding pens for adoption, unfortunately many horses are not adopted and a General Accounting Office Report in 2008 found that the Bureau of Land Management had a budget of $64 million and spent $37 million of this to hold captured animals.  This is not sustainable.  It is also not possible to just reduce the number of other livestock grazing on a permit because they are not on the land year round and horses are which allows them to due greater harm to the habitat.

                One can see that this is an issue that has no answer that will completely satisfy both sides.  The wild horse activist has a vision of keeping most of these wild herds virtually untouched by outside forces.  The Bureau of Land Management however, must face the reality of a limited amount of financial and physical resources.

                I believe that the Bureau of Land Managements actions on this matter are the more realistic.  Virtually no wild animal in the United Sates on public lands is allowed a population increase that damages its habitat.  Horses running on land will do more damage then permitted grazing animals that are not there all through the season so decreasing these permits is not a long term solution.  The wild horse activist needs to work with not against the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that Americas wild horse herds are sustained at a manageable level.  Other options to control the herd need to be found.  These wild horses are truly a link to Americas past and it’s really important to find a solution to manage them in a sustainable way.

work Sited

http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/1/11223/pid/11223/accessed11-10-10

http://www.katu.com/news/106886403.htmlaccessed11-10-10

http://www.blm.gov.nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blmprograms/wild_horses_and%20_burros/calico_moutains_complex.htmlaccessed11-10-10

Pet Therapy, Does it actually work?

By Dana Willis

What is pet therapy? Does it actually work? Why is it necessary?

These are all great questions but some are hard to answer and many will have different opinions about this subject. Pet therapy is a wonderful thing and it helps provide security and comfort to people in many ways.

Pet ownership, has shown to reduce stress, requires less medical care, adds years to your life, and people just enjoy life more. Pets make individuals take care of them, its gives them something to live for when they have suffered through so much, like cancer, a death, a divorce, and many other things. 

Research has shown that heart attack victims that have pets live longer, and even just watching a tank of fish swim around may help lower blood pressure. Pets let us be ourselves around them, animals don’t care what we look like or make fun of us, and they just love and accept us for who we are. Animals bring out the nurturing instinct in our bodies.

These animals that are trained and put into pet therapy are wonderful animals. They are very well behaved and are trained by certified companies or individuals. There are so many amazing stories about pet therapy animals, helping different people and patients. They bring so much joy to so many individuals. There are so many great results, and they are increasing everyday! Improving ones social, emotional, physical, and cognitive well being are just a few things pet therapy animals due.  

Pets truly help heal all different kinds of patients, especially elderly people suffering from loneliness. Pets take peoples mind of what they are truly sad or lonely about, and cause laughter and a sense of security at times. Animals are very loving creatures they can take someone’s focus off what they are suffering from and put it on them.

For more information;

http://www.holisticonline.com/stress/stress_pet-therapy.htm

http://www.sniksnak.com/therapy.html

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/helps-119059-pet-spectrum.html

Yummy Antibiotics

By: Laura Correnti

There has been a lot of talk about antibiotic use in meats these days and how humans are becoming resistant to certain types of bacteria because of the use of antibiotics in meat. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are strongly urging meat producers to cut back on how much antibiotics they give to their animals (CBS News). However, does it matter if there are antibiotics in meat or not? Now a days, it seems if a person goes to the doctor with a sore throat and a runny nose, the doctor will prescribe antibiotics to clear it up when simple vitamin C and rest will work. So who is really responsible for the antibiotic resistance in the humans?

The FDA says that antibiotics are “posing a serious threat to human health”, so farmers should cut back on their antibiotic use in animals only giving them when they are sick and under the supervision of a veterinarian (CBS News). That could be a good idea, but what farmer can afford to pay the veterinarian bill every time one of his cows went down. According to the Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, the average income of a farmer is 27, 375 and with a eight dollar veterinarian house call bill plus medicines for every time a animal goes down is far too much for a farmer with a limited income (Sanford and Luther).

There are programs that allow the use of antibiotics for both subtherapeutic and therapeutic treatment purposes in pork that requires producers to follow label directions and withdrawal use of antibiotics before slaughter (Iowa State). No subtherapeutic after the pigs are 40-100 lbs allows the use of antibiotics in young pigs solely to enhance production and to treat disease (Iowa State). With this program the levels of antibiotics in feed decreases and allows for a 60-days withdrawal and the half-life of the antibiotics results in meat that is completely free of antibiotics at slaughter (Iowa State). The program is very vigorous and requires the producer to pay attention to outside diseases and managing stress. Without the introduction of new pathogens into the farm from visitors and keeping the pigs comfortable and free of stress then the program works great and there is no antibiotics in the meat to be passed to humans.

Antibiotics and antimicrobials are an important and necessary tool that when used correctly can protect the well being and health of an animal. For cattle, keeping the cows healthy is a must since many feedlots and pastures share a common water hole and feed troughs. If one cow is sick all the cows can become sick. National Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) programs support the use of antibiotics and antimicrobials if they are used so that the animal is treated properly and the antibiotics are not being over used (Peck). The BQA says that antibiotics are okay to use if they aren’t important in human science and to use a narrow spectrum of antimicrobials whenever possible (Peck). Also, antibiotics should be limited to prevent or control disease and should not be used to improve performance.

The repercussions of not using antibiotics in livestock are too great. There are too many diseases that affect livestock not using antibiotics when necessary could kill off a whole herd. Some diseases include contagious bovine pleuropnemonia, foot-and-mouth disease, and black leg (Phillips et al). Diseases like these can be treated with antibiotics and if they are not treated right away then they can spread and infect other members in the herd. Using antibiotics is the best route when protecting a herd from spreading disease. Antibiotics can be given shortly after birth and then given as boosters to prevent infection (Phillips et al). 

Antibiotics are useful drugs. They prevent infection and can keep animals healthy when they are used properly. If antibiotics are used properly they are out of an animal’s system before slaughter and are at little risk to humans. Antibiotics are used to keep animals healthy, they may enhance the size of the animal but that is the last thing on a farmers mind. A farmer would want five healthy moderate cows than one super beefy cow.

Citations

Peck, Clint. Prudent Use of Antibiotics in Beef Production. Montana State Univeristy. 29 Sept 2009. http://beef.unl.edu. 

Phillips, Ian, Mark Casewell, Tony Cox, Brad DeGroot, Christian Friis, Ron Jones, Charles Nightingale, Rodney Preston and John Waddell. Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Issue 53; 28-52. 4 Dec 2003. http://jac.oxfordjornals.org.

Sanford, Scott and Luther Tweeten. Farm Income Enhancement Potential For Small, Part-Time Farming Operations In East Central Oklahoma. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. Dec 1988. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu.

http://www.cbsnews.com

http://www.ipic.iastate.edu

The Branding Iron

The Branding Iron

            The branding iron is the permanent cowboy trademark.   Cattle branding has been around for thousands of years and it is a tool that ranchers use to show ownership of an animal.  Using a branding iron to mark ownership has been around for at least 4,000 years.  There have been inscriptions in Egyptian tombs found that showed branded cattle as early as 2,000 B.C.  Branding is one of the oldest and most permanent ways to identify cattle.  The International Livestock Identification Association considers livestock brands to be as important as the return address on an envelope (Missouri Department of Agriculture).

            Branding in America was adopted from Mexico where Mexican ranchers would mark their cattle with a brand that was their family coat-of-arms.  Today brands can mean several different things.  They might be a part of a name or maybe just a unique design. According to a website called kids cowboy by John R. Craighead Company, Inc., the following is a good rule of thumb on how to identify and read a brand today:

Brands are read from left to right, from the top down, or from outside inside. A definite method of identifying characters has been established. If a letter or symbol is made backwards from its normal position, it's read as a “reverse F” or whatever other letter it might be.  A letter partially over on its face or back is said to be “tumbling.”  If a letter lies horizontally on its face or back, it is called “lazy.”  Letters with a curving flare at the top and rounded angles are called “running."  Adding a dash to the left and one to the right at the top, you have a "flying" letter.  Add legs and it becomes a “walking” letter.  A letter placed so that the bottom touches the inside of a curve is said to be “rocking.”  Curves not attached to letters are known as “quarter circles” or “half circles,” depending on the arc. Letters or symbols formed together are called “connected,” except when one is below the other, then the lower symbol is said to be “swinging.” In registering brands, owners sometimes omit the “connected” or “swinging”.  Besides the traditional letter and figure brands, there are some marks known as “character brands.”  Common picture brands are the pitchfork and the key. The reading of picture brands depends upon the owner’s interpretation, and it takes an expert to identify some of the more complex brands.

            Today there are thousands of cattle brands registered in the United States.  After you have a brand registered under your name it is your responsibility to make sure the brand is applied properly and is readable.  A Brand is applied to the skin when it is hot, about the color of the fire ashes that you might use to heat your iron.  Red hot irons are to hot and will over burn the animal and make a poor brand.  A good iron’s letters will be around one-quarter inch thick and about four inches tall, so it can retain the heat as you are using it and make a legible brand.  For about the last 20 years or so they have started to make electric branding irons that do a great job of retaining the proper heat and work well for fast multiple brandings where electric is accessible.

            Branding practices have recently been questioned concerning hide damage.  Branding cattle damages the quality of the hide that may be later used for leather goods.  A study done by the National Animal Health Monitoring System in 1992-93 and determined that there is a deduction in price on hides that have been branded, how much depends on brand location.  Cattle branded on the rib cage lost on average $13 per hide.  Cattle branded on the hip or shoulder on lost $9 on average.

            In all states brands must be recorded in the state that they are going to be used in so no others can us that same brand.  Once that brand is recorded it provides ownership and is considered legal evidence in a court of law.  In the state of Missouri and most other states a individual can apply for a new brand or a brand that has not been in use for at least five years.  The state will reject any brand that is the same as a brand that is already registered within the state.   The brand will be assigned one of three spots the hip, rib, or shoulder of the right or left side; If the brand is not in the correct spot than it cannot be enforced.  In the state of Missouri it is a felony to brand someone else’s animal or to deface or obliterate any livestock brand.  It is also illegal to brand any livestock with a brand that has not been properly registered within the state.  Livestock can also be branded and many times are branded with numbers for identification purposes within the herd.  Brands that are used for identification with in the heard are not registered and therefore cannot be considered proof of ownership and will not hold up in the court of law.

            Once the brands are recorded by the Missouri Department of Agriculture they are considered personal property of the owner.  Brands can be sold or transferred but must be registered under the new ownership of the brand.  Within the state of Missouri brand registration fee is $35 and transfer fee is $10.  Once you own your brand it is good for five years before it needs to be renewed.  Currently in the state of Missouri there are around 5,000 brands recorded.

                                                 Work Cited

Agriculture, M. D. (2010). Livestock Branding. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from http://mda.mo.gov/animals/livestockbranding.php

Branding Practices in Beef Cow/Calf Heards. (1993). Retrieved November 8, 2010, from www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/CHAPA_is_Branding_pdf

Craighead, J. R. (n.d.). The History of Cattle Brands and How to Read Them. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.kidscowboy.com/cattle-brands.html