Read weekly blogs of Missouri State Ag students perspective on the Animal Welfare/Animal Rights debate

Monday, November 8, 2010

Missouri Elk Restoration

Missouri Elk Restoration
Scott Mackey

At what point do you stop reaching back into the past, dragging those things that have gone before back into the present? This is a serious question when it comes to the conservation of wildlife, and one that is hotly debated every time a new candidate for reintroduction or management comes to light. The newest issue in Missouri, and one which is now scheduled to take place, is the reintroduction of Cervus Canadensis, or Elk. Elk have been missing from the Missouri Ozarks since they were hunted to extinction in the area around 1865. (Elk) In the last ten years there has been an influx in interest concerning the reintroduction of a small population of these deer; it was met with both positive and negative opinions. In an interest to the animal welfare of these animals as well as those they might interact with the restoration plans put forth by the Missouri Conservation Commission must be reviewed.
            The first important feature of the proposed plan concerning the wellness of the animals, and the wellbeing of humans and their possessions as well is the location of the proposed restoration area. The area, located in 3 southern counties of Missouri, is 79% public land or privately owned land open to the public. Also, the proposed area encompasses 346 square miles of which there is only 33 miles of paved highway. This area therefore limits the amount of effect the Elk might have by encroaching on livestock as well as the danger to motor vehicles and drivers. This increases the animal’s ability to live naturally without much interference from humans outside of the restoration program.
            The best measure the program is taking to improve the wellness of the animals though is a soft release and two tests for illness. The soft release consists of a period of time in large pens to acclimate the Elk to their new Missouri habitat. The testing for illnesses takes place in both the donor state and in Missouri, assuring that no disease is present at the time of capture or acquired in transport. These two measures assure a relative amount of comfort for the animals which obviously contributes to their overall wellness.
            Proponents of the Missouri Elk Restoration Program are generally those people who like to see things put back into place. People who pride themselves on returning our fair Ozarks to the way they once were. Those who are generally against the plan are those with agriculture interests who deem the Elk to be competition to their livestock or pests to their crops. The Conservation Commission has taken great steps in their planning to monitor the Elk and their travel and also, if it happens to occur, to assist landowners with damages caused by the Elk wandering prior to their removal and transportation back to the defined Elk range. With the program being effectively and stringently carried out I believe the wellness of the animals will be top quality and the people will appreciate the returning of a native to the Ozarks.
Works Cited
1.)    "Elk Restoration in Missouri." MDC.MO.GOV. Missouri Conservation Commission, 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.<http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/10/elk_restoration_in_missouri_commission_report_oct_1_20101_0.pdf>.
2.)    "Missouri Elk Reintroduction Feasibility Study." Missouri Department Of Conservation. Missouri Department Of Conservation, Nov. 2000. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/159.pdf>.
3.)    "Over 100 attend public meeting in Van Buren on elk reintroduction." Southeast Missourian. Ed. Paul Davis. N.p., 26 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2010. <http://www.semissourian.com/story/1659289.html>.



Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Trick-or-Treat: Food Monsters

By Emily Grady

Halloween is one of the best holidays of the year for children. Kids get to dress up in fun costumes, listen to ghost stories, and eat lots of candy! Parents usually tell terrifying stories about the evil cavities that may ensue if their children eat all their candy and dentists hand out toothbrushes. However, there’s a new boogeyman on the block this year and he’s dressed: as a food activist?

With the clamor about children’s health and the obesity rate in American children being almost twenty percent it is inevitable that this topic would come up near Halloween, which is one of the least healthy holidays of the year (CDC, 2010).  In the past the food boogeyman has put a hex on products like high fructose corn syrup, soda and other sweet sensations.

There is a cloud of misconception that concerns high fructose corn syrup. As it states in its name, it is made from corn. What could possibly be scary about corn? It is used in all sorts of products, but somehow it has been determined that it is the creeper in the closet making American children fat. However, as always science tends to ruin the mystique concerning these myths. This time the mythbuster was the American Medical Association who stated, “it does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners (AMA, 2008).” The American Dietetic Association also chimed in saying, “Most scientific experts now agree that high fructose corn syrup and sucrose produce similar effects on human metabolic responses (ADA, 2008).” Well now the boogeyman is out of the closet, but as we all know, there might be a monster under the bed as well.

The monster under the bed in this case is soda.  Somehow this innocent and refreshing beverage is spewing a blood bath the likes of which have only been seen in movies. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the help of his cohort New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley have launched a war against food and drink with soda at the center of it. It’s a blood bath the likes of which only Freddy and Jason could have attained. But these two manage to make soda consumption more gruesome than eating maggots on a ghost ship.  Last year the New York City health department launched an advertisement comparing drinking soda to drinking liquid fat (NYC Health, 2010). However, their advertisement was about as realistic as Frankenstein’s monster. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by six Harvard doctors surveyed over 14,000 American children and concluded that their data “did not offer support for the hypothesis that snacking promotes weight gain (NEJM, 2007).”

Unfortunately, these monsters are nothing compared to aliens! It seems that all we hear these days is that the American people need to go green, well personally when I think of green people I think aliens. In the movies brainwashing is a very popular tactic used by the aliens, as it seems to be in real life as well. Organic food groups have pushed for years saying that their product is healthier and doesn’t have the toxins that commercial agriculture leaves on the food. However, this statement is absurd as Lady Gaga’s fashion statements. In the words of Roberta Flack, chemicals in food are not “Killing me Softly.”

Organic food promoters such as the popular restaurant Chipotle promote “food with integrity.” They prefer using “meat from animals raised without the use of antibiotics or added hormones…organic and local produce…and dairy from cows raised without the use of synthetic hormones (Chipotle, 2010).” This sounds so healthy, but I dare you to eat an organic apple without washing it first, who knows maybe the apple Snow White ate was organic. The Food Standards Agency in Britain released a review earlier this year concerning the nutritional differences between organic and conventionally produced food which found “that there are no important differences in the nutrition content of, or any additional health benefits deriving from, organic food when compared with conventionally produced food (FSA, 2010).”

The difference between conventionally produced food and organic food is that organic food is supposedly pesticide free. However, if organic producers can’t use pesticides then what do they do to keep pests out of their crops? Well here’s a real fright, Guatemalan coffee farmers sometimes use fermented urine to deter pests (Avery, 2001). I hope you enjoy that hot cup of coffee because I think it’s a bit too “natural” for my taste.

As we learned in “War of the Worlds” one of the most unique things about this planet is its bacteria. As humans we have had to adapt to the climate and as such our bodies have become pros at removing toxins. Our livers and kidneys were specifically engineered to filter toxins out of our body. The world is full of toxins that we come into contact with every day. We shouldn’t be worried about eating high fructose corn syrup and drinking soda, we should be exercising and making sure we get plenty of sleep, ironic coming from a college student I know. Vegetables are not to be feared and “The Day of the Triffids” is not coming.

This Halloween we should have a clear conscience about eating that ever so delicious Snickers bar and handing out candy to trick-or-treaters. Who wants to be known as the neighbor giving out the raisins? Although, that neighbor handing out rice cakes and tofu may get a few extra eggs with their breakfast the next morning, unfortunately they will probably be on his house.  Either way eating healthy is a great goal to have, but just because there is a stereotype surrounding a type of food does not mean it is true.  Research food correctly and read labels for more than the calories alone. And for all those who still love organic food I suggest you watch the movie “Motel Hell,” that is some truly “all-natural” sausage they make!


ADA. 2008. “High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Status.” American Dietetic
Association. http://sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/
ADAHotTopicHFCS.pdf

AMA. 2008. “AMA finds high fructose syrup unlikely to be more harmful to health
than other caloric sweetners.” American Medical Association.
http://sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/AMARelease6-17-08.pdf

Avery, Alex. 2001.  “The Deadly Chemicals inorganic Food.” New York Post.
            http://www.cgfi.org/2001/06/the-deadly-chemicals-in-organic-food/

CDC. 2010. “Childhood Overweight and Obesity”. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html

Chipotle. 2010. “Food with Integrity?” Chipotle. http://www.chipotle.com/
en-US/fwi/fwi.aspx

Christakis, Nicholas A. and James H. Fowler. 2007. “The Spread of Obesity in a Large
Social Network over 32 Years.” N Engl J Med 2007; 357:370-379
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082

FSA. 2010. “Systematic review of differences in nutrient content of organically and
conventionally produced food.” Food Standards Agency.
http://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/choiceandstandardsresearch/
consumerchoicestandards/l01list/organicreview/

NYC Health. 2010. “Pouring on the Pounds.” New York City Department of Health
              and Mental Hygiene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F4t8zL6F0c


Monday, November 1, 2010

Confinement Housing in Swine

            Stephanie Lacy

         Farm animal welfare has recently come to the public’s attention. Many are claiming that the animals are treated cruelly and inhumanely. Much of the current focus is on confinement housing systems in poultry, swine, and veal calf production (Swanson, 1995). A confinement housing system is one in which many animals are kept in small pens in very close quarters. Systems like these have many benefits, some examples include: higher production, elimination of parasites, and a cheaper production rate. Initially they were designed for the comfort of both the pigs and their handlers during extreme weather conditions (Extension, 2001).
            Farrowing crates, small pens used to house sows during the birthing and raising process of their piglets, have recently been banned in many places. Such places include the United Kingdom, the European Union, and even the states of Florida, California, Arizona, and Michigan (DEFRA, 2009). Animal activist groups such as the humane society of the United States (HSUS) and people for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA) make claims such as farrowing crates deny the sows of natural maternal instincts, and that it impedes their natural instincts and social interactions (HSUS, 2009).
            Common arguments for farrowing crates include: decrease in the loss of piglets and lower production costs. However, many recent studies have been conducted comparing outdoor production to indoor production in the swine industry. Many of these studies have come to the same conclusions: outdoor housing can be equally productive. The rate of loss of the piglets in outdoor housing did not exceed that of the indoor housing. The outdoor housing also allowed for social interaction which, from observations, seemed to limit the aggressiveness in the animals (Johnson et al, 2001). The indoor production systems do however enable a producer to house more sows per acre, and therefore, an outdoor production system, in order to be completely comparable, must have a method for housing more sows (Extension, 2010).
            Common alternatives to farrowing crates in swine production include: turn around pens, sloped pens, family pens, werribee farrowing pens, ellipsoid farrowing crate, and the outdoor English style farrowing hut. Turn around pens are triangular shaped pens that allow the sow to turn around. Such pens have been noted to slightly reduce still births and rather significantly reduce weaning mortality. Sloped pens are pens with a sloped floor. The sloped floor forces the sow to stand and lie down more carefully and the sow often lays with her teats facing the creep area encouraging suckling. Family pens allow the sow to move further away from her piglets and also to interact with other sows all at her own will. Providing bedding would make this housing system the most sufficiently enriched environment. Werribee farrowing pens contains a nesting area and a non nesting area but takes up nearly twice the amount of floor space of the original farrowing crate. The ellipsoid farrowing crate is only slightly larger than the standard farrowing crate and provides room for the sow to turn around as well as allows more interaction between the sow and her piglets. The outdoor English style farrowing pen is the only outdoor pen in this list. While there was no significant difference in still births and weaning mortality the sows housed in the outdoor pens showed more natural activity than those in any of the indoor pens (Extension, 2010).
            In conclusion, while there are still uses for the traditional style farrowing pens, the only set difference from other production styles is the number of animals per square foot. Production systems other than farrowing crates can provide the same weaning mortality rates while perhaps satisfying the public and the animal rights activists that are currently protesting.

 
Works Cited
Swanson, J. C. Farm Animal Well-Being and Intensive Production Systems. J Anim Sci 1995. 73:2744-2751.

Johnson, A.K., Morrow-Tesch, J.L., McGlone, J.J. Behavior and performance of lactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. J Anim Sci 2001. 79:2571-2579.

“Housing Options for Swine Farrowing: Considerations for Animal Welfare and Economics.” Extension. Extension, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://www.extension.org/pages/Housing_Options_for_Swine_Farrowing:_Considerations_for_Animal_Welfare_and_Economics>

“Factory Farming.” Humane Society of the United States. HSUS, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://www.hsus.org/farm/multimedia/gallery/pigs/repeated_pregnancies.html>

“Swine Farrowing Units.” Pork Industry Handbook. Pork Industry Handbook, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://agebb.missouri.edu/swine/pdf/PIH-10.PDF>

“EU ban on sow stalls - implications for procurement of pork and pig meat products.” Department for Eviornment, Food, and Rural Affairs. DEFRA, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/publicsectorfood/documents/psfpi-advice-note081222.pdf>

Horse Internal Parasites Management

Jayme Morrison

Horse Internal Parasites Management
                Internal parasites in horses are a consistent problem. There are various types of internal parasites that horses have the potential to develop problems with. These various types of parasites include: large and small strongyles, pin worms, round worms, bots, as well as tapeworms. According to Dr. Patricia Evans’ article titled, “Internal Parasites and your horse: A cause for concern,” she explains that large and small strongyles are the most damaging out of all the internal parasites in horses. Both types of strongyles can travel throughout the horse’s entire body. During this migration the parasite can cause blood clots as well as bury itself into the wall of the main arteries that supply blood to the large and small intestine. (Evans, page 1, 2009) The next common internal parasite in horses are round worms, which can cause poor hair coats, a pot belly, as well as the potential of causing poor growth in horses.(Evans, page 2,2009) Another common parasite in horses is tapeworms. Dr. Patricia Evans’ article explains that your horse can get tapeworms by grazing and eating hay.
                There are various types of management to help reduce the number of parasites that your horse may come in contact with. According to the Horse Industry Handbook, it suggests to pick up as well as properly dispose of the horse’s manure to help reduce the number of parasites. (Horse Industry Handbook,1993) Next, the Horse Industry Handbook suggests that if your horse is on pasture then that pasture needs to be mowed to help break up the manure that would have the parasite’s larve that would be exposed to the ground as well as new growing grass.
                Another type of parasite control management is you need to develop a de-worming program for your horses. Dr. Andrew Peregrine’s paper titled; “Deworming programs for horses: are we doing more harm than good?,” explains the importance to have a de-worming program because it will help decrease management program to be successful you must develop a routine for your horse. Dr. Evans’ article recommends taking fecal samples to see exactly how many parasites are present in your horse. (Evans, page 3,2009)
                In conclusion, with proper management of your pastures such as mowing and having your horse on a routinely de-worming program it is possible to reduce the number of internal parasites in your horse. You can easily find the de-worming product of your choice at almost any local feed and farm supply store. It is also important to discuss with your veterinarian about what management program is in the best interest for your horse because weather conditions and location can play a part of what internal parasites your horse is at risk to have.


Works Cited
Dr. Patricia Evans, Internal Parasites and Your Horse: A cause for concern, 2009
“Control of Internal Parasites of the horse, Horse Industry Handbook, HIH 430,American Youth Horse Council, INC.1993
Dr. Andrew S. Peregrine, Deworming programs for horses: are we doing more harm than good?,2005

Mix 30 High Energy Liquid Feed


By Kerre Clark
                Fall is here and winter is not far behind and it’s time to start considering how you are going to get your cattle through the winter.  Many livestock producers may have an abundant amount of hay stored away, some may have some stockpiled grass, and others have decided to just buy hay as they need it.  This is fine, but what about a supplement for your cattle when your forage/hay source is lacking in necessary nutrients that your cattle need every day and even more so during the winter to keep them healthy?  A couple years ago my family started using a liquid feed supplement for our beef cattle on pasture.  We started in the summer and fed to cow/calf pairs on pasture and continued during the winter and still feed it today.  We were able to see a difference within a few weeks of giving this to the cattle that they began to have a slicker hair coat and filled out better.  Over the winter was a good source of energy when no grass was available and were only on hay.  This liquid feed is called Mix 30, a high energy liquid feed.
                Mix 30 is a liquid feed produced by Agridyne LLC.  It is a high energy protein supplement with a 16% protein.  It is made from a blend of soy based products and corn.  It can be utilized by all ruminants at free choice, which includes beef and dairy cattle, goats, sheep, bison, deer and elk to name a few. 
                Mix 30 can be distinguished from other liquid feeds because it contains a mix of natural and non-protein nitrogen sources (NPN).  According to the Mix 30 website, this is what makes it such a unique protein source supplement and also makes the feed more sensible and resourceful than just having one source for protein.  Carbohydrates in Mix 30 come from the fermentation of starch from corn grain.  It contains low starch levels, which makes it an excellent feed source for feeding out cattle.  The carbs are also highly recommended when utilizing forage based operations because it works with the microbes in the rumen.  The feed also contains vegetable fat and the fact that fat has 2.25 times more energy than carbohydrates makes it a key factor in the makeup of this supplement.  It has a 10% fat, which can help provide a great source of energy for any ruminant.  The blend also contains trace minerals and vitamins that complete this high energy liquid supplement.
                After realizing what a good product we had found to use in our operation, we now see other farmers using it in theirs as well, for dairy, goats and finishing calves.  Through more research on Mix 30’s website, I found that it is as mentioned before a good source for all ruminants, but appears that it would be most beneficial in dairy cattle from calves to bulls and milking cows.  For bottle/bucket calves it is recommended to mix a small amount right in with the milk and feed to the calves.  When it comes time for weaning calves off the bottle they could be fed this feed then as well, or in a beef operation it helped reduce stress on the calves because they were already used to the feed and would continue eating.   When growing heifers and bulls it has made rations more palatable and in turn the cattle eat more and had fewer health issues.  In milking cows, it was said to also be used as a ration additive and also helped cow’s breed back easier.  Another factor that makes Mix 30 a good supplement is that it has a natural fly repellant.  The source has not been identified, but in the development process it was noted that flies did not really like it and thus it can help keep flies off of your animals. 
                Mix 30 is typically sold by the gallon (1 gallon Mix 30= ~9.15 pounds) and we are about to buy it for approximately a dollar a gallon.  We also feed it in open stock tanks or some use the lick wheels.  This makes for an inexpensive and convenient protein supplement that can be feed to variety of ruminants year round.  This could be the answer you are looking for this winter.


Source(s):
Agridyne LLC. "Mix 30 Liquid Feed." Mix 30 - The High Energy Liquid Cattle Feed  Supplement. Agridyne LLC, 2010. Web. 01 Nov. 2010. <http://www.mix30.com/>.



Monday, October 25, 2010

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


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

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

Perry, T., Cullison, A., and Lowery, R.  Feeds & Feeding (5th 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 (9th 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 2nd.


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