ANIMALNET SEPTEMBER 1, 1998

Nexia biotech produces genetically altered goat
These germs thrive on porcine stench
A nose for pig effluvium; Alberta research uses refined sniffers
Despite bad press, pork pays big local dividends
A pig farming plan raises a ruckus in Rimbey
Farmer halts barnyard runoff into river
Government farm aid: scarce as hen's teeth
Children's hospital medical center of Cincinnati scientists discover how
bacteria protect themselves against immune system

AnimalNet is produced by researchers at the Agri-Food Risk Management and
Communication Project at the University of Guelph, is edited by Wendy
Powell (dpowell@uoguelph.ca) and Amanda Whitfield  (awhitfie@uoguelph.ca),
and is supported by the Ontario Cattlemen's
Association, the U.S. National Pork Producers, U.S. National Food
Processors Association, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), the U.S.
National Cattlemens Beef Association, Canadian Animal Health Institute,
The Rutgers University Food Safety Extension Program, National Cattlemans
Beef Association, and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt
Program).

archived at:
http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/courses/ansc481/animal_net.html

NEXIA BIOTECH PRODUCES GENETICALLY ALTERED GOAT
ANIMAL CAPABLE OF PRODUCING LIFE-SAVING HUMAN PROTEIN IN ITS MILK
Sept. 1/98
The Globe and Mail
B11 (Illus)
LEONARD ZEHR Biotechnology Reporter
Nexia Biotechnologies Inc. of Montreal was cited as saying that it has
produced Canada's first genetically altered goat, by inserting a specific
human gene into the embryo of a goat, capable of producing a life-saving
human protein in its milk.
The medical breakthrough puts Nexia, according to this story, into an
exclusive group of three international companies with the commercial
capability to produce proteins from so-called transgenic animals that have
been bred to contain a specific human gene in addition to their normal
genetic makeup. Willow, the BELE goat (Breed Early Lactate Early), was
born at Nexia's production farm in suburban Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue on Aug.
9.
Jeffrey Turner, president and chief executive officer, was quoted as
saying, "The advantages of Nexia's BELE goat system lie in enhancing the
time and
cost effectiveness of producing pharmaceuticals and other novel proteins
in transgenic animals," adding that many human diseases stem from a
defective gene in the body that prevents the production of proteins to
combat the disease. Diabetics, for example, lack the gene needed to make
insulin and hemophiliacs can't produce the protein to make blood clot.
Drugs now on the market provide many of these proteins, he said, but they
are either extracted from donated blood or developed in a labratory, a
costly process that also carries the risk of transmitting viruses to
recipients.
Dr. Turner would not identify the protein that Nexia will recover from
Willow's milk in about five months or what disease the drug will target.
Dr. Turner was further quoted, "All I can say is that it's a generic
molecule of an important therapeutic product being sold today."
Willow's birth is the result of work conducted by closely held Nexia under
a strategic alliance with Genzyme Transgenics Corp. of Framingham, Mass.,
which is in Phase III clinical trials for a blood clotting product
developed from its own transgenic goats.
An individual familiar with Nexia's research and development was quoted as
saying, "You've heard of the six-million-dollar man? This goat is worth
more," adding Genzyme previously sold the "founder goat" of a transgenic
project that it was abandoning for $20-million (U.S.).

THESE GERMS THRIVE ON PORCINE STENCH
Aug. 24/98
Alberta Report
A stench-eating micro-bug is, according to this story, the latest
potential tool to control hog-barn odour. Alberta Research Council (ARC)
microbiologist Richard Colman was cited as  describing the bio-filter
developed by the ARC lab in Vegreville as "nothing more than a
conglomeration of bacteria who use the odorous materials as a food
source."
The barrel-shaped device, 6 feet high and three feet across, has a plastic
grid bearing a three-foot-high bed of sphagnum peat. Mr. Colman explained
"We spray the peat to keep it moist. As fans force the air up through the
peat bed, the microbes oxidize the hydrogen sulphide, eliminating the
smell and producing a dilute solution which, with further processing,
could become commercial-grade sulphuric acid." The bio-filter is not yet
commercially available, partly because "existing barns don't have the
proper ducts to connect to the filter," says Mr. Colman. "But future barn
design will include odour-control technology."

A NOSE FOR PIG EFFLUVIUM; ALBERTA RESEARCH USES REFINED
SNIFFERS IN EFFORT TO DIMINISH PORKER PONG
Sept. 1/98
The Edmonton Journal
A6
Ric Dolphin
On one smell, however, according to this story, most people agree: pig
waste is noxious and disgusting and something ought to be done about it.
In a related story about the Alberta Research Centre in Vegreville, the
provincial lab that explores matters agricultural and environmental
something is. Led by ARC micro-biologist, bio-chemist and Vegreville
alderman Richard Coleman, 52, a project is going on that scrutinizes eau
de cochon and will ultimately find ways to lessen its assault on the
collective olfactory.
Coleman was quoted as saying, "What we find ourselves concerned with is
how to quantify odour. This is ground-breaking research."
The $185,000 odour project is being sponsored by Alberta Agriculture and
the Alberta Pork Producers Development Corporation, both of which worry
about public reaction to the impending increase in porcine emissions. The
number of hogs in the province is expected to triple in the next three or
four years.
With the data they provide, says Coleman, he will be able to determine a
"threshold" level of stink for the average person. This will enable the
quantification of a generally acceptable level of stink to guide those
constructing pig barns and lagoons. One can also imagine the creation of
some sort of Stink Police whose officers, armed with a hand-held
scentometer, measure whether a hog operation is exceeding legislated
levels of odiferousness.
Using another machine called an AromaScan that charts the chemical
"fingerprint" of odours, Coleman is collecting data from pig air that he
hopes will help him understand what exactly makes pig manure so
stinkywhich chemicals are produced by which micro-organisms. This could
lead to the formulation of new feed mixes that reduce sulphides at the
back end.

DESPITE BAD PRESS, PORK PAYS BIG LOCAL DIVIDENDS
Aug. 24/98
Alberta Report
Ed Schultz, general manager of Edmonton-based Alberta Pork Producers
Development Corp. (APPDC), was cited as saying that he thinks more
counties will be whole-hog behind piggeries when they peruse a new study,
"Socio-Economic Impact of Hog Operations in Alberta," adding, "Pork
production means jobs and economic opportunity for thousands of rural
communities. Hog operations help agriculture remain the base of the
community, promote progress, and attract processing infrastructure. From
an environmentally-sustainable point of view, the hog industry is actually
very attractive."
Edmonton's Serecon Management Consulting Inc. conducted the study between
January and March this year for Alberta Agriculture and APPDC. Results of
the in-person interviews with 44 randomly-chosen hog farmers indicate,
according to this study:
- 1,000-sow operations contribute between $3.5 million and $3.8 million
per year to the local economy.
- For every dollar that pork operations contribute directly to the
economy, they indirectly contribute an additional 50 cents during
construction and $1.09 to $2.87 during ongoing operations.
- Owners and employees spend at least 80% of their food, clothing, and
vehicle-expenditure budgets within 30 miles of the hog farm.
- Between 56% and 75% of a farm's feed (which accounts for 62% of total
operating expenses excluding labour) is purchased within that 30-mile
radius.
Farm-gate receipts from hogs have grown by 8% per year since 1990,
reaching almost $500 million in 1997. Exports sales two years ago (the
most recent available numbers) totalled 30% of provincial production,
worth $300 million.
 Mr. Schultz was quoted as saying, "What we didn't study was the jobs and
income in meat-packing, transportation and sales that also result directly
from the hog industry. But we and our counterparts in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba are considering just such a study tracking the multiplier effect
from the birth of the piglet to the restaurant freezer or retail
warehouse. If we're right that the effect is between five and seven, a lot
of counties may take a second look at the hog industry. Operators were
perceived to be good stewards of the land and animal resources."
Mr. Schultz was cited as saying that revisions to the provincial Code of
Practice already address contamination concerns by requiring a packed-clay
lining that "is virtually the same as sealed storage. But the hog industry
does have to work harder at being a good neighbour," he urges. "In one
case, the farm was right next to a golf course ... and the farmer chose to
spread manure
on a Saturday morning. No odour-control technology can replace common
sense."

A PIG FARMING PLAN RAISES A RUCKUS IN RIMBEY
Aug. 24/98
Alberta Report
Despite two previous approvals by the County of Ponoka's Development
Appeal Board, Partners in Pork (PiP) is, according to this story, back in
court. The Rimbey developer is fighting opponents of its proposed new
farrow-to-finish operation.
Herb Holoboff, a PiP partner, was quoted as saying, "Throughout this whole
ordeal we've spent at least $50,000. And we've had to stop construction
twice now."
The story explained that the battle started last year, PiP, with one
1,200-sow operation in the area already, proposed a new $3.3-million
project called County Line Farms, seven miles southwest of Rimbey. "The
county approved. But 80 area residents challenged the approval in the
Court of Appeal in Edmonton. "The judge [Justice Ellen Picard] expressed
some environmental concerns," recalls Mr. Holoboff. "So we hired
consultants and engineers to examine every aspect of our proposal. We made
a few minor technical changes, then re-applied to the county."
County administrator Charlie Cutforth was quoted as saying, "County
taxpayers have already shelled out $25,000, mostly in legal fees. The
August 11 hearing [before justice Anne Russell] tacked on another $10,000.
If this goes to Court of Appeal, we're looking at another $30,000."
Insisting that PiP "complied fully with our terms of reference for an
environmental impact assessment. How far are we supposed to go - at the
tax-payer's expense - to ensure people have the right to appeal? Intensive
livestock operations will require re-zoning approval from county council
[including a public hearing] before we'll even consider a development
permit. And since by provincial law rezoning decisions are not subject to
appeal in the courts, it'll save taxpayer dollars."

FARMER HALTS BARNYARD RUNOFF INTO RIVER
Aug. 31/98
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record
B4
Bob Burtt
WELLESLEY -- Keith Shultz believes, according to this story, he's doing
the right thing for the environment and for his downstream neighbors who
rely on clean water.
For Shultz, doing the right thing means building a huge pit to hold manure
that otherwise would be washed from his farm into the Nith River near the
village of Wellesley.
The Shultz farm, located on Township Road 56 in North Easthope Township,
is a few hundred metres from a drainage ditch that feeds into the Nith, a
tributary of the Grand River.
 He's one of 39 farmers who have received grants as part of a rural
water quality program aimed at protecting surface and groundwater.
Officials say that's important in this part of the Ontario, where people
rely almost exclusively on groundwater and water from the Grand.
The $1.6-million, five-year program, is financed with $1.5 million from
Waterloo Region and $100,000 from Ottawa's national soil and water
conservation program.
The story says that Shultz will spend about $40,000 to construct his
manure pit and will recover $15,000 of the cost from the fund.
The problem has been there for a long time, but when the barn was
constructed, runoff wasn't an issue, said Shultz who took over the farm
three years ago.
It is now though, and it is important to have clean water, he said.
Shultz thinks the work would have been done eventually, but the water
quality program has meant it's being done much sooner.

GOVERNMENT FARM AID: SCARCE AS HEN'S TEETH
Sept. 1/98
The Progressive Populist
Margot Ford McMillen
Of all the questions people ask farmers, perhaps the most difficult to
answer is, "Can't you guys get along without government aid?"
This question has three answers. One is, "Yes." The other is "No." The
other other is "It depends on the program."
On the "yes" side: U.S.D.A. wants you to believe that U.S.D.A. programs
benefit farmers. T'aint necessarily so. The $400-million for university
agricultural research, the GSM-102 export credit guarantee program which
by May 1998 guaranteed $5.9 billion in loans to foreign buyers, the $1.1
billion PL480 Food for Peace program, the Export Enhancement Program which
pays to keep the prices of America's foods low in foreign markets, food
stamps, school lunches, these dollars go to corporations.
To make matters worse, farmers sign contracts with the corporations. Their
products never make the open market, and some farmers never own what they
raise. One farmer the author knows is a chicken contractor for a top U.S.
company.
For the privilege of raising the corporation's broilers, he borrowed
$225,000 to build on his farm three "state of the art" steel buildings.
They were built to company specifications and outfitted with automatic
feeders, waterers and ventilation equipment. He felt really good about
these, especially because the design came from the University.
Four or five times a year, the company delivers loads of 20,000 chicks per
building and their premeasured feed. Growers are never sure how much feed
they get and have asked U.S.D.A. to investigate whether the feed is fairly
weighed. U.S.D.A. has promised to do so.
This farmer, now a contractor, is bound to follow company policy. And,
there's a big difference between farming and company policy.
Experience teaches farmers to check their animals, notice little changes,
and make decisions to respond. For example, a farmer culls slow-growing
chicks, and saves strong ones to improve the future genetics of his flock.
A contractor, on the other hand, makes no decisions. He checks the feeders
and waterers. He walks through the buildings picking up the dead critters.
This is an unavoidable chore in buildings where animals are packed all
their lives like rush hour on a subway.
Dead chickens are no longer the property of the company, by the way.
Ownership upon death immediately transfers from the company to the
contractor.
My friend would like an environmentally sound way to dispose of the
carcasses. But researchers haven't devised a thrifty, sustainable plan. It
costs about $1 per carcass to dispose of them by burning, so my friend
buries them. Sometimes the wild dogs dig up all the carcasses and leave
them around.
When the company birds are grown, the corporation crew picks them up and
crams them into the suffocating cages you've seen on trucks scattering
feathers down the highway. The crew, always in a hurry, kill some of the
birds. Contractors wonder if these trucks are ever cleaned, and whether
they spread disease from one farm to another.
And it gets worse. The newer poultry houses developed by University
researchers with funds from government matched by funds from industry can
raise more birds more efficiently. My friend remembers how the corporation
applauded his buildings, and courted him, and his rush of optimism back at
the beginning.
But, back to the original question: There have been a few government
programs that actually benefit farmers and even ensure that land is wisely
used. CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) kept marginal land out of
production for many years, helping prevent erosion and overproduction. And
occasionally there's a program that puts tax dollars into programs that
put farmers in touch with consumers, like creating farmer's markets. But
these helpful programs are scarce as hen's teeth.
Our supply of farmers is dwindling -- over half the farmers raising hogs
went
out of business in the last five years. While other countries keep their
number of farms and farmers steady, our national policy of
industrialization forces farmers off the land.
Margot Ford McMillen farms and teaches English at a college in Fulton, Mo.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF CINCINNATI
SCIENTISTS DISCOVER HOW BACTERIA PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST IMMUNE SYSTEM;
DISCOVERY, PUBLISHED IN PNAS, PAVES WAY FOR NEW ANTIBIOTIC DEVELOPMENT
Aug. 31/98
from a press release
CINCINNATI -- Scientists at Children's Hospital Medical Center of
Cincinnati have discovered a major mechanism by which bacteria protect
themselves against the human immune response - a discovery that opens the
door for development of a new class of antibiotics to fight infection.
In the study, to be published in the September edition of Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers have discovered that
flavohemoglobin, a protein in bacteria, protects the bacteria from nitric
oxide (NO), a toxic chemical secreted by the immune system to help kill
disease-causing microorganisms. The protein, which the researchers have
re-named nitric oxide dioxygenase (NOD), detoxifies NO, providing
protection against infection.
"It's a breakthrough concept," says Andrew Salzman, M.D., director of
critical care at Cincinnati Children's and co-discoverer of the mechanism,
along with Paul Gardner, Ph.D, and colleagues in the Kindervelt Shock
Research Center at Children's. "With this discovery, Dr. Gardner has
created a new field of research."
NO is a toxin produced by inflammatory cells that injures or kills
bacteria. Over time, however, a mechanism has evolved that prevents NO
from damaging bacteria. This detoxification of NO allows bacteria to
survive. Without this protection, they would be unable to infect the host.
Interestingly, NOD is an old protein, perhaps billions of years old,
originating around the time oxygen appeared in the earth's atmosphere.
"It's actually the forerunner of hemoglobin - a protein in red blood cells
that carries oxygen," says Dr. Salzman. "It's abundant and present
throughout the animal kingdom for transporting oxygen in the blood. It's
been known for many years that there is a form of hemoglobin in bacteria,
but its function was entirely unknown. It surely wasn't to carry oxygen.
Now we've discovered what we believe is the fundamental purpose of this
protein - to protect organisms against nitric oxide. So we are now
providing an understanding of the evolutionary basis of hemoglobin and the
original function of the hemoglobin family - to detoxify nitric oxide."
This evolutionary history has broad and dramatic implications for human
health. Overwhelming infection is one of the major reasons for children
and adults are admitted to intensive care units. It's also one of the
leading causes of death. New antibiotics could change that.
"Bacteria vary enormously in their ability to defend themselves against
nitric oxide," says Dr. Salzman. "But if you remove this protein from
bacteria, you can kill them with almost nothing. They're exquisitely
sensitive to nitric oxide. Yet, if they're exposed to nitric oxide all the
time, the bacteria rev up this system to detoxify it."
Dr. Salzman speculates that this may be what predisposes smokers to
infection. Smokers constantly bathe their lungs with huge concentrations
of NO. It is possible that bacteria in the lungs of smokers become more
resistant to the effects of nitric oxide.
So far, Children's scientists have studied only the most common bacteria
at the basic level. But because NOD is broadly represented in different
bacteria, they have no reason to believe this mechanism is unique to any
particular strain.

To subscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe animalnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe animalnet -L Doug Powell

To unsubscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff animalnet -L

For more information about the AnimalNet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x2367
fax: 519-824-6631
dpowell@uoguelph.ca