ANIMALNET SEPTEMBER 27, 2002

Human health risk of antibiotic use in food animals is extremely small
Aflatoxin: livestock producers urged to be cautious
Human-gene cattle set for approval
Cloned cows' milk normal, data show finding could speed commercial use
Wary poultry buying can avoid disease
Integrated swine nutrition and manure research expected to yield immediate
benefits
Different standards for farmers
Funding sought for Alberta waste recycling pilot project
Czechs report third BSE case, await second test
Protest over live lamb exports
German parliament speaks out for ostrich rights
Making the transition to organic dairy production - new Cornell workbook
available
Texas (splenetic) fever in cattle; incorporation by reference


AnimalNet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of
Guelph, and is supported by OMAFRA, AgCare, Council for Biotechnology
Information, Health Canada, ConAgra Foods Inc., National Pork Board,
Canadian Animal Health Institute, Ontario Pork, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, McDonald's, Pharmacia Animal Health, National Turkey
Federation, Alberta Agriculture (Livestock Development Division), Ontario
Farm Animal Council, Adculture Group, Inc., Canadian Turkey Marketing
Agency, Eli Lilly Canada, Inc., National Food Processors Association,
Canadian Livestock Genetics Association, Saskatchewan Nutraceutical Network,
Heifer International, Urbana Veterinary Clinic, Saugeen River Farm and the
Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program).

archived at:
http://131.104.74.73:96/animalnet-archives.htm

HUMAN HEALTH RISK OF ANTIBIOTIC USE IN FOOD ANIMALS IS EXTREMELY SMALL
September 27, 2002
Animal Health Institute
http://www.ahi.org/News%20Room/Press%20Release/2002/September/White%20Paper%
20ICAAC%20release%20-%20web.htm
San Diego - A group of human microbiologists, risk assessors, veterinarians
and animal health experts has concluded that while a theoretical hazard to
human health arises from the use of antibiotics in food animals, an
examination of the facts shows that the actual risk is extremely small.
The independent expert group evaluated available data on the effects of
antibiotics in humans and animals and attempted to confirm or deny a link
between antibiotic resistance in animals transferring to humans. They met
yesterday in San Diego, a day prior to the opening of the 42nd Interscience
Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC), the world¹s
premier scientific meeting on infectious diseases and antimicrobial agents.
³In 50 years of antibiotic use in animals and man, the development of
resistance in animals has not made a major impact on human and animal
health, and such a development seems unlikely to happen overnight now,² said
Ian Phillips, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Medical Microbiology at the
medical school of Guy¹s and St. Thomas¹ Hospitals, University of London.
Dr. Phillips, who is chairing the group of experts, said that evaluating
available facts persuaded the group that whereas the use of antibiotics in
humans and animals undoubtedly leads to resistance, and while some resistant
organisms reach man via the food chain, little additional harm results from
resistance, even when infection occurs.
Much of the debate over the issue of antibiotic resistance has centered on
the use of antibiotics in animals to promote growth. The case against
antibiotic growth promoters has relied very heavily on antibiotic-resistant
enterococci, a group of bacterial organisms that cause no disease in animals
but can cause disease in man and which might be zoonotic (transmittable from
animals to man under natural conditions). However, new surveillance data
show that enterococci resistance is increasing in areas where antibiotic
growth promoters have been withdrawn.
³Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and Synercid-resistant E. faecium
are becoming more prevalent as a cause of infections in humans in Europe at
a time when these resistant organisms are becoming less prevalent in animals
and food products following the antibiotic growth promoter ban,² observed
group member Ronald N. Jones, M.D., referring to two commonly used
antibiotics that are effective against various bacteria including
enterococci. Dr. Jones is Principal Investigator of the SENTRY
Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance program, a global network of
healthcare facilities monitoring resistance levels in human bacteria,
providing the world¹s largest database of antibiotic resistance.
³SENTRY Program data from parts of the world where Synercid was used for
patients show an increasing prevalence of resistance in the absence of the
genetic mechanisms of resistance commonly found in most animal strains,² Dr.
Jones continued. ³We thus conclude that the increasing prevalence of
resistance was not due to passive acquisition of resistant strains of animal
origin, but due to antibiotic use in humans,² he said.
A major topic of the group discussion was the possible adverse effects of
antibiotic bans on animal health and well-being. This issue has been
studied extensively in Denmark, where the use of antibiotic growth promoters
was phased out beginning in 1997 through 1999.
³Danish farmers have found that banning antibiotic growth promoters has
caused pigs to get more cases of diarrhea, especially baby pigs,² said group
member John Waddell, D.V.M., a Nebraska veterinarian who has toured several
Danish pig farms. ³The pigs have slower post-weaning growth rates and
increased production costs.²
Dr. Waddell added that Danish pigs, because of increased prevalence of
diarrhea and other diseases, require more therapeutic antimicrobials,
according to DANMAP, the Danish national database that tracks patterns of
antibiotic usage and resistance from human and veterinary medicine and food
hygiene. While only 48,000 kilograms (kg) of antibiotics were used in
Denmark for treatment of food animals in 1996, that amount increased to
about 57,000kg in 1997; to 57,300kg in 1998; to 61,900kg in 1999; to
80,600kg in 2000; and to 91,602kg in 2001 ­ an increase in use of more than
90% since the withdrawal of growth-promoting antibiotics. ³At the same
time, human cases of salmonella and campylobacter have reached record levels
in Denmark and the proportion of multiple antibiotic-resistant salmonella
DT104 has doubled since 1997,² Dr. Waddell said.
The group of experts concluded that banning any antibiotic usage in animals,
in the absence of a full risk assessment, is not useful and could even be
harmful to both human and animal health.
³Rather than banning the use of antibiotics in animals, we believe that
efforts should focus on reducing the transmission of all food-borne
pathogens regardless of their antibiotic susceptibility,² commented Dr.
Phillips. ³This can only occur through insistence on good hygienic
practices on farms, in abattoirs, during distribution and marketing of food,
and in the proper handling and cooking of food, and must be accompanied by
consumer vigilance. Considerable progress has been made in the U.S. as
demonstrated by the decline over the past five years of food-borne illness
reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).²



AFLATOXIN: LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS URGED TO BE CAUTIOUS
September 27, 2002
AgWeb
Julianne Johnston
http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?file=AgNewsArticle_200292712
5_4012&articleID=91767&newscat=GN
With drought stress causing an influx of aflatoxin concerns in portions of
the Corn Belt this harvest season, livestock specialists are urging
producers to exercise caution if they are feeding corn possibly tainted by
the mold.
University of Illinois Extension dairy specialist Michael Hutjens says
Mycotoxin and Fumonsin contamination of corn fed to livestock can cause a
number of problems. "To avoid these, livestock producers should have grain
tested before feeding and, if grain is found to be contaminated, strictly
follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines for its use," he
advises.
"Producers also need to remember that proper handling of damaged corn is
critical as additional growth and mycotoxin occurs if moisture, oxygen and
warm temperatures exist during storage and handling of the damaged feed,"
said Hutjens.
Based on FDA guidelines, Gavin Meerdink, U of I Extension beef and feed
safety veterinarian recommends the following levels in feed: no more than
300 parts per billion (ppb) in corn fed to finishing beef cattle: 200 ppb
for finishing (over 100 pounds) swine; 100 ppb for breeding beef cattle,
breeding swine, and mature poultry; and 20 ppb for other animal feeds.
"Based on recommendations of U of I Extension veterinarians, dairy cattle
diets should not contain more than 20 ppb in the total ration dry matter,"
said Hutjens. "This is not because of a health threat to the lactating cow;
rather it is related to milk residues."
Hutjens said the dairy cow metabolizes the aflatoxin and some can be
excreted in the milk. Milk must be under the 0.5 ppb level, the maximum
allowed by the FDA.
"In addition to losses from tainted milk, dairy producers also can see
decreased feed intake by their cows, reduced rumen VFA production, increased
liver damage, lowered reproductive efficiency, and less milk yield," said
Hutjens.
"All livestock producers need to be aware of these potential problems and
exercise care in feed use of mold-damaged corn," he added.



HUMAN-GENE CATTLE SET FOR APPROVAL
September 27, 2002
Dominion Post
Jonathan Milne
In a story from the Dominion Post this morning, Johnathan Milne reports that
AgResearch scientists are tipped to get approval in the next few days to
insert human genes into cows.
This will put them among those at the top of the queue for controlled
release when the moratorium on the release of GE organisms ends on October
29 next year, the story says.
The government agency overseeing new organisms, Erma, the Environmental Risk
Managment Authority, is to announce its decision on GE cattle development
projects today or Monday.
AgResearch acting chief executive Leo Bourke said the agency had to first
get through the development projects before it looked at controlled release
of the GE cows.
"We'd need to go through the process and the legislation and find out what
controls Erma thought were appropriate."
Crop and Food Research chief executive Paul Tocker said his scientists were
ready to give pest-resistant GE potatoes a farm-scale evaluation.
Crop and Food and AgResearch - which complains that it has spent more than
$500,000 battling red-tape - would still need to go through more hearings
once the conditional release law comes into force next year.
But Environment Minister Marian Hobbs said yesterday that the law would try
to reduce compliance costs, enabling New Zealand to keep pace with world
science while maintaining controls on GE.
AgResearch's proposal would insert genes from humans and five other species
into cows, producing new proteins in cow milk to combat diseases like
multiple sclerosis.
Ms Hobbs issued an Environment Ministry discussion paper detailing proposed
changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to allow for the
conditional release of new organisms. It leaves unanswered the question of
liability: who would pay if the release of GE organisms went bad and damaged
the economy or health of New Zealanders.
Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said conditional release was a "con",
with international evidence showing that conditions like buffer zones did
not work.
"There's no compensation, there's no liability - the people just die or ACC
picks up their health bills."
She said the law changes would speed the process for conditional release of
GE cattle. "They'll be running outside in a paddock, excreting into the soil
and generally in contact with the environment . . . Whenever AgResearch
strikes a problem, it seems the Government moves to change the law for
them."
Ms Hobbs said conditional release would enable Erma to set controls on GE
cattle, like requiring AgResearch scientists to oversee the cattle, or
allowing their release only into particular valleys.



CLONED COWS' MILK NORMAL, DATA SHOW FINDING COULD SPEED COMMERCIAL USE
September 27, 2002
Washington Post
E03
Justin Gillis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8378-2002Sep26.html
DALLAS -- According to detailed data released at a scientific conference
here today, the milk from cloned cows is virtually indistinguishable from
that of normal cows on every parameter commonly used to measure quality.
The story says that the findings, if confirmed by further studies, appear
likely to accelerate the development of commercial agricultural cloning in
the United States. They add weight to an emerging scientific consensus that
such cloning poses little risk to the safety of the American food supply.
The story says that the milk results, a compilation of analyses from
scientists at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Utah, have
not yet been published in a scientific journal. But they have been eagerly
awaited by farmers, food-safety advocates and regulators at the Food and
Drug Administration, which is weighing whether to open the food market to
products made from clones or their offspring.
Erik Forsberg, vice president of development at Infigen Inc., a DeForest,
Wis., cloning company that paid for the research and whose clones were
used in the comparisons, was quoted as saying, "Cloned animals, as far as
those that survive to a reproductive age, are as normal as non-cloned
animals."
Speakers at today's conference said some meat and milk producers are eager
to use cloning to upgrade the genetics of their herds. Many farmers regard
it as just the latest development in the "barnyard biotechnology" they have
been using since the advent of artificial insemination in the 1940s.
Don Coover, a veterinarian and rancher from Galesburg, Kan., who has raised
five cloned calves, was quoted as saying, "There's no great fear or
apprehension about it" in farm country.
The FDA, which sponsored today's conference along with a Washington think
tank, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, is drafting guidelines
for producers who want to employ animal cloning. The agency commissioned a
recent National Academy of Sciences report that found little safety risk,
but the issue is not closed: The FDA has promised a series of additional
white papers between now and spring.



WARY POULTRY BUYING CAN AVOID DISEASE
September 26, 2002
Western Producer
Karen Morrison
http://www.producer.com/articles/20020926/news/20020926news17.html
Itchy eyes, runny noses and coughing were, according to this story, clear
signs that mycoplasma gallisepticum had infected Harry Heinrichs' new flock
of birds.
The story says that Heinrichs raises chickens, turkeys, ducks and cattle and
grows forage at Waldeck, Sask. Last summer, he bought birds at a sale,
hoping to raise exotic varieties for meat and resale markets.
That was his first mistake, said Heinrichs, who ended up killing 200 of the
300 bird flock after disease struck.
Heinrichs said it was the only time the disease has ever hit his farm. He
advised others to buy from reputable and trusted hatcheries.
If buying from auctions or other sales, he advised producers to quarantine
the birds, learn more about poultry diseases and watch for disease before
placing them with other flocks.




INTEGRATED SWINE NUTRITION AND MANURE RESEARCH EXPECTED TO YIELD IMMEDIATE
BENEFITS
September 27, 2002
Farmscape (Episode 1080)
The University of Manitoba is confident the integration of its swine
nutrition and liquid swine manure research programs will provide almost
immediate benefits for the farm. The university's Biosystems Engineering
and Animal Science departments are coordinating efforts to assess diets,
ingredients and additives to determine their relation to manure and odor.
Some rooms in the animal science research unit have been redesigned to allow
the collection of manure samples from individual pens for storage in a
manure facility specially designed for research. Swine Nutrition and
Nutritional Biochemistry Professor Dr. Jim House says the system allows
researchers to fully control diet while maintaining the segregation of
manure produced in each pen.
Clip-Dr. Jim House-University of Manitoba
It allows us to look at the effect of different diets, different
ingredients...for example comparing Western Canadian ingredients relative to
a typical corn-soybean diet. We can compare the effect of diet on odor, we
can look at dietary additives and compare the impact of specific dietary
additives on odor development and a number of other techniques that have
been reported to reduce odor. This system allows us to quantify the actual
reduction. We will be setting up to start our first trials in the fall and
hope to have data on the short term impact of diet composition on odor and
manure composition by the end of the year with continual data being
generated as a result of the longer term storage of the manure.
Dr. House says the system allows researchers to more accurately simulate
what's experienced in the field and follow that from diet to manure
composition and odor under both long term and short term storage. For
Farmscape.Ca, I'm Bruce Cochrane.
*Farmscape is a presentation of Sask Pork and Manitoba Pork Council



DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR FARMERS
September 27, 2002
Ontario Federation of Agriculture Commentary #3902
Al Gardiner, Ontario Federation of Agriculture Executive Committee Member
Farmers have always recognized their individual responsibilities to nature
and the environment. Why wouldn't we -- as farmers we depend totally on the
environment for our living.
Rarely would a farmer deliberately do anything to cause harm to nature or
the environment. Occasionally there are accidental spills that are cause for
concern, but these are normally followed by extra precautions to prevent
such an accident from ever happening again.
It just doesn't make any sense for a farmer to put the water consumed by his
or her family or animals at risk, or endanger a water source for large
numbers of people or animals. We are responsible members of society and we
expect to be treated as such.
This doesn't always happen, however. Government officials with the
environment ministry have chosen to treat farmers differently. Is it because
they are individuals and as such are easier targets for prosecution?
Recently some farmers have been charged, prosecuted and fined for
discharging contaminants into a public waterway. The laws of the province
provide for this, but the issue becomes complicated when we acknowledge a
large municipality, on a regular basis, is allowed by the same ministry to
discharge untreated human waste into the same waterway.
Why is our government willing to permit municipalities to discharge
untreated or partially treated human waste into rivers and streams, and at
the same time proceed to prosecute farmers when an accidental discharge
occurs? Why the double standard?
The neighboring province of Manitoba just recently instructed its Clean
Environment Commission to conduct public hearings into Winnipeg's sewage
treatment operations following the release of about 500,000 cubic metres of
raw sewage into the Red River.
This doesn't mean charges will be brought against the city of Winnipeg, but
it at least acknowledges a serious breach of environmental protection
standards by a major municipality. Municipalities of all sizes in Ontario
have repeatedly been allowed by the province's environment ministry to dump
raw and partially treated sewage into streams, rivers and lakes as a normal
practice when their treatment operations fail or run short of storage
capacity.
And yet, when an individual farmer has an equipment failure or other
operational problem that results in livestock waste entering a stream, river
or lake, that same ministry is there laying charges and seeking prosecution.
All it takes is a single complaint by an individual to trigger these
protective actions by our provincial government.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and its coalition partners in the
Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition encourages every farmer to take all the
necessary precautions to protect the environment and nature. It also
supports laws that deal with those who violate laws set out to provide the
same protection for the environment and nature.
We do, however, take exception to the government's willingness to turn a
blind eye when municipal sewage treatment facilities fail and untreated
human waste is allowed into the streams, rivers and lakes that also serve as
water sources for wildlife, farm animals and other humans.
Why is there such a double standard for the farmers of Ontario?



FUNDING SOUGHT FOR ALBERTA WASTE RECYCLING PILOT PROJECT
September 26, 2002
Western Producer
Karen Morrison
http://www.producer.com/articles/20020926/news/20020926news13.html
Lawrence Loh of the Cement Association of Canada was cited as saying that a
demonstration project to extract energy, fertilizer and water from hog
manure and distillery waste in Alberta could begin as early as next year.
Loh was cited as saying the association recently completed a feasibility
study in the County of Lethbridge, with funding from the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities.
It showed that a European model called Integrated Waste Management
Solutions, or IWMS, was an economically viable and environmentally efficient
solution for agriculture in Canada.
Loh said his group will now seek funding for a demonstration project from
private and public sources, including the county, the Alberta government,
utility companies and farmers.
He said the project was initiated to help the agricultural sector with waste
management in view of tightening regulations while also helping create
business for the cement industry.



EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK HANDLING MUST BE ADDRESSED: CONSULTANT
September 26, 2002
Western Producer
Barbara Duckworth
http://www.producer.com/articles/20020926/news/20020926news06.html
Jennifer Woods, who teaches disaster planning and readiness, was quoted as
saying, "We need some long-term planning for disaster services dealing with
livestock, especially here in Alberta."
The story says that manuals are available for handling livestock during an
accident or larger disaster, but Woods said they do not address the real
needs of helping animals that must be evacuated, treated or destroyed.
While livestock care is the producer's responsibility, in many cases one
farm family cannot deal with a problem alone during an emergency.
Emergencies include prairie and forest fires, flash floods, toxic spills,
oil well blowouts, tornados, snowstorms and lingering situations such as a
drought or extremely cold winter.



CZECHS REPORT THIRD BSE CASE, AWAIT SECOND TEST
September 27, 2002
Reuters
PRAGUE- Czech State Veterinary Chief Josef Duben was cited as saying on
Friday that a five-year-old cow tested positive in the country's third case
of mad cow disease -- and first in more than a year -- raising fears the
disease has not been eradicated from the country, adding, "The first quick
test must still be confirmed by a second test, which will be ready for
publication on Monday."
The Czech Republic became the first country in eastern Europe to be struck
by BSE when it detected a case in June 2001.



GERMAN PARLIAMENT SPEAKS OUT FOR OSTRICH RIGHTS
September 27, 2002
Reuters
BERLIN - According to this story, German parliamentarians stood up for the
rights of ostriches Friday, calling on the government to lay down minimum
standards under which the birds should be kept before being killed for their
meat.
The Bundesrat upper house asked for existing animal protection legislation
to be fleshed out to include the ostrich.
The bird has become a popular dish for Germans seeking alternatives to
traditional meat and poultry after a number of Europe-wide health scares.



PROTEST OVER LIVE LAMB EXPORTS
September 27, 2002
PA News
Amanda Brown
Animal welfare campaigners Compassion in World Farming were, according to
this story, starting a vigil today at Dover Docks in Kent to protest the
resumption of live lamb exports, which they call a cruel and barbaric trade.
Gwyn Prosser, Dover's Labour MP, was quoted as saying, "As a long time
campaigner against live animal exports I'm pleased to support Compassion in
World Farming's vigil at Dover, which will highlight the cruelty and
suffering caused by this evil trade."
Joyce D'Silva, chief executive at CIWF, was quoted as saying, "Even though
the Government is committed to working closely to reduce animal
transportation times in Europe, we are conscious that there has still been
no agreement on when these reductions might take place - if ever. We need to
continue to apply pressure in ways such as this to ensure the issue does not
fade. We will not rest until the live export trade has been abolished."



MAKING THE TRANSITION TO ORGANIC DAIRY PRODUCTION - NEW CORNELL WORKBOOK
AVAILABLE
September 20, 2002
Cornell's Small Farms Program News
www.smallfarms.cornell.edu.
Making the Transition to Organic Dairy Production New Cornell Workbook
Available The number of certified organic dairy farms is on the increase in
the Northeast. Some dairy farmers, looking to increase their income
potential, are considering organic production because it typically fetches
revenues of three to nine dollars more per hundredweight than ordinary
milk. Other dairy farmers have expressed an interest from a more
philosophical point of view, citing lifestyle preferences and benefits to
the environment from organic practices.
Whatever the motivation, producers find that organic milk production is
significantly different from conventional dairy farming. These differences
amount to more than just the absence of commercial fertilizers, antibiotics
and pesticides. An organic dairy farm produces a unique product, which is
marketed through alternative channels to a new and relatively small segment
of consumers.
Transitioning to the production of certified organic milk takes several
years to accomplish and represents a major business move, placing the farm
family's livelihood temporarily at risk. Many decision variables need to be
considered before undertaking the transition.
A new workbook is available to help farmers explore the possibilities and
develop a plan for transitioning from conventional dairy farming to organic
production. The Organic Decision: Making the Transition to Organic Dairy
Production was developed by Cornell Cooperative Extension specialists in
consultation with the Northeast Dairy Producers Alliance.
This very practical, 40 page workbook takes a hard look at questions like:
How stable is the market for organic milk? A discussion of the trends in
milk marketing and organic milk will give a realistic view of future
organic milk price possibilities.
How much will it cost? Budget worksheets explore what transitioning to
organic production may cost your dairy farm.
What are the yield reductions in forage production? An inventory balance
calculator helps you determine forage needs before, during and after
transition.
What are the herd health considerations? What milk production, cull rate,
disease incidence and veterinary costs are reasonable to expect during your
transition period?
After completing this workbook, you will have a business plan, a budget,
and an action plan to follow during the transition process.


TEXAS (SPLENETIC) FEVER IN CATTLE; INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
September 27, 2002
Federal Register: (Volume 67, Number 188)
[Page 60854-60855]
[DOCID:fr27se02-2]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule
that amended the Texas (splenetic) fever in cattle regulations by updating
the incorporation by reference of the Texas Animal Health Commission
regulations that contain the description of the areas in Texas quarantined
because of ticks. The interim rule was necessary to update the incorporation
by reference to reflect the effective date of the current Texas Animal
Health Commission regulations that describe the quarantined area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim rule became effective on April 16, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Glen Garris, Senior Staff Officer,
Invasive Species Team, Animal Health Programs Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8093.

To subscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
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 Wendy 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 x2506
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu

archived at:
http://131.104.74.73:96/animalnet-archives.htm