AnimalNet April 4/06
Bird flu:
three cases of H5N1 detected in Burkina Faso
Health
expert: Flu pandemic can hit anytime
Study:
Vaccine best to counter bird flu
Sheep
succumb to lupinosis outbreak
FAM outbreak
in Argentina “eradicated”
Fourteen
states want US bio-agro lab
Md. bans
sale, slaughter of pigs on farm
Salmon go
veggie to save wild fish stocks
Antimicrobial
use and resistance in enteric bacteria
GM Food
& Feed - Comments from the Public
how to subscribe
Bird
flu: three cases of H5N1 detected in Burkina Faso
April 4, 2006
Agence France Presse
OUAGADOUGOU - Animal Resources Minister Tiemoko Konate was cited as announcing
late Monday that hree cases of the deadly bird flu strain H5N1 have been
identified in a farm near Burkina Faso's capital Ouagadougou, making it the
fifth African country to be hit by avian flu. The others are Nigeria, Niger,
Egypt and Cameroon.
Konate asked the public to keep cool and to report any suspected cases, saying
the government had ordered isolation of the farm concerned and a cull of its
poultry.
Health
expert: Flu pandemic can hit anytime
April 4, 2006
Associated Press
BEIJING -- Dr. Roger Glass, the new director of Fogarty International Center at
the U.S. National Institutes of Health, was cited as saying Tuesday that a
potential flu pandemic is like waiting for an earthquake along the San Andreas
fault: It's just a matter of time before the next big one strikes, adding,
"I think of it as the earthquake in San Francisco, you know it's on the
fault, you know it's going to occur but you can't tell if it's going to occur
this year or next year or the year after. But it's clearly going to happen and
the only way you can prepare is to build your houses with structure."
Glass said vaccine research and strong global collaboration are essential, along
with increased surveillance and better diagnostics, and that rumors and
misinformation can be "a real problem," adding, "Fear is a
greater problem than the price of having an answer or a way to investigate it or
a surveillance system in place that can give important answers."
Study:
Vaccine best to counter bird flu
April 4, 2006
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and
led by Timothy C. Germann of Los Alamos National Laboratory was cited as finding
that the most effective way to combat an outbreak of bird flu in people would
require a rapid and aggressive vaccination campaign as soon as the outbreak
began, even if the vaccine wasn't a perfect match, and that the rapid use of
several million doses of antiviral medicines such as Tamiflu could help stem an
outbreak.
The story says that the findings were developed by using computer models of how
flu spread would be affected by vaccines, other medication and social steps such
as closing schools and restricting travel.
A vaccine for the bird flu is currently under development and early tests
indicate it is effective in about 50 percent of patients, though it requires a
much larger dose than the regular annual flu shot. To date, the stockpile is
enough for 4 million people with a goal of being able to protect at least 20
million people.
Sheep
succumb to lupinosis outbreak
April 4, 2006
ABC Rural (Australia)
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1608132.htm
Two hundred sheep have, according to this story, died on South Australia's Eyre
Peninsula, which is experiencing its worst outbreak of lupinosis in 20 years.
Twelve sheep producers have reported deaths, with come cattle suffering symptoms
as well.
Lupinosis is a fungal disease which grows on lupin stubble from last year's
crops and is believed to have flourished with a wetter than average summer.
FAM
outbreak in Argentina “eradicated”
April 3, 2006
Merco Press (Argentina)
http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=7579
Argentina’s animal sanitary officials were cited as saying Monday that the
foot and mouth outbreak reported last February in the northeast of the country
had been “put under control and eradicated."
The outbreak was first reported last February 5 in a model cattle farm “San
Juan”, in San Luis del Palmar, Corrientes province, close to the Paraguayan
border.
The official release was quoted as saying, "Following the outbreak’s
elimination and according to sanitary regulations, SENASA (National Agro-food
Sanitary and Food Service) will gradually lift the interdictions on cattle
movement in the counties involved in the periphery of the outbreak and the
immediate vigilance zone."
More precisely, the first movements will involve "cattle destined to the
abattoirs and later on the movement of cattle among farms."
As to the origin of the outbreak the report indicates that “introduction of
the virus” seems as the most probable cause.
Fourteen
states want US bio-agro lab
April 3, 2006
The Scientist
John Miller
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23263/
Public and private institutions in at least 14 states have, according to this
story, applied to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to build and
operate its proposed $451 million National Bio-and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF),
the replacement for the department's aging Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC)
near Long Island, New York. DHS has said it will choose a "short list"
of candidates by this fall.
The story says that the 14 applicants are located in seven Southern states
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas),
five Midwestern states (Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin) and two
Western states (California and Colorado). Bidders range in size from a
consortium of California public and private universities that have paired with
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, down to the
governments of St. Lucie County in Florida and Bent County in rural Colorado.
The 500,000 square foot lab, to be built on 46,450 square meters, will expand on
Plum Island's mission, conducting research to create vaccines and drugs to fight
human diseases, foreign animal diseases, and animal diseases humans can catch.
It will house researchers from DHS, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Wherever the new lab is located, it will have an enormous local economic impact,
experts say. According to a study by the University of Georgia's Carl Vinson
Institute of Government, the NBAF will bring in between $3.5 billion and $6
billion over 20 years. Salaries alone will reach up to $2.5 billion, the report
says. The NBAF will also be extremely important for training a larger corps of
agricultural researchers, according to Bennie Osburn, dean of the School of
Veterinary Medicine at the University of California at Davis.
The Scientist compiled its list via confirmations from individual schools.
Applications had to be postmarked -- not received -- by March 31, so additional
institutions, still unknown, may have applied for the NBAF site.
The story goes on to say that when asked which applicants most deserve the NBAF,
agricultural experts The Scientist interviewed mentioned the California
combination, because it includes the state's university system and DOE's
Lawrence Livermore lab; the Athens, Georgia group, partly because it is near
USDA labs; and the North Carolina Research Triangle consortium, because it
includes Duke, the University of North Carolina, and the vet school at North
Carolina State University. Experts also gave nods to Iowa State University,
which is near a main USDA lab complex; Kansas State University, because the
state is building its own National Agricultural Biosecurity Laboratory; and the
group led by Texas A&M, partly because it already houses the National Center
for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense.
Md.
bans sale, slaughter of pigs on farm
April 4, 2006
Baltimore Sun (MD)
Mary Gail Hare
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-md.ca.inspect04apr04,0,5985946.story
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has imposed a swine quarantine on a
112-acre Carroll County farm and banned the sale and slaughter of pigs there
after federal, state and county agents discovered decomposing carcasses, piles
of bones and livestock feeding on rotting trash.
During a search for possible violations of agricultural, environmental and
animal cruelty laws, investigators and three livestock veterinarians took
samples from carcasses and removed a malnourished pig that later died.
When inspectors observed pigs feeding off garbage and animal carcasses strewn
across the property, the Agriculture Department imposed the quarantine at the
Marston farm.
Salmon
go veggie to save wild fish stocks
April 4, 2006
Society for Experimental Biology
Salmon, like humans, require omega-3 fatty acids in their diet to function
healthily. But as the fish farming industry expands, feeding salmon and other
aquatic species with pellets containing fishmeal and oil derived from processing
wild-caught marine fish is unsustainable in the long term. This is due to rising
demands for these commodities for aquafeeds and other purposes in the face of
finite or declining annual global fish catches. To provide a solution with
respect to fish oil, a team of scientists from the University of British
Columbia and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, have been studying
the effects of replacing anchovy oil with canola oil (also known as rapeseed
oil) in the diets of salmon.
The research group, led by Professors Colin Brauner and Patricia Schulte in
collaboration with Dr. Dave Higgs in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, has been monitoring changes in fish growth, exercise capacity and
hypoxia tolerance to investigate whether there are any negative consequences on
the fish's growth performance and health from a change in diet. Their results,
to be presented at the Society for Experimental Biology Annual Meeting on
Tuesday 4th April [session A4], find that the fish suffer no ill effects from
replacing up to 75% of the dietary lipid (mainly from fish oil) with canola oil.
"We are finding that as long as we meet the basic essential omega-3 fatty
acid needs of the salmon with some dietary fish oil, such as those for EPA (eicosapentaenoic
acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), the fish can be reared successfully on
these alternate diets", says Professor Brauner, "As aquaculture
continues to expand, fish oil will become increasingly more expensive because it
is a limited resource, and canola oil will not only be more sustainable as a
lipid source, but also will be consistently more cost effective too".
Using canola oil instead of marine fish oil (e.g. anchovy oil) in fish feed will
also reduce the accumulation of contaminants in salmon such as PCBs and dioxins
that are present in wild marine fish. This new "vegetarian" dietary
approach is increasingly being adopted and will likely be applied to many other
cultured fish species in the future.
Antimicrobial
use and resistance in enteric bacteria
April 3, 2006
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Morley_CompletedRpt.htm
FDA Grant FD-U-001879 (January 1, 2001 – September 30, 2005)
Principal Investigator:
Paul S. Morley, DVM, PhD, DACVIM
Animal Population Health Institute
Colorado State University
Background:
In the past century, animal agriculture in the U.S. has capitalized on abundant
feed grain supplies by using intensively managed operations to rapidly produce
large numbers of animals for harvest with high efficiency. However, these
intensive production units, sometimes called concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs), also require intensive management of animal health in order
to optimize animal wellbeing and production efficiency. One of the tools used in
the management of these animals is the strategic application of antimicrobial
drugs (AMD) to prevent and treat bacterial diseases, and to optimize production
efficiency. At the same time, development of resistance in bacteria to important
antimicrobial drugs is one of the most important health concerns world-wide.
However, there is little objective information regarding which production
practices might enhance or reduce the risk of selecting resistant bacterial
populations or enhancing their transmission in animal populations. Thus, the
overall objective of this research was to quantify the effect of common
antimicrobial use practices on the development and dissemination of
antimicrobial-resistant enteric bacteria in feedlot cattle populations.
Prospective longitudinal studies of feedlot cattle were used to accomplish the
objectives and specific aims of this research. Cattle fed at commercial feedlots
in Colorado were enrolled in the study at the time of their arrival. Pens of
cattle that were being fed for production of “natural” beef products were
purposefully enrolled as were pens of cattle introduced to the feedlot
contemporarily for production of conventional beef products. The most notable
difference between these two types of cattle was that pens of cattle raised for
natural beef production had never received antimicrobial drugs or hormonal
implants prior to arrival, and were never fed antimicrobial drugs during feeding
periods for disease prevention or to promotion of production efficiency. Fecal
samples were collected from the floors of pens approximately biweekly through
the middle of the feeding period (approximately day 70), and also within
approximately 30 days prior to slaughter. Fecal samples were cultured to recover
Salmonella and NTSEC, and isolates were evaluated for susceptibility to a
standardized panel of antimicrobial drugs. Comparisons of susceptibility results
were made between isolates recovered from cattle fed for natural beef production
and those reared using conventional practices, among isolates from pens with
varied rates of therapeutic parenteral antimicrobial exposure, and among
isolates recovered at different times of the feeding period. A total of 95 pens
of cattle were enrolled and sampled for this study between June 2001 and
September 2003, including 47 pens of cattle fed for production of natural beef
(n=6,347 cattle) and 48 pens of cattle fed for production of conventional beef
(n=5,273). A total of 12,760 fecal samples were cultured for recovery of
Salmonella enterica and non-type-specific E. coli (NTSEC).
The three specific aims of the research in this grant proposal included:
1. Compare the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in enteric Salmonella and
NTSEC between feedlot cattle that are treated orally with antimicrobial drugs
for disease prevention and growth promotion with pens of cattle that are managed
without feeding antimicrobial drugs.
Results: Among AMDs evaluated, resistance was relatively rare to drugs that are
of highest importance for treating humans, and there were no statistically
detectable differences between cattle raised for production of natural beef
compared with those raised using conventional rearing practices. Resistance
among NTSEC isolates was most common to tetracycline, streptomycin, and
sulfamethoxazole. For 4 AMDs (tetracycline, streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and
chloramphenicol), there were relatively small, but statistically detectable
higher rates of resistance among isolates recovered from cattle being raised
conventionally. Salmonella enterica were recovered at similar rates from cattle
with both rearing methods, but overall recovery was too rare (0.73%) to allow
meaningful inferential analysis of this research question using this bacterial
species. This was unexpected as several national studies performed by the USDA
have reported recovery of Salmonella from approximately 6% of samples using
similar methods to sample cattle and similar culture methods.
2. Evaluate associations between the pen-level parenteral treatment rates as
defined daily doses of antimicrobial drugs and the prevalence of antimicrobial
resistance in enteric Salmonella and NTSEC from feedlot cattle.
Results: There were no detectable associations between resistance to the AMDs
evaluated and pen-level rates of parenteral exposures to enrofloxacin and
florfenicol. Most notably, exposures to these drugs were not associated with
resistance to the most closely related drugs included in the AST panel (naladixic
acid, ciprofloxacin, or chloramphenicol). Recovery of Salmonella enterica from
these cattle was too rare (0.73%) to allow meaningful inferential analysis of
this research question in this bacterial species.
3. Compare the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in enteric Salmonella and
NTSEC that are recovered from feedlot cattle at different times during the
feeding period.
Results: Resistance prevalences among NTSEC isolates were different for 4 drugs
(cephalothin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and naladixic acid) in samples
obtained during different parts of the feeding period. However, the patterns of
change were not consistent; resistance prevalences for cephalothin and
tetracycline were higher at the end of the feeding period compared to the
beginning, but resistance prevalences for chloramphenicol and naladixic acid
were lower at the end of the feeding period.
Overall Conclusions
While there were differences in resistance prevalences for 4 AMDs (tetracycline,
streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and chloramphenicol) between isolates collected
from cattle raised for production of natural beef compared to those collected
from cattle raised to produce conventional beef, the practical significance of
these differences is not clear. There were no differences in resistance
prevelances among for drugs that are important for treatment of humans.
Therapeutic parenteral treatment of cattle did not have a detectable impact on
resistance prevalences for the drugs that were evaluated in this research,
including drugs that were closely related to AMDs evaluated for susceptibility.
Given the lack of association between AMR and documented AMD exposures during
the feeding period, it raises the question of whether differences in resistance
associated with rearing practices were associated with exposures occurring prior
to arrival at the feedlot. While there were some statistically detectable
changes in resistance prevalences over the feeding periods, the direction of
these trends differed among drugs and were not positively associated with
documented exposures in the populations. These findings suggest adopting
practices used to produce branded natural beef do not appear to uniformly or
predictably reduce prevalences of antimicrobial resistance among NTSEC.
Publications are pending from this FDA supported research.
GM
Food & Feed - Comments from the Public
April 3, 2006
European Commission
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biotechnology/authorisation/public_comments_en.htm
Four EFSA opinions on genetically modified maize for food and feed uses have
been published on the 3rd of April. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No
1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, the public may make comments on
these opinions during 1 month at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biotechnology/authorisation/public_comments_en.htm
Animalnet is produced by the Food Safety
Network at the University of Guelph, and is supported at the Gold Fork level by:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, AGCare and the Ontario Farm Animal Council.
Animalnet is supported at the Sterling Fork level by:
The Dairy Farmers of Canada.
Animalnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level by:
Food Safety & Security at Kansas State University,National Pork
Board,Canadian Animal Health Institute, Pfizer Animal Health and Ontario Pork.
Animalnet is supported at the Stainless Fork level by:
National Turkey Federation, Canadian Livestock Genetics Association and Global
Public Affairs.
The Food Safety Network's national toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638).
The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to bring together all
those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food
supply. To provide financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/en/donations.php. For information on
collaboration or fee-for-service opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell:
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
To subscribe to the html version of 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 Doug Powell
(replace animalnet-L with annettext to subscribe to the text version)
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
(replace animalnet-L with annettext to unsubscribe to the text version)
For more information about the AnimalNet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 785-317-0560
fax: 519-763-0478
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at: http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/animalnet-archives.htm