PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9149973

Implementing a quality assurance program using a risk assessment tool on dairy operations.

Abstract

Concerns and perceptions about antibiotic residues in milk prompted the dairy industry to develop a voluntary program to support rational antibiotic use on dairy farms. One deficiency of this program is the inability of producers to identify easily the weaknesses in antibiotic management in order to develop control plans. To overcome this deficiency, an educational approach was designed. The program centered on an on-farm risk assessment tool used by the producer and an industry educator to determine the current risk for residue violation. The risk assessment tool was tested by 25 field personnel working with northeastern milk receivers and 250 producers in seven states. The participants in the study identified a lack of adequate treatment records as being the highest risk factor for antibiotic residues, followed by deficiencies in understanding how to use antibiotics and poor relationships between veterinarians and their clients. When field representatives utilized the risk assessment tool, for most producers, risk of antibiotic residue decreased by approximately 19%. In particular, more farms kept written records or more complete records. Finally, producers with reported histories of antibiotic residues were less likely to implement management changes to reduce the risk of antibiotic residue.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W M Sischo, N E Kiernan, C M Burns, L I Byler. 1997. Implementing a quality assurance program using a risk assessment tool on dairy operations.. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(97)75998-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Detection of two porcine circovirus type 2 genotypic groups in United States swine herds.

In late 2005, sporadic cases of an acute onset disease of high mortality were observed in 10- to 16-week-old growing pigs among several swine herds of the United States. Tissues from the affected pigs in Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina were examined, and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) was detected consistently among these tissues. Phylogenetically, PCV2 can be divided into two major genotypic groups, PCV2-group 1 and PCV2-group 2. Whereas PCV2-group 1 isolates were detected in all the diseased animals, only two of the diseased animals harbored PCV2-group 2 isolates. This observation is important because PCV2-group 1 isolates had never been reported in the United States before (GenBank as of May 16, 2006), and they are closely related to the PCV2-group 1 isolates that have been described in Europe and Asia, previously. Our analysis revealed that each genotypic group contains a distinct stretch of nucleotide or amino acid sequence that may serve as a signature motif for PCV2-group 1 or PCV2-group 2 isolates.

Animal Husbandry↗

Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls.

The effects of gestation housing systems on sow and litter performance were evaluated for 2.5 yr in southwest Iowa. Gestation housing system treatments were as follows: 1) individual gestation stalls in a mechanically ventilated confinement building with a partially slatted floor and a manure flush system and 2) group pens with individual feed stalls in deep-bedded, naturally ventilated hoop barns. In all, 957 litters from 353 sows were evaluated. Number of pigs born alive per litter differed for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.002). Sows gestated in hoop barns gave birth to more live pigs per litter (10.0 +/- 0.2 pigs) than sows gestated in stalls (9.3 +/- 0.2 pigs). Preweaning mortality was not different for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.70). Cross-fostering was done to equalize litter size within 24 h of birth, which resulted in an equal number of weaned pigs per sow (P = 0.50) regardless of gestation housing treatment. The weaning-to-breeding interval was different (P = 0.01), with sows kept in stalls (4.3 +/- 0.6 d) returning to estrus sooner than sows gestated in hoop barns (6.0 +/- 0.6 d). These results indicate that gestating sows can be housed as groups in deep-bedded hoop barns equipped with individual feeding stalls and will perform comparably to gestating sows housed in confinement systems with individual gestation stalls.

Animal Husbandry↗