VOLUME 1, ISSUE 3, DECEMBER 1998

Head/Director's Message

• Welcome
• Meet the Staff
• Staff News

Research News

• The polymerase chain reaction

Diagnostic News

• Bovine Respiratory Season
• Cl. perfringens PCR
• Bovine Abortion Sample Submission

Extension News

• Salmonella typhimurium DT 104
• Wean-to-Finish Buildings
• Protein feed rules

Student News

• Former SDSU student says internship experience very important

Herd Health Conference

On September 14-16, 1998 the SDSU Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (ADRDL) underwent its 5 year accreditation review by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD). The results of that accreditation review will be known sometime in February 1999. The ADRDL has been accredited as a full service veterinary diagnostic laboratory by the AAVLD since the accreditation process began decades ago. Currently there are 37 accredited labs in the US and Canada. The purpose of the accreditation process is to establish accepted guidelines to promote quality and consistency of diagnostic test procedures across the industry. The livestock belt has traditionally had diagnostic labs with strong reputations for quality.

The AAVLD has multiple purposes:

• Dissemination of animal disease information
• Coordination of diagnostic activities
• Establishment of uniform diagnostic techniques
• Improvement of existing diagnostic techniques
• Establishment of accepted guidelines relative to accreditation
• Serve as consultant to the US Animal Health Association relative to uniform diagnostic criteria

Examples of AAVLD activities that fulfill the above purposes includes the accreditation review process, publication of the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, an annual continuing education conference for veterinary diagnosticians, promotion of regional conferences for veterinary diagnosticians, publication of a newsletter, and maintenance of a diagnostic list on the internet. The AAVLD currently has over 1,000 dues paying members comprised of veterinary diagnosticians with varying specialties.

On a personal note, I have recently been elected by the AAVLD to serve as Vice President of the organization. Progressing through the ranks, I will eventually serve as president in the year 2001. I share this honor with all faculty and staff of the ADRDL, as I am sure the strong reputation of this lab has provided me this opportunity to serve.

On September 18, 1998 an official ground breaking ceremony was held at the ADRDL for the department’s new Animal Resource Wing. The ceremony was held in conjunction with Dr. Peggy Gordon Elliott’s inaugural celebration. Over 200 people attended the ceremony including President Elliott, Dean Cholick, livestock leaders, politicians, faculty, staff, and citizens. The building is the second and final stage of our facilities enhancement project that began several years ago. Phase one was the construction of the new diagnostic laboratory and renovation of the old lab, built with $5.4 million of state funds. Phase two will be built with $5.4 million from a federal matching grant (CSREES). The animal resource wing will modernize our animal disease research capabilities and provide state of the art lab animal housing facilities for the entire campus. As always, research conducted at SDSU is focused on the control and eradication of naturally occurring infectious diseases of farm animals. Elimination of natural diseases of animals enhances their quality of life and provides economic benefits to the producers. The project will take approximately two years to complete. The department is appreciative to all that have provided political support for these facility enhancement projects over the past years. These facilities enable us to complete our mission: To protect and improve the health of animals, the viability of the SD livestock industry, and the welfare of society through high quality diagnostic, research, Extension, and teaching activities.

Jane Schoper was selected as the winner of the 1997-1998 MS Sigma Xi Research Award M.S. Paper Contest.

Dr. David Francis was honored at the SDSU Fall Graduation December 12, 1998, by the F. O. Butler Foundation for Excellence in Research.

The 1998-1999 Pre-Vet Club officers are: Stephanie Cotten, president; Heather Swan, vice-president; John Bode, secretary; and Curt Vliestra, treasurer.

The club is attempting to have a program at the monthly meetings featuring veterinarians or veterinary related topics. Dr. Rose Davidson from Brookings spoke at the October meeting about the local humane society. We hope to have a speaker in November on zoo veterinary medicine. In April we have tentatively scheduled Mr. Vern Halter, an Iditarod sled dog racer. Other activities this year include a Hobo Day float, a fall trip to the University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Annual Spring Symposium trip, which will be at Purdue University this year. The monthly meeting is usually held on the first Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m. in Room 130 of the Veterinary Science Building.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

by Jane Christopher-Hennings DVM, MS

Currently "PCR" or the polymerase chain reaction is being used to identify bacterial and viral agents that cause infectious diseases in animals. This assay was developed in the early 1980s and the developers were awarded the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1993. The hallmark of PCR is an exponential amplification of a target DNA sequence which makes this test very sensitive. In other words, a very small amount of DNA or RNA from an infectious agent can be identified (see diagram below). In order to obtain this amplification of an organism’s genome, an enzymatic reaction using Taq polymerase enzyme is placed into a thermal cycler- a machine which cycles through (usually 3) different temperatures repeatedly for up to 30 or 40 cycles. The first temperature denatures the double stranded DNA of the infectious agent. The second temperature is an annealing step in which "primers", which are DNA sequences complementary to a portion of the infectious agent’s genome, bind to the target DNA and the third temperature allows for extension of the primer sequences to obtain a strand of DNA complementary to the infectious agent DNA. When these 3 temperatures are repeated for 30 to 40 cycles, the DNA is exponentially amplified and then can be detected by a technique known as "agarose gel electrophoresis".

Since PCR detects a portion of the genome of an infectious agent, you do not have to wait for a host response to the infectious agent to detect it. In other words, with serology testing, it is necessary for the animal to mount an immune response in the form of antibodies to the infectious agent in order to determine whether that infectious agent was or is still present. Therefore, with PCR you may be able to detect the infectious agent earlier than with a serology test. However, just because you have detected that particular agent by PCR, it does not mean that the agent is causing the disease. For instance, if virus isolation were performed and was positive for the infectious agent, you would know that the agent is alive and able to replicate and therefore, more likely to have caused disease. The presence of the agent’s DNA as detected by PCR may or may not indicate that it is infectious.

PCR technology is usually much quicker to perform and therefore you can obtain results in a shorter amount of time than virus isolation or culturing. It may take several days for a virus to grow in culture or several weeks for a bacteria to grow in culture. Some bacteria are also very fastidious and may not grow well in culture. Some samples such as boar semen are not conducive to placing on cells for virus growth since they are cytotoxic and destroy the cell monolayer whether the virus is present or not.

Even though PCR is much quicker to perform than other tests, it is also a very tedious and labor intensive test and requires very skilled technical people to perform the test. New automated PCR systems are being developed, but are quite expensive at this time. However, this new automated technology will be very helpful in standardizing PCR testing.

Currently we are performing PCR for Porcine

Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) on serum, semen and tissues as well as PCR on fecal material and tissues for Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (Johne’s Disease). We have also recently put the Clostridium perfringens toxin typing PCR test on line.

We are in the process of developing PCR tests for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Lawsonia intracellularis and are performing PCR for the detection of BVD. To ensure quality control, before any PCR will be brought "on line" in the diagnostic laboratory, we have determined that a "validation" folder will be needed listing the important qualifications for validation. This would include the paper from which the primers, reagents, extraction procedures and any other protocols or supplies were obtained, the sensitivity and specificity of the test, a complete standard operating procedure, a form describing how, when and where the test should be used, as well as what specimens have been tested in our laboratory with this procedure.

We are also fortunate to have received a competitive grant from the USDA to purchase an automated PCR system called the Perkin-Elmer 9700 Sequence Detection System. After we obtain this system, we will design fluorescent "probes" specific for viral and bacterial agents that we want to detect. This automated system will then allow us to perform PCR in a 96-well format and provide quicker results.

We encourage anyone with concerns, questions or suggestions concerning PCR development and procedures to contact the following people in the ADRDL PCR Development group which includes: David Zeman DVM, PhD; Jane Christopher-Hennings DVM, MS; Eric Nelson PhD, CCL Chase DVM, PhD; David Benfield PhD or Tammy Fraser MS.

DH Zeman, DVM, PhD (VSD/ADRDL)

Fall and winter are typically the peak seasons for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD). The cold weather stress, weaning of calves and their placement in feedlots all account for the increase in BRD submissions this time of year. Based on the 1997 ADRDL annual report, the most common pathogens identified in BRD submissions are as follows:

Pasteurella haemolytica 124

Pasteurella multocida 62

Haemophilus somnus 50

Actinomyces pyogenes 26

BVD virus 18

BRS virus 13

IBR virus 6

Antibiotic sensitivity testing was conducted on many isolates. A summary of the three most common bacterial pathogens follows. This summary does not represent a treatment recommendation.

S = Sensitive

M = Moderate sensitive

R = Resistant

We are now able to perform PCR for Clostridium perfringens toxin typing at the ADRDL. Four major toxins can be detected (a, b, e , i) and these are the basis for classification of the organism into 5 toxinogenic types (Type A, B, C, D and E). The use of this test along with history, clinical signs and other diagnostic testing such as histopathology should be useful in generating information on which to base prevention and control strategies.

The specimen which should be submitted is feces or intestine. Feces and/or intestine will be anaerobically cultured to obtain a C. perfringens for toxin type. Results will be reported as Type A, B, C, D or E and enterotoxigenic or non-enterotoxigenic. Until it is determined how many requests we will be getting, the test will initially be performed twice monthly on the 1^st and 15^th of the month and results will be reported within 3 days. If it is necessary to perform the test before these times, contact Tammy Fraser. The cost for testing will be $25.00 per sample.

Larry D. Holler DVM, PhD, ADRDL, SDSU

The entire fetus and placenta, chilled, not frozen, are the preferred specimens when transportation can be arranged.

When the entire fetus cannot be submitted to the laboratory, the following specimens are the minimum if a complete examination is to be done.

Formalin fixed Fresh (chilled)

lung lung *

liver liver

kidney kidney

spleen spleen

heart heart

brain (1/2) brain*

skeletal muscle (tongue, diaphragm) placenta*

placenta (grossly examine for focal lesions)

Also collect:

stomach content - 1-3 ml in sterile disposable syringe**

thoracic fluid or heart blood from fetus - 3-5 ml in sterile disposable syringe**

Maternal blood should be collected and 3 - 5 ml of serum should be separated from the clot. Serology on individual animals is often unrewarding. Samples should be saved for further evaluation in a whole herd profile at a later date, if not submitted with the initial case.

Put the fresh tissues in sterile bags, and chill or freeze if delivery to the lab will be prolonged. Put formalin-fixed tissue in an unbreakable, leak-proof container. Label samples accordingly. Ship in an insulated container with enough ice packs to maintain refrigerated conditions until arrival at the laboratory.

*package these tissues in separate whirl pacs

**transfer to sterile tube if possible

Do not hesitate to contact the laboratory for assistance in sample collection or submissions procedures! Procedures will vary from lab to lab.

Bill Epperson, DVM, SDSU

Salmonella typhimurium DT104 is a unique strain of Salmonella typhimurium, (serogroup B), that has only recently been recognized. The "DT" stands for "Definitive Type", which is determined by the susceptibility of the bacteria to a battery of bacteriophages (viruses that infect a bacteria). Of particular concern is the emergence of DT104 that is resistant to 5 antimicrobials - ampicillin, chloramphenicol (or florfenicol), streptomycin, sulfonamides, and tetracycline. These penta-resistant strains have been associated with higher hospitalization and mortality rates in humans. Many, though not all, of the penta-resistant Salmonella typhimurium appear to be Salmonella typhimurium DT104.

Salmonella typhimurium DT104 causes diarrhea and septicemia in affected animals. Calves or post parturient cows are the populations primary affected. Commonly, signs include fever, anorexia, dehydration, diarrhea and death. Case fatality rates may be very high, often ³ 40%. Treatment is usually perceived to be of limited benefit.

Similar severe signs are reported in humans. In a study in the United Kingdom, 41% of DT104 cases required hospitalization, and 3% died. In contrast, the case fatality rate in humans for other salmonella was about 0.1%, or about 1/30 of the rate of DT104. This fact indicates that DT104 is a relatively virulent human pathogen.

The modes of transmission of DT104 to man include foodborne (drinking unpasteurized milk has been implicated in several outbreaks), and direct contact with feces of affected animals. These transmission modes put farm families, especially those who drink unpasteurized milk, at higher risk of infection. Additionally, persons on antibiotic therapy have much greater risk of acquiring Salmonella infection (including the DT104 type) compared to people not on antibiotics. Veterinarians and physicians should bear this fact in mind, and avoid self medication with antibiotics or indiscriminate use in humans where risk of contact with Salmonella may be increased due to occupational exposure.

Many animals, including cats and dogs, and all the major livestock species and birds, may be infected with DT104. In the UK there were 259 isolations of DT104 in 1990, but increased to 4006 isolations in 1996. However, preliminary human data for 1997 indicates that DT104 may have peaked and now be on the decline in the UK. Within the 1990s, the United Kingdom has seen an increase in human origin multi-drug resistant Salmonella typhimurium DT104. The penta resistant DT104 type increased from 39% of all DT104 isolates in 1990 to 98% in 1995. Resistance to trimethoprim (in addition to the other 5) was reported in <2% of Salmonella typhimurium DT104 in 1992 but was reported to increase to 24% in 1994.

In the UK, the Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens (LEP) receives all human Salmonella isolates and performs extensive work to characterize each isolate. The LEP has reported an increase in Salmonella typhimurium DT104 resistance to ciprofloxacin (a floroquinolone). They first reported that resistance to ciprofloxacin began 1993, and that by 1996 14% of DT104 were resistant to the original 5 antimicrobials, plus ciprofloxacin. These reports have caused great alarm for public health authorities. Since ciprofloxacin is often considered the "big gun" for human enteric infections, resistance to this antibiotic poses a threat in human therapeutics.

At a recent meeting of beef quality assurance coodinators, Dr. Kathy Ewert of Bayer Animal Health challenged the interpretation of the LEP data, and stated that ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella typhimurium DT104 has not changed. She explained that the ciprofloxacin MIC "breakpoint" used by the LEP is ³ 0.25 m g/ml, whereas the ciprofloxacin (enrofloxacin) breakpoint used by the majority of the medical (veterinary) community is ³ 2.0 m g/ml. This means that the LEP calls Salmonella typhimurium DT104 that are inhibited at a ciprofloxacin concentration of <0.25 "sensitive", and "resistant" if it is not inhibited at this low level. However, most of the medical community would not consider a Salmonella typhimurium resistant to ciprofloxacin until the MIC of the organism was ³ 2.0 m g/ml, or 8 times the breakpoint level used by the Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens. The LEP appears to be reporting very minor changes in the patterns of Salmonella typhimurium DT104 sensitivity between 1993 and 1996, by reporting a greater proportion of isolates not inhibited by ciprofloxacin at 0.25 m g/ml. When the 2.0 m g/ml breakpoint is applied to data from the LEP, there has been no change in ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella typhimurium DT104. Dr. Ewert concluded that ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella typhimurium DT104 has not been documented, and that the LEP is reporting a change in antibiotic sensitivity, not a change in antibiotic resistance.

In Salmonella typhimurium DT104, antibiotic resistance is considered to be chromosomally mediated, which means the genes for antibiotic resistance are located in the bacterial chromosome. This is in distinction to plasmid mediated resistance, where resistance genes are located in bits of extrachromosomal DNA. Extrachromosomal DNA might be thought of as being somewhat of a "transient", in that the genetic material can be transferred (gained or lost). If antibiotic resistance in Salmonella typhimurium DT104 is chromosomally mediated, then resistance, once achieved, may be permanent.

In livestock in the UK, there has been some increase in Salmonella typhimurium isolations. However, within S. typhimurium, there has been a marked increase in the DT104 type, from about 45% in 1993 to 70% in 1995. This indicates that DT104 may have some competitive advantage over other S. typhimurium.

Contrary to the UK, there is no single laboratory that receives and types all human Salmonella isolates, therefore data on this pathogen in the US is limited. Multiple drug resistant human Salmonella typhimurium DT104 has increased from 2% of Salmonella typhimurium isolates in 1980 to 12% in 1995. However, there has been no increase in the overall number of Salmonella typhimurium isolations in humans. To date, there has been no Salmonella typhimurium DT104 resistance to trimethoprim or ciprofloxacin documented in the US. A study conducted by Washington State indicates animal origin penta-resistant Salmonella typhimurium have increased from 13% of all Salmonella typhimurium isolations in the late 80’s to 64% in the time period 1992-1995. This suggests that drug resistant Salmonella typhimurium is emerging in the animal population. Work is ongoing to assess this on a broad national scale.

There has been no large increase in the total number of Salmonella isolations in the period 1994- May 1998 at SD-ADRDL as shown in Table 1. Of the Salmonella isolations, there has been a shift toward a greater proportion originating from bovine cases in this time. However, the data cannot be used to conclude that the number of bovine Salmonella cases in the field have increased. The pattern seen at SD-ADRDL may only reflect a change in case submissions, rather than an actual increase in field cases of Salmonella.

Between 1994-1997, 77% of the typed group B Salmonellas at SD-ADRDL have been identified as Salmonella typhimurium. Considering only bovine Salmonella group B isolates (the animal species most closely associated with DT104 so far), nearly 92% of those typed are typed as Salmonella typhimurium. Therefore, a group B Salmonella from a bovine is likely to be Salmonella typhimurium.

The antibiotic sensitivity pattern (using the sensititre system) for selected antibiotics of bovine origin Group B Salmonella between 1996-1997 is shown in Table 2. Though not all these group B salmonella have been serotyped, we would expect most (92%) of these to type as Salmonella typhimurium, using historical data.

As seen, there has been a trend toward less sensitivity to tetracyline, ampicillin, and sulfas. At present, it appears that resistance to florfenicol is nearly complete in this bacterial group. However, we have recently been advised that sensititre has used dilutions that are too low and may underestimate antibiotic sensitivity. The florfenicol breakpoints used for this analysis are resistance at >1μg/ml, and moderate susceptibility at >.5μg/ml - ≤1μg/ml.

Salmonella typhimurium DT104 generally displays resistance to tetracyline, ampicillin, sulfas (i.e. sulfachlorpyridazine), chloramphenicol (or florfenicol), and streptomycin. Between 1996 and 1997, there was a significant decrease in proportion of bovine group B Salmonella sensitive to tetracycline and ampicillin (p=0.04). Of interest to practitioners, there has been a decrease in sensitivity to ceftiofur (Naxcel) and Tribrissen. These have been commonly used antibiotics in animals showing signs consistent with salmonella infection.

Of the 1997 bovine origin group B salmonella, there were a total of 27 with sensitivity data against ampicillin, tetracycline, florfenicol, and sulfachlorpyridazine (sensitivities against streptomycin were not performed, and not all 1997 isolates were tested against florfenicol). Of these 27, 24 were resistant to all 4 drugs, indicating that these have a (partial) resistance pattern consistent with Salmonella typhimurium DT104. Study of this small group of isolates is warranted, and indicates that resistant salmonella may be somewhat common in our region.

This data must be interpreted with caution, since they are not definitive, and we cannot say that Salmonella typhimurium DT104 is emerging in the South Dakota area. Personnel at the SD-ADRDL are working with researchers at Washington State and National Veterinary Service Laboratory to clarify what, if any, trend is occurring. However, it does appear that antibiotic resistance in bovine group B Salmonella may be increasing, though a longer term perspective (looking at sensitivity patterns back further in time) is needed. Consistent with other areas, Salmonella typhimurium DT104 has occurred in the South Dakota area, as several Salmonella typhimurium isolates received at SD-ADRDL have been typed as DT104. It is not surprising that Salmonella typhimurium DT104 is present, and as we look further we will probably find more, both in the South Dakota area and in other regions. This information should serve to remind practitioners to be on watch for herd outbreaks of severe febrile disease with diarrhea and consider the possibility that Salmonella is involved. Diagnosis in these herds is essential, before a control and prevention plan can be constructed. Veterinarians should bear in mind the antibiotic resistance trends in these pathogens, and be cautioned that the use of trimethoprim containing products may lead to the selection of Salmonella strains resistant to this drug. In the bovine, trimethoprim is rapidly eliminated after cattle are 1 week old, so the benefit in use of the potentiated sulfas is primarily in the sulfa. As stated before by the FDA, any extralabel use of the floroquinolones is illegal. Veterinarians need to remember that Salmonella are zoonotic pathogens, and that Salmonella typhimurium DT104 is particularly virulent in humans.

Optimizing throughput of facilities is critical for maximizing the gross and net revenue of swine operations. During the past decade pig flow alterations have occurred as the industry strives to optimize facility utilization and incorporate segregated production. The industry is transitioning to a system that includes breeding/gestation, farrowing, and single-stage nursery/finishing.

Wean-finish buildings (single stage wean-finish) are becoming an accepted method of pig flow. Performance data continue to accumulate to support that these buildings and pig flow are economically viable compared to the traditional nursery and finishing flow. In these facilities, pigs are weaned directly into a finishing-style building and remain until slaughter. Similar to other production methods, the weaning age is less than 21 days. The wean-finish facilities generally are typical finishing buildings including the following:

• Total Concrete Slats - Concrete slats should have slot width of at least one inch. Some producers are using a combination of plastic flooring and cement slats to provide an improved comfort area for the pigs.
• Tunnel Ventilation
• Shallow or Deep Pit
• Finishing Feeders - the feeders should have a low front lip, a wide trough, and solid dividers.
• Cup waterers or nipple-bowl combinations

The building alterations compared to a typical finishing building include:

• Zone Heating - Zone heating is provided by heat lamps, gas pen infrareds, or gas tube infrareds.
• Comfort Mats - Comfort mats are placed in the pens to provide an area for feeding and collection of the zone heating. The mats usually remain in the same manner as the nursery.

The single flow of pigs weaned to finish has these advantages- lower transportation costs, lower labor costs for cleaning/disinfecting, lower pig stress, improved performance, increased facility flexibility, and increased facility utilization days.

The disadvantages are increased facility cost and less efficient facility square footage utilization.

Data suggest an improvement in days to market of 10+, an improvement in feed conversion of 0.15, and an improvement of 1 percent lean. Some systems have been loading the wean-finish buildings at 150 percent of finish capacity and removing the lighter 50 percent, 8 to 12 weeks post placement, which increases the pounds generated per square foot of building.

The construction costs are similar to the typical finishing buildings. The operational costs are slightly higher than a finisher because of heating. The following table illustrates typical Midwest construction costs:

The single-stage wean-market facilities have an additional cost of $0.50 to $0.70 per pig.

Single fill wean-finish buildings offer a potentially lower cost pig low with more flexibility than the typical system. The benefit of stock people not moving multitudes of pigs and the resulting decreases in stress of pigs may outweigh the present benefits of a typical system.

Taken from Wean-to-Finish Buildings, UNL Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences Extension Newsletter, June 1998; from Joseph F. Connor, DVM, MS, Highlights from the 1997 Annual Fall Conference: Swine Program, printed in Illinois Veterinary Bulletin Vol. 6, No. 1, April 1998.

Dairy and beef cattle producers are now prohibited from feeding to their cattle certain commonly used protein feed ingredients made from rendered mammalian tissue. The rules, issued in August 1997 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are designed to prevent the establishment and spread in the U.S. of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The disease commonly known as "Mad Cow Disease", has been found in European cattle herds, but has not been diagnosed in the U.S. The rule bans most types of protein made from mammalian tissue from feeds given to cattle and other ruminants (four-stomached-animals). An example of this protein is meat and bone meal made from cattle byproducts. Cattle may become infected with BSE when they eat contaminated protein products made from rendered diseased animals.

Feed manufacturers, protein blenders, and rendering companies are required to label any feeds or feed ingredients containing prohibited material with the warning statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants". FDA can take action against a company that sells prohibited material that does not have the warning label on it, especially if that feed is sold to cattle producers. The rule has several provisions that apply to dairy or beef cattle producers:

• You must watch for that warning label, and avoid using any prohibited feed in cattle rations.
• If you suspect that feed may contain prohibited ingredients, do not accept it until you are sure it does not. Buy feed products only from companies that comply with the new rules.
• If you mix feed for both cattle and non-ruminant animals (such as hogs and poultry) and you use prohibited material in the non-ruminant feed, you must either use a completely separate mixer for the cattle feed or carefully clean out your mixer to be sure no prohibited material contaminates that cattle feed. Even if you do not mix your own feed, but purchase feed for both cattle and non-ruminants, you must take steps to make sure that any prohibited material intended for your non-ruminant animals is not accidentally fed to your cattle.
• You must keep records for a minimum of one year concerning all animal protein ingredients you buy and use with your cattle. For one year, keep copies of purchase invoices and labeling of all feeds that you receive containing animal protein products. The copies must be available for government inspectors. Keep at least one representative copy of the label from each type of feed you buy. FDA on-farm records inspections will be limited, but will be needed to verify that prohibited material is not being sold for feeding to cattle.

If you are careful in selecting feed and feed ingredients, and you keep adequate records, then you will not be found in violation of FDA's rules. More important, you will be doing all you can to protect your herd from risk of this disease.

Taken from New protein feed rules for ruminants, Ohio Veterinary Newsletter, Vol. 25, No. 1, Fall, 1998, as seen in the Nebraska Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 6, July 1998. Taken originally from FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Jan 98; Herd Health Memo, 1997-98 #10, April 1998.

Faculty and staff in the SDSU Veterinary Science Department have many contacts in the animal health industry. These include professional relationships with pharmaceutical companies, biological companies, research companies, private veterinarians, other state animal diagnostic laboratories, and government agencies (public health, animal health regulating bodies, and government research institutions). These identities are often looking to place students in internships. Such temporary employment opportunities give students a chance to experience the job and culture of a large institution, as well as see a different part of the U.S. I conducted an e-mail interview with Sara Johannson, a 1998 SDSU graduate, who completed an internship experience in the summer of her junior year. Sara is now working for an animal health company, Diamond Labs. As a student, she had worked in the diagnostic virology section under the direction of Pam Steen, our virology section leader. Pam helped to arrange her internship.

Mark your calendars for the 1998 Herd Health Conference. This year, we will hold the conference on Friday, January 15, in Sioux Falls at the Ramkota Inn from 9:15 - 4:30 p.m. The focus will be on Johne's Disease Control. The featured speaker is Dr. Mike Collins from the University of Wisconsin. This will be an opportunity to take some time for an intensive discussion of Johne's in dairy and beef herds.

This meeting is being co-sponsored by SDSU extension, University of Nebraska extension, the SDVMA, and NVMA District VII. Veterinarians and veterinary technicians are invited. Registration is $80/veterinarian; $40/technician with lunch included. Call Janice at 688-6649 to pre-register.

Back to Newsletters