• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Table of Contents
 Latest indicator of feed efficiency...
 Feeding corn gluten feed to beef...
 Differences in milk EPD were reflective...
 UF vet heals sick horses with...
 United States Animal Identification...
 USDA announces new food safety...














Group Title: Animal science newsletter
Title: Animal science newsletter ; December 2003
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067334/00047
 Material Information
Title: Animal science newsletter ; December 2003
Series Title: Animal science newsletter
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Department of Animal Sciences, IFAS
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date: December 2003
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067334
Volume ID: VID00047
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

00001 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Latest indicator of feed efficiency could spur new generation of efficient cattle
        Page 2
    Feeding corn gluten feed to beef cattle
        Page 3
    Differences in milk EPD were reflective of differences in weaning weight EPD
        Page 4
    UF vet heals sick horses with acupuncture
        Page 5
        Page 6
    United States Animal Identification Plan
        Page 7
    USDA announces new food safety and security guidelines for consumers
        Page 8
Full Text














In This Issue...
Beecf Nlana-,cmcntll ('lcndai31
Larcts Indicatoi of Fccd Efficicnc\ C'ould
SpuH NcI\\ Cicncration of Efficicnt ('attrlc
Fccdinu'i, (rn G(lutcn Fccd to Bcef C'attlc
Diffcrcnccs in NMilk EPD \Wcic Rcflccti c o
Diffcrcencs~ In W\caniiw \\c-Cih EPD
Impact of R'lpctItI\ c 1. scf Gt Gm\\t Implanirt oii
Bccf lialit\ andi Palarabilirt
Don'r Tr\ Tis At\r Homec l IF \ct HcalS Sicl,
Hoisc. \Wailh A\cLI'LnctiL ic
Illiitcd Statcs Aiiiinal iciitrificarion Plan (WIS.AIPI
LISDA .AnioLtincc Nc\\ Food Safct\ and Sccuri\r
G;LI'llellneS f01'C C'O SLLIniers


-J ~Dates to Remember


December 2003
4-5 FL A Buid of Diicctmu (.uuitc I'. M\eIctinm -
-' r. inC-\ ille. FL
6 4-H Livestock Evaluation School and 4-H/FFA Horse
Judging School Gainesville, FL
4 13 5th \iiiuiil D)ce-Moto' C iunti, 4-H Pi'-pcct Slhio. -
Tunilei -ili-( \ i1% Cl eni'
25 Christmas Day
'79 ( keccli hec inu lit' i (l k\ .1%ile ( kecclichlhec. FL

January 2004
I Nc\-\ YC.'LI D.i ,
7 15 21st Annual Florida Cattlemen's Institute and Allied
Trade Show Kissimmee, FL
22-23 21111- Flirid.i Rii in.iiit Nilrinih, S',] Ti,,1I inl i -
8 (.i.nii '-\ n ill. FL
24 Bull Test Sale Marianna, FL


Prepared by Extension Specialists in
Animal Sciences

F.G. Hembry, Professor
Department Chairman
o E.L. Johnson, Associate Professor
Extension Equine Specialist
T.T. Marshall, Professor
Beef Cattle Management
o R.O. Myer, Professor
Animal Nutritionist, Marianna
o R.S. Sand, Associate Professe
Extension Livestock Specialtt r *
W. Taylor, Coordinator
Youth Education/Training
o S.H. TenBroeck, Associate Professor
Extension Equine Specialist
T.A. Thrift, Assistant Professor
Beef Cattle Nutrition


Just a reminder that the official Florida Bull Test web
page is located at http://flbulltest.ifas.ufl.edu/. This is a
great source for information on the bull test program.


4. L.1Ul,' l i r>YOF
FLORIDA
EXTENSION


Florida Bull Test
NFREC Beef Research Unit,
Marianna


IFAS



-F


UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
North Florida Research and Education Cemer
Marianna
Beef and Forage Programs
Bull Test Programs


Gar Hansen, Faculty Advisor 850-482-1243
For Information Contact: Ronnie Hartzog, Bull Test Coordinator 850-482-1252
Mary Chambliss, NFREC, Marianna 850-482-9904


UNIVERSITY OF Ii l
FLORIDA 'cfl ucfe n c

IFAS EXTENSION J Nt' || 101.


Decem6er2003


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmatve Acton Employer authorized to provide research, educational information, and
other services only to individuals that functon with regard to race, color sex, age, handicap, or national ongin. For information on obtaining other extension pubhcatons, contact your
county Cooperative Extension Service office.


~nn~
~rmmr~
~rmmrr~
~rmmr~nnn


nnn~n~rmmrr
r~nr~nnnm~nn








Beef Management
Calendar


December
0 Begin grazing small grain pastures (if ready).
0 Check mineral feeder.
0 Check for external parasites and treat if needed.
0 Deworm cows and heifers prior to winter feeding
season.
0 Observe regularly for calving difficulties.
0 Rotate calving pastures to prevent diseases.
0 Watch for scours in calves.
O Investigate health of bulls before you buy.
0 Have dead animals posted by a veterinarian or
diagnostic laboratory.
0 Complete review of management plan and update
for next year. Check replacement heifers to be sure
they will be ready to breed 3 4 weeks prior to the
main cow herd.

January
0 Apply lime for summer crops.
0 Check for lice and treat if necessary.
0 Control weeds in cool season pastures.
0 Begin grazing winter clover pastures when
approximately 6 inches high. Rye should be 12-8
inches high.
0 Check mineral feeders.
0 Put bulls out for October calving season.
0 Make up breeding herd lists if using single sire herds.
0 Watch for calf scours.
0 Give bulls extra feed and care so they will be in
condition for breeding season.
0 Make sure cow herd has access to adequate fresh
water.
0 Buy only performance tested bulls with superior
records.
0 Gettaxes filed.
0 Discuss herd health with you veterinarian and outline
a program for the year. Review herd health program
with your veterinarian regularly.
0 Carry a pocket notebook to record heat, breeding
abnormalities, discharges, abortions, retained
placentas, difficult calvings and other data.
0 Observe cow herd for calving difficulties.


a


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml


0 Watch for grass tetany on winter pastures.
0 Increase magnesium levels in mineral mixes if grass
tetany has been previous problem (if you are not
already using a high magnesium mineral).
0 Examine bulls for breeding soundness and semen
quality prior to the breeding season.
0 Vaccinate cows and heifers against vibriosis and
leptospirosis prior to the breeding season.

February
R Top dress winter forages, if needed.
0 Check and fill mineral feeders.
0 Put bulls out with breeding herd.
0 Work calves (identify, implant with growth stimulant,
vaccinate, etc.).
0 Make sure lactating cows are receiving an adequate
level of energy.
0 Watch calves for signs of respiratory diseases.
0 Cull cows that failed to calve while prices are
seasonally up.
0 Check for lice and treat if needed.



-- Latest Indicator
of Feed Efficiency
Could Spur New
Generation of
Efficient Cattle

The concept of net feed intake was expanded in
the 1990s by Australian beef researchers, and now a
research project led by Basarab and funded by the
Canada Alberta Beef Industry Development Fund
(CABIDF) backs the Australian findings.
"We now feel that we have an excellent method to
measure the feed efficiency of cattle, and that feed costs
can be significantly reduced by selecting low net feed
intake cattle over high net feed intake cattle," says
Basarab. "Low net feed intake cattle also produce less
manure and methane than high net feed intake cattle,
producing a positive environmental spin-off."
Here's an example of how net feed intake works:
A British-cross steer with a 453.6 kg bodyweight gaining
1.76 kg per day on a finishing diet has an expected feed








intake of 14.5 kg per day, according to the National
Research Council's Nutrient Requirements for Beef
Cattle. However, if the actual feed intake for the steer
were 10.2 kg per day, 4.3 kg less than expected, the net
feed intake would be 4.3 kg per day.
"Like a golf score, a negative value is better and
indicates an efficient animal," he says. "In the past, it was
thought if cattle were selected for improved average daily
gain, feed efficiency would follow. But what seems to
have happened is that we selected for a faster-growing,
larger animal with increased appetite, but no better in
terms of feed efficiency."
In a two-year serial slaughter study conducted by
Basarab's team, 148 steers from five genetic strains were
monitored for individual animal feed intake over a finishing
period ranging from 71 to 183 days.
The variation in feed intake among different animals
can be large and costly. Steers grew at 1.52 kg/day and
had an actual feed intake of 12.3 kg/day while consuming
a finishing diet. Even in a small pen of 75 head, individuals
varied in net feed intake from efficient (-1.95 kg/day) to
inefficient (+1.82 kg/day). This means that the efficient
animal consumed 3.77 kg per day less than the inefficient
animal for the same level of weight gain.
The study found that this variation in net feed intake
represented a difference of more than $45 in feed costs
(with feed costs pegged at $0.101/kg. as fed) during a
120-day test period, which represents about $109 million
a year in feed savings for feedlot operators alone. "The
benefit to cow-calf producers and seedstock operators
is estimated to be at least as high," says Basarab.
The Alberta study revealed for the first time that
animals with different net feed intakes were similar in
carcass characteristics, empty body weight, relative
proportions of most organs and tissues in empty body
weight, he says. "This is important because people were
worried low net feed intake cattle might have less fat
and marbling, reducing meat quality," he says. "But that
is not the case."
The maj or difference Basarab found among net feed
intake groups was in heat production, with low net feed
intake steers having an 11.2 percent lower heat
production value than medium net feed intake steers and
17 percent lower than high net feed intake steers. "This


confirms previous studies indicating that high net feed
intake cattle have higher maintenance energy costs than
low net feed intake cattle," he says.
Currently, Basarab is working with private and
public partners to hone a testing system that singles out
feed-efficient breeding bulls, in order to begin passing
the valuable trait to Alberta's future cattle herd. "The
Australians are ahead on getting low net feed intake
genetics into their herd, so this also a matter of staying
competitive," he says.
CABIDF is aj oint $16.4 million fund of Alberta
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and has supported
more than 50 projects in five categories. The fund is
administered by the Alberta Beef Producers.


SOURCE:


Federation ofAnimal Science
Societies (FASS)
http://www.fass.org/contact.asp
Release November 20, 2003


-RSS-


Feeding Corn Gluten Feed to
Beef Cattle

Corn gluten feed is a by-product of the wet milling
industry. The wet milling industry isolates starch from
corn, which is used to make sweeteners. Corn gluten
feed is produced in a wet form (60% water) and dry
form (10% water). Producers in Georgia use the dry
form of corn gluten feed. Gluten feed is what is left of the
corn kernel after the removal of the starch, oil, and gluten.
Corn gluten feed consists ofbran, germmeal, and solubles
that are produced when the grain is soaked during the
initial stages of processing.
Dry corn gluten feed can be used to feed any class
of beef cattle. The chemical composition is typically 90%
dry matter, 21% protein, and 78% TDN. It is low in
calcium and high in phosphorus, potassium and sulfur.
Corn gluten feed is usually pelletted to increase bulk
density and decrease transportation costs. Nutrient
composition can vary depending on processing methods
between plants. Therefore, it is wise to have the feed
analyzed for nutrient content prior to feeding.


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml







Corn gluten feed is an excellent supplement when
cattle are grazing low quality forages or fed hay. Because
of the high starch content of corn, depressions in forage
intake and digestibility occur when corn is a component
of a forage based diet. Corn gluten feed has a low starch
content, and the depression in forage intake and digestion
are much less for corn gluten feed than for corn grain.
Because of the high protein level of corn gluten feed, it
can provide both supplemental energy and protein. For
example, low quality bermudagrass hay containing 6%
crude protein could be balanced by feeding 5 lb per day
of corn gluten feed to a dry cow and 10 lbs per day to a
lactating cow. In this scenario, corn gluten feed is twice
as valuable ashay on an energy basis and three times as
valuable as hay on a protein basis. In most cases, corn
gluten feed is to 1.5 times as expensive as hay. Thus,
corn gluten feed is almost always cheaper than hay when
compared on a nutrient basis. However, corn gluten
prices vary greatly by location within the state and time
of year purchased.
Corn gluten feed has also been used to completely
replace forage for cows during periods of drought. A
University of Arkansas researcher fed dry pregnant cows
(1,100 lbs), 10.6 lbs per day corn gluten feed and 2.7
lbs per day cottonseed hulls. Cows fed the corn gluten
feed were able to maintain the same condition score as
cows fed bermudagrass hay. However, feed costs were
twice as much for the cows fed hay than for cows fed
corn gluten feed. Feed costs were calculated using values
of $70 per ton for hay and $74 per ton for gluten feed.
Corn gluten feed has also been used successfully
in growing diets for calves. Corn gluten feed is equal to
corn in energy when included in diets with greater than
50% roughage. Studies have also been conducted to
evaluate corn gluten feed in limit-fed growing diets. In
one study, corn gluten feed was incorporated into a diet
with 15% roughage and fed at two percent of body
weight. Calves fed the corn gluten feed ration had 12%
lower daily gains and feed efficiencies compared to calves
fed a corn based diet with 15% roughage at two percent
of body weight. Corn gluten feed has lower energy values
than corn when fed in high concentrate diets, but equal
energy values as corn when utilized in a high forage diet.
Corn gluten feed is used extensively in feedlot diets
to provide both energy and protein. The feeding value
of gluten is approximately 10 to 15% less than corn when


used as the primary energy and protein source in feedlot
diets. Wet corn gluten feed can substitute for 50% of
corn in a ration before weight gain and feed efficiency is
decreased, whereas dry corn gluten feed can replace
25% of the corn in a ration before gain begins to decline.
Because corn gluten feed contributes a significant amount
of protein, feed costs are usually decreased when corn
gluten feed replaces a portion of the corn in the diet.


SOURCE:


Johnny Rossi
ExtensionAnimal Specialist
University of Georgia
Athens, GA


-TTM-


SDifferences in
Milk EPD Were
Reflective of
Differences in
Weaning Weight
EPD


Large five-state, five-year study was conducted
to validate the hypothesis that milk EPD truly reflects
differences in weaning weight due to milk. Cows were
maintained at six different locations representing relatively
diverse environments throughout the southeastern
quadrant of the U.S. Twenty-four Angus sires were
selected for either low or high milk EPD, but with similar
growth EPDs, and mated to Angus cows. The average
spread in milk EPD between the low and high lines was
39 lb (-13 to +26). Lactation records for 192 daughters
were used to evaluate 12-hour milk yield and weaning
weight of progeny. The correlation between sires milk
EPD and 12-hour milk yield was moderate to high (0.56).
The difference between lines for 12 hour milk yield was
1.45 lb. The difference between low and high lines in
calf weaning weight was 34 lb, which compared
favorably with the spread between lines in milk EPD
(39 lb). There was no statistical interaction between
genetic line and location, which means that sires tended
to rank similarly within each location. When milk EPDs
were first published in the 1980s, there was considerable
skepticism among beef producers. However, this study,


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml







along with previous studies, indicates that differences in
milk EPD are reflective of differences in weaning weight
between progeny (Baker et al. 2003. J. Anim. Sci.
81:1406).


Harlan Ritchie, Steven Rust, and
Daniel Buskirk
Beef Cattle Specialists
Beef Cattle Research Update
Michigan State University
Release Fall 2003

-TTM-


Impact of Repetitive Use of
Growth Implants on Beef Quality
and Palatability

In a large study involving 550 crossbred steer
calves, Colorado State Univ. researchers investigated
the effect of repetitive use of growth implants on carcass
quality and palatability attributes on beef. Steers were
allocated to 11 treatments (nonimplanted Control and
10 different lifetime implant strategies). Cattle in the 10
treated groups were implanted at some or all of five
production phases (branding, weaning, backgrounding,
feedlot entry, or reimplant time). Of the 10 treated
groups, one received two implants, three received three
implants, three received four implants, and three received
five implants. Products used were Synovex-C at
branding; Ralgro at weaning; Ralgro or Synovex-S at
backgrounding; Synovex-S orRevalor-S during finishing.
Control carcasses had significantly higher
(P<0.05) marbling scores than carcasses in all
other groups.

Steers implanted twice had higher marbling
scores than those implanted a total of four or
five times.

Steaks from Control carcasses had lower
(P<.05) shear force values and were rated
higher by consumers for tenderness, flavor and
juiciness than steaks from all other treatment
groups.


Steaks from Control carcasses were rated as
more desirable (P<.05) in overall eating
quality than steaks from steers implanted two,
three, four, or five times.

Implanting increased (P <.05) average daily
gain by 11.8 to 20.5% from weaning to
harvest and increased carcass weight by 8.9
to 13.8% compared with Controls.

Implants increased ribeye area and decreased
percentage of kidney/pelvic/heart fat, but did
not affect dressing percentage or external fat
thickness.

The authors concluded that lifetime implant
protocols can influence marbling and eating quality of
beef and emphasized the importance of selecting implant
strategies based on specific market targets for cattle
(Platter et al. 2003. J. Anim. Sci. 81:984).


SOURCE:


Harlan Ritchie, Steven Rust, and
Daniel Buskirk
Beef Cattle Specialists
Beef Cattle Research Update
Michigan State University
Release Fall 2003


-TTM-


Don't Try This At Home: UF Vet
Heals Sick Horses With
Acupuncture

Lost the Triple Crown again? Been a bit slow out
of the gate? Four years old and already feeling like a
20-year-old nag?
To help keep animal athletes from going to the glue
factory instead of the racetrack, the University of Florida
has become one of the few universities to offer
acupuncture treatment for horses.
The Chinese have been using the treatment for
thousands ofyears, but despite its versatility, acupuncture
on animals hasn't been recognized or practiced in the
United States until recent years. And universities have
been even slower to adopt the treatment, with UF


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml


SOURCE:





















nuis-ineng Ale, a lecturer in veterinary rmeuicine at te university
of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
performs acupuncture on Tripp, Wednesday, November 12,
2003, a horse diagnosed with anhydrosis, a common and
sometimes dangerous ailment that robs horses of the ability
to sweat. Using acupuncture techniques developed in China
thousands of years ago, Xie says he has been able to relieve
symptoms of anhydrosis in about half the horses brought to
him for treatment. AP Photo: University of Florida/IFAS/Thomas
Wright.
acupuncturist Huisheng Xie thought to be the only full-
time alternative-medicine practitioner on staff at an
American veterinary college.

"Not too many people know about it here, but
acupuncture for horses has been done for a long time in
China," said Xie, a lecturer in veterinary medicine at UF's
Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences.

There is one modern twist to Xie's acupuncture
practice: he uses electric needles that carry a mild current
- about 4 volts into a horse's body. The charge, he
says, stimulates nerve endings, making the treatment more
effective.

Most Americans are familiar with acupuncture, the
ancient Chinese practice that uses needles to treat a
variety of illnesses, from headaches to high blood
pressure. But most aren't aware that Asian healers have
also used acupuncture techniques on horses for
thousands of years.

It appears to be effective in curing a number of
illnesses that vex horse owners illnesses such as founder,
a condition that causes foot pain that keeps a horse from
standing up, and colic, a painful intestinal condition.

Many of Xie's patients suffer from anhydrosis, or
the inability to sweat, a condition that can be life
threatening in the summer months, particularly for horses


that are being transported in horse trailers. Anhydrosis
is a common ailment, affecting as many as one-fourth of
all horses at some time, but its cause is unknown.

Exactly how acupuncture works is also a mystery,
Xie says, though researchers suspect the practice
encourages the release of endorphins, the pain-killing
hormones naturally produced by the body.

At least, that's the story according to conventional
Western medicine. Practitioners of traditional Chinese
medicine have long offered a different explanation:
Acupuncture, they say, clears channels through which
qi, or energy, flows through the body, restoring a natural
balance that leads to good health.

Modem science hasn't found proof of anything
analogous to qi or its channels, but there is evidence that
acupuncture does cure certain ailments. For instance,
Xie says he has been able to relieve symptoms of
anhydrosis in about half of the horses brought to him for
treatment.

Though his practice is focused on acupuncture, Xie
advocates a blend of traditional Chinese and modem
medicine.

"They are merely two different ways of viewing
the world, and each system has its own strengths and
weaknesses," he said. "Western medicine deals well with
acute diseases and can utilize advanced surgical
techniques. Eastern medicine can be beneficial for chronic
diseases, especially those that Western medicine can only
partially control but not cure."

While technological advances have radically altered
the nature of Western medicine over the past century,
the techniques of acupuncture have remained virtually
unchanged by modern technology. One important
exception is the use of electrically charged needles like
those Xie uses on his horse patients.

Acupuncturists often find it necessary to gently
rotate needles after they're inserted in order to stimulate
nerve endings, Xie said. By running a mild electric charge
through the needle, an acupuncturist can achieve the same
effect.

Xie says he sees about 10 patients per week at
UF College of Veterinary Medicine teaching hospital.
Most of the horses don't seem to mind a few pinpricks.


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml








Xie says in 20 years of working with horses he has
encountered only a handful too frightened to stand still
for the treatment.
"Some of the horses are actually very relaxed," he
said.
Xie's work has even won over some human
doubters.
"I have to admit I was a skeptic," said Melbourne
lawyer Wes Howze, who brought his daughter's horse,
Tripp, to Xie to be treated for anhydrosis. "But it's
working, and if it works I'm all for it."

SOURCE: HuishengXie
(352) 392-4700, ext. 4076
Veterinary Medicine Large Animal
Clinical Sciences
University ofFlorida
Gainesville, FL
Release November 12, 2003

-ELJ-


Aimal idntaoni.i United States
Animal
SIdentification Plan
(USAIP)

USAIP Executive Summary

Protecting American animal agriculture by
safeguarding animal health is vital to the wellbeing of
all U. S. citizens. It promotes human health;
provides wholesome, reliable, and secure food
resources; mitigates national economic threats; and
enhances a sustainable environment.
Essential to achieving this goal is an efficient
and effective animal identification program.
Building upon previously established and successful
animal health and animal identification
programs involving many animal industries, an industry-
state-federal partnership, aided by the
National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), was
formed in 2002 to more uniformly
coordinate a national animal identification plan. This


resulting plan, requested by the United
States Animal Health Association (USAHA) and
facilitated by USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), was formulated in 2003
for presentation at the October, 2003
annual meeting of the USAHA. More than 100 animal
industry and state-federal government
professionals representing more than 70 allied
associations/organizations collectively assessed
and suggested workable improvements to the plan to
meet future U. S. animal identification needs.
Fundamental to controlling any disease threat,
foreign or domestic, to the nation's animal
resources is to have a system that can identify individual
animals or groups, the premises where
they are located, and the date of entry to that premises.
Further, in order to achieve optimal
success in controlling or eradicating an animal health
threat, the ability to retrieve that
information within 48 hours of confirmation of a disease
outbreak and to implement intervention
strategies is necessary. The USAIP is focused
on utilizing state-of-the-art national and
international standards with the best available and
practical technologies. It is dynamic and
flexible, and will incorporate new and proven
technologies as they become available. States'
needs in implementing animal identification will receive
priority within the uniformity provided by
federal oversight.
The USAIP currently supports the following species
and/or industries: bison, beef cattle, dairy
cattle, swine, sheep, goats, camelids (alpacas and
llamas), horses, cervids (deer and elk),
poultry (eight species including game birds), and
aquaculture (eleven species). Implementation
will be in three phases: Phase I involves premises
identification; Phase II involves individual or
group/lot identification for interstate and intrastate
commerce; and Phase III involves retrofitting
remaining processing plants and markets and
other industry segments with appropriate
technology that will enhance our ability to track animals
throughout the livestock marketing chainto protect and
improve the health of the national herd. Initial
implementation will focus on the cattle, swine, and small


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml







ruminant industries. Intransition, the USAIP recommends
that: all states have apremises identification system in
place by July, 2004; unique, individual or group/lot
numbers be available for issuance by February, 2005;
all cattle, swine, and small ruminants possess individual
or group/lot identification for interstate movement by July,
2005; all animals of the remaining species/industries
identified above be in similar compliance by July, 2006.
These standards will apply to all animals within the
represented industries regardless of their
intended use as seedstock, commercial, pets or other
personal uses.
It is well acknowledged that costs associated with
the USAIP will be substantial and that a
public/private funding plan isjustified. Significant state
and federal costs will be incurred in
overseeing, maintaining, updating, and improving
necessary infrastructure. Continued efforts
will be required to seek federal and state financial support
for this integral component of
safeguarding animal health in protectingAmerican animal
agriculture.
For the Current Work Plan Draft, please visit:
http://usaip.info/US_AIPPlanDraft_092903_
Ver 4 0 Master .pdf(74 pages pdf).


SOURCE:


Scott Stuart
(719) 538-8843
USAIP Communitcation
Subcommittee Co-Chair
Release November 12, 2003


-RSS-


USDA USDAAnnounces
New Food Safety and
Security Guidelines
for Consumers

Do you know what to do or who to call to report
possible food tampering? Do you know how long to
safely keep canned tomatoes, versus meat and
vegetables? What are the right temperatures for cooking
chicken, beef and lamb? And do you know the four food
handling rules to minimize the chances you or your family


will experience foodbome illness?
The answers to these questions-and many more-
can be found in the United States Department of
Agriculture's new publication, Food Safety and Food
Security: What Consumers Need to Know.
"This Administration is dedicated to protecting our
nation's food supply," said Agriculture Secretary Ann
M. Veneman. "This brochure provides consumers
important and useful information to help them keep food
safe."
The brochure, developed by USDA's Food Safety
and Inspection Service, will be available in both English
and Spanish. It provides useful tips for safe food
preparation and for keeping foods safe from
contamination. In a concise and easy to follow format,
Food Safety and Food Security: What Consumers Need
to Know, lays out comprehensive and practical
information about safe food handling practices,
foodbore illness, product recalls, keeping foods safe
during an emergency and reporting suspected instances
of food tampering.
"Our food safety professionals have condensed
vitally important information covering many topics into a
15-page reference manual," said FSIS Administrator Dr.
Garry L. McKee, at an appearance at the annual meeting
of the American Public Health Association. "In addition
to practical information on safe food handling and
cooking tips, the brochure also describes the extensive
programs FSIS has instituted to prevent and respond to
deliberate threats. We want consumers to be assured
that we are on alert every day in every meat, poultry and
egg products plant in America"
For additional information about food safety and
security in English and Spanish, consumers can call the
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854); for the hearing-impaired
(TTY) 1-800-256-7072. Additional information can be
found at http://www.usda.gov.


SOURCE:


Alisa Harrison, (202) 720-4623
Steven Cohen, (202) 720-9113
http://www.usda.gov
USDA, Washington, DC
Release November 17, 2003


-RSS-


http://www.animal.ufl.edu/extension/beef/newsletter.shtml




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs