“Organizational silos,” and how they prevent effective zoonotic disease tracking

It appears that the agencies that we rely on to track disease outbreaks need to start tracking disease, not just their own jurisdiction.

An article in Sociology of Health and Illness piqued my interest this last week that reveals the amount of segregation different government agencies have when dealing with zoonotic disease. The understanding of the goals and connections between livestock, wildlife, and human health among these agencies are often apathetic at best, and antagonistic at worst.

The author of the article took it upon himself to interview several government agencies with different species and regional jurisdictions, and was able to reveal what he calls “organizational silos” that develop when the values and cultures of these different agencies prevent them from working with outside groups. When attempting to monitor emerging infectious disease (EID), identification of cross-species movement is critical to predicting and preventing pandemics. Unfortunately, while they may be able to acknowledge the geographical movement of EID’s, many organizations are blinded by their specific oversight of humans or animals.

Copied from the article: Diagram showing the crossover between domestic animals, wildlife, and human EID. Important emergence factors for each circle are listed on the outside.

There are many telling comments contained in his interviews, and I encourage you to read the article to get the whole scope of the problem, but I’ve chosen to list a few of my favorites here:

From the Director of Animal Health Division at a state Department of Agriculture:

“‘We got a positive [flu result] on one of our routine surveillance tests’ of a poultry farm, Spencer complained, and ‘we were required to contact the USDA right away because of the pandemic Asian strain’. Spencer added, ‘It seems a little silly because there was no clinical illness on the property, and the strain came back something pretty common…’ In Spencer’s eyes, it was ‘hard to justify’ reporting the flu strain to the USDA… These days, Spencer said he passes on information about disease events to the state DOH and leaves it to them to tell local health boards. ‘If somebody screws up’, he shrugged, ‘at least we can blame the [Department of Health]’.”

Not an uncommon perspective for many organizations, or even coworkers! Let’s hear from another director at the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS):

 “Clinton argued that the ‘single biggest threat for disease’ comes from ‘wildlife intermingling with domestic livestock’. He told me, ‘You can’t control the birds’ and he rightly pointed out that ducks are flu incubators. If the bird flu – which Clinton called the top priority of his agency – becomes pandemic in humans, he told me, it will come from waterfowl.”

Interesting, I might argue that we have much more interaction with domestic fowl (can’t remember the last time I handled a wild duck), but let’s see what others had to say about this viewpoint.

“Nina Marano, a zoonotic disease expert at the CDC, told me that ‘most of the outbreaks have occurred through interaction with domestic poultry’. Another example: though poultry farmers singled out wild birds called cattle egrets as the source of a 2004 flu outbreak in California, the egrets tested negative – it turned out that contaminated egg containers circulating between farms were the culprit (McNeil 2004).”

Finally, one last example of how a zoonotic disease often isn’t treated as such by human health agencies. From a Director of the Infectious Disease Bureau of a city Public Health Commission:

“When I asked Sanders to describe a zoonose that she responded to, she mentioned a recent outbreak of salmonella…and she believed that the pathogen came from two live poultry markets in Chinatown. What I found telling was that, in Sanders’ lengthy discussion of this outbreak, she did not mention any communication with veterinary medicine agencies.While the Disease Bureau’s response to salmonella followed protocol, it did not turn to the Department of Agriculture, the USDA, or any other agencies involved in animal health for help or information. Nor did it share information with them.”

Clearly here the city health board considered this a food safety issue, but payed no attention to the implications of getting meat from an approved source (a domain which definitely belongs to the USDA), or the fact that other agriculture agencies may be interested in a salmonella outbreak. There are many other telling quotes within these interviews, and I again encourage you to check out the article.

The author of the study concludes that the only examples we get of harmonious collaboration are for those diseases which are in the public eye such as rabies and influenza (H5N1 and H1N1), though we still have lines drawn even when the public is asking for action (“‘we have enough H1N1 to worry about without worrying about turkeys’. He
concluded that turkey infection is ‘a Department of Agriculture issue’”). The most shining example of the failure to communicate by these institutions in the article is the discovery of Bird Flu in the US.

The first human cases of H5N1 in the US were wrongly diagnosed with St. Louis encephalitis, resulting in the deaths of 3 patients. A veterinary pathologist at the Bronx zoo observed neurological symptoms in some of the zoo’s birds and suspected a link, however encephalitis would not have killed her birds. Both the CDC and local DOH would not accept new information from her, instead keeping the encephalitis diagnosis. She then sent specimens to a friend at an Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, who revealed the etiology of the disease and I’m sure had a hilarious conversation with the CDC and DOH (could you please explain to us why this veterinarian is doing your job casually on the side, and doing it better?). By the time the CDC received/accepted this information, H5N1 was endemic in the area.

Nothing against the CDC, it’s a fantastic organization, but this highlights the closed lines of communication that exist between human and animal agencies the author discusses. In order to prevent the next EID crisis, rigorous epidemiology is critical. Refusing to acknowledge the importance of cross-species movement to the virulence and emergence of a disease that falls under your agency does not only prevent you from identifying the next source of infection, but leaves you with nothing but reactive measures catered to a epidemic that you refuse to fully appreciate.

ResearchBlogging.org

Jerolmack, C. (2012). Who’s worried about turkeys? How ‘organisational silos’ impede zoonotic disease surveillance Sociology of Health & Illness DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01501.x

Staphylococcus aureus diversity and subclinical mastitis

This is the first study I’ve found that was interested in cataloging bacterial diversity among subclinical (or asymptomatic) infections. While they may be less threatening to the animal’s overall health, these infections have great significance in the world of animal agriculture, where they restrict growth (or in this case, milk production), and encourage the use of medicated feeds which in turn motivate people to purchase organic products. Identifying the risk factors and causes of these infections could therefore impact both the management of food animals, and any legislation defining how and when medications can be used. With that in mind, let’s jump back into mastitis, and everyone’s favorite gram-positive, S. aureus.

It’s because of my plasmids, people can’t help but stare.
Image from http://cellimagelibrary.org/

S. aureus is one of many bacteria that cause mastitis, however it is of additional importance as it often causes chronic or recurring cases of mastitis that result in unusable milk and discomfort of the animal. In this study, the authors investigated 11 dairy farms where they expected to find S. aureus, based on previous culture findings at each farm. They defined cows that they took milk samples from as having new or chronic infections based on somatic cell counts (SCC) in the milk. If values were >200,000 cells/mL for the month of collection the infections were considered new, whereas if cell counts were  >200,000 cells/mL for more than 2 months, those infections were considered chronic. They took a single milk sample from each teat of the infected cows, for a total of 1,354 mammary glands from 350 cows.

Pulse field electrophoresis was used to identify the different subspecies/serotypes/pulsotypes (pick your word), and to identify the genes coding for enterotoxin production that had been amplified by PCR. An ELISA test was used last to detect the presence of several enterotoxins.

As the majority of exposure to enterotoxins produced my S. aureus is through milk and dairy products, subclinical infections of S. aureus are very important as a food safety control point. Unlike cows with clinical cases that are removed from production, cows with subclinical infections continue to contribute milk that makes it to the consumer, provided that the SSC is <750,000 cells/mL. The authors were unable to detect a large amount of enterotoxin in their samples, but many of the pulsotypes contained the genes coding for their production. Other studies cited by the author report the common presence of these genes in S. aureus  samples, but expression rates are inconclusive or unexplored. This means that theoretically, subclinical cows could be introducing these bacterial toxins into consumer milk in small amounts.

It’s difficult to tell how significant these amounts might be. Toxic doses of one of the enterotoxins, “Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin 1”, has been found to be as low as 100 micrograms/Kg in miniature pigs. The concentrations that may be introduced through contaminated milk, and the bioavailability when ingested, should be explored. Takeuchi et al. (1998) were able to detect the presence of TSST- 1 in bulk milk tanks, but no one has yet to quantify the amounts of TSST- 1 potentially present in pasteurized milk.

All that being said, what good is this new information? It can be argued that because these infections are chronic and/or subclinical that these strains of S. aureus aren’t very pathogenic, but they’re still causing inflammation. By identifying common serotypes and factors leading to the subclinical infection of a herd, perhaps there are simple management changes that can prevent infection. Milking is an almost sterile procedure, with sanitation of the teats both prior and following milking, wearing gloves, and forestripping; but there could be other tricks that would target risk factors related to the spread of subclinical pathogens, especially those that are specific to a location.

 

ResearchBlogging.org

Bulanda M, Zaleska M, Mandel L, Talafantova M, Travnicek J, Kunstmann G, Mauff G, Pulverer G, & Heczko PB (1989). Toxicity of staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome toxin 1 for germ-free and conventional piglets. Reviews of infectious diseases, 11 Suppl 1 PMID: 2928643

Oliveira L, Rodrigues AC, Hulland C, & Ruegg PL (2011). Enterotoxin production, enterotoxin gene distribution, and genetic diversity of Staphylococcus aureus recovered from milk of cows with subclinical mastitis. American journal of veterinary research, 72 (10), 1361-8 PMID: 21962279

Takeuchi, S., Ishiguro, K., Ikegami, M., Kaidoh, T., & Hayakawa, Y. (1998). Production of toxic shock syndrome toxin by Staphylococcus aureus isolated from mastitic cow’s milk and farm bulk milk Veterinary Microbiology, 59 (4), 251-258 DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1135(96)01253-9

Adopter preferences in selecting shelter cats, what about coat color?

I’ve recently been collecting evidence that suggests that we could increase adoption rates by incorporating more group housing into shelters. In building my study, I’m now interested in what factors make cats less desirable at shelters so that potentially we could market less desirable cats by placing them in housing that will make them more desirable. Lepper et. al (2002) examined just that, in a study with over 4000 cats they examined multiple variables in order to determine certain predictors of adoption. They also examined dogs, but I’ll just be discussing the cats today. Check out the article for yourself if you are interested in the dog analysis.

It has been shown that there is a clear correlation with fearful behaviors and euthanasia (Gourkow and Fraser, 2006), therefore we should be doing everything we can to reduce fearful behaviors. I’ve suggested that when we are forced to make euthanasia decisions based on space,  we need to take temperament into account to evaluate the potential for adoption.

Among other variables however, this study illuminates factors outside the control of behavior modification that may

Gidget is available for adoption at Heartland Humane Society (Corvallis)

influence adopt-ability. Comparing coat color, the authors chose to set tabby cats as the standard, and were able to determine that white, color point, and grey cats were the most likely to be adopted. Brown and Black were the least likely, a fact that any former shelter employee wouldn’t be surprised to hear.

Cats’ whose color or features could be attributed to a specific breed (such as Persians) were in high demand. This study found that coat length did not have an effect on adoption rates, but other researchers have found that more than half of adopters list coat length as an important factor in their selection. Interestingly, Siamese cats  had no higher rate of adoption than other cats in the study.

To me, this information says that we could easily be selecting animals that are potentially less desirable, and placing them in the front or lobby areas of shelters in group settings, and keeping kittens and more desirable animals in less prominent housing. This simple management change could potentially increase adoption rates overall, and of course reduce euthanasia rates, the goal of any shelter.

 

ResearchBlogging.org

Merry Lepper, Philip H. Kass, & Lynette A. Hart (2002). Prediction of Adoption Versus Euthanasia Among Dogs and Cats in a California Animal Shelter Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5, 29-42 DOI: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0501_3

 

Factors affecting adoption rates in shelter cats, is welfare the immediate concern? What about marketing?

"Kipling" currently up for adoption at Heartland Humance Society (Corvallis)

As I continue my research trend concerning adoption rates in shelter cats, I came across this thesis by Nadine Gourkow, who is much more famous than I ever realized while reading the article. A brief google search of her name reveals that she is at the forefront of shelter cat welfare, and clearly I need to read more of her work as I continue to shape my study.

Her masters thesis explores the background for my intended study, in that it seeks to examine not only those factors inherent to the cats and their housing situation, but in what potential adopters are looking for. I’m hoping to collect as much of this information as possible to develop a hypothesis as to whether shelter layout could increase adoption rates by marketing less attractive cats in situations where they may be perceived as more adoptable.

I’ll admit firsthand that I didn’t read all 80 pages of the thesis, I was primarily interested in the methods, results, and discussion, as such I may have missed some of the finer points of Ms. Gourkow’s introduction. My personal interest was in the conclusions she drew based on the study design and how they could impact my own study design.

Four treatments were used in the study, which varied by complexity of cages (from a single animal in a barren cage to multiple cats in an enriched enclosure) and frequency/consistency of handling by shelter staff. I was primarily interested in the difference between singly housed cats compared with multiple cat housing.

I was pleased to see that this study only contained adult cats, as I’ve had concerns about the skewed adoption rate of kittens found more often in group housing in other studies. It was unfortunate that the handling effects could not be separated from the housing treatment in the analysis, however, it seems clear that either the consistent handling or cage enrichment had a large effect.

Where the cats in the single, barren, cage (standard) treatment experienced a 45% adoption rate, all of the other treatments had 74% or more adopted.

Did you read that? By adding a perch and hiding area (along with consistent handling) to a cat housed alone, they increased the number of cats adopted by 29%.

That’s an impressive change, however, I am more concerned with single vs. group housing, and thus was even more interested in what adopters listed as important criteria in their selection of a cat. The results clearly suggest that cats housed in groups have an advantage.

When it comes down to what adopters want to see in a cat, we can’t necessarily alter desirable traits such as “friendliness towards adopter,” “playfulness,” or “happy disposition.” But we can suppress other desirable traits by not providing opportunities for animals to exhibit them. The factors that I want to focus on are those that are enhanced or only provided through the use of group housing.

Being able to enter the cage with cats (74% of respondents)

Friendly with other cats (69%)

Able to view with other cats (52%)

Alternatively, while it may be essential for the cats’ mental well being, seeing perches and toys in cages was not very influential for adopters (38% or lower). These items may still play a large role in adoption rates due to other factors such as playfulness (86%) and reduction of fear behaviors (which dramatically increase euthanasia rates), but from a marketing and management standpoint, the easy change would be to house more cats in groups.

Arguments against housing cats in groups are primarily based on disease management. I recently read that roughly half of the cats in shelter environments become infected with contagious upper respiratory disease during their stay, and my own anecdotal experience supports that percentage. The article here, however, showed no difference in animals quarantined or euthanized due to illness between single and group treatments.

Another argument suggests that strange cats experience more stress when placed together, but Kessler and Turner along with Ms. Gourkow both reveal that space per cat plays a larger role in mitigating that stress, and that after a certain period stress levels become similar across all groups.

The picture that I’m beginning to piece together from these papers is that cats that are housed in groups are more desirable and consistently enjoy higher adoption rates. To use this information, I would hope that shelters would incorporate more group housing, and select animals for limited space based on adoptable attributes. I’ll continue exploring group housing’s influence on adoption rates, but now I’m interested in finding other traits that could make animals less desirable so that we can make placement decisions based on an animals marketable traits. The goal of this line of thinking being: if we can increase adoption rates for our less adoptable animals, can we reduce euthanasia rates overall?

Edit: I found the published version of the study featured in this thesis, and added the citation below.

ResearchBlogging.org

Nadine Gourkow (2001). FACTORS AFFECTING THE WELFARE AND ADOPTION RATE OF CATS IN AN ANIMAL SHELTER University of British Columbia

N Gourkow, & D Fraser (2006). The effect of housing and handling practices on the welfare, behavior and selection of domestic cats (Felis sylvestris catus) by adopters in an animal shelter Animal Welfare, 15, 371-377

Do cats in shelters acclimate faster if given a bunkmate?

Lucy is currently up for adoption at Heartland Humane Society (Corvallis) and is housed singly.

This article is one of many that I’m currently reviewing to build the introduction for the original research I plan to complete this summer/fall. This is the first of several posts discussing shelter cats to come in the next several weeks.

This study by Kessler and Turner (1997) took a look at the stress levels of cats introduced to a shelter/boarding facility-type environment over the first two weeks of their stay, and cross-examined those housed alone, in pairs, and in groups. 45 homeless animals that had already been at the facilities for some time were selected as a control, and 140 animals staying for temporary boarding were observed for the first two weeks of their stay.

Overall, the authors were able to conclude that in a two week stay, two-thirds of the cats acclimated very well, and after two weeks their stress levels, while still higher, were very comparable to the control. They suggest that other options be explored by the owners of the other third, with a special emphasis on the 4% of the cats who were extremely stressed even after a two week stay.

I endorse this wholeheartedly as I often watched animals for owners as a job when I was much younger. While they may be given more brief human contact, working out a deal with a house-sitter or neighbor to take care of your pets while you are away can be much less stressful for them than if they are placed in an unfamiliar environment with strange people and animals. You reduce their risk of exposure to disease, and help some young lad save money for college (I did…though some of it bought movie popcorn).

The more surprising conclusion was that housing the cats singly, pairs, or groups appeared to have no influence on the stress levels of the animals. There appears to be a slightly faster decline in stress for group housed cats on the authors’ graph, however it isn’t addressed, and the difference is minimal.

The conclusions have merit, but I have several problems with the selection of control animals in this study, namely, the fact that they aren’t representative of the experimental group. The biggest problem is that only homeless shelter cats were used for the control, and only boarding cats for the experimental group, where  either all homeless shelter cats or all boarding cats should have been included. The second large flaw I see is that all of the control animals were housed in groups of 6 to eight, effectively ruining any comparisons you may want to make when looking at the other housing situations. In a study named Stress and Adaptation of Cats (Felis silvestris catus) Housed Singly, in Pairs, and in Groups, you would think the control would use all of those situations.

The authors briefly mentioned the stress caused by cats that may be less social, or housed with familiar animals versus strangers, but were unable to control those factors with the way the data was collected and prepared. When it comes down to it, the control group just wasn’t…controlled. They were unable to fully examine how quickly single or pair cats acclimated to the boarding facility because you couldn’t compare them to a control cat in the same situation.

Kessler and Turner have another study (1999) examining stress levels of shelter cats in terms of animal density and cage size. Interestingly enough, they found that group density was “highly correlated with the stress level of animals housed in groups”, indicating that we should have seen some differences from the study above as well. That research was done two years after the 1997 study, so perhaps the authors also thought that those questions remained unanswered from the original study. I’ll be looking out for some newer research on the subject and may chime in on it again soon.

 

ResearchBlogging.org

M R Kessler, & D C Turner (1997). Stress and Adaptation of Cats (Felis Silvestris Catus) Housed Singly, in Pairs and in Groups in Boarding Catteries Animal Welfare, 6, 243-254

M R Kessler, & D C Turner (1999). Effects of Density and Cage Size on Stress in Domestic Cats (Felis Silvestris Catus) Housed in Animal Shelters and Boarding Catteries Animal Welfare, 8, 259-267

 

If you’re interested in the cat featured in this post, head on over to Heatland Humane Society to meet him!

Reference: Guide to cat colors and patterns

Whew, sorry for the delay in posts, I’m still working on that personal project that shall be revealed soon. In lieu of a research post this week, I thought I’d share a resource I’m using.

This Guide to Cat Colors created by deviant artist majnouna is an extremely detailed and easy to read chart describing the coloration terms and standards of the Cat Fancier’s Association. I’m using it to create standards for color that I’m using as one of the variables for my proposed research I’m hoping to get going by the end of this month. You can even buy it as a poster!

Regular posting to resume next week, thank you for your patience!

Where your author is coming from

The Dog Zombie (a blogger I regularly follow and is often seen on ASR) took the time to mention an address made at the 2nd UK Conference of Science Journalists, which began with a call to action:

“I think every writer, every journalist, every scholar, should tell you where he’s coming from before he tells you what he knows.”

She herself took the time to do this on her blog and I think it’s not a bad idea. While the About section on ASR gives you a good overview of my experience and education, perhaps a little more insight into my background will give readers a better hold on my personal biases, and they’ll be able to evaluate my opinions using those tools to judge them for themselves. So here we go!

 

Culturally, I am an Oregonian. While I was born in Washington and spent a few years in Texas, the majority of my sentient time growing up has been in Central Oregon, and the almost all of my education has been provided for me  in this state. I was raised within the Lutheran church, and consider myself a spiritual individual though I keep that part of my life fairly private. Socially, I’m an extrovert who believes that maturity is simply knowing when and where to be immature. Politically, I tend to be liberal on most social issues, but conservative when discussing economics and constitutional rights. Musically, I’m a long time musician who’s willing to listen to anything once, but I lack the energy or motivation to keep up with popular music of my own time. My favorite songs or pieces are usually from movie or video game scores, and I enjoy jazz and classic rock. Intellectually, I consider myself a scientist not only from my education but my need to question statements posed as fact, reluctance to describe in absolutes, and desire to evaluate evidence. I pride myself on being able to prove my own opinions wrong when presented with contradicting evidence. My desire is to someday be “an expert in my field” and make an impact on the world (at least in my field), but I haven’t yet found what that will exactly be. I love learning new things and often try to do too many new or different things, becoming a jack of all trades, when I really need to limit my interests to become a master of one.

My current goals surround gaining admission to veterinary school, however I do not see that as my only option for a career in veterinary medicine. Combined with my love of research and budding interest in microbiology, a pHD in veterinary medicine, microbiology, or public health would also allow me to study animal medicine and make my impact. I believe that scientific communication between the academic pedestal and the public is vital to making the changes to consumer and industry perspectives that will be necessary to continue feeding the world in a way that is ethical, realistic,  and sustainable. My hope is that in the future as an “expert” I can continue to find ways to reach out to those not reading journals through extension or my own personal efforts/publications.

Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare? Part 3

Here’s the final portion of my paper: Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare?

If you’ve missed the other posts, you can check out part 1, part 2,  or read the entire paper here.

 

_____________________________________________________

Conflict Between the Organic Approach and Welfare Ideals
Despite measures taken to promote prevention, a certain amount of disease is permissible in a healthy ecosystem and the restrictions placed on organic producers by both their certification requirements and ethos can create dilemma’s that could potentially harm animals. Several classic examples of species specific situations have been examined where the animal welfare approach taken by organic producers can be considered detrimental to the animal.

It should be noted that while there is evidence that there is a reluctance to use prohibited medications and chemicals to treat disease on organic farms (Vaarst and Bennedsgaard, 2001), both the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and IFOAM standards explicitly state that organic livestock producers must not withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve that animals organic status (IFOAM, 2005; National Archives and Records Administration, 2012a; Riddle, 2008, 2012).
Dairy
Management of mastitis in organic dairies is a commonly discussed example of when health of the individual and a reluctance to accept the financial loss associated with antibiotic use can potentially harm the animal. Herd health, in general, has not been shown to be significantly different between organic and conventional dairy herds, and some data suggests that the incidence of disease may actually be lower in organic herds, though the reasons for this are unknown (Lund and Algers, 2003; Lund, 2006). Interestingly, the ban on antibiotics for clinical use is more of a concern within U.S. boarders, as the majority of certification standards in the European Union allow antibiotic use to treat clinical disease without jeopardizing the organic status of the animal (Ruegg, 2009). However, the strict FDA guidelines for organic milk production not only prohibit the use of antibiotics in organic livestock, but do not allow the use of any compounds with an antimicrobial effect that are not approved by the FDA for organic production (National Archives and Records Administration, 2012a). Currently, there are zero antimicrobials approved for use in organic animals (Ruegg, 2009). This leaves organic dairy producers extremely limited in their options for treatment when faced with a cow that has mastitis. With few options available, Zwald et al. (2004) were able to find that farmers who switched to organic production began to seek information on treatments from other organic farmers as opposed to veterinarians. This trend is not seen in countries where antibiotic options are available to organic dairy farmers (Hamilton et al., 2006).

So what options are available to organic dairy producers in the U.S.? Once again, prevention is key, but research has shown that rates of mastitis are similar between organic and conventional dairy operations (Lund and Algers, 2003; Lund, 2006). This indicates that treatment must be part of a management plan, even if the organic ethos prevents any attempts to interfere with natural processes through antimicrobial intervention. Certain drugs are available for use on the CFR’s approved substances list with increased withdrawal times to maintain the high standards expected in organic milk production (Riddle, 2008; National Archives and Records Administration, 2012a). These drugs include certain anti-inflammatory drugs that would be useful in treating fever and inflammation associated with mastitis. Beyond pharmaceuticals, therapeutic care including frequent milking is a recognized way to discourage bacterial growth within the affected quarters. Combined with approved anti-inflammatory drugs, frequent milking and supportive care constitutes a common mastitis treatment on organic dairies in the United States (Ruegg, 2009).

Many organic farmers will also attempt to utilize complementary and alternative medicines; however, almost all of the products available have not been evaluated in peer reviewed studies for efficacy. Immunoboost, a USDA licensed immune stimulant sold in the U.S., has been evaluated but has not shown to have any significant effect on the treatment of mastitis (Ruegg, 2009). Other various remedies including peppermint, aloe, and garlic have been utilized by organic farmers as intramammary treatments, however the efficacy of these options is doubted, and their use is prohibited by the FDA (National Archives and Records Administration, 2012a). It appears that without recovery using simple supportive care, any medical intervention necessary to prevent unnecessary pain or distress for non-responsive mastitis cases will result in the loss of a producing animal for that organic operation. This creates a potential welfare risk, as the USDA organic requirements do not specify a point when prohibited treatments must be used, and the decision to discontinue organic treatment resides solely with the farmer.
Poultry
Poultry producers face a distinctive management change when converting to organic as free choice medicated feeds containing antibiotics are commonly used to manage disease and promote growth (Love et al., 2010). Organic poultry is also currently under increased pressure from consumers (Love et al., 2012) to provide a safe and antibiotic free product, which could indicate an increased reluctance to treat conditions using pharmaceuticals. Following the prevention management strategy, organic poultry producers may use a variety of feed supplements including probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, and plant extracts that have had minimal and sometimes contradictory efficacy reviews (Griggs and Jacob, 2005). Once again, treatment needs to be a key part of the management strategy of the organic producer, and the increased public scrutiny over medication use in poultry has the potential to encourage famers to withhold medication as has been shown in other species (Lund, 2006).

One of the most contested animal welfare debates surrounding organic poultry is regarding the space required by the USDA regulations to remain organic (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006). While the law only requires year-round access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight (appropriate for the species, age, and climate) (National Archives and Records Administration, 2012a); organic farmers have adopted the term “free-range”, which unfortunately like the word “natural,” has no legal meaning. Nonetheless, open access to runs follows the third of Frasier et al.’s welfare ideals in allowing chickens to exhibit natural behaviors and thus have better welfare. The trade-off, however, is that while we have defined the major focus of disease management in organic operations as prevention based, free ranging chickens are more susceptible to predation, outbreaks of cannibalism, parasite exposure, coccidiosis and ascarid infections, and interactions with wild fowl that transmit dangerous diseases such as avian influenza (Verhoog et al., 2004; Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006; Lund, 2006). In order to keep with organic standards, all of these animals must continue to have access to the outdoors, and prohibited pharmaceuticals cannot be fed to treat outbreaks of disease or treat the higher rate of parasites that are found on organic operations (Lund, 2003). Clearly, should there be an outbreak of disease or cannibalism, an ethical dilemma is created between the first two ideals concerning the physical and mental needs of the animal, and the third to maintain natural conditions.

The various dilemmas discussed indicate that organic producers face additional pressure, both financially and in public relations, to avoid the use of treatments that would compromise the organic status of that animal. However, prioritizing animal welfare to include aspects beyond the scope of the clinical health of individual animals can potentially change the way welfare is perceived by conventional farmers and the general public. If an ecocentric rather than an individualistic perspective is considered, and positive experiences can be provided for the animal by indulging its natural behaviors and ecological niche, perhaps some stress events like occasional infections are an acceptable trade-off. Given that a higher incidence of disease has not been found, and that organic producers are required by law not to restrict care to maintain an organic status, it can be determined that organic livestock production does not encourage decisions that negatively impact animal welfare. However, it is recommended U.S. should adopt the EU policy of allowing antibiotics to be used in clinical cases without removing the organic status of that animal. With adequately increased withdrawal times in place to reflect the strict requirements that define organic products and enough consumer education, the organic market should recognize and accept the benefits of this policy change. Livestock would benefit by receiving more aggressive medical intervention as financial pressure not to treat animals could be alleviated as it has been in the EU (Ruegg, 2009), and having prescription antibiotics available as a treatment option could encourage more contact with veterinarians instead of neighbors to discuss animal health. Additional research is needed to support this position that could come from data determining if financial and public pressure are enough to encourage farmers to withhold treatments. In that case, additional actions such as stricter enforcement of the law may be necessary to promote a higher standard of care for organic animals.

Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare? Part 2

Here’s the second portion of my paper: Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare?

You can find part 1 here, or read the entire paper here.

______________________________________________________

 

Welfare from an Ecocentric Perspective
Animal welfare has always been and remains to be an important goal in organic operations (Riddle, 2005; IFOAM, 2005); however, organic producers are still questioned on the welfare status of their animals because of their organic certification. Among the many definitions intended to quantify animal welfare, Frasier et al. (1997, p.187) provide three basic animal welfare ideals:

1. The animal should feel well, corresponding to the concepts of experience, feeling, interest, and preference.
2. The animal should function well, corresponding to the concepts of need and clinical health.
3. The animal should lead a natural life through the development and exercise of its natural adaptations, corresponding to the concept of the “innate nature” of the animal.

In general, livestock in conventional settings have their welfare measured using the first two ideals, with the most emphasis placed on the second. Producers are first and foremost concerned with the prevention of disease that could hurt production or cause unnecessary pain; humane slaughter laws are designed to prevent excess excitement and discomfort (National Archives and Records Administration, 2012b), and welfare audits for slaughter facilities are designed to reduce animal stress prior to slaughter (Grandin and Johnson, 2006). Using these criteria, it becomes clear how viewing welfare through the first two of Frasier’s ideals might suggest organically raised animals could have poorer welfare. It has been shown that organic farms have a higher rate of parasite-related disease (Lund and Algers, 2003), and the use of veterinary drugs is strongly suggested to be a last resort after alternative methods have been exhausted (IFOAM, 2005). There is also a financial incentive, as once antibiotics have been given to an animal, that animal cannot return to organic production (Riddle, 2008; National Archives and Records Administration, 2012a).

Through the naturalistic perspective however, welfare for organic producers can depend much less on the first two ideals, and more weight is placed on the third. This viewpoint changes the significance of the risks involved in many organic practices, such as free range housing, as both organic producers and consumers emphasize the third ideal as a priority (Alroe et al., 2001; Lund, 2006). Additionally, the ecocentric perspective further lowers the emphasis on the first two, as disease and parasites are both considered healthy parts of a larger ecosystem, and the health of the ecosystem is crucial to the health of the herd and the sustainability of the farm. This idea of looking past the individual is what causes dispute when quantifying animal welfare on the organic farm. Most producers, veterinarians, USDA inspectors, and animal owners evaluate animal welfare at the level of the individual, whereas the ecocentric organic producers are more likely to evaluate welfare at the level of the flock/herd, within the herd’s role in the overall ecosystem. At this level, a few animals in poor health are acceptable in a natural ecosystem where small amounts of disease are permissible. The ecocentric view disallows an attempt to alter a healthy system determined by nature by eradicating this small population.

Because animal welfare may be determined using more qualitative criteria in an organic operation, how do organic producers react to poor welfare or illnesses of individual animals? Organic producers hold the health of their animals high in their priorities (IFOAM, 2005; Riddle 2005), so they must be able to maintain a standard of herd health not only for the benefit of their animals, but to keep production high. As part of the naturalness or ecocentric ethos, organic producers believe that farmers should not try to take control of the environment, as conventional techniques do, but work hand in hand with nature. Thus, any method used to completely eradicate disease through the use of chemicals or medications does not promote a sustainable ecosystem, as it reveals an attempt to control the environment rather than work to bring the ecosystem back into balance (Verhoog et al., 2003). Therefore, prevention becomes key, and the U.S. organic requirements mandate preventative practices that emphasize working with nature such as selection of species and type of livestock that are appropriate to the site and resistant to prevalent disease, provision of a sufficient organic feed ration, and the use of appropriate housing, pasture management, and sanitation protocol to minimize the occurrence of pathogens (Riddle, 2008).

 

New Research: Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare? Part 1

For my senior ethics class, I chose to write about an issue everyone has an opinion on, from granola folks at the co-op telling me to watch Food Inc. to farmers complaining about the outbreak of upper respiratory disease from those untreated organic herds sneezing over the fence. I actually ended up changing my own views quite a bit following the extensive research I did, and I really enjoyed writing the paper. I wanted to evaluate the claims often made to me by professors in my land grant school (Oregon State) about the misleading advertizing and hidden evils of organic production, and I wanted to see if there was anything to back up the fanaticism and devotion sometimes projected by organic devotees. This paper is by NO MEANS an exhaustive review of the literature, and I am not qualified to make any official judgement, and is simply meant to be a personal commentary from a recent graduate.

So rather than sit here blathering, the first portion is below, and you can read the full paper here.

_____________________________________________________________

Few agricultural debates come close to generating the same passionate and heated responses that organic farming seems to elicit. The discussion surpasses the interests of producers with conflicting ideologies to be hotly debated by assertive consumers as well; people who highlight the paradox created by their interest in the safe and responsible production of their food, while avoiding all involvement in its creation. The originally proposed Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 received nearly 300,000 comments on the proposed requirements, more than any other piece of legislation in history (Vos, 2000). Clearly this indicated that the role organic farming played in food production was extremely important to U.S. citizens then, and continues to be a relevant topic as organic operations have grown by 40-50% every five years since 1992 (USDA, 2010).

The general public also has a strong interest in the way animals are managed, especially when management techniques play a role in the health or well-being of the animals prior to their use for meat, milk, or eggs. Humane management is often brought up when discussing the merits or flaws of organic operations, and is extremely important to producers due to the important role animal welfare plays when consumers make purchasing decisions. Prickett et al. (2010) found through the use of a telephone survey that 49% of consumers consider the well-being of farm animals when purchasing meat, and 83% of consumers disagree that lower prices are more important than the well-being of the animals used. These numbers become critical when organic producers need to justify the increased cost of their products and conventional producers are forced to avoid the alternate impression that their animals are treated poorly.
Marketing pressure placed on both groups leads to a vicious back and forth of both valid questions and vague accusations, among which is the suggestion that organic farms can act as reservoirs of disease (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006). One mechanism for this accusation could be the avoidance of chemical or synthetic intervention for pest control and treatment of disease. This paper seeks to evaluate organic farming ideologies and legal constraints that create ethical dilemmas surrounding animal welfare, and determine whether organic management encourages decisions that are detrimental to the animals involved.

Animal Welfare and the Organic Movement
Early organic movements were created with the goal that a more sustainable and environmentally friendly farming system could be created that would benefit not only farmers and consumers of organic products, but also the animals within this system (Lund, 2006). These ideals have persevered and are a common talking point in promotional materials that market organically raised animals as drug and chemical free, and much closer to a “natural” condition (Riddle, 2005). This concept of “natural” is commonly used to differentiate organically produced animal products from conventional ones.

Utilizing the word “natural” creates an issue of perception; while the public widely accepts “natural” as a product descriptor, the word itself has no legal definition when used in food advertizing or packaging in the U.S. However, consumers have been shown to associate descriptions of “naturalness” not only with animal welfare but sustainability and care for the environment (Verhoog et al., 2003). While this may imply a scheme to sway consumer loyalty, the word is widely accepted by organic producers as an accurate descriptor to differentiate organic methods from conventional. While “natural” can have broad definitions like including the entire universe or everything untouched by man (thus either removing agriculture or providing no distinctions in practice), Verhoog et al. (2004) were able to show that organic producers feel organic can be classified as more natural than conventional agriculture as its aim is to be harmoniously integrated into nature. In this way nature is seen as a teacher or model for sustainable and humane agriculture. This ethos pushes organic farmers into an ecocentric approach when making management decisions. From this perspective, we begin to see how organic farmers may view welfare differently than conventional farmers or veterinarians.

Read the rest of the paper here.

 

ResearchBlogging.org
Vonne Lund, & Bo Algers (2003). Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming—a literature review Livestock Production Science, 80 (1-2), 55-68 : 10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00321-4