Medical technology

There’s a Lot of Info in That Little TSU

Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:22:45 GMT

“The sky’s the limit if you have that sample,” says Jim Butcher, a Simmental seedstock producer from Lewistown, Mont.

He’s talking about all the things you can learn about the genetic potential of your cattle that is contained in a tissue sampling unit (TSU). The genomic information you get from each sample can, collectively and individually, help you more quickly move your herd’s genetic progress forward in an intentional, science-assisted direction.

There’s lots of info in that little vial.

(Allflex)

For commercial cow-calf producers, submitting the DNA sample in a TSU will return a scoresheet on each animal ‘s genetic merit for different indexes and specific traits, says Leoma Donsbach, owner and founder of Data Genie, LLC.

She calls herself a data accountant, helping customers attach the data on their operation to their record-keeping system. She says almost all her customers use TSUs to collect DNA and obtain genomic data.

Genomics are becoming more and more popular with commercial beef producers, she says.

“For replacement females, the ability to have a snapshot of that female’s genetic potential leads to increased confidence in keeping that heifer. You can say, ‘This heifer is more likely to be here until age six or seven by looking at her stayability metrics.’”

Say, for example, you’ve done your visual appraisal and picked 50 heifers as potential replacements, but you only need to keep 40. Visually, those heifers are very similar. But genetically, they could be very different, depending on what genes they received from their parents.

That’s where the TSUs and the genomic data they provide come in. First, test all 50 replacement candidates.

“Then breed them and find out which ones are bred,” she says. Even if everything went right, that still leaves some extras. “You can go back and use the genomic data to select the traits you want and/or use a maternal or terminal index to make those final decisions. You use it like comparing genomically enhanced EPDs when buying bulls.”

Beyond replacement selection, you can extrapolate the DNA data on your heifers when marketing your steers, she says. “On average, your steers will have similar genetics to your heifers. That information may add to their sale price.”

Then There Are The Bulls

Just like heifers, bulls can be full siblings and still be remarkably different in their genetic makeup.

“We’re great phenotype collectors of birth weights, weaning weights, all that,” Butcher says. “But you really don’t know what you have until you know what genes that particular animal picked up.”

When seedstock producers send in a TSU, they get back genomically enhanced EPDs. That, Butcher says, allows him to supply more accurate information about young bulls for his customers and help them make the best bull-buying decisions they can within their budget.

Indeed, not every bull is suited for every ranch. Studying the genomically enhanced EPDs gives you greater confidence in the true genetic potential of young bulls.

“You lessen the probabilities that you’re buying an animal that won’t help you move your program forward,” Butcher says.

Your Next Read: Building the Next Generation Cow Herd Using Genomic Testing

Gene Editing: Livestock Genetic Improvement Through DNA Editing

Fri, 14 Mar 2025 19:10:34 GMT

Traditional cattle breeding has always involved modifying the genetics of animals, but the term “genetic modification” is often associated with more modern biotechnologies like genetic engineering and gene editing.

“Often when people hear the expression ‘genetic modification’ what comes to mind is the whole GMO debate and scary memes on the Internet, or that if you eat GMOs something bad will happen to you,” says Alison Van Eenennaam, UC Davis animal biotechnology and genomics extension specialist. “That narrative has been very hard to correct.”

Van Eenennaam was a featured speaker during Kansas State University’s Cattlemen’s Day on March 7. Genetic engineering, which has been around for about 30 years, involves introducing transgenic constructs from other organisms, such as Bt corn. However, this technology has seen limited use in animal production due to consumer pushback against GMOs and the difficulty of introducing new traits into animals, Van Eenennaam says.

A newer technology called genome editing or gene editing has emerged in the last decade.

“Gene editing is basically just conventional breeding, but done more intelligently,” she summarizes. “This allows for the targeted manipulation of an animal’s DNA without introducing foreign genetic material. For example, researchers have developed a ‘PRRS-resistant’ pig by knocking out a gene that the virus uses to infect the animal. Gene editing can also be used to introduce beneficial alleles from one breed into the elite germplasm of another, without diluting the desired genetics.”

In cattle, gene editing has been used to create knockouts for traits like disease resistance and heat tolerance, as well as knock-ins to introduce desirable alleles like the polled trait.

“In 2009, we were able to define the entire sequence of the cattle genome, which gave us a look at the genetic variation that exists between cattle breeds,” Van Eenennaam says. “In the case of cattle, that’s about 3 billion base pairs of DNA that make up the cattle genome.”

She explained there are two ways to gene edit cattle — cloning and microinjection into zygotes. “The key difference is that cloning starts with an edited cell line, while microinjection edits the zygote directly,” she says. “Ultimately, the goal is to produce a homozygous, non-mosaic animal where both alleles carry the desired edit, ensuring the trait is passed on to offspring.”

Van Eenennaam explains a few of the cattle-focused gene editing projects have centered around traits like polled, disease resistance, heat tolerance and muscle development.

In the swine industry, she says gene editing is being used to improve a pig’s resistance to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRSV), a devastating disease that costs the swine industry about $1.2 billion per year in the U.S.

A gene editing project that could have a big impact the beef industry is surrogate sires or “artificial insemination on legs.” The process produces bulls that are generating semen from a different cell line. For example, a tropically adapted bull working in an environment where he is well suited, but his semen could be genetically, an Angus sire.

“You can basically do AI on legs, because you could naturally service with elite germplasm,” she says. “There’s a lot of different applications that have some potential to really benefit the beef industry.”

Gene editing technology still faces regulatory hurdles in the U.S., as well as the need to overcome perceptions among countries that buy U.S. beef.

Van Eenennaam says the main risks with gene editing are more reputational than safety-related, as activist groups may try to lump gene editing with GMOs. She encourages more discussion highlighting how gene editing can address issues like animal welfare and disease resistance in ways that align with consumer values.

Excited about the potential of gene editing to improve livestock production in a targeted and precise manner, she summarizes that regulatory approaches will be crucial in determining which applications reach the market and who can bring them forward.

You can watch her K-State Cattlemen’s Day presentation here: https://youtu.be/d7N7a6mYwDk

Your Next Read: Modern and Precise: Using Gene Editing to Change the Blueprint of an Organism

Lidocaine Infused Bands Minimize Castration Discomfort for Young Calves

Mon, 25 Nov 2024 23:40:04 GMT

As consumer concern for animal rearing practices rises, and industry awareness of animal welfare increases at the same time, food animal rearing practices are changing in step.

One of those practices: castration, a necessary yet painful rite of passage for every male animal destined for the beef market. A recent study at Kansas State University – presented at the American Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference in Columbus, Ohio -- demonstrated how lidocaine-infused castration bands can help calves transition through the castration phase more smoothly and comfortably.

In the study, 26 beef-cross calves under two weeks of age were banded with either the lidocaine-infused band, or a conventional castration band. Calves were individually housed for close observation, and followed via 24/7 video surveillance for 42 days.

Among the results, researchers found:

· The calves treated with the lidocaine-infused bands had significantly more bouts of lying, and more total lying time, than those treated with conventional bands.

· The greatest disparity in lying time occurred between days 21 and 35, which is significant because that is the typical time when bands start cutting through the tissue. “It is great to see the lidocaine-banded calves were comfortable lying down at a time that we often say is the chronic part of the pain related to castration,” noted Eduarda Bortoluzzi, DVM, and assistant professor of animal welfare in the Department of Anatomy and Physiology, Kansas State University.

· While weight loss would be expected immediately after castration, calves receiving the treated bands gained a bit of weight the first week after castration, while those with conventional bands lost weight during the same time period – an indication that the lidocaine-banded calves returned to appetite more quickly.

· At the end of the study, the final bodyweight was an average of more than 3 pounds higher for the calves receiving the lidocaine-treated bands compared to those receiving conventional bands.

“In addition to weight gain, it’s also about doing the right thing for our animals and providing some type of analgesic relief during castration because we know it’s painful,” declared Bortoluzzi. “I would use it to decrease their stress during this period. We now have a type of analgesic that was not available before.”

In other news from Bovine Veterinarian:
New Veterinary Teaching And Research Hospital To Break Ground
Does Your Veterinary Business Culture Need To Change?

Purdue University Researches Benefits of Fatty Acids Found in Meat

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:14:47 GMT

The impact of arachidonic acid, an omega-6 polyunsaturated fat found only in animal products, upon human health remains mostly misunderstood, according to an article released by Purdue University. Researchers aim to study the subject further.

Led by James Markworth , assistant professor of animal sciences , the team will carefully test the health effects of omega-6 in laboratory experiments. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture , will fund the research and the experiments will clarify which omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil and seafood are responsible for yielding their health benefits.

“These polyunsaturated fatty acids are essential because you need to acquire them through the diet,” Markworth says. “They can’t be made in the body. And in particular it’s the long-chain versions, which are found in products of animal or marine origin, that are thought to potentially influence human health.”

Both omega-3 and omega-6 are long-chain, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and some of these fatty acids are also essential fatty acids.

The long-chain omega-6 fat arachidonic acid is found only in meat, poultry and eggs. “You can’t get it from vegetable sources, and you can’t get it from fish. We think that these nutrients found in meat and poultry products might have similar benefits as, say, fish oil or fish products. And that’s something you don’t hear very often,” Markworth says.

Previous research has well established that fish oil fatty acids have metabolic benefits. But which fatty acids convey those benefits and how remains unclear. The major ones are eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

Collaborating with Markworth on the project are: Tzu-Wen Cross in the College of Health and Human Sciences , along with Tim Johnson and Kolapo Ajuwon , both in the College of Agriculture ’s Department of Animal Sciences .

“What we’re suggesting is when you eat these lipids in the diet or dietary supplements, the systemic response your body has might depend on the resident microbes first encountered in the gastrointestinal tract,” Markworth says. “And we’re proposing that the systemic response is largely mediated by the effect on the skeletal muscle.”

Markworth notes the skeletal muscle determines metabolic health, obesity and diabetes as it is the largest site of glucose disposal and insulin sensitivity.

Read more here .

Livestock and mRNA Vaccines: What You Need To Know

Fri, 27 Sep 2024 01:56:43 GMT

As misinformation regarding the use of mRNA vaccines in livestock filter through social media, there are facts begging to be set straight.

Recently, a claim was made saying producers are required to inject livestock with mRNA vaccines.

According to USDA spokesperson, Marissa Perry says, “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease. It is a personal and business decision left up to the producer and will remain that way,” in response to the claim, Associated Press shared in an article .

National Pork Board’s Director of Consumer Public Relations, Jason Menke echoed the statement to AP, noting that the decision to use vaccines and other medical treatments to protect animal health and well-being are made by the farmer under the direction of the herd veterinarian.

To further explain mRNA vaccines and shed light on controversies, Dr. Kevin Folta, a molecular biologist and professor at the University of Florida, shares his viewpoint and experience with the technology.

What are mRNA Vaccines?

First introduced to the population through the COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines have been in development for decades, says Folta in a recent AgriTalk segment.

He adds that the technology’s potential in human health makes it a likely candidate to have a place in animal health as well. However, “the technology is being maligned in social media, and is now shaping decisions at the level of state legislature,” Folta says. This leads to the growing importance that producers and consumers become more educated on the topic.

What Folta believes began in January of this year, based on claims with very little data, certain advocates against mRNA vaccines are concerned that mRNA vaccines are in use and development in livestock. Additionally, these vaccines may then be present in the food these animals provide.

Why mRNA Vaccines Are Not Present in Food

“It’s not in your food. It’s a vaccine for the animal that, just like any vaccine, protects the animal from disease,” Folta says.

Current mRNA vaccines being used in swine are injected into the muscle, Folta explains, which causes the development of the immune response protein to then stimulate the body to work against the virus.

“In the absence of the virus, it’s kind of like giving the virus or giving the body a ‘wanted’ poster that says, ‘when this individual comes along, and this virus comes along, work against it,’ and it’s all gone within hours,” he adds.

The mRNA never leaves the cells from where it was injected. RNA is a very unstable molecule that must be kept cold, buffered and in solvent, to remain viable, Folta explains.

Additionally, any licensed vaccine comes with a minimum time before that animal can enter the food chain, also known as the “withdrawal time,” says Alan Young, professor in the Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences at South Dakota State University and founder of protein platform (non-mRNA) vaccine company Medgene.

The Animal’s Genes Are Not Altered

While mRNA vaccines include genetic code, Folta says the use of a mRNA vaccines does not alter the animal’s genes in any way.

“This [mRNA] is an intermediate between the gene itself and the products that the gene encodes. So, it’s like having a blueprint and a house. The mRNA is like the construction worker. It takes the blueprint and manufactures the house. In the case of the cell, it takes the DNA blueprint and then takes a little bit of that information to build part of the final structure. The mRNA is just that intermediate, it does not change the genes. It doesn’t change the DNA itself,” he explains.

What are the Benefits of mRNA Vaccines?

More flexibility and faster response to new disease, Folta describes as reasons why mRNA vaccines are becoming more popular.

Traditional vaccines require large amounts of a virus to be raised and purified before being injected to elicit an immune response, he adds. Meanwhile, mRNA encourages the body to make a little piece of protein to elicit the desired immune response.

“It’s much cleaner, much easier. If you’re moving parts in this machine, to make this product that induces an immune response, it’s so good in so many ways,” Folta says.

In pork production specifically, researchers are working with mRNA vaccines that will work this way against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), which is a viral disease that causes economic loss totals around $664 million per year in the U.S. (Holtkamp et al., 2013).

Additionally, the use of mRNA technology adds another tool to the toolbox, which may be helpful in combating diseases, such as African swine fever (ASF), avian influenza and other food-animal diseases.
“This stands to be a revolutionary technology if we don’t get in the way,” Folta adds.

Are There Risks to mRNA Vaccines?

Folta says everything has some sort of risk, but it’s important to weigh the benefits against the risk.
As seen with the COVID-19 vaccines, in rare cases, people experienced side effects from the vaccine. However, Folta is encouraged by the initial results in livestock.

“If you look in animals where these [vaccines] have been used, there have been no unusual effects noted. Everything potentially has risk, but it’s monitored, and especially in large animal populations, we can look very carefully at that for surveillance,” he explains.

mRNA Enters State Legislation

While some consumers spread misinformation about the use of mRNA vaccines, the ideas have also crept into state legislation.

The Missouri House Bill 1169 , with a special hearing set for Apr. 19 on the matter, aims to require a label be used on meat from animals treated with an mRNA vaccine, identifying the “potential gene therapy product.”
This bill falsely claims that mRNA vaccines would modify the genes of the organism, Folta explains.

mRNA vaccines are simply another modality that can protect animal health, which results in healthy animals producing the best and safest food products, Folta says, and provides producers with more options to help combat disease.

“To have affordable food, we need to have continual innovation in the animal, medical, veterinary space and mRNA vaccines are safe and an effective way to treat the animal that does not change the final product,” he adds.

The COVID-19 pandemic simply “broke the seal” to the development of these new modalities that will change the way human and animal diseases will be treated in the years to come.

More on Vaccines:

Genvax Technologies Secures $6.5 Million to Advance Novel Vaccine Platform

Cattle Veterinarians Have New Vaccination Guidelines

Don’t Assume That Old Refrigerator Is Good Enough To Store Vaccines

OTC Livestock Antibiotics Will Require Prescription June 11

Gene Editing in Beef Cattle

Wed, 05 Jun 2024 19:40:19 GMT

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) is a powerful tool for editing genomes. It allows researchers to easily alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. These “intended alterations” accomplished through editing are another potential tool in the tool box of cattle breeders. This technology is primarily useful for simply inherited traits (influenced at one locus of the genome).

CRISPR technology has many potential applications that facilitate sustainability, animal welfare and efficiency. These include:

- The opportunity to repair deleterious genetic conditions

- The opportunity to introduce naturally occurring useful alleles into breed germplasm. Specifically, to potentially bring a useful gene from one breed to another breed.

- Introduce traits that change sex ratio of heifers versus bulls.

- Enable breeding schemes to accelerate genetic progress

- Gene edits for disease resistance

As of now, the successful gene edits accomplished in cattle include:

- The first gene edited beef calf with reduced susceptibility to a major viral pathogen, Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV)

- Knock out of the Myostatin gene to increase lean muscle yield

- Intraspecies Polled allele substitution

- Intraspecies Slick hair allele and gene for diluted coat color to improve heat tolerance

The use of this technology in the United States beef industry likely hinges on the regulatory framework imposed. On a global basis, this varies dramatically from country to country. The future of genome editing will likely be governed by the development of a fit-for-purpose, risk-based regulatory framework that fosters innovation, supports trade, creates profit potential and promotes public acceptance.

Reference: Blueprint For The Future – Part 2 Cattle Conference. The Evolution of Technology, Successful Gene Edits, How It Works and the Approval Process Panel Discussion. May, 2024

Iowa State University Advances Veterinary Diagnostics with High-Volume Testing Innovation

Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:19:52 GMT

Iowa State University’s Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (VDL) is set to revolutionize molecular diagnostic testing with the introduction of a cutting-edge machine—the “SmartChip.” This innovative device can hold over 5,000 samples on a plate no larger than a postage stamp and uses quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing technology, combined with a 384-sample system featuring automated handling features, to significantly enhance its testing capacity, says a recent release .

“The historical patterns of pathogens are changing, so we need to be prepared for risks we haven’t seen before. Having this high-throughput capability will allow us to meet industry needs, providing more cost-efficient diagnostic tests as the need for testing grows,” says Rahul Nelli, a research assistant professor of veterinary diagnostic and production animal medicine, in the release.

To refine the use of high-volume testing methods, the VDL recently secured a nearly $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The project, funded by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, aims to prepare for future disease outbreaks. Through this initiative, researchers will ensure the accuracy and integration of the novel high-volume testing methods with existing systems for tracking and reporting test results.

“ISU VDL’s first-hand experience in responding to pandemics of high consequence to both animal and human health over the past few years, such as highly pathogenic avian influenza and COVID-19, have clearly illustrated the value of high-throughput testing platforms and need for further innovation,” said Dr. Rodger Main, ISU VDL director, in the release.

The SmartChip testing relies on microfluidic technology to detect targets of interest in samples, using a volume 100 times smaller than the VDL’s standard 96-well machines, the release explains. With samples precisely distributed in the chip’s 5,184 testing wells, the SmartChip machines can produce up to 30,000 test results per day. In comparison, the conventional 96-well method yields approximately 2,000 tests. Additionally, the 384-well machine offers a more moderate increase in capacity, capable of handling about 9,000 tests per day through smaller samples and automated loading.

Nelli envisions the SmartChip testing as a reserve resource for sudden spikes in demand for qPCR tests. This reliable method detects trace amounts of genetic material, including infectious agents in humans and animals. On the other hand, the 384-well automated machines can be part of regular lab operations, mitigating labor shortages. Moreover, by making test prices more affordable, they pave the way for wider use of surveillance testing among livestock producers.

Over the next two years, researchers will focus on integrating the new testing machines with existing reporting software. They will also validate the new methods and develop protocols for various samples used in veterinary diagnostics, including fluids, fecal matter, eggshells, and feathers. By 2025, these high-capacity testing methods could potentially be implemented in the VDL.

Main emphasizes in the release that ISU VDL, with the largest veterinary diagnostic laboratory caseload in the nation, plays a crucial role in serving the needs of 21st-century food animal agriculture. Consequently, the next-generation high-throughput testing platforms will undeniably contribute to fulfilling these requirements.

Whisper Makes Noise

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:46 GMT

Editor’s note: We’ll have a series of articles summarizing highlights from the recent Bovine Respiratory Disease Symposium and Academy of Veterinary Consultants Conference on this site over the rest of this month. Check back often.

The Whisper digital auscultation (stethoscope) system, introduced in 2014, initially found use in feedlot hospitals, as a tool for assessing severity of respiratory cases and helping guide treatment decisions. Since then, Merck Animal Health purchased the technology from Geissler Corporation and has invested heavily in refining the system and expanding its capabilities.

During the recent Academy of Veterinary Consultants Conference in Denver, Merck technical services veterinarian Dr. Jason Nickell summarized results of several trials using the next-generation Whisper system as a tool for improving health outcomes while reducing mass-treatment expenses for high risk cattle upon arrival in stocker or finishing operations. His presentation was titled “Precision Antimicrobial Protocols: Using Whisper On-Arrival Technology to Make Objective and Individualized Metaphylactic Decisions.”

Research and field experience have consistently shown that metaphylaxis using antibiotics with high-risk calves upon arrival pays off with lower morbidity, lower treatment costs and better performance through the backgrounding or finishing period. However, veterinarians always have known that when a crew treats an entire group, some percentage of those calves would have stayed healthy without treatment, in spite of their high-risk status. The challenge, of course, lies in predicting which cattle will benefit from treatment and which will do just fine without – something the original Whisper technology did not do well.

The upgraded system, Nickell says, provides that predictive ability, allowing veterinarians and cattle feeders to benefit from metaphylaxis while reducing costs and enhancing antimicrobial stewardship. This type of technology, he adds, can help move livestock production closer to the “precision agriculture” strategies widely used in crop production.

The original Whisper system used a device that looks like a conventional stethoscope, which allowed the user to hear lung sounds while the digital system analyzed those sounds to create a 1-to-5 score indicating severity of BRD. The new system does away with the stethoscope device, and uses all-new analytical software. The device, which Nickell says resembles a “Swiffer” mop, features a rectangular reader with six sound sensors to heart and lung sounds. A long pole allows the user to stand away from the chute while pressing the sensor to the animal. A Bluetooth connection sends the auscultation data to a chute-side computer, and the crew adds numbers for body weight and rectal temperature. The user sets a threshold level, or a cutoff score determining which animals receive metaphylaxis, and the system provides a simple “treat” or “don’t treat” indication.

Merck recently completed four trials in commercial feedlots, one in Nebraska, one in Oklahoma and two in Texas, to assess the system’s predictive power and ability to reduce metaphylaxis treatments without negatively affecting health. Each of these trials, using medium- to high-risk calves, followed four treatment groups:

Negative control – No metaphylaxis treatment.
Positive control – Metaphylaxis using Zuprevo for all cattle.
Whisper high – Targeted metapylaxis based on a high Whisper cutoff score.
Whisper low – Targeted metaphylaxis based on a low Whisper cutoff score.

The researchers then collected health, performance and carcass data on all the cattle in the trials.

In all four trials, the positive control groups and both of the Whisper groups has statistically fewer pulls and BRD treatments compared with the negative control groups.

In the Whisper high groups, the blinded crews used metaphylactic treatments on 82% to 89% of arrivals, while in the Whisper low groups, the system identified 57% to 72% of arrivals as needing treatment. So, across the Whisper treatment groups, between 11% and 43% fewer cattle received metaphylaxis compared with the positive control groups. BRD morbidity, mortality, average daily gains and carcass characteristics were statistically equivalent for both Whisper groups compared with the positive control groups (100% metaphylaxis).

The results indicate the system could effectively reduce on-arrival treatments for medium- to high-risk calves without sacrificing health or performance.

Nickell acknowledges that collecting Whisper data adds some seconds to total processing time, which could be an issue for feedlots receiving large numbers of cattle in short time periods. Merck has not yet released a pricing structure for the system, but Nickell says the cost likely will accrue on a per-head basis, and Merck plans to introduce a pricing system for veterinarians, in addition to one for feedyards. He adds that the company recognizes the pricing structure must provide a return on investment, providing significant savings associated with BRD treatments, for commercial success.

For more on BRD diagnostics and the Whisper system, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Refining Receiving Protocols

BRD Detection: The Role of Technology

Target your Feedlot Treatments

Learn About Genome Editing in Animals

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:18:06 GMT

Long before humans understood the biology of genetic inheritance, they selected their domestic animals with the most desirable traits for breeding. We’ve come a long way since then, with EPD’s genomic prediction tools and reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer, which help accelerate genetic progress.

That progress remains slow though, especially in animals with long reproductive cycles such as cattle. Genome editing technology, which can selectively add or delete genes and associated traits within an animal’s genome, has tremendous potential for quickly and accurately introducing desirable traits for productivity, health, fertility, animal welfare, food quality and safety in livestock populations.

On December 3, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), will hold a public webinar about genome editing in animals.

The webinar advances FDA’s public communication strategy to help innovators understand FDA regulation and show support for safe and responsible innovation that benefits public health. According to FDA/CVM, the webinar will focus on current scientific evidence, promising uses of this technology in animals, and the potential risks. “It will also provide information about CVM’s flexible, risk-based approach to the regulation of intentional genomic alterations to animals and address common misconceptions associated with the regulation of these products.”

The hosts have scheduled time during the webinar to answer stakeholder-submitted questions, which you can submit upon registration or during the webinar.

The webinar is open to the public, but advance registration is required to participate in the live-cast webinar. To register, please visit CVM Public Webinar Genome Editing in Animals – Dec. 3, 2018, 1:00 – 3:00 pm ET .

For more on genomic editing, read these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Gene Editing: Potential and Perceptions

Editing for Health and Fitness

USDA Clarifies Gene-Editing Oversight

For more information from FDA:

Registration: CVM Public Webinar about Genome Editing in Animals

FDA’s Regulation of Plant and Animal Biotechnology Products

FDA Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan

CVM Update: FDA Announces Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan

Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., and Deputy Commissioner Anna Abram on the FDA’s new plan to advance plant, animal biotechnology innovation

7 Steps to Create a Biosecurity Plan

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:32:19 GMT

No matter what type of livestock operation you run, biosecurity should always be at the forefront of your mind. Putting biosecurity protocols in place can help reduce the risk of disease being transferred to not only livestock, but to humans as well.

According to Joe Armstrong, DVM, University of Minnesota Extension cattle production systems educator, having a biosecurity plan can help protect your farm from external pathogens and can minimize the transmission of diseases on your operation. To build a biosecurity plan for your farm, Armstrong provides these seven steps.

1. Determine your goal.

Before you can develop your plan, it is important to determine your end goal. You can’t get to where you are wanting to go unless you know where you are at. To do this, Armstrong suggests asking yourself two questions:

Is there a specific disease that you are looking to target that you already have?
Is there a particular disease you are worried about acquiring?

If you don’t know the answers to these questions, that’s okay. Reach out to your veterinarian for help.

2. Develop your team.

One of the most valuable members to have on your farm’s team is your veterinarian. When formulating your biosecurity plan, be sure to include them in on the discussion.

“Your veterinarian is one of the only people you work with that can comment on your entire system and how everything works together,” Armstrong says. “They have specific biosecurity training that can help you develop a plan that targets your most significant transmission risks.”

3. Formulate the plan.

As you begin to write down your farm’s intentions, it is crucial that you be as specific as possible. No matter how simple a protocol may be, you still need to have it in writing. Armstrong suggests creating visible materials that can serve as a reminder to you and your staff.

4. Get everyone on board.

“Biosecurity only works if everyone follows the protocols,” Armstrong says. “One person that isn’t on board can derail the whole thing. Make sure everyone understands what to do and make sure everyone understands why it is important.”

Consider having a team meeting to go over the new protocols and ask employees for their suggestions and feedback.

5. Start the plan.

Now that the plan has been given the green light, it’s time to put it in action.

“The sooner it is in place, the sooner you can refine the protocols and identify problem areas that need to be resolved,” Armstrong says.

6. Fine tune.

Because of workforce turnover and changing conditions on dairy farms, biosecurity training needs to on-going and continually reinforced. It may be helpful to ask your veterinarian to attend these training sessions to answer some of the questions your team members might have.

7. Evaluate and make adjustments.

One of the most important steps in formulating a biosecurity plan is to make adjustments as necessary. Be sure to record incidences of diseases to help measure whether you plan is working or not

“If your plan has been given enough time to work, you can decide if you need to change your plan based on your evaluation,” Armstrong says.

Life-Saving Find: How This Missouri Soil Unearthed A Golden Medical Discovery 75 Years Ago

Take a step onto Sanborn Field at the University of Missouri–Columbia, and it’s a step into history.

“I’m walking in some big footsteps here,” says Tim Reinbott, the director of Sanborn Field at the University of Missouri.

Sanborn Field is the third-oldest continuous research farm in the world, but the oldest west of the Mississippi River. Nestled on the eastern edge of campus, buildings and housing have sprouted all around the field, but it’s still the root of significant scientific discoveries that are benefiting farmers and ranchers.

“We probably got more treatments than anybody else,” Reinbott explains. We have had continuous treatments for 135 years, and we’ve learned so much. And this is where so many of our common agricultural practices all started from the dollars that we gained here.”

One of the biggest breakthroughs happened 75 years ago, as the soil became the foundation of medicine still used today in humans and livestock.

“One of the interesting facts that is often overlooked is that in any soil you will find antibiotics, because it’s just the nature of how these bacteria survive in nature,” says Bob Kremer, adjunct professor of soil microbiology at the University of Missouri (Mizzou).

An Important Plot

Seventy-five years ago, Plot 23, which is still located within Sanborn Field at the university, became home to a groundbreaking discovery.

“We have to keep in mind that that was the age of the antibiotic discovery in the United States and worldwide,” Kremer says.

“Seventy-five years ago, we had known about penicillin. We had known other types of antibiotics, but they were only about 40% effective,” Reinbott explains.

“And they were looking for that golden antibiotic, that one that would really be very effective and be taken orally, not by injection.”

With so much effort to find microorganisms that could produce an antibiotic that wasn’t just effective but not toxic to humans or animals, researchers at Sanborn Field were on a mission.

“Benjamin Duggar, a gentleman that was a former faculty member here was working for Lederle Laboratories at the time, and he knew the director of Sanborn Field, who was William J. Albrecht, who was the soil microbiologist. Mr. Duggar asked him for some soil samples from Sanborn Field, that he could begin to culture for these microorganisms for some sort of an antibiotic that would serve those purposes.”

A Solution in Soil

The soil contained a golden mold that suppressed the growth of many microorganisms, including streptococci, a bacteria that causes various types of infections. From the sample, researchers eventually created aureomycin, which proved to be an antibiotic effective against 90% of bacteria-caused infections in humans.

“Dr. Albrecht then directed and assisted in collecting soil samples from Sanborn Field, which included plot 23 here, which is in continuous Timothy (grass) that had no fertilizer or manure amendments since it was established in 1888,” Kremer says.

“He knew that this plot right behind us (plot 23), that had been for 60 years managed the same way, was a perennial crop, but had no inputs. He knew we should have a lot of biology but a pretty hostile environment for them. If any place could have an antibiotic, it’s going to be here,” says Reinbott, as he stands in front of the birthing ground of aureomycin.

It was later that year, in 1945, they made the big discovery — one that proved to be a breakthrough in the medical world, for both humans and animals.

“They called it aureomycin, and ‘aureolus’ is the Latin word that means a golden color,” Reinbott adds. “It’s an antibiotic that’s been used for decades, and it’s still being used in animals. It’s also the best treatment there is today for Rocky Mountain spotted fever.”

Reinbott says for the first 30 to 40 years after the discovery of aureomycin, it was the go-to antibiotic for human medicine, but it also grew in popularity within animal medicine.

“The aureomycin antibiotic and the tetracycline cyclin class are still very useful today, because of their mechanism of action. They attack protein synthesis in the cell of these bacteria, and (are) effective on these rickettsia diseases, like the Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Because those particular bacteria are able to infect and inhabit deep within the tissue of a human being, they also do not become resistant,” Kremer says.

Life-Saving Treatment

First discovered at the end of 1945, aureomycin underwent clinical trials and was then approved by FDA to address human ailments, starting in 1948. One of the first recipients was a young boy, Tobey Hockett, who at the time, lived just outside of Washington, D.C.

“I was born Sept. 11, 1943,” says Hockett, who is now retired and lives in Florida. “Sometime around early 1949, I got a real bad stomachache. My parents did not pay attention, and it got worse and worse before they finally rushed me to the hospital. It turns out that I had peritonitis. I had a ruptured appendix.”

Hockett says the doctors didn’t give his parents much hope for his recovery, but the doctors wanted to treat Hockett with an antibiotic that had recently been developed, which was aureomycin. He remained in the hospital for one month.

Hockett says Mizzou’s discovery 75 years ago not only saved his life, but he went on to become a defense attorney and worked to save other lives. He took on death penalty cases and helped clients through drug court.

“You can’t express thanks in words,” Hockett says. “The only thing I think about is what I’ve been able to do with my life as a result of surviving that.”

Soil Sample Goes To Smithsonian

To celebrate the discovery of aureomycin, a soil sample from Plot 23 was sent to the Smithsonian Institution where it still resides today.

The discovery at Sanborn Field wasn’t just a breakthrough for human medical science, it was also a breakthrough for livestock.

“It’s very interesting, because they discovered that it was very useful not only to prevent some of these infections, but it also is a growth promoter,” Kremer says. “In the early 1950s, they discovered that chickens, for example, grew two and a half times quicker than the traditional feed that was being used at the time.”

Aureomycin is still widely used in cattle today. Such an antibiotic discovery is estimated to cost $1.5 billion in 2023 dollars.

“We’ve more aureomycin discoveries out here, we’ve just got to look for them,” says Reinbott, standing at Sanborn Field. “It may or may not be an antibiotic, but it can be something just as groundbreaking, and that’s what gets me excited.”

Maternal Bovine Appeasing Substance Reduces Stress, Cortisol Levels In Cattle, Research Shows

When you observe a mama cow soothe an upset calf – taking it from bawling to calmly nursing in nearly an instant – you’ve just witnessed a naturally produced pheromone, called maternal bovine appeasing substance (MBAS), at work.

The pheromone, which is secreted through the skin of the mammary gland of lactating cows, is now available as a synthetic analog in the U.S., called FerAppease, for use in cattle experiencing stress from routine practices that are part and parcel in beef and dairy production.

Developed and marketed by FERA Diagnostics & Biologicals, FerAppease has been researched and evaluated by animal health scientists across a variety of production practices for the past decade.

“The maternal bovine appeasing substance is something that I’ve been investigating for nearly 10 years now, and the results are always consistently positive,” reports Reinaldo F. Cooke, DVM, PhD, endowed professor of beef cattle production at Texas A & M University.

FerAppease is designed to be topically administered to the nuchal skin (poll) and the skin above the muzzle. The product is locally assimilated by the vomeronasal organ located in the nasal cavity and is effective for 14 days.

“When the animal smells the bovine appeasing substance, the vomeronasal organ picks up that stimulus and translates into the brain as an appeasing, calming effect. It basically alleviates perception of the stress by the calf’s brain,” Cooke told Dr. Dan Thomson, Production Animal Consultation veterinarian and host of DocTalk, during a recent podcast.

Health Outcomes In Dairy And Beef Animals

In beef animals, Cooke has evaluated the product in a variety of production stages: at weaning in cow/calf herds, in calves being placed in feedyards and in finished cattle being shipped to a packing plant.

He also has conducted one study on the use of the technology in dairy calves ready for weaning¹. The dairy study was conducted on a commercial dairy in New York to evaluate health outcomes in treated vs. untreated Holstein calves. Application of the MBAS decreased the incidence of diarrhea (71% in controls and 59% in treated calves) and decreased mortality (7.8% in controls and 2.4% in treated calves).

An overview of the dairy study results is available in the American Association of Bovine Practitioner (AABP) The Bovine Practitioner.Cooke also addressed the study in Episode 184 of the AABP podcast Have You Herd? Listen to it here: AABP PodCasts - Effect of Maternal Bovine Appeasing Substance

More Than 10 Studies Conducted In Beef Cattle

For beef cattle, Cooke and his colleagues have authored articles from more than 10 published studies demonstrating the performance of FerAppease. One of the latest Texas A&M University peer-reviewed studies published in the August 2024 Journal of Animal Science².

Results from this study showed that administrating FerAppease resulted in decreased physiological stress markers in beef cattle. Compared to the control group, cattle receiving FerAppease had lower serum cortisol concentrations after castration and lower hair cortisol concentrations during the initial 28 days on feed.

“An increase in cortisol levels is the key negative physiological driver resulting from stress that impacts cattle appetite, health and weight gain,” Cooke says.

Specific to health benefits from administering FerAppease, the study results demonstrated improved immuno-competence with higher serum antibody concentrations against Parainfluenza 3 upon initial and booster vaccinations, according to a FERA news release.

Overall improved health response and better recovery from Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) were also observed in this study for FerAppease-treated beef cattle. A higher portion of cattle administered the technology required only a single antibiotic treatment to recover to positive health after BRD diagnosis compared to the control group. Mortality rates due to BRD were 83% lower in cattle treated with the product compared to the control group.

Multiple, Practical Uses With Positive ROI

As Cooke has considered where the technology fits within livestock production, he says his first thought was for calves at weaning, “especially because the calf takes about two weeks to recover from the separation from the cow,” he says.

“Then my next focus was on high-risk receiving cattle, because of all the stresses associated with the feedlot receiving. Reimplant is also another time point where we can address the stress of processing cattle. And the last period that I suggest is right before they go to the packing plant to address the stress of loading, transport, arrival, and waiting at the packing plant, which can translate into more carcass dressing,” Cooke told Thomson during the DocTalk podcast. Watch it here:
DocTalk Ep 634 - Bovine Appeasing Substance (FerAppease)

Cooke adds that the study published in the August 2024 Journal of Animal Science showed that by alleviating stress related to the process of shipping cattle to the packing plant, there was an increase of 1.5 percentile points in carcass dressing, roughly an additional 14 pounds of carcass.

“That’s $3 a pound of carcass today, so an additional $30 to $50 per head, which is significant” Thomson estimates.

Cooke adds that the economic analysis for use of FerAppease, depending on the production stage for use, offers producers a return on investment between 20:1 to 30:1.

Rodrigo Bicalho, CEO FERA Diagnostics & Biologicals, says A FerAppease treatment retails for about $3 per head for adult cattle and $1.50 per head for calves.

FerAppease use doesn’t require a veterinarian’s prescription or a Veterinary Feed Directive plan, and there are no meat withholding requirements. For more information and study data, visit www.FERAah.com .

References:¹Bringhenti, L., Colombo, E., Rodrigues, M., and Cooke, R. Effect of maternal bovine appeasing substance on health and performance of preweaned dairy calves. The Bovine Practitioner, Volume 57, No. 2, 2023. Available at: https://bovine-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/bovine/article/view/8772 .

²Pickett, A., Cooke, R. de Souza, I., Kertz, N., and Mackey, S. Administering the maternal bovine appeasing substance improves overall productivity and health in high-risk cattle during a 60-d feedlot receiving period Journal of Animal Science. Manuscript ID for Peer Review: JAS-2024-8536.

Your Next Read:
Dingus Honored by Friend of the Beef Reproduction Task Force at Recent Symposium