Oct 2, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions| Sign UpLogin


May 2011 Archive for Dairy Talk

RSS By: Jim Dickrell, Dairy Today

Jim Dickrell is the editor of Dairy Today and is based in Monticello, Minn.

Don’t Bet the Farm Over Dairy Drug Use

May 23, 2011

The FDA is taking notice of the disproportionately high numbers of dairy cows on USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service tissue residue violator list.

 
How’s this for a nightmare scenario:
 
• An overseas importer of whey protein concentrate discovers that the baby formula it has just manufactured contains Florfenicol, and decides to destroy $63 million of baby formula. The company calls the Midwest manufacturer of the whey protein concentrate, informing it of the problem and demanding $63 million reimbursement.
 
• The whey protein manufacturer checks bulk tank samples of the milk that went into the whey product, and discovers that one of the samples contains Florfenicol. The plant then calls the producer, and informs him that he is liable for the $63 million product recall.
 
• The producer calls his lawyer, who suggests the producer’s veterinarian prescribed milk withhold time for Florfenicol-treated cows apparently was not long enough. Note: Florfenicol is not recommended for lactating cows because no studies have been conducted to determine milk withdrawal. But it is sometimes prescribed by veterinarians on an extra-label drug usage basis. The veterinarian must include milk and meat withhold times in his prescription.
 
• So the producer calls his veterinarian, saying he withheld the milk according to the prescription directions and that the veterinarian is thus responsible for the $63 million recall. Suffice it to say, after two years, the case is still in litigation.  
 
The scary thing, if you use drugs extra label, is that you could get a similar phone call. Dairy cows are disproportionately represented on USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service tissue residue violator list. In 2008, for example, some 33 million head of cattle moved through slaughter. Of the 27 million fed cattle that went through, 16 had tissue violations. Of the 3.6 million beef cows that went, 52 had tissue violations. But of the 2.6 million dairy cows, 788 had tissue violations. That means cull dairy cows had 400 times the tissue residue rate of fed cattle and 20 times that of beef cows.
 
The Food and Drug Administration is taking notice. If there are this many residues in dairy cow tissue, are there residues in milk that the beta-lactam tests are missing? FDA has held three industry meetings already this spring—in California, Minnesota, New York—to determine the best way to sample bulk tanks for non-penicillin drugs that are purchased over-the-counter or via veterinary prescription.
 
FDA’s plan is to test the bulk tanks of all dairy producers on the FSIS tissue violator list. But since many of the residue tests for non-penicillin drugs can take several days to complete, processors worry what they’ll do with the producers’ milk while they wait for test results. One Northeast processor has threatened to simply dump all of the producer’s milk (at the producer’s expense) from the time of sampling until test results clear.
 
Hopefully, FDA, processors and producer groups can come up with reasonable testing regime that doesn’t disrupt milk or cash flow.
 
But the bigger message is this: Any extra label drug use is a gamble. Even if you purchase over-the-counter drugs at your local farm & fleet store, any administration of that drug not given exactly according to label is extra-label usage and you are liable for any residues that occur.
 
“Producers making their own extra-label decisions may be in for some unexpected outcomes,” says Mike Lormore, a veterinarian with Pfizer Animal Health.
 
Lormore says that 90% of drug residues are “silly human mistakes.” Seventy percent of the time there is poor or no record keeping. Often there is no veterinarian involved in treatment decisions.
 
“Protocols and prescriptions [for extra label drug use] are a legal document between the veterinarian and the herd owner,” he says. “Directions must be followed. Meat and milk withholds must be followed. And protocol changes are not allowed without the authorization of the veterinarian.”
 
For a list of the top eights causes of drug residues in carcasses, click here. The list was compiled by Michael Payne, a veterinarian with the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine.
 
As a reminder from the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP), here is a list of antibiotics that are prohibited for use in food-producing animals:
·         DES-Diethystilbestrol
·         Cholamphenicol
·         Nitroimidazoles (including metronidazole)
·         Nitrofurans (including topical use)
·         Glenbuterol
·         Dipyrone
·         Glycopeptides
·         Gentian violet
·         Phenylbutazone in dairy cattle over 20 months of age
 
Drugs prohibited from extra label use in food-producing animals include sulfonamides in dairy cattle over 20 months of age (sulfadimethoxine can be used in adult dairy cattle but only according to label), Fluoroquinolones and medicated feeds. AABP also strongly discourages the use of Aminoglycosides (Gentamycin and Neomycin) .
 
And the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance prohibits the presence of non-medical grade dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and colloidal silver. Also note that compounding drugs from bulk substances is illegal.

The Fiasco in Baltimore

May 07, 2011

Shame on the 26 nameless, spineless bureaucrats who voted last week against lowering U.S. somatic cell count limits to 400,000 – for acting more in fear for their jobs than in doing the right thing.

 
To say there was disappointment last week when delegates to the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS), held in Baltimore, failed to lower U.S. somatic cell count (SCC) limits to 400,000 is an understatement.
 
It was a stunning rebuke to many, myself included, who thought the 33rd NCIMS would finally bring U.S. dairy standards into the 21st century. After all, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack supported it. USDA’s National Dairy Industry Advisory Committee supported it. The National Milk Producers Federation delegates voted last fall to support it, and submitted its own proposal to do so. The National Mastitis Council has been on record supporting the 400,000 limit since at least 1999, and again submitted a proposal to do so.
 
But NCIMS delegates, on an anonymous vote of 25 for, 26 against, knew better. Publicly, the opposing delegates hid behind the argument that the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance is a milk safety document, and not a milk marketing document nor a milk quality document. Privately, many of the opposing regulators feared political backlash from non-compliant producers and the politicians they then complained to.
 
The “PMO as milk safety document only” argument is vacuous on its face. NCIMS had its inception  following World War II, and it came about precisely because of marketing issues. At the time, individual states were using dairy regulations to impede interstate milk movements, using state regulations to prevent milk or dairy products produced in one state from being marketed in another. In other words, the very inception of NCIMS was to facilitate marketing and it did so through uniform.
 
What’s different today, of course, is that dairy markets are no longer simply interstate, but global. Standards set in Europe or New Zealand or China can impede markets here, just as standards used 65 years ago impeded trade between states. 
 
The milk safety argument also has holes as big as a screen door after the cat’s jumped through it. The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) states: “[Milk house] screen doors shall open outward.” If there is scientific evidence that the directional swing of screen door improves milk safety, I’d like to see it. No, it’s just common sense: A screen door opening outward will result in fewer flies entering the milk room. It’s one of those “duh” moments, right?
 
The PMO also requires 10-foot candles of light (110 lux) in conventional stall barns. To meet the standard, a 100-watt bulb for every three stanchions is required. Again, is there research to prove that 10-foot candles provide enough light to ensure a black teat-end is properly cleaned? I doubt it. But it’s common sense.
 
The directional swing of screen doors and the amount of light required in stall barns mitigate the risk to milk safety from more flies and dirty teat ends. That’s exactly what lowering SCC limits do.
 
We know—based on actual research—that at 750,000 cells/ml,  approximately 25% of mammary quarters are sub-clinically infected with mastitis organisms. At 400,000 cells/ml, 12.5% of quarters in the herd are sub-clinical.
 
Subclinical mastitis infections can cascade into clinical cases of mastitis, increased treatment with antibiotics and increased risk of antibiotic residues. Lowering the SCC limit reduces that risk, I would argue, even more so than using 100-watt light bulbs or out-swinging screen doors.
 
Lowering the SCC limit to 400,000 is one of those “duh,” common sense, no-brainer issues. It’s unfortunate only 25 NCIMS delegates understood what the PMO is really all about, and had the courage to vote that way last week in Baltimore. Shame on the other 26 nameless, spineless bureaucrats--more in fear for their jobs than in doing the right thing.
Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS

Receive the latest news, information and commentary customized for you. Sign up to receive Dairy Today's eUpdate today!

 
 
 
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by AmericanEagle.com|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions