Killer cows
Cows can be dangerous.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported last week that from 2003-2007, cattle were the primary or secondary cause of death for 108 people.
.jpg)
During the same period, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska accounted for 16% of the nation's approximately 985,000 cattle operations and 21% of the nation's cattle and calf herd.
To better characterize cattle-caused deaths in these four states, investigators reviewed all such deaths occurring during the period 2003--2008 that were detected by two surveillance programs, the Iowa Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (IA FACE) and the Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health (GPCAH). This report summarizes that investigation, which identified 21 cattle-related deaths. These deaths occurred throughout the year, and decedents tended to be older (aged ≥60 years) (67%) and male (95%). Except in one case, the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head or chest. Circumstances associated with these deaths included working with cattle in enclosed areas (33%), moving or herding cattle (24%), loading (14%), and feeding (14%). One third of the deaths were caused by animals that had previously exhibited aggressive behavior.
To reduce the risk for death from cattle-caused injuries, farmers and ranchers should be aware of and follow recommended practices for safe livestock-handling facilities and proper precautions for working with cattle, especially cattle that have exhibited aggressiveness.
E. coli O157:H7 and cattle diet - it's messy
“If only” is often how statements begin by food safety wannabes who are sure they have stumbled upon a vast conspiracy meant to subjugate society.
If only Monsanto didn’t genetically-engineer seeds …
If only products like milk were served raw and natural …
If only cattle were fed grass, there would be no E. coli O157:H7.
When someone makes such proclamations, or says they speak fact, usually with an air of authority, I immediately think that person is full of it. People who say “trust me” are immediately untrustworthy.
Megan Jacob, Todd Callaway, and T.G. Nagaraja of Kansas State University write about the dietary interactions and interventions affecting Escherichia coli O157 colonization and shedding in cattle in an upcoming issue of Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. It’s not a movie, not a blog, not a pulp fiction, so they sorta have to get it right. And they do, when they write:
“The specific mechanisms responsible for increased or decreased E. coli O157 shedding or survival are not known … results of studies are conflicting or not repeatable, which speaks to the complexity of the hindgut ecosystem, variation in animal feed utilization, and variation within feed products.”
The complete abstract is below.
Escherichia coli O157 is an important foodborne pathogen affecting human health and the beef cattle industry. Contamination of carcasses at slaughter is correlated to the prevalence of E. coli O157 in cattle feces. Many associations have been made between dietary factors and E. coli O157 prevalence in cattle feces. Preharvest interventions, such as diet management, could reduce the fecal prevalence and diminish the impact of this adulterant. Dietary influences, including grain type and processing method, forage quality, and distillers grains have all been associated with E. coli O157 prevalence. In addition, several plant compounds, including phenolic acids and essential oils, have been proposed as in-feed intervention strategies. The specific mechanisms responsible for increased or decreased E. coli O157 shedding or survival are not known but are often attributed to changes in hindgut ecology induced by diet types. Some interventions may have a direct bacterial effect. Frequently, results of studies are conflicting or not repeatable, which speaks to the complexity of the hindgut ecosystem, variation in animal feed utilization, and variation within feed products. Still, understanding specific mechanisms, driven by diet influences, responsible for E. coli O157 shedding will aid in the development and implementation of better and practical preharvest intervention strategies.
E. coli cases from Denver Stock Show now at 27
Denver Public Health reported Friday that the number of E.coli cases in an outbreak possibly linked to last month's National Western Stock Show has reached 27. Seven new cases have been discovered this week, with three reported on Wednesday and another four Thursday.
.jpg)
E. coli cases from Denver Stock Show reach 23
The Denver Department of Health says three more cases of E. coli have been discovered in the past week in an outbreak believed to have started at the National Western Stock Show, bringing the total number of cases to 23.
Many of the cases are in children along the Front Range, from Boulder to El Paso County.
Several of the sick children go to day care and at least two of the cases appear to have happened after ill children came into contact with other sick children, according to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE).
It is unclear how the E. coli first spread at the Stock Show.
E. coli outbreak linked to Denver cattle show
Health officials are investigating an outbreak linked to Colorado's largest stock show after 20 people, including 17 kids, came down with E. coli O157.
Chris Urbina with Denver Public Health said a lab has confirmed 20 E. coli cases but the number is expected to grow.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said in a news release,
"While the investigation is ongoing, we suspect that these infections are linked to attending the National Western Stock Show, which was held in Denver from Jan. 10 to Jan. 25.”
Although health officials haven't pinpointed the exact cause of the E. coli, the common denominator in all the cases is the stock show, Urbina said.
Many schools and child care centers organized trips to the stock show, and many children attended with their families, so there is the potential that the number of cases could jump, health officials said.
On Wednesday, the CDPHE sent a letter to daycare centers alerting them to the outbreak and asking the staff to take special precautions.
For disease reporting or other questions please contact the CDPHE Communicable Disease program at 303-692-2700.
Elk or Bison to blame for Montana's loss of "Brucellosis free status"
On September 3rd, 2008, Montana lost its brucellosis-free status due to two cases of infected cattle. It was a big blow since last February the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared all 50 states to be free of brucellosis — the first time that had happened in 74 years.
Montana’s livestock producers will now be required to test bulls and nonspayed females, 18 months of age or older, 30 days before interstate shipment.
Ranchers in Montana and surrounding states are taking action to prevent any further spread of brucellosis. A brucellosis plan of action has been proposed by the Montana Department of Livestock, which includes surveillance, vaccination, traceability/animal identification, fencing/pasture management, and other measures to help the state regain its brucellosis free status. If no additional cases of brucellosis in livestock are found, the state will be able to apply for Class Free status to USDA APHIS in late May of 2009. Also, Montana needs to prove to USDA that no additional cases of brucellosis in cattle exist in the state.
Brucellosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria of the genus Brucella.
It is a devastating illness for herds as it causes cattle to spontaneously abort if pregnant. Humans become infected by coming in contact with animals or animal products that are contaminated with these bacteria. To prevent infection, herdsman should use rubber gloves when handling viscera of animal; a
ll consumers should not have unpasteurized milk, cheese or ice cream.
Who’s to blame for the source of the brucellosis disease? Livestock officials point to wild elk and bison in the area, though there has been much discussion as to whether these are the true culprits. A four-foot high, seven-mile long electric fence has been erected near Gardiner to steer bison that migrate out of Yellowstone National Park to acceptable grazing land. In terms of sheer numbers, the Yellowstone region's 25 elk herds dwarf the three herds of bison. And unlike bison, which move in groups, elk move freely over the region's numerous mountain ranges, often alone or in small numbers. Livestock officials say infected elk herds around Yellowstone must be culled, but hunters are pushed back saying that efforts should focus on vaccinating cattle or eradicating the disease in bison.
There is also the probability that neither of these species are the ones responsible for the infected cattle. The fact that both the 2007 and the current brucellosis detections have occurred in Corriente cattle, a breed closely associated with brucellosis, has many questioning whether cattle, and not Yellowstone wildlife, are responsible for the transmissions resulting in Montana losing its brucellosis free status.
Government authorities continue to work with local officials toward regaining its status as a state free from brucellosis.
Bovine super-shedders and E. coli O157:H7
Chuck Dodd, a veterinarian in the U.S. Army, currently disguised as a graduate student in Food Science at Kansas State University who spends a lot of time collecting poop (right below, exactly as shown), writes that researchers have now concluded that some cows present a greater risk for beef contamination by shedding higher concentrations of Escherichia coli O157 in their feces.
.jpg)
Some food safety researchers, including me, have begun to label these cows as super-shedders. But that may be a witch hunt, or in this case, a super-shedder hunt.
Escherichia coli O157 remains a significant cause of foodborne illness in the United States. From 1982 to 2002, there were 350 reported outbreaks of E. coli O157 in which 8,598 people became ill. Almost 1,500 were hospitalized and 40 died. During this period, 41 percent of food-related E. coli O157 outbreaks were associated with the consumption of contaminated ground beef. Ground beef that came from cattle. Cattle that may have been shedding very high levels of E. coli O157 in their feces.
Cattle do not get sick if they carry E. coli O157 in their feces. A cow with E. coli O157 looks just like any other cow. In order to discriminate, the feces must be tested. Test methods have improved and now the organisms can be detected at lower concentrations in the feces. The numbers of organisms can also be estimated; hence, food safety researchers are able to separate the super-shedders from the low-shedders. Cattle can also be identified that are not carrying E. coli O157.
Studies have shown that E. coli O157 in cattle feces or on cattle hides is correlated with the detectable presence of E. coli O157 on the carcass. Carcass contamination likely occurs during the hide removal and evisceration process; this leads to the contamination of individual beef products sold at retail. In order to mitigate the risk of E. coli O157 contamination in ground beef, the beef industry employs pre- and post-harvest interventions. Yet some bacteria still make it through the harvest process.
Researchers are now scrutinizing cattle because their feces may have a super-sized dose of E. coli O157. Their theory: if the beef industry can detect and mitigate super-shedders, they can mitigate contamination of beef.
But is super-shedding super-bad? Maybe not.
Cattle with higher concentrations of E. coli O157 in their feces probably pose a higher risk for the eventual contamination of beef; however, the fecal shedding of these organisms comes and goes. Fecal shedding may depend upon host immunity and the environment (neither of which are the cow’s fault). What if a super-shedder on Saturday becomes a low-shedder on Sunday? What if a super-shedder is simply having a bad E. coli day? Does a high fecal concentration of E. coli O157 overwhelm the interventions that exist from farm-to-fork?
Researchers have asked whether the variation in fecal shedding “arises from the inherent stochasticity in transmission dynamics or is a signature of underlying heterogeneities in the cattle population.” Translation: are the differences in fecal shedding simply random or is it because cattle are simply different? Apparently, the fecal shedding of E. coli O157 varies by animal and by day.
Admittedly, due to the transience of E. coli O157 in cattle, a steer may shed a lot on the day of harvest. Nevertheless, if transience is real, then some days cattle may pose a high risk, low risk, or negligible risk.
The new super-shedder hunt may lengthen the path in preventing foodborne illness due to E. coli O157. Some cattle carry E. coli O157 and some don’t. There may be some benefit in knowing which cattle are shedding more than 100,000 E. coli O157 per gram in their feces on a given day, but will this knowledge prevent beef contamination? Perhaps, if it is the day of harvest.
USDA to ban all downers from meat supply
Parts of his statement are below:
One day after I was sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture, I learned of the illegal acts of inhumane handling that took place at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company in Chino, California. I immediately called upon the Office of the Inspector General and the Food Safety and Inspection Service to determine how this happened and what could be done in the future to ensure that animals are treated humanely. The 60-day enhanced surveillance period concluded on May 6 and while we are still analyzing those results, today I am announcing that USDA will begin working on a proposed rule to prohibit the slaughter of all disabled non-ambulatory cattle, also know as "downer cattle." In other words, I am calling for the end of the exceptions in the so called "downer rule."
Last year, of the nearly 34 million cattle that were slaughtered, under 1,000 cattle that were re-inspected were actually approved by the veterinarian for slaughter. This represents less than 0.003 percent of cattle slaughtered annually. As you can see, this number is minimal.
The current rule, which focuses on cattle that went down after they have already passed pre-slaughter inspection, has been challenging to communicate and has, at times, been confusing to consumers.
To maintain consumer confidence in the food supply, eliminate further misunderstanding of the rule and, ultimately, to make a positive impact on the humane handling of cattle, I believe it is sound policy to simplify this matter by initiating a complete ban on the slaughter of downer cattle that go down after initial inspection.
FSIS will draft a proposed rule to remove the exception that allows certain injured cattle to proceed to slaughter. This action is expected to provide additional efficiencies to food safety inspection by removing the step that requires inspection workforce to determine when non-ambulatory cattle are safe to slaughter.
The decision to ban all non-ambulatory cattle from slaughter will positively impact the humane handling of cattle by reducing the incentive to send marginally weakened cattle to market.
Cattle producers, transporters and slaughter establishments alike will be encouraged to enhance humane handling practices, as there will no longer be any market for cattle that are too weak to rise or walk on their own.
Animal welfare shouldn't be a downer.
Cattle abuse wasn't rare occurrence
The Animal Welfare Institute, an animal-protection group, said that more than 10% of the humane-slaughter violations issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the 18 months ended March 2004 detailed improper treatment of animals that couldn't walk — mostly cattle.
The finding, drawn from USDA records the institute recently received in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, is included in a report to be released Tuesday on humane-slaughter violations. It comes as the USDA steps up checks on conditions at the nation's 900 slaughterhouses following abuses at Westland/Hallmark Meat, now at the heart of the biggest beef recall ever.
An undercover animal-rights worker at the plant used a video camera to document workers moving downed cows with forklifts, sticking them repeatedly with electric prods and spraying water down their noses to make them stand, allegedly to get them to slaughter (below).
The USDA called the actions "egregious violations of humane-handling regulations." American Meat Institute (AMI) spokeswoman Janet Riley called them an "anomaly."
But the USDA records obtained by the Animal Welfare Institute describe 501 humane-handling or slaughter violations that occurred at other slaughter plants. At one plant, a downed cow was pushed 15 feet with a forklift. Other companies were cited for dragging downed but conscious animals, letting downed cattle be trampled and stood on by others and, in one case, using "excessive force" with a rope and an electric prod to get a downed cow to stand, the enforcement records say.
As I wrote in Feb., the city leaders in Toulouse, France, figured out by 1184 that selling the meat of sick animals was forbidden unless the buyer was warned.
In the Middle Ages, violation of regulations ranged from fines to flogging to banishment._Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. will be flogged in the media and the two-year recall should effectively banish the company.
But unlike 12th century France, USDA has access to the same video technology that a single undercover worker -- not the five USDA inspectors on-site -- was able to use to bring down a large corporation. Producers and processors who say their food is safe should be able to prove it. Producers and processors who say they treat animals humanely should be able to prove it.
Cows poop E. coli O157:H7 -- regardless of diet
Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota and Russo's target, does a nice job of, um, crushing Russo's assertions in today's Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:
"Russo cited conclusions from a 1998 study from Cornell University that cattle fed a diet of grass, not grain, had very few E. coli, and that those bacteria that survived in the cattle feces would not survive in the human when eaten in undercooked meat, particularly hamburger. This statement is based on a study of only three cows rotated on different diets and for which the researchers did not even test for E. coli O157:H7. Unfortunately, the authors extrapolated these incredibly sparse results to the entire cattle industry. The Cornell study is uncorroborated in numerous published scientific papers from renowned research groups around the world. Finally, work conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health as part of a national study on foodborne disease recently showed that eating red meat from local farms was a significant risk factor for E. coli infection. ...
"Russo would understand this issue in an entirely different light if he had been with me when I had to explain to distraught parents that their young daughter's death was due to eating an undercooked hamburger, prepared by them, and the E. coli that caused her illness came from meat from a cow raised only on pasture grass and processed by the local meat packer. The cow also came from Grandpa's farm down the road."Lawyer Bill Marler offered his own take on the exchange, so I'll jump in to reiterate that the natural reservoirs for E. coli O157:H7 and other verotoxigenic E. coli is the intestines of all ruminants, including cattle -- grass or grain-fed -- sheep, goats, deer and the like. The final report of the fall 2006 spinach outbreak identifies nearby grass-fed beef cattle as the likely source of the E. coli O157:H7 that sickened 200 and killed 4.
As my colleague David Renter wrote in Sept. 2006,
"Cattle raised on diets of 'grass, hay and other fibrous forage' do contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in their feces as do other animals including deer, sheep, goats, bison, opossum, raccoons, birds, and many others.
"Cattle diet can affect levels of E. coli O157:H7, but this is a complex issue that has been and continues to be studied by many scientists. To suggest switching cattle from grain to forage based on a small piece of the scientific evidence is inappropriate and irresponsible. Several pieces of evidence suggest that such a change would not eliminate and may even increase E. coli O157:H7 in cattle.
"The current spinach outbreak may be traced back to cattle manure, but there are many other potential sources. Simplistically attacking one facet of livestock production may be politically expedient, but instead provides a false sense of security and ignores the biological realities of E. coli O157:H7. In 1999, for example, 90 children were felled by E. coli O157:H7 at a fair in London, Ont. The source? A goat at a petting zoo, hardly an intensively farmed animal."
Images courtesy of the IFSN video Poop in the Field, available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL8iXUbTqgI
