Swedish research in organic farming and food systems

In Sweden research is mainly conducted by researchers at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). The SLU departments of Soil Science, Ecology and Crop Production Science (now Crop Production Ecology), Entomology, Animal Nutrition and Management, Animal Breeding and Genetics, Animal Environment and Health, Agricultural Biosystems and Technology, Crop Science and Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden are conducting research. This research is mainly financed by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) through the national programme for organic agricultural research. Furthermore SLU research is funded under the programme for applied research for experimentation and development in organic farming, which is financed by the Swedish Board of Agriculture (SJV). Within the “Ekoforsk” Programme based at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) university scientists are commonly cooperating with advisors connected to private and public extension service institutions and organisations. Finally, the Swedish Farmers´Foundation for Agricultural Research (SLF), which is a levy board, funds a substantial part of research in organic farming, especially applied research in organic primary production systems

Wiseman Hall

Entry created by John H. Herrick August 5, 1976.John H. Herrick Archives: Documenting Structures at The Ohio State UniversityThe University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Wiseman Hall is located at 400 West 12th Avenue. This structure was officially named "Health Center Research Laboratories" by the Board of Trustees on January 12, 1959. It was officially renamed "Wiseman Hall" by the Board of Trustees on September 13, 1963. Wiseman Hall is also known as the Animal Research Building, the Animal Research Laboratory Building, the Animal Research Facility, College of Medicine, the Health Center Research Laboratories, the H C Research Lab, the Medical Research Lab, the Wiseman Lab, and the Bruce K. Wiseman Hall

Legitimate or not? : a study based on reports against animal health personnel made to the veterinary medicine responsibility board regarding euthanasia of animals between the years 2018-2022

Nowadays, pets are considered family members and are therefore important to a lot of people, especially if there is a strong human-animal bond between them. Owners can contact animal health personnel if the animal is sick, or if they need help to have the animal euthanized, which could be considered essential to maintain good animal welfare. If the owner is not satisfied with the treatment provided, they can make a complaint by reporting to the veterinary medicine responsibility board. This authority reviews the matter to assure that the animal health personnel have acted correctly, and if not, they can issue a disciplinary sanction to the reported staff. Over 1000 reports were made to the veterinary medicine responsibility board during 2018-2022, which could mean that animals have been treated incorrectly, and in that case, animal welfare could have been negatively affected. However, the reports are not always found to be justified, which is what this study aims to investigate. Because of the large number of reports that were made during 2018-2022 and the scope of this study, this essay is delimited to reviewing reports that were made regarding euthanasia of animals, which were 47 in total. This made it possible to investigate the underlying reason why the owner decided to report to the board in the first place and thus enable preventive work in the future. The data collection method used was document review, since this study intended to investigate reports. The data was analysed using thematic analysis on the qualitative data and descriptive statistics on the quantitative data. Results showed that incorrect treatment of the animal was the most common cause according to the reports, while the main underlying cause, based on the qualitative analysis, was found to be communication barriers. In most cases (57 %), the euthanasia of the animal did not live up to the pet owners’ expectations. Also, most of the reports did not result in the issuance of a disciplinary sanction, as this only occurred twice during this period. That incorrect treatment of the animal was the most common reason according to the reports was expected, since the veterinary medicine responsibility board only process reports regarding incorrect treatment of animals, i.e. medical treatment (or lack of treatment) that is not in accordance with science and common practice in veterinary medicine. It was also not surprising that the underlying cause for why the report was issued was due to a gap in the interaction between the pet owner and the animal health staff, since many owners are stressed and sensitive during the process of euthanasia of their animal. Communication errors and owners’ attitudes and feelings could also be the reason why euthanasia of the animal did not live up to the pet owners’ expectations. Since few of the reports led to convictions, this indicates that a vast majority of the reports made during these years were unwarranted and that the notified animal health personnel acted in a veterinary medically correct manner regarding euthanasia of animals

Performance Assessment of Two- Wheel Tractor on a Loamy Sand Soil of Ilorin

Field performance evaluation of a 9kW two-wheel tractor has been carried out.  Field operations carried out include: disc ploughing, mould board ploughing, cultivation, cultivation cum planting and harvesting; following the types of accompanying implements available. The parameters measured and determined for each case included area of land covered, average time of operation, fuel consumption, width of action, average depth of cut, wheel slippage, speed of operation, field capacity and field efficiency. Field efficiencies determined were: 53.98% for disc ploughing, 88.30 % for mould board ploughing, 66.63 % for cultivation, 81.26% for cultivation cum planting and 72.88% for harvesting with a reaper.  It was therefore concluded that power- tillers as they are commonly called are better alternatives when compared to animal drawn equipment for several field operations like tillage, planting, harvesting and transportation. This is true especially when looking at the average power work animal can sustain for a given time duration on the field. Also when considering the problems and cost of animal health and feeding

Frontmatter and Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the following firms, associations, or agencies who provided grant support for research in the beef cattle program. Abengoa Bionergy Corp., York, Nebraska Beef Board, Centennial, Colorado Bioniche Lifes Services, Belleville, Ontario, Canada Cargill Corn Milling, Blair, Nebraska Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, Indiana Intervet, Millsboro, Delaware J.C. Robinson Seed Co., Waterloo, Nebraska Montana State University, Boseman, Montana Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska Nebraska Corn Board, Lincoln, Nebraska Nutrition Physiology Corp., Amarillo, Texas Pfizer Inc., New York, New York Soypass Royalty Funds, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska Appreciation is also expressed to the following firms who provided products or services. Abengoa Bioenergy Corp., York, Nebraska Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, St. Joseph, Missouri Cargill Corn Milling, Blair, Nebraska Chief Ethanol Fuels, Hastings, Nebraskav Dakota Gold, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, Indiana Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, Kansas Greater Omaha Pack, Omaha, Nebraska Hi Gain Inc., Cozad, Nebraska Intervet, Millsboro, Delaware Iowa Limestone, Des Moines, Iowa Lignotech, Rothschild, Wisconsin Liquid Feed Commodities, Fremont, Nebraska Mead Cattle Co., Mead, Nebraska Pfizer Animal Health, New York, New York Pharmacia Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Michigan PharmAgra Labs, Inc., Brevard, North Carolina Premium Protein Products, Hastings, Nebraska Rex Ranch, Whitman, Nebraska Schering Plough Animal Health, Kenilworth, New Jersey USDA Meat Grading and Certification Branch, Omaha, Nebraska Appreciation is also expressed to the following research technicians, unit managers, and crew involved in the research programs at our various locations. Agricultural Research & Development Center, Ithaca Jeff Bergman Logan Dana Tom Drieling Matt Greenquist Allison Miller Chuck Rezac Ken Rezac Matt Sillivan Darren Vinton Doug Watson Animal Science Department, Lincoln Josh Benton Deb Clopton Ruth Diedrichsen Jeryl Hauptman Janet Hyde Tommi Jones Matt Luebbe Jim MacDonald Clyde Naber Robert Peterson Calvin Schrock Joseph Schulz Candice Toombs Kyle Vander Pol Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman Andy Applegarth Jackie Musgrave John Nollette Ryan Sexson Troy Smith Panhandle Research & Extension Center, Scottsbluff Nabor Guzman Paul McMillen Doug Pieper West Central Research & Extension Center, North Platte Rex Davis Jim Teichert T. L. Meyer Dalbey-Halleck Farm Mark Dragastin Northeast Research & Extension Center, Norfolk Sheryl Colgan Kevin Heithold Bob Frerichs Lee Johnso

Animal Health MATTERS

[Page] 1- Latest Version of South Dakota “One Health” Meetings Explores Tuberculosis in Humans and Cattle [Page] 2- Director\u27s Message [Page] 2- Bailey Herd Health Conference Covers Connection Between Facilities and Animal Health [Page] 3- Essential Behind the Scenes Work: Accounting and Human Resources Staff at the VBS and ADRDL [Page] 3- New Hires at South Dakota ADRDL [Page] 4- Dairy Animal and Product Testing Services at the ADRDL [Page] 6- Video Production Highlights ADRDL Value to Animals and Citizens [Page] 6- Bovine Respiratory Coronavirus Testing [Page] 6- Dr. Hennings Named to AAVLD Executive Board [Page] 6- Equine Well-Being Survey: Please Respond! [Page] 6- Nelson Presented with SDSU Faculty Award [Page] 6- New Graduate Students [Page] 7- Soft Tissue Sarcomas in Dogs [Page] 7- Continuing Education Event

Mississippi\u27s Beaver Control Assistance Program, 1989-1994

Responding to landowner requests, the 1989 Mississippi Legislature created the Beaver Control Advisory Board and mandated it to develop a program which would ensure the control of beaver damage throughout Mississippi. The Advisory Board is comprised of the administrative heads of five state agencies: the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (chairperson), the Department of Transportation, the Cooperative Extension Service, the Forestry Commission, and the Department of Agriculture and Commerce. In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control (ADC) program, the Advisory Board developed the Beaver Control Assistance Program (BCAP). BCAP is designed to provide assistance with the management of beaver damage on private, county, and state-owned lands and is funded through a combination of federal, state, county, and landowner funds. Actual administrative authority of BCAP rests with the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, however, the enabling state legislation allows the program administration to be transferred to a federal agency. As a result, ADC administers BCAP under the guidance of the Advisory Board. Through a combination of technical assistance and direct control, ADC works in cooperation with the BCAP Advisory Board to alleviate beaver-caused damages throughout Mississippi. County enrollment in BCAP has grown from 22 participants in 1989 to 50 in 1994 and cooperative funding has increased by 44%. With increasing beaver populations and predicted decreases in the commercial fur harvest, the demand for BCAP services is likely to increase

Animal waste management

"71/1M""Livestock producers have asked for guidelines on animal waste management that will be feasible and enduring. The Missouri Water Pollution Board has been aware of the need for improvements in methods of handling waste from confined feeding operations and for guidelines for producers. Chapter 204 of Missouri Statutes, as amended, gives the Water Pollution Board the responsibility and authority to correct and/or prevent "pollution" of "waters of the state." These terms are defined in the law and discussed briefly in the first section. With these facts in mind, staff engineers of the Water Pollution Board held a series of meetings with staff members of the Extension Division and Department of Agricultural Engineering of the University of Missouri-Columbia to develop guidelines for disposing of waste from confinement feeding operations. This report is a result of their combined efforts. Others assisting with various phases of development of these guidelines included: School of Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia; State Department of Health, and the Soil Conservation Service. Research data and experience in handling livestock wastes have been used to develop the guidelines for planning, design, construction, and management of alternative systems of livestock waste management. The information and design guidelines herein are intended primarily for the use of personnel in agencies concerned with animal waste management problems." --PrefaceMissouri Water Pollution Board and Extension Division, University of Missouri - Columbia

Frontmatter and Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the following firms, associations, or agencies who provided grant support for research in the beef cattle program: Abengoa Bionergy Corp., York, Neb. Beef Board, Centennial, Colo. Bioniche Lifes Services, Belleville, Ontario, Canada Cargill Corn Milling, Blair, Neb. CRINA, DSM Nutritional Products, Parsippany, N. J. Dakota Gold, Sioux Falls, S. Dak. Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, Ind. Golden Harvest Seeds, Waterloo, Neb. Intervet, Millsboro, Del. J.C. Robinson Seed Co., Waterloo, Neb. Montana State University, Boseman, Mon. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Centennial, Colo. Nebraska Beef Council, Kearney, Neb. Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., Lincoln, Neb. Nebraska Corn Board, Lincoln, Neb. Pfizer Inc., New York, N. Y. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Johnston, Iowa Soypass Royalty Funds, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. Appreciation is also expressed to the following firms who provided products or services: Abengoa Bioenergy Corp., York, Neb. American Foods Group, Omaha, Neb. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Columbus, Neb. Beef Products, Inc., Dakota Dunes, S. Dak. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, St. Joseph, Mo. Cargill Corn Milling, Blair, Neb. Cargill Meat Solutions, Wichita, Kansas/Schuyler, Neb. Chief Ethanol fuels, Hastings, Neb. Dakota Gold, Sioux Falls, S. Dak. Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, Ind. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, Kan. Freezing Machines, Inc., Dakota Dunes, S. Dak. Gibbon Packing, Inc., Gibbon, Neb. Greater Omaha Pack, Omaha, Neb. Hi Gain Inc., Cozad, Neb. Intervet, Millsboro, Delaware Iowa Limestone, Des Moines, Iowa IVX Animal Health, St. Joseph, Mo. Lignotech, Rothschild, Wis. Liquid Feed Commodities, Fremont, Neb. Maddux Ranch, Wauneta, Neb. Mead Cattle Co., Mead, Neb.Pfizer Animal Health, New York, N. Y. Pharmacia Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Mich. PharmAgra Labs, Inc., Brevard, N. Car. Platte Valley Fuel Ethanol, LLC, Central City, Neb. Premium Protein Products, Hastings, Neb. Schering Plough Animal Health, Kenilworth, N. J. Skylark Meats, Omaha, Neb. USDA Meat Grading and Certification Branch, Omaha, Neb. Appreciation is also expressed to the following Research Technicians, Unit Managers, and Crew involved in the Research Programs at our various locations. Agricultural Research & Development Center, Ithaca: Jeff Bergman Logan Dana Tom Dreiling Matt Greenquist Terryn Hart Rodney Lamb Walker Luedtke Allison Miller Karl Moline Mark Nelson Chuck Rezac Ken Rezac Mark Schroeder Matt Sillivan Darren Vinton Doug Watson Animal Science Department, Lincoln: Josh Benton Deb Clopton Ruth Diedrichsen Jeryl Hauptman Janet Hyde Tommi Jones Matt Luebbe Jim MacDonald Clyde Naber Robert Peterson Calvin Schrock Cindy Stuefer-Powell Kyle Vander Pol Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman: Panhandle Research & Extension Center, Scottsbluff Andy Applegarth C. R. Jewell Jackie Musgrave John Nollette Troy Smith Panhandle Research & Extension Center, Scottsbluff: Nabor Guzman Doug Pieper Paul McMillen West Central Research & Extension Center, North Platte: Rex Davis T. L. Meyer Jim Teichert Northeast Research & Extension Center, Norfolk: Sheryl Colgan Bob Frerichs Kevin Heithold Lee Johnson Dalbey Halleck Farm: Mark Dragasti

An insufferable business : ethics, nonhuman animals and biomedical experiments

Each year millions of nonhuman animals suffer in biomedical research for human health benefits. Clinical ethics demand that nonhuman animals are used in the development of pharmaceuticals and vaccines. Nonhuman animals are also used for fundamental biomedical research. Biomedical research that uses nonhuman animals is big business. This paper explores how such research generates profits and gains for those associated with the industry. Research establishments, scientists and other professionals who work in laboratories, companies that supply nonhuman animal subjects and equipment for the research, and corporations that sell the resulting products are among those that benefit financially. Clinical ethical partiality to human health benefits enables these beneficiaries to claim that such research is unquestionably ethical because it conforms to required clinical ethical codes. The paper argues that even this anthropocentric form of ethics is compromised by the pervasiveness of profit-making industry. Because nonhuman animal-based biomedical research is considered to have a more ethical purpose than other forms of experiments that use nonhuman animal subjects the focus on biomedical ethics, that screens out the profits made, enables the paper to conclude with a challenge to the assumption about the ethical legitimacy of the use of nonhuman animal experiments across the board