What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health

OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases. DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to monitor etiologic agents “from farm to fork.” CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health surveillance systems and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers, and veterinary and public health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues

Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations

Swine farming has gone through many changes in the last few decades, resulting in operations with a high animal density known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These operations produce a large quantity of fecal waste whose environmental impacts are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate microbial water quality in surface waters proximal to swine CAFOs including microbial source tracking of fecal microbes specific to swine. For one year, surface water samples at up- and downstream sites proximal to swine CAFO lagoon waste land application sites were tested for fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus) and candidate swine-specific microbial source-tracking (MST) markers (Bacteroidales Pig-1-Bac, Pig-2-Bac, and Pig-Bac-2, and methanogen P23-2). Testing of 187 samples showed high fecal indicator bacteria concentrations at both up- and downstream sites. Overall, 40%, 23%, and 61% of samples exceeded state and federal recreational water quality guidelines for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and Enterococcus, respectively. Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac showed the highest specificity to swine fecal wastes and were 2.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03, 5.94) and 2.30 times (95% CI = 0.90, 5.88) as prevalent proximal down- than proximal upstream of swine CAFOs, respectively. Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac were also 2.87 (95% CI = 1.21, 6.80) and 3.36 (95% CI = 1.34, 8.41) times as prevalent when 48 hour antecedent rainfall was greater than versus less than the mean, respectively. Results suggest diffuse and overall poor sanitary quality of surface waters where swine CAFO density is high. Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac are useful for tracking off-site conveyance of swine fecal wastes into surface waters proximal to and downstream of swine CAFOs and during rain events