mecA positive Staphylococcus spp. in bovine mastitis, milkers, milking environment, and the circulation of different MRSA clones at dairy cows farms in the Northeast region of Brazil

ABSTRACT: This study detected the presence and distribution of mecA in Staphylococcus spp. in the dairy production environment at farm level in Brazil. We analyzed 335 samples of mastitis cow milk, 15 samples of nostrils and hand swabs from milkers, 14 teat cup swabs, and 9 milking buckets swabs. Initially, the samples were subjected to microbiological analysis to detect Staphylococcus spp. and then S. aureus and mecA positive isolates were identified by PCR. All S. aureus isolates carrying the mecA genes were subjected to DNA macro-restriction analysis by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE). The mecA gene was detected in 6/335 (1.78%) of mastitis cow milk, 5/15 (33.3%), and 5/15 (33.3%) of nostrils and hand swab, and 4/14 (28.5%) of the teat cup isolates. MRSA genotyping was performed by PFGE, a total of seven pulsotypes were grouped in two clusters. This study identified the occurrence and spread of MRSA at dairy environment of farms, and also the existence of distinct genetic profiles between isolates.

The Potential of Using Temperate–Tropical Crossbreds and Agricultural by-Products, Associated with Heat Stress Management for Dairy Production in the Tropics: A Review

The demand and consumption of dairy products are expected to increase exponentially in developing countries, particularly in tropical regions. However, the intensification of dairy production to meet this increasing demand has its challenges. The challenges ranged from feed costs, resources, and their utilization, as well as the heat stress associated with rearing temperate–tropical crossbred cattle in the tropics. This article focused on key nutritional and environmental factors that should be considered when temperate–tropical crossbred cattle are used in the tropics. The article also describes measures to enhance the utilization of regional feed resources and efforts to overcome the impacts of heat stress. Heat stress is a major challenge in tropical dairy farming, as it leads to poor production, despite the genetic gains made through crossbreeding of high production temperate cattle with hardy tropical animals. The dependence on imported feed and animal-man competition for the same feed resources has escalated feed cost and food security concerns. The utilization of agricultural by-products and production of stable tropical crossbreds will be an asset to tropical countries in the future, more so when scarcity of feed resources and global warming becomes a closer reality. This initiative has far-reaching impacts in the tropics and increasingly warmer areas of traditional dairying regions in the future.

Mind the adoption gap: Findings from a field experiment designed to scale up the availability of fodder shrub seedlings in Malawi

While dairy production has the potential to diversify smallholder agriculture and increase incomes, there are multiple constraints. One is the consistent provision of quality feed. High protein, leguminous fodder shrubs—also referred to as Fodder Tree Technology (FTT)—can help address this constraint, yet adoption levels are generally low. Implemented in Kenya and Malawi, the Shrubs for Change (S4C) project is employing several approaches to address this situation, including those informed by behavioural science. Given that approximately 500 shrubs per cow are needed to generate enough leaf matter to bolster milk production, promoting FTT at scale necessitates the production, distribution, and successful planting of large numbers of shrub seedlings. We implemented a field experiment in Malawi’s Southern Region in late 2021 to test the effectiveness of a social learning intervention intended to motivate dairy farmers to significantly scale up the production of FTT seedlings. This intervention involved meeting with dairy farmers in 39 randomly selected milk production zones to review the numbers of seedlings being produced vis-à-vis local demand, coupled with the development of action plans to address identified production gaps. While we find that this intervention increased the setting up of private nurseries by 10% (p<0.05), it only increased overall seedling production by an average of 20 additional seedlings per dairy farmer (p>0.1). We offer several explanations for this lower than expected and statistically insignificant result, which point to the need for iterative rounds of engagement with farmers when supporting them to take up FTT and other complex agronomic and sustainable land management innovations.

Towards Sustainable Dairy Production in Argentina: Evaluating Nutrient and CO2 Release from Raw and Processed Farm Waste

Mineralization studies are the first step in determining the usefulness of an amendment such as fertilizer, and are essential to creating guidelines for dairy waste management to help producers make informed decisions. Our goal was to assess the effects of dairy raw, composted, and digested manure amendments on C, N, and P mineralization to evaluate the feasibility of their in-farm production and use as organic fertilizers. The liquid and solid fractions of dairy effluent (LDE, SDE), dairy effluent digestate (DED), onion–cattle manure digestate and compost (OCMD, OCMC) were characterized by chemical and spectroscopic methods. Soil microcosms with LDE, SDE, DED, OCMD and OCMC and the C, N and P mineralization were determined periodically. Elemental and structural differences among amendments led to contrasting profiles of C, N, and P mineralization, and thus to differences in nutrient availability, immobilization, and CO2 emission. All processed materials were more stable than untreated waste, reducing C emissions. Digestates showed net C immobilization, and supplied the highest levels of available N, creating a relative P deficit. Instead, the compost supplied N and P via mineralization, producing a relative P excess. Future studies should aim at evaluating fertilization strategies that combine both kinds of amendments, to exploit their complimentary agronomic characteristics.

Genome-Wide Association Study Candidate Genes on Mammary System-Related Teat-Shape Conformation Traits in Chinese Holstein Cattle

In the dairy industry, mammary system traits are economically important for dairy animals, and it is important to explain their fundamental genetic architecture in Holstein cattle. Good and stable mammary system-related teat traits are essential for producer profitability in animal fitness and in the safety of dairy production. In this study, we conducted a genome-wide association study on three traits—anterior teat position (ATP), posterior teat position (PTP), and front teat length (FTL)—in which the FarmCPU method was used for association analyses. Phenotypic data were collected from 1000 Chinese Holstein cattle, and the GeneSeek Genomic Profiler Bovine 100K single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) chip was used for cattle genotyping data. After the quality control process, 984 individual cattle and 84,406 SNPs remained for GWAS work analysis. Nine SNPs were detected significantly associated with mammary-system-related teat traits after a Bonferroni correction (p < 5.92 × 10−7), and genes within a region of 200 kb upstream or downstream of these SNPs were performed bioinformatics analysis. A total of 36 gene ontology (GO) terms and 3 Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways were significantly enriched (p < 0.05), and these terms and pathways are mainly related to metabolic processes, immune response, and cellular and amino acid catabolic processes. Eleven genes including MMS22L, E2F8, CSRP3, CDH11, PEX26, HAL, TAMM41, HIVEP3, SBF2, MYO16 and STXBP6 were selected as candidate genes that might play roles in the teat traits of cows. These results identify SNPs and candidate genes that give helpful biological information for the genetic architecture of these teat traits, thus contributing to the dairy production, health, and genetic selection of Chinese Holstein cattle.

Strategic marketing to strengthen dairy production

Microenterprises that produce dairy products face problems of unfair competition, unfavorable government regulations, and under-utilization of milk derivatives. This work focuses its objective on analyzing and developing strategic marketing for the strengthening of dairy production; For this, the contributions of marketing and its relationship with dairy production are enunciated and the marketing strategies of applied products are analyzed. Through a qualitative approach, with quantitative data, in the light of a descriptive, cross-sectional method, the methodological process is developed, through which results are obtained that show the need to propose product strategies and take advantage of serum waste milk. In this sense, the elaboration of products derived from whey is proposed for their subsequent commercialization. As a conclusion, small economy companies cannot afford investments of more than 800,000.00 USD; therefore, they require alternatives such as associativity. Keywords: strategic marketing, product strategies, dairy, whey. References [1]M. L. Castells et al., Valorización del lactosuero. 2017. [2]G. and P. Dirección de Innovación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de la Secretaría de Gobierno de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, en articulación con la Dirección Nacional Láctea del Ministerio de Agricultura, “Recuperación y valorización de lactosuero en PYMES de la cuenca láctea argentina , a través,” 2019. [3]T. Vallet Bellmunt et al., Principios del Marketing Estrategico. 2015. [4]P. Kotler, “Marketing_4.0_ESP,” p. 112, 2014. [5]R. Hoyos Ballesteros, “R. Hoyos Ballesteros, Plan de marketing: diseño, implementación y control.,”2013. https://elibro.puce.elogim.com/es/ereader/puce/69263?page=13 (accessed Mar. 10, 2021). [6]C. Lamb, J. Hair, and C. McDaniel, MKT Lamb. 2011. [7]E. Pico Gutiérrez, M. Loor Solórzano, and C. Caamaño López, “estrategías de marketing para fortalecer la gestión comercial de las Pymes en la provincia deSanta Elena: caso compañia Serlipen S.A,” Rev. Universidad, Cienc. y Tecnol., vol. 24, no. 100, pp. 11–19, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.uctunexpo.autanabooks.com/index.php/uct/article/view/298. [8]B. Caiza and W. Jiménez, “Desarrollo de la tecnologia para elaborar bolos a partir de suero de leche dulce con la adicion de pulpa de fruta, azucar y gelatina,” Repo.Uta.Edu.Ec, vol. 593, no. 03, p. 130, 2011, [Online]. Available: http://repo.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/ handle/123456789/5301/Mg.DCEv.Ed.1859.pdf?sequence= 3. [9]J. Ulloa and G. Navas, “Utilizacion Del Suero De Leche En La Elaboracion De Bebidas De Bajo Grado Alcoholico Con El Empleo De Bacterias Acido Lacticas,”2009. [10]CIL, “Datos del sector lechero,” Cent. Ind. Láctea del Ecuador, p. 2018, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://e152f73b-81b4-4206-a6ee-8b984b6a13b0.filesusr.com/ugd/6cc8de_513a9bb8db76451a9a74586d7902bb3b.pdf. [11]Magap, “Acuerdo ministerial 394. Regular y controlar el precio del litro de leche cruda pagado en finca y/o centro de acopio al productor y promover la calidad e inocuidad de la leche cruda.,” Minist. Agric. Ganad. y Pesca del Ecuador, no. 111, p. 10, 2013, [Online]. Available: www.magap.gob.ec. [12]J. P. Grijalva Cobo, “La industria lechera en Ecuador: un modelo de desarrollo,” Retos, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 6, 2011, doi: 10.17163/ret.n1.2011.08. [13]Acuerdo-ministerial-177_"sostenibilidad_cadena_láctea".pdf. [14]Procesamiento de suero | Manual de procesamiento de lácteos. https://dairyprocessinghandbook.tetrapak.com/chapter/whey-processing (accessed Apr. 07, 2021). [15]P. Dianela, “Procesamiento del lactosuero: elaboración de lactosa y aprovechamiento de proteínas,” Tecnol. Láctea Latinoam. No, vol. 87, p. 44, 2015. [16]Énfasis Alimentación, “suero-polvo-desproteinizado-la-estrella-la-panaderia,” 2020. [17] B. Jonson, “Los productos de suero de leche de Estados Unidos en botanas y aderezos,” U.S. Dairy Export Counc., pp. 1–8, 2010. [18]J. Keeton, “Aplicaciones de Productos de Suero y Lactosa en Carnes Procesadas,” Mundo Lácteo y Cárnico, pp. 18–25, 2008. [19]N. Hosp et al., “Nutrición Hospitalaria Trabajo Original Correspondencia.” [20]E. Sequera, C. Farfán, and W. Zambrano, “Analisis del perfil de deseabilidad del valor nutricional de un alimento en barra a base de ajonjolí, maní y suero lácteo en polvo,” rev. Científica mangifera, pp. 103–115, 2019. [21]“Obtención de hidrolizados proteicos bajos en fenilalanina a partir de suero dulce de leche y chachafruto (Erythrina edulis Triana).”https://www.alanrevista.org/ediciones/2019/1/art-4/ (accessed May 02, 2021). [22] ean Cano, “Ecuador compró más suero de leche en polvo,” 30 sep. 2019, Sep. 2019. [23]“agricultura-suero-polvo-leche-calidad.” [24]“Sueros de lechería.” http://www.alimentosargentinos.gob.ar/contenido/revista/html/44/44_08_Lacteos_sueros_lecheria.html (accessed Mar. 03, 2021). [25]“Suero en polvo | Tetra Pak.” https://www.tetrapak.com/es-ec/insights/food-categories/whey-powder (accessed Feb. 24, 2021). [26]“GALAXIE Secado Spray.” https://www.galaxie.com.ar/productos_precios.php (accessed Mar. 03, 2021). [27]R. Hernandes Sampieri, C. Fernandez Collao, and P. Baptista Lucio, “Metodologia de la Investigacion.”https://www.uca.ac.cr/wp-ontent/uploads/2017/10/Investigacion.pdf (accessed Jun. 09, 2021). [28]“Evaporadores | Manual de Procesamiento de Lácteos.” https://dairyprocessinghandbook.tetrapak.com/chapter/whey-processing (accessed Apr. 07, 2021). [29]R. Hoyos Ballesteros, “Plan de marketing : diseño, implementación y control,” p. 203, 2013.

Dairy vs. beef production – expert views on welfare

Consumers’ views and concerns about the welfare of farm animals may play an important role in their decision to consume dairy, meat and/or plants as their primary protein source. As animals are killed prematurely in both dairy and beef industries, it is important to quantify and compare welfare compromise in these two sectors before the point of death. Seventy world-leading bovine welfare experts based in 23 countries, were asked to evaluate the likelihood of a bovine to experience 12 states of potential welfare concern, inspired by the Welfare Quality® protocol. The evaluation focused on the most common beef and dairy production systems in the experts’ country, and was carried out separately for dairy/beef calves raised for red-meat, dairy/beef calves raised for veal, dairy/beef calves raised as replacement, and for dairy/beef cows. The results show experts rated the overall likelihood of a negative welfare state (i.e. welfare risk) to be higher in animals from dairy herds than from beef herds, for all animal categories, regardless of whether they were used to produce milk, red-meat or veal. These findings suggest that consuming food products derived from common dairy production systems (dairy or meat), may be more harmful to the welfare of animals than consuming products derived from common beef production systems (i.e. from animals solely raised for their meat). Raising awareness about the linkage between dairy and meat production, and the toll of milk production on the welfare state of animals in the dairy industry, may encourage a more sustainable and responsible food consumption.