I knew I wanted to focus on farm animals

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (23) ◽  
pp. i-ii
Keyword(s):  
Farm Animals ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Mixed Practice ◽  
Cattle And Sheep

Oliver Hodgkinson is a partner at mixed practice Trefaldwyn Vets in Montgomery, mid Wales, where he works mainly with cattle and sheep.

COMPARATIVE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ESTIMATION OF THE SMALL-SCALE ON-FARM COMPOUND FEED PLANTS

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-65
Author(s):  
SERGEY V. BRAGINETS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Net Present Value ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Hammer Mill ◽  
Capital Investments ◽  
Agricultural Enterprises ◽  
Feed Production ◽  
Effi Ciency ◽  
On Farm

On-farm compound feed production from self-produced raw materials is favorable to agricultural enterprises under present-day conditions. The authors carried out a comparative technical and economic study of the conventional and modular small-scale on-farm compound feed plants with a capacity of 2 tons per hour, designed for agricultural enterprises with an average livestock population of 6…8 thousand pigs. The proposed modular plant consists of two modules – the operative storage of raw materials and the main module of grinding and mixing. Modules with installed equipment are delivered and placed on a light foundation, connected by transport equipment and with tanks for raw materials and fi nished products. The conventional factory is a technological line housed in a hangar and used for crushing, metering, and mixing raw materials. It consists of a separator, a hammer mill, weighing equipment, a mixer, containers for raw materials and fi nished products, transport, and aspiration equipment. The technical and economic analysis has shown that the erection and operation of the on-farm modular enterprise require 41% less capital investments than a traditional compound feed plant of the same capacity. The use of a small-scale modular plant will reduce operating costs by 23.8% (from 3094 to 2358 thousand rubles), increase the specifi c economic eff ect from the compound feed production by 1.6% (from 8.64 to 8.78 thousand rubles per ton) and return on margin by 4% (from 10.2 to 10.6%), reduce the payback period by 42% (from 0.8 to 0.46 years), and increase the net present value by 3% (from 66167 to 68216 thousand rubles), as compared to a conventional enterprise. The modular on-farm plants producing loose compound feed with a productivity of up to 3 tons per hour are profi table and economically sound as they can increase production effi ciency of compound feeds for farm animals.`

scholarly journals A review on combined effects of moniliformin and co-occurring Fusarium toxins in farm animals

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.-M. Fremy ◽  
I. Alassane-Kpembi ◽  
I.P. Oswald ◽  
B. Cottrill ◽  
H.P. Van Egmond
Keyword(s):  
Weight Gain ◽  
Broiler Chickens ◽  
Body Weight Gain ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Feed Consumption ◽  
Oral Exposure ◽  
Combined Effects ◽  
Combined Toxicity ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
On Farm

Co-occurrence of mycotoxins in food and feed represents the rule rather than the exception. Information about combinatory toxic effects of co-occurring mycotoxins is scarce, in particular the effects that mixtures of mycotoxins in feed may have on farm animals. This review focusses on studies on the combined effects of moniliformin and co-occurring mycotoxins in feed on farm animals. Moniliformin is a mycotoxin of emerging scientific interest, which may co-occur with many other mycotoxins, especially Fusarium mycotoxins. Oral exposure to moniliformin reduces feed consumption and body weight gain in poultry, in pigs and catfish, and induces cardiotoxic effects and/or alterations in serum biochemical and haematological parameters. In this review only experiments comparing effects as a result of the exposure to a combination of mycotoxins with effects due to the exposure to single mycotoxins were considered. Identified published studies on combined toxicity have been limited to combinations of moniliformin with either fumonisin B1 or deoxynivalenol, and were performed with poultry, pigs, and catfish. Most of the moniliformin/fumonisin B1 investigations involved poultry and focussed on adverse effects on feed intake, weight gain and immune response, as well as organ lesions. These studies mainly reported an interactive toxicity of moniliformin and fumonisin B1 but did not allow identification of the type of interaction. Likewise, no indication could be given for the interaction detected for both mycotoxins on weight gains of catfish. For the moniliformin/deoxynivalenol combination, only one study with broiler chickens was found relevant. This study concluded additive or less than additive toxicity, using kidney lesions and renal tubular epithelial degeneration as endpoints. While possible interactions between moniliformin and fumonisin B1 or deoxynivalenol were identified, the conclusions are based on limited studies and experimental designs. Further studies on the combined toxicity of moniliformin with other mycotoxins and other animal species would be needed.

scholarly journals Citizens’ and Farmers’ Framing of ‘Positive Animal Welfare’ and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Vigors
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Negative Experiences ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
Existing Frames ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Positive Animal

Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual’s response. This is of relevance to ‘positive animal welfare’, which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, ‘proactive welfare improvement’ or the ‘animal’s point of view’. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of ‘negative welfare’ associations by the word ‘positive’) for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

Effects of stable dust on farm animals-a review

1986 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 415-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Collins ◽  
Bo Algers
Keyword(s):  
Farm Animals ◽  
On Farm

scholarly journals Impacts of Coronavirus on Farm and Pet Animals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin Subedi ◽  
Sulove Koirala ◽  
Lilong Chai
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Bronchitis Virus ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Rna Virus ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Effective Vaccine ◽  
Nasal Discharge ◽  
Infectious Bronchitis ◽  
Gastrointestinal Lesions ◽  
On Farm ◽  
The Impact

Coronaviruses are positive sense RNA virus belonging to the Coronaviridae family, which are further subdivided into four genera: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta Coronaviruses. Infectious bronchitis virus and SARS-CoV belong to Beta Coronaviridae family. Infectious bronchitis virus causes respiratory and nephritic signs that includes tracheal rales, urate crystals, lethargy and nasal discharge. In livestock and pets, the Coronavirus infection causes mostly gastrointestinal lesions, which may be prevented through vaccination and biosecurity. Recent infections of SARS-CoV-2 (also known as COVID-19) on farm and pet animals were summarized in this study. Besides, zoo animals were reported with infections in some countries/regions. Although the damage of COVID-19 has not been reported as serious as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and African Swine Fever (ASF) on farm animals so far, the transmission mechanism of COVID-19 among group animals/farms and its long-term impacts are still not clear. The impact of Coronavirus on animals and potential prevention strategies, such as vaccine development and farm biosecurity measures, were discussed. Prior to the development of the effective vaccine, the biosecurity measures (e.g., conventional disinfection strategies and innovated technologies) may play roles in preventing potential spread of diseases/viruses.

The use of environmental enrichment on farms benefits animal welfare and productivity

Livestock ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-188
Author(s):  
Sarah L Bolt ◽  
Adam J George
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Enrichment ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Animal Behaviour ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Production Animals ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Housing Facilities

Environmental enrichment is a key aspect of animal welfare and productivity. Enrichment for livestock can be cost effective and used successfully on farm. The benefits generally outweigh any costs of providing enrichment and it should be taken into account when providing housing facilities for farm animals. It also reduces abnormal behaviours commonly seen in production animals, thus decreasing issues associated with poor animal health. The aim of this review is to summarise information and research that highlights the importance of understanding farm animal behaviour and indicates how enrichment will benefit the welfare and productivity of livestock.

scholarly journals On-farm net benefit of genotyping candidate female replacement cattle and sheep

animal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 1565-1575
Author(s):  
J.E. Newton ◽  
D.P. Berry
Keyword(s):  
Net Benefit ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Cattle And Sheep
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document