Past Reflections

                                                                  Looking back

I might have been rich if I'd wanted the gold
instead of the friendships I've made.
I might have had fame if I'd sought for renown
in the hours when I purposely played.
Now I'm standing to-day on the far edge of life,
and I'm just looking backward to see
What I've done with the years and the days that were mine,
and all that has happened to me.

I haven't built much of a fortune to leave
to those who shall carry my name,
And nothing I've done shall entitle me now
to a place on the tablets of fame.
But I've loved the great sky and its spaces of blue;
I've lived with the birds and the trees;
I've turned from the splendor of silver and gold
to share in such pleasures as these.

I've given my time to the children who came;
together we've romped and we've played,
And I wouldn't exchange the glad hours spent
with them for the money that I might have made.
I chose to be known and be loved by the few,
and was deaf to the plaudits of men;
And I'd make the same choice should the chance
come to me to live my life over again.

I've lived with my friends and I've shared in their joys,
known sorrow with all of its tears;
I have harvested much from my acres of life,
though some say I've squandered my years.
For much that is fine has been mine to enjoy,
and I think I have lived to my best,
And I have no regret, as I'm nearing the end,
for the gold that I might have possessed.

                                              by Edgar A. Guest

I really found this poem to be quite beautiful. I hope that when I am old that I am content and at peace with all the decisions that I have made, just like the man in the poem. I find myself continually dwelling on the past and sometimes I seem to get stuck in it. It is so comfortable and secure and the future is so scary and vast and unknown. It is so very easy to get lost in one’s memories; seeing those we love and times that were better sometimes it is a struggle to come back to the future when my heart wants to stay in the past. I don’t think that this is a healthy way to live and not very happy. I am tired of being afraid of everything all the time, afraid to live and afraid to dream and afraid to fail. But maybe the biggest failure is not even trying to begin with.

Afraid of Sprouts and Cremating Your Summer Burgers?

It is impossible to read the news lately without seeing headlines regarding food safety or foodborne illness outbreaks.

Just a little while ago, Dole announced a recall of Italian Salad Blend due to potential Listeria contamination.

On June 7th, the FDA released a letter that was sent to the Kellogg company regarding Listeria found in a Georgia plant.

And unless you have been living under a rock, you are probably aware of the outbreak of a rare but deadly strain of E. Coli that has claimed 29 lives. 5 cases have been confirmed domestically, and potentially the first death.

So what is a concerned eater to do? Not just think “it’ll never happen to me.” According to the CDC, 1 in 6 Americans contracts a foodborne illness every year and 3,000 individuals will die from one. Over half of those deaths are accredited to ‘Unspecified Agents,’ otherwise known as stuff we don’t know how to track. Of the known conditions, Norovirus is responsible for the most illness while Salmonella is responsible for the most death. Death is always more common in the elderly, the young, and those that are immune-compromised. The outbreaks also often spike in the summer months.

Seriously Debbie Downer?! Where is the bright side??! Coming!!

Most people believe that food illnesses all stem from consumption of beef. Undercooked beef, to be exact. In fact, poultry and leafy greens are the two foods most commonly associated with foodborne illness.

Food contamination often occurs through cross-contamination at the source (like in the case of leafy greens being grown near livestock) or cross-contamination in the home (preparing raw vegetables and raw chicken on the same surface). These are the tips that I follow to keep myself and my family safe:

• Wash produce well, but most importantly, ensure you are never putting raw vegetables on the same surface as raw meats or poultry. Even if salads say “pre-washed” give ‘em a whirl in the salad spinner. Think of it like a carnival ride for the greens.
• Keep meats and poultry and plastic bags when in the fridge. I know this is wasteful and generally not ideal, but the paper wrappings meats come in can leak and be another source of cross-contamination.
• If meat or fish smells off or has an off-putting color of texture, chuck it. Again, wasteful financially but not worth the GI trouble it may cause you.

In terms of cooking, this is where I become a bit more relaxed. *As a side note, I would never serve my grandmother or my child (if I had one) rare meat. The fatalities experienced with foodborne illness are often in those without the immune system to fight the pathogen. Stick with medium for anyone at greater risk for contracting illness.*

• Chicken should always be cooked through until juices run clear. Just do it. Remember the top causes of illness?
• Any ground meats need to be cooked until fully browned.
• And now, beef. Oh beef. How I love a good carpaccio or tartare. I have watched many a horrified reaction when I bite into my rare steak or burger. However it is not often that I eat a burger or steak and when I do I am familiar with where the meat is coming from and trust the quality of the markets (usually local) where I shop. This is a personal risk I take, and I am not here to try and turn you to the bloody dark side. However I would ask that you take this post seriously when considering where the majority of foodborne illness comes from. It isn’t always hamburger.

In terms of eating out, I choose restaurants that focus on a high standard of quality and ideally, source their produce and meats locally. I am a firm believer that the less “handling” a food experiences, the lower the chances are of that food coming in contact with something that will make me sick. Think about it – if you go to a local orchard in the fall, pick, apples, bring them home, wash them and eat them, the number of hands those apples have been through is pretty small. If you chomp into an apple from Chile, well, you see what I mean. This is also why tracking the source of foodborne illness is so difficult- think of how many hands a food passes through before reaching your mouth.

World's Best Restaurant?

Rest in Peace Hickstead-A True Champion

Hickstead, the “superstar” stallion that carried Canadian equestrian champion Eric Lamaze to Olympic gold-medal glory in Beijing in 2008, died suddenly during a competition in Italy on Sunday, tragically ending a partnership that helped push the country to the top of the sport of show jumping.

Montreal-born Lamaze, the world’s current No. 1 rider, had just taken Hickstead through a nearly faultless 13-fence course at the Rolex FEI World Cup in Verona, Italy, when the 15-year-old horse abruptly collapsed and died.

“We finished our round, I circled and was leaving the ring, and he collapsed and died of an apparent heart attack,” Lamaze said in a news release. “It is the most tragic thing that has ever happened. We had him until he was 15, and we had a great time together. He was the best horse in the world. We are all devastated.”
The Federation Equestre International, the sport’s global governing body, said the competition was stopped at the request of the competing riders, and “Lamaze’s fellow competitors gathered in the Verona arena to pay their respects to one of the greatest horses of all time, and to support their colleague in his moment of loss with a minute’s silence.”
FEI president Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein of Jordan, an equestrian competitor at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, said Hickstead “really was a horse in a million, and my heart goes out to Eric and everyone connected with this wonderful horse. This is a terrible loss, but Hickstead truly will never be forgotten. We were very lucky to have known him."
FEI jumping director John Roche said the official cause of death hasn’t been determined.
Canada’s equestrian community had sounded its own note of grief within hours.
“Hickstead and Eric have been one of equestrianism’s most legendary partnerships,” said Akaash Maharaj, CEO of Ottawa-based Equine Canada.
“We will always be grateful for the time and triumphs we all shared with Hickstead,” Maharaj added. “We know that generations of future equestrians will draw inspiration from his life.”
Hickstead, born in the Netherlands, was named for a famous equestrian showground in Britain. Lamaze purchased Hickstead in 2004.
The 43-year-old Lamaze recently bolstered his top ranking on home turf after a first-place finish with Hickstead in September at the $1-million International Grand Prix at Calgary’s Spruce Meadows.
"Everybody dreams of winning this," Lamaze, who lives in Schomberg, Ont., said at the time.
"For me, it’s just as exciting as it was the first time,” added Lamaze, who had won the same competition with Hickstead in 2007. “When you have a great horse that tries so hard, you want this title attached to his name as many times as possible. Sure, the money is great. But there’s more to it than that. It’s the best horse in the world.”
Lamaze, who also led Canada to a silver finish in the team jumping event at the 2008 Olympics, said after the victory in Calgary he expected Hickstead to be healthy enough to travel to London to defend their individual title at the 2012 Summer Games.

"He’s going to have the winter off — no jumping at all — and come (to Spruce Meadows) next year," Lamaze in September. He said he saw the horse doing “exactly what he’s been doing every single year, not changing anything, and go to the Olympics . . He’s healthy at the moment and jumping better than ever."

The above is taken from the Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Canadian+show+jumping+horse+Hickstead+dies+suddenly/5666204/story.html#ixzz1d2ZHPca8

Sleep well, Hickstead. You were a champion in every sense of that word. You died doing what you loved to do. Your memory will live on in our hearts. Condolences to Eric Lamaze and the entire Canadian equestrian team. So sorry you have lost such a great friend.

Animal rights and Animals wronged

    Traditionally people have attached a great deal of emotional and cultural significance to animals. The tendency of modern science, agriculture and biotechnology to look upon animals as utilitarian objects that can be modified and manipulated for our purposes flies in the face of deep-rooted trends in human thought. Thus, one issue brought into sharp focus by biotechnology, is the fundamental question of how we see animals: are they culturally significant beings evoking respect and veneration? or fellow mortals evoking affection and sympathy? or natural objects that we can rightly modify and manipulate for our own ends?

     Moral disquiet over genetic tampering with animals raises another deeply rooted cultural issue. Some of the traditional Middle Eastern food taboos reflect an animal classification system whereby animals that fall outside the system are seen as suspect. Today most Western people do not use that same biological classification system, but we do have certain categories that shape our perception of the animal world. These come from sources such as children's literature, religious ideas about the natural order, or the idea of evolution as having given rise to distinct "species" of animals. The creation of transgenic animals involves a perceptual shift, whereby we come to view animals not as distinct types, but as constituted by a vast number of genes that can be removed from one species and inserted into another. But this geneticist's view of animals may not be shared by other citizens. If citizens do not share the geneticist's view of animals, then the creation of transgenic animals may be culturally inappropriate, in much the same way that high-tech agriculture is culturally inappropriate in certain parts of the world. Alternatively, perhaps lay people in the West have accepted the modern geneticists' view of animals sufficiently to eliminate any inherent moral qualms about transgenic technology.

     Suppose that citizens are not troubled by the issue raised above and they accept the utilitarian view whereby animals can be manipulated for human purposes, and they are comfortable with a view of species that allows us to insert new genes in order to change their properties. We then encounter the four more conventional concerns that have been raised about food biotechnology: food safety, environmental impact, animal welfare, and social justice.

     Animal welfare concerns can (and should) be viewed as an extension of social justice concerns. From a social justice viewpoint we may ask whether a certain technology will benefit, say, technologically sophisticated dairy producers, to the detriment of smaller, more traditional dairy producers and the local communities that depend on them. Concerns about animal welfare extend this type of thinking to include animals: will the changes caused by biotechnology bring benefits to farmers, consumers, and purveyors of biotechnology products, but to the detriment of the animals themselves?

     Two specific animal welfare concerns have been raised about biotechnology. The first involves deleterious pleiotropic effects of foreign genes in animals such as the Beltsville pigs. As one transgenic specialist noted, science will “crash and burn” many times on the way to successful production of transgenic animals; as one animal protectionist retorted, it is the genetically modified animals that will “crash and burn”. A second concern involves increased incidence of health problems that may result from the use of products of biotechnology on animals, such as the use of BST with dairy cattle. In refusing to register BST, Health Canada noted that the product does not produce new disease states, but rather appears to increase the incidence of mastitis and lameness -- problems that were already being caused by conventional breeding and management for high yields. As both of these examples show, the animal welfare issues raised by biotechnology are rarely new issues.

Anthrax- A Zoonotic Disease of Biblical Proportions

History

Bacillus anthracis is the oldest known disease of grazing animals and is thought to be the cause of two of the plagues mentioned in the Old Testament(diseased livestock and boils).The infectious agent was discovered by Koch in 1877(1^st agent identified using his postulates). The first vaccine is credited to Louis Pasteur in 1877, however it was actually prepared a year earlier by Greenfield in England.

Infectious agent

Bacillus anthracis

-          Forms dominant spores

       - able to survive harsh conditions for decades/centuries

       - lots of evidence they are resistant

              - recovered spores from 200 year old archaeological remains

              - resistant to microwave irradiation at 100C for 30 min

Infection Cycle

Infection

1.      Uptake by inhalation

2.      Spores end up in alveoli of the lungs

3.      Picked up by macrophages

4.      Transported to lymph nodes

5.      Spores germinate in lymph nodes

6.      Multiply and lyse macrophages

7.      Bacilli in bloodstream release lethal factor, edema factor and protective antigen

Here is a link to a good clip about the mechanisms of anthrax:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LRGT098lxc&feature=related

3 Forms of Human Disease

Pulmonary

-          Historically 92% mortality rate

-          With early treatment(before toxins released) 45% mortality

-          Initial symptoms mild

          -similar to upper respiratory infection

Gastrointestinal

-          Primary source: eating infected meat

-issue in developing countries

      -  25-60% treatable

            - difficult to identify quickly

Cutaneous

-          Most common source of infection

-          Boil-like lesions, itchy but not very painful

-          Primary source: contact with infected carcasses, contaminated wool/hides

-          Mortality rate(untreated)-20%

Recent Human Anthrax Outbreaks

-          1978-1980- Zimbabwe-

      -10 000 human cases; 151 deaths

-          1979- Sverdlovsk, Russia

       -involved people and livestock

       - traced to release of spores into the air surrounding a biological weapons                                                                                           factory

       - 200 dead?

      -     2001- USA

                   - bioterrorist cases of anthrax in postal service

                   - 22 infected; 5 deaths

      - 2010- Scotland(England and Germany)

                - anthrax-laced heroin

                - 51 cases(known); 14+ dead

Treatment

-          Effective decontamination of: People-antimicrobial soap and water

                                             Wastewater- treat with bleach

                                             Clothing-boil for 30 min.

-          Early antibiotic treatment crucial

-Penicillin, Streptomycin effective at killing bacterium

- Not effective against toxins

Marketing a low cost spay/neuter program

     Spay/neuter is a service that some pet owners simply do not see to be of benefit, so they would not spay/neuter their animal regardless of the price. Therefore, I think that programs promoting spay/neuter must sell the benefits as well as the cost. This will mean the low cost spay/neuter program should heavily market their service by promoting the benefits of spay/neuter. These benefits include reduced risk for some health problems, a reduction in behavioural problems (ie. aggression), elimination of the possibility of a “surprise” litter, and the social benefits (or “warm fuzzies” benefit) of helping to address the problem of animal overpopulation. The marketing/publicity campaigns could also address misconceptions people commonly have regarding the risks or downsides of the spay/neuter procedure. As well some of these marketing campaigns could not only educate pet owners on benefits and costs, they could also attempt to exert social pressure to view spay/neuter as the socially proper thing to do. Many American low cost spay/neuter programs often include television ads, radio spots, billboards, and brochures. Depending on the extent to which these messages are received by the public at large, this can create a positive externality for private veterinarians, encouraging customers to spay/neuter at their practices as well. In addition to a positive effect from marketing, there can be social positive reinforcement, or what has been termed a “bandwagon effect”. It has been found that people tend to spay/neuter more often when they see it as a socially accepted or socially required behaviour for people who have pets. This also may lead low-cost spay/neuter programs to positively affect private-practice spay/neuter procedures.

Not only will there be challenges with convincing lower income households that it is important to spay and neuter their pets but we also have to convince Edmonton area veterinarians that having a program like this will benefit the community and not just take business away from them. As well in our report we are trying to get the EHS to follow our program recommendations. My question would then be how do we change our marketing techniques with each of the three groups, who potentially have different levels of knowledge and different things that they need to get out of the program?

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh Cry!

Just this past week authorities in Zanesville, Ohio received a report that 62-year-old Terry Thompson freed about 56 animals, before he took his  own life.  The small town was filled with the dangerous animals including, bears, leopards, monkeys, tigers and wolves.
While police officers tried to save the lives of the animals, apparently the high risk of danger caused them to kill many of them using their pistols before they were able to be tranquilized. I find myself questioning this statement. Did they really do all they could to try and save these animals or was is just more convenient to kill them. All the people in the town were under strict orders to remain indoors and schools were shut down so there was little risk of people getting injured and indeed no one did so why did they not do more to save the animals.Of the 56 animals released 48 ANIMALS WERE KILLED (1-Wolf, 6 black bears, 2-grizzly bears, 9 lions, 8 lionessess, 1 baboon, 3 mountain lions and 18 tigers).  ONLY SIX REMAIN ALIVE and two have not been captured yet. .
I find it absolutely appalling that dozens of beautiful (and some endangered) animals had to be destroyed because of this man’s actions. He had been convicted of animal cruelty in the past so why was he still allowed to keep these (or any animals for that matter) on his property. Would we have to deal with this massive problem in the first place if there had been better controls?

Reports state that the owner was released from jail just three weeks ago after a one year sentence. It seems that this man had broken the law several times including a few instances involving animal cruelty. So my question is why was absolutely NO ONE aware of all the animals that were kept on his property? Who cared for them for that year he was in jail? I get that safety was the issue that drove the sheriff to kill all the animals but this could of been prevented. Those animals could have been rescued and saved during that year the owner was in jail. I find it shameful that there are not better laws that protect our animals! It so easy now to say we had to do it (kill them), that we had no choice. Ohio you had so many choices and in my mind you made the wrong one and to make matters worse now you want to justify your cruel actions by saying you did the public a service.

All of this reminded me once again of an excellent film which I will suggest you take a look at. It’s a documentary by Michael Webber called, “The Elephant in the Living Room” and it examines the complex issue of private ownership of dangerous wild animals.

                                                          

   From beasts we scorn as soulless,
In forest, field and den,
The cry goes up to witness
The soullessness of men.
~M. Frida Hartley

Animals and Society

I think it is very interesting to see the changes in how animals are viewed and treated by humans in today’s society. The first relationship that humans had with animals was primarily a predator-prey relationship. Humans would hunt animals to eat and use for other things such as clothing, tools, etc. Humans eventually domesticated animals that had suitable characteristics for use on their farms. Horses and oxen were used in the field and for transportation, dogs for guarding, cats for pest control. Humans then selectively bred these animals for those purposes. The roles these same animals have today have radically changed however. This can be seen both positively and negatively. Surveys have shown that the majority of households view their pets as part of their family. Anthropomorphizing our animals may not be the best thing. On the one hand animals (especially companion animals) are treated better, generally. They have better living conditions for one. Also animals are thought of as being sentient beings deserving of respect and basic rights. Sometimes this gets taken to the extremes. People forget what their animals were originally bred for. Dogs that were originally bred to work are often left at home all day locked in the house. Then when these animals redirect their pent up energy or their breed-specific behaviours they are punished by their owners. I think that we have in some cases gone too far with treating our pets like family. I think that there is still a difference between a dog and a human and that dressing your dog up in clothes, taking them to a restaurant and allowing them to sleep in your bed are going too far. So many of the designer dogs I see have behaviour problems because they no longer know what it is to be a dog. Our society has very little to worry about in terms of food and shelter that we now have the luxury of treating our animals as humans. But is this okay that some animals live a more luxurious life than many humans do? Not just in developing countries but the homeless people in our own cities. What about the dog who has just inherited millions from their deceased owners while many humans have to choose between food and shelter? Though I am a self- proclaimed animal lover I feel that we have as a (mostly developed) society forgotten that animals are not humans and that though they should have the right to be free from harm and have access to necessary food and shelter, it should not be at the expense of our fellow human beings.

Epidemiology

     Alright so Wiki crash course in what Epidemiology is. Epidemiology is the study of health-event, health-characteristic, or health-determinant patterns in a society. Major areas of epidemiologic work include outbreak investigation, disease surveillance and screening (medicine), biomonitoring, and comparisons of treatment effects such as in clinical trials.

     So go figure the Greeks were the first to study epidemiology as well. The Greek physician Hippocrates is actually known as the father of epidemiology and is the first person known to have examined the relationships between the occurrence of disease and environmental influence. Apparently he thought up the terms endemic (for diseases usually found in some places but not in others) and epidemic (for disease that are seen at some times but not others). I think that it is astounding that thousands of years ago, people were already trying to figure out what was causing diseases (other than the gods being angry with them).

     So, Epidemiologists try to determine what factors are connected with diseases (risk factors), and what factors may protect people or animals against disease (protective factors). This area of science tries to understand possible causes of contagious diseases like smallpox, typhoid and polio among humans. I find it fascinating however that epidemiological studies can never prove causation. Epidemiology cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied, it is only able to show that this risk factor has a correlation with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. So how do they know if they have got the right pathogen (in the case of an infectious disease)? I know Koch’s postulates are supposed to help to make this link. For everyone who is unfamiliar Koch’s postulates are as follows:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

These were described quite a while ago and are now updated to look at genes and gene products, however these principles are still used. There are however some major problems with these postulates. Firstly, what about chronic infections, or people who remain asymptomatic? Well you could say to look for antibodies in the blood. However what if they had the disease previously and are now better, but because of memory, they still have antibodies? There is also the problem that some pathogens are unable to be cultured in a lab. Also what do you do in the cases (ie. in the gut or in the mouth) where there are many pathogens? So admittedly there are problems with the postulates but surely there are risks for not following the postulates as well.

One last thing before I finish with this session. I think it is interesting to see that chronic disease is replacing infectious disease as the most important causes of death.

Problems with Inbreeding in Pedigree Dogs

Introduction

     Inbreeding in pedigree dogs arises in because certain dogs, prized for exhibiting characteristics desirable for that breed, are used to sire many litters of puppies. The implications of this are that when the dogs from these litters come to be mated, some will inevitably be paired with dogs in other litters that have the same father. Over generations, more and more dogs across a particular pedigree are related to one another and the chances of relatives mating then increase. Genetic variability in domestic breeds of dogs, therefore, depends greatly on dog breeders’ decisions and practices(United Kingdom Kennel Club, 2011). Selection for particular types of animals can result in bottlenecks within the populations, leading to higher rates of inbreeding in dogs. Moreover, in dogs, the mating between close relatives is frequently used ( Ubbink et al., 1992) in the practice of line breeding. Mortality of puppies significantly increases with inbreeding (Van der Beek et al. 1999) and a positive correlation has also been shown between the frequency of some genetic diseases and the average coefficient of inbreeding (Ubbink et al., 1992). Moreover, purebred dogs often have to deal with genetic diseases and more than 400 genetic diseases are registered in dogs (Nielen et al. 2001). This paper looks at genetic diversity and the incidence of inbreeding in purebred dogs as well as the consequences of these breeding practices on the welfare of animals, in particular inherited genetic disorders.

Problems associated with inbreeding pedigree dogs

Loss of genetic diversity

     A study recently carried out by Calboli et al. (2008) investigated the incidence of inbreeding in purebred dogs. Through the development of novel approaches for examining population structure as well as using previously derived formulae  to represent inbreeding, Calboli et al. (2008) examined the electronic pedigrees of 10 breeds of dogs (a total of 2.1 million dogs) from the United Kingdom Kennel Club’s databases. Extremely inbred dogs were identified in every breed and the effective population size was estimated to be between 40 and 80 dogs for all except two breeds (Calboli et al. 2008). Distressingly, the effective population size of these breeds was several orders of magnitude smaller than the actual number of dogs registered in each breed. It was also found that in all but three breeds over 90% of unique genetic variants are lost over the course of six generations (Calboli et al. 2008). This points to the dramatic effect that breeding patterns can have on genetic diversity. While this was a large-scale study of many generations of pedigree dogs, it primarily focused on the more popular breeds.  The incidence of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity could therefore be much higher in rarer breeds with smaller populations (Calboli et al. 2008). Such small effective population sizes mean that the chances of a dog breeding with a close relative, resulting in birth defects and genetically inherited health problems, are high.

Genetic Disorders

       Most diseases are affected to some extent by both genes and the environment. A genetic disorder is one in which a variation in the genetic make-up of the individual plays an important role in causing the condition (Canine Inherited Disorders Database, 2011). Although some disorders occur because of spontaneous mutation, many genetic disorders are inherited. These conditions are seen quite often in dogs, most of which are purebred dogs.
     The frequency of inherited conditions can be reduced through good breeding practices (Canine Inherited Disorders Database, 2011). However, for this to occur, we need to know how the disease is inherited, how to identify the condition in its earliest stages, as well as find ways to recognize carriers of the disease who are usually asymptomatic. Breeds that have a higher risk for a condition, in relation to other dog breeds, or to the general dog population are said to have a breed predisposition (United Kingdom Kennel Club, 2011) . Common sense suggests that these disorders are inherited, but for many breeds and for many disorders, the studies performed to determine how the disease is inherited or the frequency of the disease in a particular breed have not been carried out, or the results are inconclusive (Canine Inherited Disorders Database, 2011).
     One such disorder is canine hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia is the most common inherited orthopaedic disease in large and giant breed dogs, and occurs frequently in many medium-sized breeds as well. Canine hip dysplasia is caused when the hip joint, (a "ball and socket" joint, in which the "ball”, the top part of the thigh bone or femur, fits into a "socket" formed by the pelvis) and the ligaments which help to hold them together are loose (Canine Inherited Disorders Database, 2011). This leads to the ball sliding part way out of the socket. Canine hip dysplasia is a condition that becomes progressively worse over time and your dog will become painful, lame and weak in the hind end (Canine Inherited Disorders Database).
     The mode of inheritance of canine hip dysplasia is polygenic. Polygenic traits are controlled by an unknown number of genes and in the case of canine hip dysplasia scientists do not yet know which genes or how many genes are involved (Canine Inherited Disorders Database, 2011). Because it is virtually impossible to determine the exact genotype for such traits, it is difficult to control defects with a polygenic mode of inheritance. The best attempts at control are based on a grading scheme for identification of the defect and a breed policy of recording and publishing the results for as many dogs as possible (Canine Inherited Disorders Database, 2011). Canine hip dysplasia remains a problem in most large breeds of dog, regardless of efforts to control this condition dating back to the 1960s(United Kingdom Kennel Club, 2011). Breed organizations and veterinarians in various countries have developed control programmes that rely on radiographic evaluation and a central registry of dogs (United Kingdom Kennel Club, 2011). Thoughtful selection by breeders, using this information, has greatly reduced the incidence of hip dysplasia in those breeds.
Conclusion

    In light of the many problems associated with inbreeding actions to either maintain or increase genetic diversity in the populations of purebred dogs should be a high priority for the health these dogs. Possible actions include limits on the use of popular sires, encouragement of matings across national and continental boundaries, and even the relaxation of breed rules to permit controlled outcrossing( McGreevy et al, 1999; McGreevy, 2008).

References

F.C. Calboli , J. Sampson, N. Fretwell, D.J. Balding. 2008. Population Structure and Inbreeding from Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs. Genetics. 179: 593-601.

Canine Inherited Disorders Database. Canine Hip Dysplasia. Accessed September 28, 2011.

P.D. McGreevy, F.W. Nicholas . 1999. Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in Dog Breeding. Animal Welfare. 8: 329-341.

P.D. McGreevy. 2008. Sick as a dog: Outraged by the health problems pedigree dogs suffer. New Scientist. 200:2677.

A.L. Nielen,S.  van der Beek, G.J. Ubbink, B.W. Knol. 2001. Population parameters to compare dog breeds: differences between five Dutch purebred populations. Vet. Q. 23: 43–49.

G.L. Ubbink, B.W. Knol, J. Bouw. 1992. The kinship between homozygosity and the occurrence of specific diseases in Bouvier Belge des Flandres dogs in the Netherlands. Vet. Q. 14: 137–140.

United Kingdom Kennel Club. Dog Health: Summary results of the Purebred Dog Health Survey for all breeds. Accessed September 29, 2011.

S. Van der Beek, A.L. Nielen, Y.H. Schukken, E.W. Brascamp. 1999. Evaluation of genetic, common-litter, and within-litter effects on preweaning mortality in a birth cohort of puppies. Am J. Vet. Res.60: 1106–1110.

Turning Good Ideas into Good Projects

This is most definitely the hardest blog entry to try and write to date. Not only do I have no ideas of my own, Google has also failed me with few useful results on the topic. So what to write about this topic?

Alright so if I was going to start a project the process I might roughly follow would look something like this:

Project idea -      Objectives -      Identify Problems-      Develop a method-    Carry out activities-      Results

I also think that for a project to be successful the idea needs to address real problems that are facing our communities today, otherwise what is the point of going any further with the idea. Also I think that you need to be realistic with what your objectives are for the project(ie. what are you really going to do and what are you realistically going to get out of this project). I also think that you need to be able to look further down the road, into the future if you will, and consider if what you are proposing will be able to be sustained. Oh, and budget. How could I have forgotten that. I think realistically that this is a HUGE factor in determining if your idea makes it through to the project stage. Your idea could be the best in the world and solve an important problem, blah, blah, blah. However if it will cost a small fortune to get it up and running, you may be finished before you even begin(I know, I hate clichés too, so this will be the only one I promise). After all money doesn’t grow on trees (Okay I lied and technically money does grow on trees).

My question for this topic would be: How do you figure out if your idea will be sustainable in the future?

How to make a Bad Presentation

So the riveting topic for this weeks blog is (drumroll please): What makes a good presentation. Who comes up with this stuff anyways? Well since I took ALES 204(a whole class on communication) in which we exhausted this topic ( and because it will simply be more fun) I will look into how to make a bad presentation instead.
     Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, there is alot out there on how to make bad presentations. One prof at Berkely (Prof.David Patter) even came up with a list of commandments to be followed to ensure a bad presentation. They are as follows:

1. Thou shalt not be neat -Why waste research time preparing slides? Ignore spelling, grammar and legibility. Who cares what 50 people think?
2. Thou shalt not waste space -Transparencies are expensive. If you can save five slides in each of four talks per year, you save $7.00/year!
3. Thou shalt not covet brevity -Do you want to continue the stereotype that engineers can't write? Always use complete sentences, never just key words. If possible, use whole paragraphs and read every word.
4. Thou shalt cover thy naked slides -You need the suspense! Overlays are too flashy.
5. Thou shalt not write large -Be humble -- use a small font. Important people sit in front. Who cares about the riff-raff?
6. Thou shalt not use color -Flagrant use of color indicates uncareful research. It's also unfair to emphasize some words over others.
7. Thou shalt not illustrate -Confucius says ``A picture = 10K words,'' but Dijkstra says ``Pictures are for weak minds.'' Who are you going to believe? Wisdom from the ages or the person who first counted goto's?
8. Thou shalt not make eye contact -You should avert eyes to show respect. Blocking screen can also add mystery.
9. Thou shalt not skip slides in a long talk -You prepared the slides; people came for your whole talk; so just talk faster. Skip your summary and conclusions if necessary.
10. Thou shalt not practice -Why waste research time practicing a talk? It could take several hours out of your two years of research. How can you appear spontaneous if you practice? If you do practice, argue with any suggestions you get and make sure your talk is longer than the time you have to present it.

 

     This just goes to show that it is not just good presentations that take a lot of skill to pull off, bad presentations require skill too. The guy in this YouTube video( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXILI9Q1jIw)  seems to have distilled bad presentations down to an art form. I loved this video as it is fun after taking a communications class (not that you need one to be able to see what he is doing wrong) to pick out all the things he is doing wrong in a presentation. Go ahead an try it yourself! Besides it can be very informative-and entertaining!- to learn from others mistakes.

Industry Issue

The Expected Outcomes and the Unintended Consequences for Human and Animal Health due to the banning of growth promoting antibiotics in the EU

Introduction  

     Regulatory authorities throughout the EU have suspended the use of some antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed. The controversy surrounding this topic results from the issue of whether the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animals presents a genuine threat of increased antibiotic resistance in human pathogens, and therefore a risk to human health. Supporters of the ban point to falling rates of resistance in animal and human isolates as a direct result of the ban (World Health Organization, 2003). Critics however question whether there is actual evidence supporting a link between the use of growth promoters and resistance in human pathogens and talk about a decline in animal health among the undesirable effects.

     In 1986 Sweden implemented a ban on all growth-promoting antibiotics in food animals(World Health Organization, 2003). This was followed by Denmark, in 1995, banning the use of avoparcin and virginiamycin and the European Union (EU), in 1999, banning the use of four remaining antibiotics used for growth promotion ; bacitracin, spiramycin and tylosin, and virginiamycin (World Health Organization, 2003). The motivation behind these bans is thought to be a combination of both consumer and political opinion, in addition to scientific concerns that antimicrobial resistance in animals may be transmissible to humans.

Expected Outcome

Benefits to Human Health

     The EU ban has succeeded in the complete removal of the antibiotics previously used as growth promoters which was the main goal of the ban. For example where Denmark previously used in excess of 105 metric tonnes of antibiotics for growth promotion in 1996, in 2000 the use of antibiotics for growth promotion fell to 0 metric tonnes (Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme, 2001).

     There has been data showing the termination of antimicrobial growth promoters in Denmark has dramatically reduced the food animal reservoir of enterococci resistant to these growth promoting antibiotics, and therefore a reduced reservoir of resistance genes that defer antimicrobial resistance to a number of clinically significant antimicrobial agents in human medicine (World Health Organization, 2003). There are also some signs that the termination of antimicrobial growth promoters in Denmark may be associated with a decline in the prevalence of streptogramin resistance among E. faecium from humans (World Health Organization, 2003).

Unintended Consequences

 Animal Health

     The ban on these antibiotics originally used for growth promotion has revealed that these antibiotics were important in the prevention of many infections in food animals. It could even be said that the decrease in the resistance pool in animal and human microorganisms has had the cost of a decrease in animal health and consequently animal welfare. Denmark has already reported an increase in both the morbidity and mortality among the swine population (Wegener, 2002) . Most of these have been associated with enteric infections (Verner et al., 2002). Reduced weight gain and frequent bouts of diarrhoea have been seen in 11 percent of finishing pigs and most of the recurring problems of chronic infections in weanling and post weaning pigs are due to Lawsonia intracellularis (Callesen, J., 2002; Verner et al., 2002).

     The poultry industry in Denmark has also experienced problems due to the withdrawl of antibiotics, in particular bacitracin (Wicker et al., 1977). One example is the emergence of clostridial necrotic enteritis, which had been previously shown to be suppressed by bacitracin, which is requiring producers to use antibiotics in a therapeutic capacity (Tornee, 2002).

Increased use of Therapeutic Antibiotics in Food Animals

     There has been a significant increase in therapeutic antibiotic use due to an increase in infections in food animals since the ban was implemented (Muirhead, S. 2002). After the ban of antibiotics as growth promoters an increase in sales of therapeutic antibiotics rose from 383 tones in 1999 to 437 tones in 2000 (Veterinary Medicines Directorate, 2002). The 7 percent increase in therapeutic antibiotic sales in the swine industry has been attributed by critics to the EU ban as well as to the presence of diseases such as porcine dermatitis and post weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome (Veterinary Medicines Directorate, 2002). In Denmark alone there has been an increase from 48 to 94 tones in the period between 1996 and 2001 (Veterinary Medicines Directorate, 2002). This increase in therapeutic antibiotic usage has occurred in spite of efforts to improve other critical aspects of animal husbandry to make up for the loss of the growth promoters (The National Committee for Pig Production, 2002).

Conclusion

     A great deal of attention has been paid to antibiotic use in food animals including antimicrobial growth promoters because they have the potential to add to problems with antibiotic resistance in humans. Antibiotic resistance is undesirable in any situation including animal husbandry because it has the potential to reduce efficiency and animal productivity (DANMAP, 2009). Knowledge about antimicrobial use in humans must be applied to all settings. Animals require antibiotics for the same reasons humans do and strategies need be put in place to ensure their continued efficacy. This necessitates veterinarians and farmers to unite together with medical professionals to improve the use of antibiotics and subsequently control the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria (DANMAP, 2009). Antibiotics should be an integral part of disease preventive methods.

References

Callesen, J. 2002. Effects of termination of AGP use on pig welfare and productivity. Page 6 in  Abstracts of the International Invitational Symposium: Beyond Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Food Animal Production., Copenhagen, Denmark.

Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme. 2001. Consumption of Antimicrobial Agents and Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria from Food Animals, Food and Humans in Denmark. Danish Veterinary Laboratory, Copenhagen, Denmark.

DANMAP. 2009. Use of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, foods and humans in Denmark. Accessed September 11, 2011. http://jas.fass.org/site/misc/JAS_Instruct_to_Authors_2011_2-24-2011.pdf.

S. Muirhead. 2002.Therapeutic use of antibiotics on rise in Denmark. Feedstuffs. 74:1–5.

The National Committee for Pig Production. 2002. Danish Slaughterhouses. Accessed September 11,2011. www.danskeslagterier.dk/smcms/ LU_engelsk/Research_ar

Tornee, N. 2002. Consequences of terminating AGP use for broiler health and usage of antimicrobials for therapy and prophylaxis. Page 6 in Abstracts of the International Invitational Symposium: Beyond Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Food Animal Production.,Copenhagen, Denmark.

Verner, J. Wheelock. and C. Foster. 2002. Food Safety and Pig Production in Denmark. Report commissioned by the Danish Bacon and Meat Council. Verner Wheelock Associates Ltd, Skipton, UK.

Veterinary Medicines Directorate. 2002. Sales of antimicrobial products used as veterinary medicines, growth promoters and coccidiostats in the UK in 2000. Accessed September 12,2011. http://www.vmd.gov.uk/general/publications/amrrpt2000v51.htm

H.C. Wegener. 2002. Banning antimicrobial growth promoters in Europe: where does it make a difference? Abstract for Session 195 in 42nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy., Washington, DC, USA.

D.L. Wicker, W.N. Isgrigg , and J.H. Trammell. 1977. The control of necrotic enteritis in broilers with zinc bacitracin. Poultry Science. 56: 1229–1231.

World Health Organization. Impacts of antimicrobial growth promoter termination in Denmark. 2003. Report number WHO/CDS/CPE/ZFK/2003.1. Accessed September 14, 2011.http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/Library/UploadedFiles/Impacts_of_Antimicrobial_Growth_Promoter_Termi.pdf