Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On PinterestVisit Us On Linkedin

Case Studies

Organic Cow Calf Operation

Comments Off on Organic Cow Calf Operation
October 2  |  Case Studies, Farm, News, Newsletters, Research  |   Webmaster

The following is a testimonial from an Organic Cow-Calf operator that used our product.  He was so impressed that he became a Dealer 2 years ago. I put him on the phone with a customer the other day and he started mentioning all these different things that were happening to people around him. I asked him to send me a note.

 

Hi Zak,

Over the duration of my experience with oxyblast I have witnessed the following results at home and on customer’s property:

–  A customer had manganese in his water, that over a number of years, plugged the holes in the well crib to the point that he could pump his well dry and observe the number of holes still open.  He talked to me and asked me to shock treat the well with Oxy Blast.  A shock treatment was done at 500 PPM,  and an additional purge of 100PPM, then letting the well stand for six hours.  When the customer pumped his well he could see that 8 additional holes had opened up.  

Another shock treatment was done much stronger than the first.  The water in the well was bubbling pretty good.  This second shock treatment opened up 10 additional holes in the crib.  This was a 40 year old well that had years of magnesium build up.

 

–  At home the iron was high enough that white clothes could not be washed without staining.  With the introduction of Oxy Blast into the water,  white clothes were washed and there was no staining.  Since then an iron filter has been installed to remove most of the iron from the water.  (happy wife)

 

–  Livestock producers have reported that there is less ice build up around water bowls in winter.  Probably because water does not smell and it tastes better, so animals drink instead of licking and splashing it to get used to it before they drink.

 

–  A producer with sulphates in the water noticed that with Oxy Blast in the water,  the livestock quit coughing and their feet improved and the manure tightened up.  The livestock also consumed less free choice mineral.  When animals had hoof rot on summer pasture, the rancher hauled the cows home to drink the Oxy Blast water and the feet healed.

 

~ By the way – he just won Organic Farmer of the year! ~

New MRSA Strain

Comments Off on New MRSA Strain
June 6  |  Case Studies, Farm, food safety, Latest News, News, Reports, Tests, Research  |   Webmaster

New MRSA strain found in UK dairy cattle

Farmers Guardian.com June 3, 2011 | By Jack Davies

A NEW strain of antibiotic-resistant MRSA has been discovered in UK dairy cows for the first time, and scientists believe it may now be being passed on to humans who come into close contact with infected animals.

The new strain of Staphylococcus aureas was discovered in samples of milk by researchers carrying out a study into mastitis in dairy cows. The study, due to be published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, found that unlike other human strains of the bacteria, the new form of the bacteria cannot be identified using a common test for MRSA.
 

Researchers have now identified evidence that cattle could act as a reservoir for the bacteria, raising the risk of passing it on to farm workers and others who come into
close contact with dairy cattle.

Studies carried out by the team found that in geographical locations where they identified the new strain in cattle, they also found an incident of the strain infecting humans. In total, the research team discovered 12 confirmed cases of the new strain in humans in Scotland, 15 in England and 24 in Denmark.

The discovery however is not thought to be a public health risk as pasteurisation would kill the bacteria, said Dr. Mark Holmes, senior lecturer in preventive vet medicine at Cambridge University.

“It is important to stress that drinking milk or eating dairy products is not a public health risk,” he said.  “The main worry is that dairy cows represent a pool of infection and it could infect people who live and work on farms and they could then take that out into the wider community.”

Even for farm workers, the risks may be small as MRSA typically doesn’t cause disease unless the infected person has a weakened immune system such as after an operation. Where concern could come however is if farmers and farm workers pick up the bacteria and spread it to a susceptible person in the wider community, it could lead to a serious
infection.

Similarly there could be risks from drinking unpasteurised milk, although Dr Holmes said the risk was low and he would be more concerned about contracting Brucellosis than he would about the new strain of MRSA.  Dr. Holmes said it was not yet clear how prevalent the new MRSA strain is, but the study showed it could be present in almost three per cent of the UK dairy herd.

The Soil Association used the discovery to reiterate its calls for an end to routine antibiotic use. Helen Browning, director of the Soil Association said “In the relentless drive for increased per animal productivity, and under acute price pressure, dairy systems are becoming ever more antibiotic dependent.

“We need to get farmers off this treadmill, even if that means that milk has to cost a few pennies more. That would be a very small price to pay for maintaining the efficacy of these
life-saving drugs.”

The claims were dismissed by Dr. Holmes who said dairy farmers faced with a mastitis problem were understandably going to use antibiotics to combat infection and that it was unfair to suggest it was causing the rise of so-called superbugs.

Readers’ comments

Charles Henry | 3 June 2011 8:14 am

So now it’s MRSA.is it? Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (Staph a).
WHAT A COINCIDENCE! They’ve found another stick to beat the farmers and
agriculture with, just as the pressure grows to deal with rise and rise of M.bovis in the wildlife.

I’ve been campaigning about the rise of MRSA in our hospitals for nigh on 20 years now. It’s a killer in the hospital environment; have no doubts about it. . I dubbed it ‘MISERY’ years ago. But the more we protested, the more they just stated it was an everyday bacteria that was being brought in with the patients and by the general public and visitors.

But now the ‘experts’ are on the march again with their new stick! You couldn’t make it up!!!

All material published on FarmersGuardian.com is copyrighted © 2011 by UBM Information Ltd.   All rights reserved.

Dairy Nutritionist

Comments Off on Dairy Nutritionist
May 15  |  Case Studies, Dairy, Latest News, News, Nutrition, Research  |   Webmaster

An Interview with a Dairy Nutritionist
By Dale Janssen

I recently met to discuss a four thousand cow dairy with two brother owners, who I met at the World Dairy Expo a few weeks ago, and a dairy nutritionist who works with them. The dairy has several water challenges, including high iron, high TDS and very hard water. The nutritionist liked the idea of using Oxy Blast because we know it would change the form of iron from ferrous to ferric, which is a safe form of iron. He said major problems can result from excess iron in the ferrous form where it is readily absorbed into the body. He told me that this iron can be toxic and it is very important to get it out of the water once it is in the ferric form. He also told me that our Oxy Blast system was cheap compared to the other things they have to buy every day. When it will only cost in Canada $0.10-$0.12 per cow per day (depending on the PPM implemented and water quality), and it is going to do all those things to the water, it is very economical.
He pointed out to me that water is always overlooked, and was pleased that we paid attention to all the parameters of a water test. He also was impressed that Randy was willing to test his Oxy Blast at Iowa State University and thus “put his money where he mouth was.” He also was impressed that Essential Water Solutions, Inc. had all the consultants they do, who are available to answer questions for the prospects and customers. I told him this is all we do and we try to give the best service we can. He looked at me and said, “that is still very important.”
As he left he thanked me for my time and felt that the dairy would start using Oxy Blast really soon, not just because of what it will do for their water, but because of the support staff we have to back it up.
All I can say in closing is that all of us who sell Oxy Blast are blessed to have all these resources to draw from.

Thanks, Randy

Antibiotic use

Comments Off on Antibiotic use
May 13  |  Case Studies, Dealer Resource Reference Library, food safety, Livestock, News, Newsletters, Nutrition, Research  |   Webmaster

Antibiotics are becoming a bigger and bigger issue. Oxy Blast builds the immune system and gives you a better immunity. As a result many farms are cutting back on their Antibiotic usage. Please read the following article that CBS did on Antibiotics or click on the link to see the article at CBS:

.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/09/eveningnews/main6191530.shtml

Here is another link that also has info on Antibiotics:

http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/news.cfm?refID=107148

(CBS)   “It’s scary, I mean, you just can’t describe it really,” said Bill Reeves.

Two years ago, 46-year-old Bill Reeves, who worked at a poultry processing plant in Batesville, Arkansas, developed a lump under his right eye.
“It went from about the size of a mosquito bite to about the size of a grapefruit,” he said.
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric reports doctors tried several drugs that usually work on this potentially deadly infection: methicillin resistant staph (MRSA), before one saved his life.

.
See also: WebMD: MSRA and MSRA Hot Spots
.
“You go from a just regular day to knowing you may die in a couple of hours,” Reeves said. He wasn’t the only worker from this farming community to get sick.
.
Joyce Long worked at the hatchery, handling eggs and chicks. She got MRSA at least a dozen times, and had to try several drugs as well. “It was real painful. Shots don’t help, because it’s so infected, it don’t help much,” she said. Within weeks, 37 people at the hatchery got sick. They’ve filed personal injury claims against the company, Pilgrims Pride, which has no comment.

.

This is not an isolated incident and chickens aren’t the only concern. A University of Iowa study last year, found a new strain of MRSA — in nearly three-quarters of hogs (70 percent), and in nearly two-thirds of the workers (64 percent) on several farms in Iowa and Western Illinois. All of them use antibiotics, routinely. On antibiotic-free farms no MRSA was found.

Health officials are concerned that if workers who handle these animals are getting sick, what about the rest of us? Drug resistant infections have sky-rocketed over the past two decades, killing an estimated 70,000 Americans last year alone. It’s an emerging health crisis that scientists say is caused not only by the overuse of antibiotics in humans, but in livestock as well.  Antibiotics are routinely fed to healthy animals to promote growth and to prevent disease.

“My fear is that one of these days we are going to have an organism that’s resistant to everything that we know, and we’ll be left powerless,” said Thomas Cummins, Batesville’s chief medical officer.
“There are a lot of concerns about antibiotics being added to animal feeds that may be contributing to MRSA as well as other antibiotic resistance,” Cummins said. “Certainly the more bacteria are exposed to antibiotics in any shape or form, the more tendency there is for resistance.”

There are different types of drug-resistant bacteria. Some, like e coli and salmonella, can be passed on to people by consuming undercooked meat and poultry. Now, scientists are worried that Americans may be acquiring drug-resistant MRSA – not from eating, but from handling tainted meat from animals that were given antibiotics.
Evidence of MRSA has been found in the nation’s meat supply. But it’s unclear how widespread it may be, because only a small fraction is tested for MRSA.


See:
Pew Campaign On Human Health and Industrial Farming

.

Shelley Hearne has studied the health effects of factory farming for 25 years.

“How does this go from the farm to the meat counter, to having an adverse effect on humans,” Couric asked.
“If the bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, it can actually spread in many ways,” Hearne said. “It could be in the food supply, but it also can be in waters that runoff in a farm. It could be in the air. It can happen very quickly in many different ways. That’s why it’s a practice that has to stop on the farms.”
That practice occurs inside factory farms, where antibiotics help animals absorb and process food so they grow bigger, faster; a selling point pushed by the pharmaceutical industry. Because animals are packed into confinement pens, antibiotics are also used to keep disease from spreading like wildfire.

More from the pork and beef industry

Liz Wagstrom is a veterinarian with the National Pork Board.

“Some people say giving animals antibiotics to prevent illness or promote growth is like putting antibiotics in a child’s cereal,” Couric said. “You know, save them so they’ll work when they are needed.”
“I’d say that we do strategically place them,” Wagstrom replied. “It’s not an all day, every pig gets antibiotics every day of his life.”
“So you don’t think they’re being overused by farmers anywhere in this country,” Couric asked.
Wagstrom replied, “the vast majority of producers use them appropriately.”
But drug distributers and dozens of farm workers in four farm belt states; Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma; told us that antibiotic use to promote growth is widespread on factory farms.

But the bottom line on antibiotic use in factory farming is this: no one is really monitoring it.
Joshua Sharfstein, is the deputy director of the FDA.
“We want to put in place measures to reduce inappropriate use and we want to see that those are working; in order to do that we have to have a good surveillance system,” Sharfstein said, “There’s no question that needs to be improved.”
“I loved hog farming. And I miss it. I wish I could go back,” Kim Howland said. “But until the walls come down and the roofs come off, there’s no chance.”

There are a number of grassroots organizations trying to give people alternative choices.  Click on the following link for some examples:

Find Locally Grown, Sustainable Food Near You.

On-farm Trials

Comments Off on On-farm Trials
March 13  |  Case Studies, Farm, News, Newsletters, Reports, Tests, Research  |   Webmaster

Our Newsletter this month comes from an article that we did not write.  But it confirms our belief in what we try to achieve with all of our farm operator customers.

This article came to us from the Prairie Swine Centre Website. It was written by Lee Whittington MBA and LeAnn Johnston PhD.  It is bang on………….

Enjoy……

“The pork industry is blessed with a number of innovators. I recall surveys from decades ago, that compared the speed of adoption of new technology by the various commodity sectors, and pork producers were always very near the top of the chart. Perhaps it is the rapidity of turnover in the barn that lends itself to seeing a difference in management quickly. Maybe the intensive agricultural systems attract a certain type of person with a curious mind? Whatever the reason, it is without a doubt, that all pig farms participate to a greater or lesser extent in experimenting to improve productivity, reduce costs, or make management easier.  Sometimes, the results of such experimentation are as expected – For example, the pigs on the higher energy, more expensive diet grew more quickly.  Often however, the results, the time and effort, and money required to innovate and experiment, results in more questions than answers and does not lead to an innovation being adopted on the farm as part of a new long-term management strategy.  This paper will help to explain why results are not always what we expect and how to improve your odds of success in future on-farm trials.

Why you should do an on-farm trial

Many new technologies come with all the work completed, including the change we can expect, the confidence in the statistical approach used to analyze the test, plus the economic benefit of implementation under a standard set of economic assumptions.

So why would you want to take on organizing an on-farm test yourself? There are
several reasons to test something on the farm. Typically, the top reasons given by innovative producers are:

1) “The proof is in the pudding” or “My situation is different and I don’t believe just because it works elsewhere ,it will work on my farm”.

2) “The idea is mine and I don’t know of anyone else that has tried it, so I need to find out for myself.”

3) “I read/heard about this idea from another country and think it might work here.”

Yes, no two barns are exactly alike, even though they may be designed to operate the same; the ‘people factor’ adds a unique component that makes a significant difference to the outcome of many practices or products used.  For example, we can standardize feeding times, amounts fed and diet formulation; but can we be sure that the ventilation system is managed the same, or that how the pigs are handled is identical? This latter point was reinforced with Paul Hemsworth’s work two decades ago, where the interaction between the stockperson and pig varied significantly from farm to farm. Based on the previous handling experience of the animals – some herds were curious and approached, while others were generally fearful and fled from people.  So there are differences between barns and thus reasons to believe that an on-farm trial would produce a more reliable result than information gathered on other farms.  There are, of course, circumstances that lead us to think it is not necessary to do my own on-farm trial.  For example, to confirm the effectiveness of a vaccine or pharmaceutical treatment specific to a disease and to test the product, would require you to allow an outbreak of the disease on your farm.  Not a good candidate for an on-farm trial.  Most on-farm trials have an economic decision that they are trying to address. This adds
to the complication of the study, because the experiment should be able to capture both positive and negative results.  What is the benefit we are hoping to achieve and what is the cost to achieve it?  The cost is often easy to find (example, feed cost per kg, or drug cost per dose) but the performance result in the barn (the statistically tested part), is much more difficult. A review of any scientific publication will focus on the significant “P” value.  That is, the results are not random and there is a 95% probability that the effect seen from the intervention is from the treatment given (p <0.05).

So how do I achieve this level of confidence that the intervention (feed, drug, etc) worked and should be considered as part of my ongoing management of the barn? There are two related questions, because not all studies result in a statistically significant conclusion.  What if the intervention didn’t work – was it the product in question or was the experimental test just not sensitive enough to detect the small improvement? Should I then not use this intervention on my farm? Lastly the results are unclear and other information is required to make the decision. Perhaps the trial was not designed
properly and cannot answer the question you ask.

Why on-farm tests often fail

The reasons are many but break down into five main categories (First noted by Deen 2009):

1) The trial design would not provide the answer you seek. This sounds very basic and avoidable but likely accounts for a majority of the on-farm test failures. What happens if the intervention has multiple outcomes? For example, a small improvement in average daily gain, feed efficiency and improvement in one or two carcass features. Do the combined improvements in each of these areas justify the intervention? When the improvement in feed efficiency alone is enough to justify the intervention the answer is clear – adopt the new technology. What if only small gains are made in each area? Likely, the reality is the study needs to be redesigned to include many more pigs to identify small gains. Should you increase the analytical power of the test by having more
groups of pigs on trial? (“Setting Up an Effective Farm Trial” – Lee Whittington MBA, LeAnn Johnston PhD [Deen 2009])

2) Consideration of prior knowledge of the item to be tested and the pig barn we are testing in. If the item we are testing has a history of performance under other circumstances (even in species other than pigs), that gives us a clue as to how big a difference we are seeking to measure. What is the variation located within the test herd prior to the test? This knowledge of health status, quality of pig, and variation in key factors such as daily gain are the inherent background ‘noise’ within the barn. We need to account for this ‘noise’ to ensure our test can be interpreted.

3) Danger of believing your test analysis when actually it is worthless. Statistically, a negative result of a single study cannot be interpreted as supporting a negative conclusion. This really only means that we are not satisfied ‘beyond a doubt’ (p<0.05% probability) that the product performed as expected.

4) “A micrometer question is often measured with a ‘yard-stick’. …The scale of the economic benefit required to justify an intervention is much smaller than the capability of the statistical test created.” (Deen, 2009). Lets use an analogy to explain this concept. If we are trying to measure the impact of a wave of amplitude 1 cm (a daily gain improvement of 20 grams per day) passing through our test population (pig barn) and the variation in the test population is viewed as a wave with amplitude of 1km (days to 120 kg varies from 135-230) you get the idea. There is so much variation already within the population that it would take a large number of data points (pens of pigs) to sort out the effect of the
smaller wave.

5) Data collection or the ‘people factor’. We could write chapters on examples of tests that never had a chance of answering the original question. The greatest is kindly referred to as planting and harvest disease – known distractions that will occur during the course of the test need to be dealt with in advance. Getting stockpeople on side, arranging additional help to collect information (using summer students in July – is the result valid in January?), not fudging data when it is lost (the pigs ate my homework!), having a backup plan when people unexpectedly leave, having the
right measurement tools (is the scale accurate enough to pick up the difference anticipated?) and intervention procedures operating well and checked regularly to ensure they continue to operate as expected over the trial period, all
the feed is made and tested prior to the start of the test (remove batch mixing error and eliminates out-of-feed incidents). There are the whole list of other factors such as ventilation error or power failure, out of water events, feeders adjustable to provide uniform access in all pens and avoid waste, what to do if there is a disease outbreak during the test period, effect of weather and changing seasons on feed intake or dunging patterns, stable parity distribution within the breeding herd, pigs jumping from one pen to another …

One sidebar to the people factor is “when you start to measure something, it generally begins to improve” (Krueger, 2009). For example, when daily feeder and waterer checks are consistently made and acted on, the results of all groups will likely improve because the ‘normal’ out-of-feed events (typically 10% of all feeders in the barn) do not occur during the test period.

How to Avoid Common Pitfalls when setting up your on-farm trial

1)Do the math first. How many groups of pigs will it take to have confidence (sufficient power in the statistical test) that the difference I am trying to measure can be assessed from my trial design? This can be the subject of a graduate course but if you have the patience and interest, some free software on line can help such as
http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power/index.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbODigCZq18 http://www.clive.ed.ac.uk/cliveCatalogueItem.asp?id=B6BC9009-C10F-4393-A22D-48F436516AC4

2) Calculate the likely financial benefit of a successful trial. Will it be sufficient to justify the work and cost of conducting the trial? Most businesses will want a 3:1 return on new investment because they realize that biological systems don’t always behave as predicted all the time, so can I expect a $3 return from a $1 intervention?

3) Get the people involved. Everyone that plays a role needs to be aware of the cost and the large risk of failure to complete the trial as designed.

4) Use a checklist like the one attached to plan your successful trial implementation.
The Bottom Line There are many sources of new ideas and technologies awaiting pork producers. Assessing their economic value and appropriateness for your farm should begin with taking the easy route first and looking for third-party verifiable test results that give you confidence the results are repeatable and sufficient to provide a positive economic return under current economic circumstances. If reliable information does not exist but you believe the potential economic benefit is too great to ignore, and you have adequate resources to design and implement an on-farm test then use the Designing your on farm trial – A checklist for success trial checklist to increase your chances for success.

References

Deen, J., 2009, On-farm field trials: the problem of detecting small but economically
significant differences, American Association of Swine Veterinarians proceedings p 289-290

Krueger, K. 2009, Proper conduct and interpretation of field trials, Minnesota Nutrition
Conference proceedings 248-254.

Davies, Peter, 2010, Field trial design and evaluation, Allan D. Leman Swine Conference
preconference workshop.

Our Belief

Comments Off on Our Belief
March 13  |  Case Studies, Farm, Latest News, Livestock, News  |   Webmaster

We believe in CLEAN~CLEAR~NUTRITIONAL WATER

We believe that livestock will always tell the truth about any product, however we need to implement the right Parts Per Million (PPM) to accomplish the desired results. A good product is only good when used properly, and at the right proportions for the right period of time.

We believe proof comes from proper documentation. We realize that Oxy Blast costs you money up front, but we strongly believe that it makes you money at the end.

We believe in taking water samples to know what we are treating rather than guessing. We believe in keeping records of water consumption and its effects. We believe that livestock don’t lie.

We believe that each farm, each environment, each situation is different.

We believe that we need to look at the complete operation, in order to supply the best service to our customers.

We believe in patience, and communication when addressing specific issues.

We believe in the TRUTH.

We believe that we are the best water solutions provider that you can find.

We believe that we need to look at your livestock to judge results.

WE BELIEVE IN FARMERS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT THEY DO.

Farmscape Radio Interview

Comments Off on Farmscape Radio Interview
March 9  |  Case Studies, News, Newsletters  |   Webmaster

I attended the Hog and Poultry Days with our great local Dealer, Tristarag. While I was there, I was asked to give a lecture on water and its importance. After the lecture, we received a great deal of interest in our product, and what it could do on specific farms.

As a result, Farmscape Radio asked me if I would give them an informative interview.  The link for that interview is below.  Hope you enjoy it!  Thanks Zak

~ Farmscape Interview ~

Reports, Case Studies

Comments Off on Reports, Case Studies
February 20  |  Case Studies, News, Reports, Tests, Research  |   Webmaster

For  more detailed information about water contaminants, treatment and purification, please click on the links below to access  various studies, reports and papers from government and professional sources:

Drinking Water:

Is Canada’s Drinking Water Safer? (CBC News video)

Troubled Waters

Tap Water Contamination

Safe drinking water NIH PubMed

PHAC Position Paper Safe Drinking Water

Is Tap Water Safe to Drink

 Is Tap Water a Health Hazard

Health Canada – Chronic Diseases in Canada

 

Bottled Water:

ASM2010PressReport_Bottled Water

 Is your bottled water safe

Study – Bottled Water

 

Fluoride:

Myths of Water Fluoridation

Fluoride in Water Linked to Lower IQ in Children

Fluoride Action Network

 

Chlorine:

Chlorine

Chlorine in Your Tap Water and In Your Diet Cola

Chlorine Cancer Heart Disease

Negative Effects of Chlorine

Chlorinated tap water linked to birth defects

Scroll Up
error: Sorry, right click copy feature has been disabled.