Dataset Information

Understanding gestational and feed management practices of New England sheep producers.

ABSTRACT: Several sources of information are available to producers for guidance in managing their breeding flocks; however, it is unknown if sheep producers utilize any or all of these resources. Because maternal diet during gestation can have immediate and long-lasting negative effects on growth and health of offspring, it is important for producers to insure they are providing appropriate nutritional management to ewes during breeding and gestation. Historically, New England sheep producers have not been included in USDA surveys of sheep producers, and therefore, there is a lack of information about how New England producers manage their flocks, especially in terms of nutrition and gestation. The objective was to determine flock size, breeds, pregnancy detection methods, and feeding management practices of New England sheep producers. To meet this objective, a 12-question survey was developed and disseminated to New England sheep producers via Qualtrics using e-mail survey links, with a 33.2% response rate (n = 96 responses). Data were analyzed using SPSS. Of the respondents, 61.5% have flock sizes of 11 to 50 sheep, whereas 15.6% had 10 or less and 23% had greater than 50 sheep. Most respondents (63.5%) maintain one breed of sheep; however, larger flocks (>50 sheep) are more likely to maintain multiple breeds (P < 0.05). The largest percentage (40.6%) use their sheep for both meat and fiber production, 38.5% for meat only, and 20.8% manage sheep for fiber only. Spring (January to May) is the primary (59.4%) lambing season. The majority (76.0%) of New England sheep producers do not have their feed chemically analyzed for nutrient composition, which presents an opportunity for improving feeding management. There were associations (P < 0.05) between flock size and flock purpose, flock size and number of breeds owned, flock size and feed type, feed type and feed analysis, feed type and source of feed information, and source of feed information and state. In conclusion, New England sheep producers have flocks of varying size and purpose, and would likely benefit from outreach education on the value of diet analysis and formulation for their breeding flocks, especially during gestation. Furthermore, findings of this survey may represent the management needs of smaller flocks throughout the United States.

SUBMITTER: Kelly MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7846079 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding gestational and feed management practices of New England sheep producers.

Kelly Miriah R MR Halpern Arielle A Reed Sarah A SA Zinn Steven A SA Govoni Kristen E KE

Translational animal science 20210103 1

Several sources of information are available to producers for guidance in managing their breeding flocks; however, it is unknown if sheep producers utilize any or all of these resources. Because maternal diet during gestation can have immediate and long-lasting negative effects on growth and health of offspring, it is important for producers to insure they are providing appropriate nutritional management to ewes during breeding and gestation. Historically, New England sheep producers have not be ...[more]

PMID: 33542998

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nonjudicious antimicrobial use (AMU) and inadequate antimicrobial stewardship are known modifiable factors driving the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A mixed methods approach using a combination of focus groups and survey questionnaires was used to explore the AMU practices of Tennessee (TN) dairy cattle producers. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine the following: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) knowledge of and perceptions regarding AMR, (4) and the appropriate avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. Two focus groups were conducted, one in July 2017 and the other in March 2018. The questionnaire was simultaneously made available to participants both in print form and online from January 26, 2018, through May 11, 2018. Twenty-three dairy producers participated in the focus groups and 45 responded to the survey. Eight (18.6%) producers never used bacterial culture and sensitivity testing (C/S) to select antimicrobials, more than half (25 producers (58.1%)) sometimes used C/S, four (9.3%) used C/S about half the time, five (11.6%) most of the time, and one (2.3%) always used C/S. The most common drivers for using antimicrobials were disease and animal welfare, pathogen surveillance, economic factors, veterinarian recommendation, producer's experience and judgment, drug attributes, and the Veterinary Feed Directive. Good management practices, vaccination, use of immunomodulatory products, and use of appropriate technology for early disease detection were considered alternatives to AMU. Four (9.1%) dairy producers were very concerned about AMR, 27 (61.4%) moderately concerned, and 10 (22.7%) not concerned. The veterinarian was considered to be a trusted source of information on prudent AMU. Use of C/S test results for antimicrobial selection is widespread among TN dairy producers. There is a need to popularize/promote selective dry cow therapy among TN dairy producers.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a key modifiable factor that leads to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the opinions on factors driving AMU (2) opinions on alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding AMU and AMR, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. A survey questionnaire was made available to participants both in print and online from January 26, 2018 through May 11, 2018. The questions targeted the producers' demographics and their AMU practices; factors driving producer's choice of antimicrobials; perceptions, opinions and concerns about AMU and AMR in cattle production. Ordinal logistic regression was used to test for associations between the captured demographic information and producers' degree of concern about AMR.ResultsOverall, 231 beef producers responded to all or some of the survey questions. More than 60% of the participants mentioned that they kept up-to-date written records on antimicrobial purchases and AMU. Regarding extra-label use, 169 (84.1%) of the 201 respondents did not practice extra-label AMU. Profitability of the beef operation was a key factor influencing the decisions of many producers to use antimicrobials for disease management and prevention on their farms. Of the 228 producers who completed the question on the rating of their degree of concern about AMR, 50 (21.9%) reported that they were very concerned about AMR, 133 (58.3%) were moderately concerned, and 36 (15.8%) reported that they were not concerned about AMR. Nine producers (4%) did not rate their degree of concern about AMR because they were not familiar with what antimicrobial resistance meant. The inferential analyses suggested that younger beef producers were significantly less concerned about AMR when compared to the older ones (P = 0.019). Regarding avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU, no single medium was most preferred by all the respondents.ConclusionsThere is a need to promote the use of written antimicrobial treatment protocols among beef producers in Tennessee. Continued training for beef producers on infection prevention and control and prudent AMU is needed.

Dataset Information

Understanding gestational and feed management practices of New England sheep producers.

Publications

Understanding gestational and feed management practices of New England sheep producers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets