![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.9479166666666667in"
height="2.1666666666666665in"}

**STATEMENT OF THE**

**NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION**

**ROBERT D. BYRNE, PH.D.**

**CONCERNING**

**ADVANCES OF ANIMAL HEALTH WITHIN THE DAIRY INDUSTRY**

**TESTIMONY FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES**

**COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE**

**SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY**

**September 25, 2008**

Thank you Chairman Boswell, Ranking Member Hayes, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Rob Byrne and I am Senior Vice President of
Scientific & Regulatory Affairs for the National Milk Producers
Federation. The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), based in
Arlington, VA, develops and carries out policies that advance the well
being of dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. The members of
NMPF's 31 cooperatives produce the majority of the U.S. milk supply,
making NMPF the voice of more than 40,000 dairy producers on Capitol
Hill and with government agencies.

I am grateful that the Committee is holding this hearing to review the
advances of animal health within the livestock industry and am pleased
to discuss some of these as they relate to the dairy industry. There
have been many advances in animal health in the dairy industry over the
years and these have enabled the industry to become even more efficient
in milk production. As an example of this efficiency, the dairy industry
has changed dramatically in the past 50 years. In 1960, there were 17.6
million dairy cows on 1.8 million dairy farms. In 2008, there are 9.3
million cows on 59,000 commercial dairy farms in all fifty states.
During this same time, milk production has increased from 123 billion
pounds to almost 190 billion pounds. From these numbers, it is clear
that the dairy industry is producing more milk with many fewer cows on
many fewer farms. At the same time, milk safety and quality have
continued to increase, resulting in the assurance that the dairy
industry provides an abundant supply of high quality, safe milk for
consumers.

Providing proper care to animals is the best means to ensure their
health and this is of the utmost importance to our members and dairy
producers across the county.  This is accomplished on dairy farms
through a variety of measures, starting with good herd management.
 Proper management and handling of animals keeps them healthy and
producing an abundant supply of high quality milk. Attention to animal
nutrition and feeding for cows is also important, both to ensure they
receive diets appropriate to their stage in life, to keep them healthy,
and to ensure that the milk they produce is safe and wholesome. Lastly,
the veterinary-client-patient relationship is one of the most important
means to make sure that the health of dairy cows is constantly
monitored. A veterinary-client-patient relationship demonstrates that
the dairy farm uses a veterinarian for health and disease issues
allowing the producer to use medications appropriately for sick or
injured animals. All of these items are very important in maintaining a
healthy and productive dairy cow.

To address animal care, NMPF is currently completing the purchase of the
Dairy Quality Assurance (DQA) Center in Stratford, Iowa and assuming it
within NMPF. The DQA program is widely recognized throughout the dairy
industry as an excellent educational tool for dairy producers regarding
animal care practices. Through a comprehensive set of Best Management
Practices, the program provides measurable and verifiable components to
allow the industry to prove the good practices being conducted at the
farm. While this program currently exists as a separate entity, housing
it within NMPF will enable us to create a National Dairy Quality
Assurance Program to assist dairy producers across the country in
maintaining a viable, up-to-date quality assurance program. This will
provide us an appropriate vehicle to best implement future advances in
animal health in our industry.

Despite all of these measures to address animal care and health, dairy
cows occasionally get sick and sometimes must then be treated with
appropriate medications. When this happens, there are many safeguards in
place to ensure that residues of these medications do not end up in the
milk supply. I'd like to address a few areas in more detail to describe
how the dairy industry ensures that any animal health treatments that
are given do not have a negative impact on the safety or quality of
milk.

On-farm therapeutic use of animal health care products occurs to cure
animals from illness across all ages of dairy animals. A recent survey
of dairy farms in Pennsylvania[^1] showed the therapeutic use of
medications on dairy farms for several illnesses of dairy animals. These
illnesses include pneumonia, metritis, foot rot, enteritis, and
mastitis. It is important to note that the majority of animals are
actually not treated with medications; rather therapeutic usage is
reserved for clinical cases of disease.

The first step in deciding to treat a dairy cow is to use only
medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) for use in lactating animals.
The process for animal drug approval involves safety assessments and
providing withdrawal times to allow the animal drug to clear the
animal's system. In the case of lactating animals, there are specific
withdrawal times established to ensure that milk is not contaminated.
The milk from any animals that are treated must held out of the
commercial supply until these withdrawal times are met. The approval
process is very rigorous and assures that the product is safe both for
animals and the food supply.

To reduce the level of potentially harmful bacteria, which can result in
infections and sickness to animals, dairy cows may also be treated
prophylactically. On-farm prophylactic use of animal medications occurs
in two areas: (1) use of medicated milk replacers fed to calves and (2)
use of dry cow treatments to prevent mastitis infection during the dry
period.

Medicated milk replacers are used because studies have shown an
improvement in animal performance and reduction of scours in dairy
calves.[^2] Reported usage of medicated milk replacers on dairy farms
ranges from 22 to 70%.[^3]^,^[^4] The use of medicated milk replacers
assists with the overall health of dairy calves in this important
developmental stage of their life.

Dry cow treatment often involves the use of "a long-acting intramammary
infusion given to cows between lactation cycles with the intention of
treating existing infections and preventing new infections."[^5] The use
of dry cow treatment is near universal. For example in a survey from
Washington State, 82% of dairy farms reported using dry cow treatment on
all of their cows.[^6] While dry cow treatment is near universal, two
surveys of antimicrobial resistance of mastitis bacteria in dairy cattle
found no consistent change in the prevalence of resistance.[^7]^,^[^8]

Recognizing that lactating dairy cows are occasionally treated for
diseases and to ensure that no animal medications remain in milk, all
milk is screened before it is accepted into a processing plant. This is
a very important control step in the process and is part of a system
that the dairy industry, in cooperation with the States and FDA,
established in the early 1990's. As part of this regulatory program, a
sample from every tanker of milk that arrives at a processing plant is
tested before milk is unloaded using screening tests that have been
evaluated and approved for use by FDA. Milk that tests positive is
rejected for human consumption and appropriately discarded. The dairy
farmer causing the positive result must then pay for the entire load of
milk. This costs approximately \$12,000, so there is a large financial
incentive to make sure that no treated dairy cows are milked. In
addition, all milk from the dairy farm is then withheld until a negative
farm test result is obtained. In 2007 less than 0.032% of all milk
tanker samples tested positive for residues of animal medications.[^9]
Milk tanker samples testing positive declined by nearly 70% from
1996-2005 indicating that the program is effective at detecting and
deterring animal medications in milk.[^10]^,^[^11]

Proper animal health care is the first step in the assurance that dairy
products remain safe and wholesome. In fact, due largely in part to
these animal health care practices, and milk being the most highly
regulated food product in the United States,[^12] dairy foods are lowest
among major food groups in the cause of foodborne illness. Clean
conditions, good manufacturing practices, and the adoption of
pasteurization have all enabled dairy products to maintain an excellent
safety record. Of 2,751 foodborne disease outbreaks summarized by the
Center for Disease Control (CDC) from 1993-1997, 10 were attributed to
milk consumption (0.36%) and 7 to cheese consumption (0.25%).[^13] Most
foodborne disease outbreaks associated with milk or cheese consumption
is due to the consumption of raw (unpasteurized) milk or raw milk
cheeses that have not been properly aged.

As a result of the entire range of activities at the dairy farm, which
start with providing excellent care for animal health, to the measures
taken at the processing plant, the dairy industry consistently provides
a safe, wholesome, and nutritious range of products for all consumers to
enjoy.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear as part of this important
hearing. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about
advances in animal health within the dairy industry.

[^1]: Sawant, A. A., L. M. Sordillo, and B. M. Jayarao. 2005. A survey
    on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J Dairy Sci.
    88:2991-2999.

[^2]: Quigley, J. D., J. J. Drewry, L. M. Murray, and S. J. Ivey. 1997.
    Body weight gain, feed efficiency, and fecal scores of dairy calves
    in response to galactosyl-lactose or antibiotics in milk replacers.
    J. Dairy Sci. 80:1751--1754.

[^3]: Raymond, M. J., R. D. Wohrle, and D. R. Call. 2006. Assessment and
    promotion of judicious antibiotic use on dairy farms in Washington
    State. J. Dairy Sci. 89:3228-3240.

[^4]: Sawant, A. A., L. M. Sordillo, and B. M. Jayarao. 2005. A survey
    on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J Dairy Sci.
    88:2991-2999. 

[^5]: IBID

[^6]: IBID

[^7]: Erskine, R. J., R. D. Walker, C. A. Bolin, P. C. Bartlett, and D.
    G. White. 2002. Trends in antibacterial susceptibility of mastitis
    pathogens during a seven-year period. J. Dairy Sci. 85:1111--1118.

[^8]: Makovec, J. A., and P. L. Ruegg. 2003. Antimicrobial resistance of
    bacteria isolated from dairy cow milk samples submitted for
    bacterial culture: 8,905 samples (1994--2001). J. Am. Vet. Med.
    Assoc. 222:1582--1589.

[^9]: National Milk Drug Residue Database: Fiscal Year 2007 Annual
    Report. Available online at:
    <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/milkrp07.pdf>

[^10]: IBID.

[^11]: National Milk Drug Residue Database: Fiscal Year 1996 Annual
    Report. Available online at:
    <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/milkrp96.html>

[^12]: Milk production is regulated under the Grade "A" Pasteurized Milk
    Ordinance.

[^13]: SJ Olsen, LC MacKinnon, JS Goulding, NH Bean, L Slutsker. 2000.
    Surveillance for foodborne-disease outbreaks\--United States,
    1993-1997. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. Mar 17;49(1):1-62 (*Most recent
    summary*)