
404-403
Preventing drug contamination of milk and meat is the responsibility of every farm. Drug residues can be avoided by a well planned drug use program. There is no way that a milk plant can use contaminated milk. The sale of contaminated milk or meat will cause the responsible party to be subjected to severe penalties, including suspension of permits and monetary loss. Milk with drugs can adulterate a whole truckload or holding tank of milk.
The Food and Drug Administration accepts no drug residue in milk or meat. Sensitive tests can detect a drug from a treated quarter even when this milk has been diluted in the tank by milk from many cows. Milk is checked by the milk plant and by the Office of Dairy Services of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services because:
The major problem with drug residues is the consumers' perception that milk and dairy products, including beef, are pure and free of chemical adulteration or contamination. Consumers want a safe food supply that is free of herbicides, pesticides, and drugs.
The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance requires all Grade "A" milk delivered to dairy plants to be screened for beta lactam antibiotic residues prior to processing. Screening is performed on milk samples obtained from milk tank trucks arriving from farms at milk assembly points. If a tank truck sample tests positive, the sample is retested in duplicate, along with positive and negative control samples, using the same screening method as the original test. At the same time, producer samples from individual farms on the load are tested using the same protocol. The tank truck sample that tested positive, and all producer samples represented on the load, are then subject to confirmation. If the confirmation test is not run, or the confirmation test is positive, the milk from which the representative sample was taken cannot be used for human consumption. Approximately 34% of confirmation tests have been found negative on tank truck samples that were initially screened positive. Of the positive producers, nearly all were traced back to drugs containing cephapirin or ceftiofur. The majority of violations were caused by failure to observe various provisions of Point 6 of the Milk and Dairy Beef Residue Prevention Protocol/ Administering Drugs And Identifying Treated Animals (Corlett, 1997).
In a survey of farms in the United Kingdom that had bulk milk antibiotic residue violations, the majority of residue occurrences were thought to be lactating intramammary treatments, followed by dry cow mastitis treatments, injections, and intrauterine preparations (McEwen et al, 1991). The three most common reasons were: (1) Failure to withhold milk for the proper length of time, (2) Accidental transfer of milk from treated cows to bulk tanks, and (3) Prolonged excretion of drug from treated cows.
| Dry cow therapy violations | 54/179 = 30.2% |
|---|---|
| Dry cow housed with lactating cows, marked, milked accidentally | 10.1 |
| Milk from fresh cow not withheld sufficient time | 6.7 |
| Dry cow escaped to milking lot, not marked | 5.6 |
| Lactating cow accidentally dry treated, milked | 3.9 |
| Cow dry treated, not marked, no one informed milker | 2.2 |
| Lactating cows | 124/179 = 69.3% |
| Cow marked but milked | 18.2 |
| Cow not marked but milked | 5.8 |
| Unit attached to cow, removed quickly, tank not tested | 2.0 |
| Separated cow, not marked, escaped to lactating group | 1.0 |
| Withholding time too short, followed recommended withdrawal time | 17.0 |
| Unit not washed after treated cow | 5.8 |
| No separate unit to milk treated cows | 1.6 |
| Rinse water to flush unit into tank | 1.0 |
| Communication failure | 2.6 |
| Milk withheld from 1 quarter only | 1.6 |
| Purchased treated cows | 1.0 |
| Feed (aureomycin crumbles) | 1.6 |
| Suggested sabotage (drug in tank) | 1.6 |
| Other | 2.6 |
| Unexplained | 7.9 |
In Michigan, 92.7% of violations were related to mastitis treatments, with 30% involving dry cows (Mellenberger, 1998). A mail survey of Michigan farmers found that most residues were due to: Insufficient knowledge about drug withdrawal periods, Errors due to hired help, Insufficient records of treatment, and Identification of treated animals. Causes of violations are listed in the chart below:
| Producers aware of efforts to reduce residues | 81.1 |
| Producers familiar with Milk & Dairy Beef Quality Assurance | 52.4 |
| Producers conduct residue tests on farm | 38.5 |
| Virginia producers | 70.6 |
| Wisconsin producers | 8.5 |
| Farms where milkers recognize treated cows | 52.4 |
| Virginia farms where: One person treated cows last month | 42.1 |
| Two people treated | 40.7 |
| Three people treated | 10.3 |
| Four people treated | 3.5 |
| Virginia farms where treated cows were marked | |
| All | 86.8 |
| 51-99% | 4.2 |
| 1-50% | 1.4 |
| None | 7.6 |
The Province of Ontario, Canada, has slightly less than one million dairy cows. In 1988-89, herds with residue violations were visited by field staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Dairy Inspection Branch. Control herds from the same geographic area were asked to complete a survey. Herds with violations treated more cows for mastitis, and 48% used drugs extra label. Fewer violation herds used separate equipment for milking treated cows and, also, fewer increased withholding times when treatment dosage was increased (McEwen et al, 1991). The authors stated that "the practice of using separate equipment for milking treated cows was unconditionally associated with reduced risk of milk residues and is likely to be more reliable than attempting to divert milk from the tank while using the same equipment for untreated and treated cows alike." Also, they suggested that milking parlors may make it difficult to identify treated cows (or use separate equipment), especially when part-time milkers do the milking.
A total of 809 dairy farms in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin (160 per state) were asked to complete a survey regarding use of antibiotics and treatment practices in use on their farms (Wilson et al., 1998). Only about half were familiar with the Quality Assurance Program and milkers on only about half of the farms could recognize treated cows. Virginia producers made greater use of written treatment records and on-farm screening tests than producers in these larger dairy states.
| Farms with written treatment records: | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | CA | NY | PA | VA | WI | |
| All | 60.0 | 78.5 | 55.3 | 48.6 | 67.9 | 49.3 |
| None | 28.4 | 12.8 | 32.0 | 39.2 | 20.0 | 38.4 |
| 1-50% | 6.5 | 4.7 | 6.7 | 8.2 | 4.3 | 8.6 |
| 51-99% | 5.1 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 4.1 | 7.8 | 3.7 |
Producers were asked for the most likely reason for residue violations and their responses included:
| % of Producers | |
|---|---|
| Milker being too rushed | 15.2 |
| New or different milker | 10.8 |
| Lack of communication with milkers | 4.1 |
| Not noticing marked cows | 7.2 |
| Failure to mark treated cows | 6.9 |
| Cow lost identifying mark | 4.9 |
| Treated cow rejoining milking herd | 10.5 |
| Inadvertent milking of treated cows | 6.4 |
| Non-lactating treated cow in milking herd | 2.6 |
| Equipment mishap | 1.9 |
| Cow aborting or calving prematurely | 1.0 |
As a result of surveying 219 dairy producers from seven states, Sischo et al (1997) concluded that producers with reported histories of antibiotics in the bulk tank were less likely to implement management changes to reduce risk of an antibiotic residue. The major risk areas identified on these 219 farms included: (1) Treatment records and communication, 53.2%; (2) Understanding how to use antibiotics, 18.0%; (3) Relationship between veterinarians and clients, 15.6%; (4) Use of cowside antibiotic screening tests, 14.4%; and (5) Identification of treated cows, 11.6%.
| DAIRY PRODUCER'S SAFE DRUG USE GUIDE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Ingredient1 | Route of Administration | Withdrawal Times | Product/Names | ||
| Milk (h) | Meat (d) | ||||
| LACTATING COWS | |||||
| Amoxicillin | Rx | Intramammary | 60 | 12 | Amoxi-mast |
| Rx | Injectable | 96 | 25 | Amoxi-Inject | |
| Ampicillin | Rx | Injectable | 48 | 6 | Polyflex |
| Ceftiofur | Rx | Injectable | None | None | Naxcel |
| Cephapirin | OTC | Intramammary | 96 | 4 | Cefa-lak/Today |
| Cloxacillin | Rx | Intramammary | 48 | 10 | Dariclox |
| Erythromycin | OTC | Injectable | None | 14 | Erythromycin-200 |
| Intramammary | 36 | 14 | Erythro-36/Dry, Gallimycin-36/Dry | ||
| Hetacillin | Rx | Intramammary | 72 | 10 | Hetacin-K |
| Novobiocin | OTC | Intramammary | 72 | 15 | Spec. For. 17900- Forte/Albacillin |
| Penicillin G | OTC | Intramammary | See label | 4 | Hanfords Four Pen/Aqua-Mast II |
| OTC | Intramammary | 72 | 15 | Spec. For. 17900- Forte/Albacillin | |
| OTC | Injectable | 48 | 4 | Crysticillin/ Microcillin | |
| OTC | Injectable | 48 | 10 | Penicillin G Procaine | |
| Pirlimycin | Rx | Intramammary | 36 | 28 | Pirsue |
| Salicylic acid | OTC | Intramammary | 48 | None | Shurjets |
| NONLACTATING CATTLE | |||||
| Cephapirin | OTC | Intramammary | 72 | 42 | Cefa-Dry/Tomorrow |
| Cloxacillin | Rx | Intramammary | None | 30 | Dry-Clox |
| Rx | Intramammary | None | 28 | Orbenin DC | |
| Rx | Intramammary | 72 | 30 | Boviclox | |
| Dihydrostrepto- mycinsulfate | OTC | Intramammary | 24 | 60 | Dry Mast |
| Rx | Intramammary | 96 | 60 | Quartermaster | |
| Erythromycin | OTC | Intramammary | 36 | 14 | Erythro-Dry/Gallimycin-Dry |
| Novobiocin | OTC | Intramammary | None | 30 | Drygard |
| OTC | Intramammary | 72 | 30 | Albadry Plus Suspension | |
| Penicillin G | OTC | Intramammary | 24 | 60 | Dry Mast |
| OTC | Intramammary | 72 | 30 | Albadry Plus Suspension | |
| OTC | Intramammary | 72 | 14 | Go-Dry/Hanfords | |
| Rx | Intramammary | 96 | 60 | Quartermaster | |
| OTC | Injectable | 30 | Benza-Pen | ||
| OTC | Injectable | 30 | Flo-Cillin/Dura-Biotic | ||
| Rx | Injectable | 30 | Penicillin G Benzathine/ Penicillin G Procaine Aqueous | ||
| Rx | Injectable | 4 | Crysticillin 300 A.S. Veterinary | ||
| Rx | Injectable | 7 | Microcillin-Ag | ||
| Oxytetracycline | OTC | Injectable | 28 | Liquamycin LA-200 | |
| OTC | Injectable | 42 | OXY-TET 200/BIO-MYCIN 200 | ||
| OTC | Injectable | 19 | Agricyl/Biosil | ||
| OTC | Injectable | 18 | Oxy-Tet 100/Bio-Mycin C | ||
| OTC | Injectable | 18 | Oxy-Tet 50/Bio-Mycin | ||
| OTC | Injectable | 20 | Oxyject 100 | ||
| OTC | Injectable | 19 | Oxyvet-100 | ||
| 1Center for Veterinary Medicine H.H.S. Pub. No. (FDA) 95-6014. 1995. www.wislink.org/cvmab.htm | |||||
Corlett, Jr., N.J. 1997. Findings in field investigations of residue violations. page 186-190 in Proceedings 36th Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Madison, WI.
Dersam, Paul. 1998. A step-by-step method to prevent drug residues. Hoard's Dairyman, Sept. 10 issue, p.614.
McEwen, S.A., W.D. Black, and A.H. Meek. 1991. Antibiotic residue prevention methods, farm management, and occurrence of antibiotic residues in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 74:2128-2137.
Mellenburger, R.W. 1998. Milk antibiotic violations: 1996 and 1997 (Mid-March). page 11-14, Michigan Dairy Review, Vol. 3 (1), Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Sischo, W.M., N.E. Kiernan, C.M. Burns, and L.I. Byler. 1997. Implementing a quality assurance program using a risk assessment tool on dairy operations. J. Dairy Sci. 80:777-787.
Wilson, D.J., P.M. Sears, and L.J. Hutchinson. 1998. Dairy producer attitudes and farm practices used to reduce the likelihood of antibiotic residues in milk and dairy beef: A five state survey. Unpublished data.
Disclaimer:
Trade and brand names are used only for the purpose of information. Virginia Cooperative Extension does not guarantee or warrant the standard of the product, nor does it imply approval of the product to the exclusion of others which also may be suitable.
Reviewed by Christina Petersson-Wolfe, Extension Specialist, Dairy Science
Virginia Cooperative Extension materials are available for public use, re-print, or citation without further permission, provided the use includes credit to the author and to Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, and Virginia State University.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Alan L. Grant, Dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Edwin J. Jones, Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; Jewel E. Hairston, Administrator,1890 Extension Program, Virginia State, Petersburg.
May 1, 2009