HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Robbe-Austerman S Articles by Thomson JU

Teaching Veterinary Students Beef Production Medicine with Student/Producer Teams

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION COURSE DESCRIPTION COURSE OUTCOMES CONCLUSION REFERENCES

 
Veterinary colleges face difficulties in meeting the demand for rural veterinarians with the scope to practice quality production medicine. Increasing population density around veterinary colleges, retaining the interest of students with a background in animal agriculture, and educating students without a farm background requires that veterinary colleges consider innovative ways to not only teach traditional food-animal practice but give future veterinarians the advanced skills the food industry demands. This article describes a three-year elective program, Beef Records Analysis, in which beef production medicine is taught by teaming a student and a beef producer together early in the student's veterinary education. These producer/student teams complete risk assessments, balance rations, collect financial and production information, and evaluate back-grounding and feedlot enterprises. Students learn how to evaluate their producers using industry benchmarks and past performance records and how to communicate their findings back to their producer. Producers often make management decisions based on the students’ findings, and, because the students maintain their relationships with producers for three years, they can assess the outcomes of the producers who follow or ignore their recommendations and interventions. Students share recommendations and outcomes associated with their herd with the entire class. This allows students to learn how to establish best management practices through objective analysis of outcomes of recommended practices of all herds represented in the class. While a formal assessment of the course is needed, the students rate the program very high on evaluations.

Key Words: food animal • teaching • production medicine • beef • records

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION COURSE DESCRIPTION COURSE OUTCOMES CONCLUSION REFERENCES

 
Veterinary students learning food-animal practice face different challenges than their companion animal–oriented colleagues. In companion-animal medicine, quality practices seek to emulate human medicine by providing state-of-the-art individual health care. The referral nature of the veterinary hospital reinforces that perspective and provides excellent training grounds for companion animal–oriented students, but not for food-animal students.¹

Post-graduate training programs^2–4 and new methods for teaching fourth-year production medicine clinical rotations outside the veterinary teaching hospital^{5, 6} have been popular and are assumed to be successful at improving knowledge and skills in production medicine among veterinarians and students. However, because most veterinary students decide their area of emphasis prior to the fourth year, improving senior rotations and post-graduate training quality is not likely to address the shortage of food-animal veterinarians. One possibility is to change admissions criteria to select students interested in production-animal medicine; in addition, however, current non-rural students may be willing to consider production-animal or mixed practice if given early exposure to food animals and food-animal production. This early exposure may also retain students who were initially interested in production-animal medicine.

A program at the University of California, Davis, has been developed to increase students’ exposure to the dairy industry early in their veterinary education.⁷ This article describes the efforts of another such program, Beef Records Analysis, focused on beef cattle. The specific goal of the three-year program is to teach students beef-cattle production medicine by matching students with individual beef producers. A three-tiered approach is used: students learn in the classroom, practice what they have learned while interacting with their producers, and then compare their results/herds with other students. These producer/student teams complete risk assessments, balance rations with available feedstuffs, collect financial and production information for a Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) assessment, and evaluate back-grounding and feedlot enterprises. Students learn how to evaluate their producers using industry benchmarks and past performance records and how to communicate their findings back to their producers while evaluating the value of their recommendations.

	COURSE DESCRIPTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION COURSE DESCRIPTION COURSE OUTCOMES CONCLUSION REFERENCES

 
Class Philosophy
The goal of production medicine is to increase the sustainability and profitability of the producer while assuring human health and animal welfare. In dairy and swine production, veterinarians can achieve this goal by working to improve animal health and production. Improving production (i.e., pounds of milk, pounds of meat) and/or the prevention of disease are major variables determining profitability of swine^{8, 9} and dairy^{10, 11} but not cow/calf operations.¹² While production is important in cow/calf operations, most producers already meet production benchmarks, and increases beyond the benchmarks are not usually sufficiently rewarded in the marketplace to justify their increased costs. Research shows that weaning percentage and pounds weaned explain only 5–8% of the variation in profit from high- to low-profit herds. Costs of production factors are much more important: feed costs explain 56% of variation, depreciation 9%, and operating costs 5%.¹²

Consequently, if veterinarians want to have an impact on beef producers’ sustainability, they must expand their expertise from production and health variables to address cost of production, labor, and other issues. Therefore, the course motto is "It doesn't matter if the threat is BVD disease or depreciation disease; we will find it and address it." In order to accomplish this goal, additional diagnostic tests and tools such as SPA are needed to measure the function of the operation, just as a chemistry panel is needed to measure the function of the individual.

Beef Producers
Beef producers are a critical component of the course. Because students often visit their producers during school breaks, an effort is made to find a producer in a convenient location for the student. This has the added benefit of increasing diversity, exposing students to producers who are raising cattle in a wide variety of environments. We request participation at local cattle meetings and state veterinary meetings, and often producers hear about the program and contact us. Students can also choose their own herd, which happens a little more than half the time. There are very few requirements for producers who enroll in the program; they are not compensated monetarily. The fee for enrolling in the SPA program, currently $200.00, is waived. Individual animal records are not required, and most of the data are collected prospectively, allowing producers the opportunity to make adjustments in their record-keeping system if needed. Producers participating in the program have had seedstock operations, small hobby herds, large commercial range cow operations, organic operations, fall calving herds, and so on—all with different goals and expectations. This provides a rich learning environment for everyone involved. Students learn to listen to their particular producers; they learn that the producers’ goals and needs may be very different from what the students envision and that they need to work within those boundaries. The producers know that they are coming into the course as active mentors, and most of them are very enthusiastic.

A serious effort is made to identify and involve each producer's local veterinarian, and the veterinarian has the opportunity to review recommendation letters the students prepare for the producer. We allow the local veterinarians veto power over all recommendations and comments from students.

Originally we anticipated that the major problem would be getting producers to share sensitive financial information. Surprisingly, this has not been the case. In fact, the major problem has been student procrastination and busy producers’ having difficulty completing forms on a short deadline. This has been somewhat alleviated by requiring fewer data more often.

Course Syllabus
Students are encouraged to enroll in their first year, but can enroll in year 2. The class meets once a week for two hours in a lecture/lab format. Lecture is limited to 50 minutes, with the rest of the class period devoted to group exercises, class discussions, and student presentations. The first semester is introductory, and any student who chooses to continue with the program beyond the first semester is required to work with a producer. Students must also decide whether or not to start an SPA. If they choose not to do so, they can continue the course for up to three semesters; students who do complete an SPA can take the course for up to six semesters. Roughly 25 to 35 students per class have enrolled for the first semester; 15 to 20 usually take the course for three semesters, and between seven and 15 complete all six semesters.

Table 1 lists the course objectives for each semester. Because students come from varied backgrounds, the first semester's overall goal is to ensure that all students understand basic terminology and performance measures used in the beef industry. We purchased multiple site licenses for two software programs, CowCalf5^a and CHAPS2000,^b that students are required to use on a simulated 20-cow herd. When they team up with a producer in the second semester, they are encouraged to use one of these programs if appropriate.

From the second semester forward, at least half of class time is spent discussing the students’ individual producers and comparing and contrasting various operations. If a student has a herd to which a particular issue does not apply, he or she can see how other students worked through the problem; for example, a fall calving herd in Missouri is unlikely to be at risk for scours.

In the third semester, students use their producers’ feed resources to develop rations using the BRANDS^d software. This exercise reinforces the lecture material and requires students to consider inventory, storage, and feed-delivery issues. Again, students must formally communicate their results back to the producer, reinforcing their skills in writing consulting letters.

The fourth semester of the program is focused on completing the SPA, validating the data, and interpreting the results. Because sensitive financial information is collected, confidentiality is stressed, and producers’ identifying information is not entered into the software unless it can be stored as encrypted and password-protected data. During the fifth semester, students whose producers have feedlot or back-grounding enterprises will evaluate their feedlot SPA. We also formed an agreement with a local feedlot where we purchased the Feedlot Monitoring Program,^e and in return we have access to their closeout sheets and carcass data. This is particularly important because students whose beef herd does not have a back-grounding or feedlot component can work with data from that feedlot. For the sixth semester, the second year of the beef-cow SPA is evaluated. Students who complete a second analysis have a more thorough understanding of the program and the results.

	COURSE OUTCOMES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION COURSE DESCRIPTION COURSE OUTCOMES CONCLUSION REFERENCES

 
A formal outcomes analysis of the Beef Records Analysis program is planned but has not yet been conducted. Students have rated the course high on evaluations; they are also better prepared for clinical rotations and have significantly outperformed their colleagues in fourth-year production courses. The producers who have worked with the program have benefited as well. Several have identified and changed high-risk management practices, lowered costs of production, and improved profitability. When a producer incorporates management changes based on a student's findings, this motivates all students in the class. A more formal assessment is needed to evaluate our main goal, which is to graduate more students who are interested in production-animal and rural mixed-animal practices and have the skills to broaden the scope of beef-production medicine.

There are significant challenges to overcome when teaching a course such as this. First, formal survey tools and checklists needed for general risk assessments were not readily available and had to be developed and validated. Second, few SPA programs are available, and most are not suitable for use by students without an accounting and beef background. Having a program that guides a student though the data-collection process is critical, and, while the program we ultimately chose (ISU-IRM-SPA Beef Cow Business Record) could be improved, it was the only one that was manageable for use with a large number of novice students analyzing highly diverse operations. This course also requires a great deal of faculty time. The participating students are forming their first veterinarian–client–patient relationship, and it is essential to try to make that a positive experience. Because there are students in various stages of the program in any given year, multiple sections need to be taught.

	CONCLUSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION COURSE DESCRIPTION COURSE OUTCOMES CONCLUSION REFERENCES

 
Beef-production medicine requires that veterinarians identify and address problems beyond health and production. The traditional fourth-year rotations fail to give students the skills needed to identify and address the most serious threats to beef producers’ sustainability. Beef Records Analysis is an evolving three-year elective program that uses beef producers to teach students diagnostic tools such as SPA to improve sustainability. Working with real herds has been a very positive and challenging experience for students and instructors alike and has changed the way Iowa State teaches beef-production medicine.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors would like to thank several people whose contributions of time and material were critical for the success of the course: Harlan Hughes, Chris Ringwall, Eddie Hamilton, Steve Johnson, Dale Blasi, John Lawrence, Dan Loy, Doug Ensley, Dan Morrical, and the many veterinarians and producers who have opened up their records for students to learn.

	Footnotes

 
AUTHOR INFORMATION

Suelee Robbe-Austerman, DVM, PhD, led the development and teaching of the Beef Records Analysis program from 1999 to 2006 while working on her MS and PhD degrees. After completing her PhD in 2007 she joined the USDA at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory, 1800 Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010 USA. E-mail: dr.robbe-austermann{at}productionmedicine.com.

Daryl Strohbehn, PhD, is Professor of Animal Science at Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 USA, and developed the ISU Beef Cow Business Record and BRANDS nutrition software used in the Beef Records Analysis course.

Mel Pence, DVM, MS, Dipl. ABVP (Beef Cattle), is now Associate Professor at the University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigational Laboratory, 43 Brighton Road, Tifton, GA 31793-1389 USA. He assisted in the development and teaching of the Beef Records Analysis course in 1999. Currently he is Georgia's Designated Johne's Coordinator.

John U. Thomson, DVM, MS, now Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 USA, originated the Beef Records Analysis course back in 1998 and has been a strong supporter of the program throughout his tenure as dean at Mississippi State and now at Iowa State.

NOTES

^a CowCalf5, University of Nebraska, Clay Center, NE <http://www.cowcalf.com/>.

^b CHAPS2000, North Dakota State University, Dickenson, ND <http://www.chaps2000.com/>.

^c ISU-IRM-SPA, Iowa State University [ISU], Ames, IA <http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beef/spa.html>.

^d BRANDS, ISU, Ames, IA <http://www.iowabeefcenter.org/content/brandsmain.htm>.

^e Feedlot Monitoring, ISU, Ames, IA <http://www.iowabeefcenter.org/content/feedlotmonitoringsoftware.htm>

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION COURSE DESCRIPTION COURSE OUTCOMES CONCLUSION REFERENCES

 

1. Brown CM. The future of the North American veterinary teaching hospital. J Vet Med Educ 30:197–202, 2003.[Free Full Text]
2. Poultry Diagnostic and Research Center, University of Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia, 2007 Graduate Studies in Poultry Medicine <http://www.avian.uga.edu/gradpro.php> Accessed 06/07/07.
3. Great Plains Veterinary Education Center, University of Nebraska. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2003 Beef Cattle Production Management Series <http://gpvec.unl.edu/BCC/default.htm> Accessed 06/07/07.
4. Penn State Veterinary Extension and Outreach. University Park, PA, n.d: Penn State University Dairy Production Medicine Certificate Program <http://vetextension.psu.edu/meetings_ce/dpm/index.asp> Accessed 06/07/07.
5. Cook NB, Eisele CO, Klos RF, Bennett TB, McGuirk SM, Goodger WJ, Oetzel GR, Nordlund KV. A coordinated teaching program for future dairy practitioners at the university of Wisconsin—Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine. J Vet Med Educ 31:372–379, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Fetrow J, Ames T, Farnsworth R, Godden S, Rapnicki P, Stewart S, Vrieze J. Minnesota's Transition Management Facility: a private–public partnership in dairy veterinary education and applied research. J Vet Med Educ 31:368–371, 2004.[Free Full Text]
7. Smith BP. The UC Davis Early Dairy Experience Program. J Vet Med Educ 31:366–367, 2004.[Free Full Text]
8. Goodband RD, Langemeier ML, Tokach MD, Nelssen JL. Manhattan: Kansas State University, 1997 K-State Swine Day 1997: Report of Progress 795, Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service <http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/srp795.pdf> Accessed 06/07/07.
9. Regula G, Weigel RM, Lichtensteiger CA, Mateus-Pinilla NE, Scherba G, Miller GY. Development and evaluation of a herd health monitoring system for swine operations.Illini PorkNet: University of Illinois, 2003 <http://www.traill.uiuc.edu/porknet/paperDisplay?ContentID=421> Accessed 06/07/07.
10. Dhuyvetter KC, Kastens TL. In Dairy Research 2005: Report of Progress 963, Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.Manhattan: Kansas State University, 2005 p18–22 Kansas farm management association enterprise analysis: Examining differences among high-, medium-, and low-profit dairy operations <http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/srp963.pdf> Accessed 06/07/07.
11. Hadley G. Comparing High Profit, Medium Profit and Low Profit 2003 Wisconsin AgFA Dairy Farms. Center for Dairy Profitability, University of Wisconsin, n.d <http://www.uwrf.edu/extension/FarmComparison05.pdf> Accessed 06/07/07.
12. Miller AJ, Faulkner DB, Knipe RK, Strohbehn DR, Parrett DF, Berger LL. Critical control points for profitability in the cow-calf enterprise. Prof Anim Sci 17:295–302, 2001.
13. Ambrosini V, Johnson G, Scholes K. Exploring Techniques of Analysis and Evaluation in Strategic Management.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Education, 1998 p312.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Robbe-Austerman S Articles by Thomson JU

AAVMC APPRECIATES THE SUPPORT OF OUR TWO PATRONS, HILL'S PET NUTRITION AND BAYER ANIMAL HEALTH, WHO IN COMBINATION ARE FULLY SUPPORTING THIS SITE.