The success of a systematic review depends on the availability, accessibility and quality of literature related to the review question. This paper presents the literature found in four systematic reviews conducted for a selection of zoonotic hazards in four livestock value chains in Africa, as well as setting out the challenges in conducting the reviews. The protocol was designed following international standards, and addressed four questions around prevalence, risk factors, control options and impact of various hazards and populations. Searches were conducted in four online databases. Articles were screened for relevance, and quality was assessed before data extraction. Literature on zoonotic hazards was in general scarce and access to full articles was limited. Overall, 25–40% of papers were considered poor quality. The diversity of approaches and designs in the studies compromised the ability to generate summarized estimates. We found that the emphasis of veterinary research has been on livestock problems rather than public health issues, although this seems to be shifting in the last decade; we also found there are limited studies on impact and control. While increasing literature is being published around zoonoses in Africa, this is still inadequate to appropriately inform policy and guide research efforts.

The following history has been compiled and written by the authors. The historical facts are available from the Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases (CRWAD) archives, dating back to letters and summaries written by the founders, and by a few of the Secretary-Treasurers from the early decades through 2014. The Organization and Purpose: The CRWAD is a non-profit organization and has been since its origin. The sole purpose of CRWAD is to discuss and disseminate the most current research advances in animal diseases. Graduate students and industry and academic professionals present and discuss the most recent advances on subjects of interest to the CRWAD and of importance to the global livestock and companion animal industries. The oral and poster abstracts of new and unpublished data presented at the meeting sessions are published each year in the CRWAD Proceedings (formerly the CRWAD Abstracts). CRWAD publishes, copyrights, and distributes the Proceedings. The presentations are arranged into the following 10 sections, according to the primary topic of the presentation: Bacterial Pathogenesis, Biosafety and Biosecurity, Companion Animal Epidemiology, Ecology and Management of Foodborne Agents, Epidemiology and Animal Health Economics, Immunology, Pathobiology of Enteric and Foodborne Pathogens, Respiratory Diseases, Vector-Borne and Parasitic Diseases, and Viral Pathogenesis. Prospective members should be actively engaged in animal disease research or research administration. Meeting information and membership applications may be obtained by contacting the Executive Director or by visiting the CRWAD website. Annual abstracts are currently available on-line at the On-line Meeting Planner and Itinerary Builder, with access through the CRWAD website.

Clinical scoring systems have been proposed for respiratory disease diagnosis in calves, including the Wisconsin (WI) system (McGuirk in 2008) which uses five clinical signs, each partitioned into four levels of severity. Recently, we developed the California (CA) bovine respiratory disease (BRD) scoring system requiring less calf handling and consisting of six clinical signs, each classified as normal or abnormal. The objective of this study was to estimate the on-farm agreement between the WI and the CA scoring systems. A total of 100 calves were enrolled on a CA dairy and assessed for BRD case status using the two scoring systems simultaneously. The Kappa coefficient of agreement between these two systems was estimated to be 0.85, which indicated excellent agreement beyond chance. The simpler design and reduced calf handling required by the CA BRD scoring system may make it advantageous for on-farm use.

Piglets reared in swine production in the USA undergo painful procedures that include castration, tail docking, teeth clipping, and identification with ear notching or tagging. These procedures are usually performed without pain mitigation. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for pain mitigation in 1- to 28-day-old piglets undergoing these procedures. The National Pork Board funded project to develop recommendations for pain mitigation in piglets. Recommendation development followed a defined multi-step process that included an evidence summary and estimates of the efficacies of interventions. The results of a systematic review of the interventions were reported in a companion paper. This manuscript describes the recommendation development process and the final recommendations. Recommendations were developed for three interventions (CO2/O2 general anesthesia, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and lidocaine) for use during castration. The ability to make strong recommendations was limited by low-quality evidence and strong certainty about variation in stakeholder values and preferences. The panel strongly recommended against the use of a CO2/O2 general anesthesia mixture, weakly recommended for the use of NSAIDs and weakly recommended against the use of lidocaine for pain mitigation during castration of 1- to 28-day-old piglets.

Routine procedures carried out on piglets (i.e. castration, tail docking, teeth clipping, and ear notching) are considered painful. Unfortunately the efficacy of current pain mitigation modalities is poorly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing primary scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of pain management interventions used for routine procedures on piglets. The review question was, ‘In piglets under twenty-eight days old, undergoing castration, tail docking, teeth clipping, and/or methods of identification that involve cutting of the ear tissue, what is the effect of pain mitigation compared with no pain mitigation on behavioral and non-behavioral outcomes that indicate procedural pain and post-procedural pain?’ A review protocol was designed a priori. Data sources used were Agricola (EBSCO), CAB Abstracts (Thomson Reuters), PubMed, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), BIOSIS Previews (Thomson Reuters), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. No restrictions on year of publication or language were placed on the search. Eligible studies assessed an intervention designed to mitigate the pain of the procedures of interest and included a comparison group that did not receive an intervention. Eligible non-English studies were translated using a translation service. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance using pre-defined questions. Data were extracted from relevant articles onto pre-defined forms. From the 2203 retrieved citations forty publications, containing 52 studies met the eligibility criteria. In 40 studies, piglets underwent castration only. In seven studies, piglets underwent tail docking only. In one study, piglets underwent teeth clipping only, and in one study piglets underwent ear notching only. Three studies used multiple procedures. Thirty-two trial arms assessed general anesthesia protocols, 30 trial arms assessed local anesthetic protocols, and 28 trial arms assessed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) protocols. Forty-one trial arms were controls where piglets received either placebo or no treatment. Forty-five outcomes were extracted from the studies, however only the results from studies that assessed cortisol (six studies), β-endorphins (one study), vocalisations (nine studies), and pain-related behaviors (nine studies) are reported. Other outcomes were reported in only one or two studies. Confident decision making will likely be difficult based on this body of work because lack of comprehensive reporting precludes calculation of the magnitude of pain mitigation for most outcomes.

Antibiotics are one of the most important medical discoveries of the 20th century and will remain an essential tool for treating animal and human diseases in the 21st century. However, antibiotic resistance among bacterial pathogens and concerns over their extensive use in food animals has garnered global interest in limiting antibiotic use in animal agriculture. Yet, limiting the availability of medical interventions to prevent and control animal diseases on the farm will directly impact global food security and safety as well as animal and human health. Insufficient attention has been given to the scientific breakthroughs and novel technologies that provide alternatives to antibiotics. The objectives of the symposium ‘Alternatives to Antibiotics’ were to highlight promising research results and novel technologies that could potentially lead to alternatives to conventional antibiotics, and assess challenges associated with their commercialization, and provide actionable strategies to support development of alternative antimicrobials. The symposium focused on the latest scientific breakthroughs and technologies that could provide new options and alternative strategies for preventing and treating diseases of animals. Some of these new technologies have direct applications as medical interventions for human health, but the focus of the symposium was animal production, animal health and food safety during food-animal production. Five subject areas were explored in detail through scientific presentations and expert panel discussions, including: (1) alternatives to antibiotics, lessons from nature; (2) immune modulation approaches to enhance disease resistance and to treat animal diseases; (3) gut microbiome and immune development, health and diseases; (4) alternatives to antibiotics for animal production; and (5) regulatory pathways to enable the licensure of alternatives to antibiotics.