Prebiotics are nondigestible dietary ingredients, usually oligosaccharides (OS), that provide a health benefit to the host by directly modulating the gut microbiota. Although there is some information describing OS content in dairy-source milk, no information is available to describe the OS content of beef-source milk. Given the different trait emphasis between dairy and beef for milk production and calf survivability, it is plausible that OS composition, diversity, and abundance differ between production types. The goal of this study was to compare OS in milk from commercial dairy and beef cows in early lactation. Early-lactation multiparous cows (5-12 d in milk) from 5 commercial Holstein dairy herds and 5 Angus or Angus hybrid beef herds were sampled once. Milk was obtained from each enrolled cow and frozen on the farm. Subsequently, each milk sample was assessed for total solids, pH, and OS content and relative abundance. Oligosaccharide diversity and abundance within and between samples was transformed through principal component analysis to reduce data complexity. Factors from principal component analysis were used to create similarity clusters, which were subsequently used in a multivariate logistic regression. In total, 30 OS were identified in early-lactation cow milk, including 21 distinct OS and 9 isomers with unique retention times. The majority of OS detected in the milk samples were present in all individual samples regardless of production type. Two clusters described distribution patterns of OS for the study sample; when median OS abundance was compared between the 2 clusters, we found that overall OS relative abundance was consistently greater in the cluster dominated by beef cows. For several of the structures, including those with known prebiotic effect, the difference in abundance was 2- to 4-fold greater in the beef-dominated cluster. Assuming that beef OS content in milk is the gold standard for cattle, it is likely that preweaning dairy calves are deprived of dietary-source OS. Although supplementing rations with OS is an approach to rectify this deficiency, understanding the health and productivity effects of improving OS abundance being fed to preweaning calves is a necessary next step before recommending supplementation. These studies should account for the observation that OS products are variable for both OS diversity and structural complexity, and some products may not be suitable as prebiotics.

The increasing size and complexity of US dairy farms could make it more difficult for a veterinary practitioner to effectively communicate protocol recommendations for prevention or treatment on the farm. A continuing education workshop was set up based on the results of research on dairy organizational communication on dairy farms, which resulted in a tool to assess dairy communication structure and flow. The workshop specifically focused on communication structure and whom to talk to when implementing health care changes in calf rearing. In addition, modern methods of veterinary-client communication knowledge and skills were provided. Primary outcomes of the workshops were to obtain feedback from participants about research findings and the communication model, to improve awareness about the complexity of communication structures on dairy farms, and to change participants' knowledge and skills associated with on-farm communication by providing communication theory and skills and an approach to evaluate and improve dairy organizational communication. Of the 37 participants completing the pre-program assessment, most recognized a need for themselves or their practice to improve communication with clients and farm employees. After the program, most participants were confident in their new communication skills and would consider using them. They highlighted specific new ideas they could apply in practice, such as conducting a "communication audit." The results from the assessment of this communication workshop, focused on dairy veterinarians, highlighted the need for communication training in this sector of the profession and practitioners' desire to engage in this type of training.

Background: Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) addresses the challenge of meeting the growing demand for food, fibre and fuel, despite the changing climate and fewer opportunities for agricultural expansion on additional lands. CSA focuses on contributing to economic development, poverty reduction and food security; maintaining and enhancing the productivity and resilience of natural and agricultural ecosystem functions, thus building natural capital; and reducing trade-offs involved in meeting these goals. Current gaps in knowledge, work within CSA, and agendas for interdisciplinary research and science-based actions identified at the 2013 Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture (Davis, CA, USA) are described here within three themes: (1) farm and food systems, (2) landscape and regional issues and (3) institutional and policy aspects. The first two themes comprise crop physiology and genetics, mitigation and adaptation for livestock and agriculture, barriers to adoption of CSA practices, climate risk management and energy and biofuels (theme 1); and modelling adaptation and uncertainty, achieving multifunctionality, food and fishery systems, forest biodiversity and ecosystem services, rural migration from climate change and metrics (theme 2). Theme 3 comprises designing research that bridges disciplines, integrating stakeholder input to directly link science, action and governance. Outcomes: In addition to interdisciplinary research among these themes, imperatives include developing (1) models that include adaptation and transformation at either the farm or landscape level; (2) capacity approaches to examine multifunctional solutions for agronomic, ecological and socioeconomic challenges; (3) scenarios that are validated by direct evidence and metrics to support behaviours that foster resilience and natural capital; (4) reductions in the risk that can present formidable barriers for farmers during adoption of new technology and practices; and (5) an understanding of how climate affects the rural labour force, land tenure and cultural integrity, and thus the stability of food production. Effective work in CSA will involve stakeholders, address governance issues, examine uncertainties, incorporate social benefits with technological change, and establish climate finance within a green development framework. Here, the socioecological approach is intended to reduce development controversies associated with CSA and to identify technologies, policies and approaches leading to sustainable food production and consumption patterns in a changing climate.