Use of the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD)

William M. Sischo From the Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center, Department of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Tulare, CA 93274 (Sischo); Department of Veterinary Science (Norman) and Evaluation Unit (Kiernan), College of Agricultural Science, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16803.

Search for other papers by William M. Sischo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MPVM, PhD
,
Heather S. Norman From the Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center, Department of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Tulare, CA 93274 (Sischo); Department of Veterinary Science (Norman) and Evaluation Unit (Kiernan), College of Agricultural Science, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16803.

Search for other papers by Heather S. Norman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
, and
Nancy E. Kiernan From the Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center, Department of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Tulare, CA 93274 (Sischo); Department of Veterinary Science (Norman) and Evaluation Unit (Kiernan), College of Agricultural Science, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16803.

Search for other papers by Nancy E. Kiernan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Objectives

To report the results of 3 surveys evaluating the extent that the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) is used by veterinarians, the profession's perception of the need for the program, barriers that prevent veterinarians from fully using the service, and the perceptions that animal production industry groups have regarding FARAD.

Design

Telephone and mail surveys were used to collect information using cross-sectional, case-control, and directed sample studies.

Sample Population

Food animal veterinarians and veterinarians and nonveterinarians in allied animal industries or with special interest in production animal medicine.

Results

The use of FARAD was high among dairy and general practitioners, but low among beef practitioners and veterinarians with minor commitment to food animal medicine. Solo practitioners and veterinarians with less than 13 years in practice were less likely to use FARAD. Dairy practitioners who had not used FARAD were most likely to prescribe extralabel products.

Clinical Implications

Results imply that dairy and general food animal practitioners have either greater need or access through educational networks and are more aware of FARAD than practitioners who work with beef and those with a minor component of their practice involving food animals. The difference in familiarity and use of FARAD between practice type is an important finding, but the root of the difference is not clear; it may be attributable to a difference in the effectiveness of knowledge transfer for the groups, or the message is ignored because the issue of drug residues is less compelling for veterinarians and their clients in the beef sector. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;214:344–350)

Objectives

To report the results of 3 surveys evaluating the extent that the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) is used by veterinarians, the profession's perception of the need for the program, barriers that prevent veterinarians from fully using the service, and the perceptions that animal production industry groups have regarding FARAD.

Design

Telephone and mail surveys were used to collect information using cross-sectional, case-control, and directed sample studies.

Sample Population

Food animal veterinarians and veterinarians and nonveterinarians in allied animal industries or with special interest in production animal medicine.

Results

The use of FARAD was high among dairy and general practitioners, but low among beef practitioners and veterinarians with minor commitment to food animal medicine. Solo practitioners and veterinarians with less than 13 years in practice were less likely to use FARAD. Dairy practitioners who had not used FARAD were most likely to prescribe extralabel products.

Clinical Implications

Results imply that dairy and general food animal practitioners have either greater need or access through educational networks and are more aware of FARAD than practitioners who work with beef and those with a minor component of their practice involving food animals. The difference in familiarity and use of FARAD between practice type is an important finding, but the root of the difference is not clear; it may be attributable to a difference in the effectiveness of knowledge transfer for the groups, or the message is ignored because the issue of drug residues is less compelling for veterinarians and their clients in the beef sector. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;214:344–350)

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 439 439 151
PDF Downloads 26 26 5
Advertisement