Elephants call out to each other using individual names that they invent for their fellow pachyderms, according to a new study.
While dolphins and parrots have been observed addressing each other by mimicking the sound of others from their species, elephants are the first non-human animals known to use names that do not involve imitation, the researchers suggested.
For the new study published on Monday, a team of international researchers used an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyse the calls of two wild herds of African savanna elephants in Kenya.
The research “not only shows that elephants use specific vocalisations for each individual, but that they recognise and react to a call addressed to them while ignoring those addressed to others”, the lead study author, Michael Pardo, said.
“This indicates that elephants can determine whether a call was intended for them just by hearing the call, even when out of its original context,” the behavioural ecologist at Colorado State University said in a statement.
The researchers sifted through elephant “rumbles” recorded at Kenya’s Samburu national reserve and Amboseli national park between 1986 and 2022.
Using a machine-learning algorithm, they identified 469 distinct calls, which included 101 elephants issuing a call and 117 receiving one.
Elephant make a wide range of sounds, from loud trumpeting to rumbles so low they cannot be heard by the human ear.
Names were not always used in the elephant calls. But when names were called out, it was often over a long distance, and when adults were addressing young elephants.
Adults were also more likely to use names than calves, suggesting it could take years to learn this particular talent.
When the researchers played a recording to an elephant of their friend or family member calling out their name, the animal responded positively and “energetically”, the researchers said.
But the same elephant was far less enthusiastic when played the names of others.
Unlike those mischievous parrots and dolphins, the elephants did not merely imitate the call of the intended recipient.
This suggests that elephants and humans are the only two animals known to invent “arbitrary” names for each other, rather than merely copying the sound of the recipient.
“The evidence provided here that elephants use non-imitative sounds to label others indicates they have the ability for abstract thought,” the senior study author George Wittemyer said.
The researchers called for more research into the evolutionary origin of this talent for name-calling, given that the ancestors of elephants diverged from primates and cetaceans about 90m years ago.
Despite our differences, humans and elephants share many similarities such as “extended family units with rich social lives, underpinned by highly developed brains”, the CEO of Save the Elephants, Frank Pope, said.
“That elephants use names for one another is likely only the start of the revelations to come.”
Sonoma County ballot measure asks voters in rural region to ban what critics call factory farms.
What is underway in an iconic food-producing area might soon spread elsewhere as exurban development increasingly encroaches into agricultural regions nationwide. | Terry Chea/AP
PETALUMA, California — Animal rights activists first forced their way onto Mike Weber’s chicken ranch six years ago, seeking to expose what they view as the horrors of egg production in a region known as the “American Provence” for its abundance of vineyards, dairies and organic farms.
That confrontation, which resulted in the arrest of 40 activists for trespassing, turned out to be just an initial skirmish in a battle playing out now over animal rights and farming that will soon move to the Sonoma County ballot. In November, voters will weigh in on a proposal to prohibit large poultry and livestock operations, which activists say are factory farms that pollute the environment and mistreat animals with closely packed confinement. Sonoma would be the first county in the United States to ban such facilities.
“People deserve a say over what happens in the county they live in, and people don’t want that happening here,” said Lewis Bernier, a researcher for Direct Action Everywhere, a Berkeley-based group with a history of confrontational protests that led efforts to get the measure on the ballot. The group has also collected signatures to place a similar question before Berkeley voters this fall, although it is largely symbolic since there are no commercial farms in the Bay Area college town.
In Sonoma, however, a measure pitting people who shop at farmers markets against those who supply them strikes deep in the terroir. Once-fringe beliefs about animal rights are becoming mainstream just as the nation is facing a rural economic crisis, having lost over a half a million farms since the 1980s. What is underway in an iconic food-producing area might soon spread elsewhere as exurban development increasingly encroaches into agricultural regions nationwide.
Mike Weber is seen at Sunrise Farms, which he owns, in Petaluma on May 7. Petaluma has long been tied to the dairy and poultry business and was once known as the “egg basket of the world.” | Ben Fox/POLITICO
“If it can happen here,” said Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan, “it can get on the ballot anywhere.”
Supporters of Measure J would force at least two dozen Sonoma County poultry and livestock operations to either downsize or shut down within three years. Farmers say it is an effort to push a “vegan mandate” to end animal farming and that the initiative would close more farms and have spinoff economic effects, both immediately and in the future.
“At the end of the day, they want to burn down our farm and every other farm in Sonoma County,” said Weber, whose family has produced eggs in the area since 1912.
The Sonoma Aroma
Sonoma would be the first county in the U.S. to impose an outright ban on concentrated animal feeding operations, a designation used by the Environmental Protection Agency for regulating agricultural waste discharge. Activists use the phrase interchangeably with “factory farms,” to cover a range of modern poultry and livestock activities in which animals are raised and kept in dense conditions.
Sonoma is dotted with hundreds of farms, large and small, and has deep rural roots. Petaluma, where Weber’s farm is located, has long been tied to the dairy and poultry business and was once known as the “egg basket of the world.” The small city has a quintessential Americana charm. Much of Ronald Reagan’s classic 1984 campaign ad “Morning in America” was filmed in the city as was the 1973 movie “American Graffiti.”
That landscape may not have changed much, but Sonoma’s demographics have. Petaluma and nearby cities have become bedroom communities for people priced out of places closer to San Francisco and the Silicon Valley — filled with newcomers blasted for driving up home prices and ridiculed for grumbling about the odor of manure that occasionally wafts through the area, a scent known as the “Sonoma aroma.” Petaluma is a city of nearly 60,000 people, sprinkled with farm-to-table restaurants catering to foodies.
The crosscurrents that shape Sonoma today — an area where people are ready to challenge the business of farming even though their local economy remains inexorably tied to it — were on display last month when the county Board of Supervisors held a public hearing after activists gathered 37,000 signatures, more than enough to qualify Measure J for the ballot.
A sign is posted next to a home development in Petaluma on May 2. Petaluma and nearby cities have become bedroom communities for people priced out of places closer to San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
At the May 14 meeting, the measure’s supporters decried factory farms for cruelty, polluting the air and water with waste and for being “incubators for disease” such as bird flu. Activists sought to refute a dire local government assessment that projected widespread closures of farming activities and layoffs as a result of the measure’s passage.
“These industrial facilities harm animals,” said Cassie King, a member of Direct Action Everywhere. “They exacerbate wildfires and droughts. They are incubators for disease, like the avian flu that was mentioned, which has spread to mammals and humans. They pollute our air and water. They most impact the health of workers and people who live nearby these facilities.”
Supervisors warmly welcomed Measure J critics, who included local dairy farmers and two well-known local producers that rely on them, Clover Sonoma and Straus Family Creamery — and endorsed the warnings about the likely economic effects of the measure.
“What we’re going to do is kill farms and kill jobs,” said James Gore, a former U.S. Department of Agriculture official elected to the board in 2014. “And then you’re going to push us into a place where it doesn’t affect our ability to buy and sell but it does really increase the opportunity for these lands to be transitioned into suburban, urban, or other uses.”
In the end, the supervisors agreed to put the measure on the November ballot, but unanimously adopted a joint statement of opposition to the initiative. To the farm industry, the fact that a measure regarded with such local hostility has come so far in Sonoma County is a harbinger of where this fight might go next.
Which Came First
In May 2018, several hundred people organized by Direct Action Everywhere traveled about an hour’s drive north from Berkeley to protest Weber Family Farms, which Mike owns with his brother, Scott. Some forced their way inside the chicken houses, seizing dozens of birds including about 10 they claimed were sick and dying. The group argued that their action was legal under a California law against animal abuse. “Folks, we’re about to march into a massive factory farm in the heart of darkness and hell,” declared the group’s leader, Wayne Hsiung, according to video taken at the time. “We’re gonna expose what’s happening inside and try to take some of the animals out.”
Hsiung, a lawyer and onetime candidate for mayor of Berkeley who has argued that animals should have the same rights under the Constitution as people, held follow-up protests there and at Reichardt Duck Farm, also in Petaluma. The group has tried to make their case with photos showing birds with apparently untreated sickness and injuries.
“We need to stop the most egregious cruelty that’s happening,” said Bernier. “We need to put an end to it immediately.”
Weber disputes allegations of mistreatment, noting that his products receive a “certified humane” label from Humane Farm Animal Care, a nonprofit that says it uses veterinarians and animal scientists to set treatment standards. He said he also takes additional compliance monitoring measures for his company’s organic facilities and recycles his waste to sell as fertilizer. “I don’t know what we can do better,” he said. “The only thing I can do is to go out of business to make them happy.”
Measure J would likely have that impact. The initiative language appears to call for phasing out both large and medium-sized concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. Under that interpretation, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau says at least 60 poultry and livestock enterprises would have to close.
An employee cleans a hen house at Weber’s egg farm on Jan. 11, after he was forced to kill all 550,000 chickens at his main egg-producing facility in because of an outbreak of bird flu. | Terry Chea/APIn November, Sonoma County voters will weigh in on a proposal to prohibit large poultry and livestock operations, which activists say are factory farms that pollute the environment and mistreat animals. | Terry Chea/AP
But Bernier says that’s a misreading of the initiative and that there are no operations in the county that meet the EPA definition of a medium CAFO because of the way they manage waste. Under the coalition’s interpretation, Measure J would cover dairies in the county with 700 cows and egg producers with 82,000 birds.
The debate over exactly which facilities would be covered by Measure J is somewhat of a moot point to the local Farm Bureau. “Their ultimate goal is they want to eradicate animal farming entirely and this is a stepping stone,” said Executive Director Dayna Ghirardelli.
Weber, who was forced to kill all 550,000 chickens at his main egg-producing facility in December because of an outbreak of bird flu, bristles at accusations that he mistreats animals, which he said would not be in the interest of him or any other farmer.
“It’s in our best interest to provide the ideal environment that is stress free,” he said.
Many people today, he said, do not understand what it takes to get food from farms into supermarkets. “If voters decide they want to make it illegal to eat meat I’m not going to fight it. That’s for the voters to decide,” he said. “But they shouldn’t be making the decision based on misleading information.”
Table-to-Farm Politics
California voters statewide have shown they are receptive to animal welfare initiatives in the recent past. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 2, which prohibited certain types of cramped cages for pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. A decade later, voters went further with Proposition 12, a so-called “foie gras ban” that required farm animals get more space and egg-producing chickens go cage-free. Both passed with more than 60 percent of the vote.
There was also a bill introduced by two Democratic state lawmakers in February 2022 that would have prohibited new CAFOs in California. That measure never made it out of committee, a result of opposition from agriculture interests. (Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who is a vegan, has introduced similar legislation at the federal level.) Animal-rights activists hope that if Sonoma voters bless such regulations this fall, it could help loosen legislative resistance in Sacramento.
“At the end of the day, they want to burn down our farm and every other farm in Sonoma County,” said Weber, whose family has produced eggs in the area since 1912. | Ben Fox/POLITICO
“If this passes, in a county that is known as an agricultural county, and prides itself on being a small farm, kind of county, then it opens up political cover to discuss the issue,” said Nickolaus Sackett, director of legislative affairs for Social Compassion in Legislation, a California-based animal-rights group. “That means the people want it and we should at least be having these conversations.”
Agriculture interests similarly recognize the potential for Measure J to be a threat beyond Sonoma County. Most of the $176,000 raised by the Family Farmers Alliance, which is sponsored by the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, has come from farming organizations elsewhere in the state.
“Sonoma has grown a lot to where there’s a lot of urban folks living there,” said Bill Mattos, president of the California Poultry Federation, which is donating to the campaign. “So they need to be educated.”
Those of us who find it difficult to eat less meat for the sake of climate tend to apologize or justify ourselves in social contexts. And… shaming vegans isn’t off limits. This, according to a new University of Copenhagen study. Clearer messaging about meat as a climate problem from public authorities could help, say the researchers.
Avocados are “bad” and vegans are ridiculous. My body needs meat. It’s my partner who doesn’t want to cut back on meat—not me. These are just a few of the things we say when feeling compelled to legitimize not being able to scale back on our meat consumption for the sake of climate.
The findings are from a University of Copenhagen study. In focus group discussions with Danish consumers, the researchers took note of which arguments came into play as participants addressed meat consumption.
“The study shows how we justify our reluctance to cut down on meat consumption when in social settings. All of the participants—predominantly meat eaters—agree that one of the best things a person can do to be a more climate-minded eater is to eat less meat. But when addressing their own meat consumption, other mechanisms kick in,” says Thomas A. M. Skelly, a Ph.D. fellow at the Department of Food and Resource Economics and first author of the article about the study, now published in the Journal of Consumer Culture.
While all six focus groups in the study agreed that reducing meat consumption is one of the most effective ways to make eating more climate-friendly, the participants began to engage in social negotiations on their own behalf along the way.
“That is, they come up with various excuses and justifications or try to shift the focus onto something else. For example, there was a tendency for them to shame avocados as being climate-unfriendly and scold vegans for being extremists. Common to the arguments is that they are perceived as socially legitimate in the groups, and that they help to maintain a morally responsible self-image among the participants,” says the other of the study’s authors, Associate Professor Kia Ditlevsen from the Department of Food and Resource Economics.
The participants deployed a variety of excuses and justifications. For example, some were based on not having the necessary knowledge, or that there is a biological need for meat, or that meals without meat just aren’t filling. Other justifications cast doubt on whether the actual climate footprint of meat production was as large as it is purported to be. Finally, at times, blame is assigned to other members of the household. For example, one participant says, “I don’t eat climate-friendly foods, unfortunately. I try, but I have a partner who’s against it. He wants meat.”
The researchers also observed a tendency among participants to steer the topic away from meat and towards more comfortable topics.
“People quickly derail the topic and begin talking about other things, such as how they seek to avoid food waste and plastic packaging. Within the group, people are mutually supportive of such derailments. Our interpretation is that this is because these things are more culturally neutral and harmless to relate to. No one really has much of an identity attached to plastic disposal. People can envision doing these kinds of things without any great deprivation or personal cost,” says Ditlevsen.
Furthermore, various forms of shaming “morally superior” vegans are used to justify one’s meat consumption, as the researchers point out:
“For example, when a participant states that he or she doesn’t intend on going vegan, the other participants laugh. In doing so, they confirm to one another that veganism would be a ridiculous solution,” says Skelly.
The researchers also see a pattern in the groups of portraying vegans as extremists, and suggesting they are hypocritical, because they eat avocados and highly-processed “vegan foods,” which focus group participants refer to as climate damaging.
“With this notion, the participants confirm to each other that their food practices are not more problematic than food practices among people who have cut out meat entirely—even though the truth is that red meat has a far greater climate footprint than both avocados and vegan products, and vegans do not necessarily eat more avocados or processed products than meat eaters,” Skelly adds.
“So, a variety of things are used to excuse or justify their meat consumption, because otherwise, they would look stupid having already recognized that meat consumption is a major climate culprit. You get hit on the morals. Therefore, one has to—probably unconsciously—reassure themselves of being a morally coherent person,” says Ditlevsen.
Are we dumbing ourselves down?
Whether some of the justifications are due to a lack of knowledge on the part of consumers or the selective deployment of knowledge remains unclear:
“When all of the focus groups point to reduced meat consumption as one of the most climate effective things people can do, it demonstrates the existence of a collective knowledge. But on the other hand, this knowledge can be problematized—and the results demonstrate that it is socially acceptable to problematize it,” says Skelly.
“We are unable to conclude whether this is because people actually don’t know, or because not knowing is convenient. But there is certainly enough ambiguity in public discourse and the media for people to make these justifications without sounding completely ignorant in social settings.”
Politicians need to message clearly about meat
According to the researchers, the research results point to the need for public agencies and politicians to have unambiguous messaging with regards to meat consumption.
“When we have politicians who say, for example, that Danes should keep on eating spaghetti and meat sauce, it helps support the notion that we can simply carry on with our meat consumption. At the same time, the Danish Official Dietary Guidelines say that we should eat significantly less meat. So, there is a discrepancy between the announcements from public authorities and those in power,” remarks Ditlevsen.
The researcher concludes, “If there is to be more clarity and less confusion among consumers, so that it becomes more difficult to come up with socially acceptable excuses and justifications, clear statements from politicians and authorities must be made—messaging that unequivocally supports the importance of cutting back on meat consumption. This is also something that the European Union emphasizes. This alone probably won’t do, but it could help get people moving in the right direction.”
More information: Thomas A.M. Skelly et al, Bad avocados, culinary standards, and knowable knowledge. Culturally appropriate rejections of meat reduction, Journal of Consumer Culture (2024). DOI: 10.1177/14695405241243199
Location of the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex within map view, b) termokarst landscape of the surrounding area, c) riverbank within the complex with mammoth bones on the water edge. Credit: Pitulko et al. 2024.
Woolly mammoths are evocative of a bygone era, when Earth was gripped within an Ice Age. Current knowledge places early mammoth ancestors in the Pliocene (2.58–5.33 million years ago, Ma) before their populations expanded in the Pleistocene (2.58 Ma–11,700 years ago, kyr). However, as climate changed, their numbers dwindled to isolated populations in modern Siberia and Alaska, until their last dated survival 4 kyr ago.
In the East Siberian Arctic (>70 °N), there is not only evidence of significant woolly mammoth populations, but also how humans interacted with them, the focus of new research in Quaternary Science Reviews.
Along the Berelekh River, Russia, a ‘mammoth graveyard’ can be found. Here, thousands of disarticulated bones, representing a minimum of 156 individual mammoths, found alongside an archaeological site indicate the close proximity of these two communities, forming the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex.
Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and colleagues aimed to assess the relationship between the ‘mammoth graveyard’ and the archaeological site through a re-examination of stratigraphic and paleogeographic data obtained in 2009, with new fieldwork focused on the left riverbanks where mammoth bones have readily yielded from their home in the sediment and appeared on the water’s edge. Alongside them are remains of Pleistocene hare, Arctic fox and wolves, as well as soot and charcoal from hearths and worked mammoth tusks (one being an unfinished throwing spear).
The researchers suggest humans created these bone accumulations as a byproduct of the production of mammoth ivory technology, while hares may have been targeted for fur to produce winter clothing.
Notably, evidence of blowfly pupae activity on cavities in skulls and bones is indicative that the mammoth carcasses were added to the ‘graveyard’ de-fleshed. Indeed, there appears to be evidence of sorting of the bones, with only the most valuable transported to Berelekh from the area in which the mammoth was killed, leaving behind parts such as spinal columns, carpal (‘hand’) and tarsal (‘foot’) bones.
a) Radiocarbon ages showing the temporal overlap of unmodified and human-modified mammoth remains in the bone-bed and archaeological evidence of human settlement at the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex. b) Radiocarbon dating of human interaction with mammoths at the Yana Palaeolithic site, Siberia. Credit: Pitulko et al. 2024.
There are three radiocarbon dated peaks in woolly mammoth accumulation at 11.8, 12.2 and 12.4 kyr ago, which fall within known human settlement of the area (11.2–12.4 kyr ago) during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial, when the northern hemisphere warmed and pollen evidence suggests the region became more arid.
Fluctuations in the abundance of mammoths in the ‘graveyard’ suggest human settlement of the area may also have changed through time (frequent occupation but not permanent), which the researchers attribute to environmental changes on the floodplain permitting suitability for erecting campsites.
Radiocarbon dating of mammoth remains identifies their presence here pre-dating human settlement (beginning ~12.5 kyr ago), but also shows that humans remained in the area (until ~11.2 kyr ago) after mass mammoth remains accumulation declined (~11.8 kyr ago).
Given this, four possible causes are suggested by the scientists to explain such a significant mass accumulation of bones: 1) mass death by natural causes or human, 2) repeated group deaths in the same location, likely due to human predation, 3) concentration of remains by geological processes, such as river action, or 4) solely derived from human predation or scavenging from deceased carcasses.
However, the latter is considered to be the most likely to produce useful tools from ivory tusks, as well as meat to feed the community, as there is no evidence on the bones for a cause of mass death, radiocarbon ages do not cluster into multiple phases for recurrent death deposits and stream flows were unlikely to reach sufficient velocities to transport such heavy bones.
These findings are concurrent with mammoth remains at the Yana Paleolithic site, also in Siberia. Here, estimates suggest the ‘graveyard’ increased by 1–2 mammoths per year rather than a mass death event, a figure Dr. Pitulko and colleagues conclude could be similar or even higher for Berelekh.
This research is significant as it alters the previously-held belief that there was a lag of 50–80 years between mammoth bone accumulation from natural processes (such as deposition in flood channels) and human settlement, instead now defining a close relationship between the two over 700–800 years. Sadly, now that human-mammoth relationship has continued as ivory hunters have looted the site beyond further study.
More information: Vladimir V. Pitulko et al, From the Berelekh ‘mammoth graveyard’ to Berelekh geo-archaeological complex: Paleoenvironment, site formation processes, and human-mammoth relationships, Quaternary Science Reviews (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108692
The threat of avian flu for people has become a priority for health officials and learning how the virus is moving from species to species. (Image: Unsplash)
According to the Mexican health ministry, the man had a history of chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes and long-standing systemic arterial hypertension. An FAO official said the risk of getting avian flu through eating poultry was ‘negligibly low’
The death of a person due to H5N2 bird flu is keeping many scientists and experts worried. The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed that the death of a 59-year-old man in Mexico caused by a strain of bird flu was unusual.
Unlike the recent cases of H5N1 in people in the US, the patient did not have any known exposure to infected animals, but outbreak of H5N2 was reported in poultry in Mexico.
So, what does this mean?
The H5N1 has been found in 11 house mice in New Mexico, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Farms also reported H5N1 outbreaks in cows. So, it is possible that the mice consumed unpasteurized milk, which infected them. This means, the virus in inching closer to humans since most people are likely to encounter house mice than dairy cattle.
The threat of avian flu for people has become a priority for health officials and learning how the virus is moving from species to species. It is also not clear what tissue samples from the mice were positive. So, it is not known if the mice are transmitting the virus through urine or feces.
IS THE MEXICAN MAN’S DEATH A CONCERN?
According to the Mexican health ministry, the man had a history of chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes and long-standing systemic arterial hypertension. He had been bedridden for three weeks before the onset of acute symptoms, developing fever, shortness of breath, diarrhoea, nausea and general malaise on April 17.
The man was taken to the hospital in Mexico City on April 24 and died later that day. “The death is a multi-factorial death, not a death attributable to H5N2,” WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier told journalists in Geneva.
Seventeen contacts of the case in the hospital were identified. All tested negative for influenza. “The infection of H2N5 is being investigated to see if the man was infected by somebody visiting or by any contact with any animals before,” Lindmeier said.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said the risk of getting avian flu through eating poultry was “negligibly low”. “In all the hundred years of avian influenza… there has not been any demonstrated food-borne transmission,” Markus Lipp, senior food safety officer at FAO told the media via a video link.
He explained humans do not have “avian influenza receptors in their gastro-intestinal tract, contrary to certain animal species, as far as we know. So, there is a very slim likelihood, just from that perspective”.
However, the H5N1 was first identified in humans in 1997.
WHAT IS H5N2?
H5N2 is just one of several kinds of avian influenza viruses. The viruses are classified based on two types of protein on their surfaces: hemagglutinin, or H, which plays a crucial role in allowing the virus to infect cells, and neuraminidase, or N, which helps the virus spread. Many different combinations of H and N proteins are possible.
H5N2 belongs to a family of bird flu viruses called H5, which primarily infects wild birds. There are a total of nine known subtypes of H5 viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
H5N1, which was detected in dairy cows in the US in March, also belongs to this family.
June 11, 2024, 11:06 ISTFar Right Makes Strong Gains In EU Elections As Center Holds Majority
June 11, 2024, 11:06 ISTHezbollah Tries To Down Fighter Jets As Border Fighting Further Ratchets Up
June 11, 2024, 11:06 ISTUS Provided Intelligence That Helped Israel’s Hostage Rescue Operation
June 11, 2024, 11:06 ISTRise Of Chirag Paswan: From Failed Actor To Minister In Modi 3.0 Cabinet
June 11, 2024, 11:06 ISTDelhi Records 32 Days of 40°C+ Temperatures, Longest Spell in 14 Years
In India, the virus has been found in Kerala. The state health minister, Veena George, stressed that bird flu has not affected humans in the state, but it’s important to take precautions to prevent its spread. Around 21,000 ducks were culled in Edathua and Cheruthana, the epicenters of the bird flu outbreak. Additionally, all domesticated birds within a one-kilometer radius of the outbreak zones will be killed.
H5N1 has infected people in 23 countries since 1997, according to the CDC, resulting in severe pneumonia and death in about 50% of cases.
Five cows in the United States have been infected and died from bird flu or slaughtered because they did not recover, Reuters reports.
Bird flu, also known as avian influenza or H5N1 virus, refers to the disease caused by infection from influenza Type A viruses. This virus spreads among wild aquatic birds and can infect domestic poultry and other bird and animal species.
Animals from more than 80 dairy cow herds across 10 states have contracted bird flu since late March, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cows in Ohio, along with South Dakota, Michigan, Texas, and Colorado, have died from bird flu. Most cows in Ohio and other states have died from secondary infections after having bird flu, according to Reuters.
Most cows affected by bird flu recover well, a USDA spokesperson said.
Is it safe to eat beef? Is store-bought meat safe?
The USDA reported bird flu particles in the beef tissue of one slaughtered dairy cow, and it was not sent to food supply. Experiments have shown that meat injected with the bird flu virus was not found with it after being cooked to medium up to well done.
So far, bird flu has not been found in stores.
All meat goes through a rigorous meat inspection process, according to the USDA website, and the administration is confident that meat supply is safe. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) veterinarians are present at all livestock facilities, and each animal is inspected twice before being slaughtered for the food supply.
Get the Evening Update newsletter in your inbox.
Stay up-to-date with the latest news from around Columbus
Delivery: DailyYour Email
The USDA recommends properly cooking raw meat to a safe internal temperature to kill bacteria and viruses in meat. The FSIS website has a free safe minimum internal temperature chart.
Is store-bought milk still safe to drink?
Yes, the FDA and USDA indicate that it is still safe to drink your store-bought milk due to the pasteurization process.
Collected samples don’t contain live avian flu virus, and positive results don’t mean the actual virus poses a risk to consumers.
FDA’s partners at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention signal no significant uptick of human cases of flu and no cases of avian flu, specifically, beyond four cases reported in three states between April 1 and May 29, 2024.
According to farmers and veterinarians, symptoms of bird flu in cattle include reduced milk production, digestive issues, fever, and diminished appetite.
Do farmers have to cull herds of cattle infected with bird flu?
When farmers detect cows infected by bird flu, they separate them from the rest of the herd. Dairies have reported culling cows due to a lack of milk production.
Before the US confirmed bird flu was infecting cows, farmers were culling many cows because of decreased milk production. The numbers of culled cattle dropped, however, as farmers learned that cows can recover from avian flu infections.
Can humans get bird flu?
Humans are not usually affected by the bird flu virus. However, sporadic human infections — seen only occasionally and usually without geographic concentration — have occurred.
How does bird flu spread?
Infected birds shed bird flu virus through their saliva, mucus and feces, according to the CDC. Human bird flu infections can happen when the virus gets into a person’s eyes, nose or mouth, or is inhaled.
Have there been cases of bird flu in humans?
Yes, but the CDC says that the public health risk related to bird flu remains low — only four cases of bird flu in humans have been reported from the 2024 outbreak.
Reported signs and symptoms of bird flu virus infections in humans have ranged from no symptoms, mild, to severe illness.
Symptoms include:
Eye redness (conjunctivitis)
Mild flu-like upper respiratory symptoms
Pneumonia (requiring hospitalization)
Fever (temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit [37.8 degrees Celsius] or greater)
Feeling feverish (fever may not be present)
Cough
Sore throat
Runny or stuffy nose
Muscle or body aches
Headaches
Fatigue
Shortness of breath
Difficulty breathing
Less common signs and symptoms include:
Diarrhea
Nausea
Vomiting
Seizures
How to take precautions and what you should do if you think you have avian flu
The CDC developed new interim recommendations for prevention, monitoring, and public health investigations of highly pathogenic avian influenza in animals.
After testing bird flu found earlier this year in a Texas dairy farm worker, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a report Friday that the H5N1 strain originating in the Lone Star State and currently spreading across the U.S. poses “a serious potential public health risk and could cause serious illness in people.”
This comes after CDC researchers tested the worker’s bird flu strain on ferrets, resulting in severe illness and death after direct contact with one another. The CDC said that ferrets have previously gotten sick from flu strains, but this is the first time a flu infection has proven fatal.
Bird flu tore through cattle in the Texas Panhandle starting in February, affecting 13 dairy farms and spreading to at least eight other states. The dairy farm worker, who reported an inflamed eye, is believed to have contracted bird flu through his work with cattle, though scientists couldn’t prove a direct connection between worker and animal as the cattle on his farm were not tested. Cows in nearby ranches, however, tested positive for H5N1.
ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
The Texas farm worker is believed to be the first human who has ever contracted bird flu through another mammal, and not from an infected bird.
“Given the infected human was a dairy farm worker with reported exposure to sick, presumably infected cows in Texas and without reported exposure to other mammals or birds, we believe the genetic and epidemiologic data are strong evidence of infection of the human following exposure to presumably HPAI A(H5N1) virus-infected cows,” wrote the authors of a report published by the New England Journal of Medicine in May.
Two additional human bird flu infections were found last month in Michigan, both involving dairy farm workers. The Texas worker has since recovered from his illness. Additional cases were reported recently in Australia and in Mexico. The Mexican man who contracted bird flu died, but the World Health Organization reported that his death was the result of chronic diseases and not the virus.
ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
The CDC said in its report Friday that the risk remains low for humans to contract bird flu, but those exposed to infected animals should take precaution.
“While the three cases of A(H5N1) in the United States have been mild, it is possible that there will be serious illnesses among people,” read the report.
Exposing the Big Game 