The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on May 11, 2025, that there is a suspension of bison, cattle, and horse imports through ports of entry along the southern border of the US due to the rapid northward spread of the New World screwworm (NWS) in Mexico. Despite continued efforts to interdict and eradicate NWS in Mexico, it has been detected in remote farms with minimal cattle movement, approximately 700 miles from the border in Oaxaca and Veracruz.

“The United States has ordered the suspension of livestock imports through ports of entry along our southern border after the continued spread of the New World Screwworm in Mexico. Secretary Berdegué and I have worked closely on the NWS response; however, it is my duty to take all steps within my control to protect the livestock industry in the United States from this devastating pest,” Brooke L. Rollins, US Secretary of Agriculture, said in a USDA release.

“The protection of our animals and safety of our nation’s food supply is a national security issue of the utmost importance. Once we see increased surveillance and eradication efforts, and the positive results of those actions, we remain committed to opening the border for livestock trade. This is not about politics or punishment of Mexico, rather it is about food and animal safety,” she continued.

US-Mexico agreement allows screwworm eradication efforts to resume

Screwworms: when the larvae don't care about boundaries

Screwworms are moving north—are we prepared?

According to the USDA, effective immediately, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in conjunction with the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will restrict the imports of live animal commodities originating from or transiting to Mexico and will persist on a month-by-month basis. This restriction will continue until a "significant window of containment" is achieved. At this time, any livestock that is currently in holding for entry in the United States will be processed normally, including an APHIS port veterinary medical officer inspection exam and treatment to make sure the cattle entering are not carrying NWS.

 The new restriction will also apply to dogs traveling with owners to Mexico, and a health attestation before returning to the US will be required before they can re-enter the US.

The USDA shared that it will also continue to constantly collaborate with Mexico on this issue by reviewing the latest data and metrics in 2 weeks. The department is also in daily communication with Mexico to discuss how to build on what has been accomplished so far to improve the strategy toward eradicating NWS. The 2 countries plan to effectively eradicate NWS by using a 3-pronged approach with robust active field surveillance, education, and outreach to ensure prevention, treatment, and early detection; controlled animal movement to limit spread; and sustained sterile insect dispersal.

 Through the suspensions, the US will have a chance to reassess whether the current mitigation standards remain sufficient. However, the USDA noted the northward spread of NWS could also be possible through natural wildlife movements.

Other efforts for eradication from the Panama-United States Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of Screwworm, which is a joint program between Panama’s Ministry of Agricultural Development and APHIS, include releasing sterile flies at strategic locations, focusing on Southern Mexico and other areas throughout Central America, to disrupt reproduction.

 The US has also utilized the USDA Tick Riders, mounted patrol officers employed by the USDA who served as the first line of defense against an outbreak of cattle fever,

 to monitor livestock and wildlife along the southern border region for the presence of NWS between the ports of entry.

Secretary Rollins suspends live animal imports through ports of entry along southern border, effective immediately. News release. US Department of Agriculture. May 11, 2025. Accessed May 21, 2025. 

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/11/secretary-rollins-suspends-live-animal-imports-through-ports-entry-along-southern-border-effective

APHIS halts live animal imports across US southern border again due to screwworm. American Veterinary Medical Association. News release. May 19, 2025. Accessed May 21, 2025. 

https://www.avma.org/news/aphis-halts-live-animal-imports-across-us-southern-border-again-due-screwworm?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=todays-headlines-news

Avalos E. Tick riders: the cornerstone of USDA’s Cattle Fever Tick Program. US Department of Agriculture. April 23, 2011. Accessed May 21, 2025. 

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/tick-riders-cornerstone-usdas-cattle-fever-tick-program

Articles

This halt in imports is due to the rapid spread of the New World screwworm in Mexico, taking effect immediately.

APHIS stops live animal imports across US southern border

A preliminary study by MI:RNA Diagnostics and Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) has found that microRNA profiling in combination with advanced predictive modeling and artificial intelligence (AI) may help diagnose Johne disease in cattle with greater accuracy. According to MI:RNA, a veterinary diagnostics company, the new diagnostic approach could change the way the disease is managed.

Paratuberculosis, also known as Johne disease, is an infectious, chronic disease that is often fatal and affects cattle and other ruminants, including sheep and goats. The disease, caused by a resistant species of the 

mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis 

(MAP) bacteria, causes granulomatous enteritis—a chronic form of inflammatory bowel disease—resulting in reduced nutrient absorption that leads to weight loss, diarrhea, and eventually death.

Endemic globally, including in the United States, Johne disease represents a high economic cost to the agricultural economy due to reduced milk production, late pregnancy or failure during breeding season, early culling, and poor condition at culling.

 In the US, the disease is believed to be more prevalent in beef cattle than commonly assumed due to a lack of recent survey data evaluating its current prevalence, according to a publication in 

 by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension.

US Department of Agriculture 2020 survey data show that 7.9% of beef cattle herds in the US have 1 or more cows that are positive for Johne disease.

 Moreover, 92% of the US beef producer survey participants either did not know about the disease or recognized the name but did not know much about it.

 Additionally, 2017 data from Johne’s Testing Center revealed that MAP was detected in 18% of the samples submitted from beef cattle herds.

In the United Kingdom, Johne disease is especially prevalent, affecting up to 50% of herds. Each year, the disease costs an estimated €200 per cow and €10 million to the UK agricultural economy.

Currently, diagnostic tests for Johne disease pose limitations, with available diagnostic tests “exacerbate[ing] the difficulty of managing Johne disease, which often goes undiagnosed due to silent carriers of the disease,” according to MI:RNA.

 However, the new diagnostic approach using microRNA developed by the diagnostics company and a team of scientists at SRUC may help identify the disease earlier.

MicroRNAs are cellular RNA fragments that control the proteins that cells produce and regulate gene expression.

 These biomarkers offer insight into what happens in cells as they are stable and easily detected in bodily fluids.

Research indicates that microRNA expression levels vary during bacterial infections, including early-stage MAP.

According to MI:RNA, diagnostic precision can be improved by applying advanced statistical and machine learning techniques, which enable rapid data analysis, detect patterns missed by traditional methods, and offer infection predictions.

In the preliminary study by SRUC and MI:RNA, microRNA expression was measured in samples from cattle infected with MAP and those not infected. With machine learning AI, the data were then analyzed, and an optimal method for disease diagnosis was developed.

According to the study’s results, microRNA profiling, along with advanced predictive modeling, shows potential in serving as a diagnostic tool for Johne disease in cattle. However, because a small sample size was used for the preliminary study, future efforts will increase the sample size to further validate the results and ameliorate precision.

“Animal health is more important than ever, with Johne disease costing farmers tens of millions around the UK each year,” Eve Hanks, founder and CEO of MI:RNA Diagnostics, said in a company release.

 “For MI:RNA, this is a key area of research and development. Biomarker science combined with our AI-powered modeling means that we can significantly improve animal health, reduce financial strain on farmers, while also reducing greenhouse gas output as a result. We believe [micro]RNAs can assist with progressing future diagnostic testing and understanding diseases more effectively.”

The silent killer: breakthrough in pursuit of Johne’s Disease diagnoses. News release. MI:RNA Diagnostics. May 20, 2025. 

Johne’s disease. US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. September 24, 2024. Accessed May 21, 2025. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/cattle/johnes#:~:text=Johne's%20disease%20is%20endemic%20in,reduce%20the%20disease's%20national%20prevalence.

Stice B, Wiggins L, Thrift T, Bittar J. Johne’s disease in beef cattle. EDIS. 2023;2023(6):VM256. doi:10.32473/edis-vm256-2023

The approach, developed by a veterinary diagnostics company and Scotland’s Rural College, uses AI and microRNA.

New diagnostic approach may help detect Johne disease in cattle earlier

, Lynsey Victoria Rinelli, DVM, joins our host, Adam Christman, DVM, MBA, to discuss what her journey to becoming an author looked like. Christman and Rinelli discuss what inspired her to become an author, plus her experience in Alaska, where she participated in the aid of canine racers. 

Throughout the episode, the duo tackles what it is like to be a mother in veterinary medicine, highlighting some challenges that mothers face and why women need to empower and uplift each other. 

Below is a partial transcript, edited lightly for clarity.

Let's take that veterinarian hat off for a moment, and let's talk about the writing cap. What inspired you to start writing?

 I think that time where I wasn't in the clinic and I had nothing to do but take care of my daughter—those 3 months after having her.... We do a certain routine every morning. We go to her window, [and] we say good morning to everything and anything, just to teach her. So, "Good morning, grass. Good morning, sky. Good morning, birds." And just reading to her every night, I [thought]...this would be really fun to try as a second project."

here [are] so many areas that you can write about...[but] you decided to go into the children's aspect of writing, right? 

Yes, that was my first book. I took that aspect and kind of threw it into New York City. I had her during [COVID-19], so it was a hard time where you can't really go to certain places. What do you do with your baby? What do you actually do to show them the world, other than staying at home? So, I [thought that] this is a nice memoir and something helpful for moms to say, "You can still go outside. You can still do the little things and make every day count."

I can only imagine. To the moms out there, my hat's off to you because dealing with postpartum and dealing with raising the baby and then trying to figure out your...new normal of going back to work and what that might look like as a veterinarian and as a mom. There's gotta be so many challenges, right?

bsolutely. Going back to work was the biggest challenge because, especially in the [emergency department], you go from 0 to 60, and then you're home, and...that's all you do. You're just taking care of your baby. You don't have a million different things that you have to organize through your day, and then jumping back into it without your baby is just a big change.

Podcasts

Lynsey Victoria Rinelli, DVM, shares her life as a mother and veterinarian, plus what inspired her to then become a published author.

Becoming an author, mother, and leader in veterinary medicine

Erica Brandt, CVT, VTS (ECC), discusses her lecture on "kitties in crisis" that was presented at the 2025 Fetch dvm360 Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Providing emergency care for kittens

Erica Brandt, CVT, VTS (ECC), hospital director at WestVet in Meridian, Idaho, discusses her Fetch On-Demand lecture “

The Days of Our 9 Lives: Kitties in Crisis

interview. The session addresses initial care for a young cat in an emergency situation, and was also presented at the 2025 Fetch dvm360 Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The following is a transcript of the video:

: The “Days of Our Nine Lives: Kitties in Crisis” is one of my favorite presentations. I am definitely a cat lover, and being in emergency and critical care, I love taking care of cats in emergency setting.

In this presentation, we're really going to talk about not only recognizing emergencies in cats [and] how we treat them initially for those emergencies, but looking at presenting to the emergency hospital from the cat's point of view, and how we can help them have a better experience and we can ultimately treat them. If they get fearful and upset and we don't help with some of those behavior issues, it's very hard to treat them for an emergency.

 delivers expert-led veterinary continuing education (CE) on your schedule. With 

, you can access top-tier sessions anytime, anywhere—whether at home, in the clinic, or on the go. Ready to earn CE credits? Watch this session and more on 

Videos

Alongside new hospital and clinic openings, several pet nutrition companies are expanding and opening new locations across the United States. Recently, a pet nutrition organization and an animal health company announced the upcoming openings of their largest facilities to date. Moreover, on the West Coast of the US, a pet retailer has opened its third location.

Below are 3 recent and upcoming animal care and nutrition facility openings.

Royal Canin facility in Lewisburg, Ohio. (Image courtesy of Mars, Incorporated)

Royal Canin will be opening its largest dry pet food factory worldwide in Lewisburg, Ohio. The $450-million investment will span 450,000 sq ft and create up to 270 new full-time jobs over the next 5 years, according to Mars, which owns the Royal Canin brand.

 The new facility will also produce enough dry pet food to feed 4 million pets each year, the company said in a news release.

“The decision by Royal Canin and parent company Mars to locate in Ohio represents a significant vote of confidence in Ohio's business environment; our talented, highly trained workforce; and our outstanding quality of life,” Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said in a news release.

 “We are pleased that Royal Canin is locating in Lewisburg, and we look forward to partnering with them as they succeed in Ohio—the heart of it all.”

The new facility employs standardized systems and process designs to replicate the brand’s nutrition. According to Mars, the facility is capable of producing the brand’s entire regional dry kibble portfolio, making it the largest dry pet food manufacturing site worldwide for Royal Canin. Additionally, the facility has achieved Silver LEED certification, which reflects internationally recognized sustainability standards.

Zoetis diagnostics reference laboratory (Louisville, Kentucky)

Zoetis recently announced the upcoming opening of its largest diagnostics reference laboratory at the UPS Healthcare Labport facility at Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport. The facility’s location at the end of the runway will allow Zoetis to rapidly receive diagnostic specimens and deliver timely results to veterinary clinics nationwide, according to the company.

Spanning 32,000 sq ft, the new lab is planned to be at full operational capacity by the end of 2025.

“We continue to elevate the standard of pet health care with our new Louisville lab—a world-class facility where advanced technology and cutting-edge science meets compassionate care,” Jamie Brannan, executive vice president and chief commercial officer at Zoetis, said in an organizational release.

“With expanded capacity, enhanced logistics, and a passionate team of experts, we are bringing our vision for faster, more accessible diagnostics results to life—helping veterinarians make informed decisions for the animals in their care.”

“The success of this lab will be built on the strength of our partnerships,” said Kavita Bhat, vice president of US Reference Laboratories at Zoetis.

 “We’re proud to grow alongside the Louisville community and grateful to all the individuals—our employees, our logistics partners, and our local leaders—who made this vision a reality.”

Pet Food Express (San Francisco, California)

Pet Food Express in San Francisco, California. (Image courtesy of Pet Food Express)

Pet retailer Pet Food Express has opened the doors to its third location in the Presidio of San Francisco, adjacent to Crissy Field and the Palace of Fine Arts. The new location, which is part of a fully electric 84,000 sq ft waterfront complex, offers premium pet foods, toys, supplies, and in-store services such as veterinary wellness clinics, self-service pet wash stations, and dog training.

“The Presidio—one of the most beautiful, nature-filled communities in San Francisco—is the perfect place to celebrate the bond between people and their pets. We’re thrilled to plant our flag here with the newest Pet Food Express location and be part of a community where many California pets and pet lovers already feel right at home,” Denyelle Bruno, CEO of Pet Food Express, said in a company release.

The store will be holding a grand opening event on June 7, 2025, where pet adoptions in partnership with local rescue organizations will take place. The store will also be offering free goodies, giveaways, and food.

Think your hospital has an award-winning design? Submit to the 2025 Hospital Design360™ Competition by May 31! Winners will receive national recognition in the 

 magazine, a Hospital Design Award, and free admission to a 2025 Fetch conference. Categories include over 8000 sq ft, 3500–8000 sq ft, and under 3500 sq ft. Enter 

Mars builds on long-term US investment with the opening of new $450 million Royal Canin facility in Ohio. News release. May 14, 2025. Accessed May 21, 2025. 

https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/press-releases-statements/mars-opening-new-royal-canin-facility-ohio

Zoetis strengthens US diagnostics network with new state-of-the-art reference laboratory in Louisville. Zoetis. May 14, 2025. Accessed May 21, 2025. https://news.zoetis.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2025/Zoetis-Strengthens-U-S--Diagnostics-Network-with-New-State-of-the-Art-Reference-Laboratory-in-Louisville-2025-mS_lTDEK7U/default.aspx?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dx_ky_site_expansion&utm_content=img

Pet Food Express opens the doors to its newest store in San Francisco’s Presidio. Pet Food Express. May 1, 2025. Accessed May 21, 2025. 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250501940467/en/Pet-Food-Express-Opens-The-Doors-to-its-Newest-Store-in-San-Franciscos-Presidio

The latest updates relating to animal care establishments and platforms.

Clinic center: New diagnostics reference laboratory and more

Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing) presents as a questionable research practice and a significant problem for science.

 What exactly is HARKing? What does it look like, and why is it problematic?

Let’s start by looking at how we typically perform scientific studies. For example, as inquisitive minds, we might want to know whether living with aardvarks in the home makes people happier. Now we have a goal. The next step creates alternative and null hypotheses. We need both because science cannot 

 anything and instead follows a methodology of falsification.

Australian-British philosopher and academic, Karl Popper, has a famous black swan example that best describes this: If you hypothesize that all swans are white, finding 1000 or even 1 million white swans does not prove this hypothesis. Finding 1 black swan, on the other hand, will disprove the hypothesis.

The alternative and null hypotheses exist as mirror opposites of each other. We then design studies in an effort to disprove the null hypothesis (because we can only disprove in science). As a result, the alternative hypothesis is typically framed to mirror what we hope to find. Then, when the study disproves the null hypothesis, we can accept—but not prove—the alternative hypothesis.

A null hypothesis might go something like this: “The happiness of people cohabiting with an aardvark for a period of 30 days is the same as that of those who do not.” Our goal is to disprove the null hypothesis by seeing a statistical difference between these 2 groups. Then we can say that people who live with aardvarks are much happier.

We also want to know what the probability is that we are correct in our findings. We do not want to make a wrong conclusion based on random chance. The amount that we are willing to risk on simple chance is arbitrary, but it is often set at 5%. The probability value, or 

 value, measures the statistical probability that our findings might be due to random chance. Given this, you want a very, very low number. With 5% being represented as a 

 value of .05, we hope for a number that is much lower than .05. Anything above this would mean that we are not confident that our findings are not the result of random chance.

If we compare our aardvark- and non–aardvark-cohabiting people, we could find a way to measure their happiness levels and compare. And, if a difference exists, we could run statistics to determine the probability that the difference was due to chance alone. Thus, if our results showed that people living with aardvarks were happier with a 

 value of .05, we could say, “We are 95% confident that the happiness level of people living with aardvarks for 30 days is higher than those who do not.” We would have disproved our null hypothesis, and we could publish our article and start promoting aardvarks as pets.

But let’s say that we did not find that living with aardvarks makes you happier. Unfortunately, well-designed scientific studies that do not show an association are less likely to be published. On the surface, this seems like a good thing, but this is the basis for what is called “publication bias.” This means that great data showing no likely association exists between 2 things are never published and can’t be referenced. As a result, the available medical literature may become biased in support of positive findings, even when sometimes there is truly no real difference. Researchers must not only look for associations but also find some in order to be published.

So, we have a bunch of people living with aardvarks for a month and a control group, and we saw no difference in their happiness levels. We want to be published, though, so what do we do? Luckily, beyond using the ACME Happy-O-Meter, we also looked at many variables within the study. We can go back and look to find statistical differences between our aardvark-cohabiting and non–aardvark-cohabiting people. When we find some associations, we can perform HARKing.

Why is this bad? Isn’t this what research is about, looking to find new associations? It is and it isn’t. The problem is that random chance does occur, and we can find false associations. How often? Well, we have already set our own limit for this. We will accept up to 5% random chance.

When we use this set level for a hypothesis prior to testing, we can honestly say that there is a 95% chance that the conclusion regarding the hypothesis is not due to chance. We cannot say this with HARKed data. Imagine there is a bucket of 95 white marbles and 5 blue marbles. The probability of picking a blue marble “on 1 try” is 5%. If we pick 5 times (keeping the number of balls the same), our chance of picking at least 1 blue marble is now 22.6%. If we pick 20 times, 64.15%; and 30 times, 78.5%. These additional chances to grab blue marbles are referred to as the problem of multiplicity. If we run enough data, we are almost sure to find a blue marble. See the problem?

The problems of multiplicity and HARKing intertwine. Multiplicity within the study is the statistical problem that allows HARKing to result in the publication of false-positive (Type I error) results. Studies that look at many variables in many ways may look intriguing, but they are often at high risk for multiplicity, HARKing, and Type I error results.

Now, let’s assume for this article that there is absolutely no difference in living with aardvarks for a month vs not. Everything is exactly the same. In our aardvark study, we looked at many variables: how long people slept, use of flossing, the frequency of quizzical looks, wearing blue, wearing green, eating cereal, etc. If we looked at 30 different variables, there is a 78.5% chance that we would find a statistical difference between the 2 groups that is based solely on random chance (multiplicity). Hence, if we found that people who lived with aardvarks statistically drank more orange juice, it might be possible to say that “living with aardvarks has been identified with increased vitamin C consumption and is deemed good for your health,” which would be HARKing. We could also publish a 

 value of .05 and write the study to show that this was what we looked for. After all, consuming vitamin C and avoiding scurvy is a great step toward happiness, right?

Thus, as readers of studies, it is easy for us to take a quick look at the abstract and conclusions and see that there is a reason to live with aardvarks. When challenged, we can say, “No, it is true. Look at the 

 value!” The false-positive (Type I) error we are willing to accept for the ACME Happy-O-Meter and for orange juice is the same (5%), but the actual risk for error for each of these variables is very different because of multiplicity.

When we set up the design, the possibility of a false-positive (Type I) error, or pulling a blue marble with regard to the original null hypothesis, remains at 5%. Although this threshold is the same for each of the subsequent variables, variables are being pulled and evaluated until significance is found. With multiplicity in play, 30 grabs at marbles mean that the possibility of pulling a blue marble amidst our results is 78.5%. Due to multiplicity, there is concern that increased orange juice consumption while living with aardvarks may be a blue marble—that is, a statistically different value based solely on chance, despite the fact that the 

When we look at associations that are found with HARKing, we don’t know whether they are white marbles or blue marbles; that is, are they an association based on truth or an association based on chance? The 

 value can no longer provide us with the same level of assurance when HARKing is involved.

How do we know whether there was HARKing? Sometimes it can be difficult. If the study only provided data on the relationship between living with aardvarks and orange juice consumption, we may never know. On the other hand, if we see the original null hypothesis, the data by the ACME Happy-O-Meter, along with a long list detailing other evaluated variables such as how long people slept, use of flossing, the frequency of quizzical looks, wearing blue, etc, we can more easily surmise that increased orange juice consumption is the result of multiplicity and HARKing. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this is false, but it certainly doesn’t mean that it is true either. It may make us suspicious that it is a blue marble, but we don’t know. It does warrant another study for orange juice consumption and living with aardvarks. This would be an appropriate use of HARKing.

We could run another study whose null hypothesis was: “The orange juice consumption of people cohabiting with an aardvark in the home for a period of 30 days is the same as that of those who do not.” Then if we saw a statistical difference with a 

 value of .05, we could say, “We are 95% confident that living with aardvarks for 30 days increases your consumption of orange juice than living without one.” Same 

 value, same association, but completely different in how we as readers should interpret the data.

The first study does not allow us to be confident in the result regarding orange juice consumption, and the second does. But we know from the original discussion that we assumed no difference in living with or without aardvarks. Thus, the second study would likely not find a relationship with increased orange juice consumption. Those researchers could also want their study published and start HARKing through multiple other variables, looking for an association. Then perhaps there was a random association with increased flossing. The cycle could continue, and through HARKing, incorrect assumptions may work their way into our scientific beliefs. Soon, people could be adopting aardvarks because of the misperception regarding positive benefits for health and happiness.

So, if you don’t want to be living with aardvarks, beware of HARKing! HARKing is a questionable research practice that can introduce unnecessary risk for additional Type I errors into the published literature. These errors can detract us from the truth and diminish our scientific knowledge.

Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. 

. 1998;2(3):196-217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

FZE BBC. The Karl Popper concept of falsifiability philosophy essay. UKEssays. Published September 20, 2024. Accessed May 20, 2025. 

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/the-karl-popper-concept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php

Null hypothesis: definition, symbol, formula, types and examples. BYJU’S. April 25, 2022. Accessed May 20, 2025. 

P-value: comprehensive guide to understand, apply, and interpret. GeeksforGeeks. January 31, 2024. Accessed May 20, 2025. 

An explanation of HARKing, multiplicity, P-value interpretation, and why HARKing is problematic.