@article{ammons_blacklin_bloom_brown_cappellazzi_creamer_cruz_hynson_knight_lauffer_et al._2021, title={A collaborative approach to COVID-19 response: The Center for Environmental Farming Systems community-based food system initiatives}, volume={10}, ISSN={["2152-0801"]}, DOI={10.5304/jafscd.2021.102.004}, abstractNote={The Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) has spent the past two decades developing local food systems to support communities and increase resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how existing structural inequities, primarily along racial lines, are exacerbated. It has also shown the value of community-based food systems work that helps communities network, sharing valuable resources and funding to respond to the ongoing crisis. In this article, we document how CEFS’ community-based food systems initiatives are responding to the pandemic. Some of CEFS programs are community-based, working with food policy councils, offering racial equity trainings, networking schools and early care and education sites, and supporting youth convenings and internships. Others are focused on production and supply chains for meat, seafood, and produce in order to develop stronger local food systems. Through­out the work of all of CEFS’ community-based food systems initiatives in response to the pandemic, we have learned that our past efforts have increased local food systems resilience. We also note the impor­tance of flexible funders who allowed grant dollars to be reallocated to community partners to address urgent needs. We have found that online programming has increased participation and access to resources. Finally, we have been inspired by the creativity, flexibility, and adaptability of our community partners, and we are energized to continue to support them while also offering the resources we have developed to a broader audience.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SYSTEMS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT}, author={Ammons, Shorlette and Blacklin, Sarah and Bloom, Dara and Brown, Shironda and Cappellazzi, Marcello and Creamer, Nancy and Cruz, Angel and Hynson, Janie and Knight, Gini and Lauffer, Laura and et al.}, year={2021}, pages={297–302} }
 @article{poore_scaglia_andrae_harmon_rogers_blacklin_2020, title={Pasture-finished beef production in the south}, ISBN={["978-0-12-814474-9"]}, DOI={10.1016/B978-0-12-814474-9.00010-4}, abstractNote={There has been increased interest in pasture-based systems for finishing beef cattle in the Southern United States. These systems include grass-fed, pasture-finished, and many other variations. The local food movement has provided farmers with new outlets through farmers’ markets, restaurants, and independent grocery stores, and various business models are being explored to deliver consistent and high-quality products to consumers. Farmers need to define and document their production system to support any production claims they make on their beef packaging labels or marketing materials. Farmers developing these systems must overcome many challenges with economy of scale, unsteady forage supply and nutritive value, lack of processing infrastructure, and consumer misconceptions about animal welfare, human health benefits, and environmental impacts. There are compositional differences between conventional feedlot beef and pasture-raised beef, including differences in total fat, fatty acid composition, and vitamin levels. However, because beef is only a small part of the overall diet, these differences have limited implications for human health. Forage system research has identified some of the weaknesses of Southern pasture–based beef finishing systems, but inflexibility in study design makes it difficult to mimic the systems used by producers. Most producers are targeting a significant level of marbling in meat, so that they either supplement concentrates on forage-based diets, use high-quality forages, and/or keep animals to older ages than may be typical for conventional feedlot beef. Regardless of the production system, providing animals with high-quality grazed or harvested forages as much of the year as possible will improve meat quality and improve the sustainability of these systems.}, journal={MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE CATTLE PRODUCTION IN SOUTHERN PASTURES}, author={Poore, Matt and Scaglia, Guillermo and Andrae, John and Harmon, Deidre and Rogers, Johnny and Blacklin, Sarah}, year={2020}, pages={265–299} }
 @article{davis_pisanic_rhodes_brown_keller_nadimpalli_christ_ludwig_ordak_spicer_et al._2018, title={Occurrence of Staphylococcus aureus in swine and swine workplace environments on industrial and antibiotic-free hog operations in North Carolina, USA: A One Health pilot study}, volume={163}, ISSN={["1096-0953"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.envres.2017.12.010}, abstractNote={Occupational exposure to swine has been associated with increased Staphylococcus aureus carriage, including antimicrobial-resistant strains, and increased risk of infections. To characterize animal and environmental routes of worker exposure, we optimized methods to identify S. aureus on operations that raise swine in confinement with antibiotics (industrial hog operation: IHO) versus on pasture without antibiotics (antibiotic-free hog operation: AFHO). We associated findings from tested swine and environmental samples with those from personal inhalable air samplers on worker surrogates at one IHO and three AFHOs in North Carolina using a new One Health approach. We determined swine S. aureus carriage status by collecting swab samples from multiple anatomical sites, and we determined environmental positivity for airborne bioaerosols with inhalable and impinger samplers and a single-stage impactor (ambient air) cross-sectionally. All samples were analyzed for S. aureus, and isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility, absence of scn (livestock marker), and spa type. Seventeen of twenty (85%) swine sampled at the one IHO carried S. aureus at >1 anatomical sites compared to none of 30 (0%) swine sampled at the three AFHOs. All S. aureus isolates recovered from IHO swine and air samples were scn negative and spa type t337; almost all isolates (62/63) were multidrug resistant. S. aureus was recovered from eight of 14 (67%) ambient air and two (100%) worker surrogate personal air samples at the one IHO, whereas no S. aureus isolates were recovered from 19 ambient and six personal air samples at the three AFHOs. Personal worker surrogate inhalable sample findings were consistent with both swine and ambient air data, indicating the potential for workplace exposure. IHO swine and the one IHO environment could be a source of potential pathogen exposure to workers, as supported by the detection of multidrug-resistant S. aureus (MDRSA) with livestock-associated spa type t337 among swine, worker surrogate personal air samplers and environmental air samples at the one IHO but none of the three AFHOs sampled in this study. Concurrent sampling of swine, personal swine worker surrogate air, and ambient airborne dust demonstrated that IHO workers may be exposed through both direct (animal contact) and indirect (airborne) routes of transmission. Investigation of the effectiveness of contact and respiratory protections is warranted to prevent IHO worker exposure to multidrug-resistant livestock-associated S. aureus and other pathogens.}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH}, author={Davis, Meghan F. and Pisanic, Nora and Rhodes, Sarah M. and Brown, Alexis and Keller, Haley and Nadimpalli, Maya and Christ, Andrea and Ludwig, Shanna and Ordak, Carly and Spicer, Kristoffer and et al.}, year={2018}, month={May}, pages={88–96} }