The evaluation of conservation programs is rare but increasingly important in improving their effectiveness. Regular evaluations of conservation programs and the implementation of recommendations resulting from such assessments are infrequent because of resistance by participants and lack of funding. Evaluations may be internal or external, depending on the purpose of the review and how broadly it is focused. We strongly recommend external peer review of long‐term complex conservation programs every 5 years, supported by more frequent (annual) internal reviews. Criteria for success must encompass both biological and social measures and include learning and the application of new knowledge to management. Evaluations must also go beyond monitoring to assess the value of the program. We emphasize the need to include the organization and function of a conservation program (the process) in any evaluation in addition to substantive criteria for success, which usually involve biological measures (numbers). A dysfunctional program organization and process can as effectively cripple a conservation effort as can a major biological catastrophe. We provide examples of different types of conservation program evaluations, including moderated workshops and case‐study analysis, and provide advice on the logistics and organization of the review, emphasizing the importance of the evaluation process itself to a successful outcome. One important aspect of an evaluation is having an individual with leadership ability and considerable expertise to organize the format and oversee the review process itself. Second, it is essential at the outset to ensure agreement among the program participants and the review committee on the goals and objectives of the conservation program, what is to be evaluated, and the criteria for defining success. Finally, the best evaluations are inclusive and involve all participants and stakeholders.

The goal of this study was to follow ceftiofur-treated and untreated cattle in a normally functioning dairy to examine enteric Escherichia coli for changes in antibiotic resistance profiles and genetic diversity. Prior to treatment, all of the bacteria cultured from the cows were susceptible to ceftiofur. Ceftiofur-resistant E. coli was only isolated from treated cows during and immediately following the cessation of treatment, and the 12 bla CMY-2 -positive isolates clustered into two genetic groups. E. coli bacterial counts dropped significantly in the treated animals (P < 0.027), reflecting a disappearance of the antibiotic-susceptible strains. The resistant bacterial population, however, did not increase in quantity within the treated cows; levels stayed low and were overtaken by a returning susceptible population. There was no difference in the genetic diversities of the E. coli between the treated and untreated cows prior to ceftiofur administration or after the susceptible population of E. coli returned in the treated cows. A cluster analysis of antibiotic susceptibility profiles resulted in six clusters, two of which were multidrug resistant and were comprised solely of isolates from the treated cows immediately following treatment. The antibiotic treatment provided a window to detect the presence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli but did not appear to cause its emergence or result in its amplification. The finding of resistant isolates following antibiotic treatment is not sufficient to estimate the strength of selection pressure nor is it sufficient to demonstrate a causal link between antibiotic use and the emergence or amplification of resistance.

A field study was conducted to evaluate the influence of milking frequency (3 or 6 times/d [3x or 6x, respectively]) during the initial 21 d of lactation on milk and milk component yield and mammary gland health as indicated by somatic cell count. During 2 seasons, spring and fall, multiparous cows were milked 6 times/d until d 21 of lactation and then returned to the 3 times/d frequency for the remainder of lactation (6x; n = 9). Multiparous cows milked 3 times/d from the beginning of lactation served as a control group (3x; n = 17). With the exception of milking frequency, all other aspects of management, including housing, milk harvesting, and feeding, were identical between the groups and were consistent with industry norms. Retrospective analysis of Dairy Herd Improvement Association records was used to evaluate milk yield, milk component yield, and somatic cell scores. As expected, 6x cows produced more milk on the first test day than 3x cows. Compared with 3x cows, higher milk yields persisted for 6x cows from test day 2 through 6, indicating a persistent effect of early lactation milking frequency on milk yield potential for that lactation. Milk component yield followed a similar pattern: 6x cows produced significantly more protein, fat, and total solids than did control cows throughout the study. With regard to udder health, 6x cows had lower somatic cell counts at the first test day relative to 3x cows and had reduced somatic cell scores for the first 3 mo of lactation, which suggests that early lactation milking frequency influences the mammary gland capacity to resist infection in addition to improving milk production efficiency.