Veterinary Student Poster Competition

The AASV is pleased to announce an opportunity for fifteen veterinary students to compete for awards in the Veterinary Student Poster Competition, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica. Based on scores received in the original judging of abstracts submitted for the AASV Student Seminar in September, the top fifteen abstracts not selected for oral presentation are eligible to compete in the poster competition.

All posters to be judged must be mounted in the poster display area of the Highland Center/Tapatio Cliffs Resort prior to 9:00 am. Three judges who are not associated with the participating students or their projects will conduct the judging in the poster display area from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon. The presenting student MUST be stationed at their poster for judging during the assigned time, and should be ready at their poster ten minutes in advance of the scheduled time. A ten-minute time slot is allotted to each poster for the judges to ask questions of the presenter and score the poster. The judging schedule and the scoresheet used for judging appear below.

The results of the poster competition will be announced during the Boehringer-Ingelheim-sponsored AASV Luncheon on Monday, March 7. Boehringer-Ingelheim provides the following awards to the poster competitors (in addition to the $250 travel stipend provided by Alpharma Animal Health to each student poster participant).

1st place poster: $500

2nd & 3rd place: $400 each

4th, 5th, & 6th place: $300 each

7th - 15th place: $200 each

The following veterinary student presentations have been selected to compete in the poster competition:

Veterinary Student Poster Competition
Sunday, March 6, 2011

9:00        Comparison of alternative sample collection methods
                Jessica Abbott, Iowa State University

9:10        Comparison of two gilt synchronization protocols
                Kyle Alberti, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine

9:20        Prevalence of PCV2 in the cord blood of newborn pigs from vaccinated dams
                Natalie Baker, Purdue University

9:30        Field evaluation of an avirulent live Haemophilus parasuis vaccine
                Joshua Duff, North Carolina State University

9:40        Evaluation of shoulder decubital ulcer treatment methods in sows
                Amber Hazel, University of Minnesota

9:50        Actinobaculum suis tube agglutination titer and production parameters of sows
                Attila Mihály Kertesz, Szent István University, Budapest

10:00     Correlation of clinical diarrhea, histopathological lesions and diagnostic tests for grow-finish enteritis with a focus on Brachyspira hyodysenteriae
                Hannah Lowe, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine

10:10     Producer experiences with electronic sow feeding (ESF)
               Gilbert Patterson, University of Pennsylvania

10:20     BREAK

10:40     Re-evaluation of a low-cost protocol for reducing the risk of aerosol spread of PRRS virus
                Andrea Pitkin, University of Minnesota

10:50     Performance comparison of the new IDEXX X3 ELISA with the current 2XR ELISA
               Abigail Redalen, University of Minnesota

11:00     An evaluation of the “Load, Close, and Homogenize” protocol with modified-live vaccination for PRRSv stabilization in 5 breeding herds
               Michael Slattery, Iowa State University

11:10     Rotavirus serogroup prevalence and characterization post dam vaccination in a four breeding farms
               Chase Stahl, Iowa State University

11:20     A systematic review of the association between Helicobacter spp. and the development of gastric ulcers in swine
               Sarah Taylor, University of Guelph

11:30     "Gilty secrets": Preliminary trends from a gilt retention cohort study
                Lisa Thompson, North Carolina State University

11:40     Euthanasia by electrocution in 5 kg to 15 kg nursery pigs
               Evan Van Beusekom, University of Minnesota


2011 Student Poster Evaluation Scoresheet

Name: ________________________________________________

Title: _________________________________________________

Subject ______

  • Original idea of student (4)
  • Component of a larger study-student ideas incorporated (3)
  • Confirmation of known information but possibly with a new twist (2)
  • Confirmation of known information (1)
  • Review (0)

Interest to Practitioners ______

  • High interest and information immediately applicable (4)
  • High interest but information not immediately applicable (3)
  • Interesting and some components applicable (2)
  • Less interesting or applicable (1)
  • Not very interesting or applicable (0)

Subject contribution _______

  • Significant contribution to industry knowledge(4)
  • Moderate contribution to industry knowledge (3)
  • Slight contribution to industry knowledge (2)
  • Summary of current information (1)
  • No real contribution (0)

Experimental Design Consistent with Expected Outcome ______

  • Very consistent (4)
  • Moderately consistent (3 )
  • Only slightly consistent (2)
  • Experimental design too simple or complex for expected outcome (1)
  • Lacked experimental design (0)

Perceived Overall Effort ________

  • Significant contribution to study (3)
  • Worked hard individually with some advisor help (2)
  • Average effort, possibly 50-50 with advisor or others (1)
  • Mostly someone else’s work (0)

FRONT PAGE TOTAL _________________



Poster Presentation

Poor (0)
Fair (1)
Good (2)
Excellent (3)
Eye contact when asked questions        
Poster was organized and easy to follow (LAYOUT)        
Quality of poster (COLOR selection and BACKGROUND)        
Quality of poster (FONT) - can read easily from 3 feet away        
Quality of materials used
Project goal or problem was clearly stated        
Demonstration of a true understanding of the subject matter        
Displays understanding of possible applications of the topic        
Amount of relevant information covered        
Validity of data        
Project outcomes, recommendations, and conclusions were appropriate        
Personal enthusiasm about the topic        
Adeptness or ability to handle Q & A        

Total abstract evaluation points (for tie-breaking use only): _____

OVERALL TOTAL: Front Page_________ +  Back Page  _________ =  Final score _________