• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Blue Tongue Rule Change -Canada

Mike

Well-known member
Canada changes bluetongue regulations
June 5, 2006

— Producers on both sides of the border expect anaplasmosis rule will follow within weeks.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has proposed an easing of bluetongue restrictions on imports of cattle from the U.S. In a mid-May announcement, CFIA listed a set of regulations which is expected to pave the way for allowing greater numbers of feeder and breeding cattle to be shipped into Canada. It will also reduce direct costs for producers by eliminating the need for the approximately $15 per head testing fee.

“After carefully weighing the relevant scientific information, the CFIA is proposing that in addition to eastern Canada, bluetongue restrictions be lifted for all classes of cattle, deer, goats, sheep and other ruminants imported year round into western Canada from any state in the U.S.,” the report said. The report also will remove any restrictions on the movement of animals. “As a result, the CFIA would only conduct an investigation into death losses in domestic ruminants such as deer and sheep in the event of a bluetongue outbreak. Easing restrictions would also mean that movement controls for animals moving out of the Okanagan Valley to other areas in Canada would no longer apply even if bluetongue activity is detected,” CFIA said.

Alberta Beef Producers Association spokesman Rick Overwater said producers on the Canadian side of the border are as pleased about the decision as U.S. producers.

“Since the science doesn’t really support the CFIA’s current bluetongue importation policy as it currently stands, we have long lobbied to strike it down in an effort for fair trade to benefit both Canada and the U.S.,” Overwater said. “Hopefully we can see this through, it’s certainly taking a lot of work on our part at this very time.”

The incidence of bluetongue in Canada is extremely low. According to information from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, more than 15,000 random tests of cattle since 1975 have not turned up any evidence of the disease. Scientists attribute the low prevalence to the fact that Canada is on the far northern boundary of the insects which carry the disease, the Culicoides midges, which are also known as biting gnats or no-see-ums. U.S. states which border Canada are also at very low risk for outbreaks of bluetongue with the exception of Washington’s Okanogan Valley where the disease initially passed over the border to Canada nearly 40 years ago.

Bluetongue is an insect-borne viral disease which infects sheep, cattle, goats and other cervids like deer and pronghorn antelope. Although it does cause economic losses in cattle, they are generally considered mild with minor consequences. The disease cannot be spread from animal to animal. In sheep, however, bluetongue is particularly damaging. In infected flocks, as many as half of the animals may die.

A bluetongue infection causes inflammation, swelling and hemorrhage of the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, and tongue. Inflammation and soreness of the feet also are associated with bluetongue. In sheep, the tongue and mucous membranes of the mouth become swollen, hemorrhagic, and may look red or dirty blue in color, thus giving the disease its name.

Alberta Beef Producers vice chair Erik Butters welcomed the action by CFIA.

“I just returned from two days in Ottowa, meeting with the MPs and I can tell you that we have gotten more done in the past 3 months with this new government than in the past 18 years,” Butters said. “As frustrated as producers south of the border are, I assure you that up here we are just as annoyed with this trade irritant.”

The Office International des Epizooties, the international animal health agency responsible for monitoring animal health, lists bluetongue as a class A disease which means it has the potential for rapid spread and has major significance in international trade.

The proposed CFIA changes to import regulations will eliminate the rigorous testing regiment required by Canadian officials in the past and were considered crucial to future trade normalization talks between the two nations.

“Canada’s bluetongue-related import restrictions have been a real obstacle for U.S. cattlemen for many years,” said Terry Stokes, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s (NCBA) chief executive officer. “NCBA and its state affiliates have worked hard to eliminate this trade barrier and ensure that our cattlemen have fair access to the Canadian market for both feeder and breeding cattle. Bringing an end to these restrictions once and for all is a real breakthrough.”

Jay Truitt, NCBA’s vice president of government affairs said, “full access to Canadian buyers is important to many of our cattlemen who produce feeder cattle, as well as breeding stock. This change will make that possible without raising any health risks or herd health issues.”

CFIA said in its announcement it expects to release a decision on anaplasmosis by late spring but the timing could depend on data yet to be provided by U.S. authorities.

Many see the decision as a first step in the effort to aid negotiations over the resumption of breeding age imports of cattle from Canada into the U.S., a fact acknowledged by CFIA in their report.

“This is considered to be a critical issue by the beef cattle industry in Canada, particularly as the (USDA) moves forward with its rule making process in relation to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and the restoration of market access for a number of commodities not covered by the “Minimal Risk Rule” that was announced in January 2005,” the report said. “These commodities include breeding cattle older than thirty months and beef or other products derived from these animals. It is firmly believed by the industry that if Canada continues to maintain restrictions for bluetongue and anaplasmosis, there will be opposition from within the U.S. cattle industry for the USDA’s proposed rule, which is expected to be released for public consultation within the next few months.

Butters said his government is committed to removing both barriers.

“During our meetings this week, the MPs assured us that as soon as the bluetongue issue is resolved, anaplasmosis will be at the top of the list This will be followed by a final rule, possibly towards the end of the year.”
Although the likelihood of the disease spreading outside the Okanogan Valley is minimal, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association has announced intentions to create a five-year indemnity fund to offset any potential death losses if they occur in sheep flocks in western Canada. — John Robinson, WLJ Editor
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RoperAB said:
Well isnt this good news? You would think some of our friends in the south would be happy.

It is...Drop the anaplas rule, USDA implement the already passed M-COOL law, FDA close the feedban loopholes as they originally proposed-- and then I'd say OPEN THE BORDER......
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
LOLs It reminds me of that old joke about the farmer who hired a prostitute.
First he complained she was to dry.
Then the farmer complained she was to wet.
Then he didnt want to pay her until after harvest.
LOLs some people are always going to complain about something :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Is that why your cult group R-calf is back in court trying to block things again OT?

We're just trying to get our day in court and have a chance to be heard. We don't like the USDA changing the rules designed to protect us at the request of big money. Getting sold out is a precident that needs to be nipped right now. The idea that the government should have a free rein and be unaccountable to the public is utter nonsense.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Is that why your cult group R-calf is back in court trying to block things again OT?

That is and has been my stand for when the border should open for quite some time-- altho all the POST feedban cattle and the foreign markets hesitancy of opening because of our import procedures have made me question whether we should have and/or should further open it.......

Much of the foreign markets question about seperation of beef could be taken care of with an M-COOL law......
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Is that why your cult group R-calf is back in court trying to block things again OT?

That is and has been my stand for when the border should open for quite some time-- altho all the POST feedban cattle and the foreign markets hesitancy of opening because of our import procedures have made me question whether we should have and/or should further open it.......

Much of the foreign markets question about seperation of beef could be taken care of with an M-COOL law......




Got to love it, South Korea mentions OTM and UTM being processed on the same US slaughter plant lines and not being able to tell the age of the animals exported to them. And that they will not except bone in any of the shippments which has cost the US one very big export market already. But what does Oldtimer picks up on, their concerns of the US import procedures. :roll: Face it you have bigger problems than a bit of Canadian UTM cattle, when it comes to your foreign market access. Tell us Oldtimer how will M'COOL law seperate the OTM from the UTM? Or the Meat from the bone? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Is that why your cult group R-calf is back in court trying to block things again OT?

That is and has been my stand for when the border should open for quite some time-- altho all the POST feedban cattle and the foreign markets hesitancy of opening because of our import procedures have made me question whether we should have and/or should further open it.......

Much of the foreign markets question about seperation of beef could be taken care of with an M-COOL law......




Got to love it, South Korea mentions OTM and UTM being processed on the same US slaughter plant lines and not being able to tell the age of the animals exported to them. And that they will not except bone in any of the shippments which has cost the US one very big export market already. But what does Oldtimer picks up on, their concerns of the US import procedures. :roll: Face it you have bigger problems than a bit of Canadian UTM cattle, when it comes to your foreign market access. Tell us Oldtimer how will M'COOL law seperate the OTM from the UTM? Or the Meat from the bone? :wink:

Tam- I have been hearing that Japan was saying the same thing for the last couple of years- and the reason we didn't get an agreement with Japan much earlier is that USDA and the US trade negotiators would not without tying in Canada too.....Again we have to carry along the US slaughter plants in Canada and the Canuck producers who won't go after their own markets :roll:

Now Korea comes out and admits that one of the holdups is the IMPORTED cattle being slaughtered in the same plants and lines....

Tam- we have many in the US also that don't want to eat beef from old Canadian POST feedban cattle- With M-COOL the choice would be left to them........
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer,

I dont believe that American people would not eat Canadian OTM beef. If it was .10 per pkg cheaper they would buy it. I dont care if Canada or the US "most" consumers are looking ofr their best buy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Oldtimer,

I dont believe that American people would not eat Canadian OTM beef. If it was .10 per pkg cheaper they would buy it. I dont care if Canada or the US "most" consumers are looking ofr their best buy.

And I disagree- In some regions they would heavily support US beef if it was readily available and so labeled....Even with the M-COOL restaurant exemptions many would buy and advertise US beef as a drawing promotion if it were readily available....I have talked to restaurant owners that have been trying - but constantly running into roadblocks with availability...
 

TimH

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote-
Tam- we have many in the US also that don't want to eat beef from old Canadian POST feedban cattle- With M-COOL the choice would be left to them........

OT, I told you before, you don't need that expensive M'COOL law to identify American beef from Canadian........
The beef with the yellow :shock: fat is corn-fed American, and the beef with the beautiful white,sweet :) fat is barley fed Canadian.......that would be more like a
C-C-COOL system(color coded country of origin). :wink: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Robert Mac and others are producing it on grass (U.S. grass that is.)

Have you Canadians tested the omega balance on barley fed steers?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Have you Canadians tested the omega balance on barley fed steers?

There are grass fed in the "great white North" too.

I have talked to restaurant owners that have been trying - but constantly running into roadblocks with availability...

You've finally realized what we have been telling you for awhile OT, the US does not produce enough beef to fill their own domestic market!

Even if you had COOL, it would not work! If you were sucessful in having Americans only wanting US Beef, there would not be enough to meet demand!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murgen said:
You've finally realized what we have been telling you for awhile OT, the US does not produce enough beef to fill their own domestic market!

Even if you had COOL, it would not work! If you were sucessful in having Americans only wanting US Beef, there would not be enough to meet demand!

The beef is there- Its just that enough of it is not labeled-- yet.....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Murgen said:
You've finally realized what we have been telling you for awhile OT, the US does not produce enough beef to fill their own domestic market!

Even if you had COOL, it would not work! If you were sucessful in having Americans only wanting US Beef, there would not be enough to meet demand!

The beef is there- Its just that enough of it is not labeled-- yet.....

Can you explain these numbers to us if you think there is enough beef in the US.

2001 the US imported $2,714,382,000 of Beef and veal while your exports were open. Then in 2005 while your exports were shut down the US imported $3,658,103,000. that is an increase of $943,721,000 in 5 years again while you had no exports to speak of. AND there has been another 4.23% increase in the imports in 2006 The only reason that number was not higher is because Canada took a 19.82% decease in beef in 2006 while was off set by the 230% increase in live cattle. But Australia had a 70.2% increase, Brazil had a 53.8% increase and Mexico had a 47.77% increase export to the US. So tell us again how there is enough US beef for the domestic markets Oldtimer. The US imports tell a different story. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Murgen said:
You've finally realized what we have been telling you for awhile OT, the US does not produce enough beef to fill their own domestic market!

Even if you had COOL, it would not work! If you were sucessful in having Americans only wanting US Beef, there would not be enough to meet demand!

The beef is there- Its just that enough of it is not labeled-- yet.....

Can you explain these numbers to us if you think there is enough beef in the US.

2001 the US imported $2,714,382,000 of Beef and veal while your exports were open. Then in 2005 while your exports were shut down the US imported $3,658,103,000. that is an increase of $943,721,000 in 5 years again while you had no exports to speak of. AND there has been another 4.23% increase in the imports in 2006 The only reason that number was not higher is because Canada took a 19.82% decease in beef in 2006 while was off set by the 230% increase in live cattle. But Australia had a 70.2% increase, Brazil had a 53.8% increase and Mexico had a 47.77% increase export to the US. So tell us again how there is enough US beef for the domestic markets Oldtimer. The US imports tell a different story. :wink:

Canada produces 3 times the amount of beef they can consume- but yet you are importing beef from the US, Australia, Uruguay etc. etc....

Being able to produce has nothing to do with the Packer shell game they play on consumers......
 
Top