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

CANADIAN FEED BAN VIOLATIONS

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
National PostJanuary 7, 2005Cattle feed violates ban: federal tests Animal remnants found in 4 brandsBy April Lindgren, with files from Chad SkeltonFederal tests have discovered that four brands of Canadian cattle feed likely included cattle or other ruminant parts in violation of a ban on animal remains designed to protect against mad cow disease. Sergio Tolusso of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said the feed and feed ingredients were sold as being free of animal matter, but microscopic examinations detected animal material in 66 of 110 samples tested between January and March, 2004. Subsequent inspections of feed mills led officials to conclude ''there were some cases where it was more likely than others that it could be ruminant protein,'' said Mr. Tolusso, the agency's feed program co-ordinator. ''We are looking at four cases where we thought it [feed] could be material of ruminant origin.'' Mr. Tolusso played down any risk the material could lead to the spread of mad-cow disease. About half of the 110 samples were taken from imported feed products, while the balance came from Canadian mills. CFIA officials would not release the names or locations of the four plants. Feeding ruminants (cows, goats, sheep, deer and other animals that chew their cud) to other ruminants is a major risk factor in the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. Human consumption of BSE-infected beef has been linked to the development of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a condition that killed more than 100 people in Britain in the 1990s. Experiments have shown an animal needs to consume as little as one milligram of BSE-infected material to develop the disease. In a January, 2004, internal memo to CFIA president Dick Fadden, Mr. Tolusso wrote that ''compliance with the existing ban [on feeding ruminants to ruminants] is a critical factor in preventing the disease from spreading to other animals. ''Major non-compliance with the feed ban cannot be tolerated, and measures to address the risks of domestic ruminants being exposed to prohibited animal proteins must be initiated promptly,'' said the memo, obtained by The Vancouver Sun. …2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Canada banned the use of ruminants in feed for cattle and other ruminants in 1997. But ruminant remains can still be fed to chickens and pigs, and chicken and pig remains can be fed to cattle. Critics say the loophole allows for the cross-contamination of feed destined for Canadian beef, and the CFIA test results suggest this is exactly what is happening. ''Even after confirming cases of BSE, we're still not cleaning up the feed system,'' said Michael McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition, a health lobby group. ''We're basically playing Russian roulette, and for what benefit? The [export] market has been closed and we're still being caught with contaminated feed.'' The coalition wants Canada to follow the Europeans in adopting a complete ban on all animal protein in any feed for animals destined for human consumption. ''If you are feeding cows back to cows and then people are eating the cows ... you can be transmitting mad cow disease,'' Mr. McBane said, noting there are many opportunities for feed containing ruminant remains to be mixed inadvertently with other feeds at feed mills and on farms. The United States recently decided to reopen its borders in March to Canadian beef products, except for cattle older than 30 months. The Americans stopped importing Canadian beef following the discovery of one BSE-infected cow on an Alberta farm in May, 2003.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed: "WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE:THE FINAL OFFER ? OR THE HIGHEST BID?'

The final offer is generally the highest bid!

Auctioneer: "Sorry sir, I cannot take your final bid because our final offer was lower than that".

DUH?

What a dipstick!



~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE:THE FINAL OFFER ? OR THE HIGHEST BID?'

The final offer is generally the highest bid!

Auctioneer: "Sorry sir, I cannot take your final bid because our final offer was lower than that".

DUH?

What a dipstick!



~SH~

final offer from a packer is no where near the highest bid ,slow down on the name calling moron :D ...............good luck
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
What's your point Hayseed? No samples were found to contain ruminant material or that half the 110 samples were imported from the USA?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed: "final offer from a packer is no where near the highest bid..."

Hahahaha!

That doesn't even make sense!

If a packer's "final offer" to a feeder/producer is no where near the "highest bid" for those cattle than obviously another packer made an "offer" or "bid" that was higher which ended up being "the highest bid" which became the "final offer" for those cattle by anyone and everyone.

You're pulling my leg right?

Nobody is that stupid.



Hayseed: "slow down on the name calling moron"

Ok, it's not like you are trying to be an idiot.



~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "final offer from a packer is no where near the highest bid..."

Hahahaha!

That doesn't even make sense!

If a packer's "final offer" to a feeder/producer is no where near the "highest bid" for those cattle than obviously another packer made an "offer" or "bid" that was higher which ended up being "the highest bid" which became the "final offer" for those cattle by anyone and everyone.

You're pulling my leg right?

Nobody is that stupid.



Hayseed: "slow down on the name calling moron"

Ok, it's not like you are trying to be an idiot.



~SH~

Why would something that simple be so hard for a packer lover to under stand? it only takes two buyers to have an auction.Less than two means there is no competion.Its just you against the buyer.When you sell your cattle direct there is no highest bid.only the final offer.......ps I believe you are a moron packer lover that 's been brain washed,or a goverment employee wanna be,take your pick.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed: "it only takes two buyers to have an auction.Less than two means there is no competion.Its just you against the buyer.When you sell your cattle direct there is no highest bid.only the final offer......."

Since when is there only one packer bidding on cattle?

Tyson bids on cattle
Swift bids on cattle
Excel bids on cattle
National/USPB feeders bid on cattle
Smithfield bids on cattle

Where do you come up with this only one bidder nonsense?

Did R-CULT tell you that?



~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
You're preachin to the choir boy,I have played the packer game before.........well I gotta head to town remember what I told you prarie dog,slowly but surely.................good luck
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
It totally amazes me how you can justify your stupid statement with an even dumber comment. Just who is at fault for the lack of competion for your cattle. R-CALF has put how many packing plants in moth balls due to the border delays and expanded capacity in Canada due to the border delays? Now you are complaining how if their is no competion Its just you against the buyer. Just how many of the producers are going to have R-CALF to thank for them having to sell direct or pay the extra they might recieve in feight to get them out to the competion a couple hundred miles away. Geez Haymaker blame the packer for something your support of R-CALF contributed to. :roll:

ps I believe you are a moron packer lover that 's been brain washed,or a goverment employee wanna be,take your pick.
Wow sounds like a little bitterness/stress there. You better contact Feeder and see if she can recommend a Doctor for you to see about that. It's not healthy to hold all of that in Haymaker you might explode and do something you will regret later. Oh what am I saying you are Haymaker just being funny again right. no stress in Texas :wink: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Haymaker before you start spouting about Canada finding microscopic particles in our feed again maybe you should read this and the rest of the 54 page report from the GAO on the FDA supposed 99% compliance record.

What GAO Found:

FDA has made needed improvements to its management and oversight of the feed-ban rule in response to GAO’s 2002 report, but program weaknesses continue to limit the effectiveness of the ban and place U.S. cattle at risk of spreading BSE. Improvements made include FDA establishing a uniform method of conducting compliance inspections and training FDA inspectors, as well as state inspectors who carry out inspections under agreements with FDA, on the new method. FDA also implemented new data-entry procedures that are designed to more reliably track feed-ban inspection results. Consequently, FDA has a better management tool for overseeing compliance with the feed-ban rule and a data system that better conforms to standard database management practices. However, various program weaknesses continue to undermine the nation’s firewall against BSE. For example:

* FDA acknowledges that there are more feed manufacturers and
transporters, on-farm mixers, and other feed industry businesses that
are subject to the feed ban than the approximately 14,800 firms
inspected to date
; however, it has no uniform approach for identifying
additional firms.

* FDA has not reinspected approximately 2,800, or about 19 percent, of those businesses, in 5 or more years; several hundred are potentially
high risk. FDA does not know whether those businesses now use
prohibited material in their feed.


* FDA’s feed-ban inspection guidance does not include instructions to
routinely sample cattle feed to test for potentially prohibited
material
as part of the compliance inspection. Instead, it includes
guidance for inspectors to visually examine facilities and equipment and review invoices and other documents.

* Feed intended for export is not required to carry a caution label “Do
not feed to cattle or other ruminants,”
when the label would be
required if the feed were sold domestically. Without that statement,
feed containing prohibited material could be inadvertently or
intentionally diverted back to U.S. cattle or given to foreign cattle.


* FDA has not always alerted USDA and states when it learned that
cattle may have been given feed that contained prohibited material.
This lapse has been occurring even though FDA’s guidance calls for such
communication.

Although research suggests that cattle can get BSE from ingesting even
a small amount of infected material, inspectors do not routinely
inspect or review cleanout procedures
for vehicles used to haul cattle
feed.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends FDA, among other things, develop procedures for finding additional firms subject to the feed-ban and using tests to augment inspections. FDA said the study was thorough but disagreed on four of nine recommendations. GAO continues to believe that, given the discovery of BSE in North America and the oversight gaps described in the report, the recommended actions are needed to protect U.S. cattle
from BSE.

Do you have any idea how the FDA identifys additional firms subject to the feed ban? They look through phone books. :roll:
It is funny you would dare post anything about what the CFIA found while doing Microscopic testing of Canadian feed samples. The FDA only visiual inspection I wonder just what they would find if they actually tested it. Even the GAO is worried about some of the unlabeled feed intentionally being fed to US cattle not to mention the foreign cattle you legally export it to. the CFIA did say they were also testing imported feed from guess where. This is another cases of if we don't look for it we won't take a chance of finding it. I guess Leo didn't lie this one time when he said if you point the finger of blame you have the other three fingers pointing back at you. :wink:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Tam said:
It totally amazes me how you can justify your stupid statement with an even dumber comment. Just who is at fault for the lack of competion for your cattle. R-CALF has put how many packing plants in moth balls due to the border delays and expanded capacity in Canada due to the border delays? Now you are complaining how if their is no competion Its just you against the buyer. Just how many of the producers are going to have R-CALF to thank for them having to sell direct or pay the extra they might recieve in feight to get them out to the competion a couple hundred miles away. Geez Haymaker blame the packer for something your support of R-CALF contributed to. :roll:

ps I believe you are a moron packer lover that 's been brain washed,or a goverment employee wanna be,take your pick.
Wow sounds like a little bitterness/stress there. You better contact Feeder and see if she can recommend a Doctor for you to see about that. It's not healthy to hold all of that in Haymaker you might explode and do something you will regret later. Oh what am I saying you are Haymaker just being funny again right. no stress in Texas :wink: :roll:


You have so many dumb statements in your post Miss Tam,it would take an ole uneducated cowboy like me 3 days to figger it out so ILL just say I aint complaining,and I aint seen any lack of competition for these fancy black cattle,go take a lil nap,I dont wanna see you go berserk again and feeder and me hafta call 911.................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "it only takes two buyers to have an auction.Less than two means there is no competion.Its just you against the buyer.When you sell your cattle direct there is no highest bid.only the final offer......."

Since when is there only one packer bidding on cattle?

Tyson bids on cattle
Swift bids on cattle
Excel bids on cattle
National/USPB feeders bid on cattle
Smithfield bids on cattle

Where do you come up with this only one bidder nonsense?

Did R-CULT tell you that?



~SH~

~SH~ That might be true in some areas of the country- but in many you are lucky to get two bidders :cry:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "it only takes two buyers to have an auction.Less than two means there is no competion.Its just you against the buyer.When you sell your cattle direct there is no highest bid.only the final offer......."

Since when is there only one packer bidding on cattle?

Tyson bids on cattle
Swift bids on cattle
Excel bids on cattle
National/USPB feeders bid on cattle
Smithfield bids on cattle

Where do you come up with this only one bidder nonsense?

Did R-CULT tell you that?



~SH~

~SH~ That might be true in some areas of the country- but in many you are lucky to get two bidders :cry:

And thanks to R-CALF the plants around you are the ones that suffered the most and are closing.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Bill said:
What's your point Hayseed? No samples were found to contain ruminant material or that half the 110 samples were imported from the USA?
No answers Haymaker???? Was your point to let everyone know that many of the samples from the US were also contaminated with "mammalian potein".
 

Latest posts

Top