cattleman, you're gonna have bigger problems than BSE

[Bro]

my neighbor lost a bred heifer in late december, turned out it was johnes disease He almost did not test, as he thought it was hardware disease, but I suggested he take a blood sample when he put the animal down. Panic sets in, as he has had a closed herd for about 5 years, and keeps back upwards of 50-60 heifers a year. He figures apurchased four year old cow died from it in the summer while the recently deceased bred heifer was a calf, so thats where the exposure took place. He did blood work on his whole herd this year, (300 head)and one case came back positive. (vet says that is just the tip of the iceberg as disease can stay subclinical for quite a while). My neighbor had kept back 60 more hiefers to breed this summer, but has since decided to grass them out and send them to slaughter, as they were with the main herd untill early january and were exposed to the clinical case. He also realises that he will have to test for at least 4 more years to eradicate this disease from his herd. - not to mention cull every descendent of every positive case-- just in case. He calves in the spring, but sometimes has young calves in a nursing pen behind the barn. - he cleans up manir, spreads lime, and as an extra precaution, he also will not keep any calf that spends any time in those pens for whatever reason. This guy is a very concientous producer who knows he has a problem and therefore will meet his problem head on and take a hit in the pocketbook before he will spread the problem to other producers. He has gained my respect. Take note, if you buy bulls, ask if they have come from a johnes free herd. (with documentation via tests). The vets are saying it may possibly be spread through semen. Best bet is to raise your own heifers (assuming you are free of it). Anywhere from 2 to 25% of the beef herds have it, depending on the location in NA.- Not much is known about this disease, but it certainly sounds scary and will hit your bottom line pretty hard if you ignore it and it infiltrates your herd. It may even become a trade issue before long once this BSE thing gets to be old news. :!:

 

[Econ101]

Handled the proper way it should not be a trade issue. The producer obviously is a good man to care so much about the spread of the disease and its harm to others over his own self interest.

The geographic isolation of cattle will do more to stop or slow disease than any ID system will ever do. This was the theory behind quarentine of new animals (or in the case of bse, MBM) that could have significant diseases. The appropriate quarentine/health measures should not be confused with trade issues.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Econ i think the point Bro is making is that production limiting diseases are going to cost the industry more then BSE. Most of these have been ignored since BSE.

 

[Bro]

Exactly big muddy rancher. This is one disease (among many) that a producer can have control over (unlike BSE which may occur naturally). People with infested herds may only get 2 or 3 calves out of a cow before it dies.. with no salvage value. Heck, my neighbors bred heifer got such a dose it died with 3 months left prior to calving!! So the presence of BSE in Canada keeps the price of OTM low, it could be worse.... You get nothing if the animal is a rack of bones!! From watching my neighbor and his woes, I am definitly changing my behavior and barnyard hygene. -- wrgs to trade issues, I know the aussies are active on this disease... declaring certain counties Johnnes free zones. Will the NA public expect the same in the future? May be the time for a herd to get certified disease free. May become an issue in the future, and those tested, clean producers heifers may be in high demand.

 

[Econ101]

Econ i think the point Bro is making is that production limiting diseases are going to cost the industry more then BSE. Most of these have been ignored since BSE.

And this is exactly why we need a competent group of professionals to advise on disease control/intervention and for those actions to be followed. We then need the correct economic incentives.

The problem is that we don't have it now when it comes to diseases so we can stop their spread. Money (short term) is getting in the way of "sound science".

I am sorry that Bro's neighbor has the disease but it is interesting to me that it takes a disease that can cause oneself harm for oneself for it to be taken seriously.

In bse, the economics are a little different. Bse is more like the "old maid" and incentives are to try to hide the "old maid" and pass her off whereas in the Johnes disease holding the "old maid" does harm to oneself.

The Alabama case showed this to phenomena within the workings of the industry where getting rid of non producing cow passed the "old maid" around.

Part of the success of the disease prevention and spread in this individual case needs to go to the producer who had the ethics to handle the problem instead of passing it off. It was against his self interest in some ways, but in the interest of the industry as whole and the herd health.

Which one of these was handled better? What were the methods that would make one way of handling things better than another? What kind of person would you want to do business with in each of these scenarios? Can we devise economic incentives that provide for making the correct decisions when it comes to the spread of disease?

The industry has done it when it comes to bangs. Why can't we do it with bse? Why does the govt. hold all the cards and in the process "cheat" truth?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Well econ I know that many cattle organizations were working on getting a program up and running but the process was derailed by BSE and even more so by R-CALFs going to court because that drew resources away from the real problems.

 

[Sandhusker]

Well econ I know that many cattle organizations were working on getting a program up and running but the process was derailed by BSE and even more so by R-CALFs going to court because that drew resources away from the real problems.

So R-CALF drew resources from the other "many cattle" organizations? :shock: Why not just name a few of these many cattle organizations, or even ONE, and how much of their resources were sent to R-CALF's legal fund instead of going to getting a program up?

Geeeeeeeeze. :roll:

 

[mrj]

Econ, Johnnes is NOT a new disease! State government animal health departments (Animal Industry Board, comprised of producer reps and veterinarians, and headed by the state veterinarian in SD) have been working with producers for years to eradicate Johnnes Disease. There have been some successes, but it is difficult because symptoms can seem minor and it can be mistaken for other illnesses with period of time when the animal seems to do ok. I've heard it is sometimes put down as simply a "poor doing animal" rather than understood immediately as a true disease.

The veterinarians and definitely the state veterinarians and their staff and board, ARE competent professionals and animal producers without political agendas, at least in SD, and most likely in other states. We have no time, nor use for conspiracy theories and absolutely DO follow "sound science" despite the fact that you denigrate that term so often on this site.

I can't agree with you, BMR, when you say Johnnes and such diseases have been ignored since BSE. BSE definitely gets the lions share of PUBLICITY, but I don't believe money has actually been diverted from the other diseases, at least not in the state animal health budgets. And the state level is where the responsibility begins, and often remains on such disease problems.

My guess is that most producer organizations have not so much committed or spent money on such issues as they draw proper government agencies, especially the state ones because many diseases are at least somewhat localized, rather than a rapidly transmissible national problem.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, Johnnes is NOT a new disease! State government animal health departments (Animal Industry Board, comprised of producer reps and veterinarians, and headed by the state veterinarian in SD) have been working with producers for years to eradicate Johnnes Disease. There have been some successes, but it is difficult because symptoms can seem minor and it can be mistaken for other illnesses with period of time when the animal seems to do ok. I've heard it is sometimes put down as simply a "poor doing animal" rather than understood immediately as a true disease.

The veterinarians and definitely the state veterinarians and their staff and board, ARE competent professionals and animal producers without political agendas, at least in SD, and most likely in other states. We have no time, nor use for conspiracy theories and absolutely DO follow "sound science" despite the fact that you denigrate that term so often on this site.

I can't agree with you, BMR, when you say Johnnes and such diseases have been ignored since BSE. BSE definitely gets the lions share of PUBLICITY, but I don't believe money has actually been diverted from the other diseases, at least not in the state animal health budgets. And the state level is where the responsibility begins, and often remains on such disease problems.

My guess is that most producer organizations have not so much committed or spent money on such issues as they draw proper government agencies, especially the state ones because many diseases are at least somewhat localized, rather than a rapidly transmissible national problem.

MRJ

MRJ, did I ever say Johnes was a new disease?

In your attempts to critisize me you have jumped to several conclusions instead of correcting or thinking about solutions.

Bse has been mismanaged and you can not even see how or why. The only thing you can do is cheerlead. If the state vets in your area are doing a good job, then good for them. My comments are not for them. In fact, the comments on my post are more for the politicians making the decisions than the actual science involved. I am only making the point that economic incentives should be melded with sound science to produce good quality decisions. To do otherwise includes self interest that gets in the way of good decisions.

I do wish you would stop the cheerleading and listen to the points. Sometimes it is about the facts, not how you feel.

 

[nenmrancher]

Econ, as someone who does a lot of reading on this sight and little posting, I would have to say that it sure sounded like you were going to blame NCBA and USDA for everything yet again. MRJ just beat you to pointing out that most of the state vets and ag agencies would be the lead on things like this.

 

[Econ101]

Econ, as someone who does a lot of reading on this sight and little posting, I would have to say that it sure sounded like you were going to blame NCBA and USDA for everything yet again. MRJ just beat you to pointing out that most of the state vets and ag agencies would be the lead on things like this.

nenmrancher, I have posted before that I thought the NCBA can and does a lot of things correct. It is the things that they do incorrectly that need to be addressed, not those things that are done correctly.

I disagree with a very small portion of the total NCBA activities. Unfortunately the small portion has hughe implications. If the NCBA gets everything correct but these issues, they will not meet anyone's goals but the packers goals.

Hanta Yo, MRJ, and even yourself seem to want to put the NCBA as a whole and all their decisions grouped as one. When I critisize a policy, it is not a criticism of all the good ranchers and their activities, it is a criticism of those policies. The leadership that develops these policies deserve the criticism, but not many of the unkowing good hard working ranchers that belong to the organization and as Hanta Yo does, practices what they preach by promoting beef.

I would concede that my language does seem to imply otherwise at times and I thank you for bringing up the issue.

The USDA seems to be hijacked by agribusiness interests and the NCBA the packer's interests. These things need to be seperated and sorted out so that ranchers are not used by agribusiness in policy decisions that have such large affects on rancher's incomes.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Well econ I know that many cattle organizations were working on getting a program up and running but the process was derailed by BSE and even more so by R-CALFs going to court because that drew resources away from the real problems.

So R-CALF drew resources from the other "many cattle" organizations? :shock: Why not just name a few of these many cattle organizations, or even ONE, and how much of their resources were sent to R-CALF's legal fund instead of going to getting a program up?

Geeeeeeeeze. :roll:

Sandhusker, Lots of resources went to fight the R-CALF injunctions from Canadian cattle organizations. We were dealing with the Johnnes at nearly every meeting. That stopped when BSE raised it's head and we are just getting back to it as our trade is closer to normal. And YES R-CALF DID DELAY THEW OPENING OF THE BORDER

 

[Anonymous]

Canadians blaming every disease and problem on R-CALF reminds me of the Liberals blaming Bush for Katrina and all hurricanes... :wink: :roll: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Canadians blaming every disease and problem on R-CALF reminds me of the Liberals blaming Bush for Katrina and all hurricanes... :wink: :roll: :lol:

R-CALF didn't cause these other diseases but they sure took the focus off them, I wonder if R-CALF has any committees looking at the real issues affecting the cattle industry?

 

[Sandhusker]

Canadians blaming every disease and problem on R-CALF reminds me of the Liberals blaming Bush for Katrina and all hurricanes... :wink: :roll: :lol:

R-CALF didn't cause these other diseases but they sure took the focus off them, I wonder if R-CALF has any committees looking at the real issues affecting the cattle industry?

Oh, Puleeeeeeeze, BMR. We finally got one clown to leave the site alone, we don't need a stand-in.

Has the SSGA had time to review that report that exponerated the packers yet, or is that not a real issue?

 

[Econ101]

BMR has to hide in the shadow of big brother to get his ice cream.

Do you think he is going to answer that question Sandhusker?

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR has to hide in the shadow of big brother to get his ice cream.

Do you think he is going to answer that question Sandhusker?

Judging by his response the last several times that I've asked that question - no. Digging into a real issue would take away from his time needed to lob rediculous accusations at R-CALF.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR has to hide in the shadow of big brother to get his ice cream.

Do you think he is going to answer that question Sandhusker?

Judging by his response the last several times that I've asked that question - no. Digging into a real issue would take away from his time needed to lob rediculous accusations at R-CALF.

Refresh me sandhusker which report are you talking about? One that says the packers made money off of the BSE disaster payment? Gee another poorly designed government plan,it's in the past lets not make that mistake again.
Real issues are production limiting dieases, land use policies that are detrimental to ranching, Government policy and trade issues. The SSGA and most mainstream cattle organizations deal with these problems on a continual basis. We don't spend all our time haveing Roll over auctions raising money to pay lawyers to disrupt trade with our neighbours.

 

[Bro]

econ 1010 wrote:
Which one of these was handled better? What were the methods that would make one way of handling things better than another? What kind of person would you want to do business with in each of these scenarios? Can we devise economic incentives that provide for making the correct decisions when it comes to the spread of disease?

The industry has done it when it comes to bangs. Why can't we do it with bse? Why does the govt. hold all the cards and in the process "cheat" truth?

I agree with what you that the onus in on the producer, and it should be. A healthy herd is a profitable herd. The best intentioned people can develop a problem and not know it though. There is always something that may get you in the end. My point is how many herds are infected by production limiting diseases such as Johnnes, etc, and how many are affected by BSE? Which one affects the average producers bottom line the most over the long term? If your herd has Johnnes, there are certain steps you can take to erradicate the disease over time - just be changing your management a bit. With BSE, you can say you won't feed animal remains to your cows (wich most likely spreads the disease) and that is enough to protect you. But It does not explain the younger animals that get it. Maybe it depends on mineral deficiencies in the soil, or maybe it has been occuring for centuries at a rate of one in 1 million and it has not been noticed before. In other threads Ive read that BSE may be spread by sniffing cow butts. This is starting to get way out there. No one knows what they are talking about wrgs to BSE so why belabor the issue?? The average producer cannot do anything about it anyway if it is naturally occuring (besides s,s and su)

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

econ 1010 wrote:
Which one of these was handled better? What were the methods that would make one way of handling things better than another? What kind of person would you want to do business with in each of these scenarios? Can we devise economic incentives that provide for making the correct decisions when it comes to the spread of disease?

The industry has done it when it comes to bangs. Why can't we do it with bse? Why does the govt. hold all the cards and in the process "cheat" truth?

I agree with what you that the onus in on the producer, and it should be. A healthy herd is a profitable herd. The best intentioned people can develop a problem and not know it though. There is always something that may get you in the end. My point is how many herds are infected by production limiting diseases such as Johnnes, etc, and how many are affected by BSE? Which one affects the average producers bottom line the most over the long term? If your herd has Johnnes, there are certain steps you can take to erradicate the disease over time - just be changing your management a bit. With BSE, you can say you won't feed animal remains to your cows (wich most likely spreads the disease) and that is enough to protect you. But It does not explain the younger animals that get it. Maybe it depends on mineral deficiencies in the soil, or maybe it has been occuring for centuries at a rate of one in 1 million and it has not been noticed before. In other threads Ive read that BSE may be spread by sniffing cow butts. This is starting to get way out there. No one knows what they are talking about wrgs to BSE so why belabor the issue?? The average producer cannot do anything about it anyway if it is naturally occuring (besides s,s and su)

Well said Bro, Quality Starts Here programs and herd monitoring programs can and will go along way towards making producers more money .