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

HOW MANY ENTERED THE CANADIAN FOOD SUPPLY?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency concludes its investigation into the January 11 BSE case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All cattle tested in an investigation into the January 11, bovine spongiform encephalopathy case in Canada were found negative.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency concluded its investigation into the latest case of BSE last week. CFIA’s investigation found that 349 animals comprised the birth cohort, which includes cattle born on the farm of origin within 12 months before and 12 months after the affected animal. Of this group, the 41 animals found alive were killed and tested negative for BSE. Most of the other animals from the birth cohort had previously died or been slaughtered.

The investigation also identified the affected animal’s two most recently born offspring. One calf, born in 2003, had been slaughtered and the other, born in 2004 and too young to be tested for BSE, was destroyed.

Canada’s feed ban was introduced in 1997 as a proactive precaution. At that time, it is likely that the feed ban was not immediately adopted uniformly across the feed industry. Prohibited materials would have been purged from the ruminant feed system as Canadian renderers, feed manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and livestock producers developed, implemented, and refined new operating processes.

Similar experiences have been observed in all countries with BSE that have implemented feed controls. Based on this understanding, the detection of an affected animal born after the feed ban was not unexpected.

The feed component of the investigation determined that BSE may have been transmitted to the affected animal through feed produced shortly after the feed ban was introduced. However, exact production dates for the feeds under investigation are unavailable. Surveillance findings, inspection reports, international risk assessments and previous investigations indicate that the ban has successfully limited the spread of BSE over time, the CFIA said.

Nonetheless, the Agency is committed to continuously improving Canada’s BSE safeguards. Canadian officials are currently conducting a review to gain a detailed, current snapshot of how the feed ban is working. Concurrently, proposed enhancements to the feed ban are moving through the regulatory process, the comment period for which closes on 24 February. These changes require the removal of specified risk material from all animal feeds. SRM are tissues that, in affected cattle, contain the BSE agent, according to the CFIA

This action will minimize the risks associated with any potential cross contamination or on-farm misuse, thereby increasing the speed with which BSE would be eradicated from the national cattle herd..

The CFIA added that the feed ban is an animal health measure, intended to limit the spread of BSE and eradicate the disease over time. Food safety continues to be protected by the removal of SRM from all cattle slaughtered for human consumption. This measure is internationally recognized as the most effective way to protect the safety of the human food supply from BSE.


Web posted: February 14, 2005
Category: Food Safety,Legislation and Regulation,Trade
Domenick Castaldo, Ph.D.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Anything that has shown any symptoms of illness is always tested and goes for rendering, unlike you guys with your Texas cow where the testing was avoided or the Washington cow where they put it in the food chain anyway even though it was sick. The USDA testing is kinda like a steer breeding a cow. They go through the motions, but they're not getting the job done. Good Luck.
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central Sd
Sash:
You guys from Canada want our compassion, yet you will try to do anything to bring us to a lower level than you see yourselves. That Texas cow is always brought up, if it had not been for the medias search for sensationalism it would have never even been mentioned.
remeber your January 2003 cow. It was condemed for food because it had phenomia, probably detected because it had a fever. It was sent to rendering without any questioning. four months later it was discovered it had BSE. Our Washington cow was a downer, at least it refused to get up when it was inspected, from all indications it became that way from calving difficulties. It must not have showed a temperature so was premited to go into food. This was a very serious slip up and should not have happened either.

I for one, do not believe we have BSE in the US. The Washington cow was born in Canada and spent most of her life there. She was born in 1996 and was imported to the US in 2001.

I do not question the saftey of Canadian beef or Canadian cattle under 30 months of age, nor do I question the Canadian feed ban. But until more things are cleared up, I will support anything that might keep BSE from the US cow herd.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
I for one, do not believe we have BSE in the US.

I think you're living in a dreamworld. From what I've heard approximately 1 animal in a million will develop BSE spontaneously. The fact that you've never found any in a cattle herd your size would concern me alot if I was an American consumer.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Bit of a correction there Sash, cattle aren't rendered here any more. The trucks that used to haul them to the renderers haul them to landfill now, at least in Manitoba. Anyone here from other provinces will probably say the same thing.

The birth cohorts of the cow in question were all very likely slaughtered before they reached 30 months of age. This was a purebred breeder involved, and anything he may have sold for breeding was probably very well documented, and those would likely be the ones that are still around to be tested.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Yup Kato you are correct and they are tested for BSE if they have died on farm. Is there a charge for it now? There was here a little while ago but I heard Wowchuck say they were going to pay topick them up again so they could exceeed the testing numbers. I think these so called R-calf members are runnning out of lies so now they are digging the bottom of the barrel to come up with garbage like this! :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Clarence said:
Our Washington cow was a downer, at least it refused to get up when it was inspected, from all indications it became that way from calving difficulties. It must not have showed a temperature so was premited to go into food. This was a very serious slip up and should not have happened either. .


Clarence If the Washington Cow was a downer, why then did Tom Ellestad owner of the Washington Plant and his employees from day one make strenuous efforts to make sure that the USDA officials and the public knew that the cow wasn't a downer or a cow that couldn't walk. That plant had a policy in place not to accept downers and the USDA knew about that policy when they signed a contract with him for 1000 cow brains for testing?
On Feb. 23 two months after the fact, Ron DeHaven made a statement after the evidence was out and they could no longer deny it that

" Well' we're basing our statement that the animal was a downer on the fact that there are records from Food Safety Inspection Service veterinarian who examined this animal before slaughter. He examined her in a recumbent position on the trailer that brought her to the livestock market. Having said that, there is nothing saying that an animal that is down cannot get up. So in fact both accounts could potentially be true."

So Clarence do you consider every animal that is laying down resting on your place a downer? Downers are animals that can not rise and walk and she walked into that plant on her own power or Tom Ellestad would not of accepted her in the plant because of plant policy.
 

SMS

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta
Here in alberta they are supposed to pay use $225 for the any cows that are 4D. The goverment also pays for the vet to come out to take samples. We had one cow tested, she was negitive, but still waiting for the $225, but its goverment so i will be patient.
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central Sd
Tam:
If what you state is correct, and I have no way to doubt it, then maybe that explains why the Wasington cow got into the food chain. I don't know if it really matters if she was a downer or not, from what you said she must have appeared healthy to the vet that inspected her. Was the Jan. 2003 Alberta cow a downer? She was without any question sick. No one suspected her to have BSE, that is quite obvious. BSE cows are not to be rendered either. Both the US and Canada have made mistakes in the handling of these cows, but what is done is done. What we neeed to do now is to keep these sort of things from happening.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
As far as the first cow it was May 2003 not Jan and she was condemned and found not fit for human consumption Canada also learned from that misstake as now any animal that is tested has to be held until the results of the test are back. Even if the animal is on a farm you have safe guard the animal remains until the CFIA notifies you of the test results.
The mistake that Canada made with the Alberta cow was they allowed her to be rendered. Canada also investigated the feed and where it was possible that a cow did eat some of the feed made from her the cattle were taken disposed of and tested so that is the end of the problem. The mistake the US made was she was allowed into the food chain and the recall of the meat was not 100% effective so some consumers could have eaten her. The science says that you would have to eat a pretty fair amount of infected meat to be in any danger but she was eaten by humans not cattle that you can destroy and test.. They is a big different here and if I was to worry about one of these cows and what happen to her the records show that Canada handled the problem but the USDA tried to cover it up. The problem is what else is the US covering up if they are not willing to test the 4D's as recommended to them by the OIE.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Tam, the May 2003 cow was rendered, but not into ruminant feed.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,984
Reaction score
83
Location
Big Muddy valley
Murgen said:
Tam, the May 2003 cow was rendered, but not into ruminant feed.

Murgen that's right but even if a cow could have eaten the dog food or Hog feed they were put down and tested. But you are right she was not rendered into ruminant feed.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
I think they should take all of that stuff out of all feed. Ive seen a few studies where theyve turned the byproduct from slaughter into fertilizer. Not sure how well it works but its an idea. Just keep the damn stuff out of feeds that cattle COULD eat! I dont care what the US thinks! :!:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,984
Reaction score
83
Location
Big Muddy valley
Manitoba_Rancher said:
I think they should take all of that stuff out of all feed. Ive seen a few studies where theyve turned the byproduct from slaughter into fertilizer. Not sure how well it works but its an idea. Just keep the damn stuff out of feeds that cattle COULD eat! I dont care what the US thinks! :!:

They are talking about not allowing it for fertilizer as it could contaminate pasture or feed.. May need to develop some way of burning to produce electicity. it's a catch 22. it will cost us more then the way the US does it but may open other markets to our beef. Who knows. :cowboy:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Some of the new plants that are in the works have plans to heat the building with the SRM materials, do they not?
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
clarence..Our Washington cow was a downer, at least it refused to get up when it was inspected, from all indications it became that way from calving difficulties. It must not have showed a temperature so was premited to go into food.

Let me see if i got this right. You tested a cow for b.s.e and you released her meat into the food chain...before you got the test results back. :roll:
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central Sd
Tam are you trying to sweap something under the rug?

That Alberts cow was condemed and sent to rendering in January of 2003. Her head was kept on the shelf until May then it was determined she was infected with BSE. Why even test if all of her remains have been distributed around already for four months.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I corrected you on the date as I didn't want anyone to believe we had a case in Jan then another in May if you look her up she is referred to as the May 20th 2003 case.

We tested her because she had been comdemned. I don't know why, other back log and they didn't think it was an emergency to test right away, it took so long to get the test done. With the feed bans in place she wasn't going to be made into ruminant feed. They did investigate and most of the feed went to places that had no cattle around but in three cases some of the feed went to place where cattle also lived and in those cases, if there was a change that they may have gotten into feed that was not intended for them, the cattle were taken and disposed of and tested. As I see it Canada is doing a good job of looking under the rug to see what is there that could come back to hurt us in the future.
What was the USDA sweeping under the rug where they tried to make everyone believe the Washington cow was a downer and that all downers are tested for BSE? When they knew that the plant had a policy not to accept downers. Maybe you could explain to me why the US is still randomly testing non-downer slaughter plant animals instead of the downer catagory that was recommended? What are you sweeping under the rug by not turning over your dead and dieing animals off farm for testing?
 

Latest posts

Top