MAD COW CONFIRMED ALABAMA

[Anonymous]

RFID tags bought in Canada with Canadian dollars at $3 or less.

I can get them from Montana Beef Program for $3- they will record birthdates and info--BUT the cost will come when the entire program goes into effect...How much will the stockyards charge for the slowdown in sale speed and the additional reader equipment-- what will the scalehouses charge after they have to add RFID readers-- how much more will it cost for a brand inspection-- how much will a vet charge when he's required to add all the RFID individual numbers on computer generated health certificates, etc. etc. etc.

The tags are the cheap part......

 

[Bill]

Johnny- Those RFID tags fall out just like the bangs ones do.....I'm not against an ID system- but brands have worked pretty well up here for over 100 years- and are permanent.....

How does a herd brand ID an animal other than to the owners herd. How does it distinquish one animal from another within that herd to allow a calf to be id'd to it's mother or even to animals born the same year or do you have enough brands to ID each animal differently?
Yes a brand is permanent which is a fault of any eartag but that's where the advantages end in the type of ID system which seems to be required in a true and credible traceout.

Your system doesn't ID a calf to it mother. So why are you worried about the brand doing it? Most serious cattle producers also brand the year on heifers they keep. That can't be lost either.

No but our system could ID a calf to its mother.

 

[Bill]

Johnny- Those RFID tags fall out just like the bangs ones do.....I'm not against an ID system- but brands have worked pretty well up here for over 100 years- and are permanent.....

How does a herd brand ID an animal other than to the owners herd. How does it distinquish one animal from another within that herd to allow a calf to be id'd to it's mother or even to animals born the same year or do you have enough brands to ID each animal differently?

Yes a brand is permanent which is a fault of any eartag but that's where the advantages end in the type of ID system which seems to be required in a true and credible traceout.

Bill- I truly think that a individual ID tag along with a hot iron brand and written records (red book) is about the most foolproof system available today...We've been doing it with our cows since 1968 when I added individual numbered tags to the brand practice...I also have records of granddads going back to the 1930's where he recorded the brands of boughten cattle and bulls before he rebranded them- and he kept all brand inspections....And all movements of these are recorded with the state on the brand inspection forms.....

Adding a RFID tag too will not be that much harder for me- but could be quite an expense to the producers as a whole....Intitial estimates were for $8-15 per cow--Pilot studies are showing that the cost could be double that...I see where Australia figures it costs $35 per head for their ID system- and it still isn't working well....

From what you had written before I was under the impression that a brand and mianifest was all that was needed. Why the change of thinking.

Cowsense poses a good question above regarding how many cattle are actually branded and how many are duplicated between states.

 

[flounder]

March 14, 2006, 8:09AM
Mad cow case arises
Alabama case could be a blow for beef exports


By DAVID IVANOVICH and JENALIA MORENO
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON - An Alabama cow has tested positive for mad cow disease, the third case of the brain-wasting disorder discovered on the nation's cattle farms in the last 2 1/2 years, the Agriculture Department said Monday.

In what could be yet another blow to beef exporters' efforts to pry open foreign markets closed to their products, USDA officials announced that a follow-up test conducted on tissue taken from an older downer cow had confirmed the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, better known as mad cow disease.

Further test results could come later this week.

Regulators said beef from the animal had not entered the food supply.

"This animal did not enter the human food or animal feed chains," USDA Chief Veterinarian John Clifford said.

The diseased animal had lived on the unidentified Alabama farm for less than a year, regulators said.

USDA officials could not immediately say exactly how old the cow was or where it was born.

Regulators are keen to know the animal's age because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration implemented new feed rules in 1997 that were designed to better avoid the spread of the disease through contaminated food.

A veterinarian who examined the cow's teeth estimated the cow's age at "upwards of 10 years," Clifford said.

The cow was buried on the farm. Regulators are looking for offspring as well as the cow's original herd-mates.

The farm, where about 40 head of cattle had been kept, has not been formally quarantined, although Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks noted: "No animals are leaving this farm until we've finished our investigation."

USDA officials reported the nation's first case of mad cow disease in December 2003, when a cow imported from Canada was found to have had the ailment. Then last June, regulators learned a Texas cow months earlier had been infected with the disease.



After the first case of mad cow was discovered, Japan and other major export markets quickly slammed the door on U.S. beef products.

Regulators responded to the crisis by launching a massive program to better screen for the disease, and more than 650,000 cattle have been tested since June 2004.

Late last year, Japan reopened its market, only to seal its borders once again when a New York processing plant shipped banned animal parts to that country.

Clifford said USDA officials "would not anticipate that this would impact our ongoing negotiations.


'Product is safe'
"Our product is safe," Clifford said. "We've got a number of interlocking safeguards, and Japan has had 20-plus cases" of the disease itself.

Edna cattleman Shane Sklar acknowledged that "it's always scary when these things happen," but said he does not expect any "knee-jerk" reactions from U.S. trading partners.

USDA officials first revealed over the weekend they had discovered a possible case of mad cow. That allowed traders to digest the news before trading resumed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on Monday.

June live cattle futures rose 0.025 cent to close at 79.125 cents a pound Monday, while May feeder cattle futures were up 0.475 cent to $1.04575 a pound.

"Based on what we saw today on the futures market, I don't think we're anticipating much of a reaction," said Burt Rutherford, a spokesman for the Amarillo-based Texas Cattle Feeders Association.

But before they can become too sanguine, cattle raisers want to know exactly where this cow came from.

"Everybody in the industry is going to be pretty anxious to know that," Rutherford said.

In Texas, the cattle business is a $5.6 billion industry.

The diseased animal was a Santa Gertrudis cow, USDA officials said.


King Ranch breed
That's a breed developed on the King Ranch in Kingsville during the early part of the 20th century to tolerate the South Texas heat and insects, Rutherford said.

The discovery of this latest case comes as regulators were preparing to ratchet back the heightened screening program.

Whether the Alabama cow will force them to reconsider those plans is unclear.

Tony Corbo, legislative representative for the Washington-based consumers group Food and Water Watch, argued that the industry would more quickly build confidence abroad if the surveillance program remains in place.

"The trading partners may insist on it," he said.

Food safety groups also questioned regulators' suggestions that the animal would have contracted the disease by eating contaminated food sometime before the feed regulations were imposed in 1997.


Loopholes and errors
"We know through all sorts of government inspections of the feed ban that there are loopholes and errors and noncompliance with that feed ban," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Washington-based Center for Food Safety.

"It's the ultimate 'don't look, don't find' policy. And the people who pay the price are consumers," Mendelson said.

Still, cattle industry officials hope diners will continue to order hamburger and steaks, just as they did after the last two mad cow cases were detected.

"I had a hamburger for lunch," said Richard Wortham, executive vice president of the Texas Beef Council. And he said he planned to eat beef again for dinner last night.

[email protected]. [email protected].

Jenalia Moreno reported from Houston.





http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3721562.html





==================================



The diseased animal was a Santa Gertrudis cow, USDA officials said.


King Ranch breed
That's a breed developed on the King Ranch in Kingsville during the early part of the 20th century to tolerate the South Texas heat and insects, Rutherford said.



===================================





i figured that damn cow might have a Texas connection. no place like home, home of the purina feed mill, where fda states its ok to feed cattle 5.5 grams of potentially tainted feed and that's safe, when we know now and knew back then that 5.5 grams is enough to kill 100+ cows. ...









TSS

 

[rkaiser]

Just how stupid do we all believe people are. Anyone who has a lick of sense can see that if one cow is found in a servailance program the tests a small percantage there must be more. AND if you beleive the BS spread on here by Terry and other about how we will die from eating these animals that slip through ------- My goodness what a mess.

 

[Econ101]

So what does this do for a USDA policy that discourages private testing for overseas sales? It puts all of the blame back on the policy makers who made this goofy policy. They "sold" this policy by scaring ranchers into believing that testing would be an added expense in the cattle business with no increase in benefits to the cattleman. The USDA took the responsibility of the bse policy when it controlled it completely. The USDA letting the cattle business down again, first in not containing the spread of bse in the U.S. and secondly by limiting free enterprise on testing. We all need to bow down to the USDA and the policy makers there; we already do.

 

[rkaiser]

Or create a legitimate lawsuit for once.

 

[don]

did usda say how they determined the cow was ten years old or was that just a number that needed to be used? if this traceback turns into another incredible fiasco exports to japan will be a distant memory for years to come.

 

[Econ101]

did usda say how they determined the cow was ten years old or was that just a number that needed to be used? if this traceback turns into another incredible fiasco exports to japan will be a distant memory for years to come.

By reading the teeth.

 

[Mike]

did usda say how they determined the cow was ten years old or was that just a number that needed to be used? if this traceback turns into another incredible fiasco exports to japan will be a distant memory for years to come.

The vet that took the sample said she looked at least 10 years old by dentition.

 

[Econ101]

Or create a legitimate lawsuit for once.

This is the reason they need to follow JoAnn Waterfield and make her talk and tell all. JoAnn's position reports directly to Johanns, and congressional oversight committees.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Johnny- Those RFID tags fall out just like the bangs ones do.....I'm not against an ID system- but brands have worked pretty well up here for over 100 years- and are permanent.....

How does a herd brand ID an animal other than to the owners herd. How does it distinquish one animal from another within that herd to allow a calf to be id'd to it's mother or even to animals born the same year or do you have enough brands to ID each animal differently?

Yes a brand is permanent which is a fault of any eartag but that's where the advantages end in the type of ID system which seems to be required in a true and credible traceout.

Bill- I truly think that a individual ID tag along with a hot iron brand and written records (red book) is about the most foolproof system available today...We've been doing it with our cows since 1968 when I added individual numbered tags to the brand practice...I also have records of granddads going back to the 1930's where he recorded the brands of boughten cattle and bulls before he rebranded them- and he kept all brand inspections....And all movements of these are recorded with the state on the brand inspection forms.....

Adding a RFID tag too will not be that much harder for me- but could be quite an expense to the producers as a whole....Intitial estimates were for $8-15 per cow--Pilot studies are showing that the cost could be double that...I see where Australia figures it costs $35 per head for their ID system- and it still isn't working well....

Guess I should be in the tag business... We can buy all we want for $3.00 or less CDN $ per tag. OT your out to lunch when you noted the price on those tags.

Here is a question I pose that I would like answered:

Lets say Oldtimer raises a hiefer, he brands her. She is then sold through the stockyards. Haymaker buys her, then he breeds her then sells her through the stockyards to Lilly as a bred cow. She has her for 2 years then sells her again through a stockyard. This hiefer could trade 50 times in her lifetime through the stockyards or privately. How could she be traced back through her travels by her brand?

 

[flounder]

Subject: Transcript of Tele-News Conference regarding The inconclusive BSE Rapid Test Result With Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. John Clifford, March 13, 2006
Date: March 14, 2006 at 10:31 am PST

Transcript

Release No. 0084.06
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720-4623


Transcript of Tele-News Conference regarding The inconclusive BSE Rapid Test Result With Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. John Clifford, March 13, 2006
MR. JIM ROGERS: Hi, everybody. This is Jim Rogers with the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Legislative and Public Affairs Office. I appreciate you all calling in today. We have here the USDA chief veterinarian, Dr. John Clifford. He is also known as the deputy administrator for the Veterinary Services Program under APHIS. And at this time I will turn the call over to him.

DR. CLIFFORD: Thanks, Jim. Thanks, everybody for joining us this afternoon. We received a positive result on a Western blot confirmatory test conducted at our USDA laboratories in Ames, Iowa, on samples from an animal that had tested inconclusive on a rapid screening test performed on Friday, March 10.

The samples were taken of a nonambulatory animal on a farm in Alabama. A local private veterinarian euthanized and sampled the animal and sent the samples for further testing, which was conducted at one of our contract diagnostic laboratories at the University of Georgia.

The animal was buried on the farm and did not enter the animal or human food chains. We are now working with Alabama Animal Health officials to conduct an epidemiological investigation to gather any further information we can on the herd of origin of this animal.

The animal had only resided on the most recent farm in Alabama for less than a year. We will be working to locate animals from this cow's first cohort and any offspring. We will also work with Food and Drug Administration officials to determine any feed history that may be relevant to the investigation.

Experience worldwide has shown us that it's highly unusual to find BSE in more than one animal in a herd or in affected animal's offspring. Nevertheless, all animals of interest will be tested for BSE.

Under USDA's testing protocols, surveillance samples are sent to contract laboratories for screening tests. If the sample is found to be inconclusive on a screening test, it is then shipped to our National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for an additional rapid test and two confirmatory tests-- the immunohistochemistry test which is conducted by APHIS scientists, and the Western blot test which is conducted by scientists with USDA's Agricultural Research Service.

USDA considers an animal positive if either of these two confirmatory tests returns a positive result. In this instance the inconclusive result from the contract lab in Georgia was confirmed through a second rapid test at NVSL. Now the Western blot test has returned a positive result, and that is sufficient for us to confirm this animal to be positive for BSE, which is why we are making the announcement today.

The IHC tests are still pending, and we will release those results as soon as they are available, which we expect to be later this week.

I want to emphasize that human and animal health in the United States are protected by a system of interlocking safeguards and we remain very confident in the safety of U.S. beef.

Again, this animal did not enter the human food or animal feed chains while epidemiological work to determine the animal's precise age is just getting underway and is ongoing, the attending veterinarian has indicated that based on dentition it was an older animal, quite possibly upwards of 10 years of age.

This would indicate that this animal would have been born prior to the implementation of the Food and Drug Administration's 1997 feed ban.

Older animals are more likely to have been exposed to contaminated feed circulating before FDA's '97 ban on ruminant-to-ruminant feed practices which scientific research has indicated is the most likely route for BSE transmission.

By any measure the incidence of BSE in this country is extremely low. Our enhanced surveillance program was designed as a one-time snapshot to provide information about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. Since June 2004 all sectors of the cattle industry have cooperated in this program by submitting samples from more than 640,000 animals from the highest risk populations and more than 20,000 from clinically normal older animals as part of our enhanced BSE surveillance program.

To date, including the animal in today's announcement, only two of these highest risk animals have tested positive for the disease, as part of our enhanced surveillance program.

As we approach the conclusion of our enhanced surveillance program, let me offer a few thoughts regarding surveillance going forward. I can assure you that we will continue to base our maintenance surveillance testing on international guidelines. Though the nature and extent of maintenance surveillance has not yet been finalized, the incidence of BSE in this country remains extremely low and our interlocking safeguards are working to protect both human and animal health, and we remain very confident in the safety of U.S. beef.

As we move forward with the epidemiological investigation that's been initiated today in this case of BSE, we will continue to be very transparent in sharing information with the public and with our trading partners around the world.

With that, I'm happy to take any questions that you may have.

OPERATOR: At this time we are ready to begin the question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touch-tone phone. You will be announced prior to asking your question and to withdraw your question you will press *2.

Our first question comes from Beth Grohem (sp). Your line is open.

REPORTER: Yes. Hi, there. I'm with the Canadian Press. Thanks for taking my question. You said you were investigating the herd of origin. I'm wondering if there's any idea yet whether the animal was born in Canada or the United States.

DR. CLIFFORD: Thank you for the question. At this time we don't, we'd not be able to indicate whether it's of U.S. origin or Canadian origin. As I'd indicated, the animal was really at this particular location for less than a year, and it will require us to complete our investigation before we can determine the actual farm of origin or birth origin.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Catherine Hunter, your line is open.

REPORTER: Hi, there. I was wondering if you could tell me how you expect this result to impact your ongoing negotiations to open up the Japanese import beef market.

DR. CLIFFORD: We would not anticipate that this would impact our ongoing negotiations. As I'd indicated our product is safe, we've got a number of interlocking safeguards, and Japan themselves has had 20-plus cases of BSE. And we believe their product is safe with regards to the safeguards they've in place in that country. We have a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban to protect animal health in this country as well.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Peter Shinn, your line's open.

REPORTER: Yes, thank you. Peter Shinn with the National Association of Farm Broadcasting. My question is simply, at what point do you think that you will know more relative to specifics about this animal's life? Do you have any kind of timeline?

DR CLIFFORD: We'll work as quickly as we can. I really can't give you a specific timeline, but I can tell you that we're very transparent with our information, and as soon as we have the completion of that and more information we can share we will certainly do that.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Philip Brasher, your line's open.

REPORTER: Yes. Can you say anything about the breed of this animal? Do you have any idea how many farms it was on? And what's the state of the record keeping associated with this animal?

DR. CLIFFORD: I missed the second part of that, that the breed itself -- it's a beef breed. It's actually a Santa Gertrubis, has been identified. As far as the record keeping, I can't really speak to any of the record keeping at this point in time other than the fact that we know this animal was at this location for less than a year.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Pete Heisey, your line's open.

REPORTER: Hi. How about the effect on trade with South Korea? They've announced since this turned positive that they were likely to suspend their reopening, which is scheduled for a month from now.

DR. CLIFFORD: Again we would hope this wouldn't affect any trade. We have a number of safeguards based upon the estimation of age and based on dentition from the private veterinarian this animal should have been born before the feed ban went into place, and we have effective safeguards in the U.S. in the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban as well as SRM removal.

So we would not anticipate that it would affect trade and as well, we would request other countries and our trading partners as well as ourselves to move to the international standards and OIE guidelines that are based upon safe trade in commodities.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Jeff Wilson, your line's open.

REPORTER: Yes. I'd like to know whether or not it's standard practice to bury any of these dead animals on the farm at all times or are they supposed to be incinerated, or is there some other means of disposal?

DR. CLIFFORD: Actually with regards to disposal methods, there are several different possibilities and options. But with regards to burying on-farm, I think that's probably specific to state issue and possibly EPA guidelines as well with regards to particular states. So I couldn't speak to the state itself.

But with regards to disposal methods we use for animals, we would use incineration, burial in lime type of burial sites as well as alkaline tissue digestion. So there's more than one method that would be available.

MR. ROGERS: Before we go to the next question, Operator, I'd like to ask everybody please state your organization that you represent before asking your question. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Chris Clayton, your line's open.

REPORTER: Hi. I'm with DTN in Omaha, Nebraska. I wanted to just clarify the animal had died on the farm, and that was this animal already had been buried or was in the process of being buried? And have you quarantined the farm that it was on? And what kind of herd was that, how big size, that sort of thing?

DR. CLIFFORD: This particular animal, as I'd indicated, was at this farm for less than a year. Obviously they did not get, would not have been born on that farm; so therefore would not likely to have other animals of interest. So therefore it's not necessary to quarantine the farm. But whether or not it is quarantined or not I'd have to check with state officials to see if they have put a quarantine in place.

With regard to the status of the animal itself, the animal was nonambulatory. I believe the animal was treated by the veterinarian initially and the veterinarian returned on the following day and actually euthanized the animal and took the sample.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Daniel Goldstein, your line's open.

REPORTER: Yeah, hi, Dr. Clifford. Dan Goldstein with Bloomberg. You said that this animal is going to go through the IHC test or the brain tissue's going to go through the IHC test. Are there any plans to send the brain tissue to Weybridge, England, for a second confirmatory IHC test?

DR. CLIFFORD: No, there's not. We don't feel that would be necessary, and as I've indicated we use both now-- the Western blot as well as the IHC. And either one of those findings to be positive, we consider that to be a positive result. So we don't feel the need in sending the sample to Weybridge.

MR. ROGERS: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Elizabeth Weiss with USA Today. Your line's open.

REPORTER: Hey. It's Beth Weiss with USA Today. So a 10-year-old. Can you spell the name of that breed, or at least say it slowly?

DR. CLIFFORD: Santa Gertrubis. I may have get the exact spelling. It's been awhile since I've spelled it. I think it's, the first name's Santa, which is S-A-N-T-A. And the last one is G-E-R-T-R-U-B-I-S.

MR. ROGERS: All right. Spelling questions. I guess that means we're going to probably wrap it up in about two more questions, Operator. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Wyatt Andrews with CBS News. Your line's open.

REPORTER: Thanks. It's Wyatt Andrews from CBS. Doctor, could you go in a little deeper about how you were going to look for the offspring of this cow? I mean obviously it's a cow; she's 10 years old. She clearly must have had quite a bit of offspring. First of all, do you have the records to track all the young calves that this cow had over her lifespan, number one? And number two, would those cows be presumptively contagious, and how do you look for BSE in them?

DR. CLIFFORD: Let me start by talking about records. Basically we'll have to do an epi investigation as I indicated. This particular cow was on this farm for less than a year, so therefore we will have to do an epi investigation, which will require us to try to trace her back to her farm of origin.

Once we've determined the farm of origin and then through that we would determine what other locations she may have been as well. We would determine through that then if we're able to determine that we will determine animals of interest. We would go back to the farm of origin and talk to that particular owner about what records they have or may have relative to time of birth and her first year of life on that farm.

The offspring issue, let me point out while we would still trace her two last offspring if we're able to identify those animals, it's very highly unlikely and extremely rare that either of those animals would even have the potential of having BSE while it is part currently of the OIE code, there's little science that supports that that disease is transmitted from the dam to the offspring while in the womb. So basically there's very little -- or we'll have to complete our epi investigation before we can give you more details relative to that.

MR. ROGERS: Last and final question, please, Operator?

OPERATOR: Elizabeth Lee with Atlanta Journal Constitution, your line's open.

REPORTER: Hi. It's Elizabeth Lee with the Atlanta Journal Constitution. I wanted to ask about the conclusion of the expanded surveillance program, if you could talk a little bit about when that is supposed to end and what the proposals are, how many fewer animals might be tested going forward?

DR. CLIFFORD: I think, we indicated in our statement that I'd given earlier you know as we talk about the conclusion of our enhanced surveillance program I wanted to reiterate and state that program was to take a snapshot in time to give us an estimate of prevalence.

Having said that, we will be continuing to do a level of surveillance for a long period of time within the U.S. So we will make sure that those standards meet international standards. We'll be working with scientists and others and having input in that, but at this point in time the nature and extent of that surveillance program has not yet been finalized. And when we do that we'll certainly share that publicly.

MR. ROGERS: I'd like to thank everybody very much for attending the call today. Just a few points of clarification. There's been some confusion out there about the number of inconclusives that have been found under the enhanced surveillance program. That number is four.

All of that testing data is available on our website at WWW.APHIS.USDA.GOV.

There's a picture of a cow down at the bottom, click on that and it will tell you everything you need to know.

And before we go, Dr. Clifford has one final statement.

DR. CLIFFORD: I also want to clarify for you there may be some confusion relative to the number of cases found within the U.S. for BSE. The Washington state cow, which was a Canadian origin animal, was actually found prior to our enhanced surveillance effort. So that's why when we talk about two cases, that's during the enhanced surveillance program.

MR. ROGERS: Then I guess just because I always have to have the last word, the testing numbers are now over 650,000, the new numbers are posted today.

Thank you everybody. There will be a transcript posted on our website as soon as we can make one available. This concludes our call.


Last Modified 3/14/2006



http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/2/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2006%2F03%2F0084.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT#7_2_5JM



WONDER if it was typical BSE or atypical BSE/BASE/TSE ??? were is the pathology, or is burying them on the farm and no weybridge going to be the norm now?

must give them credit for confirming the cow though, i am still in shock over that. ...TSS


[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary


Page 1 of 17

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM

To: [email protected].

Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements

for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Greetings FSIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and

Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;

snip...FULL TEXT ;




http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf





TSS

 

[Anonymous]

MR-- Read before you speak...The post following the one you quoted explains that the RFID tags will cost me $3- which also allows me to record birthdates in the computer ......But the additional costs will come later in the program if it goes ahead as proposed...There is an unknown cost to implement it......

As far as your brand scenerio- I have seen cows with 20-30 brands on them....Local office used to have a picture of one- and for the hell of it the inspectors traced the old cow back to where she was born.... Many times it is quite easy to determine the first brand that was put on as a calf....

You have the same problem with tags in Canada since you are not doing individual ownership data base changes....Right now all the CCIA tag tells anyone is who was the last person to stick one in it.....

 

[Econ101]

A local private veterinarian euthanized and sampled the animal and sent the samples for further testing, which was conducted at one of our contract diagnostic laboratories at the University of Georgia.


Tell me again why Creekstone couldn't get testing if the USDA allows veternerians to send samples to contract diagnostic labratories in Georgia? How many diagnostic labratories do they have now and how many tests does each one perform?

 

[flounder]

Subject: TRANSCRIPT FROM ALABAMA AI COMMISSIONER RON SPARKS ON BSE (a must see)
Date: March 14, 2006 at 11:39 am PST
March 13, 2006 - Second BSE Results Show Positive, Cow on Alabama Farm
MONTGOMERY – Agriculture & Industries Commissioner Ron Sparks has confirmed that a second test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is positive. The cow was a downed animal and did not enter the human or animal food supply. The samples were taken from a cow that was on an Alabama farm within the last year.


http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases



March 13, 2006 - Second BSE Results Show Positive, Cow on Alabama Farm

Videos from yesterdays BSE news conference:
WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS LOAD OF
BSeee, BEEF IS SAFE PR at it's finest.
NO more animals are at risk on this farm?
COW was 10 years old, and in Alabama for
less than a year? was it ever in TEXAS and
did it feed from TEXAS? mama cow. only
transmitted through spinal cord and brain,
firewalls in place and working. cannot be passed
on to other cattle, and be very clear, IS NOT IN
MUSCLE. NO COWS EATING THIS PARTICULAR
TYPE FOOD. she was a DOWNER. it is not a
contagious disease, no way any of the other animals
can contact this disease. absolutely as safe today
as it is tomorrow. nvCJD bull sh!t, and cjd in the
USA is different. safe, safe, safe, safe, safe i bet this
guy says it 20 times. lets compliment the cattleman,
this guy, that guy, enhanced surveillance is working
all the time (he does not have a clue), call in, more
pats on the back. (this is the biggest hoot i have heard
in a while, you must listen, safe, safe, safe). we been
talking about bse in Alabama for a few years, and i have to
be honest, i feel good about finding it, firewalls in place.
not under quarantine, but no animals will go or come for now.
not contagious. muscle tissue is safe again. cow is not
shedding any organism that is dangerous to other cows.
somebody in background whispering answers to commissioner
sparks. Alabama food supply is safe. safe safe safe. animals
cannot eat materials that they ate in 1997.............huh?????
again, safe, safe, safe. (holy mad cow, these folks are oblivious)
Canada has same feed ban, safe, safe, safe (commissioner is
more whispers and answers, he is oblivious). we will possibly
give the location of the farm later. for the security of the farmer, we
will not release that information now. consumers by 93% in food supply,
they vote with there pocket book (it's time the consumer showed
them finally just what that is all about, show them we demand safer
beef, TEST ALL CATTLE...TSS). another person speaking about the
firewalls, and no risk to human health. random testing, why would i
test you for flu, if bse is not contagious. clear message. transmission
of cow to cow is not possible. speaker confuses himself on program
and has to get someone else, he is not sure either, but insists brain
and spinal is not going into feed chain. there is a testing for normal
animals, we tested 20,000. (WHOOPY...tss)



Windows Media Player:



http://video1.adph.state.al.us/alphtn/newscasts/agnewscast.wmv.asx


Real Player:



http://video1.adph.state.al.us/alphtn/newscasts/agnewscast.ram





"I was very concerned to find out that the samples that tested positive for BSE were from a cow in Alabama, but this is exactly the reason that we emphasis the importance of BSE surveillance," said Sparks. "The cow was tested as part of the enhanced BSE surveillance program that has been in place in Alabama," said Sparks. "Even cows brought in from other states get tested for BSE before they would have a chance to be sold as food. I cannot stress enough how important this testing is to protect consumers. Also, having the Premises ID program in place in Alabama means we are able to trace the origin of a diseased animal. The cattle producers of Alabama understand the need for these precautions as well and we will continue to work together closely to protect consumers."

The cow had been purchased by an Alabama producer and was examined and treated by a local veterinarian. After failing to respond to medication, the cow was humanely euthanized by the veterinarian and a routine sample was collected to test for BSE. Following an inconclusive test result from a rapid BSE test, the samples were tested at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, . The Western blot test produced a positive result. A third test, the immunohistochemistry test, is in progress and will be completed later this week. BSE is not a contagious disease that spreads animal to animal, or animal to human. BSE spreads in cattle through feed containing meat and bone meal derived from BSE infected cattle. The United States banned the use of such protein supplements in cattle feed since 1997. Commissioner Sparks stresses that beef consumption in this country is safe and there are measures in place to see that they continue. For example, downer animals are not allowed to enter commerce for human consumption and there is a ban on feeding ruminant derived protein to cattle.


http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases/second-bse-results-show-positive-cow-on-alabama-farm?pn=2


TSS


Link: Windows Media Player: ALABAMA BSeee

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

MR-- Read before you speak...The post following the one you quoted explains that the RFID tags will cost me $3- which also allows me to record birthdates in the computer ......But the additional costs will come later in the program if it goes ahead as proposed...There is an unknown cost to implement it......

As far as your brand scenerio- I have seen cows with 20-30 brands on them....Local office used to have a picture of one- and for the hell of it the inspectors traced the old cow back to where she was born.... Many times it is quite easy to determine the first brand that was put on as a calf....

You have the same problem with tags in Canada since you are not doing individual ownership data base changes....Right now all the CCIA tag tells anyone is who was the last person to stick one in it.....

OT - are you saying that everyone in the US that buys livestock uses a "brand"? If not, then how do you trace an animal back to those who were in possesion of that animal in between each owner who branded? I can't see how that would be a considered a reliable way to track animals. I keep records of all of my animals CCIA tag numbers along with the description, any previous brands etc. This happens for each animal that arrives and leaves my farm. I believe it's called organization and lots of people just arn't organized.

 

[Silver]

The CCIA tag is supposed to be from the place of origin. My problem is tag retention, there seems to be some serious issues there. As far a $3 being only the beginning, well that hasn't proven to be the case here yet. At least it hasn't turned into a runaway yet anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

MR-- Read before you speak...The post following the one you quoted explains that the RFID tags will cost me $3- which also allows me to record birthdates in the computer ......But the additional costs will come later in the program if it goes ahead as proposed...There is an unknown cost to implement it......

As far as your brand scenerio- I have seen cows with 20-30 brands on them....Local office used to have a picture of one- and for the hell of it the inspectors traced the old cow back to where she was born.... Many times it is quite easy to determine the first brand that was put on as a calf....

You have the same problem with tags in Canada since you are not doing individual ownership data base changes....Right now all the CCIA tag tells anyone is who was the last person to stick one in it.....

OT - are you saying that everyone in the US that buys livestock uses a "brand"? If not, then how do you trace an animal back to those who were in possesion of that animal in between each owner who branded? I can't see how that would be a considered a reliable way to track animals. I keep records of all of my animals CCIA tag numbers along with the description, any previous brands etc. This happens for each animal that arrives and leaves my farm. I believe it's called organization and lots of people just arn't organized.

Not everyone brands- but probably close to 99% of the cattle in Montana are branded and rebranded on ownership changes- many do it right in the yards before they haul them out-- cattle going into the local feedlots are rebranded as they come off the truck -- with a record of the ownership change kept in the state files....And a good many have used eartags and redbooks for years...

Tell me this-- Hypothetical-- You take 200 calves to the salebarn- unbranded- but with a CCIA tag in it....They get split- heifers and steers- steers sell in 2 sorts to different buyers with 3 peanut calves being cut back and selling individually to 3 other buyers...Then the heifers sell in 3 sorts- top sort of 20 going to someone who wants them as replacement heifers....First question- Do you know where each individual calf went? Does the CCIA record the individual numbers on each sale?

Then those 20 heifers get throwed in a pen with 180 more replacement heifers that fellow bought from 3 different owners that day - all unbranded....When he gets them home over the next year 5% of those lose their tag the first year- Now he has 10 he has no idea where they come from- over the next 3 years he has 30 (5% loss) more lose their tags-- Now out of the original 200- there is 40 that he has no idea where they came from.....So if he sells out tommorrow- Out of his 200 head herd there are 40 unknowns....

That is the reason I believe a tag alone won't work worth a hoot.....At least with the hot iron brand you have something permanent to go back to....I know from experience as I've bought heifers in the past- and they have lost their tags- and without the brand they all look alike- black....

 

[flounder]

STATEMENT BY THE HONOURABLE CHUCK STRAHL, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
Ottawa, March 14, 2006 -Based on information provided by officials from the United States Department of Agriculture, yesterday's confirmation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) does not indicate an increased risk associated with American beef and live cattle.

Since the first North American case was confirmed in 2003, Canadian and American experts have maintained that we are dealing with a low level of the disease and a small number of additional cases could be detected. The safeguards implemented by both countries are built on this understanding. Most important from a human health perspective, Canada and the United States require the removal of potentially harmful tissues, known as specified risk material, from all cattle slaughtered for human consumption.

This case, and others that may be found in the future, do not indicate that BSE in this part of the world is worsening. Rather, they are a reflection of government, industry and individual producer's commitment, on both sides of the border, to responsibly manage the disease.

I have asked Canadian officials to remain in close contact with their American counterparts to track the progress and findings of the United States' investigation. We have offered our help and are prepared to provide any assistance that may be required. Although the origin of the animal remains unconfirmed, to date we have received no requests to conduct any tracing of Canadian animals.

Canada and the United States have benefited from a close, productive relationship throughout the ongoing management of BSE. I look forward to continuing this collaborative approach.

- 30 -

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Media relations
(613) 228-6682



http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/20060314e.shtml



TSS