Older cows won't be crossing border this year

[Manitoba_Rancher]

OT, Your just looking to get a war of the words going again, I can tell it must be raining there as your picking on us canadians again..... :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

OT, Your just looking to get a war of the words going again, I can tell it must be raining there as your picking on us canadians again..... :roll:

It is --- It quit for about an hour and then the wind started howling and big old raindrops started falling again... Looks like it may be headed your way...... Good morning to pick on Canadians and get a little paperwork done.... :wink:

 

[Bill]

Bill, do you realize that the "Minimal Risk" classification the US created in order to try to justify reopening the border with you guys does not mirror the OIE? In fact, when the US approached the OIE to get their blessings on the plan, they were denied.

Econ is right, you are using examples when it fits your best interests. If you're going to hoist the OIE as the final word on policy, be consistant.

The minimal risk clalss the US created? You might be able to slide that by your fellow R-Bull-eeeevers but how do you explain the OIE encouraging the US to reopen it's borders to Canada?

Take a good read below Sandhusker and tell us how the US "created" the minimal risk classification against the OIE's wishes.

Canada: a minimal BSE risk country
(Executive summary)
Full Report | Spanish version

December 2003

Although BSE has been detected in an indigenous cow (May 20, 2003), there are a number of compelling reasons to conclude that the incidence of BSE in Canada is equivalent to that of a minimal risk country as defined by the OIE's Terrestrial Animal Health Code. The evidence supporting this conclusion is detailed in a Government of Canada statement, "Canada: a minimal BSE risk country". This statement compares the OIE criteria for a minimal risk country with the extensive risk mitigation measures that have been implemented in Canada for BSE over the last two decades and the response to the detection of BSE. In addition, considering that there are approximately 5.5 million adult cattle in Canada and that only one case of BSE has been detected in the last 12-month period, the incidence of BSE cases in Canada remains below one in a million. Accordingly, the appropriate sanitary measures for Canadian animals and products of animal origin are those contained in the OIE Code for a minimal BSE risk country.

The evidence supporting Canada as a minimal BSE risk country
Canada is able to demonstrate that it fulfills the OIE Code criteria for a minimal risk country as follows:

1. A risk assessment was undertaken by the Government of Canada in 2002 that discussed all the BSE risk factors identified in the OIE Code including the potential for the introduction and recycling of BSE agent through the consumption of meat and bone meal (MBM) of ruminant origin and the importation of cattle. The assessment demonstrated that:
Meat and bone meal (MBM) for livestock feed has not been imported from the United Kingdom or any other countries subsequently affected by BSE since 1978.
A ban on the feeding of ruminant derived MBM to ruminants has been in place since 1997. The level of compliance with the ban has been high as verified by routine inspections of both renderers and feed mills.
A small number of potentially infected cattle imported from the United Kingdom in the 1980s may have entered the animal feed system prior to 1993.

2. The following criteria, as stipulated in the OIE Code, have been in place for at least seven years:
Compulsory notification and investigation of all cattle showing clinical signs compatible with BSE.
An education and awareness program targeting veterinarians, producers and workers in the cattle industry.
A surveillance program for BSE, which has met or exceeded OIE targets.

3. A ruminant to ruminant feed ban has been in place for at least eight years
Although it has only been six years since the introduction of a feed ban in 1997, an equivalent level of assurance to the requirement that a feed ban has been in place for at least eight years can be provided on the basis that:

following the introduction of a feed ban it can be expected that the number of BSE cases remaining in the cattle population after eight years would be extremely low
the number of BSE cases remaining in the Canadian cattle population in 2003 would be extremely small as only a few animals are likely to have become infected prior to the feed ban and the majority of these would have already been culled, slaughtered or died.
The most likely source of BSE for Canada is associated with a limited number of live cattle imported from the UK in the 1980s. Only one or a few of these animals would have been potentially infected with BSE and introduced infectivity into the animal feed chain in the 1980s after they were slaughtered or died. Although the rendering and feeding practices at that time would have allowed BSE to cycle through cattle, considering the prolonged incubation period of BSE (average of 6 years), the amplification and spread of BSE would have been extremely slow reaching a peak in 1996-97, just prior to the introduction of a feed ban in 1997. The feed ban would have resulted in a dramatic reduction in exposure, effectively eliminating further spread and amplification of BSE.

4. All BSE cases as well as, if they are females, all their progeny born within the last two years together with all cattle reared with them during their first year of life that consumed the same potentially contaminated feed or all animals born in the same herd within 12 months of their birth, if alive are completely destroyed following their slaughter or death:
The BSE case detected in Canada on 20 May 2003 was a six year old cow born in March 1997. It had two calves born within the 2 year period prior to the diagnosis of BSE. Both were male calves, one born in 2001 and subsequently slaughtered as a steer in 2002 while the other, born in 2002, has been destroyed.
At the time of the diagnosis of the BSE case 38 cattle reared with it that consumed the same potentially contaminated feed during their first year of life were still alive (35 cows and 3 bulls). All of these animals were destroyed and tested for BSE as part of the investigation. All test results were negative

 

[TimH]

It's a good thing Canada has restrictions on things like blue tongue.

How many American born bulls have been tested and brought to Canada so they can be drawn and semen sold to countries where the US has no access?

Just another example of how the 2 countries have collaborated on genetics. Opening the border to contagious diseases like blue tongue and anaplasmosis is shooting the US cattle breeders in the foot. They will never be able to clear semen for Australia or Europe.

Sure is funny how the Montana protectionists were plenty glad when Canadian feeders were buying their calves, but are hopping mad when the market shifts a bit and our calves head South.

Remember a term called fair trade? Blue tongue restrictions were very easy to comply with and really didn't interfere with normal business. Oct 15 to April 15 there was no testing requirement for cattle coming out of the Northern tier states. Cattle that had resided there for 60 days were eligible without testing as well. Many Southern cattle came North on that deal and froze to death.

I've lost count of the number of times that Oldtimer has been corrected on his "anaplas /bluetongue= trade barrier" fantasy............but he keeps comin' back for more.
Long Live R-Calf!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

It's a good thing Canada has restrictions on things like blue tongue.

How many American born bulls have been tested and brought to Canada so they can be drawn and semen sold to countries where the US has no access?

Just another example of how the 2 countries have collaborated on genetics. Opening the border to contagious diseases like blue tongue and anaplasmosis is shooting the US cattle breeders in the foot. They will never be able to clear semen for Australia or Europe.

Sure is funny how the Montana protectionists were plenty glad when Canadian feeders were buying their calves, but are hopping mad when the market shifts a bit and our calves head South.

Remember a term called fair trade? Blue tongue restrictions were very easy to comply with and really didn't interfere with normal business. Oct 15 to April 15 there was no testing requirement for cattle coming out of the Northern tier states. Cattle that had resided there for 60 days were eligible without testing as well. Many Southern cattle came North on that deal and froze to death.

I've lost count of the number of times that Oldtimer has been corrected on his "anaplas /bluetongue= trade barrier" fantasy............but he keeps comin' back for more.
Long Live R-Calf!!!!!

TimH- I don't believe anyone has corrected me on anything-- I know what the rule is and I know what it was-- Its we just have opposing opinions on whether or not it was an artificial trade barrier....

But Canadians did give me a good laugh when the Border closed and they brought up their "North American Herd" joke-- Until their tit was getting wound tight it had always been a Canadian Herd and a US Herd and Canucks kept saying " ALL US cattle are diseased".... :lol: :lol:

 

[TimH]

It's a good thing Canada has restrictions on things like blue tongue.

How many American born bulls have been tested and brought to Canada so they can be drawn and semen sold to countries where the US has no access?

Just another example of how the 2 countries have collaborated on genetics. Opening the border to contagious diseases like blue tongue and anaplasmosis is shooting the US cattle breeders in the foot. They will never be able to clear semen for Australia or Europe.

Sure is funny how the Montana protectionists were plenty glad when Canadian feeders were buying their calves, but are hopping mad when the market shifts a bit and our calves head South.

Remember a term called fair trade? Blue tongue restrictions were very easy to comply with and really didn't interfere with normal business. Oct 15 to April 15 there was no testing requirement for cattle coming out of the Northern tier states. Cattle that had resided there for 60 days were eligible without testing as well. Many Southern cattle came North on that deal and froze to death.

I've lost count of the number of times that Oldtimer has been corrected on his "anaplas /bluetongue= trade barrier" fantasy............but he keeps comin' back for more.
Long Live R-Calf!!!!!

TimH- I don't believe anyone has corrected me on anything-- I know what the rule is and I know what it was-- Its we just have opposing opinions on whether or not it was an artificial trade barrier....

But Canadians did give me a good laugh when the Border closed and they brought up their "North American Herd" joke-- Until their tit was getting wound tight it had always been a Canadian Herd and a US Herd and Canucks kept saying " ALL US cattle are diseased".... :lol: :lol:

Oh, OK. Now I understand. :roll: Some Canucks were saying "all US cattle are diseased", but the fact of the matter is that for 6 months out of the year(the 6 months when feeders are most likely to move) US cattle could freely enter Canada, and only needed a simple test for the other 6 months. :roll: :roll: Some trade barrier. Especially when you are dealing with a disease that is actually contagious . :roll: And the rules were no more restrictive than they were between various States. :roll:

R-calfer's M.O.- Create an illusion and leave lots of "wiggle room".
You old wiggler, you. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Bill, read this;
b) the last indigenous case of BSE has been reported less than 7 years ago, and the BSE incidence rate, calculated on the basis of indigenous cases, has been less than one case per million during each of the last four consecutive 12-month periods within the cattle population over 24 months of age in the country or zone (Note: For countries with a population of less than one million adult cattle, the maximum allowed incidence should be expressed in cattle-years.), and:
i) the ban on feeding ruminants with meat-and-bone meal and greaves derived from ruminants has been effectively enforced for at least 8 years; ii) the criteria in points 2) to 5) of Article 2.3.13.2. have been complied with for at least 7 years;
iii) the affected cattle as well as:
if these are females, all their progeny born within 2 years prior to, and after, clinical onset of the disease, if alive in the country or zone, when slaughtered or at death, are completely destroyed, and

all cattle which, during their first year of life, were reared with the affected cattle during their first year of life, and, which investigation showed consumed the same potentially contaminated feed during that period, or

where the results of an investigation are inconclusive, all cattle born in the same herd as, and within 12 months of the birth of, the affected cattle

if alive in the country or zone, when slaughtered or at death, are completely destroyed.



Three post-ban cases, Bill. That doesn't happen with an enforced feed ban.

 

[Sandhusker]

Letter to Johans from Harkin, Conrad, Salazar, Johnson;

HARKIN LAYS OUT CONCERNS OVER USDA PLAN TO EXPAND CANADIAN CATTLE, BEEF IMPORTS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following last week's request that the Department of Agriculture withdraw its rule to reopen the Canadian border, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), joined by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Ken Salazar (D-CO), today sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Johanns detailing their concerns with the rule. The letter was sent to the secretary two days before his scheduled appearance before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, where Harkin is the ranking Democrat.

"There are very real concerns about USDA's plan to open the Canadian border to live cattle and a broader range of beef products," Harkin said. "My colleagues and I are strongly urging USDA and Secretary Johanns to withdraw the rule and address the shortcomings that exist. This issue deserves a proper and comprehensive solution."


Harkin's concerns center around how a country is categorized a "BSE minimal risk region," and USDA's departure from World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) standards that USDA has purported to follow. The rule appears to be narrowly focused on broadening trade with Canada rather than taking a comprehensive approach which should help reopen trade with all markets that have been closed to the U.S. following the December 2003 identification of a BSE-positive cow in Washington state. By choosing less protective safeguards than the OIE standards, USDA is creating the risk that other countries with a higher prevalence of BSE than Canada may try to get their products into the U.S. Harkin is concerned that imports from Canada under USDA's current plan would potentially jeopardize U.S. efforts to restore beef trade with countries like Japan and South Korea—who are likely to require stricter safeguards than the U.S. is requiring of Canada.


The letter is included below:

February 1, 2005




Dear Secretary Johanns:


At your confirmation hearing, several members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry expressed concern about the final rule published in the January 4, 2005, Federal Register (Volume 70, Number 2) regarding measures to define a Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Minimal Risk Region and to allow for the expansion of beef and live cattle trade with Canada.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is to be commended for taking the lead worldwide in efforts to put the Office International des Epizootics' (OIE) guidelines for BSE minimal risk into practice. Defining and implementing a global minimal risk standard for safely resuming trade with countries or regions that have experienced cases of BSE is critical to facilitating trade worldwide and restoring lost U.S. beef markets.


Unfortunately, USDA's final rule has serious shortcomings that necessitate the rule's revision–even if that means a delay in USDA's March 7th effective date. The rule appears to be narrowly focused upon broadening trade with Canada rather than representing a comprehensive approach to trade under a minimal BSE risk framework. Two elements are critical to efforts to restore and expand beef trade: protecting our domestic food, feed, and livestock supply from BSE, and fostering international agreement on a BSE minimal risk policy, a benefit of which would be facilitating the restoration of safe two-way beef trade with key trading partners such as Japan and South Korea.


To protect our domestic food, feed, and livestock supply, we must make certain that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that beef products and live animals imported from countries, such as Canada or Japan, known to have BSE are free of the infective prion, and that our domestic safeguards against BSE are effective. Restoring trade in light of BSE can only be achieved by seeking scientifically-based consensus among our trading partners regarding the conditions under which countries or regions can be classified as minimal risk and the products that are safe to trade with them.


Currently, the only international standards that have widespread agreement are those adopted by the OIE. While USDA purports to rely upon OIE standards as a reference in its final rule, the reality is that USDA has chosen weaker standards than the OIE. This raises questions about whether USDA's standards are adequate to protect our food, feed, and livestock in fact and in the minds of consumers, producers, and our trading partners.


USDA's final rule, establishes a "minimal risk region" category for BSE that USDA says is modeled after the OIE minimal risk guidelines. The OIE minimal risk guidelines are part of the larger OIE guidance regarding classifying the BSE risk of regions and countries. OIE BSE guidelines are intended to allow for countries or regions that have experienced BSE cases to continue safe trade of beef products and live cattle. The guidelines reflect the consensus of world animal health experts regarding what steps importing countries should take to protect themselves when trading with other countries that have, or may have, BSE.


USDA's final rule disregards key OIE protections against BSE that serve as linchpins for the guidelines. The OIE guidelines contain three stringent requirements with crucial time-sensitive factors. The first is that an effectively enforced ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban must have been in place for at least eight years. The second is that a requirement for the mandatory reporting and investigation of cattle displaying clinical signs of BSE must have been in place at least seven years. The third is that a well-implemented education and surveillance program to assure effective monitoring of BSE must have been in place for at least seven years. These requirements are central to assessing a country or region's BSE risk, yet USDA's final rule adopts less stringent measures in all three of these areas. USDA is essentially saying that USDA reserves the right to review a country's anti-BSE measures, ignore the science-based OIE standards, and instead create its own standards.


In the final rule, USDA requires a feed ban that is equivalent to measures taken in the U.S. but omits the requirement that a feed ban be in place and effectively enforced for eight years. The passage of several years following the effective implementation of a feed ban is required to ensure that younger cattle have not been exposed to potentially contaminated feed.


In the final rule, USDA also does not specify a seven-year requirement for mandatory reporting of cattle exhibiting clinical signs of BSE nor does it specify the time requirement or factors for determining the effectiveness of a country's surveillance system, both of which are required by the OIE. Together, these two OIE measures are intended to ensure it is possible to accurately assess the prevalence of BSE in a country. Without an accurate estimate of prevalence there is no good way to assess a country's risk of BSE. In disregarding these OIE requirements, USDA is creating the risk that USDA will underestimate the risk of BSE in other countries because of those countries' inadequate reporting and surveillance systems.


Under a strict reading of the OIE guidelines, for instance, Canada could be considered a country at moderate rather than minimal risk of BSE. This classification, of course, would further intensify the BSE mitigation measures the OIE would recommend for Canada to ensure the safety of Canadian export products. In fact, USDA's departures from the OIE guidelines noted above seem specifically directed at avoiding those OIE criteria that would place Canada in a moderate risk category. The two most significant factors that would place Canada into a moderate risk category are that Canada's feed ban has not been in place for eight years or proven to be effective, and that the ultimate prevalence of BSE in Canada's cattle population is not known with confidence.


While Canada has had a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in place for seven years, it appears it was not effective throughout that period as required by the OIE. FDA has raised concerns in issuing import alerts concerning the presence of animal tissue in vegetable feed products that Canadian feed companies have attempted to export to the United States. Additionally, Canada has proposed new regulations that are about to go into effect that would strengthen its feed rules by barring the use of specified risk materials (SRMs) in any animal feed or in fertilizer–suggesting that Canada itself has concerns about the effectiveness of its current feed rules.


As for the prevalence of BSE in Canada, there will be no authoritative estimates of Canadian BSE prevalence until Canada has completed at least one cycle of its enhanced BSE testing program. Based on Canadian testing results so far, it is possible that Canada may ultimately be shown to have a BSE prevalence rate that is, in fact, too high to meet the OIE's minimum risk standard of two cases per million cattle.


Especially since BSE-infected cattle continue to be discovered in Canada, it is important that USDA resolve these issues prior to designating Canada a minimal risk country. USDA has failed to show why it should not adopt the OIE guidelines in full. USDA's departures from OIE guidelines appear to create an increased risk that BSE-infected products or animals will be imported into the United States–whether from Canada or some other country seeking minimal risk status under USDA's final rule at a later time.


More specifically, we are concerned that in its proposed rule, USDA proposes backing away from the 30-month age limit on beef products and the requirement for segregated processing of cattle over 30-months. A sound public health approach dictates cutting off all possible routes by which material from infected cattle could enter the U.S. food and feed supply. USDA's final rule expresses a belief that removal of SRM's from cattle over 30 months old during slaughter is sufficient to manage BSE risk. However, given the unknowns about BSE, and the unknowns about the prevalence of BSE in Canada and the effectiveness of Canada's feed ban, it is not clear that SRM removal is sufficient. Furthermore, Canada has not universally adopted the U.S. ban on non-ambulatory cattle slaughtered for human consumption.

Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet taken final action on its proposed expansion of the U.S. ruminant feed ban to include plate waste and poultry litter. Taken as a whole, these facts present a pathway through which there is some risk (quite small yet still significant given the consequences of BSE) that BSE could enter the U.S. feed supply. Given the uncertainty about whether Canada truly fits the OIE minimum risk profile, USDA should strengthen, not abandon existing measures, such as requiring the removal of SRMs in animals 20-30 months of age that are slaughtered to provide beef for export to the U.S. At the very least USDA should continue a ban on beef products from cattle over 30 months old until these concerns are addressed.


Restarting trade among countries that have experienced BSE cases within their borders is no easy task, particularly when it comes to large beef exporting nations such as the United States and Canada. The USDA approach seems to have been to focus almost exclusively on restarting trade with Canada, rather than developing a comprehensive approach to address BSE risk globally and reopen overseas beef markets currently closed to the United States. Currently, the United States seems to be headed towards at least two different sets of minimum risk standards–one for imports into the United States from Canada, and one for exports of products from the United States to Japan. The United States will allow live cattle under 30 months of age and beef from cattle of any age to enter the United States, while Japan, according to news reports, is considering allowing only beef from cattle 20 months and younger to enter Japan. Given that BSE has been found in cattle between the ages of 20 and 30 months, it is not clear why there should be a more protective standard for Japanese consumers than for U.S. consumers.


Of great concern is the very real danger that allowing imports of Canadian beef products from cattle over 30 months of age and live cattle under 30 months of age will impair our efforts to achieve resolution of beef trade issues with countries such as Japan. The key to reopening these markets to U.S. products is to restore their governments' and consumers' confidence in the safety of our beef by demonstrating the robustness of our safeguards against BSE. To establish guidelines that are demonstrably inferior to internationally recommended guidelines seems likely to frustrate that objective. A far better approach would be to work with our major beef trading partners using the OIE guidelines to develop a common framework for deciding whether a country has minimal risk status, and what products are safe to export and import from that country. Not only would this approach lead to common standards for risk determinations and risk mitigation measures as envisioned by the OIE guidelines, it would minimize the economic dislocations that would likely be caused by USDA's piecemeal approach to reopening lost beef trade market by market.


In closing, we believe the USDA's final rule, as currently written, would place United States consumers, producers, beef industry and livestock at unnecessary risk, and urge you to withdraw the rule for revision so that these concerns may be addressed. Thank you.

 

[Anonymous]

I've lost count of the number of times that Oldtimer has been corrected on his "anaplas /bluetongue= trade barrier" fantasy............but he keeps comin' back for more.
Long Live R-Calf!!!!!

TimH- I don't believe anyone has corrected me on anything-- I know what the rule is and I know what it was-- Its we just have opposing opinions on whether or not it was an artificial trade barrier....

But Canadians did give me a good laugh when the Border closed and they brought up their "North American Herd" joke-- Until their tit was getting wound tight it had always been a Canadian Herd and a US Herd and Canucks kept saying " ALL US cattle are diseased".... :lol: :lol:

Oh, OK. Now I understand. :roll: Some Canucks were saying "all US cattle are diseased", but the fact of the matter is that for 6 months out of the year(the 6 months when feeders are most likely to move) US cattle could freely enter Canada, and only needed a simple test for the other 6 months. :roll: :roll: Some trade barrier. Especially when you are dealing with a disease that is actually contagious . :roll: And the rules were no more restrictive than they were between various States. :roll:

R-calfer's M.O.- Create an illusion and leave lots of "wiggle room".
You old wiggler, you. :wink:

TimH- Actually even with the Oct 15 to April 15 open "test period" to go north it did limit a lot of cattle out of this area.... There are a lot of yearlings ran in this country that go directly to the feedlot to be finished...Most these are long gone before Canada's magic Oct 15 date says they are legal.... Since the grass has lost its zip and the cattle begin losing condition, most are shipped the end of Aug or in Sept....I seldom see yearlings going in October......

 

[TimH]

TimH- I don't believe anyone has corrected me on anything-- I know what the rule is and I know what it was-- Its we just have opposing opinions on whether or not it was an artificial trade barrier....

But Canadians did give me a good laugh when the Border closed and they brought up their "North American Herd" joke-- Until their tit was getting wound tight it had always been a Canadian Herd and a US Herd and Canucks kept saying " ALL US cattle are diseased".... :lol: :lol:

Oh, OK. Now I understand. :roll: Some Canucks were saying "all US cattle are diseased", but the fact of the matter is that for 6 months out of the year(the 6 months when feeders are most likely to move) US cattle could freely enter Canada, and only needed a simple test for the other 6 months. :roll: :roll: Some trade barrier. Especially when you are dealing with a disease that is actually contagious . :roll: And the rules were no more restrictive than they were between various States. :roll:

R-calfer's M.O.- Create an illusion and leave lots of "wiggle room".
You old wiggler, you. :wink:

TimH- Actually even with the Oct 15 to April 15 open "test period" to go north it did limit a lot of cattle out of this area.... There are a lot of yearlings ran in this country that go directly to the feedlot to be finished...Most these are long gone before Canada's magic Oct 15 date says they are legal.... Since the grass has lost its zip and the cattle begin losing condition, most are shipped the end of Aug or in Sept....I seldom see yearlings going in October......

Ya OK. :roll: :roll: And a simple annaplas/bluetongue test, half the time, is more of a "trade barrier" than a CAN hotbrand/spayed female etc. etc. etc. is because........????????

Spare me OT. The fact is that US cattle could cross the border,unrestricted, for 6 months out of the year, and with a simple test for the other 6 months. Spin it any way you like.

 

[Anonymous]

And a simple annaplas/bluetongue test, half the time, is more of a "trade barrier" than a CAN hotbrand/spayed female etc. etc. etc. is because........????????

We are finally learning- but we've had enough countries around the globe educating us for the last 10-15 years :wink:

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

OT- you gotta stay outta those mushrooms they re frying your brain..... :lol:

 

[Bill]

Bill, read this;
b) the last indigenous case of BSE has been reported less than 7 years ago, and the BSE incidence rate, calculated on the basis of indigenous cases, has been less than one case per million during each of the last four consecutive 12-month periods within the cattle population over 24 months of age in the country or zone (Note: For countries with a population of less than one million adult cattle, the maximum allowed incidence should be expressed in cattle-years.), and:
i) the ban on feeding ruminants with meat-and-bone meal and greaves derived from ruminants has been effectively enforced for at least 8 years; ii) the criteria in points 2) to 5) of Article 2.3.13.2. have been complied with for at least 7 years;
iii) the affected cattle as well as:
if these are females, all their progeny born within 2 years prior to, and after, clinical onset of the disease, if alive in the country or zone, when slaughtered or at death, are completely destroyed, and

all cattle which, during their first year of life, were reared with the affected cattle during their first year of life, and, which investigation showed consumed the same potentially contaminated feed during that period, or

where the results of an investigation are inconclusive, all cattle born in the same herd as, and within 12 months of the birth of, the affected cattle

if alive in the country or zone, when slaughtered or at death, are completely destroyed.



Three post-ban cases, Bill. That doesn't happen with an enforced feed ban.

Bill read this?

That's the best you can come up with after saying the USDA created a minimal risk class?


Here let me post your exact words:

Bill, do you realize that the "Minimal Risk" classification the US created in order to try to justify reopening the border with you guys does not mirror the OIE? In fact, when the US approached the OIE to get their blessings on the plan, they were denied.

The post feed ban cases weren't even identified then and at the time of the border re-opening the OIE was ENCOURAGING the US to to do just that. Were you intentionally trying to mislead everyone or did you honestly not know any better?

 

[Sandhusker]

Bill, read this;
b) the last indigenous case of BSE has been reported less than 7 years ago, and the BSE incidence rate, calculated on the basis of indigenous cases, has been less than one case per million during each of the last four consecutive 12-month periods within the cattle population over 24 months of age in the country or zone (Note: For countries with a population of less than one million adult cattle, the maximum allowed incidence should be expressed in cattle-years.), and:
i) the ban on feeding ruminants with meat-and-bone meal and greaves derived from ruminants has been effectively enforced for at least 8 years; ii) the criteria in points 2) to 5) of Article 2.3.13.2. have been complied with for at least 7 years;
iii) the affected cattle as well as:
if these are females, all their progeny born within 2 years prior to, and after, clinical onset of the disease, if alive in the country or zone, when slaughtered or at death, are completely destroyed, and

all cattle which, during their first year of life, were reared with the affected cattle during their first year of life, and, which investigation showed consumed the same potentially contaminated feed during that period, or

where the results of an investigation are inconclusive, all cattle born in the same herd as, and within 12 months of the birth of, the affected cattle

if alive in the country or zone, when slaughtered or at death, are completely destroyed.



Three post-ban cases, Bill. That doesn't happen with an enforced feed ban.

Bill read this?

That's the best you can come up with after saying the USDA created a minimal risk class?


Here let me post your exact words:

Bill, do you realize that the "Minimal Risk" classification the US created in order to try to justify reopening the border with you guys does not mirror the OIE? In fact, when the US approached the OIE to get their blessings on the plan, they were denied.

The post feed ban cases weren't even identified then and at the time of the border re-opening the OIE was ENCOURAGING the US to to do just that. Were you intentionally trying to mislead everyone or did you honestly not know any better?

"Currently, the only international standards that have widespread agreement are those adopted by the OIE. While USDA purports to rely upon OIE standards as a reference in its final rule, the reality is that USDA has chosen weaker standards than the OIE."