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

Partisan Politics Over Cattle Industry Safety ?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Good question....


Somebody explain the logic here, please...

Give us hoof and mouth, but hold the terrorists
By Drovers news staff | Thursday, August 13, 2009

Two weeks ago, U.S. Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, along with Representatives Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, all from Kansas, issued a statement supporting the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility scheduled to be built in Manhattan, Kan.

The decision to award Kansas the new facility was not without detractors – most notably the runners-up contenders in Texas and Mississippi. But the Kansas politicians rejoiced in the fact that the $650 million facility is project to bring $3.5 billion to the state, and create 500 high-paying, scientific federal jobs.

The Department of Homeland Security approved locating the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas, after reviewing 18 possible sites over 6 years. NBAF will be dedicated to researching the biological threats of foreign animal diseases and diseases transferred from animals to humans.

But at least one heartland resident has trouble connecting the dots between Brownback and Roberts’ support of NBAF and their opposition to transferring Gitmo detainees to Kansas, the home of the U.S. military’s only maximum-security prison.

Mary Sanchez, a columnist for The Kansas City Star, wrote this week that Roberts and Brownback “went berserk” when word got out that the Obama administration was thinking of transporting the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Leavenworth to stand trial. “We don’t want them here,” Sanchez quoted Brownback as saying. “They should be treated with dignity and humanely, but it should not be here.”

Sanchez also wrote: “When words of opposition weren’t enough, the senators stomped their feet and put holds on key Obama appointees for the Departments of Justice and Defense. Nothing like a little senatorial temper tantrum to ensure bureaucracy grinds to a halt.”

But Sanchez says “Brownback was singing a different tune when Kansas was chosen in February as the new site for the nation’s bio-defense lab.” She says Brownback and Roberts “seem to believe that the U.S. government can protect the lab and its devastating contents yet is not up to the task of safeguarding detainees. Somebody explain the logic there, please.”
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Good question....


Somebody explain the logic here, please...

Give us hoof and mouth, but hold the terrorists
By Drovers news staff | Thursday, August 13, 2009

Two weeks ago, U.S. Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, along with Representatives Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, all from Kansas, issued a statement supporting the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility scheduled to be built in Manhattan, Kan.

The decision to award Kansas the new facility was not without detractors – most notably the runners-up contenders in Texas and Mississippi. But the Kansas politicians rejoiced in the fact that the $650 million facility is project to bring $3.5 billion to the state, and create 500 high-paying, scientific federal jobs.

The Department of Homeland Security approved locating the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas, after reviewing 18 possible sites over 6 years. NBAF will be dedicated to researching the biological threats of foreign animal diseases and diseases transferred from animals to humans.

But at least one heartland resident has trouble connecting the dots between Brownback and Roberts’ support of NBAF and their opposition to transferring Gitmo detainees to Kansas, the home of the U.S. military’s only maximum-security prison.

Mary Sanchez, a columnist for The Kansas City Star, wrote this week that Roberts and Brownback “went berserk” when word got out that the Obama administration was thinking of transporting the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Leavenworth to stand trial. “We don’t want them here,” Sanchez quoted Brownback as saying. “They should be treated with dignity and humanely, but it should not be here.”

Sanchez also wrote: “When words of opposition weren’t enough, the senators stomped their feet and put holds on key Obama appointees for the Departments of Justice and Defense. Nothing like a little senatorial temper tantrum to ensure bureaucracy grinds to a halt.”

But Sanchez says “Brownback was singing a different tune when Kansas was chosen in February as the new site for the nation’s bio-defense lab.” She says Brownback and Roberts “seem to believe that the U.S. government can protect the lab and its devastating contents yet is not up to the task of safeguarding detainees. Somebody explain the logic there, please.”

Brownback and Roberts have been instrumental in allowing the meats industry to disintegrate. In the mean time they and their party have reaped huge amounts of money from the meats industry that have done the equivalent of what Wall Street and the bankers did to our economy as a whole.

These two guys need to be strung up for incompetence or corruption.

It is the Phil Gramm economics at work for the "rich" and well heeled corporations who are taking our country to the bank while Congress gets paid off.

There is no logic here, just self interest at work.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Coalition Asks Homeland Security Approps Committees to Deny Funding for NBAF on U.S. Mainland



Source: R-CALF USA
September 9, 2009



Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA, along with 24 other organizations, sent formal correspondence to the 30 conferees of the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, to request that they deny funding for plans to relocate dangerous research from Plum Island, N.Y., to a facility in Manhattan, Kan., the heart of cattle country.



“Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed to establish a National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Kansas where research would be conducted on such highly contagious livestock diseases as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia,” the letter states. “As you begin to conference the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we urge you to deny funding for the NBAF project.”



R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee, emphasized that the highly contagious nature of FMD dictates that only a site far removed from significant livestock and meat production, and one protected by natural barriers, should be considered.



“Only the Plum Island facility meets those criteria, so it is R-CALF’s strong contention that if any changes are made at all, those changes should be simply to improve the facilities at Plum Island,” Thornsberry said. “An inadvertent disease outbreak from the proposed NBAF would likely severely harm the very sectors of the U.S. economy and U.S. population that the NBAF is supposed to protect: the U.S. livestock herd, U.S. cattle producers and U.S. consumers.



“The House of Representatives acknowledged the dangers of placing a research facility in the heartland and it authorized no funding for the NBAF in Kansas,” he concluded. “We are respectfully requesting that the Senate adopt the House position by denying all appropriations to Homeland Security for the purpose of transferring the disease research programs at Plum Island to the U.S. mainland.”



Other signers on the letter included: Cattle Producers of Washington; Center for Rural Affairs; Colorado Independent CattleGrowers’ Association; Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Food & Water Watch; Independent Beef Association of North Dakota; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Kansas Cattlemen’s Association; Kansas Farmers Union; Mississippi Livestock Markets Association; Missouri's Best Beef, Inc.; National Farmers Union; Nebraska Farmers Union; New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Mo.; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; The CJD Foundation; Western Organization of Resource Councils; and, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Coalition Asks Homeland Security Approps Committees to Deny Funding for NBAF on U.S. Mainland



Source: R-CALF USA
September 9, 2009



Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA, along with 24 other organizations, sent formal correspondence to the 30 conferees of the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, to request that they deny funding for plans to relocate dangerous research from Plum Island, N.Y., to a facility in Manhattan, Kan., the heart of cattle country.



“Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed to establish a National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Kansas where research would be conducted on such highly contagious livestock diseases as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia,” the letter states. “As you begin to conference the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we urge you to deny funding for the NBAF project.”



R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee, emphasized that the highly contagious nature of FMD dictates that only a site far removed from significant livestock and meat production, and one protected by natural barriers, should be considered.



“Only the Plum Island facility meets those criteria, so it is R-CALF’s strong contention that if any changes are made at all, those changes should be simply to improve the facilities at Plum Island,” Thornsberry said. “An inadvertent disease outbreak from the proposed NBAF would likely severely harm the very sectors of the U.S. economy and U.S. population that the NBAF is supposed to protect: the U.S. livestock herd, U.S. cattle producers and U.S. consumers.



“The House of Representatives acknowledged the dangers of placing a research facility in the heartland and it authorized no funding for the NBAF in Kansas,” he concluded. “We are respectfully requesting that the Senate adopt the House position by denying all appropriations to Homeland Security for the purpose of transferring the disease research programs at Plum Island to the U.S. mainland.”



Other signers on the letter included: Cattle Producers of Washington; Center for Rural Affairs; Colorado Independent CattleGrowers’ Association; Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Food & Water Watch; Independent Beef Association of North Dakota; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Kansas Cattlemen’s Association; Kansas Farmers Union; Mississippi Livestock Markets Association; Missouri's Best Beef, Inc.; National Farmers Union; Nebraska Farmers Union; New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Mo.; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; The CJD Foundation; Western Organization of Resource Councils; and, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.



PLEASE NOTE, AGAIN, CJD FOUNDATION STICKING THEIR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG, IN MY OPNION......tss




The Canadian system is much better than the USA. at least they know. the USA just SHOOTS, SHOVELS, AND SHUTS UP I.E. THE SSS POLICY.


see full text ;


http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=90300&show=votes


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html


PLEASE NOTE MY ACCEPTANCE AND REBUTAL OF WHY, in my submission to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE GALVESTON NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR BIODEFENSE AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH FACILITY IN GALVESTON, TEXAS FEBRUARY 2005 back of book appendix H: Comments and Responses on the Draft GNL EIS Comment response G6-1 Pages 1 - 14 Singeltary, Sr. Terry S., (G6) COMMENT NOTED...

SIMPLY PUT, WERE ARE SURROUNDED BY DANGEROUS DEADLY EMERGING PATHOGENS, we must study them and cure them, not hide them and or lie about them. ...TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flounder said:
Oldtimer said:
Coalition Asks Homeland Security Approps Committees to Deny Funding for NBAF on U.S. Mainland



Source: R-CALF USA
September 9, 2009



Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA, along with 24 other organizations, sent formal correspondence to the 30 conferees of the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, to request that they deny funding for plans to relocate dangerous research from Plum Island, N.Y., to a facility in Manhattan, Kan., the heart of cattle country.



“Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed to establish a National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Kansas where research would be conducted on such highly contagious livestock diseases as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia,” the letter states. “As you begin to conference the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we urge you to deny funding for the NBAF project.”



R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee, emphasized that the highly contagious nature of FMD dictates that only a site far removed from significant livestock and meat production, and one protected by natural barriers, should be considered.



“Only the Plum Island facility meets those criteria, so it is R-CALF’s strong contention that if any changes are made at all, those changes should be simply to improve the facilities at Plum Island,” Thornsberry said. “An inadvertent disease outbreak from the proposed NBAF would likely severely harm the very sectors of the U.S. economy and U.S. population that the NBAF is supposed to protect: the U.S. livestock herd, U.S. cattle producers and U.S. consumers.



“The House of Representatives acknowledged the dangers of placing a research facility in the heartland and it authorized no funding for the NBAF in Kansas,” he concluded. “We are respectfully requesting that the Senate adopt the House position by denying all appropriations to Homeland Security for the purpose of transferring the disease research programs at Plum Island to the U.S. mainland.”



Other signers on the letter included: Cattle Producers of Washington; Center for Rural Affairs; Colorado Independent CattleGrowers’ Association; Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Food & Water Watch; Independent Beef Association of North Dakota; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Kansas Cattlemen’s Association; Kansas Farmers Union; Mississippi Livestock Markets Association; Missouri's Best Beef, Inc.; National Farmers Union; Nebraska Farmers Union; New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Mo.; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; The CJD Foundation; Western Organization of Resource Councils; and, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.



PLEASE NOTE, AGAIN, CJD FOUNDATION STICKING THEIR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG, IN MY OPNION......tss




The Canadian system is much better than the USA. at least they know. the USA just SHOOTS, SHOVELS, AND SHUTS UP I.E. THE SSS POLICY.


see full text ;


http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=90300&show=votes


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html


PLEASE NOTE MY ACCEPTANCE AND REBUTAL OF WHY, in my submission to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE GALVESTON NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR BIODEFENSE AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH FACILITY IN GALVESTON, TEXAS FEBRUARY 2005 back of book appendix H: Comments and Responses on the Draft GNL EIS Comment response G6-1 Pages 1 - 14 Singeltary, Sr. Terry S., (G6) COMMENT NOTED...

SIMPLY PUT, WERE ARE SURROUNDED BY DANGEROUS DEADLY EMERGING PATHOGENS, we must study them and cure them, not hide them and or lie about them. ...TSS

Terry- where did you get that idea :???: I don't think anyone is against having a research faciltity to study animal/livestock diseases....They just don't want it moved from its current somewhat isolated location on an island near New York to the dense cattle/livestock population of Kansas where the chances of contamination and infection of large amounts of livestock is much more possible- especially with highly contagious diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease...
Everyone wants it rebuilt back on Plum Island- and the money used to expand the Plum Island facility...

If I remember right one of the most widely accepted theories of how Foot and Mouth Disease got reintroduced to the UK this last time was thru contamination that got out of one of their research facilities---and led to a disastrous outbreak and economic disaster..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
flounder said:



PLEASE NOTE, AGAIN, CJD FOUNDATION STICKING THEIR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG, IN MY OPNION......tss




The Canadian system is much better than the USA. at least they know. the USA just SHOOTS, SHOVELS, AND SHUTS UP I.E. THE SSS POLICY.


see full text ;


http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=90300&show=votes


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/r-calf-and-usa-mad-cow-problem-dont.html


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html


PLEASE NOTE MY ACCEPTANCE AND REBUTAL OF WHY, in my submission to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE GALVESTON NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR BIODEFENSE AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH FACILITY IN GALVESTON, TEXAS FEBRUARY 2005 back of book appendix H: Comments and Responses on the Draft GNL EIS Comment response G6-1 Pages 1 - 14 Singeltary, Sr. Terry S., (G6) COMMENT NOTED...

SIMPLY PUT, WERE ARE SURROUNDED BY DANGEROUS DEADLY EMERGING PATHOGENS, we must study them and cure them, not hide them and or lie about them. ...TSS

Terry- where did you get that idea :???: I don't think anyone is against having a research faciltity to study animal/livestock diseases....They just don't want it moved from its current somewhat isolated location on an island near New York to the dense cattle/livestock population of Kansas where the chances of contamination and infection of large amounts of livestock is much more possible- especially with highly contagious diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease...
Everyone wants it rebuilt back on Plum Island- and the money used to expand the Plum Island facility...

If I remember right one of the most widely accepted theories of how Foot and Mouth Disease got reintroduced to the UK this last time was thru contamination that got out of one of their research facilities---and led to a disastrous outbreak and economic disaster..

We can't forget that we have African bees because of the same problem of research getting away from researchers.

These issues are important. They do make a difference as example after example proves.

The Kansas move was a payoff to Kansas but was stupidity in the highest. It was about as smart as putting Phil Gramm in charge of economics for the republican party.

No one wants to reduce the funding, flounder, just questioning the intelligence of a political payoff that causes unnecessary risks. A decimating disease in cattle would certainly put Tyson in the money machine seat again with their large positions in other substitute meats just as bse allowed them to be highly profitable in their Canada operation at the expense of producers and others competing with them who did not have captive supply in Canada. It does make one wonder if there isn't bigger strategies than just incompetent politicians. Perhaps there is a little more corruption and actions against the people for profits as part of the mix.

Tex
 

flounder

Well-known member
roger that OT and Tex, i understand the concerns you address. but we have anthrax, mrsa, TSE aka prion disease aka mad cow disease in Texas in bovine and humans as sporadic cjd, rabies, we have Vibro-eat-your-ass-up in Texas if you go wade fishing in August and scratch yourself, we have all those deadly mosquito bugs that have those deadly pathogens, let alone the regular ones, let's just look real quick at the tahc ;

Anthrax August 19: Anthrax Confirmed in Crockett County; Ranchers Urged to Vaccinate Livestock »» More information about Anthrax Vesicular Stomatitis (VS) August 4: Vesicular Stomatitis Quarantine Lifted in Starr County, Texas; Continue to Check with States of Destination Before Hauling Livestock! June 23: Vesicular Stomatitis in New Mexico; Texas Enhances Entry Requirements ***Current Restrictions & Requirements of Other States & Countries Due to VS June 12: Nation’s First Case of Vesicular Stomatitis for 2009 Detected in Texas **Map: Location of Starr County »» More information about VS Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) July 17: Two Horses in East Texas Die from EEE; Vaccinate Your Horses and Protect Against Mosquito Exposure! Fever Ticks July 6: Ranchers, Regulators Weary from Cattle Fever Tick War July 2: Quarantine Notice for Areas of Starr and Hidalgo Counties **Map: Location of Starr-Hidalgo Quarantine April 24: Good News, Bad News for Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Effort April 20: Modified Quarantine for Maverick, Dimmit & Webb Counties »» More information about ticks Cattle Trichomoniasis Trichomoniasis Brochure: Texas Cattle Trichomoniasis Regulations February 27: Texas Cattle Trichomoniasis Program Adopted: Interstate Rules Effective April 1, 2009; In-State Rules Effective Jan. 1, 2010 »» More information about Trichomoniasis, including forms & regulations Cattle Tuberculosis June 15: Cattle Tuberculosis Confirmed in Texas; Check with States of Destination Before Shipping Cattle April 23: Preliminary Tests Indicate Cattle TB Infection in Texas Dairy »» Cattle Tb Entry Requirements »» More information about cattle tuberculosis Animal Identification Proposed regulations: Official Animal Identification Numbering Systems (Document ID: APHIS-2007-0096-0001) To make comments to USDA about the proposed regulations, click on the link above and then click on the "Add Comments" icon. Comments are due by March 16, 2009. Swine Regulations for Moving LIVE Wild Hogs, Effective October 2008 »» More information about swine Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM) January 15: CEM-Infected Stallion Confirmed in Texas January 5: Texas Among 27 States Testing Horses for CEM Additional national CEM information may be obtained on the USDA's web site. New Labeling Regulations from USDA USDA's Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Regulations and Information Cattle Brucellosis November 3 : Cattle Brucellosis Tests Still Required for Change of Ownership in Texas »» More information about brucellosis;


http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/


that's just off the top of my head. no ebola yet, cwd i am not so sure about, just not documented, i could really go on if i had time, but my point is, we need these facilities to study these pathogens. i agree and island is an ideal place. but how many do we have to go around the country? and as i was understanding the arguements, it appeared that some folks that were against it, just did not want one period, island or no island. i stand corrected if that is not the case. the arguement that an island will protect you, is a bit ficticious anyway, considering FMD can spread via airborn route. Galveston Island and the mainland is only divided by a small cut. galveston and areas surrounded are in cattle country. r-calf stated this about airborn route of fmd ;


> Just last year, the campus was struck by a tornado, and FMD can be transmitted long distances via air.


http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2009/01/31/ag_news/letters_and_editorial/op4.txt



and there are many studies on this ;



Epidemiology and Infection (2005), 133:5:767-783 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2005 Cambridge University Press
doi:10.1017/S0950268805004073
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Re-assessing the likelihood of airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease at the start of the 1967–1968 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. GLOSTER a1c1, A. FRESHWATER a2, R. F. SELLERS a3 and S. ALEXANDERSEN a4
a1 Met Office, UK (currently based at the Institute for Animal Health, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey)
a2 Met Office, UK (RAF Shawbury, Shawbury, Shropshire, UK)
a3 4 Pewley Way, Guildford, Surrey, UK
a4 Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lindholm, DK-4771 Kalvehave, Denmark


Abstract

The likelihood of airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease at the start of the 1967–1968 epidemic is re-assessed in the light of current understanding of airborne disease spread. The findings strongly confirm those made at the time that airborne virus was the most likely cause of the rapid early development of the disease out to 60 km from the source. This conclusion is reached following a detailed epidemiological, meteorological and modelling study using original records and current modelling techniques. The role played by ‘lee waves’ as the mechanism for the spread is investigated. It is thought that they played little part in influencing the development of the epidemic. A number of lessons learned from the work are drawn, identifying the need for further research on the quantity and characteristics of airborne virus. The results are also used to illustrate what advice would have been available to disease controllers if the outbreak had occurred in 2004.


(Published Online April 12 2005)
(Accepted February 1 2005)


Correspondence:
c1 Institute for Animal Health, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 0NF, UK. (Email: [email protected]) © Crown Copyright.



http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=C9700EE6CF1CB5B3DC291F6444F7CB4E.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=340475



Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.


Airborne transmission of foot-and-mouth disease in pigs: Evaluation and optimisation of instrumentation and techniques





References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Claudia M.F. Amaral Doela, , 1, , John Glostera, b, 1 and Jean-Francois Valarcherc

aInstitute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Woking, Surrey GU24 0NF, UK

bMet Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK

cIVI – Animal Health, Lärkbacken, 740 20 Vänge, Uppsala, Sweden


Accepted 6 September 2007. Available online 30 October 2007.

Abstract
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) can be transmitted in a variety of ways, one of which is through virus exhaled into the air by infected livestock. It is clear that where there is close contact there will be a range of possible mechanisms for the transmission of disease from animal to animal, including the airborne route if simple barriers between livestock exist. In transmission of FMD over longer distances, airborne transmission represents a significant challenge to the veterinary services in that the mechanism is essentially uncontrollable if the primary source of the disease is not contained. In the event of an epidemic of FMD, such as the one experienced in the United Kingdom in 2001, it is important for disease control purposes to understand the contribution made to the overall spread of disease by aerosolised virus. This assessment is based on a combination of measurements made in the laboratory and through clinical observations in the field. To date, laboratory measurements have used a number of instruments that were not specifically designed for working with FMD virus or whose performance have not been fully compared and documented. This paper compares four samplers and describes the method by which samples are processed. Overall it is concluded that there is no optimum air sampling instrument which could be successfully employed for all situations but the work provides guidance to those wishing to make measurements in the future and establishes a baseline against which any new samplers can be compared.

Keywords: Foot-and-mouth disease; Airborne; Air samplers; Spread

Article Outline

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXN-4R1732D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=198529d8479c75b2ef78653e33ed7726



comments


http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nbaf_feis_crd2_46.pdf



kind regards, terry
 

Tex

Well-known member
I guess I would much rather have this disease off a NY Island being studied than right in the middle of the country. If there was wind carrying problems they might be carried out to sea where the time it is airborne it dies rather than in tornado alley in cow country. I wouldn't want bse laden cattle to be fed to consumers even though some believe that removing the spine and brain solves that problem either.

Never underestimate the greed factor I brought up. There are some people so rotten as to have considered it for their own benefit. Cattle margins for packers are still held in check more than any poultry contracts where all movements in price up are taken by the packers due to the structure of the industry. I would hate to be Winston Churchill on this one. I am off to eat my steak sandwich.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not surprisingly- NCBA and Farm Bureau again put backing their partisan politicians ahead of the best interests of cattlemen and the cattle industry- and are supporting moving the research lab dead center into the heart of cattle country :roll: :(

AG GROUPS AND EXPERTS URGE CONGRESS TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANIMAL DISEASE LAB'S MOVE TO KANSAS
Sep. 16, 2009

Source: Kansas Bioscience Authority

Key agriculture groups and veterinary experts have sent a clear message to Congress in recent days: America must move forward without delay on a planned state-of-the-art research facility to protect the food supply and agriculture economy.

In supporting full FY2010 funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in line with President Obama's budget request, the groups are emphasizing the urgency of the research mission.

American Farm Bureau Federation: "The security of America's food supply and agricultural economy is of paramount importance, not only to farmers and ranchers but also to every U.S. citizen. The NBAF offers an opportunity for the integrated research, development, testing and evaluation that will provide needed solutions to natural and deliberate biothreats against agriculture and public health. Furthermore, it will keep American agriculture competitive and allow us to regain our position as a world leader in advanced diagnostic capabilities."

National Cattlemen's Beef Association: "We are pleased that a site [for the NBAF] was finally chosen, and we support its immediate construction. Every day that NBAF is delayed, America's livestock producers are at risk ... Foreign animal disease research, diagnostics, and control are complex and multifaceted, but with this new facility, we can continue to protect America's livestock, livestock producers, and consumers."

California Farm Bureau Federation: "We believe that it is imperative to move forward with building this facility [at Kansas State University] to research high-consequence biological threats involving zoonotic and foreign animal diseases."

In addition, W. Ron DeHaven, DVM, MBA, executive vice president and CEO of the American Veterinary Medical Association, weighed in on the critical importance of accelerating research.

"Today, there is an urgent need to take the highly successful Centers for Disease Control and Prevention model for human disease diagnostics and research and apply it to animal disease diagnostics and research that will preserve a safe, healthy food supply and a sustainable, successful agriculture infrastructure," DeHaven said.

"Momentum [on the NBAF] must continue without delay if we are serious about food safety and public health in America. The result will be nothing less than another crown jewel of American science -- in essence, a CDC for animal health."

These views join those of a national coalition of public- and private-sector NBAF proponents and subject-matter experts that has emerged since 2006. Individually and through the Midwestern Governors Association, a diverse, bipartisan group of 15 state governors has expressed strong support for the NBAF in Kansas, along with research universities, institutions, and producer groups across the country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
September 18, 2009 Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]



Group Calls Message to Congress by NCBA, AFBF, and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., Unscientific, Irresponsible, and Deceptive



Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA today sent a strong letter to congressional members serving on the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Committee urging them to disregard the deceptive plea jointly made by a group that includes the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., whom are seeking to introduce the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus on the U.S. mainland for research purposes.



According to a Sept. 15, 2009, news release posted by the AFBF, the group delivered a message to Congress urging full funding for the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) that would conduct research on FMD and other dangerous livestock diseases on the U.S. mainland, in Manhattan, Kan. Currently, FMD research is conducted only on Plum Island, which is a federally owned remote island off the northern tip of Long Island, N.Y., and far removed from U.S. livestock populations.



R-CALF USA’s letter to Congress calls the message by NCBA, AFBF, and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., irresponsible, misleading, and deceptive because it contained “a patently unscientific, irrelevant and inapplicable comparison between the proposed NBAF and the human disease-based research facility of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard stated that the group inferred that this comparison demonstrated that livestock disease-based research conducted on the mainland would be equally safe as human disease-based research.



However, R-CALF USA states in its letter that the July 2009 report by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) specifically addressed the profound differences between human disease-based research and livestock disease-based research, which make livestock disease-based research inherently more risky. “[T]he GAO explained that unlike human-based disease research where researchers are isolated from viruses by a biological safety cabinet, livestock-based disease research involves a unique risk – a risk associated with human operators having ‘extensive direct contact with infected animals and, consequently, the virus, and these human operators are a potential avenue for FMD escape because they can carry the disease in their lungs or nostrils or on other body parts, even after safety precautions such as showering and expectorating are performed,” the letter states.



“Importantly,” the letter continues, the GAO states that “DHS (Department of Homeland Security) did not even address issues of containment for large animals infected with FMD, or hazards associated with large animals, which is the unique purpose of the NBAF and completely inapplicable and irrelevant to human-based disease research.”



R-CALF USA further states that the GAO study finds: 1) DHS’ conclusion that FMD work can be done as safely on the mainland as on Plum Island is not supported; 2) that Plum Island was the only site that did not provide ample opportunity for FMD and other pathogens to become established and spread upon an inadvertent release; 3) the Manhattan, Kan. site held the greatest negative impact – estimated at $4.2 billion – on the cattle industry should an inadvertent release occur; 4) that DHS neither modeled the spread of FMD after an infection, nor the market response to an FMD outbreak; and 5) that “Plum Island offers a unique advantage – with its water barrier and absence of animals – over the mainland,” which makes it the site harboring the least risk associated with FMD research.



R-CALF USA’s letter concludes by urging Congress to “disregard the deceptive plea from the NCBA, AFBF, and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M.,” and to deny any appropriations to DHS for the purpose of transferring the disease research programs at Plum Island, N.Y., to the U.S. mainland – a request consistent with a letter sent Sept. 3, 2009, by 25 farm, cattle, and consumer groups urging Congress to deny funding for the NBAF site on the mainland.



R-CALF USA’s letter acknowledges that the Plum Island research facility can and should be upgraded and states that the group look’s forward to “working with Congress and DHS in the future to support the upgrade of this critical facility to enhance our nation’s ongoing ability to safely conduct state-of-the-art research on dangerous livestock diseases.”
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
September 18, 2009 Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]



Group Calls Message to Congress by NCBA, AFBF, and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., Unscientific, Irresponsible, and Deceptive



Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA today sent a strong letter to congressional members serving on the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Committee urging them to disregard the deceptive plea jointly made by a group that includes the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., whom are seeking to introduce the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus on the U.S. mainland for research purposes.



According to a Sept. 15, 2009, news release posted by the AFBF, the group delivered a message to Congress urging full funding for the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) that would conduct research on FMD and other dangerous livestock diseases on the U.S. mainland, in Manhattan, Kan. Currently, FMD research is conducted only on Plum Island, which is a federally owned remote island off the northern tip of Long Island, N.Y., and far removed from U.S. livestock populations.



R-CALF USA’s letter to Congress calls the message by NCBA, AFBF, and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., irresponsible, misleading, and deceptive because it contained “a patently unscientific, irrelevant and inapplicable comparison between the proposed NBAF and the human disease-based research facility of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard stated that the group inferred that this comparison demonstrated that livestock disease-based research conducted on the mainland would be equally safe as human disease-based research.



However, R-CALF USA states in its letter that the July 2009 report by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) specifically addressed the profound differences between human disease-based research and livestock disease-based research, which make livestock disease-based research inherently more risky. “[T]he GAO explained that unlike human-based disease research where researchers are isolated from viruses by a biological safety cabinet, livestock-based disease research involves a unique risk – a risk associated with human operators having ‘extensive direct contact with infected animals and, consequently, the virus, and these human operators are a potential avenue for FMD escape because they can carry the disease in their lungs or nostrils or on other body parts, even after safety precautions such as showering and expectorating are performed,” the letter states.



“Importantly,” the letter continues, the GAO states that “DHS (Department of Homeland Security) did not even address issues of containment for large animals infected with FMD, or hazards associated with large animals, which is the unique purpose of the NBAF and completely inapplicable and irrelevant to human-based disease research.”



R-CALF USA further states that the GAO study finds: 1) DHS’ conclusion that FMD work can be done as safely on the mainland as on Plum Island is not supported; 2) that Plum Island was the only site that did not provide ample opportunity for FMD and other pathogens to become established and spread upon an inadvertent release; 3) the Manhattan, Kan. site held the greatest negative impact – estimated at $4.2 billion – on the cattle industry should an inadvertent release occur; 4) that DHS neither modeled the spread of FMD after an infection, nor the market response to an FMD outbreak; and 5) that “Plum Island offers a unique advantage – with its water barrier and absence of animals – over the mainland,” which makes it the site harboring the least risk associated with FMD research.



R-CALF USA’s letter concludes by urging Congress to “disregard the deceptive plea from the NCBA, AFBF, and W. Ron DeHaven, D.V.M.,” and to deny any appropriations to DHS for the purpose of transferring the disease research programs at Plum Island, N.Y., to the U.S. mainland – a request consistent with a letter sent Sept. 3, 2009, by 25 farm, cattle, and consumer groups urging Congress to deny funding for the NBAF site on the mainland.



R-CALF USA’s letter acknowledges that the Plum Island research facility can and should be upgraded and states that the group look’s forward to “working with Congress and DHS in the future to support the upgrade of this critical facility to enhance our nation’s ongoing ability to safely conduct state-of-the-art research on dangerous livestock diseases.”


I say let the Farm Bureau put up a bond in the amount of possible damages to the cattle industry if the virus gets out. They are in the business of insuring risk. They should be held accountable if their policy positions cause damages. Put NCBA in there with them as well as the personal assets of Dr. DeHaven. No sense in making everyone pay for costly policy decisions. I would like to see all of these people lose their voice via their dollars they have when introducing possibly costly policies.

Tex
 
Top