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

Question for Tam

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam:
UNSEAT THEM, R-CALF used BSE and the courts to keep the Canadian border closed because of their beef with the Big packers. BUT all you did was put 40 small packers out of business in the US, according to what we were told this Week. What did that do but eliminate competition for the big packers giving them an even bigger market share. Rolling Eyes .WAY TO GO R-CALF!!!! The Big Packers should be sending Leo and Bill and the R-CALF clan a big Thank you note with a bottle of Crown Royal for the extended run they have given them in Canada. Rolling Eyes

Who told you this, Tam, and how did rcalf put 40 small packers out of business? Had Tyson's butt not been paid off in Canadian taxpayers, there might be 40 more small packers picking up the slack in Canada instead of the concentration you have today.

Who told you this, Tam, and how did it supposedly happen?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tam:
UNSEAT THEM, R-CALF used BSE and the courts to keep the Canadian border closed because of their beef with the Big packers. BUT all you did was put 40 small packers out of business in the US, according to what we were told this Week. What did that do but eliminate competition for the big packers giving them an even bigger market share. Rolling Eyes .WAY TO GO R-CALF!!!! The Big Packers should be sending Leo and Bill and the R-CALF clan a big Thank you note with a bottle of Crown Royal for the extended run they have given them in Canada. Rolling Eyes

Who told you this, Tam, and how did rcalf put 40 small packers out of business? Had Tyson's butt not been paid off in Canadian taxpayers, there might be 40 more small packers picking up the slack in Canada instead of the concentration you have today.

Who told you this, Tam, and how did it supposedly happen?

It came up in a panel discussion at our convention and since there was four on the panel and a room full of convention attendees, I can't exactlly remember who spoke about the 40 plants . But from what I understand from the discussion and other reports I have read it was the prolonged BSE issue and lack of access to Canadian cattle that took US plants down. And just who prolonged the issue with their court actions? :?

As far as the packers in Canada we have more thanks to the border delays and that too helped in the down sizing of the US industry . But again if we had seen a quick end to the border closure would we as an industry felt a need to increase our capacity? Every time R-CALF openned their mouth in court the more talk there was about increasing our capacity. :roll:

This is part of a report from the Standing Committee of Ag in Canada
B. The BSE Crisis: Building Canadian Capacity and Reducing U.S. Capacity
The border closure resulted in an immediate and substantial decline in the available supply of cattle for U.S. packers and an oversupply in Canada where cattle production greatly exceeded existing slaughter and processing capacity.

]
In Canada, the packing industry responded to the new market conditions, principally by building domestic slaughter capacity. In 2004, capacity growth was driven in part by expansion of existing operations through the addition of extra shifts, Saturday kills, or routine overtime. In addition, Gencor Foods Inc. in Ontario, and Blue Mountain Packers in British Columbia reopened slaughter plants. New packers entered the market. Notably, Atlantic Beef Products Inc., a new plant located in Prince Edward Island, commenced operations in December 2004.
At the end of 2004, Canada’s federally inspected slaughter capacity was approximately 81,000 head per week.[5] Provincially inspected slaughter added another 4,500 head per week, providing a total Canadian slaughter capacity of 85,500 per week or approximately 4.3 million head annually. The Canadian slaughter rate in both federally and provincially inspected facilities was just over 3.9 million head in 2004; this was the highest rate since 1978, when 4 million head were processed.

Slaughter capacity continued to grow during the first half of 2005 as the newly opened firms completed their set-up phase and kills expanded to maximum plant capacity. In addition, Tyson Foods and Cargill Limited both announced significant expansions. Depending on utilization rates within the plants, slaughter in 2005 is projected to range between 4.2 and 4.6 million head, an increase of between 21 and 33% compared to pre-BSE levels (2002). Other proposals currently under discussion could result in additional capacity over the next two years, facilitating an annual slaughter target of 5 million animals by 2006. This would represent an increase of over 40% compared to the 2002 level.

In the United States, the impact of border restrictions was greater in regions where packing plants relied heavily upon Canadian cattle imports for capacity utilization. Canadian imports represented 30% of cattle slaughter in Utah, 19% in Washington and 10% or more in Minnesota, Michigan and New Jersey. As a result, many U.S. slaughter plants are facing financial difficulties, and have stopped production and laid off workers.
Several plants have closed, including the Iowa Quality Beef plant (Tampa, Iowa) in August 2004, the Simplot Meat Products plant (Nampa, Idaho) in September 2003, and the Ferry Brothers plant (Ferndale, Washington).

Two Swift and Co. plants cancelled shifts, including the plant in Greeley (Colorado) where only about 3-5% of cattle slaughtered had come from Canada; and

· More recently, Tyson Foods suspended slaughtering operations in its plants in Denison (Iowa), Norfolk and West Point (Nebraska), Boise (Idaho) and Pasco (Washington), affecting 2,100 workers over six weeks (January and February 2005). These plants had been running at less than 75% of capacity, 10-15% below historical levels, because of the lack of cattle to process.

Now tell us eCON from this Government report who has less concentration in their industry since BSE hit? Canada or the US
and who caused the decline in competition in the US if the the lack of Canadian cattle was the reason many U.S. slaughter plants are facing financial difficulties, and have stopped production and laid off workers? Could it have been the ones that PROLONGED THE BSE ISSUE WITH THEIR COURT ACTION TO UNSEAT THE BIG PACKERS? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
So how did rcalf do this? The USDA closed the border.

The "Tams of Canada" in their blind hate spewing forget that there are no court orders against the border now... USDA withdrew their proposal to open it to live cattle and OTMs because Canada found more BSE, and the US Senate by a substantial majority vote "suggested" to USDA to withdraw it.... The border is now closed to OTM's because of that USDA order...
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Econ and OT, are you brainless? USDA closed to the border but after they opened it back up R-cult stepped back in and had their buddy Cebull block it and close it up again!! OT you especially like to pick on Tam, I was raised to treat a women with respect. You must have been raised in a barn because you dont treat Tam with respect!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
U.S. cattle lobby renews beef war
Protectionist group appeals ruling

Published: Thursday, June 08, 2006

American protectionist group R-CALF wants another day in court. The high profile cattle industry lobby group is appealing a U.S. district court decision earlier this year that denied its request for a hearing to argue for a permanent ban against Canadian cattle and boxed beef over mad cow concerns.

R-CALF president Chuck Kiker said the group filed a notice of appeal because there's never been full consideration of the merits of its case.

Canadian cattle industry officials vowed Wednesday to fight this latest move from R-CALF, even though the chances of the activist ranchers' group actually getting an appeal is considered to be slim.

"I've got to think that there isn't a strong likelihood that this is going to be successful," said John Masswohl, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association's director of international relations.

This is partly because R-CALF's notice of appeal, filed in U.S. district court in Montana Monday, will ultimately be dealt with by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's the same appeals court that last July reversed an earlier decision by Billings, Mont., district court judge Richard Cebull granting R-CALF a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's plan to resume imports of younger Canadian cattle and beef.

The appeals court's unanimous ruling in July 2005 ended a 26-month long ban on Canadian cattle in the U.S.

The ban was instituted in May 2003 following the discovery of mad cow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada and was dragged on for an additional four months in the U.S. by Cebull's trade-halting preliminary injunction.

In April, Cebull denied R-CALF's request for a hearing for a permanent injunction citing the appeals court's decision.

Darcy Davis, chairman of the Alberta Beef Producers, said he views R-CALF's appeal as "a bit of a shot in the dark" considering the appeals court's decision.

"We will still put some briefs in or whatever we need to do to oppose it, so that's where it stands right now," he said.

Strathmore-area feedlot operator Stuart Thiessen said the fact that R-CALF has filed a notice of appeal makes him nervous, even though it's uncertain at this point if the group will even get an appeal.

"Originally we were told, according to all the legal advice at the time, that there was no way they were going to get their original injunction, and they did," he cautioned. "Do I personally think it's going to happen? No. But am I nervous enough? Yes."

During the BSE crisis, dozens of countries closed their borders to Canadian cattle and beef, including the U.S., the industry's largest export market. All told, BSE is said to have cost the Canadian cattle industry about $7 billion in losses.

The vast majority of markets have since been recaptured.

However, Arno Doerksen, chair of Canada Beef Export Federation, said more markets need to be reopened, including the U.S. to older cattle, before the industry can fully recover. Currently, only younger cattle and beef are eligible for entry into the U.S.

"We need that kind of access for prices to find their proper place and for the full value of Canadian products to be realized," Doerksen said.

[email protected]

And R-Clan isn't looking for a court order against the border? :roll: :roll:
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Official Court Opinion Refutes Johanns’ Claim that Decision Only a Procedural Delay

BILLINGS, MONT. (March 7, 2005) On March 2, 2005, U.S. District Judge Richard F. Cebull granted R-CALF USA’s request for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Final Rule to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle and additional beef products. USDA’s Final Rule would have reopened the border today.
In response to the court’s decision, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns issued an official statement that said the ruling was not a reflection on the substance of the minimal-risk rule, but rather a procedural delay while the judge considers the merits of the case.

However, the court’s 30-page Order of Preliminary Injunction and Opinion in this case appears to materially refute Johanns’ claim.

“To prevail in our hearing last Wednesday, R-CALF had to demonstrate to the court that our case had a substantial likelihood of success based on the merits of the issues we raised in the complaint we filed on January 10th,” explained Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA CEO. “The court found that R-CALF had indeed presented compelling evidence that we likely would succeed on the merits of our claims.”

Cebull ordered USDA to temporarily halt its plan to lift the ban on Canadian live cattle and additional beef products after listening to arguments that demonstrated “the introduction of BSE into the U.S. will be irreversible and is sufficient to justify a finding of significant irreparable harm.”

In part of his opinion, Cebull wrote:

(USDA) appears to have applied (an) arbitrary approach to a decision that subjects the entire U.S. beef industry to potentially catastrophic damages.

The testing…indicates that if Canada were to ship 1.7 million head of cattle a year to the U.S., as it did in 2002 prior to the discovery of BSE in Canada, it is a virtual certainty that Canadian cattle infected with BSE would be imported into the U.S.

The facts strongly suggest that the USDA, ignoring its statutory mandate to protect the health and welfare of the people of the United States, established its goal of re-opening the border to the importation of live beef from Canada and thereafter attempted to work backwards to support and justify this goal.

The evidence indicates that Canada has not conducted sufficient testing for BSE to accurately assess the rate of BSE infection in Canada. The discovery of four animals raised in Alberta province stricken with BSE during the past year and a half is inconsistent with the USDA’s assertion that the BSE incidence rate in Canada is ‘very low’ or ‘minimal’.

The USDA’s assertion that the Canadian feed ban is effective and has been in place long enough to make the risk of additional cases of BSE insignificant is at odds with the facts and, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

The USDA did not consider the mitigation of adverse effects of the Final Rule on small businesses that could have been achieved through a requirement that edible bovine products derived from Canadian cattle or imported from Canada be labeled so that consumers could choose not to purchase those products.

The USDA argues in response to (labeling): ‘While labeling provides consumers with additional information, it is neither a food safety nor an animal health measure.’ Such a statement is misleading; certainly allowing U.S. consumers to chose whether or not they are willing to accept the (USDA descriptions) ‘negligible,’ ‘very low,’ ‘highly unlikely’ risk posed by the consumption of Canadian beef …relates to food safety. Any labeling should take place immediately upon opening of the Canadian border to allow consumers the opportunity to make an informed choice when purchasing beef. The cost of said labeling would be minimal compared to the risks associated with eating beef of an unknown origin potentially contaminated with BSE.

The USDA’s failure to give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of mandatory testing, or at least its failure to explain to the public why these benefits do not justify mandatory testing, in the face of the possibility of irreparable injury from any case of BSE that is not identified is arbitrary and capricious . . .”

Cebull instructed the attorneys for both parties to decide on a mutually acceptable schedule for the final hearing of R-CALF USA’s case, and to present that timetable to the court within 10 days. The court will then set a date to determine the fate of USDA’s Final Rule.

“Judge Cebull’s ruling states the obvious – that we do not know enough about Canada’s BSE problem to re-open the border right now,” Bullard said. “We will work with USDA to re-open the border when science – not politics – tells us it is safe to do so.”

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 13,000 strong – are located in 45 states, and the organization has over 57 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

Can you boys not read?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ and OT, are you brainless? USDA closed to the border but after they opened it back up R-cult stepped back in and had their buddy Cebull block it and close it up again!! OT you especially like to pick on Tam, I was raised to treat a women with respect. You must have been raised in a barn because you dont treat Tam with respect!!

There is no court order keeping anything Canadian out now by Cebull or anybody else.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Commentary: Beef Boomerang



It's enough to make you wonder if it's only the cows who are mad. Back in December, when a solitary Holstein in Washington state was diagnosed with bovine spongiform encephalopathy -- BSE, better known as mad cow disease -- dozens of countries responded by closing the door to American beef. Though some have since eased restrictions, many of the biggest markets for U.S. beef (Japan, South Korea) continue to be blocked even though the science tells us we've got a handle on the situation.

You might think this calls for a meaty U.S. protest about double-dealing foreigners invoking bogus "safety" concerns to throw up new protectionist walls against a perfectly fine American product? Well, there's just one inconvenient fact: The foreigners are following our lead.

That's right. If ever there were a Grade A example of how high-handed U.S. policies toward imports can take a bite out of U.S. exports, our beef policy would be it. It started last May, when another cow -- this one in Alberta, Canada -- was found to have BSE. The U.S. Department of Agriculture responded by shutting off imports of both beef and live cattle from north of the border. Canadians are still mad about that one, and rightly so.

But then a not-so-funny thing happened. Scarcely six months later, another infected cow turned up, but this time in Washington state. And though this cow had been imported from Canada, other countries responded to the outbreak in America pretty much the same way we had responded to the Canadians: to wit, by shutting their borders to our beef.

In a recent Oval Office meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, President Bush declared that he was committed to seeing that the beef trade is restored "as soon as possible." He said too that he hoped decisions about how to handle mad cow would be based on "sound science."

Unfortunately, the status quo suits America's home-grown herd of protectionists all too well. Led by the folks at R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America), they succeeded last month in getting a federal judge to impose a temporary restraining order on a USDA attempt to restore some economic and scientific sanity to U.S. beef policy.

And they are no idle threat. In this election year, John Kerry and nine colleagues in the Senate recently signed a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman urging her to keep the ban in place. The letter attacked the Canadian safeguards and warned the Administration about allowing Canada to turn America into a "dumping ground" for bad beef.

Leave aside that Canadians would argue that their testing is even more stringent than ours. The broader point is that we've learned a great deal about mad cow since the early 1990s, when the epidemic peaked in Britain. Primarily we've learned that the way to contain it is through the feeding chain, which we've done and which would arrest its spread even in the event that BSE popped up in a large number of cows. As for humans, the director of Harvard's Center for Risk Analysis puts the risk to Americans as about "as close to zero as you can get."

Unfortunately, while we have the science today to handle mad cow, there's still no known cure for these irrational outbreaks of protectionism.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Econ101 said:
So how did rcalf do this? The USDA closed the border.

The "Tams of Canada" in their blind hate spewing forget that there are no court orders against the border now... USDA withdrew their proposal to open it to live cattle and OTMs because Canada found more BSE, and the US Senate by a substantial majority vote "suggested" to USDA to withdraw it.... The border is now closed to OTM's because of that USDA order...

Yep Oldtimer R-CALF has done nothing to prolong the border problems have they? :roll: Everytime the USDA takes one step forward in this mess R-CALF and their friendly Montana Federal Court Judge is there with lawyers and legal briefs in hand. Just how long did it take for Cebull to write up his 28 page ruling? Wasn't it less than 24 hours? but when you take the exact wording from the R-CALF briefs and throw in a Genuine risk of Death comment for the media to eat up how long would it take? And how long did it take the Court of Appeal to spank Cebull on all counts. :wink:

Just who believes the USDA would have pulled the OTM if it wasn't for trying to appease R-CALF's lawyers in hopes they would drop the case and allow the UTM cattle through? :wink:

BTW Oldtimer if our OTM are a risk, what about the US OTM Should US consumers be eating it if you don't know where the Texas and Alabama cows contracted BSE? When is Dennis going to request the R-CALF membership to vote on his resolution about "No marketing of beef from cattle over 20 months in the US"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So Tam and Murgen-- What is it? Is R-CALF a little Montana protectionist group of cultists like you always snipe about- or are they a cattlemans group that has influenced every decision on the border issue, which would mean they must have the ear of the legislators, courts, and consumers to pull in such clout? :???:

I don't think any country should be exporting any beef anywhere, especially OTM, until they get a handle on the BSE issue-- and definitely not live cattle from a country that is in the second or third generation infections-- especially when dozens of new questions arise weekly...

Tam- Do you understand CFIA's new report-- they admit

Canada has second and third generation infections
Cluster area now believed to include several western provinces
there had to be multiple feed ban violations
there had to be multiple infected cattle enter the feed chain

Did you read the report Tam..... :???:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I don't think any country should be exporting any beef anywhere, especially OTM, until they get a handle on the BSE issue-- and definitely not live cattle from a country that is in the second or third generation infections-- especially when dozens of new questions arise weekly...

They have a handle on it OT, that's the point.

Even cases of "atypical", which might be a mutation from normal BSE, would that be second generation?

I'd be careful not to stick your foot in your mouth too far!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Econ101 said:
So how did rcalf do this? The USDA closed the border.

The "Tams of Canada" in their blind hate spewing forget that there are no court orders against the border now... USDA withdrew their proposal to open it to live cattle and OTMs because Canada found more BSE, and the US Senate by a substantial majority vote "suggested" to USDA to withdraw it.... The border is now closed to OTM's because of that USDA order...

Yep Oldtimer R-CALF has done nothing to prolong the border problems have they? :roll: Everytime the USDA takes one step forward in this mess R-CALF and their friendly Montana Federal Court Judge is there with lawyers and legal briefs in hand. Just how long did it take for Cebull to write up his 28 page ruling? Wasn't it less than 24 hours? but when you take the exact wording from the R-CALF briefs and throw in a Genuine risk of Death comment for the media to eat up how long would it take? And how long did it take the Court of Appeal to spank Cebull on all counts. :wink:

Just who believes the USDA would have pulled the OTM if it wasn't for trying to appease R-CALF's lawyers in hopes they would drop the case and allow the UTM cattle through? :wink:

BTW Oldtimer if our OTM are a risk, what about the US OTM Should US consumers be eating it if you don't know where the Texas and Alabama cows contracted BSE? When is Dennis going to request the R-CALF membership to vote on his resolution about "No marketing of beef from cattle over 20 months in the US"

Tam, you make some good points on a post clearly intended to trip you up.

Don't overlook the fact that R-CALF takes in mega-mountains of money (maybe $400,000.00 out of little ol' SD alone last year, we hear) at their roll-over auctions. IF the US politicians are even only a fraction as greedy as Econ and friends paint them, they have not missed that fact! Maybe there have been some politicians' palms greased, or campaigns "helped" with what portion of that money not yet in attorneys' hands.

MRJ

MRJ
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So Tam and Murgen-- What is it? Is R-CALF a little Montana protectionist group of cultists like you always snipe about- or are they a cattlemans group that has influenced every decision on the border issue, which would mean they must have the ear of the legislators, courts, and consumers to pull in such clout? :???:

I don't think any country should be exporting any beef anywhere, especially OTM, until they get a handle on the BSE issue-- and definitely not live cattle from a country that is in the second or third generation infections-- especially when dozens of new questions arise weekly...

Tam- Do you understand CFIA's new report-- they admit

Canada has second and third generation infections
Cluster area now believed to include several western provinces
there had to be multiple feed ban violations
there had to be multiple infected cattle enter the feed chain

Did you read the report Tam..... :???:

What a joke Oldtimer all they needed was the ear of ONE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE. Once it got passed Cebull, their fight went down in a ball of flames. Or did you forget that three of the Ninth Curcuit Court of Appeal judges spanked Cebull on every count and the rest of the 40 some judges AGREED.not to hear the appeal. If they have so much clout why did even CEBULL back away and refuse to hear their case. :lol:
If I were you I would be thankful they don't have clout with the consumers because if they did the US beef demand surely would have been damaged by R-CALFs claims that meat coming from a country affected by BSE presents a risk to human health when BSE was found in the US. Cebulls little Genuine risk of death comment could have killed the US market if he had any clout. :wink:

If your beef is not safe enough to be exported to foreign markets for foreign consumer to consume, then why in He** are you selling it to US consumers? :shock: Don't you care at all about the safety of your consumers Oldtimer? I expect you to stand up at the next R-CALF meeting and state you want the US beef industry to stop selling beef altogether. Better yet go down to the auction barn in Glasgow and have them stop the sale as there might be someone there wanting to buy slaughter cattle. . At least until all the question surrounding the US BSE cases are KNOWN. Lets just see how fast you get run out of town. :wink:

Oldtimer if you want to read an upsetting report on BSE why not read the USDA report, you know the one with NO ANSWERS, which was closely followed by a announced cut in testing. At least we know something and no we may not be happy about the fact a trucker may not have cleaned out his truck. But at least if the new proposed Canadian feed ban rules are passed we will have solved the problem of accidental contamination of cattle feed by careless feed handlers. What are you going to do to solve your problems. Test less and just not find them like you have done so well in the past. :wink:
And just how many generations has the US had Atypical BSE in their herd? Do you remember the reports of US mink dieing from atypical TSE's after eating Wisconsin Dairy cattle? And why when the USDA tested all those cattle for radies and found them to be negitive, they destroyed the samples without testing them for BSE which was to be done according to testing protocol. What were they scared those rabies negitive cattle had that they didn't test them OLDTIMER? :???:

I'm with Murgen you better watch how far you stick that foot into your mouth.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, I asked you before why you think the USDA was wrong to close the border in the first place. I didn't see your answer.

I also haven't seen an answer from you or BMR on SSGA's take on that report.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So Tam and Murgen-- What is it? Is R-CALF a little Montana protectionist group of cultists like you always snipe about- or are they a cattlemans group that has influenced every decision on the border issue, which would mean they must have the ear of the legislators, courts, and consumers to pull in such clout? :???:

I don't think any country should be exporting any beef anywhere, especially OTM, until they get a handle on the BSE issue-- and definitely not live cattle from a country that is in the second or third generation infections-- especially when dozens of new questions arise weekly...

Tam- Do you understand CFIA's new report-- they admit

Canada has second and third generation infections
Cluster area now believed to include several western provinces
there had to be multiple feed ban violations
there had to be multiple infected cattle enter the feed chain

Did you read the report Tam..... :???:


Ot last time I checked there were only 4 western provinces...How do you get several out of that???
 

Bill

Well-known member
Subject: CFIA Epidemiological Report Released

CFIA has released its epidemiological report on the fifth case of BSE in Canada. The news release is below and the full report is available at
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2006/5investe.shtml.
CFIA COMPLETES BSE INVESTIGATION
OTTAWA, June 16, 2006 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has concluded its investigation of the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) confirmed on April 16, 2006, in a cow from British Columbia.

The investigation, conducted in line with international guidelines, identified 148 animals, including the affected animal’s herdmates and recent offspring. From this group, 22 live animals were located and all tested negative for BSE. One additional animal, which is currently pregnant, has been placed under quarantine and will be tested once it has calved. Of the remaining animals investigated, 77 had died or been slaughtered, 15 were exported to the United States and 33 were untraceable. Because BSE investigations typically involve older animals, it is common for a portion of the herdmates to go untraceable due to lack of records.

The Agency examined feed to which the affected animal would have been exposed early in its life, when cattle are most likely to develop BSE. Efforts to identify potential routes of transmission included reviews of records and procedures at the farm, retail and production levels. While a specific source of infection was not found, investigators determined that vehicles and equipment used to ship and receive a variety of ingredients likely contaminated cattle feed with the BSE agent.

Investigators also identified a feed ingredient supplier common to this case and Canada’s fourth BSE animal, confirmed on January 22, 2006. This potential link suggests that all of Canada’s BSE cases fall within the same geographic cluster, which is reflective of feed sourcing, production and distribution patterns. The clustering theory is explained in the epidemiological report Canada’s Assessment of the North American BSE Cases Diagnosed From 2003 to 2005, which is available on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s website.

The investigation noted high compliance with the requirements of Canada’s feed ban. Such findings—which have been observed during other investigations and regular inspections of feed mills, renderers and retailers across the country—confirm the presence of limited opportunities for contamination during feed manufacture, transportation, storage and use. With an eye to eliminating these risks, the Agency continues its progress toward enhancing Canada’s feed ban. Proposed changes would prohibit the use of potentially harmful cattle tissues as ingredients in any animal feeds.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I don't think any country should be exporting any beef anywhere, especially OTM, until they get a handle on the BSE issue-- and definitely not live cattle from a country that is in the second or third generation infections-- especially when dozens of new questions arise weekly...

They have a handle on it OT, that's the point.

Even cases of "atypical", which might be a mutation from normal BSE, would that be second generation?

I'd be careful not to stick your foot in your mouth too far!
OT has had his foot in and out of his mouth so much that he may be reported as the first US case of FMD! :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- Murgen- Bill Did you read the full CFIA report that flounder provided the link for? It includes much more than Bills posted press release...

When and if you do- There is one question I could not find an answer to in the report -maybe I just missed it- so maybe you would enlighten me...The CFIA claims they believe the cross contamination occured when a feed mill used a contract trucker to haul material for them- saying the contract trucking firm did not clean its trucks properly between loads...But the things I could not find is for how long a period did that contract trucker haul for that feed mill- was it one year?- was it 5 years? - were/are they still hauling and spreading it? And for how many other feed mills that yet have been connected to a positive cow, did this contract firm haul for?

This would mean a lot in the assessment to how many more BSE positive POST feedban cows are in Canada-- and could be the reason they are now saying province(s) instead of province- altho I couldn't find anywhere they said which provinces they believe this contaminated material from multiple animals went...
 
Top