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

R-CALF on BSE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
March 14, 2006



Sample from Alabama Santa Gertrudis Positive for BSE



(Billings, Mont.) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Monday announced that the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, confirmed through a Western blot test that a Santa Gertrudis cow in Alabama tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). USDA officials said a dentition examination by a local veterinarian indicated the animal likely was at least 10 years old or more, meaning she was born before implementation of the 1997 feed ban. USDA officials also said the animal had been on the Alabama farm for less than a year, and an epidemiological investigation would start at once. It remains unknown at this time where the animal was born.



"BSE is not native to the United States, and we are fortunate the U.S. began implementing precautionary measures against this disease soon after it was first discovered in Great Britain," said R-CALF USA Vice President and Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. "The U.S. made BSE a reportable disease in 1986, established import restrictions in 1989, implemented a surveillance program in 1990, implemented a feed ban in 1997, and in 2004, began removing high-risk tissues from older cattle.



"No other country had implemented such a comprehensive BSE protection plan prior to a domestic discovery of BSE, and while these measures have served to protect our cattle herd and our consumers from any widespread exposure, it is now obvious that this foreign animal disease has, in fact, been introduced into the United States," Thornsberry continued.



"The U.S. cattle industry continues to produce the safest, most wholesome beef in the world, and we must ensure that we have effective, fully implemented measures in place to keep it that way," he emphasized. "The U.S. should continue the basic mitigation measures currently in place and strengthen the measures where uncertainty remains.



This recent BSE case, like the first case found in Texas, was detected in an animal born well before the implementation of our 1997 feed ban, indicating the disease was introduced prior to that time and may have penetrated U.S. import restrictions first implemented in 1989.



"USDA should now work to ensure that our import restrictions prevent any further introduction of the disease and should continue its BSE surveillance testing," Thornsberry commented. "USDA also should encourage development of live animal tests, or tests that may be able to detect the disease sooner than those already on the market.



"Meanwhile, R-CALF believes USDA should allow private packers to meet the product requirements of export customers in order to restore, and then maintain, lost export markets, including testing of cattle at slaughter," he added.



Because a comprehensive feed ban is known to be the most effective measure in arresting the amplification of BSE, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should immediately strengthen the U.S. feed ban by closing the loopholes identified the agency back in 2004 – including a ban on poultry litter from cattle feed – and by ensuring complete compliance with the feed ban," Thornsberry asserted. "The U.S. should also require all countries that intend to export beef or cattle to the U.S. to do the same. Currently, the U.S. and Canada have the least restrictive feed bans of all countries known to have BSE.



"Additionally, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be implemented at once, which would afford U.S. beef consumers the right to choose between domestic beef or products from Canada, Japan and other foreign countries," noted Thornsberry. "COOL would, as well, protect the U.S. cattle industry in the event additional Canadian BSE cases are discovered in animals born after the Canadian feed ban.



"The U.S. also needs to require countries that export beef and cattle to the United States to significantly strengthen their own BSE mitigation measures, by requiring those nations to start removing all known specified risk materials (SRMs) from cattle over 12 months of age, which is the current recommendation by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for countries with an undetermined BSE risk," Thornsberry stressed.



"We have a responsibility to our consumers to eliminate this disease from the U.S. cattle herd," Thornsberry said. "It makes no sense to increase our exposure to the introduction of BSE by importing cattle and beef from countries with a greater risk for the disease, while we are working to eradicate the low domestic level of BSE.



"Likewise, it makes no sense to continue allow into the United States foreign beef and cattle under lower import standards than standards the U.S. is required to meet for beef exported elsewhere," Thornsberry concluded.



# # #



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 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 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.
 
"BSE is not native to the United States,

Wonder where it is"Native" ?


No other country had implemented such a comprehensive BSE protection plan prior to a domestic discovery of BSE,

Except Canada.



"Additionally, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be implemented at once, which would afford U.S. beef consumers the right to choose between domestic beef or products from Canada, Japan and other foreign countries,


And BSE FREE countries like Australia and Brazil ect.



PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: R-CALF on BSE
March 14, 2006



Sample from Alabama Santa Gertrudis Positive for BSE



(Billings, Mont.) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Monday announced that the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, confirmed through a Western blot test that a Santa Gertrudis cow in Alabama tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). USDA officials said a dentition examination by a local veterinarian indicated the animal likely was at least 10 years old or more, meaning she was born before implementation of the 1997 feed ban. USDA officials also said the animal had been on the Alabama farm for less than a year, and an epidemiological investigation would start at once. It remains unknown at this time where the animal was born.



"BSE is not native to the United States, and we are fortunate the U.S. began implementing precautionary measures against this disease soon after it was first discovered in Great Britain," said R-CALF USA Vice President and Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. "The U.S. made BSE a reportable disease in 1986, established import restrictions in 1989, implemented a surveillance program in 1990, implemented a feed ban in 1997, and in 2004, began removing high-risk tissues from older cattle.



"No other country had implemented such a comprehensive BSE protection plan prior to a domestic discovery of BSE, and while these measures have served to protect our cattle herd and our consumers from any widespread exposure, it is now obvious that this foreign animal disease has, in fact, been introduced into the United States," Thornsberry continued.



"The U.S. cattle industry continues to produce the safest, most wholesome beef in the world, and we must ensure that we have effective, fully implemented measures in place to keep it that way," he emphasized. "The U.S. should continue the basic mitigation measures currently in place and strengthen the measures where uncertainty remains.

I thought they said" Beef from a country with BSE was a Genuine risk of DEATH"
 
BMR-


YOu hit the nail on the head when you brought those facts out. How stupid can you R-calfers be to actually believe the BS in this news release? I think this is only going to help open the border to OTM Canadian Cattle.

OT I think you would have been smarter to have not posted this news release from R-laugh.
 
"BSE is not native to the United States"

Either is polio, smallpox, cholera, avian flue, swine flue and so on.

In fact are these diseases native to any one country?

That answer would be a tough one.

Seems they all either have been or will be on every continent at one time or another.

Lots of folks will believe this statement - too bad.

B.C.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
"BSE is not native to the United States,

Wonder where it is"Native" ?

rkaiser will probably tell you Mars :wink: :lol: I don't think they know where it originated from- or how---- but since it was found in other areas long before the US- and the accepted theory is that it was brought to North America by infected UK and European cattle and feed-- I would have to consider it not native too...


No other country had implemented such a comprehensive BSE protection plan prior to a domestic discovery of BSE,

Except Canada.

Debateable- Why the post feed ban positives showing up :???:



"Additionally, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be implemented at once, which would afford U.S. beef consumers the right to choose between domestic beef or products from Canada, Japan and other foreign countries,


And BSE FREE countries like Australia and Brazil ect.

I agree--- Consumers should have all the info we can give them on country of origin- Leave the decision to them on what they eat.....


"
 
Randy Kaiser will tell you mars all right OT. When he is making fun of the whole transmission story.

The truth is that BSE is likely native to all countries in the world including the USA. If you test for it you will find it. It did not come to America OT, it was and is in America just as it was and is in Canada, Australia, and every other damn country in the world.

Kinda interesting how Rcalf said little about the border this time. The M COOL thing is kinda turning into a joke. Like people will choose American beef over Canadian since Canada has one more case. :roll: Come now OT you must be even getting a bit embarrassed by that one.

I do like the feed ban stance - even though I don't believe the misfolded prion transmission theory. Who knows what we are passing along feeding dead animals to herbivores anyway. Just another one of those money stories that Cargill and Tyson and friends don't want to give up.

Speaking of which - Rcalfs stand on BSE testing for export marketing gets my vote. Focus now you level headed boys 8) (wish there was an icon with snoose running out of two sides of the happy faced guys mouth), you're on to something here.
 
rkaiser said:
Kinda interesting how Rcalf said little about the border this time. The M COOL thing is kinda turning into a joke. Like people will choose American beef over Canadian since Canada has one more case. :roll: Come now OT you must be even getting a bit embarrassed by that one.

I do like the feed ban stance - even though I don't believe the misfolded prion transmission theory. Who knows what we are passing along feeding dead animals to herbivores anyway. Just another one of those money stories that Cargill and Tyson and friends don't want to give up.

Speaking of which - Rcalfs stand on BSE testing for export marketing gets my vote. Focus now you level headed boys 8) (wish there was an icon with snoose running out of two sides of the happy faced guys mouth), you're on to something here.

Remember tho Randy- the M-COOL was requested and even made law before BSE became an issue- its has always been more than just BSE...

And I've always got snoose running down both sides :wink: :lol:
 
rkaiser said:
Randy Kaiser will tell you mars all right OT. When he is making fun of the whole transmission story.

The truth is that BSE is likely native to all countries in the world including the USA. If you test for it you will find it. It did not come to America OT, it was and is in America just as it was and is in Canada, Australia, and every other damn country in the world.

Kinda interesting how Rcalf said little about the border this time. The M COOL thing is kinda turning into a joke. Like people will choose American beef over Canadian since Canada has one more case. :roll: Come now OT you must be even getting a bit embarrassed by that one.

I do like the feed ban stance - even though I don't believe the misfolded prion transmission theory. Who knows what we are passing along feeding dead animals to herbivores anyway. Just another one of those money stories that Cargill and Tyson and friends don't want to give up.
Speaking of which - Rcalfs stand on BSE testing for export marketing gets my vote. Focus now you level headed boys 8) (wish there was an icon with snoose running out of two sides of the happy faced guys mouth), you're on to something here.

Randy would you like to explain why when countries stop feeding MBM feed back to cattle there was a huge drop in the new cases found?
 
Oldtimer said:
March 14, 2006
BSE is not native to the United States, and we are fortunate the U.S. began implementing precautionary measures against this disease soon after it was first discovered in Great Britain," said R-CALF USA Vice President and Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. "The U.S. made BSE a reportable disease in 1986, established import restrictions in 1989, implemented a surveillance program in 1990, implemented a feed ban in 1997, and in 2004, began removing high-risk tissues from older cattle.



"No other country had implemented such a comprehensive BSE protection plan prior to a domestic discovery of BSE, and while these measures have served to protect our cattle herd and our consumers from any widespread exposure, it is now obvious that this foreign animal disease has, in fact, been introduced into the United States," Thornsberry continued.



"The U.S. cattle industry continues to produce the safest, most wholesome beef in the world, and we must ensure that we have effective, fully implemented measures in place to keep it that way," he emphasized. "The U.S. should continue the basic mitigation measures currently in place and strengthen the measures where uncertainty remains.

quote from Leo McDonnell "we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".


Well it's started. To bad the rest of the posted press release proves you don't have the firewalls in place
Because a comprehensive feed ban is known to be the most effective measure in arresting the amplification of BSE, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should immediately strengthen the U.S. feed ban by closing the loopholes identified the agency back in 2004 – including a ban on poultry litter from cattle feed – and by ensuring complete compliance with the feed ban," Thornsberry asserted. "The U.S. should also require all countries that intend to export beef or cattle to the U.S. to do the same. Currently, the U.S. and Canada have the least restrictive feed bans of all countries known to have BSE.
And Canada's are more restrictive that yours so that makes it the US has the least restrictive of all countries known to have BSE but yet the US has the safest beef in the World raised to the Highest standards :lol: :lol:


"
The U.S. also needs to require countries that export beef and cattle to the United States to significantly strengthen their own BSE mitigation measures, by requiring those nations to start removing all known specified risk materials (SRMs) from cattle over 12 months of age, which is the current recommendation by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for countries with an undetermined BSE risk," Thornsberry stressed
. Do you me like the US did for Japan and Hong Kong. :roll:
 
Randy would you like to explain why when countries stop feeding MBM feed back to cattle there was a huge drop in the new cases found?

Well Tam, like everything else that I have posted on this site, you don't or can't read it anyway. But here goes again.

First of all though, I would like to know which countries you are speaking of. One country seemed to see a drop yet still sees cases years and years after the feed ban. That drop in numbers has been documented to coincide with the OP situation that could very well have disrupted the chemical balance of individual animals. (But of course you will ignore that info.) There are other environmental factors that may have also come into play that you and the flounderers of the world will never admit.

Probably the most important factor however may have been that by stopping the feeding of animals to animals, they may have stopped the spread of rouge metals which no one can deny causes the misfolding of the BSE prion.

Do you know where the first infectious prion came from Tam? :roll:
 
These clowns haven't learned a damned thing. :roll:

BSE is not native to the United States

What country is it native to?

Additionally, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be implemented at once, which would afford U.S. beef consumers the right to choose between domestic beef or products from Canada, Japan and other foreign countries," noted Thornsberry. "COOL would, as well, protect the U.S. cattle industry in the event additional Canadian BSE cases are discovered in animals born after the Canadian feed ban.

Whoa. What a setup for WHEN the US had its first post-feed ban case and it will happen if USDA continues flirt with honesty and actually keeps announcing positives. The US still feeding chicken litter almost guarantees that. Then what will Max and the gurus from Billings have to say. It's just like they have to keep greasing the rope because they don't think they are sliding down it quick enough.

The U.S. also needs to require countries that export beef and cattle to the United States to significantly strengthen their own BSE mitigation measures, by requiring those nations to start removing all known specified risk materials (SRMs) from cattle over 12 months of age

Is the US prepared to follow the same guidelines?
 
Bill said:
These clowns haven't learned a damned thing. :roll:

BSE is not native to the United States

What country is it native to?

Additionally, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be implemented at once, which would afford U.S. beef consumers the right to choose between domestic beef or products from Canada, Japan and other foreign countries," noted Thornsberry. "COOL would, as well, protect the U.S. cattle industry in the event additional Canadian BSE cases are discovered in animals born after the Canadian feed ban.

Whoa. What a setup for WHEN the US had its first post-feed ban case and it will happen if USDA continues flirt with honesty and actually keeps announcing positives. The US still feeding chicken litter almost guarantees that. Then what will Max and the gurus from Billings have to say. It's just like they have to keep greasing the rope because they don't think they are sliding down it quick enough.

The U.S. also needs to require countries that export beef and cattle to the United States to significantly strengthen their own BSE mitigation measures, by requiring those nations to start removing all known specified risk materials (SRMs) from cattle over 12 months of age

Is the US prepared to follow the same guidelines?

Bill, in the U.S., feeding chicken litter has stopped. I say stopped because it could still occur based on cows being on poultry farms that have chicken litter on them or cows being put on fields where litter is spread. There could also be cross contamination with feed delivered on poultry farms that also have cattle on them. The MBM in poultry feed for companies like Tyson is not on the feed lable. Most farmers do not even know the issue and problems with the MBM. The USDA has spent more money on M-ID than on educating farmers about the potential problems with the feed.

The reasons have to do with economics. The Tysons want to keep their competitive advantage of feeding MBM in their poultry feed. They also do not want to scare existing or potential poultry farmers with the possibilities of feed transmission bse problems as it would tend to dry up their supply of poultry farmers. As I said, most poultry farmers do not have a clue as to what is in the poultry feed and its possible dangers. Tyson doesn't want them to know. There are too many liabilities there for the integrators.

These companies will do whatever they can to get away with whatever they are allowed to get away with. Tyson is looking out for their own self interests and we have a government that facilitates these type of bad policies because it is in the best interest of campaign contributors who the current power structure on the ag. and judiciary committees are beholden to.
 
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
econ:

Oh? When did that happen?

Several years ago. The loopholes mentioned remain.
I thought they ended up not stoping the chicken litter feeding practice. They need to stop it.

Here is the grey area. The extension offices came out with information on it but it was never pushed as a real health issue for the reasons I mentioned above. As I said, the farmers who have poultry houses have been ill informed to the potential problems for their cattle. Tyson and other integrators do not want to scare their poultry producers with this information. They want to keep feeding MBM to poultry because it is cheap.

As I said before, the farmers are not "feeding" it to their cattle on purpose, although it has been done in the past, but the dangers of the cattle consuming it have not been spelled out well. If that happened it might bring into light some of the problems with raising poultry for the integrators. The farmers are left with all the crap.
 
Archive

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Archive By Topic

Health and Nutrition

Human Sciences

Environment

Animal Science

Agronomy

Horticulture

4-H

Consumer Affairs

Back




Ban on Poultry Litter as Cattle Feed Creating Challenges for Some Alabama Producers

AUBURN, Jan. 30, 2004 --- Jimmy Collins, a Chambers County beef producer, has already paid for six truckloads of poultry litter yet to be delivered to the family farm near Cusseta. Collins Farm, a family operation started in the mid-40s, has been using litter as part of its winter feeding plan for its large herd of brood cows since 1976.

When the Food and Drug Administration's new rule banning the use of poultry litter as cattle feed is published in the Federal Register, it will become effective immediately. That means what Collins bought as a legal feed becomes immediately illegal.

While Collins and Dr. Darrell Rankins, an animal scientist with the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, agreed that the new rule will further reduce the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease, Collins said it will create some significant challenges for him and other Alabama cattle producers who used poultry litter as a portion of their winter feed.

"I understand why FDA is doing this," said Collins. "But other producers and I are going to have to find new feed supplies in the middle of our winter feeding season. It's going to be tough to find a feed supply that's as economical as poultry litter.

"Litter is about $40 per ton cheaper than hay. I ran the numbers, and I figure it's going to cost our operation between $7,000 and $8,000 to buy feed to replace the poultry litter for the remainder of the season."

Rankins said that Collins is just one of a number of producers who will face those extra costs.

"There are a lot of folks who will wind up buying feed twice this year," said Rankins. "And that's really going to elevate their production costs."

Most of the state's 760,000 beef cattle are on a winter feeding regimen until spring when pastures green up.

"That is why this is such a challenge for producers," said Rankins. "Most farmers have already contracted for their winter feed supplies. It won't be that easy for them to switch feeds at a moment's notice in the middle of winter.

"Cattle can be fed hay and a number of other alternative feeds, such as peanut hulls and gin trash. But, supplies may be limited at this time of year."

Limited supplies also mean higher prices.

"In July, I could buy soybean hulls for $70 a ton. Now they are running $115 to $120 a ton. A ton of hay is $70 and cotton seed is around $140," said Collins. "That's why farmers lock in winter feed sources in the summer to take advantage of lower prices."

Hal Pepper, an Extension economist focusing on farm management, said feed costs in general are higher because the prices for commodities such as corn and soybeans have been higher.

While poultry litter is a cheaper feed, producers did not choose to use it based on cost alone Rankins explained.

"Poultry litter has a calculated value of 50 percent total digestible nutrients (energy). That makes it comparable to average-quality hay," said Rankins, whose Extension work focuses on beef cattle nutrition. "Research had proven it was a valuable source of energy for both stocker cattle and brood cows. It was also a good source of protein and essential minerals."

Rankins is developing recommendations to help cattle producers who have relied heavily on poultry litter get through this feeding season.

In addition to locating new feed supplies, many farmers will be faced with adjusting their budgets to cover additional feed costs.

Jerry Pierce, another Extension economist specializing in farm business management, said the ban will compel cattle producers who relied heavily on litter to re-examine their management practices.

"They are going to have reconsider their profit margins and evaluate how increased feed costs will impact their bottom line," said Pierce.

Pierce encouraged producers to discuss their business plans with one of Extension's farm business management economists, their financial planner or tax attorney.
 
Mike said:
Pretty much has stopped around here. EPA rules are making it hard for the growers to get rid of it too.

The costs of feeding cheap MBM to poultry is left with the farmer, not the integrators. It is becoming a big problem for several reasons--it has too much phosphorus in it and continuous application to the same land results in too much phosphorus on the land to where it is a real environmental problem. The extra phosphorus goes into streams and creates algae blooms. Tyson is in some lawsuits over that right now with Attorney General Edmonson in Oklahoma.

Of course the other less known reasons are bse, arsenic, and antibiotics in the feed.

They will do anything they can get away with to be the least cost producers and all other integrators have to follow to not go out of business. It is a race to the bottom.

Of course the USDA will not regulate the packers. They will only react when they have to. It is the NCBA/USDA packer policy. JoAnn can attest to that.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top