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

US ends investigation

Bill

Well-known member
U.S. authorities give up investigation of mad cow case in Alabama
WASHINGTON (AP)
Wed, 3 May 2006 16:41:00 CST E-mail this to a friend


The government has given up trying to track the origins of an Alabama cow infected with madcow disease.

The trail went cold after seven weeks of investigation of more than three dozen farms, the Agriculture Department said in a report issued quietly late Tuesday. Meantime, in a separate investigation, the U.S. is tracing 15 cattle imported from Canada that ate the same feed as an infected cow discovered last month in British Columbia. So far, the government has found one cow and intends to kill and test it, the Agriculture Department said.

While the Alabama traceback didn't pan out, John Clifford, the USDA's chief veterinarian, said it's important to remember that people and animals are protected by a series of safeguards in the United States.

The red crossbreed cow was a "downer," meaning she couldn't walk, when an Alabama veterinarian examined her in late February. Downers are banned from the food supply because they are thought to have a higher risk of being infected with mad cow disease.

The vet killed the cow and removed brain samples for testing, and the cow became the country's third case of mad cow disease.

Investigators looked at the farm where the cow died and the farm where she was sold in December 2004.

They tracked down 35 other farms she might have come from and did some DNA testing to see if she was related to other cows on those farms. In the end, they tracked down two of her calves, one that died last year at a stockyard and went to a landfill, and one born this year that is under observation at the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

Authorities also couldn't find records that would confirm the cow's age. Experts checked the Alabama cow's teeth and determined she was 10 or older, but that is an approximation that grows less reliable after a cow is five or six years old.

The cow's age is important because it indicates she could have been infected before steps were taken to safeguard cattle feed.

Nine years ago, the U.S. essentially banned ground-up cattle remains from use in cattle feed. Meat and bone meal from cattle was commonly fed to speed growth until it was implicated in the massive outbreak of mad cow disease in the United Kingdom that peaked in 1993. The disease was blamed for the deaths of 180,000 cattle and more than 150 people.

As part of the Alabama investigation, the Food and Drug Administration reviewed local feed mills and said they had complied with the ban on cattle remains. :lol:

Mad cow disease is the common name for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. In people, eating meat contaminated with BSE is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a rare and deadly nerve disease.

The first American case of BSE appeared in 2003 in Washington state in a Canadian-born cow. The disease was found again last June in a Texas cow.

The US doesn't need MID?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, "The US doesn't need MID?"

For what? Johanns says we only have up to 7 positive cows and we've got a wonderful firewall that protects us all.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Bill said:
U.S. authorities give up investigation of mad cow case in Alabama
WASHINGTON (AP)
Wed, 3 May 2006 16:41:00 CST E-mail this to a friend


The government has given up trying to track the origins of an Alabama cow infected with madcow disease.

The trail went cold after seven weeks of investigation of more than three dozen farms, the Agriculture Department said in a report issued quietly late Tuesday. Meantime, in a separate investigation, the U.S. is tracing 15 cattle imported from Canada that ate the same feed as an infected cow discovered last month in British Columbia. So far, the government has found one cow and intends to kill and test it, the Agriculture Department said.

While the Alabama traceback didn't pan out, John Clifford, the USDA's chief veterinarian, said it's important to remember that people and animals are protected by a series of safeguards in the United States.

The red crossbreed cow was a "downer," meaning she couldn't walk, when an Alabama veterinarian examined her in late February. Downers are banned from the food supply because they are thought to have a higher risk of being infected with mad cow disease.

The vet killed the cow and removed brain samples for testing, and the cow became the country's third case of mad cow disease.

Investigators looked at the farm where the cow died and the farm where she was sold in December 2004.

They tracked down 35 other farms she might have come from and did some DNA testing to see if she was related to other cows on those farms. In the end, they tracked down two of her calves, one that died last year at a stockyard and went to a landfill, and one born this year that is under observation at the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

Authorities also couldn't find records that would confirm the cow's age. Experts checked the Alabama cow's teeth and determined she was 10 or older, but that is an approximation that grows less reliable after a cow is five or six years old.

The cow's age is important because it indicates she could have been infected before steps were taken to safeguard cattle feed.

Nine years ago, the U.S. essentially banned ground-up cattle remains from use in cattle feed. Meat and bone meal from cattle was commonly fed to speed growth until it was implicated in the massive outbreak of mad cow disease in the United Kingdom that peaked in 1993. The disease was blamed for the deaths of 180,000 cattle and more than 150 people.

As part of the Alabama investigation, the Food and Drug Administration reviewed local feed mills and said they had complied with the ban on cattle remains. :lol:

Mad cow disease is the common name for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. In people, eating meat contaminated with BSE is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a rare and deadly nerve disease.

The first American case of BSE appeared in 2003 in Washington state in a Canadian-born cow. The disease was found again last June in a Texas cow.

The US doesn't need MID?

not at all
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
If the US doesnt want it, we cant force them to design a program. We will just keep improving our tracking system up here and OT can depend on brands to find animals when there is a disease outbreak. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker, I would like to know if R-CALF has any intention of asking the US to stop all exports of US live ruminants to Canada?
Quote from R-CALFs "Letter to Congress regarding Strenghthening the United States Resistance to BSE" dated May 30, 2003 Page 4
As a minimum, the U.S. should prohibit the importation of live ruminants from Canada and any other country where BSE is known to exist in native cattle unless
a. The exact source of the BSE is definitively identified. The entire source exposed to the source has been identified and destroyed.
:???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam said:
Sandhusker, I would like to know if R-CALF has any intention of asking the US to stop all exports of US live ruminants to Canada?
Quote from R-CALFs "Letter to Congress regarding Strenghthening the United States Resistance to BSE" dated May 30, 2003 Page 4
As a minimum, the U.S. should prohibit the importation of live ruminants from Canada and any other country where BSE is known to exist in native cattle unless
a. The exact source of the BSE is definitively identified. The entire source exposed to the source has been identified and destroyed.
:???:

No we don't Tam. R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

We are also demanding the US have the highest standards in the world, but are not saying the rest of the world should follow. Actually, we would rather they not.

How did I score, Reader?
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker, I would like to know if R-CALF has any intention of asking the US to stop all exports of US live ruminants to Canada?
Quote from R-CALFs "Letter to Congress regarding Strenghthening the United States Resistance to BSE" dated May 30, 2003 Page 4
As a minimum, the U.S. should prohibit the importation of live ruminants from Canada and any other country where BSE is known to exist in native cattle unless
a. The exact source of the BSE is definitively identified. The entire source exposed to the source has been identified and destroyed.
:???:

No we don't Tam. R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

We are also demanding the US have the highest standards in the world, but are not saying the rest of the world should follow. Actually, we would rather they not.

How did I score, Reader?

I'm not sure that there is a positive rating for a negative, self-serving attitude, is there, Reader?

Probabaly the best way to assess a score for Sandhusker's posts is to send them to the lab and check the fertilizer value.



:lol:
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander :lol: :lol:

Tam has a point. If we demand traceback for those importing to the U.S., we certainly should be upholding our own standards.

And she said it in a few words which made it a stronger point.

:shock:



:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander :lol: :lol:

Tam has a point. If we demand traceback for those importing to the U.S., we certainly should be upholding our own standards.

And she said it in a few words which made it a stronger point.

The positive reinforcement is good, reader.

Tam, regardless of the merits to your point, I have to agree with reader to the succinctness of the argument. Too many times I have not read your posts because of the length and incongruity and I might have missed something worthwhile.

Sandhusker, you are almost always succinct and I should probably learn a few lessons there. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander :lol: :lol:

Tam has a point. If we demand traceback for those importing to the U.S., we certainly should be upholding our own standards.

And she said it in a few words which made it a stronger point.

If we were balking meeting our customer's requests while requesting the same from a supplier as Tam is trying to allude, we would be a hypocrite. However, that is not the case. What country is making the same demands of us that R-CALF makes of Canada?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander :lol: :lol:

Tam has a point. If we demand traceback for those importing to the U.S., we certainly should be upholding our own standards.

And she said it in a few words which made it a stronger point.

If we were balking meeting our customer's requests while requesting the same from a supplier as Tam is trying to allude, we would be a hypocrite. However, that is not the case. What country is making the same demands of us that R-CALF makes of Canada?

Another quote for you Sandhusker from the OIE

The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.
so now what do you say about the R-CALF quote
As a minimum, the U.S. should prohibit the importation of live ruminants from Canada and any other country where BSE is known to exist in native cattle unless
a. The exact source of the BSE is definitively identified. The entire source exposed to the source has been identified and destroyed.
Does R-CALF have the right to demand any country where BSE is known to exist find and destroy their BSE source and all infected cattle inlight of the Alabama investigation? :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker, I would like to know if R-CALF has any intention of asking the US to stop all exports of US live ruminants to Canada?
Quote from R-CALFs "Letter to Congress regarding Strenghthening the United States Resistance to BSE" dated May 30, 2003 Page 4
As a minimum, the U.S. should prohibit the importation of live ruminants from Canada and any other country where BSE is known to exist in native cattle unless
a. The exact source of the BSE is definitively identified. The entire source exposed to the source has been identified and destroyed.
:???:

No we don't Tam. R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

We are also demanding the US have the highest standards in the world, but are not saying the rest of the world should follow. Actually, we would rather they not.

How did I score, Reader?
But Sandhusker R-CALF was all concerned about how our beef was going to expose the US consumers to the risk of contracting the fatal human form of BSE. so why aren't they concern that the US beef will expose foreign consumers? Don't they care about the risk US beef represents to the rest of the world?
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker, I would like to know if R-CALF has any intention of asking the US to stop all exports of US live ruminants to Canada?
Quote from R-CALFs "Letter to Congress regarding Strenghthening the United States Resistance to BSE" dated May 30, 2003 Page 4
:???:

No we don't Tam. R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

We are also demanding the US have the highest standards in the world, but are not saying the rest of the world should follow. Actually, we would rather they not.

How did I score, Reader?
But Sandhusker R-CALF was all concerned about how our beef was going to expose the US consumers to the risk of contracting the fatal human form of BSE. so why aren't they concern that the US beef will expose foreign consumers? Don't they care about the risk US beef represents to the rest of the world?


Tam, that question is just simply not fair. How do you expect Sankhusker et al to understand a rhetorical question? :???:



:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
No we don't Tam. R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

We are also demanding the US have the highest standards in the world, but are not saying the rest of the world should follow. Actually, we would rather they not.

How did I score, Reader?
But Sandhusker R-CALF was all concerned about how our beef was going to expose the US consumers to the risk of contracting the fatal human form of BSE. so why aren't they concern that the US beef will expose foreign consumers? Don't they care about the risk US beef represents to the rest of the world?


Tam, that question is just simply not fair. How do you expect Sankhusker et al to understand a rhetorical question? :???:



:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

I guess you two could ask the same question of yourselves.

The economics that was allowed to play out because of bse is just total bs. Transmissable and preventable diseases should be treated with the economics in mind as well as the scientific epidemiological strategies.

For instance, a real economic incentive to find bse instead of the backwards one we have today could actually attempt to find bse instead of hide it. If there were a bounty on bse positives and the tracking down of the source, we could erradicate it (if possible) or at least control its spread. If bounties are good enough to get someone like SH to shoot coyotes, bounties surely could be developed to find bse. Once bse was found, there needs to be an economic incentive to erradicate it. It seems to me the economic incentives went to supporting the industry oligarchs in Canada instead of erradicating bse. It could have been designed to fit both criteria and there might be a little more credibility with the USDA in the long run.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker, I would like to know if R-CALF has any intention of asking the US to stop all exports of US live ruminants to Canada?
Quote from R-CALFs "Letter to Congress regarding Strenghthening the United States Resistance to BSE" dated May 30, 2003 Page 4
As a minimum, the U.S. should prohibit the importation of live ruminants from Canada and any other country where BSE is known to exist in native cattle unless
a. The exact source of the BSE is definitively identified. The entire source exposed to the source has been identified and destroyed.
:???:

No we don't Tam. R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

We are also demanding the US have the highest standards in the world, but are not saying the rest of the world should follow. Actually, we would rather they not.

How did I score, Reader?
R-Calf's request?

That's too much Sandhusker. :lol: :lol: :lol:

At the very least, too be consistant and avoid being viewed hypocritical, R-Calf needs to put out a statement requesting a ban on all cattle from the Confederacy and especially Alabama until they determine to what extent the BSE problem is in the "cluster group". :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, since you didn't get it the first time, I'll say it again - this time typing very slow for you;

R-CALF's request dealt with product for our own country. We feel other countries are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and doing what they feel is in their best interests. If they feel the same about any product we may ship to them, that is their perogative. We'll worry about us and let them worry about them.

Do you get it, Tam? If Japan, China, Kenya, whoever have a request for us, that is up to THEM. R-CALF is concerned with product in OUR country. If you think R-CALF is being hypocritical, please post for us requests from other countries that R-CALF has spoken against. Let's see basis for your allegations.
 

Bill

Well-known member
The standard has been set by R-Calf and the statements they have made about Canadian beef and cattle. Canadian product according to them is not safe enough for US consumers so what makes American the exception?

Will R-Calf make similar comments about US cattle and beef as we see faults within the US investigations? I doubt it. They have painted themselves into a very tight corner and a lack of response may be their only option to avoid further hypocricy.

Reducing testing as suggested by USDA is ridiculous.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
The standard has been set by R-Calf and the statements they have made about Canadian beef and cattle. Canadian product according to them is not safe enough for US consumers so what makes American the exception?

Will R-Calf make similar comments about US cattle and beef as we see faults within the US investigations? I doubt it. They have painted themselves into a very tight corner and a lack of response may be their only option to avoid further hypocricy.

Reducing testing as suggested by USDA is ridiculous.

Nice to see you agreeing with R-CALF - we disagree with reducing testing as well. R-CALF has also been very vocal about faults in our system - I know you've seen those releases, probably just forgot about them :? .

The difference with Canada is a hugely disproportionate statistical occurance of BSE. You also have an ineffective feed ban. To say both countries are in the same boat is to completely ignore math.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The difference with Canada is a hugely disproportionate statistical occurance of BSE. You also have an ineffective feed ban. To say both countries are in the same boat is to completely ignore math.

I disagree with this statement. We've tested a significantly larger portion of our animals, as such, we're bound to find more BSE positives. The USDA's guesstimate of only 7 animals in the US with BSE is questionable science at best and until the US tests the same percentage of its herd, no claims can be made as to whether there is more or less BSE within the borders of the US.

As for our ineffective feed ban, our ban is more stringent than the USA's, as such, I question the science behind feed transmission being the only route to spread BSE.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
The difference with Canada is a hugely disproportionate statistical occurance of BSE. You also have an ineffective feed ban. To say both countries are in the same boat is to completely ignore math.

I disagree with this statement. We've tested a significantly larger portion of our animals, as such, we're bound to find more BSE positives. The USDA's guesstimate of only 7 animals in the US with BSE is questionable science at best and until the US tests the same percentage of its herd, no claims can be made as to whether there is more or less BSE within the borders of the US.

As for our ineffective feed ban, our ban is more stringent than the USA's, as such, I question the science behind feed transmission being the only route to spread BSE.

Rod

But Rod This is the same mathematical science that USDA used to come up with their decision that Canada was minimal risk- could they be wrong there too :???: ... Its too bad the courts wouldn't allow all the evidence to come out and the USDA's mathematical formulas to be challenged and examined...

As far as the feedban- you may be right, since most of BSE science is theory......That is one reason I've always thought we should keep all our safeguards in place until more is known- which includes importing beef or cattle from BSE countries.......
 
Top