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

What is Canada plants doing that US plants are not?

rkaiser said:
Maple Leaf - I think the question that needs to be asked, and is almost three years over due is - Will you Mr. Japanese President accept BSE tested beef from the country of Canada?

How about it?

Aren't they already accepting beef from Canada Randy without testing? And wouldn't they still be accepting it from the US if the US had not sent them restricted materials as in BONE?

And ECON a rule was broke. It doesn't matter who broke it, the Japanese recieved something they had ban. You are just lucky that Hong Kong didn't do the same as Japan and ban meat from every plant when they found bone in their shipments from Swift. It is time to comply with ALL the rules and stop looking for someone else to blame.
 
Tam said:
rkaiser said:
Maple Leaf - I think the question that needs to be asked, and is almost three years over due is - Will you Mr. Japanese President accept BSE tested beef from the country of Canada?

How about it?

Aren't they already accepting beef from Canada Randy without testing? And wouldn't they still be accepting it from the US if the US had not sent them restricted materials as in BONE?

And ECON a rule was broke. It doesn't matter who broke it, the Japanese recieved something they had ban. You are just lucky that Hong Kong didn't do the same as Japan and ban meat from every plant when they found bone in their shipments from Swift. It is time to comply with ALL the rules and stop looking for someone else to blame.

The Japanese Government accepting beef is only part of the deal -and probably the easiest. The part that matters is the Japanese CONSUMER accepting beef. From everything I've seen, they're pretty leery about untested beef.
 
You bet they are Tam. The same beef that Cargill and Tyson are selling to American customers while leaving the Canadian cunsumer eating cow meat mostly slaughtered by your own personl favourite packer.

Testing could open new markets for this cow meat that is being stolen from ranchers in Canada and you damn well know it. Too pigheaded to admit it however.

Just love this, don't you Tam. Showing all of us so called packer bwamers the way to the Temple. :P

Think for yourself Tam. Or do you enjoy watching your own industry fail while every link in the beef chain above us profits from this BSeconomic debacle.

Cargill and Tyson in Canada do not need the Japanese market at the moment. They are still profitting more than their American plants due to the new rules for shipping live cattle and the increased dollar and fuel. If ----- wait a minute ---- when Cargill and Tyson see another opportunity to bury another competitor, they will test. The rules will change, and change quickly, and I predict that it will happen first in Canada. No more competition to bother with up here, time to turn up the screws on a few competitors south of the 49th by offering Canadian :roll: BSE tested product to the Japanese or whoever.
 
Tam you said a "a rule was broke" in regards to Japan not taking any beef from the USA. Well, I remember when a few bred heifers were sent to USA clearly that broke the rule. For some reason we didn't close the doors to Canada. A rule was broke then so for just punishment should the US slam the doors shut on all Canadian imports? Rules are rules!!!
 
feeder said:
Tam you said a "a rule was broke" in regards to Japan not taking any beef from the USA. Well, I remember when a few bred heifers were sent to USA clearly that broke the rule. For some reason we didn't close the doors to Canada. A rule was broke then so for just punishment should the US slam the doors shut on all Canadian imports? Rules are rules!!!

Canada had new rules put on by the USDA, because of the mishap with the heifers. Punishment was also handed out in Canada. I have to ask you though Feeder just how much UTM beef do you think you would be selling in the US if the USDA had slammed the border shut because a few bred heifers? You were buying UTM beef from Canada processed in Canadian plants, the only difference is where it is processed. Wouldn't you be telling your domestic consumer that the meat is safe as long as it is processed in CANADA. And what would that be telling the US consumer now that you HAVE NATIVE BSE???? The USDA can't afford to slam this border shut if they want to sell your beef.
 
Tam, I guess I'm slow tonight because I don't understand how what you said has anything to do with what I posted. I'm not trying to be a smart***. If Japan would have treated us the same way we treated Canada then they should have just punished the plants involved not the whole country. That is why I pointed out the blanket statement, I have heard many times, about rules being broken in the US now we need to live with it. If that is your belief the entire country has to be held accountable then I feel you should have the same belief when it comes to Canada breaking our rules we set forth for imports. Don't just punish the lawbreakers, punish the entire beef industry in Canada. Remember how many said that the world was watching how we treated Canada. Well it doesn't seem to mean a thing now. There were many on here that believed it wouldn't make any difference. I wonder who was right.
 
feeder said:
Tam, I guess I'm slow tonight because I don't understand how what you said has anything to do with what I posted. I'm not trying to be a smart***. If Japan would have treated us the same way we treated Canada then they should have just punished the plants involved not the whole country. That is why I pointed out the blanket statement, I have heard many times, about rules being broken in the US now we need to live with it. If that is your belief the entire country has to be held accountable then I feel you should have the same belief when it comes to Canada breaking our rules we set forth for imports. Don't just punish the lawbreakers, punish the entire beef industry in Canada. Remember how many said that the world was watching how we treated Canada. Well it doesn't seem to mean a thing now. There were many on here that believed it wouldn't make any difference. I wonder who was right.

Feeder the USDA didn't restrict just those ranchers that shipped pregnant heifers they made new rules for all Canadians to follow. Is that not punishing the whole Canadian industry for something one or two producers did?
 
OK, here it is.

Enhanced Controls For Cattle Exported To The United States
Main Page - BSE

This Directive replaces the document titled "Protocol to determine if the heifers destined to be exported to the United States are pregnant or not" distributed on September 22, 2005.

1. Pregnancy Diagnosis
Only animals confirmed not to be pregnant are eligible for export under the U.S. Minimal Risk Rule. Palpation, ultrasound, blood test and a pregnancy termination agent are the four accepted methods for completing pregnancy diagnosis. The requirements for each of these methods are as follows:

a) Pregnancy diagnosis by palpation

Beginning January 12, 2006, new shipments must be segregated and physically separated by gender for at least 60 days before the palpation test is completed to prevent the misdiagnosis of early-term pregnancies, which can be difficult to detect;
Each animal must be inspected individually; and
If both uterine horns cannot be palpated for any reason to confirm that the animal is not pregnant, the animal must be considered pregnant and deemed ineligible for export.
b) Ultrasound Technology

Beginning January 12, 2006, new shipments must be segregated and physically separated by gender for at least 45 days before the ultrasound diagnostic technique is used to prevent the misdiagnosis of early-term pregnancies, which can be difficult to detect;
Each animal must be inspected individually;
All suspect cases must be considered pregnant and deemed ineligible for export; and
The accredited veterinarian must have the necessary experience and training in the use of such technology.
c) Blood Test

For the moment, the only recognized blood test for pregnancy determination is the Conception DG29 test. The animals must be segregated and physically separated by gender at least 60 days before being presented for this test;
The accredited veterinarians can obtain the necessary information and material for the collection and submission of samples at: Mr. Paul Rouillier (Conception), 392 Chemin du Fleuve, Beaumont, Québec, G0R 1C0, Phone: (418) 838-0772 ou 1-888-798-7285, Fax:(418) 838-0701 ou 1-877-838-0701 E-mail: [email protected].;
Each animal must be tested individually; and
This test must not be performed on animals having received a pregnany terminating agent as it could bring out false positive results.
d) Pregnancy Terminating Agent

All heifers confirmed or suspected to be pregnant must be clearly identified and segregated into a different group from the other export qualified heifers. Exporters may choose to treat such animals with a recognized pregnancy-terminating agent. Each treated animal must be re-examined using palpation or ultrasound no less than two weeks after this treatment is given and prior to export. An exporter may choose to treat every animal in the shipment; however, all treated animals must still be examined to confirm they are not pregnant; and
If the owner changes his mind and wants to send them for slaughter in Canada, the treated animals must not be slaughtered for use in food for at least two days after the last treatment with these products.
2. Spayed Heifers
Spayed heifers are exempt from pregnancy requirements. A declaration from the veterinarian who performed the surgical procedure must be obtained in order for the animal to be certified for export. Any information that assists in confirming the identification of the animal must accompany the declaration, including the official tag number from either the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA) or Agri-Traçabilité Québec (ATQ).

Notes:

Segregation of gender should be done in a way where animals in one group cannot physically reach the animals of another group. As an example, a group of males and a group of heifers should not be placed in two adjacent fields separated only by a regular fence.
With respect to the 60 day or 45 day segregation period described above, pregnancy tests can be performed outside of the 30 day maximum period between the inspection and the export, if a strict segregation by gender is maintained from this moment.
3. Age Requirement
Only animals confirmed to be younger than 30 months of age are eligible for export under the U.S. Minimal Risk Rule.

Exporters must present to accredited veterinarians only appropriately aged animals. Accredited veterinarians will then visually inspect all cattle to screen-out animals that appear to be overage on the basis of physical characteristics such as size. Such animals must be removed from the group and clearly identified. These animals must not be reconsidered for export unless registered birth date information is provided.

The age of all animals which pass this preliminary screening must then be confirmed through dentition examination by the accredited veterinarian.

The accredited veterinarian will be required to reject the entire load presented for export if the rejection rate of cattle over thirty months is greater than 10%. The animals rejected during the preliminary screening or those rejected as a precaution measure are not included in the 10% calculation.

To continue with the export process, the exporter will be required to re-assemble the load and take actions to ensure that only eligible animals are presented to the accredited veterinarian for certification.

The following records may be used instead of dentition if the birth dates are available:

Agri-Traçabilité Québec (ATQ)
Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA)
Purebred registration certificate
Breeding or birth records from the herd of origin may be used if the accredited veterinarian considers that the data is reliable enough to be used.
4. Enhanced Certification Control
Normally, veterinarians accredited by the CFIA are responsible for the major part of the export certification process. However, in certain higher-risk situations CFIA veterinarians may perform an on-farm visit in order to discuss with the accredited veterinarian or the exporter, to check the records or the facilities, to supervise the accredited veterinarian's work or to inspect a part or all the animals within a shipment to verify cattle identity and dentition. Examples of higher-risk situations include, but are not limited to:

Exporters who ship infrequently (90 days or more between shipments);
Exporters who ship assembled loads where animals have an unknown or uncertain origin, especially if heifers are present and/or the animals are near the 30 month age limit;
Shipments where accredited veterinarians have observed 10% or higher non-compliance with age requirements during preliminary inspections.
In the case of shipments from previously suspended exporters, the additional oversight by CFIA staff will be applied on a mandatory basis until further notice.

Revised January 12, 2006

For additional information: Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Web Site
www.inspection.gc.ca
 
When they say segregated, they don't mean just in a different pen. The heifers must have a buffer zone of at least one pen between themselves and steers. Yes, steers. :shock: Segregation from male bovines does not just mean bulls.

The pregnant heifers that were found, and which started all this were carrying calves that were approximately two to three inches in size. Not what you'd call a viable calf, especially in an animal that was due to be slaughtered the next day eh?

To make things even more interesting, this week we received a new form to add to all the other forms we fill in for a load of cattle. This one has diagrams of different stages of dental eruption in cattle between 14 and 24 months of age. Five stages to be exact. Now, besides just checking their mouths, we must rate them according to this scale, and submit a list of the ccia tag numbers co-related to the score for every animal in the load. The CFIA will keep this list on file in case of a dispute later.

I help inspect cattle for export every week as a part of my job, so I know what I'm talking about here. In fact, I spent about three hours just this afternoon helping inspect a load of steers, and filling in the forms.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top