Mad Cow Disease Reported in Alberta

[ValueChainFX]

This mad cow deal has allowed us all to see what happens and the need to be aware of the systems in place.

We all know there have been some things printed that are not right. We all know we could use a system that helped us as producers and as trace back.

The system we are working on for the industry is concieved to not only trace back a single animal but all the processes it has been through and done in a way that does not cost a fortune to maintain. If we are going to look after our system than we best do it right.

I also believe, that if this animal had been in a Federal plant we would have discovered this much faster.

Am I picking on the Alberta provincial system ... maybe ... but if you know anything at all about Federal plants and provincial plants you know there is no comparisons. Alberta probably would do well to upgrade their programs.

Anyway we all hang on and hope for the best.

[charliep]

Just a question as to how provincially inspected plants are handled differently than federal ones? What things should Alberta have done differently?

I can only ask what would have happened if this animal had died in the back 40 and no one would have known. This is not meant negatively to anyones decisions but only a comment about our new world. Consumer and food safety issues are driving to the forefront. We are living in interesting times.

[ALICIA]

The wolfs would of had a good meal and left the live calfs and cows alone

[cakadu]

Interesting point Charlie - sort of like the question about "if a tree falls in the forest - does anyone hear it?" If the cow had just died right there on the farm what would have been done differently? Would the rendering truck just have been called and she would have been picked up? I don't know.

In terms of the difference between federal and provincial plants - I don't think this is really an issue because the cow was condemned and deemed unfit for human consumption prior to slaughter, so whether it was in a federal or provincial plant is kind of a moot point. The fact that it was sent to the rendering plant made it a low priority for testing which could explain the delay in getting results.

The more pertinent question to ask is how many veterinary pathologists do we actually have and how much of a workload do they carry? Should Alberta Agriculture or whomever hires these people be looking to (a) increase the number of pathologists they have on staff?

[ValueChainFX]

The Federal system is much stronger than the Provincial system. As much as the fellows in the provincial system want to think they have a system that can be compaired to the Federal system they cann't.

A visit to almost any provincial plant in Alberta and you can visually see why!! Most of the Provincial plants have yet to put a HACCP plan together and for those that have, my discussions with some of them tell me they still don't understand what they are and how they work.

Never mind all that. CFIA does a great job and our Canadian reputation in world trade tells us that. Alberta could easily take the three provincial bodies that regulate our provincial system and make them one, this would be a good start.

What should we have done? My thoughts are that we have been regulated by the government for the inspection system. Testing on animals is not new. We have known we have a back log in the labs for a long time now so we could have looked at several options. Keep in mind these are just my thoughts and we have some good people that could also add to this in Canada.

1.) One department to run inspections.
2.) Continue to use the CCIA tags and upgrade the system.
3.) Establish a provision to set labs up in new or existing facilities as a first check to be varified. (they do horses with on site labs now)
4.) Test every downed animal within 48 hours of kill or death. (even on farm suspisious deaths. (It has been suggested farm deaths may be the most likely place to find our challenges)
5.) Put together a real disaster plan that does not wipe herds out and waste good product.

Each of the above are possible to do, the costs involved are not what the industry is faced with today! We have a reengineering process to go through and we should be going through it now!

This is just my suggestions and hope to see some possitive discussion from this. We can move forward in these situations if we have the will to do so.

[carebear300]

The official announcement today that the original angus herd in Saskatchewan had to be depopulated was bungled badly once again. It is a disgrace that the producer had to find it out on the radio. Wouldn't you think that he deserved a phone call or a visit to inform of the decision. The person in charge of this might be (we surely hope he is) smart at book learning, but his people skills are brutal!!!!!! They wonder why in Ottawa that westerners feel alienated, just one more example of why. It seems the whole federal bureaucracy has picked up on the arrogant and aloof attitude of the federal agriculture minister.

[rsomer]

smcgrath76: I have heard that comparison made before (Coke spending 5% of retail sales on promotion) but what Coke spends on marketing may not even be relevant for another soft drink manufacturer much less beef or other food products. Each product, each brand whether it is beef in the cooler or packaged frozen ready to eat meals would have a different marketing strategy, different marketing and distribution channels, be in a different competitive environment, be positioned differently and the amount of retail sales spent on communications (promotion) should be appropriate for that brand’s marketing strategy irrespective of what Coke spends.

Cakadu: Interesting comments re putting all eggs in one basket with one brand. Proctor Gamble has many brands of basically similar detergents and other products competing in the same market on the same shelf space.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has created what is effectively a brand for its pork products called MinnCert. The program is based on ISO 9000 principles and a third party certifier will ensure that producers who voluntarily participate adhere to quality standards that guarantee the customer superior quality, minimized food safety risks and traceability to the farm of origin. Basically MinnCert’s philosophy is "Say what you do! Do what you say!"
http://www.cvm.umn.edu/anhlth_foodsafety/MinnCERT.html

Canadian beef’s brand credibility has been damaged. I see our industry will need to be able offer our customers genuine, similar assurances as MinnCert before we should be spending more money on promotion.

[ValueChainFX]

rsomer you are right, in fact, marketing a product you cann't deliver is more harmful than not.

The questions you bring up about the Minn. ISO 9000 based program is something we all could use. As long as the producer sees a return. Rather than wait until our Government forces these things on us, the producer should be proactive and put a system in place that exceeds what we have in place today.

This is being worked on now, by a producer group in the way of a voluntary program. Much of the ground work has been done and now we are down to the costly implementation phase of the program. Although funding is important, the producers themselves need to be there and support such a move.

Part of the marketing is a producers ability to put his own signature on a product and say, they believe the system they have in place has the checks and balances to ensure your family is getting the best, safest most secure product our family can supply.

Trace back? Well if the system is set up to keep track of your product than you should be able to get feed back on your product and use that information to better your business. But rather than be forced into this system, you should make the choice.

That is our therory, your thoughts?

[mbfarmer]

I just talked to a friend of mine who has 83 steers that are fat and ready to go...not big numbers but that represents 40% of his herd....his parting comment to me was that he wished the BSE case was on his farm so he would know what would be done....now he does not know which way to turn to next. Anyone have any comments on this.

[rsomer]

ValueChainFX:

The fellow who set up the MNCEP program for the Minnesota hog producers pointed out that the "profit" from their assured quality program was more assured market access, not necessarily a higher price per pound of product sold.

In Australia, AUS-MEAT provides carcass feedback to producers who ship cattle to AUS-MEAT accredited abattoirs so it can be done. At present in Canada, the only feedback a producer would receive is the animal you shipped has BSE.

Governments will put in place minimum standards for the overall industry. Specific markets such as Japan might appreciate further quality assurances. As a result, marketing opportunities would be available. I was impressed by MINCERT’s use of ISO 9000 practices to provide quality assurances to its customers as opposed to the Canadian industry providing guarantees to the world that we had a safe product but when push comes to shove we are scrambling to back up our claims. Participation in ISO 9000 is of course voluntary and each organization would need to set its own quality standards based on its perception of customer needs.

This said, it is very possible that a program like MINCERT or what you describe would still be adversely impacted by a crisis such as the industry is presently facing. It is difficult to differentiate a commodity such a beef to such an extent that is no longer associated with the country and that country’s industry.

[ValueChainFX]

I don't think we have to dis-associate ourselves just provide a system that works the best way we can make it work. Secured market places are only as secure as our product and there are always going to be challenges. It is up to use to limit the challenges with Good management practices.

I do believe we are ready to put a producer system in place, and will the prices be better, well, depends on what and how we market. But I do expect the prices to be more stable along with a more stable market.

[carebear300]

I am one of those so call rednecks that bucked the implementation of the tag system. At the same time I also said it was not a great improvement on the registered brands and shipping manifest system unless the tags were read and recorded every time the animal changed ownership because as it stands right now the only person held accountable is the person that raised the calf and the final owner. Yes I agree it is a worthwhile program as long as it records those movements and it doesn't cost the primary producer too much more. It is important enough to the national economy that maybe it should be subsidized by the federal government such as lots of industries, Bombardier being one of the major ones. Like usual my two bits worth is kind of old fashioned and not popular with the modern and forward thinking people who contribute to this site.