Glass house or what

[rusty1]

or pointed fingers - which way?
ttp://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=6303
“As the U.S. moves forward on resuming trade of live cattle with Canada, it is imperative we use a science-based approach to determine animal health standards, including those governing the movement of U.S. cattle into Canada,” the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Denver, Colorado, wrote in a letter to USDA Secretary Ann Veneman. "For decades, Canada has used animal health issues without application of sound science to create barriers in the selling of feeder cattle, breeding stock, and semen and embryos from the United States to Canada,” the letter continued. “Continued testing requirements by Canada for anaplasmosis, bluetongue, tuberculosis, and brucellosis should not be tolerated. There is no science, today, that supports the requirements that Canada has imposed upon the U.S. cattle industry” NCBA CEO Terry Stokes and NCBA president Eric Davis signed the letter. Cattle industry leadership wrote the letter following meetings in Washington with the Secretary on key issues facing the United States as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy situation in Canada. NCBA continues to emphasize the need for a "science-based approach" as the two countries work towards resolving these complicated issues. But NCBA explained "If we are to apply the use of science and risk assessment in the U.S. on BSE, Canada should do the same on these other issues. We cannot have a double standard. It is paramount that we achieve trade parity as we resume trade with Canada." NCBA has maintained the following principles should be used in addressing the BSE situation in Canada: All decisions on trade requirements must be science-based and consistent with the Harvard risk assessment study. All standards agreed upon between the United States and other trading partners must be equivalent for both international and domestic consumers of beef. USDA must, promptly and proactively, communicate with the public and the beef industry on the progress of the investigation in Canada and the status of reestablishing trade, including the process and timeline for reopening the border. As negotiations on reopening the border occur, USDA-APHIS should seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow an equitable flow of cattle in both directions.

[rsomer]

Just what is the Harvard Risk Assessment? See: http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/11/0243.htm
The Harvard Risk Assessment was completed in November 2001 and dealt with the risk of the U.S. herd becoming infected if a BSE positive cow were to be imported accidentally into the country. The conclusion reached was the risk of BSE spreading throughout the U.S. herd was very small. I have never understood the comparison with the Harvard Risk Assessment and BSE with the risk assessments done in Canada on transmission of Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis which concluded the risk of transmission of Anaplasmosis was very high and that in fact the Canadian herd would become infected if live disease carrying American calves were brought into Canada during the summer vector season. I have never understood the American reluctance to do a simple blood test which would allow negative test animals into Canada year round. The cost is small. Would it help if Canada offered to pay for the tests? Is that what is behind this? I don’t think anyone in Canada is saying the U.S. should accept Canadian live cattle infected with BSE. I thought what the science said was our herd was tested and found to be free of BSE except for that one animal so there was no reason to block imports of live Canadian cattle to the U.S., especially cattle under 30 months of age (maybe 23 months in rare instances) which have never been found to have BSE in any country anywhere. As for an equitable flow of cattle in both directions, we are accepting all the U.S. calves our market will accept from right now throughout the winter until March. If no calves are coming north it is not the fault of our herd health policies. The Canadian feedlots are not going to be satisfied until we have Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis just like the Americans do. Canadian producers need to realize that the Americans regularly block imports of cattle from countries infected with Bluetongue. Haven’t we learned the importance of keeping our herd disease free yet?

[rsomer]

rsomer, I agree with you totally........the feedlot operators and the CCA executive will not stop until American cattle can flow unfettered into Canada. To a degree the American have a point, but I am a bit perplexed that the CCA is so heavily sided with the feedlots on this one.

That "continued testing requirements by Canada for anaplasmosis, bluetongue, tuberculosis, and brucellosis should not be tolerated" is quite a statement. These diseases have a significant economic impact on a cow herd, perhaps not on the feedlot operators. So I have difficulty understanding the CCA's position on this given that the CCA is supposedly speaking for all segments of the industry!

If there is solid science to support the claims of minimal risk to Canadian cattle, then I would be in support of change .......... however, I do not recall any independant studies being presented to support the notion of minimal to zero risk save for the issue of bluetonque which only supported the opening for nontested cattle during a specific time period over the winter months (nonvector) if I recall correctly.

But the fact that CFIA is opposed basically indicates that there is no data supportingly this! Perhaps no questions should be directed to our CCA staff so as to point out that this is no a popularly supported notion!

[kato]

State to state travel is not totally free in the U.S., either. Why is it such a problem if we have health requirements here?

For Instance...this is an import requirement for Iowa regarding cattle from Michigan.(Copied word for word from the government's website)

All cattle, goats, captive cervidae and camelids native to or originating from Michigan must:
1. Originate from a herd that has been found negative to an official whole herd tuberculosis test administered not more than 12 months before their arrival in Iowa. Whole herd testing will include individuals six months of age and older.
2. The animals younger than six months of age must have been from a dam included in the herd at the time of the whole herd test.
3. Be tested negative for tuberculosis within 30 days before entry.
4. Go directly to a premise of destination other than a livestock concentration point.
5. Be placed under permit and order of quarantine on the first premises of arrival in Iowa. Release of the quarantine will follow completion of a negative tuberculin test 60 to 120 days after arrival into Iowa (90 to 120 days for Cervidae).
6. Be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection showing individual identification, the results of the whole herd test and individual animal tests.

An import permit is required within 15 days of the animals entering Iowa.

No ruminant animals will be imported from tuberculosis quarantined areas in Michigan.

This is Montana's approach,
SUBJECT:

Tuberculosis (TB) Testing Order relating to the following breeds of bovidae, and crosses thereof, imported into Montana: Texas Longhorn, Corriente, Ankole, AnkolWatusi, Chinampo, and Argentine Criollo.

Are some breeds more susceptable to TB? Or is there something we don't know.

[cowman]

Rsomer: How is it then that Neil Janke can say we need to do this and the CCA is all for it and lobbying hard to get it done? How can they justify letting American cattle in when the Americans won't allow any blue tongue cattle in?
If we get this disease will the Americans then turn around and deny us access because we have blue tongue?
It would seem to me that maybe we should be questioning who the CCA is really working for? And why our check-off dollars are being spent to ruin our cow herd?

[kato]

You got that right! We need to talk to our Provincial associations and let them know how us regular producers feel. This is serious stuff.

[rsomer]

cowman: In September 2000, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association asked CFIA to extend the current import season for restricted feeder cattle (i.e. to allow importation from 1 Apr- 30 Sept). The CCA asked this with the full knowledge that the CFIA had conducted a risk assessment that concluded that with the importation of 100,000 feeder cattle from selected states during the period of 1 April - 30 September, bluetongue outbreaks would be expected in Canadian cattle herds other than the recipient feedlot. See: http://www.usaha.org/reports/reports01/r01btbrv.html

kato: exactly so. The Alberta Beef Producer Fall Meetings are coming up in a few weeks throughout Alberta. I would encourage producers to attend these meetings and make their views known to the delegates. Dates and places of fall meetings are at : http://www.albertabeef.org/05calend.html

[rusty1]

rsomer -If the CFIA takes a stand as such then you can count on a bungle, and that their decision is only related to trade issues. If only you knew how they have bungled the BSE issues.
Some of the comments remind me of what my dad used to say. "He who has all the answers dosn't know all the questions."

[rsomer]

I don't know if CFIA has taken a stand, in my link CFIA was merely pointing out the CCA's position, but I know Lyle Van Clief has taken a stand and said Canada intends to keep Canada Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis free but I think farmers need to speak up and support that decision or else the only voice government will hear will be the CCA position.

There has been a lot of bungling of BSE issues by everyone involved right from the farmer in Northern Alberta to the politicians and their programs. What do you see the CFIA bungled.

[grassfarmer]

rsomer, CFIA bungled big time when they went along with the story that the one Alberta cow with BSE contracted it from feed.The facts contradict this and point to it being a spontaneous case - something which could have had very different implications for the industry.

[rusty1]

Another thing they lost credibility on was the song and dance they gave the world as to how well their tracking system worked right from the get go. They never determined the source of the cow till just a few weeks ago. It was LIS who provided the resources for the tracking system!
You should ask some of the producers, who you so despertly need (as a cow calf producer and as you're comments seem to indicate you are)and who spent their own money running back and forth to Ottawa, trying to make our impart some simple common sense into those liberal beauracrats minds.

[Bruce14]

Imported U.S. Cattle Infected with Blue Tongue Disease

Asia Pulse Pte Ltd, November 05, 2003



SEOUL, Nov 5 Asia Pulse - South Korea's National Veterinary Research & Quarantine Service (NVRQS) today said eight of 762 cattle imported from the United States between October 21 and 24 have been found to be infected with blue tongue disease, considered a first-grade cattle disease here.

The agency said it would again inspect and quarantine the rest of the 754 cattle, inform the U.S. government of the infection and request American officials devise measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such an incident.

There has been no report of the disease among Korean cattle, according to the NVRQS.

Blue tongue disease, or catarrhal fever, is a viral disease of sheep and less frequently of cattle, goats, buffalo, deer and antelope. There are no reports of any human having caught the disease and it seems to be confined to certain species of animals.

The disease has been observed in Australia, the United States, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. It is transmitted by biting midges and its major symptoms are high fever, excessive salivation, swelling of the face and tongue and cyanosis of the tongue. The incubation period is about one week and all symptoms usually develop within one month.

[rsomer]

The animals we have been importing into Canada have been found to be positive for bluetongue and anaplasmosis too. But because the U.S. calves were coming in during the winter, when there aren't any biting midges and insects that can transmit these diseases from animal to animal, the disease hasn't spread beyond the Alberta feedlots importing these animals into the surrounding beef herds yet.

But the research done to date says that if these U.S. calves come into Alberta and Saskatchewan during the summer the disease would be expected to spread into the cow herd and we cow calf producers will have to deal with the consequences.

Beyond the symptoms mentioned in the article we would expect to see abortions from both bluetongue and anaplasmosis with death of older animals.

[cowman]

I often wonder if it's time to start a producer group solely for the cow/calf sector? It seems all our so called producer groups are in reality mostly working in the interests of the big feedlots, the packers and the retailers?
It's just like the ID tags thing. The CCA pushed it big time and in hindsight we can see it was a good thing. But how come only one group ended up paying for it?
The ACC, or whatever they call themselves today, has always been an elite driven organization. By a mandatory checkoff they have forced the small independent producer to support the goals of that elite. Which might be completely against his best interests. An example would be the huge amount of money they spent protecting the large grazing leases from the Alberta governments attempt to collect some of the oil money generated there. This is truly a horror story of a select group being paid to graze cattle and thus have a very unfair advantage in the cattle business!
And who gave them this mandate to collect $2 on every animal sold in the province? Slightly over 6% of the producers! Only 12% of the eligible producers voted and they squeaked in with 51% of that number! And used the forced checkoff to buy that vote through massive advertisements and a newsletter!
So in reality don't expect a lot of participation at the fall meetings...I know it is a sad state of affairs but that is just how it is!

[rsomer]

I appreciate your insights and comments. I was part of the discussions on the grazing lease issue. The issue did not revolve around large grazing leases rather the concern was that if payments were reduced on crown leases than payments for industry activity on deeded land would eventually end up reduced as well. Is there any difference between a producer who has a lot of wells on crown lease having an unfair advantage in the cattle business and a producer who has a lot of wells on deeded land having an unfair advantage. If industry had their way the farmers would not get paid anything for well sites and pipelines whether on crown or deeded land. This may solve the problem of someone having an unfair advantage but it is not the solution I would want to see.

I have always thought producer participation at the fall meetings was disappointing. Often the perception is that the producers just don’t care. Those community halls should be packed but I have been to meetings with as few as 8 producers. In the U.S., producer dissatisfaction with their beef organization has led to court challenges of the mandatory checkoff. Unless the ABP can provide genuine value to Alberta producers they eventually face the same fate. But the people who are showing up at the meetings I have been to seem to be supporting the increase to a $3 checkoff. If the people who have concerns about the ABP and their checkoff dollars don’t show up for the fall meetings then most likely their voice won’t be heard.

Cowman, there is a ABP meeting this Wednesday, November 12 in Leslieville at 6:00. If you don’t live too far away you might want to attend this meeting. I will be there and would enjoy meeting with you and discussing issues concerning the beef industry. Free beef supper so can’t beat that.