Although there has been a lot of good comments in this thread about BT and Anaplas, most Canadian producers don’t seem to understand the real issue. Although the CCA website contained inaccurate information concerning the spread of anaplas saying the vectors necessary to spread this disease don’t exist here because of our cold winters, exactly the opposite is true. Mosquitoes, horse flies, and in many areas ticks will spread anaplas to many beef herds. The protections that were previously in place were indeed effective in preventing the spread of BT and Anaplas in Canada and now those protections are gone. Whether the disease is spread to our own herd or not, we will need to take protective measures anyway because we cannot afford to have the abortion storms and death loss if it doesn’t. Yes, anaplas can be prevented and treated with tetracyclines but that is the very point Canadian producers were missing.
Canadian producers had an absolutely huge competitive advantage over U.S beef producers because our herd was previously free of anaplas and we were not treating our cows throughout the summer with tetracyclines like is necessary in the U.S. The issue is not the cost of treatment which might run $25 a cow per summer, the issue is these treatments may very well not be available to beef producers much longer. If that were the case, cattle production in a significant portion of the United States that has Anaplas edemic in its beef herd would no longer be economically feasible.
Although it is too late as the deed is done, in hindsight Canadian beef producers will see just what they gave up in exchange for the hope of getting the U.S. border open to our cattle one month sooner than it would have happened anyway. A disease free herd was Canada’s ace up its sleeve in the very competitive beef marketplace. We have given much of that away for very little in return.
I have included a paste from Animalnet that illustrates the issue on antibiotics in the U.S. Beef producers will not win this war for antibiotic use. This is why we needed to keep our herds disease free, maybe someday we will appreciate that.
Iowa becomes battleground for campaign to reduce antibiotic use in livestock
March 10, 2004
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Dave DeWitte, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Iowa is, according to this story, a key battleground for supporters of legislation to reduce use of many antibiotics in livestock production.
Dr. David Wallinga of The Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse, was cited as saying scientists increasingly believe antibiotic resistance spreads as a genetic trait from bacteria found in animals to bacteria that cause human diseases, adding, "The resistant bacteria is worsening and rendering the antibiotics in our toolbox ineffective. There are actually infections that are now untreatable."
The story explains that the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2003 was introduced in August. It is backed by the Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse, a coalition of 12 organizations ranging from the Union of Concerned Scientists to the National Catholic Rural Life Conference.
The bill would amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act to withdraw Food and Drug Administration approvals of eight antibiotics or classes of antibiotics for non-the****utic agricultural uses.
The campaign is courting Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, because of their influence and their farm state backgrounds.
Neither has agreed to endorse the act, Wallinga said, although both have agreed to consider it.
The story says that the effort is modeled in part on Denmark's phase out of the routine use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry, which produced a 54 percent decrease in antibiotic use and reduced dramatically the levels of resistant bacteria in livestock.
Supporters say Denmark's law has had no impact on food safety or cost to consumers and virtually no impact on animal welfare or producer productivity.
Canadian producers had an absolutely huge competitive advantage over U.S beef producers because our herd was previously free of anaplas and we were not treating our cows throughout the summer with tetracyclines like is necessary in the U.S. The issue is not the cost of treatment which might run $25 a cow per summer, the issue is these treatments may very well not be available to beef producers much longer. If that were the case, cattle production in a significant portion of the United States that has Anaplas edemic in its beef herd would no longer be economically feasible.
Although it is too late as the deed is done, in hindsight Canadian beef producers will see just what they gave up in exchange for the hope of getting the U.S. border open to our cattle one month sooner than it would have happened anyway. A disease free herd was Canada’s ace up its sleeve in the very competitive beef marketplace. We have given much of that away for very little in return.
I have included a paste from Animalnet that illustrates the issue on antibiotics in the U.S. Beef producers will not win this war for antibiotic use. This is why we needed to keep our herds disease free, maybe someday we will appreciate that.
Iowa becomes battleground for campaign to reduce antibiotic use in livestock
March 10, 2004
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Dave DeWitte, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Iowa is, according to this story, a key battleground for supporters of legislation to reduce use of many antibiotics in livestock production.
Dr. David Wallinga of The Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse, was cited as saying scientists increasingly believe antibiotic resistance spreads as a genetic trait from bacteria found in animals to bacteria that cause human diseases, adding, "The resistant bacteria is worsening and rendering the antibiotics in our toolbox ineffective. There are actually infections that are now untreatable."
The story explains that the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2003 was introduced in August. It is backed by the Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse, a coalition of 12 organizations ranging from the Union of Concerned Scientists to the National Catholic Rural Life Conference.
The bill would amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act to withdraw Food and Drug Administration approvals of eight antibiotics or classes of antibiotics for non-the****utic agricultural uses.
The campaign is courting Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, because of their influence and their farm state backgrounds.
Neither has agreed to endorse the act, Wallinga said, although both have agreed to consider it.
The story says that the effort is modeled in part on Denmark's phase out of the routine use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry, which produced a 54 percent decrease in antibiotic use and reduced dramatically the levels of resistant bacteria in livestock.
Supporters say Denmark's law has had no impact on food safety or cost to consumers and virtually no impact on animal welfare or producer productivity.
Comment