Japanese Financing

[grassfarmer]

And still we pursue the contaminated feed theory nonsense - comments by Gary Little, a senior veterinarian at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on the current BSE case investigation:

"The chances the investigation will find another cow from the same farm with mad cow disease are small, Little said, because cases are not usually found in clusters.

"Experiences with BSE throughout the world have shown that finding multiple cases of BSE in a single birth cohort is rare,"

In other words - it's in the feed so we'll check the herdmates but know we won't find further cases there... Doh! sound science?

[jensend]

isn't it astonishing that scientists can ignore so much evidence if it tends to disprove their pet theory? i have often wondered why whole herds and cohorts haven't tested positive if the feed transmission theory is valid. if the theory is valid the prion certainly isn't very transmissible or we would have seen huge numbers of infected animals and humans. i hope that some involved in the research of this disease will be able to discover the very beginning stages of the condition so that it can be better understood.

[topper]

I also wonder if feed is the problem how come we don't see more animals that where fed the same feed come down with the disease. I wonder how under Purdey's theory why more animals in the same group don't test positive for bse. Maybe I missed something but if purdeys theory where correct wouldn't you expect that more of these animals subjected to organophospates would test positive for bse. Maybe somebody could explain this to me.

[Horse]

Jensend Im with you what will we acomplish by trading the U>S>A> for the Japanese sounds like same shit diferent pile.

[intr3est]

Farmers_son
I'd like to get back to the comment you made about testing being science based. If we believe that Japan has already tested an animal UTM and found BSE, then the public has already been exposed to science that makes it possible. The best way to get around this is to test everything. As far as I know we have been using the same or better protocols as the US for some years now, with a few changes after the first case.(in both countries) If we were using an even more strigent testing policy, we as Canadian producers would have even more markets available to us.

[InAHurry]

This is a little off topic (and the whole news report can be found here:
http://calgary.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/ca-mad-cow20050107.html ) I pasted it in total at the end of my post

My question(s) center around the following statments from the report

"The CFIA has confirmed that the infected cow ate cattle feed made with the remains of cattle. Cattle eating the remains of infected animals is the most common way BSE in contracted. Canada put a ban on feeding ruminant remains to cattle in 1997.

The CFIA has said that its testing can determine whether animal protein is present in feed, but not what kind of animal it came from.

"There still isn't any one test or combination of tests that are available to us to monitor feeds for compliance," the CFIA's Sergio Tolusso said. "

The report says the cow ate feed made with the remains of cattle -- she was born before 1997, is this the reason for this statement? Then the remark about "most common way BSE is contracted - I thought this was still being researched, in other words not deserving of the "most comman way BSE is contracted?

Next - they say a test can determine animal protein presence but not the type of animal it came from??? Is this an incomplete or confused news reporter or me or how have they been monitoring for compliance?

Keep in mind this is a CBC report, but it full of contradicting remarks.

BSE could have entered food chain: officials
Last Updated Jan 7 2005 01:49 PM MST
CBC News
Ottawa – Federal officials say cattle infected with mad cow may have been eaten by humans, but stressed the chance of contracting a potentially fatal illness is extremely low.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Friday that it's tracking 141 cattle born on the Alberta farm where Canada's second confirmed case of BSE was raised.

Some of these cows may have been made into animal or human food, agency spokesman, Dr. Gary Little told a news conference in Ottawa.

"At least a small number of them have been slaughtered and have entered the human-food system, potentially," he said.

He and other officials downplayed the risk to consumers, even though BSE can cause the human disease of Creutzfeldt-Jakob that killed at least 40 people in Britain in the 1990s.

Both Little and Dr. Paul Mayers, of Health Canada's Food Directorate, repeatedly said the risk that an animal carried the infection into the human food chain is "very low."

"We can't say that would be a zero risk event, because zero risk doesn't exist," Mayers said.

Little said investigators from his agency have quarantined nine dairy cattle born on the farm the year before and the year after the infected animal was born in October 1996. They plan to begin killing and testing the animals for BSE next week.

They're tracking a total of 93 dairy and 48 beef cattle from the farm to see whether the animals could have been exposed.

Test can't show what kind of animal remains in feed

The CFIA has confirmed that the infected cow ate cattle feed made with the remains of cattle. Cattle eating the remains of infected animals is the most common way BSE in contracted. Canada put a ban on feeding ruminant remains to cattle in 1997.

The CFIA has said that its testing can determine whether animal protein is present in feed, but not what kind of animal it came from.

"There still isn't any one test or combination of tests that are available to us to monitor feeds for compliance," the CFIA's Sergio Tolusso said.

The news may bolster the arguments of several U.S. politicians, who on Thursday unsuccessfully pressed for the March 7 reopening of the border to be delayed.

During a confirmation hearing for Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns, the nominee for agriculture secretary, North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad asked whether he would reconsider the decision to reopen the border.

"I am far from convinced that Canada is effectively enforcing its own regulations," Conrad said.

Johanns did not say whether he would revisit the decision made by the current secretary Ann Veneman.

Conrad and other politicians cited reports from U.S. regulators and Little's agency that suggested Canadian companies flouted a 1997 ruminant ban.

Some cattle feed has animal remains: report

The National Post reported Friday that CFIA tests have discovered that four brands of feed likely included parts from cattle or other ruminants.

Little, a veterinarian for the federal agency, defended Canada's testing regime on Friday.

"We have every confidence in our feed ban system and the systems that we have in place," he said.

Little said the probe into the country's second BSE case is progressing much faster than the first, which was discovered on a northern Alberta farm in 2003, because investigators knew the animal's birthplace and could track its movements without casting a wide net.

Officials confirmed the case on Jan. 3, just days after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would lift the 19-month ban that has devastated Canada's cattle industry. The U.S. will begin accepting live cattle under the age of 30 months.

The USDA said it recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE, in part because of measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease.

[Bez]

rkaiser

I do not see a problem with Japan investing in our market place. If they want to test - fine - it opens a market. It also happens to open many other international markets.

To be a leader sometimes takes gonads. While the governments and scientists in the U.S. of A. and Canada talk - we all loose.

Realistically speaking, if the consumer wants something - they will buy it.

As a person with the bad habit of smoking - if I walk into a store and they do not carry my brand - well, I will go to another store. I know it is simplistic, but the theory rings true.

In the end, if the consumer wants something and we cannot provide - they WILL go elsewhere. Can we afford to miss these sales?

Opportunity knocks and we dither as to whether or not we will test. I say, slaughter, test and sell.

Cost? I think we sit on our butts and discuss things that are inconsequential.

More to the point - What is the cost if we do not sell? That is a bigger issue.

If we work on the theory that we MUST sell on science we delay the inevitable - others will take our markets.

Th heck with the "sound science" and BSE - in my opinion there is none at this time - just theory. Let's just do it.

Bez