Expanded Access for U.S. Cattle and Beef Products

[cakadu]

After reading the following article I have to say that I am left wondering if we really want to have more cattle allowed into this country when we seem to have such a glut of our own.

If my understanding of this is correct, and please feel free to help me understand this a bit better, what happens is we allow American feeders up here and then what happens to them? I take it they are custom fed and then are they sent to the processing plants here or are they shipped back across the border to be slaughtered in the U.S.?

I remember hearing a few years ago that at some stage Canada would just become a giant feedlot for the U.S. cattle. Is this a possibility?


Canada proposes new science-based import regulations to allow expanded access for U.S. cattle and beef products
Jan. 31/05
From a press release
OTTAWA -- The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) today announced proposed regulations to remove import restrictions
from a range of currently prohibited U.S. commodities. These restrictions
were introduced following the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) in Washington State on December 23, 2003.
Based on the guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health, the
CFIA plans to permit the importation of live cattle born in 1998 or later,
beef from animals of any age from which specified risk material has been
removed and various other commodities. Products that may pose a higher risk,
such as certain animal feeds, will remain prohibited.
The proposed regulations will further align Canada's BSE-specific policy
for imports from the United States with science-based international
guidelines for safe trade, which are designed to protect public and animal
health.
With respect to bluetongue and anaplasmosis, the proposed regulations
will allow for year-round access for U.S. feeder cattle destined for
slaughter into Canadian feedlots, while maintaining the highest level of
animal health protection. Additionally, work to expand the scope for further
change relative to breeding cattle will follow the publication this year of a
recently completed study conducted in Alberta.
"Our response to BSE continues to be based on science, and science
clearly demonstrates that safe trade can and should continue with appropriate
safeguards in place," said Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Andy Mitchell.
"The consistent public and animal health measures that the United States and
Canada have adopted will allow us to move toward the full reintegration of
our markets."
The proposed regulations have been published in Canada Gazette I. A
30-day comment period ending on March 1, 2005 is being provided to allow
interested parties the opportunity to provide comments. In the interim,
current import restrictions will remain in effect.
The CFIA is currently developing a broader BSE-related import policy
that will apply to any country that has reported the disease. As with the
currently proposed regulations, this new policy will reflect the Government's
ongoing commitment to follow recognized science and the most current
understanding of BSE. The CFIA is confident that moving Canada's import
policy toward international guidelines will encourage other countries to
adopt similar, more appropriate approaches.

[pandiana]

My understanding is that feeder cattle will be allowed under the previously accepted rule. This rule has been extended 60 days. These are terminal cattle to be slaughter (or possibly returned to the US). However, according to the new proposals annouced today, Amercian 'breeding' cattle will be allowed to be imported to Canada. There is a 30 day discussion period. Questions unanswered are: Do we drop our regulations regarding anaplasmosis restrictions (most agree that blue tongue is not an issue as we do not have the vector) because of pressure from the US. Although the risk is hard to calculate, it is real and significant if our herd does become contaminated i.e border slams shut again for infected areas?

[intr3est]

Are these deseased cattle allowed to cross certain state borders? Not a concession I think we should make either.

[cakadu]

Given that we have the set aside program, last years calves and soon to be (if not already on the ground) this years calves, are we even going to need an extra feeders for the next year or two?

I understand that the cull cows have been a major headache and that it will take time to move the backlog of those through the system. It would seem to me that we have more than enough excess home grown beef to move before we need to worry about bringing more in, particularly some with the potential for more disease.

[farmers_son]

Canada always did allow live cattle in from the U.S. We did require a simple blood test to confirm they were free from BT and anaplas. The Americans complained the requirement to test was an unreasonable impediment to trade. I note that if, and it still is a question of if, the U.S. allow our live calves, but not our live cows, to enter the U.S after March 7 that they be branded CAN. If we are going to be harmonized with our American trading partners it would seem reasonable to insist that these diseased American live cattle coming into Canada be branded USA.

The CFIA has determined that the Canadian beef herd will be infected with anaplas when these American cattle enter Canada. We will eventually get BSE under control and it is reasonable to believe in the foreseeable future the Canadian herd will be BSE free. Not so with Anaplas and Bluetongue. Once these diseases become endemic in our herd we will never be able to get rid of them.

Bottom line, should live cattle be moving across international borders? If the beef industry on both sides of the border took a long hard look at the overall costs and benefits I believe they would find that it is better to ship beef and grain across borders rather than live cattle. There are just too many issues with live cattle, both health related and politically. The border will be closed again to live cattle in the future for whatever reason. As the smaller more export dependent producer it would seem to be in Canada’s best interest to be encouraging value adding here at home and not encouraging either imports or exports of live cattle. Put policies in place that will allow the Canadian cow herd to grow to supply the needs of the feedlots and ensure sufficient packing plant capacity is built in this country to meet the demand.

Live cattle going either north or south should only be considered a short term measure

[farmers_son]

It is going to be interesting to see where our Industry organizations : ABP; ACFA stand on this one isn't it ?

[cakadu]

I have never understood why the powers that be would even open the door for these diseases to potentially come in. If nothing else, over the past 21 months, the lesson learned should be that the border can slam shut at any time. Do the people making these decisions not realize that this could come back to haunt us in a big way?

The other thing I would like to know is where are the sheep organizations on this? Sheep, as well as goats, are highly susceptible to both blue tongue and anaplasmosis. Both of these livestock sectors have been hammered in the past almost 2 years.

Shouldn't we as livestock producers all be getting up in arms about this? I realize that the decision to open the border to these latest 2 potential diseases was made a while back, but was this done for the benefit of the Canadian producer? I think not.

[kato]

This was done in the misguided belief that our American trading partner would respond in kind regarding our cattle.

Someone is living in a dream world. Negotiations are made up of two sides giving and taking in order to come to a mutual agreement acceptable by both, and it's been pretty one sided so far. We give, the U.S. takes.

I agree that the American cattle be ID'd and branded just as ours are required to do going south. They need to be brought into the national ID program too.

BTW .. this thread has been linked to ranchers.net, so remember, Big Brother is Watching! LOL

[cowman]

I suspect if we could get the politics out of this whole thing and let the CFIA and the USDA run the show we'd all be a lot better off in the long run? These two organizations seem to understand that Canada and the US industry are in reality, one! Instead we have all this drivel about a very minor disease being used to play games with the economics of our beef industry.
The American rancher seems to be hell bent on keeping Canadian cattle out with the silly belief that we are the single biggest threat to their prosperity, when in fact everytime they open their mouth about diseased cattle and tainted beef they hurt consumer confidence!
If I was an American consumer and I was bombarded with rhetoric about how the USDA has been letting in tainted meat and lying about the safety of American beef...I do believe I might just stroll down the meat aisle to the pork and chicken sections!...or maybe check out the veggies!

[farmers_son]

Which disease to you consider to be minor? Anaplasmosis and BSE are list B diseases (the same as Bangs) and Bluetongue is on the most serious List A along with other diseases such as Rinderpest. We are not talking about the common cold with any of these diseases. Canada is presently free of Anaplas and BT and all other list A diseases while I do not believe the U.S. is free of BSE, Anaplas, BT and a host of others. American cattle are disease dirty.

[blackjack]

...any food products whether its beef,grain,fruits all have diseases...thats why it is just important if it comes from the good old USA or tim buc tu food produce has to be checked...maybe father_son knows the regulations on ana and bt between states lines...do the states not do blood tests on breeding stock for these diseases... what are the vaccinations given and what is the control...just some questions...

[pandiana]

Here is an excerpt from a Jan. 1999 report from Ben Thorlaksen, then president of CCA. It will be interesting to see how CCA policy changes in light of border issues. FYO: the North West Program now includes 38 states.

Cakadu, yes, blue tongue is a serious disease in sheep. Cattlemen, however, seem less than sympathetic. I have been convinced, though, that with the exception of the area in the Okanogan, the absence of the vector precludes transmission of this disease. Anaplasmosis is a difference story. Again, it is my understanding that positive herds can be quarantined (I am not sure if they are depopulated). I was told by a veterinary that it can be transmitted mechanically (using needles). Therefore, if you introduce it into your herd with one animal, annual vaccinations would potentially propigate it throughout.

It has been argued that because the US and Mexico are our major trading partners, even if we did lose our disease free status it would just put us on par with them. I am not really qualified to argue whether this is true as I don't know what other exports are significant.

R-calf insistence in keeping the border closed when it protects their higher prices is somewhat short sighted. It is of interest that the Montana cattlemen had no complaints when competition for their cattle was high when purchased for Canadian feeders.

The fact that the dollar impacts profitability on Canadian imports going both ways,I would think this will temper any mass movements of cattle.

Animal Health Requirements
Ben Thorlaksen CCA President Jan. 1999

The main issue here is the difference in our reportable disease list with specific concerns about testing requirements for bluetongue and anaplasmosis. The other element is the regulatory changes required to move ahead with regionalization/zoning for States using international standards for risk assessment.

We have spoken to our senior officials and the Minister Of Agriculture and Agri-Food about making the changes to our regulations to accommodate regionalization/zoning. The Canada/United States agricultural agreement in December included several key provisions to advance this process. The first is the extension of the North West Program to an additional 26 States (upon application by the States) and a commitment to make the regulatory changes for regionalization/zoning of our disease requirements with the U.S.. At a recent meeting of our national animal health consultative meetings, a faster process was reviewed to achieve the changes for regionalization. We are also examining changes to our reportable disease list. We should note the Canada/U.S. agreement did include a provision that the trade investigations would put the extension of the North West Program in jeopardy.

The consequences of removing Bluetongue from our reportable list is that we may lose our international disease free status resulting in lost sales for breeding cattle to parts of the world, and increased testing costs for semen and embryos. The disease risk to cattle is negligible with minor sickness in rare cases. We are recommending that we must modify our requirements.

Anaplasmosis does not carry the same trade implications although additional testing requirements would become necessary. There are direct disease risks associated with Anaplasmosis. A recent risk assessment projects the annual costs of disease would be about $2.8 million per year in Canada. We are recommending modification here as well that could allow year-round access without testing. Initial discussions on both of these diseases took place in December and went reasonably well. We will be meeting with the NCBA to ensure that our governments deal with these matters quickly.

This summer, we were able to get significant changes made to the North West Program. We had hoped that the program would have provided for improved access last winter. Unfortunately, the federal government established such onerous requirements in the fine detail that it proved too costly and cumbersome. Since October 1st, 1998 approximately 36,000 head of feeder cattle (31,000 from Montana) have been imported into Canada and the volume is growing. At last count 66 feedlots have become designated or have applied. We are told this had a positive impact on the market, particularly in Northern Montana.

[farmers_son]

Pandiana: The biting midge responsible for spreading Bluetongue, CULICOIDES SONORENSIS, is present in Alberta, most prevalent in the southern half of the province. What is not known is if the midge is a competent vector. The study being conducted will conclude September 2005. Until that study is done there is no science to determine the risk of spread of bluetongue.


The ability of the CULICOIDES SONORENSIS to be a competent vector depends upon environmental conditions. It is known that where the right combination of temperature and humidity are present that CULICOIDES SONORENSIS is a competent vector for bluetongue.

See: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=406582

I agree that anaplasmosis is the more serious disease that will cost Alberta cow calf producers millions of dollars. Both Anaplas and BT cause abortions in pregnant cows which is a major concern. Most of the death loss will be from Anaplasmosis, in the range of 20% in infected herds. The symptoms of BT mimic those of hoof and mouth and infected animals can become deathly ill, especially if there is a trigger such as a previous infection with BVD.

[farmers_son]

There is a news item in the Agri-ville News corner on contagious Foreign Animal Diseases at:

https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/newsroom/view.cgi?articleID=3006

I happen to know Clare Schlegel, and he speaks the truth. BSE is relatively easy to contain and stop spreading. We may not be so lucky next time. All our livelihoods depend on keeping our livestock disease free.

"Clare Schlegel, an Ontario pork producer, doesn't want to be a scaremonger, but says estimates show that even an isolated, short-lived outbreak could cost producers as much as $13 billion. Not a scenario to play around with, he adds. The worst-case estimates for a major outbreak pegs the hit to the Canadian economy at $45 billion..."

[cakadu]

What I don't get is why even set up the potential for these diseases to manifest themselves. Wasn't our disease free status worth something? At least pre-BSE, it was something that we had that other countries didn't.

I should also think that at this stage of the game we shouldn't think it won't happen to us or happen here.

I take it that Canadian feedlots want access to American feeders so that they can custom feed. Is custom feeding lucrative enough to warrant all the cross-border movement? I'm just trying to get a handle on how all of this works.