Killing old cows

[cowman]

Talked to a farmer the other day who said the vet had killed four old cows at his place under the BSE testing deal. He said he got paid under the program. These cows were not downers or on their last legs, just old!
He also said he took one old girl in about a month ago, to the auction and only got $50! A helpful neighbor told him the vet would put down any old cow and get him the $225!
Is this sort of crooked? Was that the intention of the program? This farmer also told me that another guy he knows had a cow with cancer eye and the vet put her down and he collected the $225.
I guess the vets might see this as a revenue source?

[grassfarmer]

I'd sure like a refresher on what this testing program was about. I thought originally it was about getting a large cross section test on our cattle herd to more fully assess the possible prevelance of BSE. It makes sense to test downer, dead, distressed, diseased cows as they cover the highest risk group.
I had one disaster at calving time with an old lean cow with bad feet that was trying to calf but making no progress. I got her in and checked her to find she had a dead outside-in calf and that kind can never come out backwards. I even took her to the vet for confirmation - he said the options were cut the calf up or c-section. On a cow that was worth $150 as a cull IF she survived the deal and got a lot of nursing afterwards these weren't great options. I made the decision that it was kinder and quicker to put her down.
I was amazed when the vet said that she didn't qualify for the program - not because I wanted the money desperately - but because she was verging on being thin enough to qualify, had bad feet, was certainly over 10 years old, was in some distress and would have died a horrible death if we had left her untreated. The vet said that she didn't qualify because "they knew what was wrong with her" - really, were they 100% sure she wouldn't test positive for BSE?
I was disgusted with this decision but didn't argue it as I was more concerned for the welfare of the animal and getting her put down at the time. I think the system is a farce when you have a case like this and then there are a couple of operations in the province acting as collectors of thin old cows from the auctions who hunger the cows a bit more before getting them slaughtered under the scheme. I think their vets should be investigated and the animal welfare people should be notified. This industry cannot stand losing consumer support of producers if these things were portrayed in a negative light in the media.

[silverback]

Do you think there is a chance that some of these vet's customers who are maybe a little better "liked", get their cows chosen for the cash ahead of someone else??

[grassfarmer]

I suspect there is more difference between different vet practises than vet customers. Although I very rarely use a vet for procedures I do buy vaccines from him and that qualifies me for his preferred customer rates on his services.
Saying that I know he does slaughter animals for the program - a neighbour had a cow last summer with a sore on her hip that was possibly a cancerous growth and she was deemed eligable. What is the difference or has there been a change in the rules that we are unaware of now that producers are submitting cows in ample numbers?

[grassfarmer]

my understanding is that the program is for exactly what you were told grassfarmer. I would suspect that if a vet is putting OLD cows down it isn't completely kosher with the program. My vet says that they have so many more cows tested than necessary that we are in good shape as far as BSE testing goes already for '05'. He sticks by the rules and only puts cows down that qualify .

[kpb]

Well I don't know what the exact rules are regarding this program but my vet will qualify anything I want killed for the $250. I took a useless bull to the auction mart two weeks ago because I was sick of having him around and got a cheque for $140. He'll be the last cull I take there--the rest are going under the BSE program.

Earlier this year I had the vet come out and kill a young bull that was healthy but lame, nothing else wrong with him but an injured leg, and got the $250 cheque about 3 weeks later. There would have been no buyers for that animal at the auction mart but there was no more chance of that bull having BSE than me having it. If anyone thinks that's wrong than I guess that's too bad. I give a lot of business to the vet because of the Ivomec and other drugs I buy for the feeders, etc. and I get along well with him--I'll likely have a few more animals that fit under the program in the next little while.


kpb

[grassfarmer]

kpb, I think the experience you are having isn't wrong or bad - it's just not how this scheme was meant to work.
A scheme to achieve the result you are getting was proposed more than a year ago but the beurocrats were too stupid to go for it. Designed by Bob Church and Scott Lees it proposed letting auction marts act as cull collection points for those animals that are too poor to attract buyers - cancer eye, infirm, injured legs, really lean etc as well as any other animal a rancher wanted to surrender for economic reasons. They would have a simple kill box on site to kill and get brain samples off these animals and producers would be compensated to $250 or so per animal. The advantage of this proposal was that it would have made inroads into the cull numbers building up on farm and would more importantly have fixed a base price for all culls. Straight away XL would have had to pay a minimum of $250 to get any cows. It would have allowed us to short the packers on culls and raised the prices considerably at very little cost.
Instead we picked a far more complicated system that is far dearer to implement per animal slaughtered because of the compensation paid to the vet to travel to the farm for each cow. Typical beurocrats though don't have the vision to see where they could have got way more bang for their buck(actually our(taxpayer) buck) in the longrun.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, the plan you outlined is excellent, why was it not implemented? It would have killed at least three birds with one stone.

kpb

[grassfarmer]

I'm not really sure why it didn't fly - likely a combination of reasons. Politicians would be frightened it would cost too much money (although in theory taxpayers will foot the bill for producers losses anyway through CAIS and other bailout packages).

It didn't come from a committee of ABP or CCA - just two smart, practical rancher/ industry leader types.

We were still being kept hanging with "the open border salvation" theory. Who knows?

I know the proponents of this scheme spent a lot of time on it and were ultimately annoyed that it got bogged down by beurocrats. I know for example that the discussion on kill boxes took a day and got nowhere, being totally wasted trying to educate the people making the decisions. When they first proposed the idea of a simple kill box at the auction they had to explain the need for them - ie why the auction pens wouldn't do. Balking at having to build these they turned to the idea of on farm slaughter where they suggested they be slaughtered in the squeeze chute many operators have. Clearly they couldn't imagine the problems of extricating a dead animal from a squeeze. When they were told of the problems this would cause and also how dangerous animals would be handled
they suggested the producers just shoot the cows standing in the corrals - but that tends to make a rather large mess of the head area and the whole purpose of the operation is to collect brain samples!
I think producers don't appreciate this side of the crisis - if able guys with solutions could talk to Ralph Klein or Paul Martin progress might be made but the beurocrats are the ones holding it up - the junior ministers, ministers aids, CFIA and some within ABP and CCA, all too busy trying to build their own little empires and job security.

[nicolaas]

I believe the government should be buying the culls at the auction mart and testing them. Would this not be a cheaper way of doing things? And more efficient? The government would be able to be on schedule with thier testing requirements. This way you know only the "culls" are getting tested .. the ones that probably are more likely to have BSE, and the government would probably save $100.00 per test. The way we do it now is nice, if I got a vet out for a problem cow and it dies, he tests for BSE, I can pay for the vet bill. But is it the proper way, and are we testing the "right" animals?

[nicolaas]

and its pretty tough to get a downer cow to get up and walk into the squeeze but who said that beaurocrats have any hands on experience in the livestock industry.
I would suspect that one problem with the proposal you speak of grassfarmer is the on site slaughter at auction markets. Many of them are located in urban centres and a development permit would be required from the applicable municipality. Any development permit must be advertised to the public so I imagine it would be fairly easy to forsee what the urban folks would think of livestock being slaughtered in their midst!

[nicolaas]

just to clarify my previous post, a development permit is required for any use in addition to the one already permitted, hence a permit would have been required for a slaughter facility albeit it was not intended to be a sophisticated one.
Also, dead animals onsite until picked up by the rendering truck would be a huge problem in any municiplity rural or urban, and calling the rendering truck isn't like calling a taxi, they don't arrive on schedule.

[farmers_son]

Gee...We sure are cocky these days.

According to Emrald1, we have already tested enough cows to meet our 05 commitments so why the enthusiasm for testing more? Lest we forget, the border to the U.S. is not open yet.

Thank goodness the next BSE positive was found in the U.S. and not Canada. However the Yankees may try to wiggle out of it yet, they may even try to blame it on someone else, lord knows they have tried that one before. And we do not need to be finding any BSE positives ourselves until we get some live cattle on the south side of that line. Test enough cattle and you will find BSE positives, that is for certain. In fact it is only six months since we found last ones. We do not, repeat DO NOT, need to find another BSE positive on this side of the line for a long time, and just watch that border slam shut if find something born after the feed ban. That is a cold hard fact.

The only border this BSE positive in the U.S. may open would be the U.S. border to our live UTM cattle. Other than that, finding BSE positives is not good for international trade. It should not be that way but it is. We need to harmonize our cow tests with the U.S., not get in a race with them to see who can find the most BSE positives.

If the border opens to live cattle we should have stronger markets for our cows even within this country besides the fact that why would the Americans continue to block our live cows going south.

Until then the best place for a 4D cow is still the bush. We have met our testing requirements for 05. No one says the Canadians found 3 BSE positives out of 30,000 tested or 40,000 or 50,000 tested. They say Canada found 3 BSE cows. Lets not make it four or five. That is not covering up anything, it is just playing smart.

[farmers_son]

not according to Emrald, but according to my vet, who may or may not be accurate. Don't hang your hat on it yet,but you are absolutely right about us not needing to find another $%$&@ BSE cow on this side of the border.
I am still not completely at peace with the thought that this latest possible case won't be traced right back to dear old AB !!!

[farmers_son]

Check out: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/surv/surve.shtml

Your vet is right. We have tested nearly 30,000 animals so far in 2005, our goal for this year and about equivalent with the U.S. given our herd size. Two cows were positive and both of those were tested with this BSE on farm program.