Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal exported to USA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="flounder" data-source="post: 366269" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>Subject: Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported to the United States </p><p>Date: April 10, 2007 at 7:58 am PST</p><p></p><p>Beef News </p><p>Birth cohort of BSE-positive animal was exported to the United States </p><p></p><p>By John Gregerson on 4/10/2007 for Meatingplace.com </p><p></p><p></p><p>One of the birth cohorts of a Canadian bull diagnosed with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in January was exported to the United States in 2002, according to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. </p><p></p><p>The animal, a heifer, was sent to a Nebraska feedlot, and then was slaughtered at a Nebraska facility. APHIS indicated the animal presented a negligible risk since scientific data indicate that two BSE-positive animals rarely originate from the same herd. "Even at the height of the BSE epidemic in Britain, it was extremely rare to find a cohort at risk for the disease," APHIS spokeswoman Andrea McNally told Meatingplace.com.</p><p></p><p>APHIS spokeswoman Karen Eggerg added that the data on cohorts is based on "years of observation" rather than clinical studies, and indicated that one theory why two animals from the same herd are rarely BSE-positive is that prions, the misfolded proteins associated with BSE, generally are clumped together as a result of their sticky nature, and therefore aren't evenly distributed in feed. </p><p></p><p>After discovering the infected bull, a 79-month-old animal from Alberta, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency focused on cattle born in the same herd within 12 months. The bull became emaciated last winter and subsequently was earmarked for Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program. </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=17765" target="_blank">http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly ... item=17765</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>funny, i must be slipping, i did not see this on any of the usda/aphis updates.</p><p>must have another bse/base mad cow website somewhere?</p><p>i'm still waiting for official annoucnement of how safe we are from those nor98 TSE now documented in the USA too, nothing there yet either???</p><p>wonder why old ron or johanns have not come out and stated how safe we are yet from any exported mad cows from canada ???</p><p>i'm sure this is just a matter of overlook, as to we all know how USDA/APHIS et al BSE testing and reporting is done in such a timely manner, 4 to 8 months after the fact......tss</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.agr.state.ne.us/bse/bse.htm" target="_blank">http://www.agr.state.ne.us/bse/bse.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>TSS</p><p></p><p>ITEM 6 – BARB CASE CLUSTERS </p><p></p><p>39. Professor John Wilesmith (Defra) updated the committee on the </p><p></p><p>BSE cases born after the 1996 reinforced mammalian meat and </p><p></p><p>bone meal ban in the UK (BARB cases). Around 116 BARB cases </p><p></p><p>had been identified in Great Britain up to 22 November 2005, </p><p></p><p>mostly through active surveillance. BARB cases had decreased in </p><p></p><p>successive birth cohorts, from 44 in the 1996/1997 cohort to none </p><p></p><p>to date in the 2000/2001 cohort. However, 3 BARB cases had </p><p></p><p>been identified in the 2001/2002 cohort. Backcalculation of the </p><p></p><p>prevalence of BARB cases indicated a drop from 130 infected </p><p></p><p>animals per million (95% confidence interval 90-190) in the </p><p></p><p>1996/1997 cohort to 30 infected animals per million (95% </p><p></p><p>confidence interval 10-60) in the 1999/2000 cohort. A shift in the </p><p></p><p>geographical distribution of BSE cases, from the concentration of </p><p></p><p>pre-1996 BSE cases in Eastern England to a more uniform </p><p></p><p>14 </p><p></p><p>© SEAC 2005 </p><p></p><p>distribution of BARB cases, had occurred. However, it appeared </p><p></p><p>that certain post-1996 cohorts had a higher exposure to BSE in </p><p></p><p>certain areas for limited periods. Several clusters of BARB cases </p><p></p><p>within herds had been identified (5 pairs, 2 triplets and 1 </p><p></p><p>quadruplet). </p><p></p><p>40. A triplet of BARB cases in South West Wales had been </p><p></p><p>investigated in detail. The triplet comprised 2 cases born in </p><p></p><p>September and October 2001 and a third in May 2002. The </p><p></p><p>animals born in 2001 were reared outdoors from the spring of 2002 </p><p></p><p>but the animal born in 2002 had been reared indoors. Further </p><p></p><p>investigation of feeding practices revealed that a new feed bin for </p><p></p><p>the adult dairy herd had been installed in September 1998. In July </p><p></p><p>2002 the feed bin was emptied, but not cleaned, and relocated. All </p><p></p><p>3 BARB cases received feed from the relocated bin. This finding </p><p></p><p>suggested the hypothesis that the feed bin installed in September </p><p></p><p>1998 was filled initially with contaminated feed, that remnants of </p><p></p><p>this feed fell to the bottom of the bin during its relocation, and thus </p><p></p><p>young animals in the 2001/2002 birth cohort were exposed to </p><p></p><p>feedstuffs produced in 1998. No adult cattle had been infected </p><p></p><p>because of the reduced susceptibility to BSE with increasing age. </p><p></p><p>41. Further investigation of multiple case herds had found no </p><p></p><p>association of BARB clusters with the closure of feed mills. </p><p></p><p>42. Professor Wilesmith concluded that there is evidence of a decline </p><p></p><p>in risk of infection for successive birth cohorts of cattle. The BARB </p><p></p><p>epidemic is unlikely to be sustained by animals born after 31 July </p><p></p><p>2000. Feed bins could represent a continued source of occasional </p><p></p><p>infection and advice to farmers is being formulated to reduce this </p><p></p><p>risk. There is no evidence for an indigenous source of infection for </p><p></p><p>the BARB cases. </p><p></p><p>43. Members considered it encouraging that no other factor, apart from </p><p></p><p>feed contamination, had been identified as a possible cause of </p><p></p><p>BARB cases to date. Members commented that this study </p><p></p><p>suggests that only a small amount of contaminated feed may be </p><p></p><p>required for infection and that BSE infectivity can survive in the </p><p></p><p>environment for several years. Professor Wilesmith agreed and </p><p></p><p>noted that infection caused by small doses of infectious material </p><p></p><p>was consistent with other studies, and it would appear there is little </p><p></p><p>dilution of infectivity, if present, in the rendering system. </p><p></p><p>Additionally it appeared that the infectious agent had survived for 4 </p><p></p><p>years in the feed bin. </p><p></p><p>44. The Chair thanked Professor Wilesmith for his presentation. </p><p></p><p></p><p>snip... </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/final90.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/final90.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>23.2 BSE-infected mad cows in the standing Canadian adult cattle population. very disturbing...</p><p></p><p></p><p>BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM</p><p>BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=0&P=3854" target="_blank">http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... D=0&P=3854</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=4652" target="_blank">http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... T=0&P=4652</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&D=0&P=2583" target="_blank">http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... D=0&P=2583</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Importation of Certain Commodities From BSE Minimal-risk Regions (Canada)</p><p></p><p>Environmental Assessment, October 27, 2006</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/EnvironmentalAssessment10-27-2006.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... 7-2006.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL</p><p>IMPORTS FROM CANADA </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed" target="_blank">https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf ... AutoFramed</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Subject: Re: Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported to the United States </p><p>Date: April 10, 2007 at 10:33 am PST</p><p></p><p>"It most likely" entered the food supply "given that it was slaughtered," said Karen Eggert, a spokeswoman with USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"But it wouldn't have gone to slaughter if it was showing any clinical signs for BSE. We're not looking at this as a possibility that a BSE infected cow got into the United States," she said.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1040765520070410" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 5520070410</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>how in the heck does she know ??? does she know what sub-clinical means ???</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:48:11 -0600</p><p>Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group</p><p><[log in to unmask]></p><p>Sender: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group</p><p><[log in to unmask]></p><p>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]></p><p>Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NINTH CASE OF BSE IN</p><p>CANADA UPDATE MARCH 26, 2007</p><p>Content-type: multipart/alternative;</p><p></p><p></p><p>Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NINTH CASE OF BSE IN CANADA UPDATE MARCH 26, 2007</p><p>Date: March 26, 2007 at 1:29 pm PST</p><p></p><p></p><p>Attachment 1: Estimation of BSE Prevalence in Canada</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p>Table 5 summarizes the results of the estimation of BSE prevalence in the standing Canadian adult cattle population as of August 15, 2006. Based on the expected prevalence value under the BBC model and the estimated adult herd size (Table 1), the expected number of BSE-infected animals in the standing Canadian adult cattle population is 4.1. By comparison, the expected value obtained under BSurvE Prevalence B is 3.9 per million, which corresponds to an estimated 23.2 BSE-infected animals in the standing Canadian adult cattle population.</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSE_Prevalence.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... alence.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>full text ;</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&P=15653" target="_blank">http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... mg&P=15653</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL</p><p>IMPORTS FROM CANADA </p><p></p><p></p><p>in my opinion this is a statement with intent to deceive and it is not </p><p>correct. There have been several cases of clinical BSE in British cattle </p><p>under 30 months and it is therefore hardly possible to think that cattle </p><p>under 30 months have virtually no risk of having BSE. In 1988 the </p><p>youngest British BSE case was 24, the second youngest 27 months old. In </p><p>1989 the youngest British BSE case was 21 and there were 4 cases only 24 </p><p>months old. In 1990 there were two cases only 24 and one 26 months old. </p><p>In 1991 the youngest British BSE case was 24 and there were 3 cases only </p><p>26 months old. In 1992 the youngest British BSE case was 20!, the second </p><p>youngest 26 months old. In 1993 there was was a 29 months old case, in </p><p>1995 the UK had a 24 months old case and in 1996 one British BSE case </p><p>was 29 months old.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html" target="_blank">http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse ... g-old.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But mainly this wrong statement is misleading, because not the </p><p>clinically sick cows are the problem for consumers. The real problem are </p><p>those animals that became infected as calves and are still incubating </p><p>the infectivity during the incubation time of 5-6 years. For consumers </p><p>it is therefore totally irrelevant that cattle are at low risk to reach </p><p>the clinical stage before being 30 months old. Important for consumers </p><p>is the fact that most British BSE cases became infected as calves </p><p>(<a href="http://www.heynkes.de/peaks.htm" target="_blank">http://www.heynkes.de/peaks.htm</a>) and that infected calves are already </p><p>amplifying the infectivity. The advantage of young calves for consumers </p><p>is that the infectivity in infected animals is low and still </p><p>concentrated around the gastro- intestinal tract. But this is not </p><p>necessarily true for bulls, which are usually slaughtered when they are </p><p>19-22 months old. They are too young to give positive results in the </p><p>actual BSE tests, but they might be infective for consumers.</p><p></p><p>For US consumers it is of no importance whether a BSE-infected Canadian </p><p>cow will show the first symptoms before or after it becomes 30 months </p><p>old. Interesting for the consumers is only</p><p></p><p>1) if cattle are infected or not,</p><p></p><p>2) where in the animal is how much of the infectivity and</p><p></p><p>3) what happens to the infectivity during slaughtering?</p><p></p><p>If the US government is really interested to reduce consumers risk, it </p><p>has to</p><p></p><p>1) stop cannibalism among farm animals (no farm animal protein and fat </p><p>in feeding stuff for farm animals, no possibility of cross contamination </p><p>of concentrate feed in mills and no lambing on pastures where scrapie </p><p>might be a problem)</p><p></p><p>2) test slaughter cattle above 24 months for BSE,</p><p></p><p>3) avoid contamination of the beef with prions from CNS by changing </p><p>slaughter methods (electrical stunning instead of captive bolt, no </p><p>immobilisation with a pithing rod, no spreading of infectivity by sawing </p><p>through the spinal cord),</p><p></p><p>4) destroy the high risk materials (brain, eyes, spinal cord, dorsal </p><p>root ganglia and other peripheral ganglia, nervous and lymphatic tissue </p><p>associated with intestine)</p><p></p><p>5) commit the whole chain from abattoir to counter in shop and </p><p>restaurant to label products from cattle and sheep, because it is only a </p><p>myth that scrapie is less infective than BSE.</p><p></p><p>In addition the US government should test all cattle and sheep which </p><p>died or had to be killed because of illness. This measure should be hold </p><p>out for at least one year in order to see the real BSE- and </p><p>scrapie-incidence in the USA....</p><p></p><p></p><p>Microbiologist Roland Heynkes</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.heynkes.de/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.heynkes.de/default.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Furthermore, for the USA to continue to flagrantly ignore the findings </p><p>from Collinge/Asante et al</p><p>that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an </p><p>alternate phenotype that is</p><p>indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD. These </p><p>findings could have</p><p>major implications for the medical and surgical arena and human health. </p><p>this type sporadic CJD</p><p>is very prevalent in the USA ;</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/ ... s1_OPH.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>snip...full text ;</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed" target="_blank">https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf ... AutoFramed</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>></p><p>From: ProMED-AHEAD </p><p>Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:59:17 -0400 (EDT)</p><p>Subject: PRO/AH> BSE - Switzerland (02)</p><p></p><p></p><p>BSE - SWITZERLAND (02)</p><p>**********************</p><p>A ProMED-mail post</p><p></p><p></p><p>In June Swiss scientists using immunological and immuno-histochemical</p><p>tests for the BSE prion found 8 cases of BSE infection among 1761</p><p>apparently healthy herd mates of Swiss cattle which had developed BSE</p><p>(a prevalence of 4.5/1000). It was then decided to test for the prion</p><p>in 3000 healthy cattle over the age of 30 months being slaughtered at</p><p>abattoirs for human consumption. In late September one infected cow</p><p>was found, a four-year-old sent for slaughter because her milk output</p><p>had fallen due apparently to mastitis. This is the first time BSE</p><p>infection has been detected in a cow that would otherwise have been</p><p>eaten, in time to take it out of the food chain. </p><p></p><p></p><p>All 3,000 have now been tested with the fast Western blot developed by</p><p>the Zurich-based firm Prionics. Of those 2,200 have also been tested</p><p>using slower immuno-histochemical methods. All the results so far</p><p>agree, including the one positive result. One possible reason for the</p><p>good agreement between tests (in the previous study different tests</p><p>agreed on only 4 of the 8 positives) is that this time, brains were</p><p>divided into hemispheres and each was sent for one test or the other.</p><p>Prion distribution seems to be laterally symmetric, so this reduced</p><p>sampling error. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The apparent prevalence of 1/3,000 is less than the 1/1,000 infected</p><p>cattle in apparently healthy herds in Switzerland calculated by Doherr</p><p>and colleagues, based on observed clinical incidence and estimated</p><p>incubation time of the disease. The discovery of only one case does</p><p>not allow the empirical calculation of a clinically significant rate.</p><p>But if the prevalence is 1/3,000, some 50 infected cattle over the age</p><p>of 30 months are being eaten per year in Switzerland. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The results of the Prionics test were available within 24 hours, which</p><p>allowed the infected carcass to be destroyed before it was sold for</p><p>meat. Swiss authorities are now considering whether to mandate testing</p><p>of all cattle at slaughter. There are fears that too many false</p><p>positives would make this prohibitively expensive, as for each case</p><p>detected the entire herd would have to be destroyed. Prionics points</p><p>out that of the 3000 tests in the current series, 2999 were negative,</p><p>indicating that while there might be false negatives, the rate of</p><p>false positives is not substantial. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Professor Picoux pointed out [ProMed 6 October] that the cow found in</p><p>the current series may not have been strictly subclinical, as she had</p><p>displayed behavioural changes which were put down, possibly</p><p>erroneously, to pain from mastitis. The early symptoms of BSE are</p><p>notoriously difficult to distinguish from other syndromes with neural</p><p>involvement. This cow possibly exemplifies the reason for much</p><p>under-reporting of BSE on the Continent: older cattle with falling</p><p>milk output or odd symptoms are simply sent for slaughter. Some of</p><p>those could have been developing BSE, but are killed before they get a</p><p>chance to develop clear symptoms. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The European Commission wants all EU countries to test cattle in</p><p>abattoirs for such hidden infection. It is to be remembered that the</p><p>levels of BSE infection expected on the Continent simply on the basis</p><p>of British cattle exports, to say nothing of the continued feeding of</p><p>meat and bone meal of questionable hygiene to livestock, are well in</p><p>excess of what has been reported. That, incidents such as the recent</p><p>surge of cases in Portugal, and the continuing, and to many people</p><p>implausible, apparent absence of BSE in Germany, suggest substantial</p><p>under-reporting. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the</p><p>most BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten</p><p>in Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of</p><p>that age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet</p><p>accumulated enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to</p><p>develop BSE on record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are</p><p>fast incubators. Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months</p><p>per year are infected with BSE and enter the food chain currently in</p><p>Britain. Of these 3-5 could be fast incubators and carrying detectable</p><p>quantities of prion. </p><p></p><p></p><p>If one were to test cattle routinely at abattoirs in Britain, it is</p><p>possible that only those 3-5 would be detectable, and thus could be</p><p>kept out of the food chain. So routine testing may not be</p><p>cost-effective. On the other hand, these predictions are based</p><p>entirely on modelling. Some think that at least a study similar to the</p><p>Swiss one should be carried out in Britain to actually measure the</p><p>extent of infection, especially if there is a subclinical strain that</p><p>is not reflected in models based on clinical incidence. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The Swiss data do not shed light on infection before 30 months. They</p><p>did not test younger cattle as relatively few of them would be</p><p>expected to have accumulated enough prion to be detectable, so a much</p><p>larger sample size than the government was prepared to pay for</p><p>initially would have been required to detect at least one case. The</p><p>30-month cut-off was also practical (perhaps one reason it was chosen</p><p>as the limiting age in Britain) as because of dental development, the</p><p>head of a cow 30 months or older can be readily distinguished from a</p><p>younger one at the abattoir. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Whether or not screening cattle in abattoirs can make meat safe is</p><p>debated. It is claimed by some, disputed by others, that infected</p><p>cattle which have not yet accumulated detectable quantities of prion</p><p>are not infectious. So animals that test negative are safe to eat</p><p>whether infected or not. The few private Swiss butchers now using the</p><p>Prionics test to screen beef before it is marketed advertise their</p><p>wares as BSE tested, not BSE free. The efficacy of screening at</p><p>preventing the transmission of infection to people also ultimately</p><p>depends on whether detectable levels of prion in brain occur at the</p><p>same time as potentially infectious levels in muscle. That is not</p><p>known. </p><p></p><p></p><p>- --</p><p>Debora MacKenzie,</p><p>New Scientist.</p><p></p><p></p><p><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<</p><p></p><p>TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 366269, member: 3519"] Subject: Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported to the United States Date: April 10, 2007 at 7:58 am PST Beef News Birth cohort of BSE-positive animal was exported to the United States By John Gregerson on 4/10/2007 for Meatingplace.com One of the birth cohorts of a Canadian bull diagnosed with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in January was exported to the United States in 2002, according to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The animal, a heifer, was sent to a Nebraska feedlot, and then was slaughtered at a Nebraska facility. APHIS indicated the animal presented a negligible risk since scientific data indicate that two BSE-positive animals rarely originate from the same herd. "Even at the height of the BSE epidemic in Britain, it was extremely rare to find a cohort at risk for the disease," APHIS spokeswoman Andrea McNally told Meatingplace.com. APHIS spokeswoman Karen Eggerg added that the data on cohorts is based on "years of observation" rather than clinical studies, and indicated that one theory why two animals from the same herd are rarely BSE-positive is that prions, the misfolded proteins associated with BSE, generally are clumped together as a result of their sticky nature, and therefore aren't evenly distributed in feed. After discovering the infected bull, a 79-month-old animal from Alberta, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency focused on cattle born in the same herd within 12 months. The bull became emaciated last winter and subsequently was earmarked for Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program. [url=http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=17765]http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly ... item=17765[/url] funny, i must be slipping, i did not see this on any of the usda/aphis updates. must have another bse/base mad cow website somewhere? i'm still waiting for official annoucnement of how safe we are from those nor98 TSE now documented in the USA too, nothing there yet either??? wonder why old ron or johanns have not come out and stated how safe we are yet from any exported mad cows from canada ??? i'm sure this is just a matter of overlook, as to we all know how USDA/APHIS et al BSE testing and reporting is done in such a timely manner, 4 to 8 months after the fact......tss [url=http://www.agr.state.ne.us/bse/bse.htm]http://www.agr.state.ne.us/bse/bse.htm[/url] TSS ITEM 6 – BARB CASE CLUSTERS 39. Professor John Wilesmith (Defra) updated the committee on the BSE cases born after the 1996 reinforced mammalian meat and bone meal ban in the UK (BARB cases). Around 116 BARB cases had been identified in Great Britain up to 22 November 2005, mostly through active surveillance. BARB cases had decreased in successive birth cohorts, from 44 in the 1996/1997 cohort to none to date in the 2000/2001 cohort. However, 3 BARB cases had been identified in the 2001/2002 cohort. Backcalculation of the prevalence of BARB cases indicated a drop from 130 infected animals per million (95% confidence interval 90-190) in the 1996/1997 cohort to 30 infected animals per million (95% confidence interval 10-60) in the 1999/2000 cohort. A shift in the geographical distribution of BSE cases, from the concentration of pre-1996 BSE cases in Eastern England to a more uniform 14 © SEAC 2005 distribution of BARB cases, had occurred. However, it appeared that certain post-1996 cohorts had a higher exposure to BSE in certain areas for limited periods. Several clusters of BARB cases within herds had been identified (5 pairs, 2 triplets and 1 quadruplet). 40. A triplet of BARB cases in South West Wales had been investigated in detail. The triplet comprised 2 cases born in September and October 2001 and a third in May 2002. The animals born in 2001 were reared outdoors from the spring of 2002 but the animal born in 2002 had been reared indoors. Further investigation of feeding practices revealed that a new feed bin for the adult dairy herd had been installed in September 1998. In July 2002 the feed bin was emptied, but not cleaned, and relocated. All 3 BARB cases received feed from the relocated bin. This finding suggested the hypothesis that the feed bin installed in September 1998 was filled initially with contaminated feed, that remnants of this feed fell to the bottom of the bin during its relocation, and thus young animals in the 2001/2002 birth cohort were exposed to feedstuffs produced in 1998. No adult cattle had been infected because of the reduced susceptibility to BSE with increasing age. 41. Further investigation of multiple case herds had found no association of BARB clusters with the closure of feed mills. 42. Professor Wilesmith concluded that there is evidence of a decline in risk of infection for successive birth cohorts of cattle. The BARB epidemic is unlikely to be sustained by animals born after 31 July 2000. Feed bins could represent a continued source of occasional infection and advice to farmers is being formulated to reduce this risk. There is no evidence for an indigenous source of infection for the BARB cases. 43. Members considered it encouraging that no other factor, apart from feed contamination, had been identified as a possible cause of BARB cases to date. Members commented that this study suggests that only a small amount of contaminated feed may be required for infection and that BSE infectivity can survive in the environment for several years. Professor Wilesmith agreed and noted that infection caused by small doses of infectious material was consistent with other studies, and it would appear there is little dilution of infectivity, if present, in the rendering system. Additionally it appeared that the infectious agent had survived for 4 years in the feed bin. 44. The Chair thanked Professor Wilesmith for his presentation. snip... [url=http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/final90.pdf]http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/final90.pdf[/url] 23.2 BSE-infected mad cows in the standing Canadian adult cattle population. very disturbing... BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01 [url=http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=0&P=3854]http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... D=0&P=3854[/url] [url=http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=4652]http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... T=0&P=4652[/url] [url=http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&D=0&P=2583]http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... D=0&P=2583[/url] Importation of Certain Commodities From BSE Minimal-risk Regions (Canada) Environmental Assessment, October 27, 2006 [url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/EnvironmentalAssessment10-27-2006.pdf]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... 7-2006.pdf[/url] Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA [url=https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed]https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf ... AutoFramed[/url] Subject: Re: Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal was exported to the United States Date: April 10, 2007 at 10:33 am PST "It most likely" entered the food supply "given that it was slaughtered," said Karen Eggert, a spokeswoman with USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. "But it wouldn't have gone to slaughter if it was showing any clinical signs for BSE. We're not looking at this as a possibility that a BSE infected cow got into the United States," she said. [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1040765520070410]http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 5520070410[/url] how in the heck does she know ??? does she know what sub-clinical means ??? Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:48:11 -0600 Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group <[log in to unmask]> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NINTH CASE OF BSE IN CANADA UPDATE MARCH 26, 2007 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NINTH CASE OF BSE IN CANADA UPDATE MARCH 26, 2007 Date: March 26, 2007 at 1:29 pm PST Attachment 1: Estimation of BSE Prevalence in Canada snip... Table 5 summarizes the results of the estimation of BSE prevalence in the standing Canadian adult cattle population as of August 15, 2006. Based on the expected prevalence value under the BBC model and the estimated adult herd size (Table 1), the expected number of BSE-infected animals in the standing Canadian adult cattle population is 4.1. By comparison, the expected value obtained under BSurvE Prevalence B is 3.9 per million, which corresponds to an estimated 23.2 BSE-infected animals in the standing Canadian adult cattle population. snip... [url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSE_Prevalence.pdf]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... alence.pdf[/url] full text ; [url=http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&P=15653]http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... mg&P=15653[/url] Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS FROM CANADA in my opinion this is a statement with intent to deceive and it is not correct. There have been several cases of clinical BSE in British cattle under 30 months and it is therefore hardly possible to think that cattle under 30 months have virtually no risk of having BSE. In 1988 the youngest British BSE case was 24, the second youngest 27 months old. In 1989 the youngest British BSE case was 21 and there were 4 cases only 24 months old. In 1990 there were two cases only 24 and one 26 months old. In 1991 the youngest British BSE case was 24 and there were 3 cases only 26 months old. In 1992 the youngest British BSE case was 20!, the second youngest 26 months old. In 1993 there was was a 29 months old case, in 1995 the UK had a 24 months old case and in 1996 one British BSE case was 29 months old. [url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html]http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse ... g-old.html[/url] But mainly this wrong statement is misleading, because not the clinically sick cows are the problem for consumers. The real problem are those animals that became infected as calves and are still incubating the infectivity during the incubation time of 5-6 years. For consumers it is therefore totally irrelevant that cattle are at low risk to reach the clinical stage before being 30 months old. Important for consumers is the fact that most British BSE cases became infected as calves ([url=http://www.heynkes.de/peaks.htm]http://www.heynkes.de/peaks.htm[/url]) and that infected calves are already amplifying the infectivity. The advantage of young calves for consumers is that the infectivity in infected animals is low and still concentrated around the gastro- intestinal tract. But this is not necessarily true for bulls, which are usually slaughtered when they are 19-22 months old. They are too young to give positive results in the actual BSE tests, but they might be infective for consumers. For US consumers it is of no importance whether a BSE-infected Canadian cow will show the first symptoms before or after it becomes 30 months old. Interesting for the consumers is only 1) if cattle are infected or not, 2) where in the animal is how much of the infectivity and 3) what happens to the infectivity during slaughtering? If the US government is really interested to reduce consumers risk, it has to 1) stop cannibalism among farm animals (no farm animal protein and fat in feeding stuff for farm animals, no possibility of cross contamination of concentrate feed in mills and no lambing on pastures where scrapie might be a problem) 2) test slaughter cattle above 24 months for BSE, 3) avoid contamination of the beef with prions from CNS by changing slaughter methods (electrical stunning instead of captive bolt, no immobilisation with a pithing rod, no spreading of infectivity by sawing through the spinal cord), 4) destroy the high risk materials (brain, eyes, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia and other peripheral ganglia, nervous and lymphatic tissue associated with intestine) 5) commit the whole chain from abattoir to counter in shop and restaurant to label products from cattle and sheep, because it is only a myth that scrapie is less infective than BSE. In addition the US government should test all cattle and sheep which died or had to be killed because of illness. This measure should be hold out for at least one year in order to see the real BSE- and scrapie-incidence in the USA.... Microbiologist Roland Heynkes [url=http://www.heynkes.de/default.htm]http://www.heynkes.de/default.htm[/url] Furthermore, for the USA to continue to flagrantly ignore the findings from Collinge/Asante et al that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD. These findings could have major implications for the medical and surgical arena and human health. this type sporadic CJD is very prevalent in the USA ; [url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/ ... s1_OPH.htm[/url] snip...full text ; [url=https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed]https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf ... AutoFramed[/url] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ProMED-AHEAD Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:59:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PRO/AH> BSE - Switzerland (02) BSE - SWITZERLAND (02) ********************** A ProMED-mail post In June Swiss scientists using immunological and immuno-histochemical tests for the BSE prion found 8 cases of BSE infection among 1761 apparently healthy herd mates of Swiss cattle which had developed BSE (a prevalence of 4.5/1000). It was then decided to test for the prion in 3000 healthy cattle over the age of 30 months being slaughtered at abattoirs for human consumption. In late September one infected cow was found, a four-year-old sent for slaughter because her milk output had fallen due apparently to mastitis. This is the first time BSE infection has been detected in a cow that would otherwise have been eaten, in time to take it out of the food chain. All 3,000 have now been tested with the fast Western blot developed by the Zurich-based firm Prionics. Of those 2,200 have also been tested using slower immuno-histochemical methods. All the results so far agree, including the one positive result. One possible reason for the good agreement between tests (in the previous study different tests agreed on only 4 of the 8 positives) is that this time, brains were divided into hemispheres and each was sent for one test or the other. Prion distribution seems to be laterally symmetric, so this reduced sampling error. The apparent prevalence of 1/3,000 is less than the 1/1,000 infected cattle in apparently healthy herds in Switzerland calculated by Doherr and colleagues, based on observed clinical incidence and estimated incubation time of the disease. The discovery of only one case does not allow the empirical calculation of a clinically significant rate. But if the prevalence is 1/3,000, some 50 infected cattle over the age of 30 months are being eaten per year in Switzerland. The results of the Prionics test were available within 24 hours, which allowed the infected carcass to be destroyed before it was sold for meat. Swiss authorities are now considering whether to mandate testing of all cattle at slaughter. There are fears that too many false positives would make this prohibitively expensive, as for each case detected the entire herd would have to be destroyed. Prionics points out that of the 3000 tests in the current series, 2999 were negative, indicating that while there might be false negatives, the rate of false positives is not substantial. Professor Picoux pointed out [ProMed 6 October] that the cow found in the current series may not have been strictly subclinical, as she had displayed behavioural changes which were put down, possibly erroneously, to pain from mastitis. The early symptoms of BSE are notoriously difficult to distinguish from other syndromes with neural involvement. This cow possibly exemplifies the reason for much under-reporting of BSE on the Continent: older cattle with falling milk output or odd symptoms are simply sent for slaughter. Some of those could have been developing BSE, but are killed before they get a chance to develop clear symptoms. The European Commission wants all EU countries to test cattle in abattoirs for such hidden infection. It is to be remembered that the levels of BSE infection expected on the Continent simply on the basis of British cattle exports, to say nothing of the continued feeding of meat and bone meal of questionable hygiene to livestock, are well in excess of what has been reported. That, incidents such as the recent surge of cases in Portugal, and the continuing, and to many people implausible, apparent absence of BSE in Germany, suggest substantial under-reporting. The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators. Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5 could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion. If one were to test cattle routinely at abattoirs in Britain, it is possible that only those 3-5 would be detectable, and thus could be kept out of the food chain. So routine testing may not be cost-effective. On the other hand, these predictions are based entirely on modelling. Some think that at least a study similar to the Swiss one should be carried out in Britain to actually measure the extent of infection, especially if there is a subclinical strain that is not reflected in models based on clinical incidence. The Swiss data do not shed light on infection before 30 months. They did not test younger cattle as relatively few of them would be expected to have accumulated enough prion to be detectable, so a much larger sample size than the government was prepared to pay for initially would have been required to detect at least one case. The 30-month cut-off was also practical (perhaps one reason it was chosen as the limiting age in Britain) as because of dental development, the head of a cow 30 months or older can be readily distinguished from a younger one at the abattoir. Whether or not screening cattle in abattoirs can make meat safe is debated. It is claimed by some, disputed by others, that infected cattle which have not yet accumulated detectable quantities of prion are not infectious. So animals that test negative are safe to eat whether infected or not. The few private Swiss butchers now using the Prionics test to screen beef before it is marketed advertise their wares as BSE tested, not BSE free. The efficacy of screening at preventing the transmission of infection to people also ultimately depends on whether detectable levels of prion in brain occur at the same time as potentially infectious levels in muscle. That is not known. - -- Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Birth cohort of CANADIAN BSE-positive animal exported to USA
Top