CANADA FINDS ANOTHER 'SUSPECT' BSE CASE ...USA ???

Help Support CattleToday:

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
5
Location
TEXAS
Subject: CANADA FINDS ANOTHER 'SUSPECT' BSE CASE while USA is simply not looking to find (as of July 10, 2006 - 13:00 EST)
Date: July 10, 2006 at 11:07 am PST

Latest Information (as of July 10, 2006 - 13:00 EST)
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is currently conducting confirmatory testing at the National Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg of samples from a cow from Alberta suspected of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Preliminary screening tests were not able to rule out BSE. Therefore, consistent with established CFIA protocol, additional analysis is underway.
The animal, reported to be a 50-month old dairy cow, died and was retained on farm. No part of the carcass entered the human food or animal feed systems, and the entire carcass has been placed under control.
The CFIA has launched an investigation to collect additional information about the affected animal. In addition, the CFIA will identify other animals of equivalent risk, namely cattle born on the same farm within 12 months before and after the affected animal. Any live animals found from this group will be segregated and tested.
As testing and the investigation progress, the CFIA will provide Canadians and trading partners with regular updates. Information will be posted to the CFIA's Website as it becomes available.


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... ione.shtml



no wonder USA is not documenting any young cattle yet with mad cow disease,
hell, its a miracle USDA et al have documented any mad cow at all at this
rate ;


Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in
identifying and testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in
identifying the universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design
procedures to obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical
to the success of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was
designed to target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease
(including cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not
inconsistent with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures
to ensure FSIS condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for
outreach to obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in
the design of the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted
animals were tested for BSE. In our prior report, we recommended that APHIS
work with public health and State diagnostic laboratories to develop and
test rabies-negative samples for BSE. This target group is important for
determining the prevalence of BSE in the United States because rabies cases
exhibit clinical signs not inconsistent with BSE; a negative rabies test
means the cause of the clinical signs has not been diagnosed. Rabies
Negative Samples APHIS agreed with our recommendation and initiated an
outreach program with the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory
Diagnosticians, as well as State laboratories. APHIS also agreed to do
ongoing monitoring to ensure samples were obtained from this target
population. Although APHIS increased the samples tested from this target
group as compared to prior years, we found that conflicting APHIS
instructions on the ages of cattle to test resulted in inconsistencies in
what samples were submitted for BSE testing. Therefore, some laboratories
did not refer their rabies negative samples to APHIS in order to maximize
the number tested for this critical target population. In addition, APHIS
did not monitor the number of submissions of rabies negative samples for BSE
testing from specific laboratories. According to the Procedure Manual for
BSE Surveillance, dated October 2004, the target population includes:
Central nervous system (CNS) signs and/or rabies negative - sample animals
of any age (emphasis added): a. Diagnostic laboratories –samples submitted
due to evidence of CNS clinical signs.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 19
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 20
b. Public health laboratories – rabies negative cases. c. Slaughter
facilities – CNS ante mortem condemned at slaughter, sampled by FSIS. d.
On-the-farm – CNS cattle that do not meet the criteria for a foreign animal
disease investigation. For FYs 2002, 2003, and 2004 (through February 2004),
NVSL received 170, 133, and 45 rabies-negative samples, respectively.
Between June 1, 2004, and May 29, 2005, the number of samples received for
testing increased to 226 rabies suspect samples. The collection sites
submitting these samples follow. Collection Site Number of Rabies Suspect
Submissions * Slaughter Plant 0 Renderer 2 On-Farm 11 Public Health Lab 94
Diagnostic Lab 81 3D-4D 8 Other 4 Total 200 * 26 were tested but not counted
by APHIS towards meeting the target goals because the obex was not
submitted. We obtained a copy of a memorandum, dated July 13, 2004, that
APHIS sent to diagnostic and public health laboratories providing them
instructions on submitting samples for cattle showing signs of CNS diseases,
but testing negative for rabies. The letter was sent to about 170 State
veterinary diagnostic and public health laboratories and discussed the need
to submit specimens to NVSL of all adult cattle (emphasis added) that showed
signs of CNS diseases, but tested negative for rabies. This directive did
not specify the age of the cattle. The Procedure Manual for BSE
Surveillance, dated October 2004, specified samples of cattle of any age
should be submitted. We contacted laboratories in six States to determine if
it was standard procedure to submit all negative rabies samples to NVSL. We
found that, because of the lack of specificity in the APHIS letter and
inadequate followup by APHIS, there were inconsistencies in the age of
cattle samples submitted for BSE testing. For those States contacted, the
following samples were submitted versus tested as negative for rabies.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 21
Rabies Negative Tests Not Sent for BSE Testing Since June 1, 2004 State
Negative Rabies Tests Sent for BSE Testing Not Sent for BSE Testing
Pennsylvania a/ 33 15 18 Kansas b/ 85 69 16 Wisconsin c/ 12 1 11 South
Dakota d/ 7 0 7 Arizona e/ 5 5 0 Mississippi e/ 4 4 0 Total 146 94 52 a/ A
Pennsylvania laboratory official said only rabies negative cattle over 20
months of age were submitted for BSE testing. The laboratory did not submit
18 samples for BSE testing because the animals were less than 20 months of
age. b/ Kansas laboratory officials said early in the expanded surveillance
program, there was confusion as to the cattle ages that should be submitted
for BSE testing. They did not know if cattle should be submitted that were
above 20 months or 30 months of age. Of the 16 animals not submitted for BSE
testing, 14 were under 20 months of age from early in the expanded
surveillance program. The other two animals were not tested due to internal
laboratory issues. The Kansas and Nebraska area office officials contacted
the laboratory and told the officials to submit rabies negative cattle of
any age for BSE testing. The laboratory now submits all rabies negative
cattle for BSE testing. c/ A Wisconsin laboratory official said only rabies
negative cattle samples 30 months of age or older are submitted for BSE
testing. Of the 11 animals not submitted for BSE testing, 8 were less than
30 months of age. Wisconsin laboratory officials were not certain why the
other three samples were not submitted. d/ Laboratory officials from South
Dakota said they did not receive notification from APHIS regarding the
submission of rabies negative cases for BSE testing. The section supervisor
and laboratory director were not aware of any letter sent to the laboratory.
The section supervisor said most bovine rabies tests at the laboratory are
performed on calves. We confirmed the laboratory's address matched the
address on APHIS' letter distribution list. However, there was no evidence
that the South Dakota area office contacted the laboratory. The laboratory
was not listed on the documentation from the APHIS regional office detailing
the area office contacts with laboratory personnel. We contacted the South
Dakota area office and were advised that while some contact had been made
with the laboratory, the contact may have involved Brucellosis rather than
BSE. On May 4, 2005, the area office
advised us they recently contacted the laboratory regarding the submission
of rabies negative samples for BSE testing. e/ Arizona and Mississippi
laboratory officials said they submitted all rabies negative samples for BSE
testing regardless of the age of the animal. An NVSL official stated that
APHIS is not concerned with rabies negatives samples from cattle less than
30 months of age. This position, however, is contrary to APHIS' published
target population. Our prior audit recognized the significant challenge for
APHIS to obtain samples from some high-risk populations because of the
inherent problems with obtaining voluntary compliance and transporting the
carcasses for testing. USDA issued rules to prohibit nonambulatory animals
(downers) from entering the food supply at inspected slaughterhouses. OIG
recommended, and the International Review Subcommittee33 emphasized, that
USDA should take additional steps to assure that facilitated pathways exist
for dead and nonambulatory cattle to allow for the collection of samples and
proper disposal of carcasses. Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005, the
APHIS database documents 27,617 samples were collected showing a reason for
submission of nonambulatory and 325,225 samples were collected with reason
of submission showing "dead." Downers and Cattle that Died on the Farm APHIS
made extensive outreach efforts to notify producers and private
veterinarians of the need to submit and have tested animals from these
target groups. They also entered into financial arrangements with 123
renderers and other collection sites to reimburse them for costs associated
with storing, transporting, and collecting samples. However, as shown in
exhibit F, APHIS was not always successful in establishing agreements with
non-slaughter collection sites in some States. APHIS stated that agreements
do not necessarily reflect the entire universe of collection sites and that
the presentation in exhibit F was incomplete because there were many
collection sites without a payment involved or without a formal agreement.
We note that over 90 percent of the samples collected were obtained from the
123 collection sites with agreements and; therefore, we believe agreements
offer the best source to increase targeted samples in underrepresented
areas. We found that APHIS did not consider industry practices in the design
of its surveillance effort to provide reasonable assurance that cattle
exhibiting possible clinical signs consistent with BSE were tested.
Slaughter facilities do not always accept all cattle arriving for slaughter
because of their business requirements. We found that, in one State visited,
slaughter facilities pre-screened and rejected cattle (sick/down/dead/others
not meeting business
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 22
33 Report from the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and
Poultry Diseases, February 13, 2004.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 23
standards) before presentation for slaughter in areas immediately adjacent
or contiguous to the official slaughter establishment. These animals were
not inspected and/or observed by either FSIS or APHIS officials located at
the slaughter facilities. FSIS procedures state that they have no authority
to inspect cattle not presented for slaughter. Further, APHIS officials
stated they did not believe that they had the authority to go into these
sorting and/or screening areas and require that the rejected animals be
provided to APHIS for BSE sampling. Neither APHIS nor FSIS had any process
to assure that animals left on transport vehicles and/or rejected for
slaughter arrived at a collection site for BSE testing. FSIS allows
slaughter facilities to designate the area of their establishment where
federal inspection is performed; this is designated as the official
slaughter establishment.34 We observed animals that were down or dead in
pens outside the official premises that were to be picked up by renderers.
Animals that were rejected by plant personnel were transported off the
premises on the same vehicles that brought them to the plant.35 A policy
statement36 regarding BSE sampling of condemned cattle at slaughter plants
provided that effective June 1, 2004, FSIS would collect BSE samples for
testing: 1) from all cattle regardless of age condemned by FSIS upon ante
mortem inspection for CNS impairment, and 2) from all cattle, with the
exception of veal calves, condemned by FSIS upon ante mortem inspection for
any other reason. FSIS Notice 28-04, dated May 20, 2004, informed FSIS
personnel that, "FSIS will be collecting brain samples from cattle at
federally-inspected establishments for the purpose of BSE testing." The
notice further states that, "Cattle off-loaded from the transport vehicle
onto the premises of the federally-inspected establishment (emphasis added),
whether dead or alive, will be sampled by the FSIS Public Health
Veterinarian (PHV) for BSE after the cattle have been condemned during ante
mortem inspection. In addition, cattle passing ante mortem inspection but
later found dead prior to slaughter will be condemned and be sampled by the
FSIS PHV." 34 FSIS regulations do not specifically address the designation
of an establishment's "official" boundaries; however, FSIS Notices 29-04
(dated May 27, 2004) and 40-04 (dated July 29, 2004) make it clear that FSIS
inspection staff are not responsible for sampling dead cattle that are not
part of the "official" premises. 35 APHIS' area office personnel stated that
it was their understanding that some establishments in the State were not
presenting cattle that died or were down on the transport vehicle to FSIS
for ante mortem inspection. The dead and down cattle were left in the
vehicle, if possible. In rare circumstances, dead cattle may be removed from
the trailer by plant personnel to facilitate the unloading of other animals.
36 A May 20, 2004, Memorandum between the Administrators of APHIS and FSIS.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 24
APHIS has the responsibility for sampling dead cattle off-loaded onto
plant-owned property that is adjoining to, but not considered part of, the
"official premises.37 FSIS procedures38 provide that "Dead cattle that are
off-loaded to facilitate the off-loading of live animals, but that will be
re-loaded onto the transport vehicle, are not subject to sampling by FSIS.
While performing our review in one State, we reviewed the circumstances at
two slaughter facilities in the State that inspected and rejected unsuitable
cattle before the animals entered the official receiving areas of the
plants. This pre-screening activity was conducted in areas not designated by
the facility as official premises of the establishment and not under the
review or supervision of FSIS inspectors. The plant rejected all
nonambulatory and dead/dying/sick animals delivered to the establishment.
Plant personnel refused to offload any dead or downer animals to facilitate
the offloading of ambulatory animals. Plant personnel said that the driver
was responsible for ensuring nonambulatory animals were humanely euthanized
and disposing of the carcasses of the dead animals. Plant personnel informed
us that they did not want to jeopardize contracts with business partners by
allowing unsuitable animals on their slaughter premises. In the second case,
one family member owned a slaughter facility while another operated a
livestock sale barn adjacent to the slaughter facility. The slaughter
facility was under FSIS' supervision while the sale barn was not. Cattle
sometimes arrived at the sale barn that were sick/down/dead or would die or
go down while at the sale barn. According to personnel at the sale barn,
these animals were left for the renderer to collect. The healthy ambulatory
animals that remained were marketed to many buyers including the adjacent
slaughter facility. When the slaughter facility was ready to accept the
ambulatory animals for processing, the cattle would be moved from the sale
barn to the slaughter facility where they were subject to FSIS' inspection.
We requested the slaughter facilities to estimate the number of cattle
rejected on a daily basis (there were no records to confirm the estimates).
We visited a renderer in the area and found that the renderer had a contract
with APHIS to collect samples for BSE testing. In this case, although we
could not obtain assurance that all rejected cattle were sampled, the
renderer processed a significant number of animals, as compared to the
slaughter plants' estimates of those rejected. Due to the close proximity
(less than 5 miles) of the renderer to the slaughter facilities, and the
premium it paid for dead cattle that were in good condition, there was a
financial incentive for transport drivers to dispose of their dead animals
at this renderer. 37 FSIS Notice 40-04, dated July 29, 2004. 38 FSIS Notice
29-04, dated May 27, 2004.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 25
In our discussions with APHIS officials in Wisconsin and Iowa, they
confirmed that there were plants in their States that also used
pre-screening practices. On May 27, 2005, we requested APHIS and FSIS to
provide a list of all slaughter facilities that pre-screened cattle for
slaughter in locations away from the area designated as the official
slaughter facility. Along with this request, we asked for information to
demonstrate that either APHIS or FSIS confirmed there was a high likelihood
that high-risk animals were sampled at other collection sites. In response
to our request, the APHIS BSE Program Manager stated that APHIS did not have
information on slaughter plants that pre-screen or screen their animals for
slaughter suitability off their official plant premises. To their knowledge,
every company or producer that submits animals for slaughter pre-sorts or
screens them for suitability at various locations away from the slaughter
facility. For this reason, USDA focused its BSE sample collection efforts at
other types of facilities such as renderers, pet food companies, landfills,
and dead stock haulers. Further, in a letter to OIG on June 14, 2005, the
administrators of APHIS and FSIS noted the following: "…we believe that no
specific actions are necessary or appropriate to obtain reasonable assurance
that animals not presented for slaughter are being tested for BSE. There are
several reasons for our position. First, we do not believe that the practice
is in fact causing us to not test a significant enough number of animals in
our enhanced surveillance program to invalidate the overall results. Second,
OIG has concluded that because of the geographical proximity and business
relationships of the various entities involved in the case investigated,
there is reasonable assurance that a majority of the rejected cattle had
been sampled. Third, it is also important to remember that the goal of the
enhanced surveillance program is to test a sufficient number of animals to
allow us to draw conclusions about the level of BSE (if any) in the American
herd…We believe that the number we may be not testing because of the
"pre-sorting" practice does not rise to a significant level. The number of
animals tested to date has far exceeded expectations, so it is reasonable to
infer that there are few of the animals in question, or that we are testing
them at some other point in the process…APHIS estimated…there were
approximately 446,000 high risk cattle…[and APHIS has]…tested over 375,000
animals in less than 1 year. This indicated that we are missing few animals
in the high-risk population, including those that might be pre-sorted before
entering a slaughter facility's property." We obtained 123 APHIS sampling
agreements and contracts with firms and plotted their locations within the
United States (see exhibit F). We also analyzed the samples tested to the
BSE sampling goals allocated to each State under the prior surveillance
program. This analysis showed that there are
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 26
sampling gaps in two large areas of the United States where APHIS did not
have contracts with collection sites. These two areas are shown in the
following chart (Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wyoming – Group 1
and Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee – Group 2): State Original
Sampling Goal Based on (268,500 sampling goal) Samples collected as of May
31, 2005 Deficit No. of BSE Sampling Agreements/ Contracts39MT 5,076 182
4,894 2 SD 6,938 2,792 4,146 1 ND 3,616 174 3,442 0 WY 2,513 61 2,452 0 AREA
TOTAL 14,934 OK 7,792 2,407 5,385 1 AR 3,672 353 3,319 0 TN 4,938 3,050
1,888 1 LA 2,312 452 1,860 1 AREA TOTAL 12,452 APHIS notes that for the
current surveillance program, it had established regional goals and APHIS
was not trying to meet particular sampling levels in particular States.
However, we believe that it would be advantageous for APHIS to monitor
collection data and increase outreach when large geographical areas such as
the above States do not provide samples in proportion to the numbers and
types of cattle in the population. We also disagree with APHIS/FSIS'
contention that because they have tested over 375,000 of their 446,000
estimate of high risk cattle, few in the high-risk population are being
missed, including those that might be pre-screened before entering a
slaughter facility's property. In our prior audit, we reported that APHIS
underestimated the high-risk population; we found that this estimate should
have been closer to 1 million animals (see Finding 1). We recognize that BSE
samples are provided on a voluntary basis; however, APHIS should consider
industry practice in any further maintenance surveillance effort. Animals
unsuitable for slaughter exhibiting symptoms not inconsistent with BSE
should be sampled and their clinical signs recorded. However, this cited
industry practice results in rejected animals not being made available to
either APHIS or FSIS veterinarians for their observation and identification
of clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. Although these animals may be
sampled later at other collection sites, the animals are provided post
mortem without information as to relevant clinical signs exhibited ante
mortem. For these reasons, we believe APHIS needs to 39APHIS noted that
sites with agreements do not necessarily reflect the entire universe of
collection sites and at some sites APHIS collects samples with no payment
involved and no agreement in place. OIG agrees that not all collection sites
are reflected in our presentation of the 123 sites with reimbursable
agreements. OIG believes obtaining sampling agreements is one of the primary
methods available to increase sample numbers in areas with sampling gaps.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27
observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from
the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs
evaluated. Recommendation 3.......

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf



TSS
 
I was sitting on this - waiting for more info from associates - but now it has arrived via the "news breaker" and his outrageously long post..

It is a Jersey cow - born after the feed ban - north central Alberta. OT will have fun with this one as well.
Gold Standard testing being completed in Winnipeg as I write.

Died on farm - no food chain entry and for more wewait and see.

Please forgive my attitude folks - but - Flounder - if you were here right now you would not like the reception.

Bez?
 
bez,

you can moan and groan all you want, but you need to read that long post, you might learn some facts, they speak for themselves. ...TSS


P.S., in fact, that was my short version, you need to read ALL of this before being mad at me. again, the facts speak for themselves;


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf


i am not your enemy...........wake up!
 
Bez?":32yk98jv said:
I was sitting on this - waiting for more info from associates - but now it has arrived via the "news breaker" and his outrageously long post..

It is a Jersey cow - born after the feed ban - north central Alberta. OT will have fun with this one as well.
Gold Standard testing being completed in Winnipeg as I write.

Died on farm - no food chain entry and for more wewait and see.

Please forgive my attitude folks - but - Flounder - if you were here right now your personal safety would be in jeopardy..

Bez?

Bez- I think this article out of the Calgary Sun and the questions asked by the author pretty well fit the situation- in both countries...The disease will not go away until our regulatory agencies take back some control from the Multinational Corporate Packers and put in the correct amount of testing and safeguards....Why aren't more of our so-called Cattlemans associations in both countries standing up and screaming for the USDA and CFIA to close the loopholes- not a year from now- but yesterday....
---------------------------------------


Cattle policy pure madness

It doesn't take an expert to figure out critter cannibalism must end



By Licia Corbella

Columnist

The Calgary Sun

July 9, 2006

Canada



What, pray tell, do we pay our government experts for?



After all, three years ago, after a few days of intensive research, I came to a rather obvious conclusion that there was one way -- and only one way -- to ensure that Canada wouldn't keep on producing mad cows -- that is cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).



How did I propose to do that?



By completely banning all animal protein from entering livestock feed.



Period.



No exceptions.



Last month, Canada took one more baby step towards such a ban, but really still has a long way to go before it does the right thing and turns Canada's cattle into herbivores again rather than meat eaters -- and in many cases cannibals.



On June 26, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced that it will ban the use of so-called "specified risk material" such as the brain, spinal cord and eyeballs from all livestock feed as of July 12, 2007.



It's frankly, an outrageous delay to protect our food source and an important multi-billion dollar industry.



Currently, our pigs and chickens are eating cows and our cows are eating pigs and chickens even though they're all supposed to be herbivores.



It's a disgusting practice made all the worse since it's known the feed often gets mixed up, turning all of those consumable animals into cannibals.



Just this past Tuesday, federal officials confirmed a 15-year-old cow from near Gimli, Man. was infected with mad cow disease, making it the country's sixth case since the first Alberta case was discovered in 2003.



But if Canada had followed the lead of Britain -- which caused mad cow disease to begin with -- Canada most likely wouldn't have had ANY mad cows at all and countless ranchers and feedlot operators wouldn't have gone bankrupt after the U.S. border and borders around the world were slammed shut to our beef when an Alberta-born cow was discovered with the dreaded disease on May 20, 2003.



In July 1988, Britain banned the practice of turning cows into cannibals by imposing a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, which means all animals with four stomachs, such as sheep, cows and elk -- herbivores all -- weren't allowed to eat one and other any more.



The U.S. and Canada waited another nine long years until 1997 to follow suit.



And guess what?



This latest mad cow was born in 1991, three years after the Brits banned cattle cannibalism (a practice they started).



While it's not fair to compare Canada's fabulous beef industry with Britain's abysmal one, surely our experts could have and should have gleaned some important information from the disaster that occurred there and throughout Europe as a result of the grotesque practice of feeding Bessy the cow to Bart the bull and Bart the bull to Bessy and so on.



In total, some 183,000 British cows were infected with BSE.



Nevertheless, despite the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, more than 43,000 of those infected cows were born AFTER July 1988.



If it's true BSE can't be spread from cow to cow and only either at birth or through its feed, then what was happening?



Experts say it's safe to assume that many of those 43,000 cattle were infected by what they were eating.



Clearly, cattle cannibalism hadn't stopped, despite the limited feed ban.



So, were British farmers defying the ruminant-to-ruminant ban?



Yes, though not necessarily intentionally.



Those cruddy cattle parts -- like the eyeballs, brains and spinal columns, called specified risk materials (SRMs)-- were now finding their way into chicken and pig feed and that feed was finding its way back to Bessy the cow and Bart the bull.



The Brits finally figured it out and in August 1996, the government there imposed a feed ban that completely prohibited cattle and sheep parts from being rendered into ANY kind of feed.



And Canada is only planning on banning SRMs from livestock feed in July 2007?



It makes no sense.



Several years ago I interviewed Dr. Connie Argue, veterinary program specialist for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) who said after the first mad cow was discovered in Alberta in May, the CFIA "scrutinized" 200 Canadian farms and found three farms where cattle were found inadvertently eating their own kind when they broke into bags destined for pigs and chickens instead.



That's 1.5%.



Recognizing the risk of exactly that happening, in 2001 the European Union banned all cattle, chicken AND pig protein from the feed market altogether. Cows in Europe are herbivores again!



Imagine that?



The answer to this problem is simple.



Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel when the answer is so obvious?



Cattle and other ruminant protein should not be finding its way into ANY feed for any animal or fertilizer because history proves it is inevitably fed back to cows.



If a lay person like me could figure that out way back in July 2003, why has it taken our government experts another three years to come to the same conclusion?



And why are we waiting another year to implement the ban?



What do we pay these experts for?




calsun.canoe.ca
 
flounder":vejel6yd said:
bez,

you can moan and groan all you want, but you need to read that long post, you might learn some facts, they speak for themselves. ...TSS


P.S., in fact, that was my short version, you need to read ALL of this before being mad at me. again, the facts speak for themselves;


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf


i am not your enemy...........wake up!

I am perhaps more awake than you will ever know - shorten them - make your point - more will read them.

I am quite up on the USDA - I follow it quite closely.

Unfortunately science does not agree with the cause factors - it is theory only.

I await the facts - they have not yet arrived. But yours certainly have.

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

Bez?
 
SHORT VERSION TSE ;


New Bovine Prion to Mice

Thierry G.M. Baron,* Anne-Gaëlle Biacabe,*

Anna Bencsik,* and Jan P.M. Langeveld†



However, based on analysis of molecular features of prion

diseases in cattle, this situation is similar to that in humans

(5), in which different subtypes of sporadic Creutzfeldt-

Jakob disease agents are found.

DISPATCHES

1126 Emerging Infectious Diseases • http://www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 12, No. 7, July
2006


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no07 ... 12no07.pdf



SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2004. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, and that is
with a human TSE surveillance system that is terrible
flawed. in 1997 cases of the _reported_ cases of cjd
were at 54, to 163 _reported_ cases in 2004. see stats
here;

p.s. please note the 47 PENDING CASES to Sept. 2005

p.s. please note the 2005 Prion D. total 120(8)
8=includes 51 type pending, 1 TYPE UNKNOWN ???

p.s. please note sporadic CJD 2002(1) 1=3 TYPE UNKNOWN???

p.s. please note 2004 prion disease (6) 6=7 TYPE
UNKNOWN???

http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resource ... eport.html

CWD TO HUMANS = sCJD ???

AS implied in the Inset 25 we must not _ASSUME_ that
transmission of BSE to other species will invariably
present pathology typical of a scrapie-like disease.

snip...

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 004001.pdf


J Infect Dis 1980 Aug;142(2):205-8

Oral transmission of kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and scrapie to nonhuman primates.

Gibbs CJ Jr, Amyx HL, Bacote A, Masters CL, Gajdusek DC.

Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of humans and scrapie disease of sheep and goats were transmitted to squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) that were exposed to the infectious agents only by their nonforced consumption of known infectious tissues. The asymptomatic incubation period in the one monkey exposed to the virus of kuru was 36 months; that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was 23 and 27 months, respectively; and that in the two monkeys exposed to the virus of scrapie was 25 and 32 months, respectively. Careful physical examination of the buccal cavities of all of the monkeys failed to reveal signs or oral lesions. One additional monkey similarly exposed to kuru has remained asymptomatic during the 39 months that it has been under observation. .......



TSS
 
VERY VERY IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER

>> Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations
>> regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal.

Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse

Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

Project Number: 3625-32000-073-07
Project Type: Specific C/A

Start Date: Sep 15, 2004
End Date: Sep 14, 2007

Objective:
The objective of this cooperative research project with Dr. Maria Caramelli
from the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory in Turin, Italy, is to conduct
comparative studies with the U.S. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
isolate and the atypical BSE isolates identified in Italy. The studies will
cover the following areas: 1. Evaluation of present diagnostics tools used
in the U.S. for the detection of atypical BSE cases. 2. Molecular comparison
of the U.S. BSE isolate and other typical BSE isolates with atypical BSE
cases. 3. Studies on transmissibility and tissue distribution of atypical
BSE isolates in cattle and other species.

Approach:
This project will be done as a Specific Cooperative Agreement with the
Italian BSE Reference Laboratory, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del
Piemonte, in Turin, Italy. It is essential for the U.S. BSE surveillance
program to analyze the effectiveness of the U.S diagnostic tools for
detection of atypical cases of BSE. Molecular comparisons of the U.S. BSE
isolate with atypical BSE isolates will provide further characterization of
the U.S. BSE isolate. Transmission studies are already underway using brain
homogenates from atypical BSE cases into mice, cattle and sheep. It will be
critical to see whether the atypical BSE isolates behave similarly to
typical BSE isolates in terms of transmissibility and disease pathogenesis.
If transmission occurs, tissue distribution comparisons will be made between
cattle infected with the atypical BSE isolate and the U.S. BSE isolate.
Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations regarding
specific risk material (SRM) removal.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projec ... _NO=408490

3.57 The experiment which might have determined whether BSE and scrapie were
caused by the same agent (ie, the feeding of natural scrapie to cattle) was
never undertaken in the UK. It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979,
when it was shown that cattle inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in
the flock of Suffolk sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture in
Mission, Texas, developed a TSE quite unlike BSE. 32 The findings of the
initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological
examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the
CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the
Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of
Agriculture. 33 The results were not published at this point, since the
attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been
inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences
between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar
studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula
derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent,
though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of
brain lesions characteristic of BSE.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820543

The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or
neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr
Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the
project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States
Department of Agriculture. 33

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820546

The results were not published at this point, since the attempted
transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive.
The results of the clinical and histological differences between
scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in
which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived
from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The
results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though
pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain
lesions characteristic of BSE.

3.58 There are several possible reasons why the experiment was not performed
in the UK. It had been recommended by Sir Richard Southwood (Chairman of the
Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in his letter to the
Permanent Secretary of MAFF, Mr (now Sir) Derek Andrews, on 21 June 1988, 35
though it was not specifically recommended in the Working Party Report or
indeed in the Tyrrell Committee Report (details of the Southwood Working
Party and the Tyrell Committee can be found in vol. 4: The Southwood Working
Party, 1988-89 and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood respectively). The
direct inoculation of scrapie into calves was given low priority, because of
its high cost and because it was known that it had already taken place in
the USA. 36 It was also felt that the results of such an experiment would be
hard to interpret. While a negative result would be informative, a positive
result would need to demonstrate that when scrapie was transmitted to
cattle, the disease which developed in cattle was the same as BSE. 37 Given
the large number of strains of scrapie and the possibility that BSE was one
of them, it would be necessary to transmit every scrapie strain to cattle
separately, to test the hypothesis properly. Such an experiment would be
expensive. Secondly, as measures to control the epidemic took hold, the need
for the experiment from the policy viewpoint was not considered so urgent.
It was felt that the results would be mainly of academic interest. 38

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820550

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... aptea3.htm

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCRAPIE

Chair: Dr. Jim Logan, Cheyenne, WY

Vice Chair: Dr. Joe D. Ross, Sonora, TX

Dr. Deborah L. Brennan, MS; Dr. Beth Carlson, ND; Dr. John R. Clifford, DC;
Dr. Thomas F. Conner, OH; Dr. Walter E. Cook, WY; Dr. Wayne E. Cunningham,
CO; Dr. Jerry W. Diemer, TX; Dr. Anita J. Edmondson, CA; Dr. Dee Ellis, TX;
Dr. Lisa A. Ferguson, MD; Dr. Keith R. Forbes, NY; Dr. R. David Glauer, OH;
Dr. James R. Grady, CO; Dr. William L. Hartmann, MN; Dr. Carolyn Inch, CAN;
Dr. Susan J. Keller, ND; Dr. Allen M. Knowles, TN; Dr. Thomas F. Linfield,
MT; Dr. Michael R. Marshall, UT; Dr. Cheryl A. Miller, In; Dr. Brian V.
Noland, CO; Dr. Charles Palmer, CA; Dr. Kristine R. Petrini, MN; Mr. Stan
Potratz, IA; Mr. Paul E. Rodgers, CO; Dr. Joan D. Rowe, CA; Dr. Pamela L.
Smith, IA; Dr. Diane L. Sutton, MD; Dr. Lynn Anne Tesar, SD; Dr. Delwin D.
Wilmot, NE; Dr. Nora E. Wineland, CO; Dr. Cindy B. Wolf, MN.

The Committee met on November 9, 2005, from 8:00am until 11:55am, Hershey
Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called
to order by Dr. Jim Logan, chair, with vice chairman Dr. Joe D. Ross
attending. There were 74 people in attendance.

The Scrapie Program Update was provided by Dr. Diane Sutton, National
Scrapie Program Coordinator, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), Veterinary Services
(VS). The complete text of the Status Report is included in these
Proceedings.

Dr. Patricia Meinhardt, USDA-APHIS-VS-National Veterinary Services
Laboratory (NVSL) gave the Update on Genotyping Labs and Discrepancies in
Results. NVSL conducts investigations into discrepancies on genotype testing
results associated with the Scrapie Eradication Program. It is the policy of
the Program to conduct a second genotype test at a second laboratory on
certain individual animals. Occasionally, there are discrepancies in those
results. The NVSL conducts follow-up on these situations through additional
testing on additional samples from the field and archive samples from the
testing laboratories.

For the period of time from January 1, 2005, until October 15, 2005, there
were 23 instances of discrepancies in results from 35 flocks. Of those 23
instances, 14 were caused by laboratory error (paperwork or sample mix-up),
3 results from field error, 5 were not completely resolved, and 1 originated

from the use of a non-approved laboratory for the first test. As a result of
inconsistencies, one laboratory's certification was revoked by APHIS-VS.

snip...

Infected and Source Flocks

As of September 30, 2005, there were 105 scrapie infected and source flocks.
There were a total of 165** new infected and source flocks reported for FY
2005. The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY
2005 was 128. The ratio of infected and source flocks cleaned up or placed
on clean up plans vs. new infected and source flocks discovered in FY 2005
was 1.03 : 1*. In addition 622 scrapie cases were confirmed and reported by
the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2005, of which
130 were RSSS cases. Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported
since 1990. The last goat case was reported in May 2005. Approximately 5,626
animals were indemnified comprised of 49% non-registered sheep, 45%
registered sheep, 1.4% non-registered goats and 4.6% registered goats.

Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS)

RSSS was designed to utilize the findings of the Center for Epidemiology and
Animal Health (CEAH) Scrapie: Ovine Slaughter Surveillance (SOSS) study. The
results of SOSS can be found at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm . RSSS started April
1,

2003. It is a targeted slaughter surveillance program which is designed to
identify infected flocks for clean-up. During FY 2005 collections increased
by 32% overall and by 90% for black and mottled faced sheep improving
overall program effectiveness and efficiency as demonstrated by the 26%
decrease in percent positive black faced sheep compared to FY 2004. Samples
have been collected from 62,864 sheep since April 1, 2003, of which results
have been reported for 59,105 of which 209 were confirmed positive. During
FY 2005, 33,137 samples were collected from 81 plants. There have been 130
NVSL confirmed positive cases (30 collected in FY 2004 and confirmed in FY
2005 and 100 collected and confirmed in FY 2005) in FY 2005. Face colors of
these positives were 114 black, 14 mottled, 1 white and 1 unknown. The
percent positive by face color is shown in the chart below.

Scrapie Testing

In FY 2005, 35,845 animals have been tested for scrapie: 30,192 RSSS; 4,742
regulatory field cases; 772 regulatory third eyelid biopsies; 10 third
eyelid validations; and 129 necropsy validations (chart 9).

Animal ID

As of October 04, 2005, 103,580 sheep and goat premises have been assigned
identification numbers in the Scrapie National Generic Database. Official
eartags have been issued to 73,807 of these premises.

*This number based on an adjusted 12 month interval to accommodate the 60
day period for setting up flock plans.

http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports ... r-2005.pdf

Date: April 30, 2006 at 4:49 pm PST
SCRAPIE USA UPDATE AS of March 31, 2006

2 NEW CASES IN GOAT, 82 INFECTED SOURCE FLOCKS, WITH 4 NEW INFECTED SOURCE
FLOCKS IN MARCH, WITH 19 SCRAPIE INFECTED RSSS REPORTED BY NVSL

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scra ... eport.html

Published online before print October 20, 2005

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0502296102
Medical Sciences

A newly identified type of scrapie agent can naturally infect sheep with
resistant PrP genotypes

( sheep prion | transgenic mice )

Annick Le Dur *, Vincent Béringue *, Olivier Andréoletti , Fabienne Reine *,
Thanh Lan Laï *, Thierry Baron , Bjørn Bratberg ¶, Jean-Luc Vilotte ||,
Pierre Sarradin **, Sylvie L. Benestad ¶, and Hubert Laude *
*Virologie Immunologie Moléculaires and ||Génétique Biochimique et
Cytogénétique, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 78350
Jouy-en-Josas, France; Unité Mixte de Recherche, Institut National de la
Recherche Agronomique-Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, Interactions
Hôte Agent Pathogène, 31066 Toulouse, France; Agence Française de Sécurité
Sanitaire des Aliments, Unité Agents Transmissibles Non Conventionnels,
69364 Lyon, France; **Pathologie Infectieuse et Immunologie, Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37380 Nouzilly, France; and
¶Department of Pathology, National Veterinary Institute, 0033 Oslo, Norway

Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco, CA,
and approved September 12, 2005 (received for review March 21, 2005)

Scrapie in small ruminants belongs to transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, a family of fatal
neurodegenerative disorders that affect humans and animals and can transmit
within and between species by ingestion or inoculation. Conversion of the
host-encoded prion protein (PrP), normal cellular PrP (PrPc), into a
misfolded form, abnormal PrP (PrPSc), plays a key role in TSE transmission
and pathogenesis. The intensified surveillance of scrapie in the European
Union, together with the improvement of PrPSc detection techniques, has led
to the discovery of a growing number of so-called atypical scrapie cases.
These include clinical Nor98 cases first identified in Norwegian sheep on
the basis of unusual pathological and PrPSc molecular features and "cases"
that produced discordant responses in the rapid tests currently applied to
the large-scale random screening of slaughtered or fallen animals.
Worryingly, a substantial proportion of such cases involved sheep with PrP
genotypes known until now to confer natural resistance to conventional
scrapie. Here we report that both Nor98 and discordant cases, including
three sheep homozygous for the resistant PrPARR allele (A136R154R171),
efficiently transmitted the disease to transgenic mice expressing ovine PrP,
and that they shared unique biological and biochemical features upon
propagation in mice. These observations support the view that a truly
infectious TSE agent, unrecognized until recently, infects sheep and goat
flocks and may have important implications in terms of scrapie control and
public health.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Author contributions: H.L. designed research; A.L.D., V.B., O.A., F.R.,
T.L.L., J.-L.V., and H.L. performed research; T.B., B.B., P.S., and S.L.B.
contributed new reagents/analytic tools; V.B., O.A., and H.L. analyzed data;
and H.L. wrote the paper.

A.L.D. and V.B. contributed equally to this work.

To whom correspondence should be addressed.

Hubert Laude, E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0502296102

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502296102v1

12/10/76
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE
Office Note
CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY

snip...

A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie
A] The Problem

Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow
and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system
and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all
countries.

The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group
(ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for
a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss;
it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during
the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the
closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United
States, to British sheep.

It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and
for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be
devised as quickly as possible.

Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether
scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the
disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid
speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie,
kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of
mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of
Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit
scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed
for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"
The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie
produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human
dementias"

Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be
transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety
of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action
such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the
acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer
grievously.

snip...

76/10.12/4.6

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 004001.pdf


TSS
 
OT

I have known this was coming for some time - I was asked to NOT comment upon it until things were "for sure".

In regards to your post - that is why there is NO imported food fed to cattle on this place.

That is also why we bring in no store bought grain or processed feed.

Basically if we do not grow it it does not get fed. I still believe that we could be at risk. Until a no kidding and for sure cause for this disease is found, I will not believe the scientists.

Unfortunately this is a big continent and there are those who are dead set against government "interference".

Even on this web site we run into folks feeding chicken schitzen to cows in the south eastern States.

I have been chastized for commenting on your residential and farm ID programs - even though I have - to the best of my knowledge - never advocated it - I have simply stated that it is coming. But this is one reason why it will not only come - it will likely be enforced to the max. I know the ramifications and I know the frustrations - but ......

It is difficult to separate government 'interference" from the independence factor and the greed factors in some parts of this continent.

In the end - the only thing that should eat meat - in the line of animals - in my opinion - is an animal with sharp teeth. Period.

Unfortunately this is not happening. It certainly is not happening in other parts of the world.

At risk of sounding pompous - the Canucks use the Gold Standard test. To my knowledge it is the only test that works in nearly all cases. If other countries used it I would suspect there would be many more cases to be found.

As for agendas - I do not care who works for the USDA or the CFIA - I simply want an answer to where BSE comes from so it can be defeated.

Bez?
 
Bez?":3fitncxa said:
As for agendas - I do not care who works for the USDA or the CFIA - I simply want an answer to where BSE comes from so it can be defeated.

Bez?

AMEN- and right now with every question we answer about BSE we seem to raise 10 more...But I don't think we will ever get the scientific answers we need, as long as the economical issues are taking more precedence...

I know its too early for speculation, but I truly hope the press release wording of "unable to rule out BSE" doesn't mean this is another "atypical"... There are so many questions now being raised with this "atypical" and the connection with sporadic CJD and Alzheimers (as some of flounders posts point out), and right now very few answers...And neither country seems inclined in any way to give finding those answers precedence...
 
Today 7/10/2006 4:09:00 PM


US Cattle Groups Await Canada BSE Test Results



KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--Representatives of the two largest U.S. cattle producer groups Monday said their groups would await final test results from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, before taking a stand on a possible new case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease.



Joe Schuele, director of trade media for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association said: "It's a position of waiting to learn all we can" about the case before making a definitive statement.



Shae Dodson, communications coordinator for R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, said in an e-mailed response to questions: "We're going to wait until the final test results come back. If those results are positive, then we will have a statement."



The case involves a four-year-old cow in Alberta that died on the farm and was then tested, according to the CFIA. It follows on the heels of a cow that was at least 15 years old being discovered just a week ago.



Coincidentally, the latest case comes on a day when representatives of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Director of the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center met with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to discuss their concerns regarding current USDA policies for BSE.



A press release announcing the meeting said the group urged stronger safety measures to guard against BSE from getting into the U.S. food or feed chains.






Source: Lester Aldrich, Dow Jones Newswires; 913-322-5179;
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: CANADA FINDS ANOTHER 'SUSPECT' BSE CASE 'CONFIRMED' ..........


> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
>
> Latest Information (as of July 13, 2006 - 15:00 EST)
> The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed bovine spongiform
> encephalopathy (BSE) in a 50-month-old dairy cow from Alberta. The animal
> was first reported on Monday, July 10, based on preliminary test results.
> The entire carcass has been incinerated and did not enter the human or
> animal feed systems.
> The CFIA has located the birth farm, and investigators are tracing other
> cattle born on the premises within 12 months before or after the birth of
> the affected animal.
> Given its age, the affected animal was exposed to BSE after the 1997
> implementation of Canada's feed ban. This scenario, as well as the animal's
> age, is consistent with the experiences of most countries reporting cases of
> BSE. Nonetheless, a full accounting and determination of how this animal was
> exposed to BSE will be the primary focus of the CFIA's investigation. The
> CFIA has extended an invitation to American animal health officials to
> participate in this effort.
> The CFIA continues to receive excellent cooperation from the owner of the
> affected animal and the Province of Alberta. Information obtained through
> the investigation will be posted to the CFIA's website as details become
> available.
>
>
> http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ani ... ione.shtml
>
> TSS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:43 PM
> Subject: CANADA FINDS ANOTHER 'SUSPECT' BSE CASE while USA is simply not
> looking to find (as of July 10, 2006 - 13:00 EST)
>
>
snip.......end
 

Latest posts

Top