CFIA Enhances Animal Disease Reporting

[flounder]

CFIA Enhances Animal Disease Reporting :clap: :nod: :clap:

CFIA Enhances Animal Disease Reporting August 17, 2009 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) will provide a comprehensive view of Canada's animal health status by posting to its website all detections of federally reportable diseases. Information will be updated monthly.

This revised reporting approach captures confirmed cases of federally reportable diseases, including scrapie, chronic wasting disease (CWD), anthrax, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in farmed animals. In addition to providing monthly reports, the CFIA will continue to immediately announce any detections of reportable, foreign, or newly emerging diseases which pose significant health or economic risks.

Early disease detection and control are critical to limiting the effects of animal disease outbreaks. The CFIA reminds all livestock producers to regularly monitor their animals for signs of disease, and immediately contact their veterinarian if animal disease is suspected.

The CFIA is committed to providing all stakeholders, including the general public, media and trading partners, with information about disease detections. Those interested can subscribe to receive e-mail notifications every time reportable disease information is updated on the CFIA website. For more information, visit

www.inspection.gc.ca.


-30-

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Media relations: 613-773-6600


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/cor ... 817e.shtml


Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases confirmed in Canada in 2009 BSE is a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Regulations. This means that all suspected cases must be reported to the CFIA.

The following table lists individual animals confirmed to be infected with BSE in Canada in 2009.

Updated: 2009-07-31

Date confirmed Location Animal type infected Age of animal May 15 Alberta Dairy Cow 80 months


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


Herds infected with CWD in Canada in 2009 The CFIA works with provincial governments and industry to conduct regular CWD surveillance. Ongoing provincial surveillance for CWD varies with each particular province's perceived threat and infection status. Testing is mandatory in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon; it is voluntary elsewhere.

In addition, CWD is a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Regulations. This means that all suspected cases must be reported to the CFIA.

The following table lists domestic cervid herds confirmed to be infected with CWD in Canada in 2009.

Updated: 2009-07-31

Date confirmed Location Animal type infected February 27 Saskatchewan Elk March 24 Saskatchewan Elk


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


Flocks infected with scrapie in Canada in 2009 The CFIA, in co-operation with provincial governments and industry, launched a national scrapie surveillance program in 2005. Under the program, producers are encouraged to report animals that die on the farm or exhibit symptoms of the disease.

In addition, scrapie is a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Regulations. This means that all suspected cases must be reported to the CFIA.

The following table lists sheep flocks and/or goat herds confirmed to be infected with scrapie in Canada in 2009.

Updated: 2009-07-31

Date confirmed Location Animal type infected April 29 Quebec Sheep May 21* Saskatchewan Sheep June 12 Quebec Sheep July 23* Alberta Sheep

*Atypical scrapie


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


PLEASE NOTE THE TWO CASES OF THE ATYPICAL SCRAPIE CASE ON MAY 21, 2009 AND JULY 23, 2009. i suppose they are speaking of the Nor-98 atypical scrapie ???


NICE JOB CANADA !!!


NOW, what about the USA ???


Sunday, April 12, 2009

BSE MAD COW TESTING USA 2009 FIGURES Month Number of Tests

Feb 2009 -- 1,891

Jan 2009 -- 4,620


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... ults.shtml


SEE FULL TEXT ;


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/ ... gures.html


Monday, May 4, 2009

Back to the Past With New TSE Testing Agricultural Research/May-June 2009


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/ ... sting.html


Sunday, May 10, 2009

Identification and characterization of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases diagnosed and NOT diagnosed in the United States


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... on-of.html


Tuesday, July 14, 2009

U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary and BSE Red Book Date: February 14, 2000 at 8:56 am PST

WHERE did we go wrong $$$


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/ ... iform.html


Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Nor98 scrapie identified in the United States J Vet Diagn Invest 21:454-463 (2009)


http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2009/07/nor9 ... nited.html


Monday, June 01, 2009 Biochemical typing of pathological prion protein in aging cattle with BSE

SOMETHING TO PONDER ???

O.K. confusious asks, IF all these new atypical BSEs i.e. new strains of mad cow disease is just an 'OLD COW PRION DISEASE', why then can not the 'old human prion disease' such as the sporadic CJD, be from an 'old cow prion disease', same as the nvCJD 'young people mad cow disease' (which also happens in 74 year old), but why cannot the 'old cow prion diseases', i.e. l-BSE, h-BSE, and ibncBSE, cause the 'old people prion disease', which looks like sporadic CJD. seems that is what some of the pathology is showing ???

OH, that probably makes too much sense, and that the only answer could be that it's all just a happenstance of bad luck and or a spontaneous event, that just happens out of the clear blue sky $$$

IF this is the case, then where are all the SPONTANEOUS BSE CASES OF MAD COW DISEASE IN THE U.S.A., AND WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN BURIED IN THE USA OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS ???


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... gical.html


Monday, August 17, 2009

FDA asked to ban poultry litter from feed AGAIN 17 Aug 2009 Ban that Poop !


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... -from.html


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

BSE-The Untold Story - joe gibbs and singeltary 1999 - 2009


http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... s-and.html



Sunday, August 09, 2009


CJD...Straight talk with...James Ironside...and...Terry Singeltary... 2009


http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogsp ... james.html


Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Characteristics of Established and Proposed Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Variants


http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogsp ... d-and.html


Atypical BSE North America Update February 2009


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... pdate.html


Sunday, December 28, 2008

MAD COW DISEASE USA DECEMBER 28, 2008 an 8 year review of a failed and flawed policy


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/1 ... 008-8.html


Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Mad Cow Disease typical and atypical strains, was there a cover-up ?


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... y-mad.html


TSS



Wednesday, August 19, 2009

CFIA Enhances Animal Disease Reporting


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/ ... rting.html

 

[hillsdown]

Terry the US is not going to do anything because their export market has only increased since our first BSE case and with our subsequent testing etc. It would cripple them as much as it has us if they do anymore.

Then other countries that do zero testing and have less stringent feed and health rules will take over the export market ...It is a no win for all of us unless the world does all of the same testing, and I really do not see any new borders opening for us here right now either with Canada having probably the most effective trace back and feed and health laws in the world right now.

 

[Alberta farmer]

I often wonder if Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, etc. test for BSE? Did their governments ever allow cattle from the UK to be imported? Do they allow their producers to feed packing house waste to cattle?
Canada imports a fair amount of beef from these countries. Are their safety protocols as stringent as here? Right now a lot of American beef is coming into Canada and yet they don't have the same rules that we have to live with? How does the Canadian producer compete if they have a higher cost for safety concerns?
If the food safety rules for cattle in Canada are meant to protect the consumer then how does the CFIA justify letting beef in that doesn't follow the same rules?

 

[flounder]

I often wonder if Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, etc. test for BSE? Did their governments ever allow cattle from the UK to be imported? Do they allow their producers to feed packing house waste to cattle?
Canada imports a fair amount of beef from these countries. Are their safety protocols as stringent as here? Right now a lot of American beef is coming into Canada and yet they don't have the same rules that we have to live with? How does the Canadian producer compete if they have a higher cost for safety concerns?
If the food safety rules for cattle in Canada are meant to protect the consumer then how does the CFIA justify letting beef in that doesn't follow the same rules?

they call it MRR, the _legal_ trading of all strains of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy, GLOBALLY. and that's all that the MRR was about. hell, the USA covered up 2 cases of mad cow disease just so this stupid policy could get finalized, and 25 years of attempted eradication of this agent got washed down the drain $$$ all we are doing now, is what the UK did when all this BSe first got started, except now, with the MRR, it's simply legal now.

Docket APHIS-2006-0041 Docket Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2006-0041-0001 Document Title Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived From Bovines Public Submission APHIS-2006-0041-0006 Public Submission Title Comment from Terry S Singletary Sr Views Add Comments How To Comment

snip...

MY personal belief, since you ask, is that not only the Canadian border, but the USA border, and the Mexican border should be sealed up tighter than a drum for exporting there TSE tainted products, until a validated, 100% sensitive test is available, and all animals for human and animal consumption are tested. all we are doing is the exact same thing the UK did with there mad cow poisoning when they exported it all over the globe, all the while knowing what they were doing. this BSE MRR policy is nothing more than a legal tool to do just exactly what the UK did, thanks to the OIE and GW, it's legal now. and they executed Saddam for poisoning ???

go figure....

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/C ... tType=msw8


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c ... -0041-0006


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 64801f3413


did anyone ever read the MRR 2 ;


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... 1-1%20.pdf


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... 9-2007.pdf


your only fooling yourselves with this stupid ukbsenvcjd only theory, and the BSE mythology of the OIE. most any country that went by those same OIE BSE guidelines all went down with BSE. THE OIE has now shown they are nothing more than a National Trading Brokerage for all strains of animal TSE. AS i said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will buckle every time a country makes some political hay about trade protocol, commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they should do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization. ...


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 0011-1.pdf


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 64801e47e1


bottom line, and i say this with full confidence, with the present and past surveillance of BSE/TSE in the USA, and the continued feed violations, in the TONS, no one will ever know the true extent of any strain of mad cow disease in the USA. you don't have to just take my word on it, read the facts. blunder, after blunder, after blunder. they have all been posted here, i would be glad to go over any and or all of them one by one for any that doubts me. i can sum it all up real quick, Canada is looking to find, and the USA has never, EVER, done that. it's been just the opposite for the USA. don't believe me, or the facts, here is what Dr. Paul Brown of the cdc/nih et al ;

CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end

http://www.upi.com/


CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm


PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM

"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... T=0&P=8125


THE bse mrr policy is nothing more than swapping spit. your just accepting what ever disease that country has, and or what ever that country says it has. it's an honor system of sorts. Canada seems to be Honest, and just the opposite has happened here in the USA.

WE did just what the UK did to the globe ;


http://www.mad-cow.org/00/aug00_last_news.html#fff


http://www.mad-cow.org/00/sep00_news.html#hhh


http://www.mad-cow.org/00/jul00_dont_eat_sheep.html#hhh


http://www.mad-cow.org/00/may00_news.html#aaa


years later, the bush administration made it legal. the body bag count was acceptable for the _documented_ ones. the elderly are expendable, kids and pets are not, and as long as politics plays a role in dictating science i.e. the UKBSEnvCJD ONLY THEORY, we all loose, and the 85%+ of all the other victims, go unaccounted for...officially, but some of us no different, but yet the ignorance of it all, will continue to spread the TSE agent globally, through a multitude of proven routes and sources i.e. friendly fire i.e. and or the pass it forward mode. ...

IN A NUT SHELL ; $$$

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)

11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries.The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status or other significant events that were not promptly reported to then Central Bureau............


http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf


full text ;


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2007/ ... a-and.html


http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/


Saturday, June 13, 2009

BSE FEED VIOLATIONS USA UPDATE From 01/01/2009 To 06/10/2009


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... -from.html


Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Characteristics of Established and Proposed Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Variants


http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogsp ... d-and.html


Australia

TSE surveillance - a numbers game Rather than taking a random sample, which would require many more animals to give the same degree of confidence, Australia targets animals that have nervous signs consistent with BSE and scrapie in appropriate age groups. In this way we are able to sample a smaller number of animals because our chances of finding BSE or scrapie in these animals would be high if the diseases were present in Australia.

Australia's surveillance requirements are much different from those countries that have these diseases. Australia's target is to examine 400 cattle and 450 sheep brains per year. Queensland's sampling target is based on the numbers of sheep and cattle in Australia. The targets are 161 cattle and 22 sheep cases for 2006.

What tests are done on the samples collected? Microscopic examination of brain tissue by trained veterinary pathologists is the primary testing method used in Australia. Pathologists look for spongiform changes in the brains of cattle and sheep displaying the clinical signs previously mentioned. It is the absence of spongiform changes that show these diseases are not present in Australia.

New tests have been developed and their ability to detect BSE and scrapie is much the same as microscopic examination but they have the advantage of being able to be done quickly. Such 'rapid tests' are now used to screen large numbers of animals at slaughter in some countries. Australia has the capability to perform rapid tests and is continually evaluating new tests as they are developed. Their future use in Australia will be governed by international surveillance requirements.

'Rapid tests' are used in Australia, principally to maintain the competency of our testing laboratories. However, these 'rapid test' results are also used to strengthen Australia's case for freedom from BSE and scrapie.


http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/health/3557.html


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Australia Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Australia, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Australia. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Australia as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

In the case of Australia, an extremely or very unstable system was exposed to a very low or negligible challenge through the import of cattle. Under these conditions, it is highly unlikely that any internal challenge occurred. Given the negligible level of external challenge through meat and bone meal (MBM), it is highly unlikely that any internal challenge occurred.

The risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Australia and were, at least partly, rendered for feed, due to imported cattle from BSE-risk countries has been very low to negligible throughout the considered period. Some imports of cattle in the early 80s from the UK and from the mid-80s onwards from USA, Canada and European countries increased the risk of BSE infectivity entering the feed chain. However, the probability that BSE contaminated material entered processing is seen as being very low.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR Australia level is I, i.e., it is highly unlikely that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the possibility of cross-contamination exists and there are no serious changes in rendering, the system will continue to be very unstable. Thus, the possibility of cattle being (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent will remain at a low level.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 594386.htm


New Zealand is recognized as free from scrapie by the European Commission. Scrapie was detected in imported sheep in the 1950s when the disease was eradicated by slaughtering and disposing of all in-contact sheep and resting or destocking pastures. Another incident occurred in the 1970s when the sheep concerned were still held in quarantine. The animals were euthanased and their carcasses burnt.

BSE has never been reported or recorded in NZ.

Since 1952, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has undertaken surveillance for Scrapie.

Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has undertaken active surveillance for scrapie, BSE and chronic wasting disease in deer.

Since the mid 1950s, only Australian meat and bone meal that has been heat-treated and accompanied by a valid import permit, has been permitted entry to New Zealand. N.B Australia is also free of BSE and scrapie. This material was not imported for use as feed.

The absence of scrapie, BSE and New Zealand's grass-fed, pasture-based farming systems ensures there is an extremely low likelihood of BSE entering the cattle population, simply because cattle are not feed formulated rations in feed lots. This fact is recognised by the EU Scientific Steering Committee which has categorised New Zealand highly unlikely to have cattle clinically or pre-clinically infected with BSE. .

In addition a voluntary ban was introduced on the feeding of ruminant-derived protein except milk for calves to all ruminants. This was followed by comprehensive legislation banning the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants including spreading of meat and bone meal on pasture as fertilizer, which took effect from 1 Jan 2000.

Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture's active surveillance program has included:

In 1988, a retrospective study of fixed adult bovine brain sections held in animal pathology laboratories was under taken for histopathological evidence of BSE. A total of 50 brains was examined and no lesions were found suggestive of BSE. An active education program to inform veterinarians, farmers and others of the clinical signs associated with TSEs A financial credit to those who submit for laboratory examination brains from sheep, goats, cattle or deer exhibiting signs of progressive central nervous system disease. From 1996 to 2000 almost 700 brains have been tested under such a program with no evidence of any TSE being found. Monitoring of the 13 cattle imported from the UK between 1982 and 1988. All are now dead. From January 1990 to December 2002 diagnostic vets screened 6,576 cases presenting clinical signs of nervous disease in cattle. In 1998 an additional 1,009 brains for clinically normal cattle aged 4 years and older were screen for histopathological lesions of BSE. None were found.


http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/node/287 ... xpand=2398


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of New Zealand Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 May 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.1Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in New Zealand, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in New Zealand. This scientific report addresses the GBR of New Zealand as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

Although the system was extremely unstable in New Zealand from the early 1980s until 2003, the occurrence of an internal challenge is considered highly unlikely due to the negligible external challenge over the entire period.

The risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in New Zealand, and were at least partly rendered for feed, due to imported cattle from BSE-risk countries has been negligible throughout the considered period. Also, the probability that BSE contaminated material entered the cattle system is seen as being negligible.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of NEW ZEALAND is I, i.e., it is highly unlikely that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the possibility of cross-contamination exists and there are no serious changes in rendering, the system will continue to be very unstable. Thus, the possibility of cattle being (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent will remain at a low level.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 595988.htm


BRAZIL BSE


http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/inspections ... 002_en.pdf


SEE GAIN REPORT HERE ON BRAZIL BACK IN 2001 ;


http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=en&gl=us


http://www.stat-usa.gov/agworld.nsf/505 ... CA1016.PDF


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Brazil Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 June 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.1Mb)

Summary of the scientific report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Brazil, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Brazil. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Brazil as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

A very unstable system between 1980 and 2000 was exposed to a negligible external challenge until 1990, to a low external challenge between 1991 and 1995 and to a negligible external challenge between 1996 and 2000. In 2001 the stability of the system improved to an unstable system exposed to a negligible external challenge for the latest period.

Given the level of the external challenge, it is highly unlikely that an internal challenge occurred until 1990. However, the internal challenge became unlikely but cannot be excluded from 1991 onwards, mainly due to cattle imported from BSE-risk countries in 1991-1995.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of BRAZIL is II, i.e. it is unlikely but can not be excluded that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. If the stability of the system in Brazil remains as low as it is, significant external challenges could lead to an increase in the GBR of the country.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 596126.htm


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Argentina Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 June 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Argentina, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Argentina. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Argentina as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

Although the stability of the system was very unstable in Argentina from 1980 until June 2002 and unstable from July 2002 until 2003, the occurrence of an internal challenge is considered highly unlikely due to the negligible external challenge over the entire period.

The risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Argentina, and were at least partly rendered for feed, due to imported cattle from BSE-risk countries has been negligible throughout the considered period. Also the probability that BSE contaminated material entered the cattle system is seen as being negligible.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of ARGENTINA is I i.e., it is highly unlikely that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as no external challenge occurs the GBR will remain low as it is. However, given the stability of the system, any such external challenge could lead to the building up of an internal challenge.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 595629.htm


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Canada Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s.

A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 594094.htm


Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of the USA Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 July 2004 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.2Mb)

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_loc ... 594180.htm





terry

 

[hillsdown]

LMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!
Albertans alone have tested more than that !!!!!!!!!

Queensland's sampling target is based on the numbers of sheep and cattle in Australia. The targets are 161 cattle and 22 sheep cases for 2006.

YEP., BSE is only in Canada but mostly Alberta. WAFJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

Stop posting Terry unless you are going to do something positive, posting on a board where most have their heads buried in the sand and are/were protected by their government doesn't mean sh#t..
Obama will change that all because he has no clue and neither does his wife as to what an impact cutting off the ag sector will do to the US........ Good Luck !!!!!!!!!!!

I see a Sh!t storm coming and for once us Albertans will not be at the bottom of the hill.. :wave:

 

[Oldtimer]

LMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!
Albertans alone have tested more than that !!!!!!!!!

Queensland's sampling target is based on the numbers of sheep and cattle in Australia. The targets are 161 cattle and 22 sheep cases for 2006.

YEP., BSE is only in Canada but mostly Alberta. WAFJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

Stop posting Terry unless you are going to do something positive, posting on a board where most have their heads buried in the sand and are/were protected by their government doesn't mean sh#t..
Obama will change that all because he has no clue and neither does his wife as to what an impact cutting off the ag sector will do to the US........ Good Luck !!!!!!!!!!!

I see a be nice storm coming and for once us Albertans will not be at the bottom of the hill.. :wave:

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

 

[hillsdown]

Thank you so much for your clueless response.. :clap:

I know for a fact and so does anyone else in the Vet side of the industry that your cases are called "staggers" and are SSS..

Let us bring up the case in your country that was positive and processed and fed to alot of people ,that actually led to suicide of one involved..

You love the fact that we had our throats cut because we were the number one in exports and the US was barely on the board.. ..

I for one cannot wait to see how your new DM gov is going to slit the throats of every ag producer in your country ,,ya voted for him and ya got him.. :clap:

Quit spewing your BS .. I and everyone else around here has had enough !!!!!!!!!!!

BTW how many of your decrepit pieces of crap have you had tested ?????// NONE is my guess,,oh they just die out there in the pasture. :roll:

Am I p3ssed ?? you fr#cken bet I am .........I am done being nice..

 

[Alberta farmer]

Thank you Terry for that info. You obviously are right up on this stuff.
Oldtimer: I wonder what you think about what I asked on imports? Should Canada be allowing in beef that doesn't meet the safety requirements Canada demands from its own domestic producers? USDA regularily inspects Canadian packing plants that want to export to the USA. I wonder if the Canadian CFIA inspects US plants exporting to Canada, or just accepts USDA inspection guarantees?
US beef is really starting to move into Canada in a big way and I suspect in the future that will increase as we liquidate the herd up here. Should Canada be demanding US beef meet the same protocols used for domestic Canadian beef?
I think the USA is going to have to step up beef production to satisfy the Canadian market. No more having to fight those pesky Koreans and Japanese to get rid of that product! You will have a sweet export market right across the border!
Your government looks out for its farmers/ranchers...ours just seem to want us to go away! Sucks to be us.

 

[Oldtimer]

Alberta Rancher- you're probably right on Canada should require more--but it won't happen- as your government is as much in the pockets of the Multinational Conglomerate Packing Industry (Mafia) as the US government is....
They run the system...We witnessed that when not only USDA but OIE changed all their quarantine, testing, and rating requirements in order to begin shipping this mystery meat back and forth around the world...
And again when both the US and Canadian governments denied allowing some of the small private packers that wanted to test and market tested beef from doing so.....Even after the courts ruled these packers like Creekstone had the right to do that....

 

[Bez+]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Your Canadian import comment deserves a response

It was an AMERICAN immigrant that brought BSE to western Canada - but I must give him credit - he at least reported it - unlike many of your cases down south. Those have to be dug up and run down by people who know the truth.

I am sure you have had at least one home grown case.

Shoot, shovel and shut up - right on - keep living that dream - someday it might come back to bite you in the @ss. I certainly hope not because there are a lot of good folks down south in the biz that do not need the hassle your triple S denial might bring.

Thanks for your positive input old boy

Bez+

 

[Oldtimer]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Your Canadian import comment deserves a response

It was an AMERICAN immigrant that brought BSE to western Canada - but I must give him credit - he at least reported it - unlike many of your cases down south. Those have to be dug up and run down by people who know the truth.

I am sure you have had at least one home grown case.

Shoot, shovel and shut up - right on - keep living that dream - someday it might come back to bite you in the @ss. I certainly hope not because there are a lot of good folks down south in the biz that do not need the hassle your triple S denial might bring.

Thanks for your positive input old boy

Bez+

Oh Now don't go getting too big a head about how great you are... ;-) :lol:
The government had to pay Canadians to get their dead or dying ones tested....In fact in instances paid more than what the live cows were selling for-- which I remember caused quite a scandal/fraud when some northern good old boys were buying up hundreds of old cracker cows for almost nothing- shooting them- and getting their good old boy vet buddy to test them as deads or downers and profiteering off the government...

Thing is neither country tested many before BSE showed up in Canada- altho I believe Canada did test a little higher percentage since their record of BSE went way back into the 90's...

 

[HerefordSire]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Why is most of it being found in Alberta?

 

[Oldtimer]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Why is most of it being found in Alberta?

I would put it to two reasons- number one is that is where the original cows that were imported from Britain where the 1993 cow tested positive were from--some herdmates of which were never accounted for- and are believed to have entered the food/feed chain...That and several Alberta area feed suppliers were caught violating the feed ban- allowed it to manifest itself a lot longer and spread a lot more...

The second- is I believe Alberta did much more testing- and paid more for farmers/ranchers to have downers tested... More testing- more found--- which makes you wonder how many are being missed without mandatory testing :???:

 

[HerefordSire]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Why is most of it being found in Alberta?

I would put it to two reasons- number one is that is where the original cows that were imported from Britain where the 1993 cow tested positive were from--some herdmates of which were never accounted for- and are believed to have entered the food/feed chain...That and several Alberta area feed suppliers were caught violating the feed ban- allowed it to manifest itself a lot longer and spread a lot more...

The second- is I believe Alberta did much more testing- and paid more for farmers/ranchers to have downers tested... More testing- more found--- which makes you wonder how many are being missed without mandatory testing :???:

Thanks Oldtimer. What type of head numbers (and or tons) are being imprted to USA from specifically Alberta?

 

[HerefordSire]

Here is some older data...looking for newer data...

Alberta is the largest beef producing province in Canada, as well as, the leading exporter of beef and live cattle. During the past decade (1996-2005), beef and live cattle contributed significantly to Alberta's agri-food exports. Both categories combined accounted for an average $1.8 billon or 34% of the province's total agri-food exports (1996-2005 average). Also, since 1999, beef has been Alberta's most important export product replacing wheat, which ranked second.
...
Nationally, 77% of Canadian beef export value comes from Alberta. Over the last decade, Alberta's beef exports showed strong growth, from 179,491 tonnes in 1996 to a record of 381,200 tonnes in 2002. In 2003, these exports declined 37% to 238,924 tonnes as a result of BSE* related trade restrictions. However, in 2004, Alberta exports of beef rebounded, due to larger shipments to the United States and Mexico, as well as, partially resumed beef trade with several other countries. In total, 2004 exports rose 50.4% to 359,338 tonnes ($1.5 billion). Following this increase, 2005 beef exports declined marginally to 353,669 tonnes and was valued at $1.4 billion, reflecting poor beef prices. The United States has traditionally been the largest market for Alberta beef, with Mexico in second place. Prior to BSE (2002), the top five markets for Alberta beef were the United States, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In 2004, Alberta did not export any beef to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, due to continued closure of their borders as a result of BSE*. In December, 2005, Canada regained partial access to the Japanese market. Recently, among emerging markets for Alberta beef were Macau, Azerbaijan, Senegal, \pard softlineVietnam, Poland and Philippines.

Exports of live cattle (Alberta's third largest export) were severely affected by the closure of the United States border on May 20, 2003 due to BSE*. As a result, live cattle exports dropped drastically in 2003 to $196 million, and subsequently to zero in 2004. On July 18, 2005, the United States reopened its border to Canadian live cattle and imported 213,472 head of cattle from Alberta worth $271 million. Prior to BSE (1998-2002), Alberta's revenue from exports of live cattle averaged $602 million annually. The United States remains the major market for Alberta cattle.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Canada--Al ... oid=722628

 

[Bez+]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Your Canadian import comment deserves a response

It was an AMERICAN immigrant that brought BSE to western Canada - but I must give him credit - he at least reported it - unlike many of your cases down south. Those have to be dug up and run down by people who know the truth.

I am sure you have had at least one home grown case.

Shoot, shovel and shut up - right on - keep living that dream - someday it might come back to bite you in the @ss. I certainly hope not because there are a lot of good folks down south in the biz that do not need the hassle your triple S denial might bring.

Thanks for your positive input old boy

Bez+

Oh Now don't go getting too big a head about how great you are... ;-) :lol:
The government had to pay Canadians to get their dead or dying ones tested....In fact in instances paid more than what the live cows were selling for-- which I remember caused quite a scandal/fraud when some northern good old boys were buying up hundreds of old cracker cows for almost nothing- shooting them- and getting their good old boy vet buddy to test them as deads or downers and profiteering off the government...

Thing is neither country tested many before BSE showed up in Canada- altho I believe Canada did test a little higher percentage since their record of BSE went way back into the 90's...

You zinged right by the fact it was an American that brought the proven domestic case to Canada

But you always zing by that sort of thing. That is how you cheapen your writings.

Ever suppose he brought it in? Still some talk about that up here.

Heck - we killed all his cattle, replaced the entire handling systems and pens and then bought him new cattle - hows that for stupidity? Guess he thought we were pretty nice after he started the ruination of our industry.

Yup we got some folks paid to test - killed their animals and brought them in.

By the way - seems to me you could have done the same thing - but instead you encouraged that triple S attitude.

Guys did what they had to do to survive while you sat on your smug @ss and smiled at how bad things were up here - telling us we were a bunch of bad folks - those memories do not go away easy old boy. Suicides for insurance, women crying at the auctions, cutting down a kid swinging (did that personally), police coming up the laneway with the bank and finance people, and the beat goes on - saw it all and almost went down myself while you grinned from your rocking chair.

I probably would have let this thread lie but for your dammed smart@ssed comment about that "Canadian import" - but remember - it was an immigrant American that started this whole bullschitte thing up north.

Canada's first case of BSE in a domestic animal was found in May 2003. This case and all of the limited number of subsequent cases have been thoroughly investigated, with reports on the findings made available on the CFIA web site.

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

Yeah, he was an American - if you want his name I will look it up - matter of public record now.

Deep down I think you like it when your neighbours take a kicking - and you have shown a few times - and I might add the wheel turns always - slowly but it turns - wish bad on folks and gloat about bad on folks long enough it comes back to you. Next time you look in the mirror you ask yourself if you are doing this to stir the pot - or simply because you like sticking it to people.

Don't really remember you ever saying much good about us after BSE. But I sure remember you headlighting the numbers as they came and laughing at how we were busting our chops to get things under control - while you gloated all the way - thinking how great it was for you and tough tittie for us up here.

Deep, deep down there is just a tiny bit of evil in you.

God may judge you Old Timer and it may be the one that truly matter - but I already have and I am unhappy to say you have been found wanting. You show no shame.

Bez+

 

[Oldtimer]

Say WHAT :???: The original cow was imported from the UK- and was owned by Canadians as far as I know....And was discovered in the Canadian herd in 1993....

 

[HerefordSire]

As of June 2009, Canada is our second to the largest market for beef behind Mexico.

http://www.usmef.org/TradeLibrary/files ... 09%201.pdf

 

[flounder]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Why is most of it being found in Alberta?

I would put it to two reasons- number one is that is where the original cows that were imported from Britain where the 1993 cow tested positive were from--some herdmates of which were never accounted for- and are believed to have entered the food/feed chain...That and several Alberta area feed suppliers were caught violating the feed ban- allowed it to manifest itself a lot longer and spread a lot more...

The second- is I believe Alberta did much more testing- and paid more for farmers/ranchers to have downers tested... More testing- more found--- which makes you wonder how many are being missed without mandatory testing :???:

hey there ot old buddy, how would you put these imports to the USA, which in my opinion is a bogus excuse anyway considering we sent the continuous rendering technology to the U.K. some 5 years to the U.K. before we started using the same damn technology $$$ :???: :?




UK EXPORTS OF MBM TO WORLD


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf


OTHERS

BEEF AND VEAL

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab08.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab09.pdf


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab10.pdf


LIVE CATTLE

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf


FATS

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab01.pdf


EMBRYOS

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab03.pdf


GELATIN ETC

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab02.pdf


SEMEN

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab04.pdf


MEAT

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf


CANADA

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... ex_en1.pdf


USA

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... ex_en1.pdf


MEXICO

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_sci ... ex_en1.pdf




Wednesday, April 16, 2008 MBM, greaves, meat offal, live cattle, imports from UK to USA vs Canada "Three of four possible manufacturers supplying a protein supplement likely fed to the animal could have included meat and bone meal (MBM) as an ingredient in its formulation. One of these manufacturers was able to confirm usage of meat and bone meal in supplements and confirm a source of MBM to be one common to previous BSE investigations."


USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1981 - 1989

USA = 496

CANADA = 198

*add 14 to 198 as last UK import to Canada, 14 in 1990

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci ... serise.pdf


HERE is another look at all the imports for both the USA and Canada of UK live cattle and greaves exports ;

UK Exports of Live Cattle by Value 1986-96

USA 697 LIVE CATTLE

CANADA 299 LIVE CATTLE

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf


UK TABLE of Exports of meal of meat and meat offal; greaves 1979 - 1995

USA 24 TONS

CANADA 83 TONS

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab12.pdf


HOWEVER, my files show 44 tons of greaves for USA. ...TSS

Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.??? From: [email protected] Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000 To: [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt Notification Requested)

Terry

Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as flours and meals of meat or offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves. UK exports of this to the US are listed below:

Country Tonnes

1980 1981 12 1982 1983 1984 10 1985 2 1986 1987 1988 1989 20 1990

Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These can be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM Customs and Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222). Best wishes Simon Pearsall Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C


============ END...TSS...2008============

P04.27

Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route

Holznagel, E1; Yutzy, B1; Deslys, J-P2; Lasmézas, C2; Pocchiari, M3; Ingrosso, L3; Bierke, P4; Schulz-Schaeffer, W5; Motzkus, D6; Hunsmann, G6; Löwer, J1 1Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany; 2Commissariat à l´Energie Atomique, France; 3Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy; 4Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease control, Sweden; 5Georg August University, Germany; 6German Primate Center, Germany

Background:

In 2001, a study was initiated in primates to assess the risk for humans to contract BSE through contaminated food. For this purpose, BSE brain was titrated in cynomolgus monkeys.

Aims:

The primary objective is the determination of the minimal infectious dose (MID50) for oral exposure to BSE in a simian model, and, by in doing this, to assess the risk for humans. Secondly, we aimed at examining the course of the disease to identify possible biomarkers.

Methods:

Groups with six monkeys each were orally dosed with lowering amounts of BSE brain: 16g, 5g, 0.5g, 0.05g, and 0.005g. In a second titration study, animals were intracerebrally (i.c.) dosed (50, 5, 0.5, 0.05, and 0.005 mg).

Results:

In an ongoing study, a considerable number of high-dosed macaques already developed simian vCJD upon oral or intracerebral exposure or are at the onset of the clinical phase. However, there are differences in the clinical course between orally and intracerebrally infected animals that may influence the detection of biomarkers.

Conclusions:

Simian vCJD can be easily triggered in cynomolgus monkeys on the oral route using less than 5 g BSE brain homogenate. The difference in the incubation period between 5 g oral and 5 mg i.c. is only 1 year (5 years versus 4 years). However, there are rapid progressors among orally dosed monkeys that develop simian vCJD as fast as intracerebrally inoculated animals.

The work referenced was performed in partial fulfilment of the study "BSE in primates" supported by the EU (QLK1-2002-01096).

http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Bo ... tracts.pdf


look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;

Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.

snip...

BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula

Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa


It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf


6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley's answer (that it would take less than say 100 grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf



http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/ ... attle.html




TSS

 

[flounder]

Thing is- none of the countries tested a much higher percentage- until Canada came up with a positive and was forced to- and then the US came up with a positive (Canadian import) and was forced to-- and Canada is still the only country in N.A. with it manifesting itself as occuring heavily in younger cattle- most of which have been found in Alberta....

Why is most of it being found in Alberta?

I would put it to two reasons- number one is that is where the original cows that were imported from Britain where the 1993 cow tested positive were from--some herdmates of which were never accounted for- and are believed to have entered the food/feed chain...That and several Alberta area feed suppliers were caught violating the feed ban- allowed it to manifest itself a lot longer and spread a lot more...

The second- is I believe Alberta did much more testing- and paid more for farmers/ranchers to have downers tested... More testing- more found--- which makes you wonder how many are being missed without mandatory testing :???:

o.k. now ot old buddy, your quota on bse testing is a bit conspicous too. lets look at the USA ;



just look at the history and the flaws ;


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/


TSS