|
| Author |
Message |
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16320
Location: Northeast Montana
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Mexico blocks Alberta cattle
Ottawa says move lacks scientific merit
Gina Teel, Calgary Herald - Canada
Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008
Mexico has banned imports of live cattle from Alberta, following the discovery of Canada's 14th case of mad cow disease in the province last week.
Mexico is banning imports of beef and dairy breeding cattle -- but not stopping the flow of beef into the country -- in a move Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said has no legitimacy from a scientific perspective.
Canada and Mexico are both considered as controlled-risk status for BSE, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, as recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE.
"They're (Mexico is) very concerned that if they're bringing in an older breeding animal, that they may be importing BSE; that's the genesis of this," Ritz said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Rob McNabb, general manager of operations at the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said Mexico has given written notice of the ban to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Mexican authorities are describing the move as a temporary prohibition of live cattle from Alberta, he said, while they undertake their own risk assessment "and assure themselves that what Canada's doing to ensure safety is sound."
No further details about a timeline were available.
The impact of the ban in Alberta is not thought to be large. An estimated 200 to 300 breeder cattle have been exported to Mexico from Alberta since March 2008, when the border reopened to live cattle, allowing for the transit of Canadian cattle exported to Mexico through the United States.
McNabb said the cattlemen's association is clearly disappointed -- particularly in a NAFTA partner taking this kind of action.
"We don't understand what their basis is," he said. "We're both controlled risk as identified by OIE, so there should be virtually no restrictions on anything."
The CFIA has said this latest case of BSE should not affect exports of Canadian cattle or beef.
McNabb said for this to happen so soon after re-establishing an important market for beef and dairy breeding cattle is a blow.
"This is just going to be another disruption to our recovery process," McNabb said.
Gerald Ollis, Alberta's chief veterinarian, said the fact Mexico wants to stop live animal trade goes against the recommendations out of the OIE.
The concern is that other countries follow Mexico's move, he said.
Canada has a feed ban in place, continues with its surveillance and is trying to detect as many positive cows in the Alberta herd as possible, he said.
"What I find strange is, why pick on Alberta?" Ollis said, noting BSE has also been found in the U.S., Manitoba and British Columbia, while the initial case in May 2003 was in an animal born in Saskatchewan.
Herb McLane, executive vice-president of the Canadian Beef Breeds Council, said there are no known Alberta cattle in the pipeline at this time.
However, four loads of beef breeding cattle from Alberta valued at about $500,000 entered Mexico last week.
McLane said while the development is frustrating, the association is taking it in stride.
"We've been living with this now since May of 2003, so . . . it seems like just about the time we start to gather some momentum under us, re-establish market access and re-establishing trade routes, that we have an impediment," he said.
McLane said industry officials plan to work with the Canadian government to help resolve the impasse as quickly a possible "and we'll stand on the science."
Ritz said Canadian officials will meet with their Mexican counterparts to again discuss Canada's strict BSE testing regime and other measures in place, to prove that the country is safe.
"I'm not exactly sure if it's political posturing or if there's some pressure coming to bear on Mexican authorities, but I know they've had some real push back by certain groups down there on NAFTA as a whole," Ritz said.
The minister added he's quite prepared to speak to Mexican agriculture minister Alberto Cardenas directly, but is trying to work through the details and should have more information in a day or two.
If Alberta isn't able to export cattle into Mexico, there's a global demand for Canadian genetics in both beef and dairy, Ritz said.
"Our problem is going to be having enough animals to fill the demand. So if Mexico has decided they want to cut out some, it's their loss, not ours," the minister said.
Last Friday, the CFIA confirmed Canada's 14th case of BSE, this time in a six-year-old beef cow from Alberta.
The first, discovered in May 2003, resulted in dozens of countries banning Canadian beef and animals, costing the industry an estimated $7 billion. Much of that trade has since resumed, in full or partial form.
Source: The Calgary Herald
canada.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 12283
Location: Nebraska
|
|
| Back to top |
|
RobertMac
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2632
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If feed is the transmission agent, why, when one animal in a herd has BSE and the rest of the herd is slaughtered and tested, none of the others have BSE?
Other than the UK, name me one case where there were multiple BSE cases in the same herd eating the same feed!!!
Face it Terry, the MBM BSE transmission theory just doesn't hold up in the real world!
Why was England different????????
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kathy
Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 822
Location: Home on the Range, Alberta
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gcreekrch - you stated that prices would not be going up if concern for BSE was high. True. However, as for the rules and regulations being pushed upon the Canadian, and specifically, the Alberta cattle ranchers... it all boils down to who is concerned. In our case, the CFIA is hyper-concerned about all potential major animal disease outbreaks, including avian flu, FMD and BSE.
It is the federal government agencies and even some of our own Alberta officials who have decided to take measures into their own hands (no matter what the complacent public thinks, or what the industry thinks).
We will be forced to comply.
Flounder`s comments to me, are evidence of the fear of the unknown. The BSE story about MBM helped to put a multifactoral disease into a nice, easy to understand handbook - but they were wrong. Not completely wrong though..... feeding the bone meal with the sequestered toxic metals is not so good (especially when combined in the treatment process with the organophosphate chemicals that had bio-accumulated in the fat). The chemical released the metals from the apatite matrix that protected the animal from its toxic effect.
People were exposed to the organophosphates through fat (in meats and milk).
The European countries and some of the Asian countries experienced higher incidents of BSE because they treated their cattle and pigs with OPs (just as in Mark Purdey`s articles).... Many countries that didn`t worry about warble flies (or parasites) didn`t have this one piece of the puzzle - so were spared.
Treatment of cattle in Canada for warbles and other parasites is exposing them to one of the multifactoral mechanisms that predispose proteins and DNA to damage. How can a chemical be killing the bugs inside the cow, and not harming the cow
Steady exposure to toxic chemicals (especially those in the rural communities exposed to crop chemicals) reduces the bodies ability to combat against the toxic changes. Vitamin B12 is a biggy in this field. And many people are very deficient.
Beef liver is a good source of vitamin B12; but if the animal is exposed to radioactive cobalt (or others like radioactive Carbon 14), which can accumulate in the liver - what are the long term consequences to this exposure.
Cobalt 60 has a relatively short half-life; but others, like Carbon 14 have a half live of 5720 years. If this toxic element concentrates in the liver, the B12 will be effected - and the detoxification mechanisms it is associated with, will also be affected.
I`ll get more on this soon, there is some interesting stuff going on in this area.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt
Member
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kathy wrote: |
gcreekrch - you stated that prices would not be going up if concern for BSE was high. True. However, as for the rules and regulations being pushed upon the Canadian, and specifically, the Alberta cattle ranchers... it all boils down to who is concerned. In our case, the CFIA is hyper-concerned about all potential major animal disease outbreaks, including avian flu, FMD and BSE.
It is the federal government agencies and even some of our own Alberta officials who have decided to take measures into their own hands (no matter what the complacent public thinks, or what the industry thinks).
We will be forced to comply.
Flounder`s comments to me, are evidence of the fear of the unknown. The BSE story about MBM helped to put a multifactoral disease into a nice, easy to understand handbook - but they were wrong. Not completely wrong though..... feeding the bone meal with the sequestered toxic metals is not so good (especially when combined in the treatment process with the organophosphate chemicals that had bio-accumulated in the fat). The chemical released the metals from the apatite matrix that protected the animal from its toxic effect.
People were exposed to the organophosphates through fat (in meats and milk).
The European countries and some of the Asian countries experienced higher incidents of BSE because they treated their cattle and pigs with OPs (just as in Mark Purdey`s articles).... Many countries that didn`t worry about warble flies (or parasites) didn`t have this one piece of the puzzle - so were spared.
Treatment of cattle in Canada for warbles and other parasites is exposing them to one of the multifactoral mechanisms that predispose proteins and DNA to damage. How can a chemical be killing the bugs inside the cow, and not harming the cow
Steady exposure to toxic chemicals (especially those in the rural communities exposed to crop chemicals) reduces the bodies ability to combat against the toxic changes. Vitamin B12 is a biggy in this field. And many people are very deficient.
Beef liver is a good source of vitamin B12; but if the animal is exposed to radioactive cobalt (or others like radioactive Carbon 14), which can accumulate in the liver - what are the long term consequences to this exposure.
Cobalt 60 has a relatively short half-life; but others, like Carbon 14 have a half live of 5720 years. If this toxic element concentrates in the liver, the B12 will be effected - and the detoxification mechanisms it is associated with, will also be affected.
I`ll get more on this soon, there is some interesting stuff going on in this area. |
Kathy, I, for one, appreciate your contributions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
