International cattle ID and traceability: Competitive implications for the US

Food Policy Volume 37, Issue 1, February 2012, Pages 31-40

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

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.10.005 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI



International cattle ID and traceability: Competitive implications for the US



Ted C. Schroeder , , Glynn T. Tonsor,

Agricultural Economics, Waters Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States

Received 31 December 2010; revised 21 June 2011; Accepted 15 October 2011. Available online 16 November 2011.

Abstract

Global standards for animal identification and traceability are evolving rapidly. Major world animal health, trade, and food safety organizations have formally recognized the importance of, and actively promoted, animal identification and traceability system development. Advanced animal traceability systems have been deployed by major beef exporters and are increasingly being adopted by important beef importing countries. This study summarizes and compares animal identification systems across major export and import countries. Results reveal that the United States lags behind both major export and import countries in development and adoption of cattle identification and tracing systems. As such, the United States has placed itself in a vulnerable position relative to competing export countries with respect to demonstrated animal traceability. This status could adversely affect market access in the future for US beef exports.

Highlights

Cattle identification and traceability is rapidly becoming a global standard.

The United States lags beef export and import countries in cattle tracing systems.

This status could challenge future beef export market access for the United States.

Fig. 1.

US exports of beefs and veal and beef variety meats, 2000–2010. Source: Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics (FATUS).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211001229


Keywords: Animal identification; Beef exports; Food safety; Market access; Traceability


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211001229




Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Alternative BSE Risk Assessment Methodology of Imported Beef and Beef Offal to Japan Journal of Veterinary Medical Science

Advance Publication

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/11/alternative-bse-risk-assessment.html



Saturday, June 25, 2011

Transmissibility of BSE-L and Cattle-Adapted TME Prion Strain to Cynomolgus Macaque



"BSE-L in North America may have existed for decades"


http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/06/transmissibility-of-bse-l-and-cattle.html




EFSA Journal 2011 The European Response to BSE: A Success Story

This is an interesting editorial about the Mad Cow Disease debacle, and it's ramifications that will continue to play out for decades to come ;

Monday, October 10, 2011

EFSA Journal 2011 The European Response to BSE: A Success Story

snip...

EFSA and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) recently delivered a scientific opinion on any possible epidemiological or molecular association between TSEs in animals and humans (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) and ECDC, 2011). This opinion confirmed Classical BSE prions as the only TSE agents demonstrated to be zoonotic so far but the possibility that a small proportion of human cases so far classified as "sporadic" CJD are of zoonotic origin could not be excluded. Moreover, transmission experiments to non-human primates suggest that some TSE agents in addition to Classical BSE prions in cattle (namely L-type Atypical BSE, Classical BSE in sheep, transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) and chronic wasting disease (CWD) agents) might have zoonotic potential.

snip...



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/e991.htm?emt=1


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/e991.pdf




see follow-up here about North America BSE Mad Cow TSE prion risk factors, and the ever emerging strains of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy in many species here in the USA, including humans ;



http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/10/efsa-journal-2011-european-response-to.html




Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Atypical BSE in Cattle

To date the OIE/WAHO assumes that the human and animal health standards set out in the BSE chapter for classical BSE (C-Type) applies to all forms of BSE which include the H-type and L-type atypical forms. This assumption is scientifically not completely justified and accumulating evidence suggests that this may in fact not be the case. Molecular characterization and the spatial distribution pattern of histopathologic lesions and immunohistochemistry (IHC) signals are used to identify and characterize atypical BSE. Both the L-type and H-type atypical cases display significant differences in the conformation and spatial accumulation of the disease associated prion protein (PrPSc) in brains of afflicted cattle. Transmission studies in bovine transgenic and wild type mouse models support that the atypical BSE types might be unique strains because they have different incubation times and lesion profiles when compared to C-type BSE. When L-type BSE was inoculated into ovine transgenic mice and Syrian hamster the resulting molecular fingerprint had changed, either in the first or a subsequent passage, from L-type into C-type BSE.

In addition, non-human primates are specifically susceptible for atypical BSE as demonstrated by an approximately 50% shortened incubation time for L-type BSE as compared to C-type. Considering the current scientific information available, it cannot be assumed that these different BSE types pose the same human health risks as C-type BSE or that these risks are mitigated by the same protective measures.

This study will contribute to a correct definition of specified risk material (SRM) in atypical BSE. The incumbent of this position will develop new and transfer existing, ultra-sensitive methods for the detection of atypical BSE in tissue of experimentally infected cattle.



http://www.prionetcanada.ca/detail.aspx?menu=5&dt=293380&app=93&cat1=387&tp=20&lk=no&cat2



Thursday, August 12, 2010

Seven main threats for the future linked to prions

First threat

The TSE road map defining the evolution of European policy for protection against prion diseases is based on a certain numbers of hypotheses some of which may turn out to be erroneous. In particular, a form of BSE (called atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), recently identified by systematic testing in aged cattle without clinical signs, may be the origin of classical BSE and thus potentially constitute a reservoir, which may be impossible to eradicate if a sporadic origin is confirmed.

***Also, a link is suspected between atypical BSE and some apparently sporadic cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. These atypical BSE cases constitute an unforeseen first threat that could sharply modify the European approach to prion diseases.

Second threat

snip...

http://www.neuroprion.org/en/np-neuroprion.html



Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee

The possible impacts and consequences for public health, trade and agriculture of the Government's decision to relax import restrictions on beef Final report June 2010

2.66 Dr Fahey also told the committee that in the last two years a link has been established between forms of atypical CJD and atypical BSE. Dr Fahey said that: They now believe that those atypical BSEs overseas are in fact causing sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. They were not sure if it was due to mad sheep disease or a different form. If you look in the textbooks it looks like this is just arising by itself. But in my research I have a summary of a document which states that there has never been any proof that sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has arisen de novo-has arisen of itself. There is no proof of that. The recent research is that in fact it is due to atypical forms of mad cow disease which have been found across Europe, have been found in America and have been found in Asia. These atypical forms of mad cow disease typically have even longer incubation periods than the classical mad cow disease.50

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/mad_cows/report/report.pdf


And last but not least, similarities of PrPres between Htype BSE and human prion diseases like CJD or GSS have been put forward [10], as well as between L-type BSE and CJD [17]. These findings raise questions about the origin and inter species transmission of these prion diseases that were discovered through the BSE active surveillance.

full text 18 pages ;

http://www.vetres.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/vetres/pdf/2008/04/v07232.pdf



please see full text ;

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/06/review-on-epidemiology-and-dynamics-of.html



[Terry S. Singeltary Sr. has added the following comment:

"According to the World Health Organisation, the future public health threat of vCJD in the UK and Europe and potentially the rest of the world is of concern and currently unquantifiable. However, the possibility of a significant and geographically diverse vCJD epidemic occurring over the next few decades cannot be dismissed.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241545887.pdf


Terry S. Singeltary Sr. has added the following comment:

"According to the World Health Organisation, the future public health threat of vCJD in the UK and Europe and potentially the rest of the world is of concern and currently unquantifiable. However, the possibility of a significant and geographically diverse vCJD epidemic occurring over the next few decades cannot be dismissed.

The key word here is diverse. What does diverse mean? If USA scrapie transmitted to USA bovine does not produce pathology as the UK c-BSE, then why would CJD from there look like UK vCJD?"

http://www.promedmail.org/direct.php?id=20100405.1091


When L-type BSE was inoculated into ovine transgenic mice and Syrian hamster the resulting molecular fingerprint had changed, either in the first or a subsequent passage, from L-type into C-type BSE. In addition, non-human primates are specifically susceptible for atypical BSE as demonstrated by an approximately 50% shortened incubation time for L-type BSE as compared to C-type. Considering the current scientific information available, it cannot be assumed that these different BSE types pose the same human health risks as C-type BSE or that these risks are mitigated by the same protective measures.

This study will contribute to a correct definition of specified risk material (SRM) in atypical BSE. The incumbent of this position will develop new and transfer existing, ultra-sensitive methods for the detection of atypical BSE in tissue of experimentally infected cattle.

http://www.prionetcanada.ca/detail.aspx?menu=5&dt=293380&app=93&cat1=387&tp=20&lk=no&cat2



Monday, September 26, 2011

L-BSE BASE prion and atypical sporadic CJD

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2011/09/l-bse-base-prion-and-atypical-sporadic.html


Sunday, November 13, 2011

California BSE mad cow beef recall, QFC, CJD, and dead stock downer livestock

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/11/california-bse-mad-cow-beef-recall-qfc.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/2009/07/us-emergency-bovine-spongiform.html


SEE FULL TEXT OF ALL THIS HERE ;

2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006

snip...

Alabama BSE Investigation Final Epidemiology Report

May 2, 2006

snip...

Because the index cow had no evidence of having ever been tagged or branded, this farm can be excluded as a source of the index cow. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

The new owner did not recall the exact cattle in question but was very certain that any cattle sold from Farm JJ (under either owner) would have had ear tags in place, and if sold before the 2001 dispersal, would have been branded on the right hip. Because the index cow had no evidence of having ever been tagged or branded, this farm can be excluded as a source of the index cow. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

However, he could not find any records for that sale and all stockyard records were destroyed in a fire during 2000. The owner of Farm KK stated he had not sold any cattle privately to Farm Q and did not know who purchased the cattle at the stockyard.

snip...

He thinks the cows had tags in their ears but is not sure.

snip...

All stockyard records prior to 2000 were destroyed in a fire, so tracing this cow further back is not possible. This trace thread has been closed.

snip...

Two red cows were consigned to the stockyard on October 13, 2001, from Farm W, one of which was purchased by Farm D. There are approximately 50 cows of various breeds currently located on Farm W. The owner of Farm W has maintained a cow herd since 1973 and does not maintain identification on his cattle. The owner of Farm W does not recall details about the animal being traced through his farm; however, farm records indicated that the animal would likely have been one of two red cows purchased from a stockyard on May 1, 2001. Although the owner of Farm W typically retains heifers, the calves from both of these cows were sold on October 10, 2001, according to the stockyard’s records. No animals remain on this farm for genetic testing. Records collected from the stockyard indicate that the purchase weight for these traced animals was 580 and 650 lbs, both of which fall below the minimum weight defined in the SOP for investigation. These cows are excluded as the index cow based on their weights at the time of sale. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

He stated that all his cattle were tagged, either at the time of purchase, or by him after bringing them to his farm. Farm Y sold out all cattle during 2004 but has since begun accumulating cattle again. The index cow did not have horns and there was no evidence of dehorning or tagging. In addition, no eligible animals remain in the herd for genetic testing. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

Farm Z consigned three red cow and calf pairs to the stockyard on June 6, 2001. These animals were later purchased by Farm D. The owner of Farm Z has land (owned and rented) in many locations and occasionally runs cattle on some of this land. He reported that his practice was to buy entire herds and sell the complete herd a few months later. He sold all of his cattle accumulated from the mid-1990s during May or June of 2001 and was without cattle until later in the year when he began restocking. He has since bought and sold groups of cattle several times but keeps no records himself. There are no eligible animals remaining for genetic testing. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

A red cow and calf pair was consigned to the stockyard by a dairy, identified as Farm BB, on November 10, 2001. This cow was later purchased by Farm D. Farm BB is comprised of a milking Holstein dairy with about 300 milking animals. The owners of Farm BB also have approximately 400 mixed breed beef cattle maintained as a cow/calf operation. Farm BB does not retain any heifers as replacements for either the dairy operation or the beef operation. They buy all their replacement cows for the dairy and buy beef cattle to raise a calf then resell the cow with a calf within a 12-to 18-month time period. When asked about records of purchased cattle, one of the owners stated that he could not locate any records prior to 2002.

snip...

Farm BB utilized the services of a cattle dealer to purchase cattle at various stockyards in the region. Some of the cattle might have had ear tags prior to purchase but the owners did not put in their own ear tags when the cattle were bought. The current herd at Farm BB is comprised of various breeds of beef cattle, but they would not be the same cattle that were present in 2001, since all cows at the premises are sold within a 12- to 18-month period (with calves) after purchase. Therefore, this trace thread is closed.

snip...

Farm CC consigned a red cow to the stockyard on December 8, 2001. This cow was later purchased by Farm D. Farm CC has no cattle at this time. The owner of Farm CC has no records of cattle that he has owned and no memory of the particular animal being traced. There are no animals on the farm eligible for genetic testing. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

Farm DD consigned a red cow to the stockyard on December 12, 2001 that was later purchased by Farm D. The owner of Farm DD has no records of his cattle operation. He currently owns three cows, one bull, and two calves. All are black and none has identification. Additionally, the owner has stated that he has never owned any cows more than two years. No animals currently on the farm were present at the time the traced cow was sold and no offspring were retained from that time. There are no eligible animals remaining on this farm for genetic testing. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

Farm EE consigned a red cow to the stockyard on March 3, 2000. This cow was later purchased by Farm D. All cattle on Farm EE were sold two or three years ago. No records of sales or purchases were kept. No animals remain on this farm for genetic testing. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

The owner of Farm FF has no knowledge or records of the cow in question other than that the cow would have been purchased through the same stockyard where it was sold. Purchase records prior to 2000 for this stockyard were destroyed in a fire. There are no eligible animals on the farm for genetic testing and this trace thread is closed.

snip...

Farm GG consigned a red cow to the stockyard on June 21, 2000. This cow was later purchased by Farm D. The owner of Farm GG runs a feeding operation and normally purchases 350 to 450 lb steers and heifers for feeding out. He generally has fewer than 700 head at any one time. Farm GG reported selling the entire cow herd between late 2000 and early 2001. He has no recollection or records of the traced animal. Most of his cows at that time were purchased either through the stockyard or by private. He did not keep offspring of his cattle. No eligible animals remain on the farm for genetic testing. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

On review of his records, the owner believes that the cow sold at the stockyard on October 11, 2000, was one that was purchased through the same stockyard on April 3, 2000. That cow was tagged on his farm with a green bangle tag #6. There was no tag in the index cow’s ear, nor was there evidence of a either a hole or scar. This cow is excluded as the index cow based on the known presence of an ear tag. This trace thread is closed.

snip...

Farm K sold an 18-month old red heifer through a stockyard that was later purchased by Farm E. The cow in question had been tested for brucellosis at the stockyard and an official brucellosis ear tag was placed in its ear. The cow was at the minimum age for tracing at the time of sale. Because all cattle on Farm K were dispersed in 2003 and no animals remain on the farm and because the index case had not been ear tagged. This traced is closed.

snip...

Summary:

Despite a thorough investigation of two farms that were known to contain the index cow, and 35 other farms that might have supplied the index cow to the farms where the index case was known to have resided, the investigators were unable to locate the herd of origin. The index case did not have unique or permanent identification, plus, the size and color of the cow being traced is very common in the Southern United States. Due to the unremarkable appearance of solid red cows, it is not easy for owners to remember individual animals. In the Southern United States, it is common business practice to buy breeding age cows and keep them for several years while they produce calves. Most calves produced are sold the year they are born, whereas breeding cows are sold when there is a lapse in breeding, which can occur multiple times in cows’ lives. For all of these reasons, USDA was unable to locate the herd of origin.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/EPI_Final5-2-06.pdf



snip...

Release No. 0336.05 Contact: USDA Jim Rogers 202-690-4755 FDA Rae Jones 301-827- 6242

Printable version Email this page

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their investigations regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in June 2005. The agencies conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service.

Our results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was born and raised on a ranch (termed the "index farm") in Texas. It was a cream colored Brahma cross approximately 12 years old at the time of its death. It was born prior to the implementation of the 1997 feed ban instituted by FDA to help minimize the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE. The animal was sold through a livestock sale in November of 2004 and transported to a packing plant. The animal was dead upon arrival at the packing plant and was then shipped to a pet food plant where it was sampled for BSE. The plant did not use the animal in its product, and the carcass was destroyed in November 2004.

APHIS attempted to trace all adult animals that left the index farm after 1990, as well as all progeny born within 2 years of the index animal's death. Together, these animals are called animals of interest.

During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of 67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd originated. All of these animals tested negative for BSE. 200 adult animals of interest were determined to have left the index farm. Of these 200, APHIS officials determined that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive (one was determined not to be of interest because of its age and the other tested negative), 34 are presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been classified as untraceable. In addition to the adult animals, APHIS was looking for two calves born to the index animal. Due to record keeping and identification issues, APHIS had to trace 213 calves. Of these 213 calves, 208 entered feeding and slaughter channels, four are presumed to have entered feeding and slaughter channels and one calf was untraceable.

To determine whether contaminated feed could have played a role in the index animal's infection, FDA and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service conducted a feed investigation with two main objectives: 1) to identify all protein sources in the animal=s feed history that could potentially have been the source of the BSE agent, and 2) to verify that cattle leaving the herd after 1997 were identified by USDA as animals of interest and were rendered in compliance with the 1997 BSE/ruminant feed rule.

The feed history investigation identified 21 feeds or feed supplements that were used on the farm since 1990. These feed ingredients were purchased from three retail feed stores and were manufactured at nine feed mills. This investigation found that no feed or feed supplements used on the farm since 1997 were formulated to contain prohibited mammalian protein. Due to this finding, FDA has concluded that the animal was most likely infected prior to the 1997 BSE/ruminant feed rule.

The investigation into the disposition of herd mates from this farm involved visits to nine slaughter plants and eight rendering plants. The investigation found that all of the rendering plants were operating in compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed rule. A review of the inspection history of each of these rendering firms found no violations of the FDA feed ban rule.

APHIS and FDA are very pleased with the results of their investigations, which show the animals of interest did not present a threat to livestock and that the ruminant feed rule is being followed. The U.S. maintains an interlocking system of safeguards designed to prevent BSE from entering the human and animal food chain. USDA also remains vigilant in its attempt to find BSE in the United States. To date, there have been more than 450,000 animals tested in the last 14 months and only two BSE positive animals found in this country.

For more information on USDA's epidemiological investigation and a copy of the report, please visit the APHIS website at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bse.html

or


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf


For more information on FDA's feed investigation, please visit the FDA's website at

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/texasfeedrpt.htm


Last Modified: 08/31/2005

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/08/0336.xml


snip...see full text ;


2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html


Saturday, August 14, 2010

BSE Case Associated with Prion Protein Gene Mutation (g-h-BSEalabama) and VPSPr PRIONPATHY

(see mad cow feed in COMMERCE IN ALABAMA...TSS)

http://prionpathy.blogspot.com/2010/08/bse-case-associated-with-prion-protein.html



Thursday, July 28, 2011

An Update on the Animal Disease Traceability Framework July 27, 2011

http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2011/07/update-on-animal-disease-traceability.html



Friday, August 20, 2010

USDA: Animal Disease Traceability August 2010 USDA: Animal Disease Traceability August 2010

snip...

BSE, USDA, NAIS, AND TRACEABILITY

Let's look at how the USDA et al trace BSE aka mad cow cases, birth, and index herd cattle in the past (or rather how they could not trace them).

TEXAS MAD COW (h-BSE), that was finally tested and documented 7+ months after an act of Congress, and Scientist from all over the Globe questioning the testing methods and negative findings of this Texas mad cow. ...

TEXAS h-BSE MAD COW CASE THAT WAS FINALLY DOCUMENTED

Birth Cohort The owner of Farm A kept very few herd records; this made finding documentation on this cow’s birth cohort difficult. The birth cohort, by definition, included all cattle born on the positive animal’s birth premises within 1 year, before or after, the positive animal’s date of birth. The index cow was approximately 12 years of age in November 2004, but there was no exact birth date in the herd records. A potential age range of 11 to 13 years was used to sufficiently cover the animal’s most likely age. Using this range, all cattle born on the index premises between 1990 and 1995 were considered part of the birth cohort. In lieu of the owner’s records, herd records from Veterinary Services’ Generic Database (GDB) were used to compile a list of brucellosis calfhood vaccination (CV) tag numbers from the index herd that corresponded to animals to be included in the birth cohort. There were 121 animals identified through GDB as having been calfhood vaccinated on the index farm between 1991 and 1994. The owner of Farm A did not calfhood vaccinate after 1994. Moreover, calfhood vaccinates include only heifers. Therefore, the list of 121 animals was not a complete list of all birth cohorts. However the tracing that response personnel conducted on other COI was designed to account for the remainder of the birth cohorts.

Feed Cohort ...

SNIP...

Tracing of Progeny

The 2003/2004 progeny of the index cow was known to have left the farm through a specific livestock market sometime between February and October 2004. The 2002/2003 progeny of the index cow left the farm through the same market sometime between January

8

and December 2003. Response personnel learned early in the investigation that animals from the index farm were sold not only under the index farm owner’s name and that of his wife, but also by other members of the owner’s immediate family. Additionally, there were no herd records to indicate the gender of the two at-risk progeny. Therefore, market records for February through October 2004 and January through December 2003 were obtained for all calves sold both by Farm A’s owner and by members of his immediate family; response personnel traced all such calves to determine their disposition. With the index herd being composed of mixed breed beef cattle, the calves that left the farm were genetically unsuitable for use as replacement animals or for sale as breeding stock, a fact that was confirmed by the trace work and the documentation of the final disposition of the calves of interest.

Response personnel ultimately identified 213 calves of interest to be traced. Of these, 208 were confirmed to have entered known rendering/slaughter channels, 4 were presumed to have entered rendering/slaughter channels, and 1 was purchased in cash through a livestock market with no buyer name or contact information (this animal was classified as untraceable. See Appendix 1). A calf was categorized as presumed to have entered rendering/slaughter channels if it passed through at least one livestock market subsequent to its original sale and could not be individually traced due to unknown resale date and new backtag, but all calves resold matching that description during an appropriate date range were purchased by known rendering/slaughter order buyers.

It was not possible to DNA test the calves that entered known rendering and slaughter channels – most were of an age in which they were likely to have been slaughtered prior to the time of the investigation. There were no calves traced to farms outside of rendering and slaughter channels.

Tracing of Birth Cohorts

Since there were essentially no records maintained on the index farm, it was necessary to compile the list of known birth cohorts using brucellosis CV tag numbers for this herd from the period 1991 to 1994. The calves vaccinated during that time period were part of the index cow’s birth cohort and tracing activities centered on finding those animals. There were 121 animals whose CV tag number and/or tattoo included them as part of the birth cohort. Of those 121 animals, 67 animals were definitively accounted for (42 were found in the index herd, removed, and tested BSE negative; 25 were identified as having left Farm A through the market system and were traced, 11 of those were reported slaughtered, 13 were classified as presumed dead, and 1 was found alive, euthanized, and tested BSE negative). Of the remaining 54 animals from the birth cohort, there may have been several that died within the index herd, but the majority likely left the herd without identification and would have been either re-tagged at the livestock market or consigned directly to slaughter without identification. To account for these remaining birth cohorts, all adult cattle that left the index farm since 1990 were traced as COI.

9

Tracing of Cattle of Interest

The investigation revealed that many animals left Farm A, arrived at markets without any identification tags, and were subsequently re-tagged at the market. Due to lack of farm records, it is unknown which of these re-tagged animals may have belonged to the birth cohort. As a result, all animals that may have left Farm A since 1990 were traced as COI. Additionally, animals from the index farm were sold not only under the index farm owner’s name and that of his wife, but also by other members of the owner’s immediate family; therefore, cattle sold from the index farm by all pertinent family members were traced. There were some older animals that left the index farm but were able to be excluded from further trace work because they were known not to have been part of the birth cohort or feed cohort of the index cow despite their being of the appropriate age. The index farm owner’s late father had maintained a herd of cattle separate from the index farm but which was added to the index farm in 1997. Complete herd test data and CV data from the GDB was obtained for the father’s herd and those animals were excluded from the tracing activities.

There were a total of 200 COI traced: 143 were reported to have been slaughtered (131 of those were confirmed as having been slaughtered), 1 is known to have died previously and was buried, 2 were found alive (1 was a known birth cohort that tested negative, 1 was determined not to be one of the cattle of interest due to her young age), 34 were classified as presumed dead, 20 were classified as untraceable. (See Appendix 1). Animals were confirmed at slaughter using GDB slaughter testing data or the hard copies of slaughter testing Form 4-54.

An animal was classified as presumed dead if records that could be used to advance the tracing of the animal were exhausted or did not exist, and the age of the animal at the time of the investigation was estimated to be at least 11 years old or older. Since the index herd was not a purebred or seedstock operation, and animals leaving the herd were unlikely to be purchased as replacement cattle, standard industry practices indicated that most adult animals that had left the herd would have been culled and slaughtered by the time they were in this age group. Additionally, this age cutoff was arrived at through review of market records and the specific years in which Farm A sold cattle through the market. An animal was classified as untraceable if all records to advance the tracing of the animal were exhausted or did not exist, and the age of the animal at the time of the investigation was estimated to be less than 11 years of age (the animal, therefore, could not be presumed dead).

snip...

Trace Herd 1

The owner of Trace Herd 1 was identified as having received one of the adult COI from the index herd. Trace Herd 1 contained 909 head of cattle in multiple pastures and was placed under hold order on 7/21/05. Upon completion of herd inventory, the animal of interest was not found within the herd. A GDB search of all recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 1 and all market sales by the owner failed to locate the identification tag of the animal of interest and she was subsequently classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace Herd 1 was released on 8/8/05.

Trace Herd 2

Trace Herd 2 was identified as having received one of the adult COI from the index herd. Trace Herd 2 contained 19 head of cattle on one pasture and was placed under hold order on 7/25/05. The owner of Trace Herd 2 identified the animal of interest by her eartag while he was feeding his cattle out of a bucket and individually penned her for inspection by field personnel. While the cow was identified as one of the animals that had left the index farm, her age by dentition was estimated to be only 5 years old, which was too young to have placed her as part of the birth or feed cohort of the index animal. She was classified as found alive but determined not to be one of the COI; the hold order on Trace Herd 2 was released on 7/26/05.

11

Trace Herd 3

The owner of Trace Herd 3 was identified as possibly having received an animal of interest. The herd was placed under hold order on 7/27/05. The herd inventory was conducted on 7/28/05. The animal of interest was not present within the herd, and the hold order was released on 7/28/05. The person who thought he sold the animal to the owner of Trace Herd 3 had no records and could not remember who else he might have sold the cow to. Additionally, a search of GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by that individual did not result in a match to the animal of interest. The animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as untraceable because all leads were exhausted.

Trace Herd 4

The owner of Trace Herd 4 was identified as having received one of the COI through an order buyer. Trace Herd 4 was placed under hold order on 7/29/05. A complete herd inventory was conducted on 8/22/05 and 8/23/05. There were 233 head of cattle that were examined individually by both State and Federal personnel for all man-made identification and brands. The animal of interest was not present within the herd. Several animals were reported to have died in the herd sometime after they arrived on the premises in April 2005. A final search of GDB records yielded no further results on the eartag of interest at either subsequent market sale or slaughter. With all leads having been exhausted, this animal of interest has been classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace Herd 4 was released on 8/23/05.

Trace Herd 5

The owner of Trace Herd 5 was identified as having received two COI and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 5 is made up of 67 head of cattle in multiple pastures. During the course of the herd inventory, the owner located records that indicated that one of the COI, a known birth cohort, had been sold to Trace Herd 8 where she was subsequently found alive. Upon completion of the herd inventory, the other animal of interest was not found within the herd. A GDB search of all recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 5 and all market sales by the owner failed to locate the identification tag of the animal of interest and she was subsequently classified as untraceable due to all leads having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 5 was released on 8/8/05.

Trace Herd 6

The owner of Trace Herd 6 was identified as possibly having received an animal of interest and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. This herd is made up of 58 head of cattle on two pastures. A herd inventory was conducted and the animal of interest was not present within the herd. The owner of Trace Herd 6 had very limited records and was unable to provide further information on where the cow might have gone after he purchased her from the livestock market. A search of GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by that individual did not result in a match to the animal of interest. Additionally, many of the animals presented for sale by the owner of the herd had been re-tagged at the market effectually losing the traceability of the history of that animal prior to re-tagging. The animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as untraceable due to all leads having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 6 was released on 8/3/05.

12

Trace Herd 7

The owner of Trace Herd 7 was identified as having received an animal of interest and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 7 contains 487 head of cattle on multiple pastures in multiple parts of the State, including a unit kept on an island. The island location is a particularly rough place to keep cattle and the owner claimed to have lost 22 head on the island in 2004 due to liver flukes. Upon completion of the herd inventory, the animal of interest was not found present within Trace Herd 7. A GDB search of all recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 7 and all market sales by the owner failed to locate the identification tag of the animal of interest. The cow was subsequently classified as untraceable. It is quite possible though that she may have died within the herd, especially if she belonged to the island unit. The hold order on Trace Herd 7 was released on 8/8/05.

Trace Herd 8

Trace Herd 8 received an animal of interest, which happened to be a known birth cohort of the index cow, from Trace Herd 5. Trace Herd 8 consists of 146 head of cattle that were placed under hold order on 8/4/05. A herd inventory was conducted, the birth cohort was found alive in the herd, and she was purchased and euthanized. The hold order on Trace Herd 8 was released on 8/4/05. The cow was sampled on 8/5/05 and BSE tested by ELISA at NVSL. Results were negative (as reported on 8/6/05); carcass disposal was completed by alkaline digestion.

Analysis of Data on Presumed Dead and Untraceable Animals

CEAH performed an analysis of the minimum estimated ages of those COI that were classified as either presumed dead or untraceable to determine the likely disposition of those animals based on their ages. Moreover, CEAH performed an analysis of the likely disposition of the one calf that was classified as untraceable during the investigation.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/bse_final_epi_report8-05.pdf


http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2009/03/nais-comments-ncba-and-r-calf-wednesday.html



OF course, the birth and herd cohorts of this highly suspect, stumbling and staggering mad cow in Texas, will never be known ;




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms

On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/new01061.html


snip...see full text ;

http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2010/08/usda-animal-disease-traceability-august.html



Wednesday, February 10, 2010

NAIS MAD COW TRACEABILITY DUMPED BY USDA APHIS 2010

http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2010/02/nais-mad-cow-traceability-dumped-by.html



Friday, March 13, 2009

NAIS comments NCBA and R-Calf Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry - Public Hearing

http://usdameatexport.blogspot.com/2009/03/nais-comments-ncba-and-r-calf-wednesday.html



Tuesday, December 15, 2009

NAIS, COOL, FROM FARM TO FORK, MAD COW DISEASE Greetings,

I do not understand the logic behind the fear to NAIS and COOL ?

I really don't.

Everything about us is traceable by the Government. Birth certificate, driver's license, social security number, your deed to your house, property, house number, car title, all the parts of your car are traceable, even each owner of the car since it rolled off the assembly line, boat, motor, etc. etc.

SO why all the concern on traceability of the food we eat ?

WHY does most folks in the industry fear this so much $$$

The fear of the NAIS and or COOL seems to be that no one wants their product to be traceable, because of fear of litigation from contaminated food, rather than the excuse of not wanting the Government messing in your business. Just my opinion.

An example would be the California mad cow beef recall (see history below), that eventually humans were exposed to suspect mad cow beef. A lot of folks. Same as with the Dead Stock Downer Cow School Lunch Program. These kids all across our Nation, for four years and probably longer, were fed the most high risk cattle for BSE aka mad cow disease from dead stock downer cows, where the largest beef recall (at the time) took place, of which, a great deal were already consumed by our children. With an incubation period of 50+ years in some cases, in others much shorter, who will watch our children for CJD for the next 5+ decades ?


snip...see full text ;


http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2009/12/nais-cool-from-farm-to-fork-mad-cow.html



Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Can Mortality Data Provide Reliable Indicators for Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance? A Study in France from 2000 to 2008 Vol. 37, No. 3-4, 2011

Original Paper

Conclusions:

These findings raise doubt about the possibility of a reliable CJD surveillance only based on mortality data.

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2011/11/can-mortality-data-provide-reliable.html



U.S.A. HIDING MAD COW DISEASE VICTIMS AS SPORADIC CJD ? (see video at bottom)

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/07/usa-hiding-mad-cow-disease-victims-as.html



2006

USA sporadic CJD cases rising ;

There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.



http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf



2008

The statistical incidence of CJD cases in the United States has been revised to reflect that there is one case per 9000 in adults age 55 and older. Eighty-five percent of the cases are sporadic, meaning there is no known cause at present.

http://www.cjdfoundation.org/fact.html



CJD USA RISING, with UNKNOWN PHENOTYPE ;



5 Includes 41 cases in which the diagnosis is pending, and 17 inconclusive cases;

*** 6 Includes 46 cases with type determination pending in which the diagnosis of vCJD has been excluded.

http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/pdf/case-table.pdf




Thursday, August 4, 2011

Terry Singeltary Sr. on the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Public Health Crisis, Date aired: 27 Jun 2011

(SEE VIDEO)

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/08/terry-singeltary-sr-on-creutzfeldt.html




Sunday, August 21, 2011

The British disease, or a disease gone global, The TSE Prion Disease

(SEE VIDEO)

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/08/british-disease-or-disease-gone-global.html



Saturday, March 5, 2011

MAD COW ATYPICAL CJD PRION TSE CASES WITH CLASSIFICATIONS PENDING ON THE RISE IN NORTH AMERICA

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/03/mad-cow-atypical-cjd-prion-tse-cases.html



Friday, November 04, 2011

Diagnostic accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid protein markers for sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in Canada: a 6-year prospective study Research article

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2011/11/diagnostic-accuracy-of-cerebrospinal.html



WHO WILL FOLLOW THE CHILDREN FOR CJD SYMPTOMS ???



Saturday, May 2, 2009

U.S. GOVERNMENT SUES WESTLAND/HALLMARK MEAT OVER USDA CERTIFIED DEADSTOCK DOWNER COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-government-sues-westlandhallmark.html


http://downercattle.blogspot.com/




Tuesday, October 4, 2011

De novo induction of amyloid-ß deposition in vivo

Molecular Psychiatry advance online publication 4 October 2011; doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.120

Molecular Psychiatry advance online publication 4 October 2011; doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.120

De novo induction of amyloid-ß deposition in vivo

R Morales1,2, C Duran-Aniotz1,3, J Castilla2,4, L D Estrada2,5 and C Soto1,2

1Mitchell Center for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Brain Disorders, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston Medical School, Houston, TX, USA 2University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA 3Universidad de Los Andes, Facultad de Medicina. Av. San Carlos de Apoquindo 2200, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile 4CIC bioGUNE, Parque Tecnologico de Biskaia, Ed 800, 48160 Derio and IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, 48011 Bilbao, Spain

Correspondence: Dr C Soto, Mitchell Center for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Brain Disorders, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston Medical School, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX 77030, USA. E-mail: Claudio.Soto@uth.tmc.edu

5Current address: Laboratorio de Señalización Celular, Centro de Envejecimiento y Regeneración. P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Received 8 March 2011; Revised 15 August 2011; Accepted 25 August 2011; Published online 4 October 2011.

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common type of senile dementia, is associated to the build-up of misfolded amyloid-ß (Aß) in the brain. Although compelling evidences indicate that the misfolding and oligomerization of Aß is the triggering event in AD, the mechanisms responsible for the initiation of Aß accumulation are unknown. In this study, we show that Aß deposition can be induced by injection of AD brain extracts into animals, which, without exposure to this material, will never develop these alterations. The accumulation of Aß deposits increased progressively with the time after inoculation, and the Aß lesions were observed in brain areas far from the injection site. Our results suggest that some of the typical brain abnormalities associated with AD can be induced by a prion-like mechanism of disease transmission through propagation of protein misfolding. These findings may have broad implications for understanding the molecular mechanisms responsible for the initiation of AD, and may contribute to the development of new strategies for disease prevention and intervention.

Keywords:

amyloid; prion; protein misfolding; disease transmission

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp2011120a.html


see more here ;

http://betaamyloidcjd.blogspot.com/2011/10/de-novo-induction-of-amyloid-deposition.html


http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/10/alzheimers-disease-is-transmissible.html



Wednesday, September 21, 2011

PrioNet Canada researchers in Vancouver confirm prion-like properties in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/09/prionet-canada-researchers-in-vancouver.html



POLITICAL BSe and CJD and THE WOW FACTOR $$$


Monday, September 26, 2011

Variably Protease-Sensitive Prionopathy, Prionpathy, Prionopathy, FFI, GSS, gCJD, hvCJD, sCJD, TSE, PRION, update 2011

http://prionopathy.blogspot.com/2011/09/variably-protease-sensitive-prionopathy.html



Mad Cow Scaremongers

Mad Cow Scaremongers by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. a review of the TSE prion agent 2003-2011

re-2003

"he also blindly insists upon a mad-cow with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Lou Gehrig’s disease."


http://www.seac.gov.uk/pdf/hol-response091008.pdf



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/seac-science-and-technology-committees.html



SNIP...SEE FULL TEXT ;



http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/09/mad-cow-scaremongers.html



layperson

TSS

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