ANIMALNET AUGUST 25, 2000 -- II

Rift over biodiversity divides ecologists
Endangered species bill on Liberal priority list
Brazil says foot-and-mouth cows possibly sabotaged
Producers want Ottawa to destroy infected elk
Genervations spreads to USA
American Egg Board/Egg Nutrition Center request for applications


AnimalNet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of
Guelph,  and is supported by the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the U.S.
National Pork Producers, U.S. National Food Processors Association, Pfizer
Animal Health Group, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Canadian Animal
Health Institute, Meat & Livestock Australia, Canadian Pork Council, Ontario
Egg Producers, Ontario Farm Animal Council, U.S. National Cattlemens Beef
Association, the Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, Ag-West Biotech,
Land O' Lakes Feed, Capital Health, Animal Industry Foundation, American
Feed Industry Assn., the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, Food
Indsutry Environmental Network, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors, Chicken
Farmers of Canada, MDS Nordion, American Meat Institute, AdCulture, USDA
Veterinary Services (Fort Collins) Alberta Farm Animal Council, and the
Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program).

archived at:
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet-archives.htm


RIFT OVER BIODIVERSITY DIVIDES ECOLOGISTS
August 25, 2000
Jocelyn Kaiser
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5483/1282
An acrimonious dispute has, according to this story, broken out over whether
the data on biodiversity are robust enough to inform public policy, with
opposing camps dueling over the quality of key experiments, and some
flinging barbs at meetings and in journals. The story explains that the
dispute pits an outspoken group of ecologists against some of the leading
lights in the field. In one camp are ecologists such as David Tilman of the
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, and John Lawton of Imperial College at
Silwood Park, U.K., who have devoted their careers to large and costly
experiments that have indicated that healthy ecosystems depend on diversity.
Some ecologists have long questioned the validity of these experiments, but
what had been a relatively low-key dispute ignited last fall when the
Ecological Society of America (ESA) distributed a pamphlet to Congress and
federal agencies touting the importance of biodiversity -- and citing the
research in question.
The story explains that critics -- including ecologists Michael Huston of
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, Phil Grime of the University of
Sheffield, U.K., and David Wardle of Landcare Research, an independent
research institute in New Zealand -- fired off a letter to the ESAıs
Bulletin, alleging that Tilman, Lawton, and colleagues are using
inconclusive research to push their policy agenda. Some of these same
scientists also take issue with a recent experiment this week in a Science
Online Technical Comment (see
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5483/1255a). Huston calls the
diversity studies "irrelevant" and "politically manipulated." The critics
even go so far as to allege bias at the major journals, which they say favor
the more "politically correct" research plugging the value of biodiversity.
Wardle was quoted as saying, "The results of these studies provide just the
answers that many environmentalists want to hear."
Tilman was quoted as calling  such charges completely "off base." Although
he and others acknowledge that the experiments have limitations, they argue
that the evidence is still convincing. Other ecologists safely outside the
fray say there is more at stake in this dispute than personalities and egos.
Beyond the
legitimate scientific question about how much can be learned from the
experiments is the nagging question -- by no means limited to biodiversity
-- of when scientific data are strong enough to form the basis of policy
decisions. Ecologist Daniel Simberloff of the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville was quoted as saying, "Thereıs a lot of unease" about how this
research is being used.
Ecologist David Hooper of Western Washington University in Bellingham was
quoted as saying, "Scientific criticism is good, but rather than trash these
experiments, we need to say, ŒWhat do we need to do to learn more?ı "
The story says that  at the heart of the debate is the notion that the loss
of plant or animal species will bring an ecosystem closer to collapse.
Ecologists have long pondered how species contribute to ecosystem stability;
in the early 1970s theoretician Robert May concluded that diversity has no
consistent effect. Just 6 years ago, experimental evidence indicated the
opposite.
One study, the Ecotron experiment, investigated what happens to plots of
plants as more species are added. As reported in Nature in 1994, Shahid
Naeem and others on Lawtonıs team at Silwood Park planted various plants in
enclosed
chambers, added insects and worms, and measured how biomass -- simply the
leaves, roots, and other organic matter produced by plants -- changed with
the number of species. To the surprise of much of the ecological community,
they
found that the more species there were, the more biomass the plot yielded --
hence, the more productive the ecosystem was. That same year, Tilmanıs group
at the University of Minnesota published in Nature results from their
grassland plots at Cedar Creek, 65 kilometers north of Minneapolis, showing
that species-rich plots were more resistant to drought than were
species-poor ones. The upshot, Tilman and other ecologists concluded, was
that the more species the better, in terms of buffering ecosystems against
disruptions.
But, the story adds, the studies soon came under heavy attack. Scientists
including Huston and Grime charged in letters to Nature and in subsequent
papers that the experiments were flawed: Variables other than species number
could explain the rise in productivity, they argued. For example, the
Ecotron team planted taller plants in more species-rich plots than in the
sparser plots, which made the diverse patches more productive. Even
experiments such as those at Cedar Creek that added species randomly
suffered from a "statistical artifact," critics claimed: The higher
productivity seen with more species could be explained by simply adding a
few highly productive species to the mix, a phenomenon known as the
"sampling effect." To show a real benefit from diversity, these ecologists
argued, the plots would have to demonstrate "overyielding" -- put simply,
productivity would have to be greater than that of the single most
productive species grown in isolation.
Andy Hector of Imperial College at Silwood Park, a protégé of Lawton and
lead author on this massive study, which involved 34 authors in eight
European
Countries, was cited as saying the BIODEPTH experiment was supposed to
resolve these problems, adding, "We were partly prompted by criticism of
earlier work that didnıt separate [the effects of] biodiversity from other
processes."
The story says that the 2-year experiment, reported in Science last year,
found that in plots of up to 32 species, productivity rose in step with
diversity (Science, 5 November 1999, p. 1123). Moreover, in many plots, the
researchers saw the
much-desired overyielding. In a Perspective accompanying the piece, Tilman,
who was not an author on the study, called it a "landmark."
But rather than resolve the debate, BIODEPTH added more fuel to the fire. In
this weekıs Technical Comment, Huston, Grime, and 10 other critics argue
that the BIODEPTH experiment also suffers from technical problems. On closer
inspection, they say, the sampling effect does explain most of the
productivity gain. The critics attribute the few cases of overyielding that
the study authors report to an obvious explanation -- addition of a legume.
The last straw for Huston and other critics -- and what drove the dispute
beyond science -- was ESAıs pamphlet on the importance of biodiversity to
ecosystem functioning. A section of the pamphlet summarized work from
Ecotron, Cedar
Creek, and BIODEPTH -- with scarcely any mention of doubts raised about the
experiments, skeptics say. Part of a series called "Issues in Ecology" aimed
at policy-makers, students, and the public, the pamphlet was written by a
panel of
ecologists led by Naeem, now at the University of Washington, Seattle, and
was translated into lay language. Copies were sent to members of Congress
and agencies. Tilman was the series editor and one of the 12 co-authors.
Finding that "both the magnitude and stability of ecosystem functioning are
likely to be significantly altered by declines in local diversity," it
recommends "the prudent strategy of preserving biodiversity in order to
safeguard ecosystem processes vital to society."
The story goes on to say that in a commentary published in the July 2000 ESA
Bulletin, which goes to all 7700 ESA members, they mince no words, charging
that the pamphlet is "biased," "states opinions as facts," and sets "a
dangerous precedent" -- especially as it appears to represent the position
of the entire society. It is "a propaganda document," they claimed, "and an
advertisement for some authorsı research." By promoting "unjustifiable
actions" based on a "house of cards," they wrote, "scientific objectivity is
being compromised."
In response to this broadside, some of the pamphletıs authors are
backtracking. In a written response, Naeem defends the report as
"objective." But, he told Science, he argued for including some material
that would have made the piece more balanced, such as a graph showing
conflicting studies. It was lost in the condensing process. Tilman, for his
part, says he strove to satisfy two sides -- ecologists who wanted more
decisive language, and others who felt it should be more cautious. In the
end, he concedes, "nobody was happy." Tilman says that in retrospect a
scientist from "the other side" should have been invited to review the
document; he has since added another layer of review to the series.




ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL ON LIBERAL PRIORITY LIST
August 24, 2000
Western Producer
By Barry Wilson
Ottawa bureau
http://www.producer.com/articles/20000824/news/20000824news20.html
The federal Liberals are, according to this story, preparing to pull out all
the political stops to push endangered species legislation through
Parliament this winter in time for an election expected next spring.
Both critics and supporters of the bill are, the story says, jockeying for
position.
House of Commons approval-in-principle is planned for soon after Parliament
resumes Sept. 18. Commons environment committee chair Charles Caccia plans
to start committee hearings on Parliament Hill the first week back, which
will be
before the vote is even held.
Sarah Dover, co-ordinator of the Canadian Endangered Species Campaign, was
quoted as saying, "There is no way the Liberals can go into the next
election without this legislation, which they have promised since 1993. They
need strong endangered species legislation to have any environmental
credibility in the campaign."
Dover was cited as saying environmentalists will be urging the government
and
environmentalist-friendly committee chair Caccia to toughen the bill
unveiled by
environment minister David Anderson last summer, adding, "This bill must be
made better and we have faith in the parliamentary system to do that."
Bob Dobson, an Ontario cattle producer and co-chair of the Canadian
Cattlemenıs Association environment committee, also wants to see the
legislation approved in the next parliamentary session ut he does not think
the proposed legislation needs to be toughened as Dover believes, adding,
"This is good, balanced legislation. The Sierra Club people make it sound
like a sellout but they have to realize that there has to be something in it
for landowners too or it wonıt work."
The story says that both sides will be promoting their views on Parliament
Hill this fall.
Andersonıs legislation would protect some endangered species, allowing
government to order habitat protection and to compensate landowners who face
costs or lost income because of the order.
The compensation regulations have not yet been written and it is up to the
federal cabinet to decide from a list of endangered or "at risk" species
what animals to protect.
Dover said those are major flaws in the proposed legislation.
But Dobson, who has spent 20 years planting trees and creating wildlife
habitat on his farm near Cobden, Ont., said he is nervous that the
environmentalists want to change the legislation from a voluntary system
with incentives to a mandatory system with an emphasis on sanctions.
"This is a balance that I think will work," he said.
"We have to be careful that changes donıt upset the balance."





BRAZIL SAYS FOOT-AND-MOUTH COWS POSSIBLY SABOTAGED
August 25, 2000
Reuters/ Dow Jones
RIO DE JANEIRO --- Brazil is, according to the Agriculture Ministry cited in
these stories, investigating the possibility that saboteurs, probably rival
ranchers, may have injected cows in a key farming state and caused an
outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
This week, authorities ordered the slaughter of 28 cows infected with
foot-and-mouth disease in Rio Grande do Sul state after the virus re-emerged
in the region, a prime cattle and pig farming area, for the first time since
December 1993.
Now, it appears, the outbreak may have been caused by syringe-wielding
ranchers eager to gain monetary advantage over rivals by reducing herds in a
bizarre form of "cow warfare" -- and the Agriculture Ministry is
investigating the accusations.
The ministryıs chief press spokesman Tito Matos de Souza, declining to give
further details, was quoted as saying, "It could have been (criminals). The
minister does not rule out the possibility of this outbreak having being
caused by sabotage, criminals inoculating the animals in that area. He
thinks that could have happened. The ministry is investigating, we want to
know the origin of the outbreak ... why it happened in Brazil."
Other officials were cited as saying there was no evidence yet to pinpoint
the outbreakıs cause, adding that foul play was quite possible as it was
proving difficult to determine the origin of the infection. If so, rival
ranchers were most likely to blame, they said.
The cattle were found in four places near the town of Joia in western Rio
Grande do Sul near the Argentine border. The state, the most southerly in
Brazil, has borders with Uruguay and Argentina, both world famous for their
prime-quality beef.
While its origin is still being determined, officials were cited as saying
the disease did not come from either Uruguay or Argentina.
Ministry scientists were cited as saying on Thursday that the viral type
found in the Argentine antibodies was different from that discovered in the
infected Brazilian cattle. Uruguay also was unlikely, as it had been free of
foot-and-mouth for a long time, they said.
Speaking at a press conference late Thursday, the Brazilian Agriculture
Ministryıs Food Inspection Secretary, Luiz Carlos de Oliveira, was cited as
admitting the outbreak could hinder negotiations with the U.S., but added it
will not affect trade with the European Union, adding, "It all depends on
the outcome of our investigation."
Brazil was originally expecting to gain access to the U.S. fresh beef market
by the end of this year, with an initial quota of around $60 million a year.
This entry could now be delayed by 12 months.





PRODUCERS WANT OTTAWA TO DESTROY INFECTED ELK
August 24, 2000
Western Producer
Ed White
Saskatoon newsroom
http://www.producer.com/articles/20000824/news/20000824news13.html
Elk producers across Canada were cited as saying that animals in four
Saskatchewan elk herds infected with chronic wasting disease should be
destroyed immediately and that federal officials should not take chances
with CWD, a contagious disease that until now has been confined to a few
animals from the United States.
Ian Thorleifson, the executive director of the Canadian Venison Council, was
quoted as saying,"We feel that all the animals that are a risk must be
exterminated. Our goal is complete eradication."
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has, the story says, quarantined four
Saskat-chewan herds and banned the movement of animals that originated in
those herds.
One animal in each of the four herds has died from CWD, a spongiform
encephalopathy similar to scrapie in sheep.
The CFIA has destroyed all 64 animals in one of the herds in order to gather
tissue samples.  It will also kill 35 animals in a second infected herd.
CFIA veterinarian George Luterbach was cited as saying the agency does not
plan to exterminate all of the animals from the infected herds but neither
has it decided against total eradication, adding, "This is an interim policy
to get us to the fall."
The story says that little is known about CWD and that scientists are not
certain how it spreads, incubates and acts once it has developed within an
animal.
CWD originated in a forested area along the Colorado-Wyoming border. It has
been found in wild animals for 30 years and may have existed for much
longer.
The disease expanded northward after it began appearing in commercial elk
herds.
Producers in South Dakota and Montana have, the story explains, been
fighting CWD for years. The Saskatchewan border has been closed to U.S.
imports for about a decade, but some animals were imported from South Dakota
before 1990.
Federal veterinarians think one of these animals brought the disease into
Saskatchewan.
There were two cases of CWD diagnosed in Saskatchewan elk herds before this
year. In 1996, an entire herd was destroyed after one of its elk contracted
the
disease.
In 1998 another animal was infected but this time, authorities decided not
to kill
the entire herd. Instead, the infected animal, its mother and its siblings
were
destroyed.
Now CWD has re-emerged in the same group of animals. Whatıs more, all four
of the recently diagnosed elk have ties to that herd.
All go back to an original infection from an imported American elk.
Thorleifson was further cited as saying producers are concerned by the
spread of the disease into four herds, but they believe it can be
controlled, adding, "Itıs obvious the disease has spread, but weıre still
only talking four animals."
If the CFIA acts quickly and destroys all the animals that could have been
infected, the disease could be eliminated in Canada.
"We see it as a foreign disease," said Thorleifson.
Edwin Harms, the president of the Manitoba Elk Growers Association, was
cited as agreeing with Thorleifsonıs call for a decisive response, adding,
"They need to do some fairly drastic things. If they have to depopulate a
bunch of herds, they should do it. If the problem is big and bad, letıs get
on it and clean it up."





GENERVATIONS SPREADS TO USA
August 25, 2000
Ontario Farmer Daily
http://www.ontariofarmer.com/
GenerVations USA will bring a unique line-up of proven sires to the U.S. and
Latin American dairy industry, according to R. Rinell Vincent, general
manager of the new firm. Based in Tunkhannock, PA, the company is a
branch of GenerVations, Inc. at Georgetown, Ont.
It will also represent Semenzoo, the Italian marketing organization. The
sire
line-up will include 25 proven sires from GenerVations, Modern Sires, and
Semenzoo. The pedigrees feature outstanding sires and cow families with high
production and components, along with show-winning and longevity type
traits.
"Collectively the organizations that GenerVations USA will represent now
sample 350 Holstein and 40 Brown Swiss bulls annually. We will also
evaluate additional sires from other marketing organizations to enhance the
product mix of GenerVations USA," according to Vincent.
Principals in the firm are President and Owner of GenerVations, Inc. Albert
Cormier, noted Holstein breeder and marketer in Georgetown, Ontario, along
with Vice-President and General Manager Dave Eastman.
Lelia Cashmark, with 30 years in the A.I. industry, has also joined the
staff as
administrative assistant. Office operations effective Sept. 1 will be at 204
West Tioga Street, Tunkhannock, PA 18657.
The GenerVations website can be found at www.genervations.com.




AMERICAN EGG BOARD/EGG NUTRITION CENTER REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
 Aug. 25/00
from a statement
TOPIC:  Development of techniques to determine the integrity of the egg yolk
membrane.
BACKGROUND:  The bacterium, Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE),
can be found in the interior of an egg and, under certain circumstances, can
be transmitted to humans and cause salmonellosis.  SE is typically found at
low concentrations in a fresh egg and its growth is restricted until the egg
ages or is stored at warm temperatures.  It is hypothesized that the
bacteria are transmitted from the internal organs of the hen to the egg
white perhaps just outside of the egg yolk.  SE growth is considered to be
initially restricted by lack of access to nutrients in the yolk.  With time
and warm temperatures, it is hypothesized that the yolk membrane
deteriorates and SE has access to the nutrients in the yolk.  The integrity
of the egg yolk membrane would thus be the first barrier to SE growth.
Maintaining barriers to SE growth is important because low concentrations of
SE are less likely to cause disease in humans.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:  One way that the integrity of the egg yolk membrane
has been estimated has been by inoculating the white of an egg with a known
amount of SE, incubating the egg and determining if the SE concentration has
increased.  If so, the egg is considered Agrowth permissive@ and it is
assumed that the bacteria have accessed the nutrients in the yolk.  This is
a specific determination of yolk membrane integrity because it uses the
parameter of concern (bacterial growth) as the indicator of membrane
integrity.  Experiments are then conducted to estimate under what
circumstances the membrane remains intact or deteriorates.  Alternative
means of measuring the integrity of the membrane are sought so as to better
understand the factors that keep the membrane intact and how membrane
integrity relates to SE growth.  Membrane integrity is also of importance to
the egg industry as it also is an indicator of egg freshness and quality.
Physical, chemical or biological approaches may be proposed.
LETTER OF INTENT:  Investigators are requested to submit a two-page letter,
by October 1, 2000, stating their intent to submit an application.
Investigators should provide a general outline of the proposed study design
along with approximate total costs.  Grant applications will be invited
based upon evaluation of the Letter of Intent.
CONTACT PERSON:  Questions and letters of intent should be addressed to Jill
A. Snowdon, Ph.D., Director of Food Safety Programs, Egg Nutrition Center,
1050 17th St., N.W., Suite 560, Washington, D.C.  20036; TEL 202-833-8850;
FAX 202-463-0102; or jasnowdon@aol.com.
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, AND INFORMATION:  Shall become the property
of the U.S. Government as represented by the American Egg Board.




 AMERICAN EGG BOARD/EGG NUTRITION CENTER REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
  Aug. 25/00
from a statement
TOPIC:  Time before growth of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE)
in eggs stored at various temperatures B a measurement of yolk membrane
breakdown
BACKGROUND:  A fresh, cool, intact shell egg has numerous antimicrobial
properties that deter bacterial growth.  However, heat and time apparently
dismantle some of these properties and permit growth of SE.  Temperature
control of the growth of SE in eggs is based on two factors.  One, cool
temperatures enhance the integrity of the yolk membrane (which is a barrier
between the SE in the egg white and nutrients in the yolk that are essential
for SE growth).  The second temperature control factor is based on standard
growth kinetics of bacteria.  One research study in the United Kingdom
(U.K.) has been done to determine the amount of time at a given temperature
that an egg will continue to inhibit SE growth.  These data are used to
create a Ayolk membrane time graph@ relating storage temperature to the
number of days before 25% of the eggs in storage at that temperature support
the growth of SE.  The relationship described by the graph can them be used
to predict the likelihood that SE would grow in an egg at various times and
temperatures.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:  The U.K. study needs to be repeated using eggs
produced in the U.S. (which are washed) to confirm or refute the similarity
to the U.K. data and to verify the accuracy of the yolk membrane time
equation.  In the original study, groups of 9-11 eggs were incubated at
various temperatures.  On a given day (over a 42 day period), a group of
eggs were removed, inoculated with SE and assayed for SE growth.  The
time-temperature combination under study was considered growth permissive
when 25% or more of the eggs had an increase in SE concentration.  It is
expected that the study design would encompass temperatures between 40 to
100 F with sufficient replicates to ensure statistical validity.
LETTER OF INTENT:  Investigators are requested to submit a two-page letter,
by October 1, 2000 providing a general outline of the proposed study design
along with approximate total costs.  Grant applications will be invited
based upon evaluation of the Letter of Intent.
CONTACT PERSON:  Questions and letters of intent should be addressed to Jill
A. Snowdon, Ph.D., Director of Food Safety Programs, Egg Nutrition Center,
1050 17th St., N.W., # 560, Washington, D.C.  20036; TEL 202-833-8850; FAX
202-463-0102; or jasnowdon@aol.com.
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, AND INFORMATION:  Shall become the property
of the U.S. Government as represented by the American Egg Board.




AMERICAN EGG BOARD/EGG NUTRITION CENTER REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
  Aug. 25/00
from a statement
TOPIC:  Temperature sequence of an egg from oviposition through distribution
BACKGROUND:  Cool temperatures are used to deter the growth of bacteria in
foods including the growth of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis if it
is present in eggs.  Data on the temperature of eggs during processing and
in the initial stages of chilling and storing have been recorded.  However,
data on the temperature of the egg previous to processing and during storage
and transportation are lacking especially with regard to geographic
location, season and nature of production (in-line vs. off-line) and
processing systems.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:  Data, models and estimates are all needed on the
temperature sequence of eggs produced in the U.S. from oviposition through
distribution with regard to regional, seasonal and production variables.
Investigators may wish to study local practices in detail, develop models to
predict or estimate egg temperatures or propose a study involving several
different sites, seasons or practices.  Investigators interested in a
multi-state collaborative project may rely on the Egg Nutrition Center to
facilitate contacts with investigators in other states.  It is expected that
the collection of data on ambient temperature, season and geographic
location would be included in the study.
LETTER OF INTENT:  Investigators are requested to submit a two-page letter,
by October 1, 2000 providing a general outline of the proposed study design
along with approximate total costs.  Grant applications will be invited
based upon evaluation of the Letter of Intent.
CONTACT PERSON:  Questions and letters of intent should be sent to Jill A.
Snowdon, Ph.D. Director of Food Safety Programs, Egg Nutrition Center, 1050
17th St., N.W., Suite 560, Washington, D.C.  20036; TEL 202-833-8850; FAX
202-463-0102; or jasnowdon@aol.com.
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, AND INFORMATION:  Shall become the property
of the U.S. Government as represented by the American Egg Board.

To subscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe animalnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe animalnet -L Wendy Powell

To unsubscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff animalnet-L

For more information about the AnimalNet research program, please contact:
Dr. Wendy Powell
wpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood

archived at:
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet-archives.htm