ANIMALNET JUNE 6, 2001 Final foot-and-mouth tests on Danish cow negative FDA-cloned livestock Regulated transposition of a fish transposon in the mouse germ line DNA vaccines offer alternative disease protection Bluetongue, cattle, imported ­ S. Korea (02) New product could prevent alfalfa bloat in cattle, study shows No consensus on regulating farm practices Lawmakers celebrate opening of Tri City, KY., cooperative catfish plant Lawmaker targets PETA activist Activists accuse egg farm of cruelty Brand a cow, go to jail? AnimalNet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of Guelph, and is supported by OMAFRA, Ag-West Biotech, Meat and Livestock Australia, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario Cattlemenšs Association, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Ontario Pork, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, Business News Publishing Co., Pharmacia, Tyson, National Cattlemenšs Beef Association, Pfizer, National Pork Produceršs Council, Adculture Group Inc., Alberta Pork, Ontario Farm Animal Council, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Effem, National Turkey Federation, Nation, Resources and Environment Australia, 3M, Burger King, Canadian Food Information Council and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program). archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet-archives.htm FINAL FOOT-AND-MOUTH TESTS ON DANISH COW NEGATIVE June 6, 2001 Reuters COPENHAGEN- Denmark's Veterinary and Food Administration was cited as saying on Wednesday that final tests proved negative on a cow in western Denmark suspected of having foot-and-mouth disease. The story says that the cow with the symptoms was found in a herd of 21 animals on June 1. Restrictions on the farm near Viborg, Jutland, which was sealed off by the authorities, have been lifted. FDA-CLONED LIVESTOCK June 6, 2001 Associated Press Philip Brasher WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government is, according to this story, deciding whether to regulate cloned livestock and wants assurances that the animals' meat and milk are safe and that the technology doesn't harm the animals or the environment. The story says that a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the technology's safety is due early next year. The Food and Drug Administration will use the results to decide whether cloned animals will require government approval before they are sold for food. John Matheson, a senior regulatory review scientist for the FDA, was quoted as saying Tuesday, "We're trying to make a science-based decision on whether these types of animals pose any risk." The story says that biotech companies have been asked to keep the livestock out of the food chain until the agency finishes its review. As a practical matter, however, industry experts say it will likely be years before cloned farm animals or their progeny are ready for food use. The cattle and pigs that have been cloned so far are either for breeding or medical uses. Ken Olson, an animal health specialist who has advised the American Farm Bureau Federation, a major farm organization, was quoted as saying, "They are really in the experimental stage yet." The FDA believes it has the authority to regulate cloned animals under its approval process for new animal drugs. Essentially, FDA is deciding whether cloned animals should be treated like genetically engineered animals, which are regulated by the FDA, or like animals bred through in-vitro fertilization, which don't require FDA regulation. REGULATED TRANSPOSITION OF A FISH TRANSPOSON IN THE MOUSE GERM LINE June 5, 2001 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Vol. 98, Issue 12, 6759-6764 Sylvia E. J. Fischer, Erno Wienholds, and Ronald H. A. Plasterk* Hubrecht Laboratory, Centre for Biomedical Genetics, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands Edited by Allan C. Spradling, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baltimore, MD, and approved April 9, 2001 (received for review December 1, 2000) Tc1/mariner elements are able to transpose in species other than the host from which they were isolated. As potential vectors for insertional mutagenesis and transgenesis of the mouse, these cut-and-paste transposons were tested for their ability to transpose in the mouse germ line. First, the levels of activity of several Tc1/mariner elements in mammalian cells were compared; the reconstructed fish transposon Sleeping Beauty (SB) was found to be an order of magnitude more efficient than the other tested transposons. SB then was introduced into the mouse germ line as a two-component system: one transgene for the expression of the transposase in the male germ line and a second transgene carrying a modified transposon. In 20% of the progeny of double transgenic male mice the transposon had jumped from the original chromosomal position into another locus. Analysis of the integration sites shows that these jumps indeed occurred through the action of SB transposase, and that SB has a strong preference for intrachromosomal transposition. Analysis of the excision sites suggests that double-strand breaks in haploid spermatids are repaired via nonhomologous end joining. The SB system may be a powerful tool for transposon mutagenesis of the mouse germ line. DNA VACCINES OFFER ALTERNATIVE DISEASE PROTECTION June 5, 2001 Farmscape (Episode 695) The Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization says DNA vaccines offer a potentially cheaper alternative for disease control in livestock. I'm Bruce Cochrane and this is Farmscape...a presentation of Manitoba's pork producers. I'll be back...in a moment. DNA vaccines consist of a circular piece of DNA needed to produce a protective protein in the cells of an animal. This protective protein generates the immune response to a particular disease causing organism, be it a bacteria or a virus. Virologist Dr. Sylvia van den Hurk says DNA vaccines are still experimental but they could provide a cost effective efficient alternative to other types vaccines. DNA vaccines were first tested in mice but now these vaccines have been used experimentally in a number of different species including dogs, cats, pigs, cattle, horses and, as I mentioned, also humans. In my lab we primarily focus on beef cattle and the first DNA vaccine we tested was against IBR virus and we found that they actually can induce similar levels of protection as the vaccines that are now routinely used out there. We are now focusing on trying to develop additional DNA vaccines against viruses such BVD, PR3 and RSV that are also quite important in cattle. Even though it's not directly our work, other people in the field are also developing this technology for a number of diseases in pigs such as swine influenza, classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease. Dr. van den Hurk says, from a safety perspective, the vaccines exist independently in the cells and do not enter the animal's genetic material so the DNA does not duplicate itself. She expects the first commercial DNA vaccines to be available in about two years. For Farmscape.Ca, I'm Bruce Cochrane. BLUETONGUE, CATTLE, IMPORTED ­ S. KOREA (02) June 5, 2001 A ProMED-mail post http://www.promedmail.org Korea claims bluetongue in cattle Attempts to re-start [Australia's] live cattle trade with Korea have had another setback. Korean authorities claim 2 of 600 head of cattle being held in quarantine have tested positive to the bluetongue virus. Shipments of live cattle were stopped last month after violent protests by Korean farmers, who objected to the opening up of the cattle market to imported livestock. Kevin Shiell, the chief executive of The Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd. (Livecorp), says the test results are puzzling and disappointing, and continued, "Certainly it's been a setback, there are a lot worse diseases around than bluetongue, unfortunately however the protocol specifies animals must be tested negative. That was done in Australia prior to their departure, and for some reason 2 have shown up at the other end as positives. Now we need to get to the bottom as to why that occurred." NEW PRODUCT COULD PREVENT ALFALFA BLOAT IN CATTLE, STUDY SHOWS June 5, 2001 Lethbridge Research Centre Report http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/ Lethbridge, Alta.,: There's new research showing that a product used to control cattle bloat in Australia and New Zealand for over 20 years could allow safe grazing of alfalfa in North America. That would allow gains from grazing almost equal to feedlot levels. In recent studies, scientists examined the effects of Blocare on cattle and sheep grazing alfalfa for short durations. They found that if Blocare is adequately consumed, it is 100 percent effective for controlling bloat, without reducing productivity, says Lethbridge Research Centre scientist Dr. Tim McAllister, a rumen microbiology and nutrition scientist involved in evaluating the product. Alfalfa is the only forage that maintains productivity similar to that in feedlot diets, but the legume can cause pasture bloat, an accumulation of gas in the rumen which can lead cattle loss. "Bloat is the number one problem with cattle grazing," McAllister says. "Many producers are reluctant to graze alfalfa, despite its productivity benefits, because of the potential for bloat." McAllister hopes the results of the studies will lead to registration of the product in Canada and the U.S. Blocare is a combination of alcohol ethoxylate and pluronic detergents. It was developed as a preventative and treatment for pasture bloat. Pluronic detergents are water-soluble surfactants that have been used in Australia and New Zealand to control pasture bloat in dairy cattle for over 20 years. They are nontoxic to ruminants when administered at recommended concentrations. The studies were a joint effort by McAllister and his Lethbridge Research Centre colleague Dr. Yuki Wang, along with Dr. Kim Stanford and Bjorn Berg of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Duane McCartney and Dr. Vern Baron of the Lacombe Research Centre and Dr. Walter Majak of the Kamloops Range Research Unit. Bloat occurs when forage is digested too quickly. A number of factors can interact to produce pasture bloat in grazing cattle and sheep, McAllister says. These include the type of forage, forage maturity, rate of digestion, animal behavior, genetics, ambient temperature and precipitation. Strategies to control pasture bloat include breeding alfalfa to reduce its initial rate of digestion, planting grass-legume mixes for grazing and using a variety of commercial bloat control agents. Currently, none prevent bloat completely, McAllister says. The new studies, published in a recent edition of the Journal of Dairy Science, focused on three scenarios. One looked at Blocare's effect on the digestibility of freshly harvested alfalfa, using sheep in confinement. A second looked at the product's effect on grazing sheep. And a third looked at its effect on grazing cattle. In the first study, half of the sheep were given a daily dose of Blocare solution one hour before feeding, and the other half were given water. The symptoms of bloat were reduced in Blocare-treated sheep, relative to the controls, for the first two hours after feeding but not at four hours after feeding and beyond. In this study, scientists found that treatment with Blocare did not affect dry matter intake, digestibility of dry matter, acid or neutral detergent fiber or nitrogen digestion and retention. "That's good news for cattle producers, because it implies that Blocare likely would not affect production," McAllister says. In the second study, five sheep were given Blocare in drinking water. In this treatment, the product was 100 percent effective for preventing bloat in sheep grazing early-bloom alfalfa for four hours daily. Similar results were found in the third study with dairy cattle. Those studies were conducted with cattle in Alberta and B.C., he adds. These results could have implications beyond Western Canada, McAllister says. "For example, the dairy industry in the U.S. is moving towards grazing to address animal welfare concerns with confinement dairying, but on pasture, milk production drops sharply. By using Blocare, producers should be able to maintain milk levels by letting their animals graze alfalfa while preventing bloat." Further study is required to develop an integrated model for best treatment under a variety of climatic conditions, he says. "There are some situations where the product may not be as effective. The animals have to consume the product in water for bloat prevention. Under conditions of high rain fall, the risk of bloat may increase because of a lack of consumption of the product in provided water." NO CONSENSUS ON REGULATING FARM PRACTICES June 4, 2001 Corner Post for CFCO & CKNX Elbert van Donkersgoed Last week the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs was the focus of an Expert Meeting: What role should OMAFRA play in the provincial regulation of safe drinking water? This event was part of Phase Two of the Walkerton Inquiry into water borne disease. While Phase One focuses on what went wrong last year, this series of expert meetings highlights the future of safe drinking water and is designed to apprise Judge O'Connor of all the issues-and the limits of our knowledge and capabilities. Fifty experts from the wide variety of groups that have official standing at the Inquiry focused on OMAFRA's future role. There was no consensus. Some voices propose to keep OMAFRA out of the coming regulatory system. They want the Ministry of Environment or a new central agency to set rules for new livestock barns, for application of manure to cropland, and for wellhead protection. Farmers would be required to report their farming practices to the central agency. A team of professional inspectors would be responsible for enforcement. OMAFRA would advise farmers, helping them meet their new obligations. Some voices propose a centralized regulatory system run by a provincial ministry with a role for municipalities. Their primary concern: that coming requirements be consistent across the province. These voices tend to prefer OMAFRA as the lead agency while conceding that it may need to be the Ministry of Environment to avoid criticism that "the fox is guarding the hen house." They foresee municipalities deciding whether or not to adopt the rules for their jurisdiction but being restricted from customizing them. Farmers would report to their local municipality; a local Advisory Committee with a mediation role would address complaints about farm practices. For unresolved problems, professional provincial inspectors would be called on. OMAFRA would advise farmers, helping them meet their new obligations. Some voices propose a decentralized regulatory system based on a partnership between farmers, municipalities and OMAFRA: farmers because they own much of the countryside; municipalities because Ontario is very diverse. They want OMAFRA to create a set of general goals and policies which municipalities must consider when they adopt bylaws that set rules for new livestock barns, for application of manure to cropland and for wellhead protection. The role of the Ministry of Environment would be strictly limited to its present role of going after actual polluters. Farmers would be required to report their farming practices to their municipality. Municipal staff would be responsible for enforcement. OMAFRA would also be expected to enable the municipal capacity for professional enforcement. When the province finally produces an Agricultural Standards Act, not everyone will be satisfied. LAWMAKERS CELEBRATE OPENING OF TRI CITY, KY., COOPERATIVE CATFISH PLANT June 5, 2001 Knight-Ridder Tribune Joe Walker TRI CITY, Ky.--According to this story, fried catfish filled the plates of Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner Billy Ray Smith and about 25 lawmakers who visited this tiny farming burg in southeast Graves County Monday to dedicate the state's first cooperative catfish processing plant. The story says that the plant is expected to be at its peak within two years, employing 15 to 20 people to process a million pounds a year of protein-fed channel catfish. Smith and House Speaker Jody Richards helped cut the ribbon for the plant on Ky. 97 just south of the Tri City intersection before heading to a catfish buffet at Homes Restaurant. The place was packed as members of the House Agriculture and Small Business Committee held an informational meeting. Smith was further cited as saying that clay-filled Jackson Purchase land and plentiful groundwater are ideal for building catfish ponds, which can be run by farming families. Although catfish and other seafood production won't replace tobacco or any other major crop, it marks "a tremendous opportunity" to expand farming, he said. Besides processing locally grown catfish, the aquaculture center may someday be used to handle freshwater shrimp, bass and other seafood. With 125 acres of ponds and an additional 100 acres being dug, the plant will have the capacity for 800,000 catfish fingerlings. Forty-one farmers who grow or plan to grow catfish have joined the Purchase Area Aquaculture Cooperative, which will have spent about $ 3 million for the plant and related costs by the time most of the growers get paid, said John Murdock, co-op president. LAWMAKER TARGETS PETA ACTIVIST June 6, 2001 Associated Press Frederic J. Frommer WASHINGTON -- If Rep. Mark Green gets his way, an animal rights activist will, according to this story, get a good washing down when he returns from England later this year. The story explains that Green, R-Wis., wants the Agriculture Department to decontaminate Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, because the activist has said foot-and-mouth disease would be a good thing for animals in this country. Friedrich, PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, was cited as making that comment in the same breath that he disclosed he would be going to England this summer -- and then coming to the World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wis., upon his return. Green and others took that as a possible threat that Friedrich would try to bring Britain's foot-and-mouth epidemic to the United States. "Based on his comments, Mr. Friedrich's re-entry to our country must be closely monitored," Green wrote Tuesday in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. Friedrich, who has called for the expo to be canceled, said he has no intention of trying to bring the disease to the United States. ACTIVISTS ACCUSE EGG FARM OF CRUELTY ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP SAYS PHOTOS SHOW INHUMANE CONDITIONS AT MD. FACILITY June 6, 2001 The Washington Post Page B05 Lori Montgomery http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26584-2001Jun5.html According to this story, the pictures show thousands of hens crowded into small cages in a long shed. Many are missing so many feathers they look as if they've been plucked. Here and there, a bird stands immobilized, her head or wing caught in the wires. A few appear to have died this way, leaving their cagemates to negotiate a decomposing corpse. The story says that according to a local animal rights group, the photos were taken during four clandestine visits to a Maryland egg farm operated by ISE America, one of the nation's largest egg producers. The story says that the activists "rescued" eight chickens -- pronounced to be in "very poor" health by a Hyattstown veterinarian -- and today plan to urge Maryland officials to prosecute ISE America under the state's newly fortified animal cruelty laws. State and local officials, the story adds, have shown little interest in pursuing the allegations, the latest in a national crusade to force egg farmers to abandon wire "battery cages" and improve living conditions for the flocks that produce 75 billion eggs each year. Gregg Clanton, ISE America's vice president, was cited as saying he is not certain the group's members visited his facility in Cecil County. ISE America owns more than a quarter of the 4.4 million laying hens in Maryland, where eggs are a $48 million a year business and chickens generally are the largest agricultural industry in the state. Clanton denied that dead hens are left to fester in the cages, saying the company keeps its hens "healthy and alive" adding, "We use normal industry practices. Their complaint lies with our industry, not our facility." Miyun Park, president of Compassion Over Killing, a Washington-based animal rights organization, was cited as agreeing with that assessment, calling conditions at the ISE farm "fairly normal" and stating that, "If consumers knew how animals are abused by the egg industry, they would never eat eggs." The story says that Park's group targeted ISE America after Maryland became the 32nd state to elevate cruelty to animals from a misdemeanor to a felony. The new law, signed by Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D), takes effect Oct. 1. But, like most other states, Maryland has an exemption for "customary and normal . . . agricultural husbandry practices," making the prosecution of cruelty to farm animals a rarity. Farm Sanctuary, a farm animal protection organization, won a conviction last year against an ISE America farm in New Jersey where two live birds had been thrown into a barrel with dead ones. But the misdemeanor conviction and $564 fine were overturned when a judge found insufficient evidence that farm workers had maliciously neglected the birds. Controversy over conditions for laying hens has raged since at least the 1960s, when a British activist wrote about modern farm practices in a book called "Animal Machines." Among the book's targets: battery cages, small enclosures in which hens are housed in such cramped quarters they can neither lie down nor stretch their wings. Photos taken by Compassion Over Killing can be seen on the Internet at www.isecruelty.com BRAND A COW, GO TO JAIL? June 6, 2001 The Edmonton Sun 7 Doug Beazley If asked, most people, according to this story, probably wouldn't express a fondness for having a red-hot iron pressed against their buttocks. Cattle hate it too. Pity they can't hire lawyers; if the federal government's new omnibus crime bill, C-15, manages to drag its way through the Commons this year, the practice of cattle branding might, the story says, follow bear-baiting and cockfighting into the shadowy realm of outlawed animal cruelty. Or, it might not. Depends on who you believe - Justice Minister Anne McLellan, who claims the bill does nothing more than prevent you from beating your dachshund to death, or the cattlemen who see it forcing a new hands-off approach to raising meat animals. Doyle Kuntz, who has 900 head outside Minburn, 173 km southeast of Edmonton, was quoted as saying, "I'm not a big fan of branding. I don't know any cattleman who doesn't hate it. But nobody's been able to come up with a commercial alternative to it. Ear tags are great, but you lose 10% to 20% of them yearly and it's not cheap to go out and re-tag. Some ranchers have tried chip implants, but they've got a high failure rate." Branding may hurt like hell, but you only have to do it once. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association says its own lawyers have concluded C-15's section outlawing practices that cause "unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal" will lead to the filing of cruelty charges against a rancher sooner or later. Peggy Strankman of the CCA was quoted as saying, "It certainly provides for the possibility of nuisance lawsuits. The way the law's written now, yes, it's possible. Probable, actually - if animal rights activist Tove Reece gets her way. Although the head of the Edmonton lobby group Voice for Animals strongly doubts the law will offer any new controls on pain-inflicting animal management practices, like branding or trapping, Reece was cited as saying she'd love to see a rancher or a trapper hauled into court, adding, "The cattle lose about two weeks of development after branding. They don't eat, they're severely traumatized. I mean, imagine someone doing it to you. I sincerely hope the new law does lead to (court action). We need to fundamentally reconsider some of these practices. I think that's what this law is for, to challenge the thinking. Cattlemen just want it to be business as usual." So does Ottawa, actually. At least, they claim the law's been written to allow legal animal management activities to carry on as usual. Justice Canada spokesman Farah Mohamed was quoted as saying, "This is not to stop people who put worms on hooks. This is to stop people from dragging their dogs behind their cars." The Alberta SPCA is hot for C-15, so much so that it's encouraging its supporters provincewide to write their MPs pressing for the bill's speedy passage. "I'm a fisherman myself, and when I hook a fish I know how to kill it quickly," said ASPCA spokesman John Janzen. "But if I just left it in the bottom of the boat to die slowly, could I be charged? No way. The common law prevents this law from being applied to lawful activities, and that includes fishing and branding cattle. "The current cruelty laws are 120 years old. Society's changed since then. With the current laws, convictions are very hard to get. With this law, it'll be easier to actually punish for vicious behaviour towards an animal." 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. Douglas Powell dept. of plant agriculture University of Guelph Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1 tel: 519-824-4120 x2506 fax: 519-763-8933 dpowell@uoguelph.ca http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet-archives.htm