AnimalNet Dec. 11/03
South Dakota
company touts cattle ID system in midst of regulatory delays
Canadian
dairy industry milking consumers
Evaluating
the merits of straw and synthetic lagoon covers
Court fines
A & C Quinlan Fisheries Limited 1,000 for illegal labelling of fish and
orders forfeiture of product valued at 4,250
Consultation
Animal feed
safety
BSE testing
in cattle
TSE testing
in sheep
TSE testing
in goats
U of M
initiates multi-disciplinary hog manure fertilizer study
Pork
consumption overtakes lamb in Australia
Injectable
or implantable dosage form new animal drugs; Meloxicam
Beef
promotion and research: Certification and nomination for the Cattlemen's Beef
Promotion and Research Board
how to subscribe
South
Dakota company touts cattle ID system in midst of regulatory delays
December 9, 2003
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Mikkel Pates, Agweek Magazine
WILLOW LAKE, S.D.-- Marshall Edleman is, according to this story, a cow-calf
producer in South Dakota's Clark County and chief executive officer of
BeefOrigins L.L.C., a new company formed during the first part of July and is
owned by a half-dozen producers. A small percentage is owned by the South Dakota
Cattlemen's Association. The story says that the company works with FoodOrigins,
a John Deere shared services company -- an umbrella company for tracing systems
involving several food groups.
BeefOrigins is a market-driven, voluntary system in which producers own and
control data. Besides being a tool for producers to capitalize regulatory
compliance -- country-of-origin labeling or national identification system -- it
also will be a way to record cattle health and management information and relate
that to feedlot performance and carcass grade.
Edleman was quoted as saying, "We feel we've put together a system that's
dual-purpose -- not only government compliance but value traceability. The
producer controls who gets to see it and decide whether to send data on to the
next guy, depending on the market relationship. And it's all handled
electronically. We're the first beef system like this to go online."
Edleman was further cited as saying that carcass data collected over 12 years
showed them they had excellent genetics quality, adding, "It got to the
point where we weren't getting enough of a premium" for that quality. Now,
the Edlemans retain ownership, market and work directly with packers. They put
their calves in feedlots in eastern South Dakota.
Most of the feedlots run 3,000 to 5,000 head. They've also sold a number of
replacement heifers, marketed privately off of the ranch. As his cow-calf
operation has grown, Edleman has taken leadership positions in the industry.
He's become chairman of the South Dakota Cattleman's Association Cattle ID
committee. He's a member of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Cattle ID
subcommittee. He's also chairman of the state association's cow-calf council.
Canadian
dairy industry milking consumers
December 11, 2003
From a press release
OTTAWA - The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) will soon decide whether Canadians
should pay more for dairy products in 2004. Canadian
consumers say, "NO MORE", and demand that the CDC cease acting as a
puppet of the dairy lobby.
Canadian dairy farmers, presently receive higher prices than their counterparts
in other countries. They are the most profitable of all farmers in Canada. There
is no reason for a price increase when these producers are already highly paid.
"The current regulated pricing system allows dairy producers to collect an
extra $100. per Canadian household this year," says Bruce Cran, President
of the Consumers' Association of Canada. "Canadian dairy producers receive
almost $2.5 billion dollars as Canadian consumers pay higher than the world
average price for milk products."
Under supply management, the dairy industry has monopolistic control over the
price and supply of dairy ingredients, and consumers have no protection from
ever-increasing prices. The average dairy farm makes a profit margin of 25% --
double that of the average Canadian farm and triple that of the average Canadian
business, according to Statistics Canada.
The cost of producing milk continues to fall while prices continue to rise.
Increased efficiencies and savings are not being passed on to consumers. This is
not how regulated industries are supposed to work. The role of the Canadian
Dairy Commission is to protect both the interests of the producers and
consumers, not to act as the puppet of the producers.
In both 1995 and 2000 the Auditor General found that the Canadian Dairy
Commission was operating in violation to the CDC Act, by not convening a
Consultative Committee of broad industry representatives to provide advice on
production and marketing of dairy products. The Auditor General found that this
committee is essential to bring legitimacy to the price-setting process.
"Instead of heeding the advice of the Auditor General, the CDC has made a
unilateral decision to ensure even greater returns to producers by changing the
benchmarks, and finding new excuses to increase prices every year," says
Peggy Kirkeby, Vice President of the Consumers' Association. "The CDC is
ignoring its responsibility to Canadians and cannot be allowed to continue
making pricing decisions without public scrutiny or accountability."
The Consumer Association of Canada calls on Paul Martin's government to step in
and review the Canadian Dairy Commission's activities, and force them to comply
with their own regulations.
It's time the dairy industry stopped milking consumers.
Evaluating
the merits of straw and synthetic lagoon covers
December 11, 2003
Meristem Land and Science
www.meristem.com
Lethbridge, Alta.: The Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD)
AgTech Centre is helping livestock producers make the best
business decision when choosing between straw and synthetic lagoon covers.
"Essentially, both straw and synthetic lagoon covers are effective odour
management options," says Brian Sexton, AAFRD Project Manager.
"However, there are pros and cons of straw and synthetic covers that
producers across the Prairies must consider to make an informed decision."
In choosing a cover, producers must consider the cost, odour reduction, ease of
installation and ease of emptying the lagoon. Overall, research results and
experience show that a straw cover is, in many respects, a better economic
choice than a synthetic cover. On the other hand, a synthetic cover offers
'leave-it-and-forget-it,' low maintenance freedom.
"Economically, a straw cover might be a better choice because it's
generally constructed with on-farm supplies and equipment such as straw and a
bale processor," says Sexton. "A synthetic cover is expensive, and the
price keeps going up when you consider the cost of a fan and buying a
replacement cover every few years. Once it's on, though, there's little labour
until it's time to empty the lagoon. That's the trade-off."
The approximate cost for the covers, adds Sexton, is $0.02 per square foot for
straw and $0.65 to $0.95 per square foot for synthetic. He says that people
should keep in mind that a straw cover must be reapplied at least once per year
while a synthetic cover lasts for several years.
Synthetic covers are essentially a large tarpaulin made of different materials.
"Placing the synthetic cover over the lagoon is relatively easy," says
Sexton. "The cover is pulled over the lagoon and secured along the edges
with a heavy layer of soil. An exhaust fan is essential to remove the manure
gases forming underneath and create negative air pressure that holds the cover
tight to the manure surface. This helps the cover withstand high winds."
Applying a straw cover is typically done with a bale processor that can shoot
straw across the lagoon, up to 73 feet. Strategically placing straw on the
lagoon and relying on the wind to increase the distance is also an option, says
Sexton. Specialized bale processors, equipped with a blower, are available that
can achieve application distances up to 183 feet. The straw is applied either
directly on the lagoon's surface or on top of a straw flotation device, such as
polystyrene floats. In any case, it's imperative that the straw is applied
uniformly.
"Barley is the only straw effective enough for an unsupported cover. It
floats the best and lasts the longest. Also, the longer the stalk the better,
because shorter straw sinks," says Sexton. "With a flotation device a
lower grade straw could be used, because the straw is supported."
By using an initial straw cover eight to 10 inches thick, Sexton says
reapplication should be required only once per year, whether applying directly
to the lagoon's surface or on top of a flotation device. Reapplication of straw
may be required each year to repair thin or damaged areas. Reapplication
frequency also depends on how often the lagoon is agitated and emptied each
year. Typically, a total reapplication is required after the lagoon is emptied.
Both straw and synthetic covers are effective at odour control, but odour is
reduced in different ways and to varying degrees. "A straw cover reduces
odour by acting as a type of biofilter, trapping some of the odour and gas
particles. Odour is reduced significantly and consistently with straw, by about
75 percent, but it doesn't eliminate odour entirely," explains Sexton.
By completely sealing in gases, a synthetic cover reduces odour by about 95
percent. "It's safe to say that almost zero odour is emitted from a
synthetic cover, but each time gas makes its way to the exhaust fan and escapes,
a raw, concentrated odour the equivalent of an uncovered lagoon travels
downwind."
Producers must also consider emptying the lagoon. "With straw, it's
imperative that a good job of agitation is done before pump out," says
Sexton. "Chopper or trash pumps produce a fine end product that easily
flows through pipes. Straw not only plugs pumps, it can plug the manure
application nozzles and equipment."
With a synthetic cover, agitation is still required before emptying, but
plugging is not an issue. Wind is the issue, says Sexton. "There's
potential for wind ripping a synthetic cover when removing it for emptying the
lagoon."
The AgTech Centre is part of the Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
Agricultural Engineering Branch. Its mandate is to support all aspects of
agricultural sustainability.
Court
fines A & C Quinlan Fisheries Limited 1,000 for illegal labelling of fish
and orders forfeiture of product valued at 4,250
December 10, 2003
From a press release
MONCTON, NB - On December 10, 2003, in Provincial Court in Shelburne, Nova
Scotia, A & C Quinlan Fisheries Limited, a Nova Scotia fish processing
company, pled guilty to one charge of violating the Fish Inspection Regulations.
An investigation conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
determined that on or about June 13th , 2001, A & C Quinlan Fisheries
Limited unlawfully labelled as salted cod fish, fish product which contained
species other than cod, in violation of Section 27 of the Fish Inspection
Regulations.
Section 27 of the Fish Inspection Regulations states:
No person shall package any fish or mark or label any container of fish
in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive.
The Provincial Court of Nova Scotia fined the accused $1,000 and ordered the
forfeiture of product valued at approximately $4,250.
The CFIA is responsible for enforcing a number of Acts of Parliament in order to
deliver inspection and related services that contribute to improving the overall
integrity of the food safety, plant protection and animal health systems.
As part of its ongoing effort to increase awareness of CFIA's role in
encouraging compliance with the various Acts and Regulations, the CFIA issues
prosecution bulletins when a conviction is obtained.
Consultation
December 8, 2003
European Commission
Veterinary controls on live animals and animal products from third countries in
the context of the enlarged EU
Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/consultations/cons1_en.htm
Animal
feed safety
December 8, 2003
European Commission
Authorisation, marketing and labelling of feed additives
Updated at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/afs/authorisation/afs_authorisation_en.html
BSE
testing in cattle
December 8, 2003
European Commission
All documents in pdf format
BSE cases in cattle over the last 12 months(98KB) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/bse_12evol09-03_en.pdf
Cumulative table from January to September 2003(59KB) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/bse_cumul_09-03_en.pdf
BSE testing September 2003(58KB) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/bse_09-03_en.pdf
TSE
testing in sheep
December 8, 2003
European Commission
All documents in pdf format
TSE testing in sheep Cumulative table from January to September 2003(55KB)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/tse_sheep_cumul_09-03_en.pdf
TSE testing in sheep September 2003(54KB) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/tse_sheep_09-03_en.pdf
TSE
testing in goats
December 8, 2003
European Commission
All documents in pdf format
TSE testing in goats Cumulative table from January to September 2003(54KB)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/tse_goats_cumul_09-03_en.pdf
TSE testing in goats September 2003(54KB) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/testing/tse_goats_09-03_en.pdf
U
of M initiates multi-disciplinary hog manure fertilizer study
December 10, 2003
Farmscape (Episode 1402)
The University of Manitoba has kicked off a three year project to assess the
environmental implications of applying swine manure to pasture and the
nutritional value of the forage produced. The multi-disciplinary project got
underway this fall with site establishment and will examine the performance of
beef cattle grazed on pasture fertilized with hog manure. The work is being
funded through several agencies, including the federal greenhouse gas
initiative, the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative, MRAC and
livestock commodity groups. Dr. Kim Ominski, with the U of M's Department of
Animal Science, says the focus is productivity and environmental sustainability.
Clip-Dr. Kim Ominski-University of Manitoba
The departments that are involved include the Department of Animal Science, the
Department of Soil Science and the Department of Food Science. The project is to
examine the production associated with the application of hog manure on forage,
so we'll look not only at forage production but we'll look at animal response.
We also would like to examine the environmental sustainability of that practice.
When I say environmental sustainability, we're going to really focus our efforts
in three areas. One of them is looking at net greenhouse gas production. The
second one is looking at nutrient cycling in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus,
so what's happening to nutrients in the system. The last area that we're going
to look at in the environmental area is an examination of the potential for
either survival of pathogens or cycling of pathogens from one species to
another.
Dr. Ominski says several organizations, including the provincial departments of
Agriculture and Conservation, the livestock commodity groups, the Manitoba
Forage Council and PFRA are also involved in the research. She says the project
will be accessible as a demonstration site and is scheduled to continue until
2006 with a first report expected next fall. For Farmscape.Ca, I'm Bruce
Cochrane.
*Farmscape is a presentation of Sask Pork and Manitoba Pork Council
Pork
consumption overtakes lamb in Australia
December 10, 2003
Meatingplace.com
Eric Hanson
For the first time Australians will eat more pork than lamb, a new survey has
found.
A Roy Morgan poll taken in the September found pork accounted for 20.4 percent
of all meals served in Australia -- a 15 percent increase from the same quarter
last year.
The amount of lamb served dropped 1.4 percent to 18.2 percent, the survey found.
Both pork and lamb remained well behind beef, down 1.6 percent to 35.1 percent,
and chicken, up 0.2 percent to 21.6 percent.
Members of the lamb industry said Australians would return to lamb as soon as
high prices abated.
But a representative from Australian Pork Limited said the results showed people
were warming to the idea of increased pork in their diets.
Injectable
or implantable dosage form new animal drugs; Meloxicam
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68723-68724]
[DOCID:fr10de03-4]
21 CFR Part 522
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug
regulations to reflect approval of a new animal drug application
(NADA) filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. The NADA provides for use
of meloxicam injectable solution in dogs for the control of pain and
inflammation associated with osteoarthritis.
DATES: This rule is effective December 10, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie R. Berson, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-7540, e-mail: mberson@cvm.fda.gov.
Beef
promotion and research: Certification and nomination for the Cattlemen's Beef
Promotion and Research Board
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68857-68858]
[DOCID:fr10de03-31]
[No. LS-04-02]
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is accepting applications from State
cattle producer organizations or associations and general farm organizations, as
well as cattle or beef importer organizations, who desire to be certified to
nominate producers or importers for appointment to vacant positions on the
Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and
Research Board (Board). Organizations which have not previously been certified
that are interested in submitting nominations must complete and submit an
official application form to AMS. Previously certified organizations do not need
to reapply. Notice is also given that vacancies will occur on the Board and that
during a period to be established, nominations will be accepted from eligible
organizations and individual importers.
DATES: Applications for certification must be received by close of business
January 9, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Certification form as well as copies of the certification and
nomination procedures may be requested from Kenneth R. Payne,
Chief; Marketing Programs Branch, LS, AMS, USDA; STOP 0251-Room 2638-S; 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-0251. The form may also be found
on the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/beef/ls25.pdf
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs
Branch on 202/720-1115.
To subscribe to the html version of 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 Doug Powell
(replace animalnet-L with annettext to subscribe to the text version)
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
(replace animalnet-L with annettext to unsubscribe to the text version)
For more information about the AnimalNet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at: http://131.104.74.73:96/animalnet-archives.htm