AnimalNet March 22/09
UK: Fish
virus detected at third farm
US: Cat got
your fish?
FINLAND:
Salmonella spreads to more meat-producing farms
CAST issues
new report on sows in crates versus open pens
McDonald's
responds to cage-free controversy
OHIO: As a
result of Peanut Corporation of America's continued issues,
Scotts expands its voluntary wild bird food suet recall to
include an additional seven (7) products
how to
subscribe
UK: Fish
virus detected at third farm
22.mar.09
guardian.co.uk
Paul Kelbie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/22/shetland-salmon-farms-virus
Animal welfare groups have called for the whole of
Shetland's salmon farming industry to be placed under
quarantine after the presence of infectious salmon anaemia
(ISA) was confirmed on a third salmon farm.
The farm is close to those where ISA virus was detected on 2
January and 31 January. In line with the Scottish
government's objective of eradicating the outbreak, a
spokesman said the farm would be cleared of fish as soon as
possible by the farm owners, Hjaltland Seafarms Ltd, under
the supervision of the Fisheries Research Services.
US: Cat got
your fish?
22.mar.09
New York Times
Paul Greenberg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22greenberg.html?_r=2
Paul Greenberg, the author of a forthcoming book on the
future of fish, writes that his cat Coco died recently.
Coco, like most American cats, ate fish. And a great deal of
them — more in a year than the average African human,
according to Jason Clay at the World Wildlife Fund. And
unlike the chicken or beef Coco also gobbled up, all those
fish were wild animals, scooped out of the sea and flown
thousands of carbon-belching miles to reach his little blue
bowl.
The use of wild fish in animal feed is a serious problem for
the world’s food systems. Around a third of all wild fish
caught are “reduced” into fish meal and fish oil. And yet
most of the outrage about this is focused not on land-based
animals like Coco but on other fish — namely farm-raised
fish.
This is understandable. Ever since the Stanford economist
Rosamond Naylor concluded in a 2000 paper in the journal
Nature that it took three pounds of wild fish to provide
enough food to grow one pound of farmed salmon,
environmentalists have been apoplectic. They argue that the
removal of wild “forage” fish threatens to starve whales,
seals and other predators; that anchovies, mackerel and
other “pelagic forage fish” should be used to feed humans;
and that feed made from wild fish can give farm-raised fish
higher levels of contaminants. As a result of all these
issues, ocean preservationists have focused their ire on
salmon farming. But in doing so they diverted attention from
another problem of equal importance: the role played by
those land-based creatures that also put their muzzles in
the fish meal trough.
The pet food industry now uses about 10 percent of the
global supply of forage fish. The swine industry consumes 24
percent of fish meal and oil — fish oil being considered the
best way to wean piglets. Poultry meanwhile takes as much as
22 percent, which means that even when Coco ate chicken,
indirectly he was still eating fish. (It’s worth pointing
out, too, that the PCBs that concentrate in farmed salmon
similarly concentrate in pigs and chickens. A PCB is the
same persistent carcinogen no matter what form of flesh
delivers it to the human digestive tract.)
Meanwhile, the aquaculture industry has taken the criticisms
levied against it seriously. Through a combination of
selective breeding of more efficient animals, the use of
fish meal substitutes from soy, and greater efforts to
retrieve uneaten pellets of fish meal at fish farms, the
ratio of pounds of wild fish required for a pound of farmed
salmon has dropped considerably since 2004. Yes, the overall
number of salmon being farmed and the subsequent demand for
wild fish meal from salmon farmers are rising, but they are
clearly striving toward some kind of smaller footprint at
least on an impact-per-animal basis.
I am not advocating the salmon industry be given a free
pass. It still has work to do, particularly with limiting
the escape of those efficient, selectively bred farmed fish
into the wild. But salmon naturally eat other fish, while
terrestrial livestock and pets eat them because humans have
deemed it commercially expedient.
If we are serious about curtailing our impact on the oceans,
we should insist that land-based farm animals stick to
land-grown feed. Some moves in this direction have already
taken place. The United States’ national organics standards
now require producers to keep fish meal use to a minimum.
But limiting terrestrial use of fish meal in our country is
not enough. Fish meal and oil are now a booming
international commodity. The rising demand, particularly
from Asia, is fueling a perilous trend to “reduce” bigger
and more valuable wild fish into pig, chicken and fish feed.
If we are to stop this devastating practice, we must step up
our research to find alternatives. Indeed, the Obama
administration, in search of “shovel ready” projects for the
forthcoming stimulus package, would be well advised to
consider programs like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s research initiative to develop fish meal
and oil substitutes from algae, agricultural byproducts and
other nonfish sources. No doubt the swine and poultry
industries will claim that fish substitutes are too far off
and that cutting out fish meal and fish oil is not
economically feasible. But similar arguments were once made
by the agricultural interests that relied on whales for
fertilizer.
As for pets like Coco, alternatives already exist. Several
companies now make vegan cat food, though owners of vegan
cats find they must supplement their pets’ diets with
Vitamin A, Vitamin B12, niacin and other nutrients. But
those who feel a vegan cat goes against nature (so says the
A.S.P.C.A.) might rethink a pet’s potential footprint before
acquiring one.
A carnivore, be it a cat, a dog or a salmon, is a heavy
burden for the environment and should not be brought under
human care lightly. In my family, this has become a topic of
debate as we consider our next animal. Coco was an
interesting and unique creature, and I argue that he cannot
be replaced. To me, a vegetarian substitute is seeming more
and more appealing. Lately, I’ve had my eye on a guinea pig.
.
FINLAND:
Salmonella spreads to more meat-producing farms
21.mar.09
YLE
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/03/salmonella_spreads_to_more_meat-producing_farms_630997.html
The salmonella epidemic is still expanding. The food safety
board Evira said on Saturday that new cases had been found
at four more piggeries and one more egg farm.
The latest findings bring those totals to six and 20
respectively. Four of the pig farms are located in
Ostrobothnia and two further east in the Häme region.
In addition, another strain of salmonella has been found at
five meat-producing chicken farms in Ostrobothnia, western
Finland. The strain found at these poultry farms is the
Salmonella Montevideo. The type found at the pig and egg
farms and in fodder sold by Raisio Feeds Ltd is Salmonella
Tennessee.
CAST issues
new report on sows in crates versus open pens
20.mar.09
Brownfield Network
Ken Anderson
http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=25571F2A-5056-B82A-D0942EFC65FCF574
A new report from the Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology—CAST—concludes there are no scientific
differences in the welfare of pregnant sows kept in
individual crates versus those housed in group pens.
The use of gestation crates is one of the big issues in the
animal welfare/animal rights debate. Animal scientist Dr.
Stanley Curtis of the University of Illinois chaired the
task force that reviewed the issue. He says systems using
crates and those using open pens each have their own
advantages and drawbacks.
“Well, what we found out was that sows can—in well-designed
and operated crates, and in well-designed and operated group
pens—they can get along okay,” Curtis says. “There are
pluses and drawbacks to both crates and pens, and it’s just
about six of one and a half-dozen of the other, as the
saying goes.
“The bottom line is that there is no scientific basis for
any claim that keeping sows in pens is better for the
sow—overall—than keeping her in crates,” he says
But Curtis says reverting to open pens for pregnant sows, as
some animal rights groups advocate, would have a huge impact
on the business of producing pork for human consumption. He
says the costs of remodeling, or building new facilities,
would be high.
“Moreover, it’s going to be more costly to produce them
because you really do need more help,” Curtis says, “More
caretakers, more barn workers to take care of sows that are
in groups than when they are in crates.”
In preparing its report, the nine-member international task
force considered sow behavior, health, nutrition and
feeding, reproduction, and manure management. The issue
paper suggests that more large-scale and “scientifically
robust” research is needed before rigid regulations are
imposed on the pork industry.
McDonald's
responds to cage-free controversy
20.mar.09
QSR Magazine
http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/news/story.phtml?id=8309
On March 19, QSR ran "Humane Society Asks McDonald's to
Catch up to Its Competitors."
McDonald's responded with the following statement:
McDonald's is committed to animal welfare and has a
recognized track record of making a difference in this area,
working with independent experts, organizations, and
suppliers.
We are constantly working with suppliers and experts to seek
what additional sustainable steps we can take. With eggs,
that means we source from suppliers with high standards and
continuous improvement efforts on food safety, environmental
protection, worker well-being, and responsible animal
welfare practices.
OHIO: As a
result of Peanut Corporation of America's continued issues,
Scotts expands its voluntary wild bird food suet recall to
include an additional seven (7) products
20.mar.09
The Scotts Company LLC
http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-20-2009/0004992227&EDATE=
MARYSVILLE, Ohio -- The Scotts Company LLC ("Company")
announced today an expansion of the voluntary wild bird food
suet recall. The expanded voluntary recall will include an
additional seven (7) varieties of wild bird food suet
products and additional manufacturing date codes of the five
(5) varieties previously recalled. These additional products
may contain peanut meal from the Peanut Corporation of
America's ("PCA") facilities in either Texas or Virginia,
and have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.
Cereal Byproducts Company ("CBC"), the Company's broker,
supplied the Company with the peanut meal from these
locations.
Salmonella can affect animals and there is risk to humans
from handling contaminated bird seed and/or pet food
products. People handling wild bird food can become infected
with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly
washed their hands after having contact with the product or
any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people
infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some
or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain,
eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers
exhibiting these signs after having contact with this
product should contact their healthcare providers.
Due to this expanded recall, the Company has requested that
its retailers, distributors, sub-distributors, and
distributors' retailers recall the affected products with
the lot codes specifically set forth below, forward all
recall communications down the distribution chain, remove
these products from retail shelves or warehouses, and return
them to the Company. In addition, the Company has again
requested that those parties that sell the affected products
respond to consumer questions by telling them to throw the
product away, avoid touching unsealed product with bare
hands, and wash their hands thoroughly after touching
unsealed product.
At this time, the Company has not received any reports of
illness involving its products that may contain PCA peanut
meal, and it is no longer obtaining or using any peanut
products from PCA-owned facilities. Nonetheless, the Company
announced the expanded recall of the following products
manufactured between May 13, 2008 and February 8, 2009, with
the specific manufacturing date codes below:
Product Description UPC # Recalled Lot/
Manufacturing
Date Code
Morning Song Nutty Safari 0-86155-01110-8 12-01-08
Suet 12-03-08
01-23-09
02-05-09
Morning Song Raisin Crunch 0-86155-20600-9 05-13-08
Suet 05-21-08
05-28-08
02-05-09
Morning Song Variety 15 PK 0-86155-22291-7 08-04-08
Suet 08-06-08
08-07-08
08-08-08
08-12-08
10-17-08
10-21-08
Morning Song Variety 3 PK 0-86155-22388-4 05-22-08
Suet
Morning Song Woodpecker 0-86155-22304-4 01-13-09
Suet 01-19-09
Scotts Multi-Bird Suet 0-86155-22813-1 05-13-08
w/Fruits & Nuts
Scotts Woodpecker Suet 0-86155-22810-0 11-20-08
11-21-08
Royal Wing Woodpecker Suet 7-49394-00332-6 11-13-08
11-19-08
Royal Wing Peanut Suet 7-49394-00333-3 08-05-08
11-05-08
11-18-08
11-21-08
01-28-09
02-05-09
Royal Wing Raisin Suet 7-49394-00336-4 05-14-08
02-05-09
02-08-09
Morning Melodies Nutty 0-86155-22147-7 08-05-08
Safari Suet
Morning Melodies Variety 0-86155-22124-8 11-10-08
Suet 3CT 12-01-08
12-12-08
The Company's "No Quibble" guarantee highlights the
Company's commitment to quality and satisfaction. To receive
a replacement product or refund for any of the recalled wild
bird food suet products, consumers can contact the Company's
customer service department at 1-866-512-8876, or at
www.scottswildbirdfood.com.
The Scotts Company LLC and Gutwein & Co, Inc., manufacturers
of the recalled wild bird food suet products, are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company.
The recalled products represent less than $500,000 of
revenue, or about 0.5 percent of the Company's annual sales,
generated from its bird food business. The recall is not
expected to impact the financial outlook of
ScottsMiracle-Gro in fiscal 2009. Further, the Company has
filed a lawsuit against CBC and is analyzing possible legal
recourse against PCA and PCA's insurers to recover the costs
associated with the recall.
Animalnet is produced by
the International Food Safety Network at Kansas State
University, and is supported at the Gold Fork level by:
Marler Clark.
Animalnet is supported at the Sterling Fork level by:
CropLife Canada, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs , New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Monsanto
Canada, and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association.
Animalnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level by:
The National Pork Board, The National Restaurant
Association, Unilever, Sholl Group/Green Giant Fresh,
Feedlot Health Management Services, McDonald's, and Syngenta
Crop Protection Canada.
The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to
bring together all those associated with agriculture and
food, to enhance the safety of the food supply. To provide
financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/en/donations.php. For
information on collaboration or fee-for-service
opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell:
dpowell@ksu.edu
To subscribe to the html version of AnimalNet, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe animalnet firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe animalnet Doug Powell
(replace animalnet with annettext to subscribe to the text
version)
To unsubscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff animalnet
(replace animalnet with annettext to unsubscribe to the text
version)
For more information about the AnimalNet research program,
please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
associate professor
dept. diagnostic medicine/pathobiology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
66506
cell: 785-317-0560
fax: 785-532-4039
dpowell@ksu.edu
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
archived at:
http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/animalnet-archives.htm
|
|