# Canadian Beef



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2004)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104350989316_99760189?hub=topstories

Looks like the border is reopening finally.


----------



## X Royal (30 Dec 2004)

[quote author=Ex-Dragoon ]
Looks like the border is reopening finally.
[/quote]

*CEASE FIRE - UNLOAD*
BAD NEWS just heard on the news this morning a 10 year old dairy cow has tested positive for mad cow disease. All preliminary tests show positive results and they are just waiting for final confirmation.
It'll start all over again.


----------



## brin11 (30 Dec 2004)

Let's wait for the final test results to come back shall we?  Almost always the initial test results are disproven by the tissue tests.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2004)

Thought I heard they've done a few tests already, they were all positive. If I didn't know better, I'd say someone had this thing on ice till they lifted the sanctions. Rolled it out, thawed it and said " Woops, still got mad cow here!!". :

Sherwood,

Surely there's some problems down there (up there from here). Maybe it's not recognised is all. Just the other day I heard a lefty say you were all mad there. ;D


----------



## Eowyn (30 Dec 2004)

X Royal said:
			
		

> *CEASE FIRE - UNLOAD*
> BAD NEWS just heard on the news this morning a 10 year old dairy cow has tested positive for mad cow disease. All preliminary tests show positive results and they are just waiting for final confirmation.
> It'll start all over again.



I hope not.   The CFIA had informed the USDA of the potential positive before the USDA made their announcement yesterday.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/30/mad-cow-cfia041230.html

OTTAWA - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency expects the U.S. to go ahead with plans to reopen the border to live cattle from Canada despite tests suggesting another Canadian cow may have been infected with mad cow disease. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Wednesday that it would reopen the border to live cattle less than 30 months old and a wider variety of cuts of beef beginning March 7. 

Before they made that announcement, Canadian officials told their U.S. counterparts that a suspect case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy was working its way through the Canadian system, Dr. Gary Little of the CFIA said at a media briefing on Thursday morning.

The CFIA issued a news release about the suspected new case early Thursday morning. 

Little said the suspect cow was detected through the national surveillance program and the finding was "not unexpected." 

Recent case a 10-year-old cow 

Canada has operated on the assumption that there was probably some low-level exposure to BSE in North America, and that some cases are likely to be found among older cows, such as this most recent case. 

A 10-year-old cow from Alberta was identified as a "downer," or a cow that can't walk, when it died earlier this month, and a local veterinarian took samples on Dec. 17 so it could be tested for BSE. 

After screening tests in Edmonton on Dec. 28 and Dec. 29 showed consistent "non-negative" results, the samples were sent to the centre for human and animal health in Winnipeg for definitive testing. 

Little insisted the diagnosis isn't conclusive until the final test, the results of which are expected in two to four days. 

Should the final test show the cow had BSE, the CFIA will launch a focused investigation into the cow's history. 

Early warning unique 

Canadian officials said they normally wouldn't publicly release results until the disease had been confirmed, but felt the U.S. plans warranted the early warning. 

"Given the unique situation created by the United States' border announcement ... it was decided that the most prudent action would be to publicly announce the available information and provide stakeholders with a full understanding of the current situation," the agency said. 


FROM DEC. 29, 2004: Reopening of border to cattle 'a long time coming' say Canadian ranchers 

The department recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE, in part because of measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease. 

Canadian ranchers and feedlot operators reacted with relief to the change, which would allow live animals under 30 months old and a wider variety of cuts of beef to be shipped south. 

Their industry plunged into crisis when the Americans imposed the ban in May 2003, after a single case of BSE showed up in Alberta. 

USDA downplays new case 

A USDA spokesperson said on Thursday the new test results weren't likely to have any impact on the plans to reopen the border. 

A Canadian cattle industry official also said he doubts the new case would cause problems. 

"Early indications are things will continue to move ahead," said Dennis Laycraft, executive director of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. 

The Canadian agency said no part of the animal suspected of having the disease entered the human-food or animal-feed chains. 

Little also pointed out a positive case wouldn't indicate that mad cow disease is spreading in Canada. The suspect cow was born before many of the rules were implemented to stop the spread, such as the 1997 ban on animal products in feed


----------



## Eowyn (30 Dec 2004)

IIRC, they did 1 rapid BSE test in Edmonton, when it came back non-negative, they confirmed with a second rapid BSE test.  When that came back non-negative, they have sent the samples to Winnipeg for the more comprehensive test.

Sherwood, this cow is 10 years old.  The feed ban came into effect in 1997 (IIRC).  Things have changed a lot since then.

I agree with Brin, let's wait until confirmation from Winnipeg.  Also there was a similar situation in the US not so long ago, where the rapid tests came back with non-negative, but the comprehensive was negative.


----------



## McGowan (30 Dec 2004)

being a meat cutter, having the borders closed has been crazy for us...luckly i'm done cutting meat


----------



## Big Foot (31 Dec 2004)

whats the big deal of one 10 year old DAIRY cow having mad cow? you can't get mad cow from drinking mad cow milk and i dunno about you, but i sure as hell don't plan on eating a dairy cow. thing never would have gotten into the food chain so as far as i'm concerned, its no big deal. as well, as eowyn mentioned, the cow predates the feed ban. up till '97, cow feed could be made up of recycled cows, some of which had BSE, thus possibly infecting the cows that ate the feed. but as i said before, theres no mad cow milk. milk is milk, and last time i checked, milk was all dairy cows were good for, you don't eat 'em.


----------



## devil39 (31 Dec 2004)

I guess it is our fault for not doing the "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up".


----------



## X Royal (31 Dec 2004)

I hope I'm wrong but this gives the US beef industry(beef producers & meat packers) ammunition to push for further restrictions. Their lobbyists just have not had time to exploit this yet. The US beef producers want to protect their territory and the meat packers are making a killing off the current situation. By the way all the large Canadian meat packing houses are US owned and also reaping in the profits. Farmers receive far less than they should get but the consumers are not paying less so who's winning?

Hoping I'm Wrong


----------



## X Royal (31 Dec 2004)

[quote author=Big Foot]
 i dunno about you, but i sure as heck don't plan on eating a dairy cow. thing never would have gotten into the food chain so as far as i'm concerned, its no big deal. 

 and last time i checked, milk was all dairy cows were good for, you don't eat 'em.
[/quote]

Check again.
What do you think they do with them. They are used for hamburger and other processed meats. Just go to a beef auction and see the animals the packing houses that specialize in burgers and processed meats bid on. Top line steers don't get ground up for the burger chains.


----------



## mo-litia (31 Dec 2004)

devil39 said:
			
		

> I guess it is our fault for not doing the "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up".



If more people had done this . . .


----------



## Storm (2 Jan 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> I guess it is our fault for not doing the "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up".



That sounds about right...

I trust the beef up here more than the stuff from down south.


----------



## Dogboy (2 Jan 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> I guess it is our fault for not doing the "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up".



no its our fault for feeding cows, cow or chikin or pig or anything
cows eat grass not animals and the whole BSE crises around the world would not have ever hapend if man did not feed animals stuff there not supost to  eat


----------



## devil39 (2 Jan 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> no its our fault for feeding cows, cow or chikin or pig or anything
> cows eat grass not animals and the whole BSE crises around the world would not have ever hapend if man did not feed animals stuff there not supost to   eat



Right.   And that has been recognized and we now have animal feed laws to avoid this.   My argument would be that this is likely happening in many more countries around the world, including the US, but we are very honest and report it.   As it should be I guess.

Farmers used to feed cattle animal byproducts to increase the weight and growth of the animal, and thus the profit.   It can be very hard to make a living today as a farmer.   It is a business, just like manufacturing, sales, or professional sports.   Any shortcut will do unfortunately.


----------



## dutchie (5 Jan 2005)

My 4 points:

1)- This cow was a 10 year old family pet, not a dairy cow for commercial use.

2)- 2 positive tests in millions of head of cattle is pretty good in  my books.

3)- We should not, and do not, feed ground up bovine to bovines anymore.....supposedly.

4)- Incredibly, when baby cattle are born from dairy cows, they are fed the blood of slaughtered cattle and not their mother's milk as it is too valuable. This gives them the protein and nutrients required for growth. I guess there is no risk of bsc doing that, but my god, that's pretty disturbing! No baby should never, ever, be forced to drink blood for sustenance. I don't care if it's cow, chicken, dog, or human, that's just not right. Profits be damned, the little buggers should be eating from the teat, not a blood trough! I read this in an article about this new case in the Vancouver Sun about a week ago.....


----------



## brin11 (6 Jan 2005)

> Incredibly, when baby cattle are born from dairy cows, they are fed the blood of slaughtered cattle and not their mother's milk as it is too valuable. This gives them the protein and nutrients required for growth.



Where have you heard this from?   Being in the veterinary world I have never heard of this practice and certainly never witnessed any such thing growing up on a dairy farm.   Calves are indeed not fed their mother's milk as its used to sell to you and the public but the calves are fed a milk substitute with colostrum added at the beginning if necessary.

Edit to add:   the blood I think you are referring to is dried serum which provides the colostrum for a calf that either hasn't nursed from mom or hasn't received enough antibodies against disease in the first 24 hours.   Think of it as an oral vaccination.   Calves are certainly not fed whole blood!


----------



## condor888000 (6 Jan 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> BUT< WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND HAS A COW AS A PET?


My uncle, my 3 cousins, my great-uncle, multiple friends of the family, and my mother did as well when she was a kid as well as 3 cats and anywhere up to 5 dogs at one time. Only two of which were ever allowed in the house. The cows stayed in the barns...


----------



## Goober (6 Jan 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> caesar,
> I agree with you totally!  I think it is disgusting.....we never did anything like that on our farm.  Granted we only had 50 cows and only 10 dairy cattle but my lord....what were the farmers thinking??????
> 
> BUT< WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND HAS A COW AS A PET?



I grew up in Sydney NS, a city of 30,000 and some crazy old lady in my neighbourhood had a skinny old cow for a pet(in the middle of the city), it had the signature cow bell around its neck and she took it for walks up and down the street. Pretty funny actually. Your question just made me think of that. Ahh good times...


----------



## dutchie (6 Jan 2005)

I read it in the Vancouver Sun about a week ago...can't find the article on the cumbersome global.com site, but found this article on a google search.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/news-ng.asp?id=51540-us-fears-over

a quote from the article:

"However, *Canada has not banned the feeding of cow blood to calves*, even though some scientists believe this practice is a potential method for spreading mad cow disease. Safeway claims that it only purchases a small quantity of beef products from Canada, and that all of it meets strict federal requirements for food safety."

I had to read the article (in the Sun) three times to make sure I had it right, so I know I wasn't just misreading it. As well, I suppose I shouldn't believe everything I read, but I did find a lot on the net regarding this practice.

Pretty sad, really.


----------



## brin11 (6 Jan 2005)

Actually, its not sad at all.  Other than possible links with transmitting disease its a common practice in many species.  They even do it with humans who lose their mother at birth.  These blood proteins (antibodies) are transmitted by the mother's milk and help to protect against disease early in life.  Ingesting proteins that are found in serum and mixed into a milk replacer are alot different than making little calves drink whole blood.


----------



## dutchie (6 Jan 2005)

I hope your right.....the article I read, and everything else I read, didn't mention serem as opposed to whole blood, so I just assumed these poor buggers were getting troughs full of blood mixed with feed. The image of a baby calf with a red milk moustache was a little frightening!

I'll take your word for it brin, and see if I can't do some poking around the net to confirm what your saying. How do you account for a lack of ban on feeding blood to calves, as indicated in the article? Are you totally sure that that isn't happening? (on a large scale, not some isolated incident of course).

Does anyone else know anything about this?


----------



## FSTO (6 Jan 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I hope your right.....the article I read, and everything else I read, didn't mention serem as opposed to whole blood, so I just assumed these poor buggers were getting troughs full of blood mixed with feed. The image of a baby calf with a red milk moustache was a little frightening!
> 
> I'll take your word for it brin, and see if I can't do some poking around the net to confirm what your saying. How do you account for a lack of ban on feeding blood to calves, as indicated in the article? Are you totally sure that that isn't happening? (on a large scale, not some isolated incident of course).
> 
> Does anyone else know anything about this?


You must remember that these "articles" are written by people who have little or no understanding of agriculutre. They hear that blood is fed to calves and automatically they write this as fact instead of visiting several different farms throughout the country to see this practice with their own eyes. Qutie similar to the many stories written on the armed forces.


----------



## dutchie (6 Jan 2005)

Agreed. But I am a little wary of accepting that this doesn't happen when I do a google search and find no mention of serem only, but lots on 'calves fed blood of cattle'. 

On one hand, there's the old saying "don't believe everything you read", but on the other hand, "where there's moke, there's fire".

Which is it? Am I having terrible luck (or ineptitude) while searching for the truth? Or is this one of those practices that is not really talked about?

I'll keep looking, but if there is anyone out there with first hand, recent experience on a dairy farm/veal farm, I'd love to find out the truth.


----------



## FSTO (6 Jan 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Agreed. But I am a little wary of accepting that this doesn't happen when I do a google search and find no mention of serem only, but lots on 'calves fed blood of cattle'.
> 
> On one hand, there's the old saying "don't believe everything you read", but on the other hand, "where there's moke, there's fire".
> 
> ...


though I was not raised on a dairy farm,(purebred Hereford cattle is what I raised) I think that the logistics of collecting and distributing the blood from slaughtered animals to all of the dairy farms in a certain areas is quite beyond any cost recovery for the company involved. Also, there would have to be the blood tanker trucks going to the dairy farms. The only tanker trucks I have seen are the milk trucks, no way are they carrying both. On top of that I have never heard of this story before. Are you sure that the sponsers of this nonsense are not called PETA?


----------



## brin11 (6 Jan 2005)

My stepfather is still a dairy farmer at this very moment and I can assure you he (and all the farmers in the surrounding area) do not feed troughs of blood to calves.   Its ridiculous.

Serum IS blood, it is the liquid part of blood after it has been allowed to clot and then removed from the cellular components.   As I mentioned before, it is a small amount of dried serum that is fed in a milk replacer to calves when they are first born.   Eventually, they are switched to simply milk replacer as they are, hopefully, protected from disease by these antibodies and/or vaccinated in the conventional way for such things as Scours, for example.

Most dairy calves that are not deemed worthy of keeping for the next generation on a dairy farm (male calves, bad conformation or cross breed calves) are raised by the farmer or sold to another party to be raised as veal.   These calves are fed a milk diet which is why veal is so pale compared to adult beef.   Also, they are usually not allowed much exercise as they are kept in rows of calf "houses" and are not allowed to roam in a field.

Even the practice of feeding herbivores rendered animal parts, while being an avenue to introduce disease to a herd, is not what many people think when they hear about the practice.   Animal protein in small amounts is dried and ground up and put into feed.   You would never know there was animal protein in it to look at it.   They are not eating steaks and roasts of their brethren.

edited to add this link:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/blood010904.cfm


----------



## dutchie (7 Jan 2005)

Thanks brin......I was aware, BTW, that animal protien fed to cattle/herbivores was not big chunks of meat, but rather ground up 'meal'.....what   I was concerned about was the one article I read in the Sun, and the subsequent articles on the net that had no mention of serem (which again, I am aware is part of blood), but lots of mention of 'blood'. Refering to serem as blood in an article is irresponsible and sensationalism, and ethically wrong...but I digress. 

I was also careful to avoid reading articles from obvious lobbyist groups from the animal rights sector out of suspicion of bias to the point of misinformation.

I guess we've beaten this dead horse, no pun intended, but on a slightly different track, what do you (and others) think of feading herbivores rendered animals of any kind?


----------



## Horse_Soldier (7 Jan 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I guess we've beaten this dead horse, no pun intended, but on a slightly different track, what do you (and others) think of feading herbivores rendered animals of any kind?



How would you feel about eating some yummy Solyent Green?  'Nuff said...


----------



## dutchie (7 Jan 2005)

What is 'solyent green'?


----------



## Horse_Soldier (7 Jan 2005)

Sorry, that should have been *Soylent* Green  :-[

It's the title of a 1973 movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/ wherein the punch line is "Soylent Green is people"  i.e. the miraculous foodstuff fed to the masses is actually made with rendered humans.  In other words, my point was that a cow would feel the same horror at being fed the remains of its own kind as we would be.


----------



## dutchie (7 Jan 2005)

Here, here.

Feeding animals to herbivores is wrong (especially feeding hebivores their own kind) -   profits or even survivability of individual farming business be damned. 

I know I'll catch flak for that, but I won't hide my strong opinion on this. 

BTW, I am an avid meat eater, but I won't eat humans. So I don't expect my food to eat their own so I can have cheap steak/chicken/eggs/pork/etc.


----------



## FSTO (7 Jan 2005)

I am very much against this practice. My family have never done this, never will and with the current price of cattle in the tank, it is too expensive (in the beef industry) use prepared feed (with or without animal protien supplements) to feed out slaughter cattle.


----------



## brin11 (7 Jan 2005)

I'm opposed to the practice simply because its an avenue to disease, which has been demonstrated with BSE.   The practice itself is simply not abhorrent to cattle.   They really don't seem to care one way or the other what they're eating as long as it arrives in time every day.   Obviously, due to their digestive system, they are classified as herbivores and, if given the choice, will eat plant material only.   As we know, there are many humans out there who refuse to eat any animal material even though humans are classified as omnivores.   They are not fulfilling their digestive destiny either.

Anyway, Caesar, I wasn't targeting you with my lumps of flesh comment.   Simply trying to make a point that the mental image that people get when they read/hear something is not always what is really happening.


----------



## dutchie (7 Jan 2005)

Agreed, Brin, and that's why if what your saying is correct, and calves are only fed serem, and not blood, it's pretty irresponsible to state 'blood'.

I am against feeding livestock anything that is not natural for them to eat. It doesn't have to be 'organic', but if cattle are intended to eat grass, grain, and the like, that is all they should be fed. As far as: "They really don't seem to care one way or the other what they're eating as long as it arrives in time every day." Just because they'll eat it doesn't mean we should feed it to them. I don't think you were necessarily saying the opposite, but I thought I'd address that anyhow. I'm pretty sure if I fed my daughter human meat without telling her what it was, she would eat it....of course that's pretty sick, but the principle is the same, albeit more extreme. 

Animals that eat other animals, no problem - feed them as much meat as they should have. 

Re:"I'm opposed to the practice simply because its an avenue to disease, which has been demonstrated with BSE." - I agree, but I come at from the opposite angle. I am opposed to it for ethical reasons stated above. I feel that the immoral practice of feeding herbivores food they would never choose to eat in the wild, thus causing wicked diseases is a sign that the practice is a perversion of the natural order, if you will. It serves us right for putting profit ahead of humanitarian practices, fairness, common decency, and above all, common sense.


----------



## Armymedic (7 Jan 2005)

I grew up on a farm where we raised purebred Polled Herefords. The animals not quality enough to be kept as breeding stock we sold for beef. 

To raise good beef producing animals, you need to feed them protein enhanced feed. The protein supplements (I remember from way back growing up) were soy based from a feed making company.

I do not recall any beef producer making his own feed, but mixing grain, hay, and straw with commercially mixed feed form a feed maker...

So I think the proper question at the beginning of the thread should read, "What are the feed companies putting into the food that CDN Farmers are feeding their cows?"


----------



## brin11 (8 Jan 2005)

Armymedic,

Yes, soy is an excellent form of protein for cattle and very widely used, as are others.  Unfortunately, meat based protein is a cheaper, more readily available alternative which is why some will use it instead.  

Caesar, you make a good point on the ethics of this issue.  Just because an animal would not or is incapable of having a negative opinion on eating something it isn't designed to eat doesn't mean it should be done.  Since we should be the advocate for animals (since we are raising them and eating them for our pleasure) it is our responsibility that we think about and discuss these ethical issues and agree on what is a responsible practice of feeding our herds.

Cheers.


----------



## Rushrules (9 Jan 2005)

The Japanese test every slaughtered animal, but they still come up positives every year.  If we were to do the same, it'll certainly be more expensive (one test costs $100 or so/animal), but that's something the Gov't should pick up the tab for (much like current aquaculture testing) since they allowed this to happen in the first place.  But, since the market is opening up again, the same crap will go on.

The processors are the ones making money off this, since the price of beef at the market is the same (or more) since the ban was in place, but the farmers are still losing money. 

We still feed rendered bovine material to poultry, and vice versa.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Jan 2005)

And occasional even feeding them the "right" foods may be a bad thing...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1105363247324_1?hub=Canada

_More than 150 cattle have been found dead on a central Alberta feedlot, and the veterinarian who is investigating the case says the cows were incorrectly fed, causing their ultimately death.

The dead animals were found over the weekend, just days after the feedlot was seized by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. 

Veterinarian Kee Jim says the cause of death appears to be acute carbohydrate ingestion -- a massive stomach ache that proves to be fatal as the cattle eat too much grain. The cows were fed too rich a mixture of barley, causing their stomachs to become bloated and killing them. 

About 20 more bloated and distressed cattle were euthanized over the weekend.

The feedlot with about 6,500 head of cattle had been struggling under the BSE crisis and had fallen under creditor protection. 

The operation was transferred last week from the former owners to the receivers, Deloitte and Touche, which hired a company to manage the feedlot. _


----------



## dutchie (10 Jan 2005)

Yikes! They ate so much their stomachs literally exploded!

Poor buggers.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Jan 2005)

Rereading the thread, I failed to see anyone mention a important scientific fact...

The prions (viral bits) that contributes to the cause of "mad cow" disease in cattle, naturally occurs in 1 in approx every 1 000 000 animals. Knowing this, and knowing there are over 3 million head of cattle in Canada, it stands to reason that Cdn cattle producers will grow cattle naturally affected by Bovine spongiform encephalopthy. And regardless of feed bans etc, this disease will still continue to develop around the world.


----------



## brin11 (11 Jan 2005)

Armymedic,  

could you elaborate a bit on your last post?  How does a viral disease naturally occur??


----------



## X Royal (11 Jan 2005)

More fuel for the fire. Just heard on a news update another animal tested positive in Alberta. The animal is reported to be under 7 years old & after feed changes were put in effect. It sounds like it may have been feed older feed. Waiting for a more complete report on the news.


----------



## X Royal (11 Jan 2005)

Armymedic:
 Your last post has just been confirmed again. See related thread in Current Affairs & News.

Not Good  News


----------



## Armymedic (11 Jan 2005)

Sorry, I am not the veterinarian in the family, that would be my brother, who specializes in large animal medicine. But this is what I heard from him (I will call and confirm). I know that it does occur spontaneously in sheep and goats, and diseases, previously unknown, as such may develop in other species. With todays news release, about a animal born after the feed ban, this may be more then just a theory...

Here, from some research, is excepts from the Veterinarian Merck manual. 

http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/100200.htm&hide=1

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Introduction 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a progressive, fatal, neurologic disease of adult domestic cattle that resembles scrapie of sheep and goats ( Scrapie: Introduction); it was first diagnosed in Britain in 1986. 

BSE has been transmitted experimentally to mice, pigs, sheep, goats, and marmosets. During the epidemic of BSE in Great Britain, small numbers of cases of spongiform encephalopathy occurred in six species of captive bred ungulates (nyala, gemsbok, eland, arabian oryx, kudu, and scimitar oryx) and in three species of felids (puma, cheetah, and ocelot) either kept in or originating from British zoologic collections. A low incidence has occurred in domestic cats in the British Isles, with one isolated case in Norway. The ungulates were infected from the same food-borne source as cattle (see below), and all species of felids were most likely infected by eating infected bovine tissues. 

Only the UK has experienced a significant epidemic which, at its peak at the end of 1992, represented an annual incidence of ~1% of adult cattle. Lower incidences have occurred in indigenous cattle in Ireland, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Portugal, and a few cases have occurred in Canada, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Falkland Islands, and the Sultanate of Oman in animals exported from Great Britain. 

There is no evidence that the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies of man are acquired from animals. 

Etiology: The causal agent belongs to a group of incompletely characterized infectious agents called unconventional viruses or prions. These agents, in addition to scrapie, cause transmissible mink encephalopathy, chronic wasting disease of mule deer, and kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of man. 

   
Transmission, Epidemiology, and Pathogenesis: BSE occurred as a result of a food-borne exposure to a scrapie-like agent via contaminated meat and bone meal included in cattle rations. There is no evidence from epidemiologic studies in Britain that transmission occurs naturally between cattle such that infection will be maintained in the cattle population. 

There is no sex and breed disposition, with no genotypic variation in susceptibility as occurs in sheep to the scrapie agent. The modal age at onset is 5 yr, with a range from 2 yr to the extent of the commercial lifespan of cattle. The within-herd incidence in affected herds is generally low, with an annual average of 2% of cattle developing clinical disease. 

The complete pathogenesis is unknown, but data indicate that after oral exposure, the agent replicates in the lymphoreticular system followed by migration, via peripheral nerves, to the CNS. 

   
Clinical Findings: Initial clinical signs are subtle and mainly behavioral in nature. The spectrum increases and progresses over weeks to months, with most animals reaching a terminal state by 3 mo. Repeated clinical examinations at intervals are recommended. Observations over a prolonged time can detect a reduced time spent ruminating and an increased frequency of nose licking, sneezing or snorting, nose wrinkling, head rubbing and tossing, and tooth grindingâ â€all indicative of a disturbance of the trigeminal nerve sensory area. Restrained animals exhibit exaggerated responses to the menace reflex, the corneal reflex, and sensation of nasal mucosae; frenzy, head shyness, and kicking also occur. Unrestrained animals in familiar environments demonstrate an increased startle response to unexpected visual, auditory, or tactile stimuli. If undisturbed, animals with advanced disease appear to have general hypokinesis, with long periods spent standing or idling with a low head carriage and a fixed, staring facial expression. Locomotory signs of gait ataxia, hypermetria, falling, and generalized paresis eventually become dominant. Weight loss and decreased milk production are common. Tremors and muscle fasciculations occur, but intense pruritus of the trunk, as seen in sheep scrapie, is rare. Euthanasia is advisable as soon as there is some certainty of the clinical diagnosis because animals become unmanageable and, when recumbent, their welfare is at risk. 

Lesions: Specifically, lesions are confined to histologic changes in the CNS and comprise bilateral, usually symmetrical, vacuolation of gray matter neuropil (spongiosis) and neurons, similar to the lesions seen in scrapie. Gross pathologic changes associated with falling and recumbency may be present. 

   
Diagnosis: Repeated clinical examinations do not provide a definitive diagnosis. Histologic examination of the hindbrain is essential for confirmation. Autolyzed brain tissue should be examined, after detergent extraction, by electron microscopy for scrapie-associated fibrils. 

The furious form of rabies ( Rabies: Introduction) has clinical similarities, but the clinical course of BSE is more protracted. Other differential diagnoses include encephalic listeriosis ( Listeriosis: Introduction , Listeriosis: Introduction , Listeriosis), hypomagnesemia ( Hypomagnesemic Tetany In Cattle And Sheep: Introduction ), lead poisoning ( Lead Poisoning: Introduction), downer cow syndrome ( Problematic Bovine Sternal Recumbency: Introduction), space-occupying lesions in the CNS, and trauma to the spinal column. The protracted clinical course of the disease is helpful in differentiation, but in a small proportion of cases, the clinical duration is short (days or weeks), and the extent that animals have been observed needs to be considered. 

Treatment and Control: Treatment is ineffective. Control has been effected in Britain by the statutory prohibition in 1988 of the use of ruminant-derived protein in ruminant rations. This has been adopted in a number of other countries. If such a program is applied effectively, the evidence is that it will control the disease in cattle. 


Edit:Spoke to my Brother. Science has proven only the feed transmission of the disease in animals, and food as well as contaminated surgical instruments in Humans(Surgical instrument contamination is being studied in animals). There are numerous theoties as to the development of the disease even in sheep and goats. The theory of which I discussed above will not be scientifically proven until feed related issues are solved.


----------

