Click on text below to see the vid

Test EVERY Cow in the Food Chain

Test EVERY Cow in the Food Chain
Like Other Countries Do

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Over Objections, Aussies to Life BSE Ban

No backdown from Federal Government on lifting BSE ban

Thursday, 25/02/2010

The Federal Government maintains that it'll go ahead and open Australia's borders to beef from BSE-affected countries from Monday, despite a swirl of media and political pressure.

In response to Opposition concerns, Federal Trade Minister Simon Crean says states or regions wanting to export beef to Australia will need to have traceability systems in place.

While some beef producers have questioned it, Mr Crean says the move to lift the ban was driven by Australia's cattle industry.

"I have a letter from the Red Meat Advisory Council, that represents all of the peak bodies, urging us, and I'll read it to you're if you're interested - this was on the 18th of September last year - 'RMAC endorsed its opposition to the BSE certification rules currently operating in Australia'."

Despite assurances from the Federal Government, many graziers remain wary of the looming change to imports from BSE affected countries.

Grazier Gary Radford owns a number of properties in South Australia and Broken Hill, and is concerned about traceability, education and the speed of the change.

He says the risk that something could go wrong is still too high.

"Doesn't matter whether it's bananas or other importation, once you get that bug into Australia it's very, very hard to get out," he says.

"And of course with no traceability, definitely no genuine traceability, Australia really has a problem."

Meanwhile, a statutory pest management body in NSW has delivered a letter to the Federal Government, calling for beef imports from BSE-infected countries to be rejected.

The Cumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority says it's not just BSE that people need to worry about, claiming chronic wasting disease, which is found in much of North America, is also a threat.

Senior livestock veterinarian for the Cumberland LHPA, Keith Hart, says government protocols will not protect Australia from being infected.

"There is no way you could put a protocol in place that would minimise the risk until the science is known. It might be 10 years or more."

National Rural News


http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201002/s2829873.htm

Food, Inc., A Movie Big-Ag DOES NOT Want U 2 C

Cick on title above for offical movie trailer

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Cow Gives 8,400 Gals of Milk in One Year / "No Special Treatment" My Ass!

All dairy cows (and our poultry too) are fed a steady diet of GROWTH HORMONES that cause the animals to grow bigger, faster and for the bovines, to produce more milk. Of course there are NO studies to show that the growth hormones adversey effect us humans who EAT these GE food animals,.....ya get that, NO studies. Just like Mad-Cow, ya cant find something if ya aint lookin fer it


WALDO, Wis. - This Holstein is more than just another udder in the herd. The cow from the Ever-Green-View Farm in eastern Wisconsin has set a new national milk production record. A Holstein tagged number 1326 in Waldo has pumped out about 8,400 gallons of milk in one year.

The cow's milk production of 72,170 pounds is well above the previous record of nearly 68,000 pounds held by a cow in Marathon. The Holstein Association USA keeps records on top producers dating back to 1971.

Owner Tom Kestell said his standout Holstein received no special treatment and was never sick during the record-setting year, which ended Feb. 6.

The Sheboygan Press said the average registered Holstein in Wisconsin produces 23,000 pounds of milk annually.



http://www.kansas.com/2010/02/19/1189679/udderly-awesome-holstein-sets.html

ANTHRAX, BOVINE - ARGENTINA: (BUENOS AIRES PROVINCE)

****************************************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


Date: Mon 22 Feb 2010
From: Ramon Noseda [edited]


Rural outbreak of anthrax
-------------------------
In the partido [division] of Coronel Dorrego, Province of Buenos Aires, and
close to Laguna [a lake] de Sauce Grande, a cattle establishment suffered 4
sudden deaths of adult cattle with extravasation of blood from the natural
openings of the body, including their noses. The herd of mixed breed cattle
was in good health; the weather has been humid with high temperatures [it
is summer in Argentina. - Mod.MHJ]; and the cattle were on natural grazing.
[Unfortunately] the herd had not been vaccinated against anthrax. There is
no record of anthrax on this farm in the past 30 years.

The carcasses were handled in the standard manner by covering them in lime
and then a weighted down heavy duty plastic tarpaulin. Farm staff disposing
of the cattle did not handle them directly [that is, it was all done by
tractors. - Mod.MHJ]

--
Dr Ramon Noseda
Laboratorio Azul Diagnostico SA
Av 25 de Mayo 479
(B7300FXE) Azul - Pcia Bs As
Argentina



[In a subsequent communication with this moderator about the apparent prior
absence of the disease on this estancia, Dr Noseda commented that the
partido of Coronel Dorrego has had 3 recorded outbreaks in the period
1977-2009 and the possibility of a water source involving runoff from the
Sierra de la Ventana and the Laguna de Sauce Grande. Water has the capacity
to force the hydrophobic spores to the soil surface. Unfortunately this is
a very speculative area in the absence of any hard data on specific grave
sites, flooding, erosion, and the incidence and locations of missed cases,
but anecdotally not uncommon. Our thanks to Ramon, as ever, for his report.

The HealthMap/ProMED-mail interactive map of Argentina can be seen at
. To find Coronel Dorrego, go to
. - Mod.MHJ]

[see also:
Anthrax, human, bovine - Argentina (02): (BA) 20100208.0424
Anthrax, human, bovine - Argentina: (BA) 20100118.0207
2009
---
Anthrax, bovine - Argentina (05): (BA) 20090825.2991
Anthrax, bovine - Argentina (04): (BA), abortion 20090716.2531
Anthrax, bovine - Argentina (03): (Buenos Aires) 20090427.1588
Anthrax, human, bovine - Argentina (02): (BA) 20090305.0917
Anthrax, human, bovine - Argentina: (Buenos Aires) 20090108.0075]

.................mhj/mj/sh



*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################

Monday, February 22, 2010

USDAs New NAIS - Exempts In-State Slaughter Ops

This post was written by:

admin - who has written 24356 posts on NewsBag


Posted on 21 February 2010

The meat industry is up in arms over a federal decision to abandon a $120 million livestock-tracking system designed to limit the economic and human-health impact of animal-disease outbreaks.

Meatpackers worry that a narrower program proposed by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack could exacerbate worries abroad about U.S. meat exports, while state officials are concerned the federal government is creating a new regulatory burden for which states have scant resources.

“It will be a headache,” said Tony Frazier, state veterinarian of Alabama.

But federal officials say the six-year-old voluntary program being replaced never attracted enough participation from farmers and ranchers to be effective.

Animal-health experts have long argued a national livestock-identification is essential for rapidly containing livestock diseases. Outbreaks across the globe of mad-cow disease, bird flu and foot-and-mouth disease have cost farmers billions of dollars since the 1990s. In the U.S., beef exports have never fully recovered from a case of mad-cow disease in 2003.

Launched shortly after that scare, the National Animal Identification System was designed to allow Washington to track the far-flung movements of tens of millions of cattle and hogs—among other animals—using 15-digit serial numbers, electronic ear tags and tiny transponders implanted beneath the animals’ hide.

Regulators hoped the high-tech livestock IDs would make it possible for them to locate the farm from which a sick animal came within 48 hours, instead of the weeks or even months it can take now. Such a rapid trace would allow regulators to quarantine exposed herd mates so they can’t infect others or be eaten and pose a threat to people. Australia, Canada, Japan and the European Union have mandatory livestock ID programs.

NAIS was supported by many large producers of milk, chickens and hogs, as well as meatpackers stung in the 2003 mad-cow scare. But many beef ranchers and small farmers spurned the voluntary program over everything from privacy to religious issues, crippling the effort.

Mr. Vilsack said Feb. 5 that he was starting over with a different, mandatory program. Hoping to placate small farmers leery of federal oversight, Mr. Vilsack wants state governments to keep track of livestock—but only those animals moving across state borders.

While many details must be ironed out—including funding—the new approach exempts animals that are slaughtered in the states where they are raised, even if the meat will go into interstate commerce. Federal officials couldn’t project what percentage of U.S. livestock would fall outside the proposed program.

John Clifford, the USDA’s top veterinarian, said the agency was being practical. “NAIS wasn’t effective,” he said. “That means rebuilding from the grass roots up.”

Many meatpacking executives fear the new system won’t mollify importing countries that are quick to close borders when animal diseases erupt in the U.S. One worry is that identification practices will vary among states, so that tracing back diseased animals will remain cumbersome.

The USDA’s switch “fails to meet the need of meatpackers and their customers to swiftly and accurately trace livestock to the farm of origin,” said Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for meat giant Tyson Foods Inc. of Springdale, Ark.

Some state authorities worry the federal government won’t fully fund the mandate. “At best, this is going to be a patchwork system that takes us back to where we were a decade ago,” said Scott Stuart, managing director of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, a Colorado Springs, Colo., nonprofit group of livestock interests.

At big slaughterhouses, government veterinarians and meat inspectors routinely check the health of livestock and the wholesomeness of meat. While that helps to protect consumers, the information rarely gets used to extinguish outbreaks among animals. Livestock change hands so frequently that meatpackers often don’t know where they originated.

The lack of a system became an issue in December 2003 when the first U.S. case of mad-cow disease was discovered. Federal regulators were under pressure to find the companions of that Holstein cow, which died in Washington state, because the livestock might have shared rations, the likely source of a brain-wasting disease that can spread to humans who eat infected beef.

Most of the sick cow’s herd mates were never identified, and some 50 nations banned imports of U.S. beef. U.S. beef exports sank by about 80% in 2004.

“We are disappointed by the decision,” said Ron DeHaven, who was the USDA’s chief veterinarian during the mad-cow scare and is now executive vice president of the American Veterinary Medical Association in suburban Chicago. “The ability to trace is only becoming more important to our trading partners.”

The USDA’s national livestock ID system was in trouble early. Agriculture Department officials initially mulled making it mandatory—a concept backed by meatpackers—but backed off in the face of rural backlash against federal imposition.

Many farmers fear being held financially liable if a diseased animal is traced to their doorstep. For just this reason, critics warned a voluntary system wouldn’t attract enough producers to be effective. Only about 500,000 farms and ranches, or 36%, registered with the USDA’s national program, far below the 90% participation rate some federal officials say is needed to make such a system effective.

”It was overly intrusive,” said Bill Bullard, chief executive of R-CALF USA, a group representing thousands of beef ranchers. “It was an effort by the federal government to control our livestock.”

Yet many farmers who participated in the USDA program figured it could help narrow the economic fallout from a disease outbreak by allowing regulators to make quarantines more precise and thus disrupt fewer farm operations, said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, representing hog farmers.

Federal officials plan to begin meeting with state officials about the new program in March. The USDA aims to publish a proposed rule by the end of 2010.

Click on tite above for original article as appeared in the link below;

http://www.newsbag.org/?p=43418

Sunday, February 21, 2010

MRSA in livestock animals -- an epidemic waiting to happen?

A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


******
[1]
Date: June 2008
Source: Clinical Microbiology and Infection [edited]



MRSA in livestock animals -- an epidemic waiting to happen?
-----------------------------------------------------------
M. Wulf & A. Voss, Volume 14, Issue 6, Date: June 2008, Pages: 519-521

Abstract:
---------
Screening of pig farmers and pigs in The Netherlands has revealed that
more than 20 percent of pig farmers and 39 percent of slaughterhouse
pigs are positive for an unusual strain of methicillin-resistant
_Staphylococcus aureus_ (MRSA) belonging to sequence type (ST) 398. It
is now clear that the emergence of ST398 is not just a Dutch problem,
with human infections being described in several European countries,
Canada and Singapore. Furthermore, some human isolates have now
acquired the genes encoding Panton-Valentine leukocidin. Livestock may
become an important source of community-acquired MRSA. A concerted
effort on the part of clinicians, infection control practitioners and
veterinarians will be required to prevent further spread of this novel
strain of MRSA.

[See full text at:

(registration required)]

--
Communicated by:
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


******
[2]
Date: July 2009
Source: EID [edited]



Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in Swine Farm
Personnel, Belgium.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Dennis et al, EID Volume 15, Number 7-July 2009

Abstract:
---------
We assessed methicillin-resistant _Staphylococcus aureus_ (MRSA) in
persons on 49 swine farms in Belgium. Surveys showed that 48 (37.8
percent) persons carried MRSA ST398 and 1 (0.8 percent) had concurrent
skin infection. Risk factors for carriage were MRSA carriage by pigs,
regular contact with pigs and companion animals, and use of protective
clothing.

[snip...]

Conclusions:
------------
Human carriage of MRSA was associated with swine colonization with
MRSA. Prevalence rate (38 percent) was higher than that for
hospitalized patients or nursing home residents in Belgium
(). MRSA isolates from
farmers belonged to closely related spa types corresponding to ST398,
which are unrelated to hospital- and community-acquired strains but
identical to strains from humans in contact with pigs in other
European countries (1,2,10).

Despite the high prevalence of nasal MRSA, active MRSA skin infection
was detected infrequently (less than 1 percent), within the range
described in recent US-based studies (11). In a hospital in the
Netherlands, a lower attack rate was found for MRSA ST398 than for
other MRSA strains (12). However, invasive infections caused by MRSA
ST398 have been reported, suggesting that this genotype is pathogenic
for humans (2). In our study, MRSA strains did not harbor exotoxin.

Two MRSA genotypes were predominant. For 70 percent of farms with
multiple MRSA carriers, all strains belonged to the same genotype,
suggesting transmission within the farm. Although these strains have
been shown to not spread easily in hospitals (12), outbreaks of MRSA
ST398 in a residential care facility and a hospital probably
originated from health care workers living on pig farms (13,14). In
contrast with MRSA strains, MSSA [methicillin-susceptible]
_Staphylococcus aureus_ isolates in our study showed diverse genotypes
that frequently colonize human populations (4). MSSA isolates from 3
farmers belonged to the ST398 genotype, which is infrequently reported
in humans except in pig farmers with contact with pigs (4).

Risk factors for MRSA ST398 carriage included regular contact with
pigs but also with horses and dogs (10), suggesting that different
animals could be MRSA ST398 reservoirs or vectors, at least on pig
farms. Protective measures did not seem to reduce the risk of becoming
colonized with MRSA; this lack of effectiveness has previously been
observed for veterinarians (15). This apparent lack of protection
should be further investigated to determine routes of transmission
other than direct contact with pigs, including airborne transmission
and contact with contaminated surfaces and companion animals.

--
Communicated by:
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


******
[3]
Date: 24 Feb 2010
Source: Veterinary Microbiology [edited]



Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses and horse
personnel: An investigation of several outbreaks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. van Duijkeren et al, Veterinary Microbiology Volume 141, Issues
1-2, 24 February 2010, Pages 96-102

Abstract:
---------
At the Veterinary Microbiological Diagnostic Center, the Netherlands,
the percentage of methicillin-resistant _Staphylococcus aureus_ (MRSA)
isolates found in equine clinical samples increased from 0 percent in
2002 to 37 percent in 2008. MRSA of spa-type t064, belonging to MLST
ST8 and spa-types t011 and t2123, both belonging to the
livestock-associated MLST ST398, predominated.

During an outbreak of post-surgical MRSA infections in horses at a
veterinary teaching hospital in 2006/2007, MRSA isolates of spa-type
t2123 were cultured from 7 horses and 4/61 personnel which indicated
zoonotic transmission. After intervention the outbreak stopped.
However, another outbreak occurred in 2008, where 17 equine MRSA
isolates of spa-type t011 (n = 12), t2123 (n = 4), and t064 (n = 1)
were found. This time, 16/170 personnel were positive for MRSA with
spa-type t011 (n = 11) and t2123 (n = 5). Personnel in close contact
with horses were more often MRSA-positive (15/106) than those without
(1/64).

Screening of horses upon admission showed that 9.3 percent were
MRSA-positive predominantly with spa-type t011. Weekly cross-sectional
sampling of all hospitalized horses for 5 weeks showed that 42 percent
of the horses were MRSA-positive at least once, again predominantly
with spa-type t011, which suggests that nosocomial transmission took
place. A total of 53 percent of the environmental samples were
MRSA-positive, including samples from students' and staff members'
rooms, and all were spa-type t011. This indicates that humans
contribute to spreading the organism. Culturing of samples employing
high-salt pre-enrichment performed better than a comparable method
without pre-enrichment.

Our results show that nosocomial transmission occurs in equine clinics
and suggests that personnel play a role in the transmission.

--
Communicated by:
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.


[Our thanks to Terry for finding these and other recent articles.
Obviously this is a [question of what is suitable for one situation
might be unsuitable for another], as far as different types of
antibiotics go or stay. - Mod.MHJ]

******
[4]
Date: 18 Feb 2010
From: Hurd, H. S [VDPAM]



RE: Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA (02)
--------------------------------------------------------
When considering MRSA it is important to categorize the data being
discussed on 2 axes: 1) route of human exposure; and 2) type of
infection/colonization. Confusing these items will lead to a
misrepresentation of the risk.

1) Route can include:
a) Direct Exposure to animals; e.g., What also may be called
"occupational exposure";
b) Foodborne; This is the classic route taken by pathogens such as
Salmonella or Campylobacter -- this route is very rare for MRSA;
c) Fomite contact; if MRSA is on the meat brought home, it may get
implanted into the human. According to the CDC, this is not a likely
route.

2) Type of infection/colonization:
a) Infection; this is usually observed with some signs of illness or
lesions -- maybe isolation of the organism from internal issues;
b) Colonization; this is represented by the ability to recover the
living organism from an individual with no clinical signs, i.e., no
harm done.

The papers [1 through 3] seem to be describing the direct route of
colonization, "occupational non-harmful colonization." Less than 1
percent had "infection" described. Evidence of "occupational
colonization" cannot be easily construed as major public health threat.

Note that very few cases of the farm (ST 398) types have been found in
non-farm related human illness

--
Scott Hurd
Iowa State University
VDPAM, VMRI Bld 4

[see also:
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA 20100216.0552
2000
----
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA (02) 20000511.0718
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA 20000429.0649
Antibiotic resistance, surveillance - Europe 20000103.0003
1998
----
Antibiotic resistance trends - Europe 19990204.0170
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance (02) 19981219.2407
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance 19981216.2373
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980807.1542
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980805.1509]]
.....................jw/mhj/ejp/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Antibiotics in Livestock Production cause Antibiotic Resistance in Humans

Click on title above for new report

Q Fever Update

Its Everywhere in Every Thing

Q FEVER - NETHERLANDS (13): HUMAN, ANIMAL
*****************************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


[1] Ovine, caprine
[2] Human

******
[1] Ovine, caprine
Date: Tue 16 Feb 2010
Source: Agrarisch Dagblad [in Dutch, trans. Mod.AS, edited]



2nd dairy sheep plant with Q fever
----------------------------------
The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA) announced that a
dairy sheep farm in Stolwijk, South Holland, has been declared Q-fever
infected. It is the 2nd dairy sheep plant declared infected in the
Netherlands [since 1 Oct 2009]. In January [2010], a dairy sheep farm
in Kraggenburg was found infected.

In addition, another dairy goat farm in Haren, North Brabant, has now
been declared infected. The current total number of Q-fever infected
farms found in the Netherlands [since 1 Oct 2009], is 73 [of which 71
are dairy goat farms].

--
Communicated by:
Sabine Zentis
Castleview Pedigree English Longhorns
Gut Laach
52385 Nideggen
Germany


******
[2] Human
Date: Thu 11 Feb 2010
Source: AgriHolland [in Dutch, trans. & summ. Mod.AS, edited]



11 new Q fever patients so far in 2010
--------------------------------------
According to the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the
Environment (RIVM), 136 new human cases of Q fever have been reported
in the country during the current year [2010]. In 11 of the patients,
the onset of disease took place during 2010 and it is assumed that
they had been infected within the previous weeks. The dates of onset
of disease in the other patients are not known, but are considered to
have taken place during 2009 or even earlier. Many people report their
health complaints to their family doctors only now, following the
disease becoming a news item [eventually leading to serological
confirmation. The incubation period for acute Q fever in humans varies
from 2 to 48 days; the typical incubation period is approximately 2 to
3 weeks. Chronic Q fever can occur from months to years after
infection. - Mod.AS]

--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail


[An epidemic curve graph, showing the number of reported Dutch Q fever
patients by week of onset for the period 1 Jan 2007-10 Feb 2010, is
available at
.
The cases are presented according to the relevant Community Health
Services (GGD): dark green - "Hart voor Brabant" (NE Brabant); medium
green - SE Brabant; light green - South Limburg; gray - others. The
annual total numbers - 2007: N=194, 2008: N=980, 2009: N=2267, 2010:
N=11.

According to a recent literature search, 53 lab-confirmed outbreaks of
Q fever in humans have been published during the years 1981-2007. The
following 6 countries experienced the largest number of confirmed
outbreaks: Germany (9), France (6), Australia (5), Canada (5), UK (5),
USA (5). The remaining 18 outbreaks were reported from various parts
of the globe. In 26 of the 53 outbreaks, sheep were regarded as source
of infection; goats in 6. Among the other animal sources, cats were
suspected in 3 smaller outbreaks. Larger outbreaks were reported from
East European countries, but lab confirmation was not available.

_C. burnetii_ can infect many species of domestic animals and
wildlife; in many species, the infection appears to be asymptomatic.
Its reservoirs may be only partially known. Sheep, goats, and cattle
seem to be the most common domesticat animal reservoirs. Wild rodents
may be important reservoirs in some areas, and cats -- particularly
following parturition -- are suspected in urban outbreaks. _C.
burnetii_ has also been isolated from dogs, rabbits, horses, pigs,
camels, buffalo, deer, pigeons, swallows, parrots, crows, geese, and
other mammals and birds. Antibodies have been found in coyotes,
raccoons, opossums, badgers, jackrabbits, black bears, musk oxen and
other species. There are also reports of _C. burnetii_ in fish and
snakes. - Mod.AS]

[Maps of the Netherlands are available at
and
. - Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]

[see also:
Q fever - Netherlands (12): 3 new outbreaks 20100213.0513
Q fever - Netherlands (11): culling dispute 20100206.0407
Q fever - Netherlands (10): international response 20100204.0380
Q fever - Netherlands (09): zoo-sanitary measures 20100128.0307
Q fever - Netherlands (08): sheep, update 20100125.0278
Q fever - Netherlands (07): update 20100115.0182
Q fever - Netherlands (06): OIE 20100115.0181
Q fever - Netherlands (05): investigation committee 20100112.0144
Q fever - Netherlands (04): culling 20100111.0119
Q fever - Netherlands (03): update 20100107.0079
Q fever - Netherlands (02): update 20100105.0047
Q fever - Netherlands: monitoring 20100103.0028
2009
----
Q fever - Netherlands (19): update 20091229.4375
Q fever - Netherlands (18): update 20091225.4334
Q fever - Netherlands (17): pathogenicity, RFI 20091222.4312
Q fever - Netherlands (16): pathogenicity, RFI 20091222.4304
Q fever - Netherlands (15): update 20091219.4286
Q fever - Netherlands (14): update 20091217.4271
Q fever, animals - Belgium: RFI 20091213.4234
Q fever - Netherlands (13): control measures 20091209.4198
Q fever - Netherlands (12): update 20091207.4173
Q fever - Netherlands (11): public health 20091113.3930
Q fever - Netherlands (10): update 20091107.3861
Q fever - Netherlands (09): predictions 20091004.3452
Q fever - Netherlands (08): update, monitoring & animal vaccination
20090927.3380
Q fever - Netherlands (07) 20090908.3169
Q fever - Netherlands (06) 20090814.2889
Q fever - Netherlands (05) 20090629.2355
Q fever - Netherlands (04): fatalities 20090626.2330
Q Fever - Netherlands (03): update, animal vaccination 20090510.1744
Q Fever - Netherlands (02): (NB) 20090508.1721
Q fever, caprine - Netherlands: (LI) 20090331.1230
Q fever - Netherlands: sheep & goat vaccination 20090228.0841
2008
----
Q fever - Netherlands (04): sheep & goat vaccination 20081023.3352
Q fever - Netherlands (03): (NBR, GEL) 20080802.2367
Q fever - Netherlands (02): (NBR) 20080728.2306
Q fever - Netherlands: (NBR) 20080725.2267
2007
----
Q fever - Netherlands (Noord-Brabant, Gelderland) 20070809.2592]
.........................................arn/mj/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Q Fever, an Agent of Bioterror?

Q Fever is only one of the zootonic diseases used in the US for the development of bio-weaponry

Q Fever: Introduction
Etiology, Epidemiology, and Transmission
Clinical Findings and Diagnosis
Treatment and Control
Zoonotic Risk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q fever is a zoonotic bacterial infection associated primarily with parturient ruminants, although domestic animals such as cats and a variety of wild animals have also been associated with human infections. Q fever occurs more frequently in persons with occupational contact with high-risk species. Q fever has a highly variable clinical presentation in humans, ranging from a self-limiting influenza-like illness to pneumonia, hepatitis, and endocarditis. It is highly infectious, and a single organism can reportedly cause infection via the aerosol route in humans. Q fever is considered a potential agent of bioterrorism due to its high rate of infectivity, stability in the environment, and potential for aerosol dispersion. Etiology,

Epidemiology, and Transmission:

Q fever is caused by the gram-negative coccobacillus Coxiella burnetii . Although classically considered a rickettsial agent, recent phylogenetic analyses suggest that C burnetii is more closely related to Legionella and Francisella than to the genus Rickettsia . It resides and reproduces in phagolysosomes of host monocytes and macrophages. Two forms exist—the large cell variant is a vegetative form found in infected cells, and the small cell variant is the extracellular infectious form that is shed in milk, urine, and feces and found in high concentration (109 ID50/g) in placental tissue and amniotic fluid. The small cell variant is resistant to heat, drying, and many common disinfectants and remains viable for weeks to months in the environment. Once a domestic ruminant is infected, C burnetii can localize in mammary glands, supramammary lymph nodes, placenta, and uterus, from which it may be shed in subsequent parturitions and lactations.
The epidemiology of C burnetii is complex because there are 2 major patterns of transmission: in one, the organism circulates between wild animals and their ectoparasites, mainly ticks; the other occurs in domestic ruminants, independent of the wild animal cycle. Ixodid and argasid ticks can act as reservoirs of the organism. Distribution is worldwide (except New Zealand) and the host range includes various wild and domestic mammals, arthropods, and birds. The disease is enzootic in most areas where cattle, sheep, and goats are kept. In the USA, seroprevalence studies have shown antibodies to C burnetii in 41.6% of sheep, 16.5% of goats, and 3.4% of cattle.

The greatest risk of transmission occurs at parturition by inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact with birth fluids or placenta. The organism is also shed in milk, urine, and feces. High-temperature pasteurization effectively kills the organism. Ticks may transmit the disease among domestic ruminants, but are not thought to play an epidemiologically important role in transmission of disease to humans.

Clinical Findings and Diagnosis:

Infection in ruminants is usually subclinical but can cause anorexia and late abortion. Reports have implicated C burnetii as a cause of infertility and sporadic abortion with a necrotizing placentitis in ruminants. Experimental infection in cats causes transient fever, dullness, and anorexia lasting several days.
In domestic ruminants, gross lesions are nonspecific, and differential diagnosis should include infectious and noninfectious agents that cause abortion. Immunofluorescence test on paired sera taken ³2 wk apart can be used to detect recent infection; however, shedding of C burnetii may occur in the absence of a measurable serum antibody titer. Culture, immunohistochemical, and PCR tests may be used to identify the organism in tissues.

Treatment and Control:

Q fever in humans is a notifiable disease in the USA, primarily because of its status as a possible bioterrorism agent; reporting is not usually required for animals unless associated with human infection. Vaccines for people and animals have been developed but are not commercially available in the USA. Vaccination has prevented infection when administered to uninfected calves and has improved fertility and reduced shedding in previously infected animals.
For treatment of ruminants, oral tetracycline at the therapeutic dose may be given for 2-4 wk. In known infected herds, segregating pregnant animals indoors, burning or burying reproductive offal, or administering tetracycline (8 mg/kg/day) prophylactically in the water supply prior to parturition may reduce spread of the organism.

Zoonotic Risk:

The majority of outbreaks in people have been associated with wind dispersion of desiccated reproductive products, contaminated with C burnetii , from sites where sheep, goats, or cattle are kept. Farmers and veterinarians are at risk while assisting birthing. Slaughterhouse workers are at risk from contact with infected carcasses, hair, and wool. Transmission may also occur by consumption of unpasteurized milk. Handling of infected tissue poses a threat to laboratory personnel. Q fever has been seen in personnel and human patients in medical institutions where latently infected sheep were used for research. Medical facilities using pregnant ruminants in research should screen animals for antibodies to C burnetii prior to use. In addition, workers should use adequate personal protective equipment to protect against small droplet and aerosol exposure during high-risk medical procedures.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Also





http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/52000.htm

BESNOITIOSIS, BOVINE - EUROPE: EMERGING

***************************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


Date: Mon 15 Feb 2010 [accessed]
Source: Question number: EFSA-Q-2009-00879, adopted 28 Jan 2010,
published 11 Feb 2010 [edited]



Bovine Besnoitiosis: An emerging disease in Europe
--------------------------------------------------
Summary
-------
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked the Panel on Animal
Health and Welfare to deliver a scientific statement on bovine
besnoitiosis.

Recent epidemiological data confirm an increased number of cases and
geographic expansion of besnoitiosis in cattle herds in some EU MS
[member states], therefore bovine besnoitiosis [BB] should be
considered an emerging disease in the EU. Many aspects of the
epidemiology of BB remain uncertain, including prevalence and
incidence of infection and disease in endemic areas, routes of
transmission and risk factors associated with infection and disease.

It is suspected that _Besnoitia besnoiti_ has a heteroxenous life
cycle [having more than one obligatory host]. The definitive host (DH)
has not been identified. The relationship between _B. besnoiti_ and
other _Besnoitia_ spp. from ungulates remains to be elucidated.
Horizontal direct and indirect transmission seems to be responsible
for the spread of the disease. Arthropods such as horseflies and deer
flies may play a role by transmitting _B. besnoiti_ mechanically from
chronically or asymptomatic infected cattle. Wild ruminants and
probably rodents should not be disregarded as reservoirs of the
parasite.

The infection can cause serious adverse effects both during the acute
and chronic phases that could compromise animal welfare. BB has 2
distinct sequential clinical stages, namely, the acute anasarca stage,
which is mainly associated with proliferation of endozoites in blood
vessels, and the chronic scleroderma stage which is mainly associated
with cyst formation. The severity of the disease may vary between mild
and severe with possible deaths in seriously affected animals. Many
infected animals remain asymptomatic, and the only sign of the disease
is the presence of cysts in sclera conjunctiva and/or vulval area in
cows. A number of diagnostic tests such as cytology, histopathology,
serology and PCR testing are available. There are no effective drugs
or vaccines available in Europe at present.

The Animal Health and Welfare Panel recommends that epidemiological
investigations in endemic areas in Europe are necessary to elucidate
the importance of infected animals and the routes of transmission. In
this context, relevance of direct transmission through direct contact
during natural mating should be evaluated. Moreover, entomological
studies can be used to evaluate, e.g., the abundance of stable flies
(_Stomoxys calcitrans_) or tabanids during such surveys, addressing
the potential role of these biting flies in transmission. Further
studies are necessary to elucidate the role of wild ruminants and
rodents as putative reservoirs of the parasite. The existence of a
definitive host and its role in the epidemiology of BB should be
studied. Furthermore, the relationship between _B. besnoiti_ and other
_Besnoitia_ spp. isolated from ungulates (_B. tarandii_ and _B.
caprae_) should be investigated to assess the risk of infection for
domesticated ruminants. Diagnostic tools need to be further developed
and standardized to address unanswered questions related to the
epidemiology and clinical progression of the disease. Appropriate
measures and strategies to control Besnoitiosis need to be
investigated using the available epidemiological information.

--
Communicated by:
Sabine Zentis
Gut Laach 52385 Nideggen, Germany


[_B besnoiti_ has been reported from southern Europe, Africa, Asia,
and South America; it has not been reported in cattle in North
America. These Toxoplasma-like organisms multiply in endothelial,
histiocytic, and other cells, causing changes in the skin, subcutis,
blood vessels, mucous membranes, and other tissues in cattle.
Live-attenuated vaccines have been developed; they are produced and
are applied on a limited scale in selected animal groups such as
imported bulls and breeding cattle in South Africa and Israel.

The full EFSA document (EFSA Journal 2010; 8(2):1499; 15 pages)
includes the following chapters:
1. Introduction
2. Geographical distribution of Bovine Besnoitiosis
3. Aetiology and life cycle
4. Epidemiology
4.1. Prevalence
4.2. Transmission
4.3. Risk factors
5. Pathogenesis, clinical signs and lesions
6. Diagnosis and control
7. Economic and welfare impact
Conclusions and recommendations
References.

Subscribers are encouraged to access the paper at the above URL. - Mod.AS]

[Photo of typical "elephant skin" of an infected cow:

- Mod.JW]
.............................................arn/msp/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################

Q FEVER DEATHS ON RISE IN NETHERLANDS

Click on title above to see vid
*******************************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


Date: Fri 12 Feb 2010
Source: Dutch Ministry of Agriculture press release [in Dutch, trans.
Mod.AS, edited]



Q-fever infection in Hilvarenbeek, Esch, and Liessel
----------------------------------------------------
A total of 3 dairy goat farms, in Hilvarenbeek, Esch and Liessehave,
been declared as Q-fever infected. In Hilvarenbeek, this refers to a
farm including 1050 dairy goats, in Esch 3000 and in Liessel 1030
dairy goats. The declaration followed the identification of the Q
fever bacterium in each of the 3 farms in 2 separate tests, performed
in both the Animal Health Service (GD) laboratory as well as in the
Central Veterinary Institute (CVI), in 2 different milk samples.

The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA) of the Ministry
of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) has placed warning
signs on the farms. The full addresses and the locations of the
infected farms will be made public on the web-site of the VWA.

--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail


[In total, 71 dairy farms have been found infected with _Coxiella
burnetii_ in the Netherlands since October 2009, of which there are
70 goat farms and one sheep farm. The total number of commercial
dairy goat and sheep farms in the Netherlands is approximately 450.

All pregnant animals on the 1st 68 infected farms have been culled,
to be followed by the pregnant goats in the 3 newly-added farms.
These 3 farms are located in the province North Brabant, the Dutch
province with the highest density of dairy goats. The total number of
culled animals will have exceeded, by now, 40 000.

The detailed list and map of 68 Q-fever infected farms, as of 8 Feb
2010, are available at:
.
Bulk milk tests (PCR) of dairy goat and sheep farms with more than 50
milking animals have become compulsory in the Netherlands as of 1 Oct
2009. On 14 Dec 2009 it became a requirement to perform the sampling
and test every 2 weeks instead of the previously requirement of every
2 months. The change was explained by the possibility that the
excretion of the bacterium may be intermittent.

According to the official policy, initial testing is carried out by
the regional animal-health service (GD) laboratory; if found
positive, a visit is paid to the farm, the issue explained to the
owners, guidelines provided and a 2nd sample taken, sent for
confirmation to the Central Veterinary Institute in Lelystad. If
confirmed, the farm is declared officially infected.

The Netherlands notified the OIE of 63 Q fever outbreaks in dairy
goats on 13 Jan 2010; the reason for notification was "unexpected
increase in incidence of a listed disease." The immediate
notification is available at:
.
- Mod.AS]

[see also:
Q fever - Netherlands (11): culling dispute 20100206.0407
Q fever - Netherlands (10): international response 20100204.0380
Q fever - Netherlands (09): zoo-sanitary measures 20100128.0307
Q fever - Netherlands (08): sheep, update 20100125.0278
Q fever - Netherlands (07): update 20100115.0182
Q fever - Netherlands (06): OIE 20100115.0181
Q fever - Netherlands (05): investigation committee 20100112.0144
Q fever - Netherlands (04): culling 20100111.0119
Q fever - Netherlands (03): update 20100107.0079
Q fever - Netherlands (02): update 20100105.0047
Q fever - Netherlands: monitoring 20100103.0028
2009
----
Q fever - Netherlands (19): update 20091229.4375
Q fever - Netherlands (18): update 20091225.4334
Q fever - Netherlands (17): pathogenicity, RFI 20091222.4312
Q fever - Netherlands (16): pathogenicity, RFI 20091222.4304
Q fever - Netherlands (15): update 20091219.4286
Q fever - Netherlands (14): update 20091217.4271
Q fever, animals - Belgium: RFI 20091213.4234
Q fever - Netherlands (13): control measures 20091209.4198
Q fever - Netherlands (12): update 20091207.4173
Q fever - Netherlands (11): public health 20091113.3930
Q fever - Netherlands (10): update 20091107.3861
Q fever - Netherlands (09): predictions 20091004.3452
Q fever - Netherlands (08): update, monitoring & animal
vaccination 20090927.3380
Q fever - Netherlands (07) 20090908.3169
Q fever - Netherlands (06) 20090814.2889
Q fever - Netherlands (05) 20090629.2355
Q fever - Netherlands (04): fatalities 20090626.2330
Q Fever - Netherlands (03): update, animal vaccination 20090510.1744
Q Fever - Netherlands (02): (NB) 20090508.1721
Q fever, caprine - Netherlands: (LI) 20090331.1230
Q fever - Netherlands: sheep & goat vaccination 20090228.0841
2008
----
Q fever - Netherlands (04): sheep & goat vaccination 20081023.3352
Q fever - Netherlands (03): (NBR, GEL) 20080802.2367
Q fever - Netherlands (02): (NBR) 20080728.2306
Q fever - Netherlands: (NBR) 20080725.2267
2007
----
Q fever - Netherlands (Noord-Brabant, Gelderland) 20070809.2592]
....................arn/ejp/mpp

*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
###########################################

Monday, February 15, 2010

USDA Ag Projections to 2019

Click on title above to see latest USDA report on the state of farming and ag in the USA today.

Excerpt; U.S. Livestock

The livestock sector continues to make adjustments in the first several years of the projections in response to high grain and soybean meal prices in 2007 and 2008, followed by weak meat demand caused by the global economic recession. With producer returns squeezed, production incentives fell, leading to declines in total U.S. meat and poultry production through 2011. These production adjustments combine with strengthening meat exports to reduce domestic per capita consumption
through 2012. The result is lower production at higher prices, which improves net returns and provides economic incentives for moderate expansion in the sector later in the projection period.
Higher grain prices and reduced demand push cattle inventories down through the start of 2011 and result in U.S. beef production declines in 2009-12. Beef production then rises in the remainder of the projection period as returns improve and herds are rebuilt. The total cattle inventory drops below 92 million head before expanding to about 94.5 million at the
end of the projection period. Rising slaughter weights also contribute to the moderate expansion of beef production beyond 2012. Continued high feed costs are expected to result in stocker cattle remaining on pasture to heavier weights before entering feedlots.
• Pork production declines in 2009-11 in response to high feed prices and lower demand and then grows for the remainder of the projection period as higher hog prices improve returns.
However, high feed costs are expected to limit growth in producer returns.
• Poultry production fell in 2009 but is projected to rise the most among the meats over the next decade, as poultry is the most efficient feed-to-meat converter. Growth will remain below rates of the past decade.

USDA Long-term Projections, February 2010

Continuing near-term production reductions in the livestock sector, along with some recovery in meat and poultry exports, result in higher consumer prices and lower per capita consumption.
Annual consumption of red meats and poultry falls from over 221 pounds per capita in 2004-07 to less than 206 pounds in 2012. As production increases over the remainder of the projection period, per capita consumption of red meats and poultry resumes growth, but only rises to about 215 pounds by 2019.
• Per capita beef consumption declines through the first half of the projection period, before rising somewhat over the last half. The initial decline reflects a lagged response in beef production coupled with continuing expansion of exports. However, as beef production expands more rapidly in the second half of the decade, per capita consumption grows.
• Reductions in pork production combine with rising pork exports to push per capita pork consumption down in 2010-12. A gradual rebound in per capita pork consumption occurs over the remainder of the projection period as production gains strengthen.
• Due partly to higher feed conversion rates and a shorter production process, the poultry sector has adjusted faster than red meats to the combination of higher feed costs and reduced demand. As a result, poultry production is projected to resume growth in 2010.
As producer returns improve, production strengthens further. Per capita consumption rises through the end of the projection period and, in contrast to red meats, surpasses levels of the past decade.

USDA Long-term Projections, February 2010 81

After the price declines seen in the livestock sector in 2009, largely due to recession-related effects on meat demand, prices rise over the projection period. A moderate pace of expansion combined with improving domestic and export demand support prices in the projections.

Reduced demand resulting from the global recession lowered overall U.S. meat and poultry exports in 2009 by more than 7 percent. After 2009, exports are projected to rise as global economic growth resumes and the U.S. dollar depreciates. With this growth, exports account for a growing share of U.S. meat use, although the domestic market remains the dominant source of overall meat demand.
• Most U.S. beef exports, primarily reflecting demand for high-quality fed beef, typically go to Mexico, Canada, and Pacific Rim nations. A gradual recovery is assumed for U.S. beef exports to Japan and South Korea, export markets that were initially closed to the United States following the first U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in December 2003.
• U.S. imports of processing beef from Australia and New Zealand increase in the projection period. With more beef demand in East Asian markets being met by the United States, exports from Australia and New Zealand to those markets are reduced, resulting in more of their product going to the United States. Additionally, moderate beef cow inventories and beef cow slaughter in the United States raise import demand for processing beef.
• Although efficiency in U.S. pork production enhances the competitiveness of U.S. pork products in global trade, longer term gains in U.S. pork exports will be determined by costs of production and environmental regulations relative to competitors. Production costs tend to be lower in countries that are developing integrated pork industries, such as Brazil. However, Brazilian pork
producers’ ability to compete in some markets is limited because some countries do not recognize Brazil as free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Thus, Pacific Rim nations and Mexico remain key markets for long-term growth of U.S. pork exports, while Brazil’s pork exports expand to markets such as Russia, Argentina, and Asian markets other than Japan and South Korea.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack: Time for dairy industry to pull together




By Nancy Remsen, Free Press Staff Writer • Sunday, February 14, 2010


U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told Vermont dairy farmers that the long-term remedy for the financial roller coaster they are riding will require them to find common ground with their counterparts across the country.

“The time has come for the industry to come together,” Vilsack said Saturday during a one-day swing through the northwestern corner of the state.

He offered a similar message about the need for farmers to figure out how to coexist when he spoke at the winter conference of the Northeast Organic Farm Association of Vermont.

Speaking first at a dairy town meeting organized by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and later at the annual meeting of the St. Albans Cooperative Creamery Inc., Vilsack listed the short-term assistance he’d put in place to help dairy farmers struggling to remain in business when the price they get for milk falls far short of covering their expenses.

• USDA authorized more than $290 million in loss assistance payments.


• The agency is helping dairy farmers by purchasing $60 million in cheese and cheese products for nutrition programs.

• The agency reactivated its export incentive program to help farmers compete in the global marketplace.

“Those are temporary measures that hopefully stem the bleeding,” he said. The remedy is something the dairy industry has to find for itself, but Vilsack said he wants to help.

He has set up a Dairy Advisory Committee with a two-year charter. He wants it to convene in the next 30 days to begin evaluating how to change the dairy pricing system to smooth out the boom and bust cycles.

Vilsack acknowledged that the pricing problem isn’t new, although the bust cycles seem to be coming more frequently. What is new, he said, “is that lobbying for regional solutions isn’t the answer. We have to look nationally.”

Bob Foster, whose family has dairy and energy operations in Middlebury, painted a bleak picture of dairy farming in Vermont this year. He predicted the number of dairy farms to drop below 1,000 — “if something isn’t done.”

http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3220.burlingtonfreeprOX9741/B4288391.7;sz=300x250

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100214/NEWS02/100213020/U.S.-Agriculture-Secretary-Tom-Vilsack-Time-for-dairy-industry-to-pull-together

Counting cows


Cows graze in a field near Wellfleet. The United States Department of Agriculture recently announced changes to the national cattle-tracking system.

By Roger Bluhm
Published: Sunday, February 14, 2010 4:14 AM CST
The North Platte Telegraph

The United States Department of Agriculture recently announced changes that have cattle producers hopeful and may increase participation in a revamped cattle-tracking system.

Last week Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told attendees of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture that the USDA will develop a new, flexible framework for animal disease traceability in the U.S.

The announcement came after a cross-country, 15-city listening tour held by the USDA last year.

"After concluding our listening tour on the National Animal Identification System [NAIS] in 15 cities across the country, receiving thousands of comments from the public and input from states, tribal nations, industry groups and representatives for small and organic farmers, it is apparent that a new strategy for animal disease traceability is needed," Vilsack said in a press release. "I've decided to revise the prior policy and offer a new approach to animal disease traceability with changes that respond directly to the feedback we heard."

The basic facts of the new program are: It will only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce; it will be administered by states and tribal nations to provide more flexibility; it will encourage the use of lower-cost technology; and it will be implemented transparently through federal regulations and the full rulemaking process, according to guidelines released by the USDA in the same press release.





"One of my main goals for this new approach is to build a collaborative process for shaping and implementing our framework for animal disease traceability," Vilsack said, according to the release. "We are committed to working in partnership with states, tribal nations and industry in the coming months to address many of the details of this framework, and giving ample opportunity for farmers and ranchers and the public to provide us with continued input through this process."

That appears to be exactly the kind of thing cattle producers wanted from the start.

"It appears the USDA is trying to be better," said Randy Saner, Lincoln County farm extension agent for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "They're going to listen to producers and this should, hopefully, produce more buy-in from producers."

According to the USDA, less than 40 percent of current cattle producers use NAIS. The system of electronically tracking cattle is expensive and, with $120 million spent on NAIS and less than half of the industry participating, it's not money well spent.

"The call for NAIS in the first place came from trading-partner countries who wanted their product identified, pasture to plate," said Bill Rishel, a North Platte cattleman and current president of the Nebraska Cattlemen's Association. "While some exporting nations have implemented programs, their industry is not nearly as large as ours is."

Several issues were raised by cattlemen about NAIS, Rishel said.

"There were several things cattlemen didn't like about NAIS," he said. "There was a privacy issue. The industry felt a private entity should be in charge of the data, not the federal government.

"That independence for our producers is key."

Other issues were cost, confidentiality and liability.

"Many producers were afraid they might get blamed for a problem that happened after the cattle left their ranch," Rishel said. "Liability is a big issue for producers."

While cattlemen are happy NAIS is changing, they're hopeful the core issue remains in focus.

"No one in our industry wants to see a disease outbreak," Rishel said. "The main reason for having a system is obviously disease surveillance. "

For cattlemen, the best news coming from the announcement was the change of federal government control to more localized oversight.

"It's good to see USDA make an effort to listen to producers and states," Rishel said. "It sounds like they are trying to appease some concerns we have with NAIS."

Saner agrees.

"The fact they're going to use states will help get some people on board," Saner said. "No one wants to see any sort of disease outbreak but people want to know where an animal comes from."

While everything appears to be moving in the right direction, no one knows yet where the finish line is.

According to the USDA press release, the next step is a forum with animal health leaders for the states and tribal nations to begin a dialogue about possible ways to achieve a flexible, coordinated approach to disease traceability. The USDA also will be changing the secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health to address specific issues, such as confidentiality and liability.

"It's a good start," Saner said. "Instead of being told cattlemen need to participate in this, they're being asked to help come up with a better way to do this."

Click on this story at nptelegraph.com to post your comments, or e-mail roger.bluhm@nptelegraph .com.

http://www.nptelegraph.com/articles/2010/02/14/news/60005570.txt

New Safety Rules for School Lunches Due by July


Enrique Rios checks temperatures of beef at Beef Packers in Fresno, which began new safety measures after recent recalls.

By Elizabeth Weise, Peter Eisler and Blake Morrison, USA TODAY

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — By this summer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will have launched its most sweeping safety reforms in a decade for the food it buys for school lunches.
But much work remains to ensure that food purchased for the National School Lunch Program — in particular, ground beef — is "as safe, wholesome and high quality" as the best commercial products, USDA official Craig Morris told program suppliers at a National Meat Association conference here last week.

The first step: enacting tougher safety standards for federally purchased beef. Those rules should be in effect by July, Morris said. New safety rules are likely tofollow for other commodities bought for the lunch program, such as poultry, eggs and produce. The program feeds 31 million students each school day.

Beef industry representatives here said they could adapt to the new standards but pressed the USDA to move fast so they know what changes will be required.

The new standards follow a USA TODAY investigation that revealed that beef bought by the USDA for school lunches is not tested as rigorously for bacteria and pathogens as beef bought by many fast-food chains. The newspaper also reported that some food producers have been allowed to continue supplying the school lunch program despite having poor safety records with their commercial products.

The USDA reforms, announced Feb. 4, focus largely on how beef and other foods bought for schools are tested for salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and other contaminants. The department will commission research, including a study by the National Academy of Sciences, to ensure that its testing standards meet those of the most selective commercial buyers, Morris said. He serves as a deputy administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the USDA branch that buys meat and poultry for the school program.

Not all details of the new testing rules are set, but Morris said beef for school lunches now will be sampled off production lines every 15 minutes — at least four times more often than current rules require. The government already rejects meat that tests positive for salmonella or E. coli O157:H7, but the USDA also will reduce the amount of other bacteria that are allowed, he said.

"We know (the new bacteria limits) will be something a lot lower," said Barry Carpenter, head of the meat association. He said he hopes the USDA will "look at what the industry is able to do now for the most discriminating, large-scale commercial buyers, and then set new standards consistent with that. If they do, I'm comfortable the industry will adjust and not miss a beat."

More testing could bring costs that prompt suppliers to raise prices, he said, "But it doesn't appear from anything I've seen yet that it will be significant."

The USDA reforms also will bar companies from supplying to the school lunch program if they have a poor safety record for commercial products.

The change could prove relevant to companies such as Fresno-based Beef Packers, which is owned by Cargill. The company has a history of salmonella problems, and ground beef it produced commercially last year was recalled after it sickened consumers. USA TODAY found, however, that 450,000 pounds of ground beef made at the plant during the recall period still was bought by the USDA and sent to schools.

Under the new rules, company recalls of products sold commercially could lead to a suspension from the lunch program.

Cargill spokesman Mark Klein said the company supports "efforts to improve safety, including the review of school lunch purchasing requirements." Beef Packers has taken steps to control contamination, such as spraying cattle carcasses to remove bacteria before processing, Klein said. And Beef Packers also will be part of a Cargill "pilot project to use third-party video audits of food-safety practices," he said.

The new beef standards are the first step in reassessing safety and quality standards for "the entire range of commodities purchased" by USDA for school lunches, Morris said. Those commodities — fruits and vegetables, fish and poultry, eggs and meat — amount to 15% to 20% of all food served in schools nationwide. Schools buy the rest themselves.

The review could determine whether the USDA will continue sending schools chicken from "spent hens" — old egg-laying birds. Commercial buyers, such as KFC and Campbell Soup, won't buy the meat because it doesn't meet their standards, but USA TODAY found that USDA has bought millions of pounds of spent-hen meat for schools.

Ultimately, Morris said, the USDA wants to have cutting-edge safety and quality standards for "the entire catalog" of food it buys for school lunches.

Weise reported in California, Eisler and Morrison in Washington

California firm expands ground-meat recall

Sunday, February 14, 2010


CALIFORNIA

Firm expands recall of ground meat


A Southern California meatpacking firm has significantly expanded its recall of ground beef and veal that might be contaminated with E. coli.

The recall includes approximately 4.9 million additional pounds of products by Huntington Meat Packing under the Huntington, Imperial Meat and El Rancho brands. The original recall, announced Jan. 18, was for 864,000 pounds of meat.

E. coli is a potentially deadly germ that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and, in severe cases, kidney failure. The germ can be killed by cooking fresh and frozen meat products to an internal temperature of 160 degrees.

There have been no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of the products, the food safety agency said.

The affected beef and veal was sold in 10-, 20- and 50-pound boxes to distribution centers, restaurants and hotels in California between Jan 4. and Jan. 22. Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 17967" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The original recall was expanded based on evidence collected in an ongoing criminal investigation. Inspectors found the products were prepared in a manner that did not follow rules to prevent food safety hazards, officials said.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/13/AR2010021303561.html

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Warning over second wave of CJD cases

Scientists say that threat of brain illness returning will persist for decades


The Observer, Sunday 3 August 2008

Doctors and scientists have warned that a second wave of CJD cases could sweep Britain over the next two to three decades. The initial outbreak of the fatal brain illness peaked several years ago but could break out again, they argue.

The prediction comes as officials consider ending some of the research projects that were set up to improve understanding of CJD - Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - and the closely related illness in cows, BSE.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed last week that some experiments aimed at providing detailed data on ways in which cattle could be struck by infectious particles, or prions, would soon be wound up. 'Where cattle are approaching 10 years old, we will probably need to end the experiments in the next year or so,' said a spokesman.

It is estimated that cases of BSE - bovine spongiform encephalopathy - have cost the European Union €80bn (£65bn). However, the condition has since been eliminated in UK cattle and numbers of human cases have declined dramatically. Health officials are now examining expenditure on the screening of blood, beef and surgical instruments.

Neurobiologist Professor Colin Blakemore of Oxford University, former head of the Medical Research Council (MRC), said: 'We have to ask just how much effort and money we should be putting into dealing with BSE and its human counterpart, variant CJD. Either the epidemic is all over and we have nothing to worry about, or we may be facing a second wave among humans. We are going to have to work out the risks very carefully.'

BSE first appeared in cattle in Britain in 1986 and was found to infect humans - in the form of variant CJD - 10 years later. Nineteen-year-old Stephen Churchill, of Devizes, Wiltshire, was identified as its first victim, triggering widespread alarm. It was claimed that tens of thousands of people could be killed. In fact, vCJD has killed only 164 people over the past 13 years in Britain, with the number of cases peaking at 28 in 2000. Only one new case has been recorded so far this year.

But scientists warn that the worst may not yet be over. 'We must not forget that almost every person in the UK was exposed to the agent that causes variant CJD,' said Professor John Collinge, head of the MRC's prion unit in London. 'It went through the entire food chain, not just in burgers but in cakes containing gelatins made from meat products. Even cosmetics contained beef-derived chemicals then.'

In fact, the extent to which people were brought into contact with a deadly human pathogen was unprecedented. Hence the insistence that while some relaxation of BSE monitoring was now acceptable, there should be no reduction in efforts to understand CJD. Certainly it is far too early to assume that Britain - the country most affected by BSE and vCJD - is in the clear, say researchers. They believe a second wave of cases will probably occur, based on studies of a closely related disease, kuru, which affected tribes in New Guinea.

Researchers have found that a key gene shapes the body's defences against kuru and this exists in two forms: version-m and version-v. These gene versions produce different responses to kuru. Individuals who have two m-versions (one from each parent) are the first to succumb to kuru, while those with one or two v-genes have a delayed onset.

Crucially, scientists have now found a similar picture among vCJD patients. Every victim to date has possessed two m-versions, a point stressed by Professor Chris Higgins, chair of the government's Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC).

'About 40 per cent of the population is double-m,' he said. 'We have seen 160 cases develop. That suggests the remaining 60 per cent of the population will throw up about 250 cases some time in the next couple of decades. In other words, we face at least one more wave of variant CJD in Britain. That suggests we need to maintain our research efforts into finding treatments for the condition.'

'So far, UK funding has remained strong in its support for CJD work, though researchers in France and Germany have already noted grants for CJD work are drying up,' Collinge told The Observer. 'That would be a mistake if it were repeated here. We have the chance not just to find treatments for future CJD cases but to make progress in understanding conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, which - although not caused by the same agent that triggers CJD - progress in very similar ways once the disease begins to take effect. We still have a lot to learn from this epidemic, in other words.'


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/03/bse.medicalresearch

ROTAVIRUS GASTROENTERITIS - MEXICO: (CHIAPAS)

Rotavirus also infects animals, and is a pathogen of livestock:

Be sure and read more about that by cutting & pasting the link below into your web browser. One opened, you will have o download a pdf file. Well woh the trouble as there is information in this report that all people should know; I would say the information in the link below is a very important read, IN ADDITION to the Pro-Med report beneath the link;

http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/3/4/345

> *********************************************
> A ProMED-mail post
>
> ProMED-mail is a program of the
> International Society for Infectious Diseases
>
>
> Date: Mon 8 Feb 2010
> Source: El Universal [in Spanish, trans. Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ, edited]
>
>
>
> Rotavirus outbreak in Chiapas: alert
> ---------------------------------------------
> According to state authorities, the Secretariat of Health in Chiapas
> has declared an alert as a result of an outbreak of rotavirus
> infection and deployed multidisciplinary teams to the communities
> where cases have been confirmed.
>
> The head of Sanitary Jurisdiction VII, Andres Gerardo Espinosa, said
> in an interview that the number of cases of acute diarrheal disease
> in 2010 had increased by 30 percent compared with the corresponding
> period last year [2009]. Cases have been reported in 16
> municipalities in the regions of Costa, Sierra, and Frontera Sur,
> which comprise that jurisdiction.
>
> "We are facing a rather severe outbreak of acute diarrheal disease
> that we believe is the result of a rotavirus infection for which
> unfortunately there is no specific treatment," he said and added that
> so far the [samples] sent to the laboratories of the National
> Institute of Public Health have confirmed 15 cases of rotavirus
> infection in the jurisdiction, most of them from the municipalities
> of Tapachula and Huixtla, with no deaths reported. "Rotavirus
> infection causes severe diarrhea that may lead to dehydration and
> even death," Espinosa said.
>
> He reported that the state health sector is were working to implement
> a series of strategies to combat the disease. Starting on Mon 8 Feb
> 2010, sampling of food and water including sewage, drinking, bottled,
> and river waters has been initiated to detect rotavirus and bacteria
> that may be affecting the inhabitants of the region.
>
> Espinosa explained that currently there is a rotavirus vaccine that
> is only administered to children under one year old, but that "the
> disease affects the entire population." For this reason he called on
> parents to have their newborns vaccinated and urged the rest of the
> population to take extreme precautions.
>
> --
> Communicated by:
> HealthMap Alerts via ProMED-mail
>
>
> [Rotaviruses are 70 nm icosahedral, non-enveloped, double-stranded
> RNA viruses that belong to the family _Reoviridae_. The virus is
> characterized by its 3-layer capsid, an outer and an inner capsid and
> an internal shell that surrounds the 11-segment double-stranded RNA genome.
>
> Rotavirus is currently by far the most common cause of severe
> diarrhoea in infants and young children worldwide and of diarrhoeal
> deaths in developing countries with a distinct winter seasonality in
> temperate climates and year-round exposure in tropical countries.
> Virtually all children are infected by the time they reach 2 to 3
> years of age. Most symptomatic episodes occur between 3 months and 2
> years of age with a peak incidence between 7 and 15 months. Symptoms
> include watery diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and
> dehydration. Outbreaks of rotavirus gastroenteritis in day-care
> centers and hospitals can spread rapidly among non-immune children,
> presumably through person-to-person contact, airborne droplets, or
> contact with contaminated toys. Children from low socioeconomic
> background and low birth weight infants have an increased risk for
> hospitalization.
>
> Rotavirus infection can also occur in adults, especially in
> institutionalized or hospitalized elderly patients. Both symptomatic
> and asymptomatic patients shed rotavirus in their stools for 7-10
> days, but shedding can last for several weeks. The virus is highly
> resistant in the environment and can survive for months in stools at
> room temperature.
>
> Three oral RV vaccines are currently licensed, a human monovalent
> live attenuated rotavirus strain, RotarixTM, a pentavalent live
> bovine-human reassortant vaccine, RotaTeqTM, and a lamb-derived
> monovalent live attenuated strain, LLR, which is only being used in China.
>
> Concerns remain regarding the potential effectiveness of any oral
> live vaccine in view of prevalence of competing intestinal flora in
> children, occurrence of mixed infections, high levels of maternally
> transmitted antibodies and micronutrient malnutrition. More detailed
> information on rotavirus disease and rotavirus vaccines can be found
> at the WHO Diarrhea Disease website
> ().
>
> Maps of Mexico are available at
> and the
> HealthMap/ProMED-mail interactive map at .
> A map of Chiapas, the southernmost state of the country, can be
> accessed at . - Mod.CP]
>
> [see also:
> Rotavirus gastroenteritis, holy water - Russia: (IK) 20100205.0397
> Rotavirus gastroenteritis, fruit - Russia (MG) ex China 20100203.0370
> 2008
> ----
> Rotavirus surveillance 2001-2008 - Worldwide 20081120.3667]
> ...................................mpp/cp/mj/mpp
>
> *##########################################################

Be sure to read these very interesting article in the links below.

You can access an Update on the Outbreak by clicking on to the title above,then page down look left for Rotavirus Update

But be sure to also check out the info in the link below;



http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/diarrhoeal/en/index5.html

PNEUMONIA, OVINE - USA (06): (WASHINGTON)

*****************************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


Date: Tue 9 Feb 2010
Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) News, Northwest News Network
(NNN) report [edited]



Washington wildlife officials to cull bighorn sheep herd for disease
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State's fish and wildlife officials plan to kill about 85
bighorn sheep from 2 pneumonia-infected herds [sic]. The animals
range between Yakima and Ellensburg. As Anna King reports, wildlife
managers are hoping that culling the sick animals now, will save the
rest of the Northwest herds.

Pneumonia in bighorn sheep is nearly always fatal. Those that survive
often pass the disease on to their vulnerable lambs. Sometimes
sickened herds can go more than a decade without having any surviving
offspring. In Washington, wildlife officials are scrambling to cull
pneumonia-sickened bighorns before lambing season starts in late
March [2010]. Nearly 20 bighorns have already died from the disease
this winter [2009-10] in the river canyon area between Yakima and Ellensburg.

Donny Martorello is with state fish and wildlife in Olympia. He says
his agency has been working to bring the species back from extinction
in the state. Donny Martorello: "When you're faced with a situation
like this where you really have to euthanize some animals really to
try and protect and increase the long term viability of the remaining
sheep, that's a tough call to make and in this case we think it's the
right one."

The sheep will be shot by state and federal wildlife officials over
the next 6 weeks.

[Byline: Anna King]

--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail


[Washington wildlife managers have brought the species back from
extinction and they now claim some 1200 head. Previously there was an
outbreak in Hell's Canyon and attempts to save the affected deer
failed. The condition in lambs is heart wrenching and the lambs of
the survivors die off, year after year presumably from a chronic
infection of their dams. To quote an Idaho wildlife biologist,
Frances Cassirer: "I've seen a lot in the lambs. So they start out,
they are born and they are totally cute. Of course. I shouldn't say
this as a wildlife biologist but hey, they are cute. They are really
energetic and they are racing around the hill. And then they start
slowing down. And they start laying down a lot. They can't keep up
with the group. And then they stop nursing and then their dam has to
kind of kick them to get up to nurse because she's lactating and she
wants them to nurse. And they don't really want to eat. And then they
just die."

To read a previous report on this outbreak in Washington State and
see pictures of the big horn sheep, go to

from which the quote above was taken.

ProMED's previous reports have been from Montana and Nevada. - Mod.MHJ]

[Yakima and Ellensburg can be located on the HealthMap/ProMED-mail
interactive map of the state of Washington at
. - Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]

[see also:
Pneumonia, ovine - USA (05): (MT) bighorn sheep 20100205.0391
Pneumonia, ovine - USA (04): (MT), bighorn sheep 20100124.0272
Pneumonia, ovine - USA (03): (MT), bighorn sheep 20100124.0262
Pneumonia, ovine - USA (02): (MT), bighorn sheep 20100117.0197
Pneumonia, ovine - USA: (NV) bighorn sheep 20100109.0105
2009
----
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (02): (MT) 20091203.4129
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA: (MT) 20091126.4055]
...................................mhj/mj/mpp

*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
######################################

EPHEMERAL FEVER, BOVINE - AUSTRALIA: (QUEENSLAND)

*************************************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases


Date: Thu 4 Feb 2010
Source: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) [edited]



Widespread rain throughout central Queensland has caused a spike in
three-day sickness or bovine ephemeral fever in cattle.

The MLA's [Meat and Livestock Australia] Keith Walker says a single
shot vaccine is needed to help control the disease.

"I'd need to be practical and say at least a minimum 3-year horizon,
simply I think that the conclusion is that the needs of industry,
which have been particularly acute in the last year or 2 with
flooding and the rainfall patterns we've had, have highlighted the
need for a better tool for industry," he said.

Charters Towers vet Trevor Smith says the sickness mostly affects older cattle.

"I'd certainly suggest that bulls are vaccinated, bulls certainly
once they contract the virus it can affect their fertility," he said.
"Some recover and some don't recover; I'd certainly vaccinate those
cattle and depending on their production system, whether you
vaccinated cattle as well as wieners, to give them some immunity from
that stage on."

[Byline: Maria Hatzakis, Penny Timms]

--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail


[Bovine ephemeral fever (BEF) is an economically important viral,
arthropod-borne disease, exclusively affecting cattle and water
buffalo. The disease is known to be endemic in most tropical and
subtropical areas of Africa, Australia, the Middle East, and Asia.
There is serological evidence that animals might be infected in
central Russia. Some countries experience localized outbreaks in most
years; others report cases only during epizootics. BEF virus (BEFV)
is not found in Europe, North or South America, or New Zealand.

The BEFV is a member of the genus _Ephemerovirus_ in the family
Rhabdoviridae. There is only one serotype. Other members of this
genus (Adelaide River virus, Kimberley virus, Berrimah virus, Puchong
virus, and Malakal virus) can cross-react in some serological tests.
Its impact includes lost production -- decreased milk yield, loss of
condition, abortion, temporary infertility in bulls, and prolonged
recovery in some animals -- as well as trade restrictions. Although
mortality is usually low, cattle in good condition are affected more
severely; mortality rates as high as 30 percent have been reported in
very fat cattle.

Other Names for BEF are: bovine epizootic fever, ephemeral fever,
three-Day Sickness, three-day stiff sickness, dragon boat disease,
lazy man's disease, and dengue of cattle.

BEF is not included in OIE's list of notifiable animal diseases. For
additional data, including a list of available vaccines, refer to
.-
Mod.AS]

[The HealthMap/ProMED-mail interactive map of Australia can be seen
at . - Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]

[see also:
Ephemeral fever, bovine - Israel: southwest, susp. 20090713.2502
Ephemeral fever, bovine - Australia: (NSW) 20090313.1043
Ephemeral fever, bovine - Turkey: (SE), susp., RFI 20081012.3233
Ephemeral fever, bovine - China (eastern) 20070820.2715
Ephemeral fever, bovine - Tajikistan: OIE 20020814.5055
Ephemeral fever, cattle - Philippines (Luzon) (02) 20011019.2569
Ephemeral fever, bovine - Australia (NT) 20000507.0702]
...................................sb/arn/mj/mpp

*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################