In the four weeks since a single cow in Alberta was found to be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, the entire Canadian cattle industry has come to a virtual standstill.
Within hours of the news, the United States—our biggest trading partner and the recipient of more than 60 percent of our annual cattle production—barred the importation of all Canadian beef and beef products.
Shortly thereafter, most of Europe, Asia, and Australia followed suit.
Cattle farmers from coast to coast have been left in limbo and Rainy River District is no exception. But local opinion is somewhat divided over whether the ban is justified.
As time passes and no new cases of BSE have come to light, some are beginning to question whether the draconian precautions taken by Canada’s trading partners are motivated by prudence—or whether they’re just another shot in an ongoing trade dispute.
“It’s just stupid,” said Kim-Jo Bliss, research technician at the Emo Agricultural Research Station.
“I think there’s more to this than we know,” she added. “We have good reason to believe they [the Americans] have it [BSE], too.”
“It’s affecting everybody equally nationally,” Bliss remarked. “There are a lot of people here in the district who are being hurt.”
Bliss thinks the damage won’t be restricted merely to Canadian producers and those whose jobs depend on them. American consumers soon will feel the effects of reduced supply in the market and that may put pressure on officials there to re-open the border.
“They’re driving the price of beef up and eventually consumers are going to complain,” she predicted.
Bliss is not alone in her assessment. Ken Fisher, an Emo councillor and cattle farmer, believes the American import ban may be motivated by factors other than safety.
“Yes, I think they should open the borders,” he said. “We’ve done our part [to trace the history of the infected cow].”
Fisher added Canada is being targeted for its role (or lack of it) in the war in Iraq as well as certain anti-American comments that have emerged from Ottawa over the past few months.
“We should have gone in with them and now we’re being punished for it,” Fisher argued.
He also believes the media must shoulder some responsibility for sensationalizing the story and lending it more credibility than it merits, but his biggest concern is the short- and long-term consequences it will have for the industry.
“It’s costing us $27 million a day and it’s affecting everybody,” Fisher said. “Tourist operators, restaurants, and breeding cattle operations will all feel it sooner or later.”
The biggest losers to date are the feedlot operators who have cattle that are ready for slaughter but still are consuming feed and losing value every day.
Fisher said there’s only a two-week window in which cattle maintain their ideal weight and quality before they begin to lose value. Some operators can buy time by putting the animals out to pasture and allowing them to graze, but even that is only a short-term solution.
“It’s quite a handicap for people who don’t have pasture because they have to continue to feed them grain that should be used for other animals,” Fisher noted.
Tom Morrish also is a district cattle farmer and former president of the Rainy River Cattlemen’s Association. Like Fisher, he feels the feedlot operators and finishers are the first to bear the brunt of the beef ban, but as more animals move along the production chain, cow-calf operators and breeders soon will be in similar straits.
That means the repercussions will be more long-term.
“It’s going to catch us hard this fall,” Morrish warned. “There’s a huge backlog and prices are going to drop.
“In fact, I think it will affect prices for a few years,” he added, noting British cattle farmers still are recovering from the mad cow crisis there more than five years ago.
Morrish said the best thing we can do is to spare no effort in providing proof there is no ongoing threat to our beef supply—and that’s already being done.
“I think we’re doing all we can,” he said. “We’ve satisfied the system that we’re clean.”
There has been some talk lately about opening the border gradually as more information comes to light. For instance, some are advocating allowing animals under 24 months of age and muscle cuts into the U.S., but Morrish feels that’s not likely to happen.
“If you draw the line, you have to hold it,” he reasoned.
“In all fairness, I would have hoped we would do the same thing if the situation was the other way around,” he added, noting the Canadian system of tracking and testing cattle is superior to the one used south of the border.
RRCA president Peter Spuzak agrees the ban is completely unwarranted and far too extensive in scope. He said even dairy farmers will feel the affects eventually since as animals age, they are culled from the herd and often go into processed beef products like sausages and hotdogs.
“Dairy animals account for 30 percent of the beef industry,” he noted. “Every year, approximately 10 percent of the herds are culled to make room for younger, more productive animals.”
Since dairy farmers depend on getting a reasonable price for such animals, the lack of market for them means the farmer has to bear the cost of keeping them or disposing of them without compensation.
Spuzak believes the current system of checks and balances is more than adequate to catch any further cases of BSE before they enter the food chain—and the fact the single case discovered to date was condemned before it was even slaughtered is proof of that.
“That animal never entered the system so why close the border in the first place,” he wondered.
The answer, according to Spuzak, is politics.
“We have some other trade issues with the Americans,” he noted. For instance, there currently is a ban on U.S. potatoes due to a blight that infected potatoes in P.E.I. several years ago and resulted in their being barred from the United States.
Now the roles are reversed and Spuzak feels things even could escalate to the point where other goods are affected.
“Here we go again,” he mused. “Apparently, Canada Customs is checking for nematodes in root vegetables and if this continues, anything going across the border could be stopped.”
Needless to say, such action would have a devastating effect on both countries.
In the meantime, federal authorities are sparing no effort in convincing the world that Canada’s beef is safe. To date, more than 1,400 animals have now tested negative for BSE and the results of another 600 should be available this week.
But despite these efforts, there is no indication the Americans are prepared to open the border.
There is a ray of hope, however. The fact that Canada is conducting such a comprehensive and transparent investigation has not gone unnoticed south of the border—and elsewhere.
Dr. William Hueston of the University of Minnesota was cited recently as saying Canada has handled this matter far better than any other countries to experience the same problem. That bodes well for a quick resolution.
“I’m very impressed by the aggressive investigation and the openness and honesty of the Canadian government,” said Dr. Hueston.
Dr. Alex Thierman, with the World Organization for Animal Health in Paris, France, echoed Dr. Hueston’s sentiments. He said the efforts of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s investigation is a model for other countries should such a situation arise elsewhere.
“They’re applying things far beyond what other countries have done,” Dr. Thierman remarked.
Time will tell if that is enough—but time is running short for Canada’s beef industry.
(Fort Frances Times)
Fort Frances Times
Local News from Across the Rainy River District
