The organization formerly known as the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association on Thursday launched what it describes as a “a new brand identity, highlighting the strong and diverse group invested in raising some of the world’s best beef.”

What’s now the Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) described its new identity as “one that is dynamic, forward-thinking, climate positive and quintessentially Canadian.”

A new logo, visual identity and positioning “reaffirms CCA’s commitment to supporting communities, embracing innovation and contributing to the overall sustainability of Canada’s food system,” the association said in a release.

“For 90 years, CCA has been the voice of beef farmers and ranchers across the country,” president Reg Schellenberg, a southwestern Saskatchewan producer, said in the same release.

“Our organization has grown to include the 60,000 members we represent today. It is important that our name, logo and brand also grow and be reflective of how our organization has evolved.”

The word “cattlemen” is considered by some to already be an accepted gender-nonspecific term with no exclusion or disrespect implied, and suggestions that the word be dropped from associations’ branding have met some resistance.

The Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association’s members, during their virtual annual general meeting in February last year, defeated a motion for the SCA to “change its name to better reflect the gender diversity of its members.”

In that meeting’s minutes, the SCA noted there were “no suggestions at hand” and that its name was “discussed at formation [in 2009] and was deemed an overall term.”

For its part, the CCA had said at that time it was having ongoing discussions about the matter and had already changed its bylaws to refer to cattle producers rather than gender-specific terms. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post National cattle producer group rebrands appeared first on Farmtario.

Since November, MPs have heard from more than 50 witnesses on the matter — including representatives from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, whose president Bob Lowe and executive vice-president Dennis Laycraft testified at a committee meeting Tuesday.

In the CCA’s accompanying brief, seven recommendations on how to “create an environment that will support an optimal Canadian packing system” were provided:

• Establish a Red Meat Industry Export Development Fund;
• Support North American integration by harmonizing Canadian and U.S. shipping requirements for beef to South Korea;
• Extend livestock set-aside program availability into 2021-22;
• Update Canada’s specified risk material (SRM) removal requirements;
• Implement the recommendations of the Labour Workforce Action Plan;
• Support automation in processing plants, and
• Place vaccination priority on agri-food processing workers.

The CCA made clear to MPs that about 77-79 per cent of Canada’s total beef processing has taken place in Western Canada, averaging 56,249 head per week, with an 86 per cent utilization rate over the last five years.

COVID-19 seriously screwed that up: last spring, “temporary slowdowns effectively halted just over two-thirds (70 per cent) of Canadian beef processing capacity over a two-week period and resulted in the first half of 2020’s cattle slaughter being down 11 per cent compared to the same period in 2019.”

A since-processed backlog out west of about 130,000 head ensued, creating millions in feedlot losses.

The CCA contends Eastern Canada’s federally inspected packing capacity flirted with full capacity even prior to the pandemic. Figures provided show utilization rates at eastern packing facilities being above 90 per cent since 2017, and rising each year.

(In 2020, weekly slaughter capacity was 12,550 and the use of it was 100 per cent. The year prior, capacity for 13,250 was used at 98 per cent.)

“This resulted in longer feeding periods, increased costs and lower prices for producers,” read the submission. “This capacity shortage has been particularly acute during the fall and winter months where producers are experiencing delivery and processing delays and a negative price spread to other regions.”

The submission notes that while Ontario’s packing capacity was “keeping pace” during the pandemic, a December 2020 closure at Cargill’s Guelph facility resulted in an estimated backlog of 10,000-15,000 head of cattle during the two-week period.

A set-aside program put in place by the federal government during the pandemic helped bring “stability to the market” but a backlog of 10,000-15,000 head of cattle remains, according to the CCA.

Across Canada in 2020, Canadian federally inspected slaughter capacity averaged 57,681 head per week with a utilization rate of 89 per cent.

But packing capacity taking place in Canada is becoming more and more concentrated in large facilities. Those big packers are highly efficient competitors that proved capable of enduring the pandemic, the CCA said.

Small- and medium-sized packers in the past 10 years have had difficulty competing, and the CCA contends that’s because of efficiencies of scale and regulatory burden.

“Creating the right conditions for small, medium and large packers is essential to a resilient Canadian beef sector,” the group said. “Additionally, the integration and thinning of the U.S. border for live cattle and meat trade will further build resiliency within the Canadian beef supply chain.”

Testimony on the matter at ag committee meetings last week also came from representatives for Maple Leaf Foods, Novalait, Canards du Lac Brome and Fraser Valley Specialty Poultry.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post Beef cattle sector weighs in for federal food processing study appeared first on Farmtario.

The organizations involved in Canada’s National Beef Strategy — the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canada Beef Breeds Council, Beef Cattle Research Council, Canada Beef, The National Cattle Feeders’ Association, Canadian Meat Council and Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef have announced new 2030 goals.

Goals have been announced on three topics so far — greenhouse gas and carbon sequestration; animal health and welfare and land use and biodiversity — with another four topics to come next year.

Strategy organizations have set a goal to “safeguard the existing 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon stored on lands managed with beef cattle,” on top of sequestering an additional 3.4 million tonnes of carbon every year through grazing management and a focus on soil health.

Those gains would reflect the change if all tame pasture and hay acres sequestered carbon at half of the 70-year historical rate, the team developing the goals have said.

The goals would also see the industry’s greenhouse gas emission intensity drop by 33 per cent.

“We looked at what our long-term performance was in a number of areas and said, ‘What if we just continued to do what we have historically?'” said Brenna Grant, Canfax manager and one of the presenters of the goals at their launch on Wednesday (Sept. 16).

“And then we talked about some major breakthroughs — major breakthroughs in terms of technology and innovation or major breakthroughs in terms of adoption rates for certain practices.”

Those breakthrough scenarios are anticipated to create the desired emissions drop.

On animal health, organizations hope to see a 92 per cent reproductive efficiency across the industry (up from 85 per cent reported in 2018), refocus breeding on traits that support animal health such as calving ease and polled genes, encourage management strategies around things like pain relief, and create a national monitoring system to track practices. Other goals would better outline best antimicrobial practices to, “ensure the effectiveness of existing and future antimicrobials is preserved.

Other goals orient around maintaining the native grassland used for beef production and encouraging ecosystems on grazing land. The 2016 census of agriculture noted a 4.4 per cent decline of tame and native pastures from 2011 to 2016 as more producers opted for annual crops.

“We knew that we needed a market mechanism in order to achieve this,” Grant said. “So yes, focusing on economic viability of producers, but also by supporting programs that incentivize conservation and working with other crop groups across Canada to make sure that this happens.”

Dennis Laycraft, executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, said the implementation of those goals will depend largely on increasing the efficiency of each operation.

According to documents on the strategy’s website, some of those tools include increased vaccination, the adoption of different pasture management and low-stress handling, increased extension, encouraging feed plans, body condition scoring, and feed testing, pursuing more research on pasture management, and more extension and education, among others.

“They’re ambitious goals,” Laycraft admitted. “But our producer network that we worked with when we set this up really encouraged us to follow ambitious goals. I think Canada will be one of the world leaders and, at the same time, it is our goal to make sure whenever we do this we actually make our industry stronger in the process.”

The organizations expect to launch 2030 goals on water; beef quality and food safety; human health and safety and technology next year.

For more details, keep an eye on upcoming issues of the Manitoba Co-operator.

— Alexis Stockford is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Beef sector aims for new 2030 targets appeared first on Farmtario.

The association on Friday announced the Canadian Beef Breeds Council (CBBC) has officially joined the Beef Cattle Research Council and Canfax among the divisions of the CCA. The move follows a cost-benefit review by an advisory committee.

CCA and CBBC “have worked closely together on a number of initiatives, so the integration made sense from both a logistics and a philosophical perspective as both organizations work to grow the industry,” the CCA said in a release.

“Having CBBC as a division of CCA further unites our industry under one roof, which will return more value to beef producers for their investment,” CCA president Bob Lowe said in the same release.

CBBC incorporated in 1994 as a national not-for-profit body working on behalf of Canada’s beef breeds and 8,000 registered beef cattle breeders, with a mandate to support, promote and represent the Canadian beef cattle seedstock sector.

While the Calgary-area organization doesn’t directly buy or sell genetics or live breeding cattle, it works to connect buyers and sellers and to promote beef breeds’ genetic attributes both within Canada and internationally, crafting international promotional initiatives and developing marketing strategies.

“This is an important time in the Canadian cattle industry and aligning organizations with similar goals will create opportunities that will have long-term benefits for the entire beef industry,” CBBC president Dave Sibbald said in Friday’s release.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has shown the beef sector “needs to work together to address challenges as they arise,” the two groups said.

Having strong organizations, “with the capacity to deal with any situation, is key to building and maintaining resiliency in the Canadian beef industry,” they said. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Beef Breeds Council becomes arm of CCA appeared first on Farmtario.

“We’re having unprecedented volatility for markets. Having tools in place for farmers and ranchers has never been more important,” executive vice-president Dennis Laycraft said during a telephone town hall Thursday.

Premiums for the insurance program, which used to cost $15-$20 per head, are now about $70, CCA officials said.

“Some of our risk management tools that we have historically used, such as price insurance, have become too expensive to use,” said Fawn Jackson, director of government and international relations. “High premiums have been caused by market volatility. We’re essentially seeing stalled participation in the program when it is really needed most.”

The CCA wants Ottawa to pay for part of the premium.

“We think that’s an example that can be adapted to COVID-19 times,” Jackson said. “Addressing these unaffordable premiums would balance the risk management uptake in the beef sector and get some confidence in the market, when large numbers of backgrounding cattle are coming to market this spring.”

Eastern Canada is still operating without a price insurance program and CCA would like to see one developed there quickly.

The association also wants a set-aside program for both Eastern and Western Canada, similar to one used during the BSE crisis, in case there is a major disruption such as a packing plant closure.

Such a program would match the number of cattle coming to market to processing capacity. Government would provide financial assistance for the cost of feeding cattle held back from the market.

The CCA also wants several changes to AgriStability, including removing the $3 million cap on payouts and removing reference margin limits.

Uncertainty in markets and short-term interruptions could last well into 2021, Laycraft said.

— Alexis Kienlen reports for Alberta Farmer from Edmonton.

The post Cattle producers press for lower price insurance premiums appeared first on Farmtario.

The western Canada-based chair and general manager of the agency were on hand at VFO’s recent annual general meeting to usher in the arrangement.

A federally regulated checkoff has been collected on cross-boundary beef and veal for about 20 years.

Why it matters: The new agreement means that veal farmers will have more influence on how their check-off dollars are spent.

“For you, as a veal producer, this won’t change a thing about what you do,” VFO executive director Jennifer Haley told attendees. “Your licence fees still stay at $5.50 per head.”

The federal checkoff is $1 per head on live animals, or a per-weight equivalent for beef and veal products.

CBCA general manager Melinda German said discussions at the CBCA’s predecessor organization, the Beef Information Centre, tended to be dominated by “beef, beef, beef.”

Four years, ago, however, in an effort to make the process more transparent and more open, the position eventually taken by German was created.

In recent years, there has been a gradual broadening of the message, said Haley.

“This agreement is proof,” she said, “that the conversation has changed dramatically.”

For their part, German and CBCA chair Chad Ross, whose family operates a ranch in Saskatchewan, credited Haley for her “impassioned” representation of the interest of Ontario’s veal farmers as the negotiations unfolded. Ross added that the welcoming of VFO into the agency “will offer a well-rounded outlook” at the board table.

There’s a 16-member board of directors for the national organization, with representation from producers and processors. CBCA fees are spent in three ways: marketing, research and stakeholder engagement.

For research, the agency partners with the Beef Cattle Research Council to allocate funds. And for stakeholder engagement, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association is a partner.

For the promotion dollars, meanwhile, there’s an internal subcommittee charged with administering the “Canada Beef” marketing initiative. This was a 12-member subcommittee, but voting membership has been increased to 13 to allow for a seat for VFO.

German described this newly created seat as “a voice to help develop and deliver marketing dollars… and to help decide where to allocate those dollars.”

In the lead-up to the announcement of the new agreement, Veal Farmers of Ontario was given input into recent point-of-sale literature updates.

In addition, Canadian beef and veal was the theme of a high-profile booth at the recent Restaurants Canada trade show in Toronto.

The post Veal farmers join national check-off agency appeared first on Farmtario.

The loss of the Ryding-Regency processor in Toronto in the late fall was another blow. Ryding-Regency was only about 15 per cent of the provincial beef processing market, but taking 15 per cent out of any efficiently functioning market is significant.

It’s meant 10s of thousands of dollars in losses for individual beef farmers as they’ve had to hold cattle until heavier or had to sell them at lower prices or to far-away markets like Western Canada, losing in transportation costs.

The market was already tight before Ryding-Regency was shut down over E. coli contamination by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Many beef farmers in Ontario are at a loss about what to do. Is there room for the number of cattle now produced in the province? Is there any room for growth? Is there a real future for a serious beef sector? Ontario was already stuck with a lower feedlot price that has been stubbornly low compared to Western Canada.

The answers are in the hands of farmers and processors.

Being a processor of a global commodity is a tricky game.

Price your purchases too high and you’re out of the global game. Price it too low and your suppliers go out of business. It’s good to have some competition in the market to help keep enough suppliers in business, but you don’t want too much competition or the price can get too high.

The Ontario situation is currently too far tilted to the advantage of the processors, discouraging production, stifling momentum and discouraging innovation.

Who will fix it?

There are good examples in Ontario and elsewhere of livestock producers who have created their own processing facilities — usually in the form of a co-operative of some sort.

The one looked at with most affection here is the highly successful Conestoga Meat Packers — owned by farmers who were once part of the Progressive Pork Producers co-op (known as the 3Ps).

However, anyone involved in 3Ps will tell you that it was long process with several starts and stops along the way. It’s entirely worth it now with the extra value that Conestoga Meat Packers brings to its members, but it was a long road.

Beef producers in Western Canada have tried numerous times to create their own processing capacity, and almost all have failed.

Meat processing on a significant scale requires large capital, human resources and focused marketing capability.

Is it the solution for Ontario? I expect it is not, other than on a smaller scale.

The industry is tightly connected to Cargill, the largest beef processor by far in Ontario. Many farmers feed cattle on contract destined for the Cargill plant.

Any of the valuable branded programs created in Ontario, such as the Ontario Corn Fed Beef program rely on the Cargill plant to process enough animals so that the programs can get the volume they need to be a player in the markets they’ve developed.

Ontario Corn Fed Beef (which has developed significant domestic and increasing Asian markets) is owned by the Ontario Cattle Feeders’ Association and the people around them would be the best set as far as capital and supply of cattle to build a new processing facility.

However, would it make sense for them to spite Cargill by becoming a competitor when Cargill is the major processing partner for their brand? Probably not. Cargill has stepped up its processing volume since Ryding-Regency lost its licence.

What are the alternatives? The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association says Ontario’s processors are interested in expanding. They need to be encouraged. Find the barriers and surmount them. That could fall to government or farmers.

Ontario has access to a large domestic market, increasingly targeted by others around the world, and is close to the major U.S. markets. That’s long been our advantage. Someone needs to step up and make it a greater advantage for Ontario beef producers.

The private sector is the best route in the beef sector and those currently involved are best suited to make it happen.

The post Editorial: Burdensome beef supply needs an Ontario outlet appeared first on Farmtario.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association is working with Beef Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Cattle Feeders Association and Dairy Farmers of Ontario to try to find some relief to a lack of processing capacity — and maybe more importantly, a lack of outlet elsewhere for extra cattle.

Why it matters: Ontario has been chronically short of beef processing capacity, which has been a factor in driving down return to farmers in Eastern Canada compared to Western Canada and the United States.

“It’s a fairly informal process, just kind of tossing around all kinds of ideas to increase the capacity here in Eastern Canada,” says Rob Lipsett, the new president of Beef Farmers of Ontario (BFO), taking over from Joe Hill at the recent BFO annual meeting.

“There are several avenues we could pursue. We’re just not sure yet which would be the most fiscally responsible at this point in time and which ones would make the most sense for the industry.”

Short term solutions look to be few.

When Toronto meat packer Ryding-Regency lost its licence in December after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency decided it couldn’t continue licensing the plant due to E.coli bacteria concerns, it meant a further 15 per cent decrease in Ontario’s slaughter capacity. Ryding-Regency processed cull cows among the beef cattle it took in to make its products. When capacity is lower, cull cows end up as lower priority, affecting the price of lower quality animals to the farmer.

The sector also lost the ability to fill numerous niche markets and brands that Ryding-Regency had developed.

There were several resolutions presented to the Beef Farmers of Ontario annual meeting relating to the shortage of processing capacity.

One resolution encouraged BFO to make processing capacity its primary focus. Another pointed to the per week cost of having Ryding-Regency’s former staff collecting employment insurance payments, suggesting that money could be used in employing them in a beef processing capacity.

Another resolution from Grey County requesting that BFO engage in feasibility studies to establish a co-operative processing plant was narrowly defeated.

A co-operative processing plant would require investment by beef producers. Co-operatives do significant amounts of processing of Ontario hogs and milk, but there isn’t a history of success in beef processing. An attempt to run a cow slaughter plant by farmer livestock genetics co-operative Gencor ran from 2008 to 2011, but ended in bankruptcy.

Another resolution passed that called for BFO to lead a plan to attract potential investors to a federally inspected beef slaughter facility.

There are several things going on in the market, but none of them are significantly helping the oversupply situation.

Brian Perillat of CanFax Marketing says that the Guelph Cargill plant is now processing cattle on Saturdays, but it has cut back on cull cow slaughter in order to accommodate higher value cattle.

Some Ontario farmers have shipped cattle west for processing too, but that has been costly due to increased transportation. Perillat says about 10 trucks per week were moving west for processing from Ontario. He says Ontario slaughter capacity is down about 1.7 per cent per week since Ryding-Regency losts its licence.

Dennis Laycraft, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), said at the BFO annual meeting that there’s appetite for processing expansion in Ontario, but there are serious risks including regulatory and policy issues.

“The frustrating part is that there’s no doubt there is international and strong domestic demand for our product. It’s the bottleneck at the local level that needs a solution,” he says.

“We are working on a series of solutions to fix this permanently.”

Laycraft and Lipsett both said that beef farmers need some interim solutions from government to keep them going until there are new options for expanding processing capacity.

“We’re going to bring forward some asks through the Canadian Cattlemens to the federal government and ask for some injection into Ontario’s Risk Management Plan. We could immediately funnel that out to producers for some relief,” says Lipsett.

The challenge with South Korea

South Korea, strangely enough, has a significant effect on Ontario’s current oversupply of cattle.

American plants have stopped taking Ontario cattle because of the strong market the U.S. has in South Korea. Canada and the U.S. have different global risk factor ratings for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Lipsett says the Americans worry that if a case of BSE shows up in Canada, then they could have boats with beef that will be stuck on the water, with South Korea blocking access, because of a Canadian positive BSE test.

The Americans have a free trade agreement with South Korea and as such have a six per cent tariff advantage over Australia and eight per cent tariff over Canada. As the U.S. decided not to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade deal, it has a lot riding on its deal with South Korea as other CPTPP countries, such as Canada have an advantage in other Asian countries. South Korea also did not sign onto the CPTPP.

“Even if we could get some kind of memorandum of understanding that they would not stop that shipment coming in, it would relieve some of the stress,” says Lipsett.

When American plants take no Canadian cattle, then a valuable “pressure valve” is lost for excess cattle in the system, helping to maintain local prices.

The plant in Pennsylvania that once took Ontario cattle has markets for its product in South Korea. Changing its system to only process cattle from Canada one day a week hasn’t made sense for the company, when there are large supplies of American cattle in the marketplace.

The post The beef with packing capacity appeared first on Farmtario.

Why it matters: High demand for Ontario beef means slaughter capacity must increase or market opportunities will be lost.

“Ryding-Regency represented around 10 per cent of the federally inspected kill in Ontario or about 1,500 head a week,” BFO vice-president Rob Lipsett said at the Beef Day of the Grey-Bruce Farmer’s Week in Elmwood.

Lipsett said that the oversupply in the system is due mainly to tremendous growth in the cattle feeding industry and more cull cows from dairy. Even though the herd numbers have remained steady over the past five years at about 280,000, forecasts for slaughter are up by about 13.5 per cent for 2019.

Until recently, some of the oversupply could go to northeastern U.S. states, but those plants are also at capacity. The timing of the cattle markets creates bottlenecks at certain times of the year, as well.

“We’ve worked closely with the CCA (Canadian Cattlemen’s Association), federal and provincial governments trying to get to what the problem is and how to resolve it,” he said, adding that it’s an Eastern Canada problem that’s starting to be felt across the country.

With demand for beef staying strong globally, he said, there’s an opportunity to capitalize, but only if the processing capacity is there to supply it.

Besides lobbying and setting up a letter-writing campaign, over the short-term, BFO is asking the government to fast-track a labour pilot project aimed at getting more workers into processing plants under the temporary foreign workers program.

It has suggested extending slaughter days into the weekends and asked the government for transportation assistance to help producers get their cattle to Alberta plants that currently have a bit more capacity.

The BFO is also debating whether to ask for a direct payment program that would compensate producers who are having to take price discounts because their cattle are arriving at market as heavies and overweights.

Over the medium term — six months to two years — they’re pushing for double shifts at processing facilities and going back to evening and weekend shifts.

They’re also lobbying to speed up the process of getting Canada’s BSE status upgraded to negligible from controlled risk under the United Nation’s OIE rules. Under the current rules, a country has to be BSE-free for 11 years from the birth date of the last infected cow. The current plan is to have Canada’s status upgraded in March 2021.

Demand for the more stringent status from South Korea has meant that U.S. plants must segregate out Canadian cattle – something they’ve been loath to do. It’s meant cutting off yet another slaughter outlet and the BFO and CCA have been working with both countries on resolving the issue.

“We’re looking to establish a fund to help provincial inspected plants to become federally inspected plants and we’re also looking at harmonizing our provincial inspection regime with that of Quebec’s, so that could be another outlet,” Lipsett said.

Over the longer term, they’re looking to the government for help in building new or adding on to existing plants and getting a new federal packing plant up and running in Eastern Canada.

A conference participant suggested a producer co-operative approach to developing a kill and chill plant. Lipsett said that they’ve been looking at talking to the owners of Conestoga Packers to potentially model a beef facility on the successful pork processing co-operative.

The BFO has been working on marketing, financed by the $1.50 increase in checkoff fees that was approved at the organization’s last annual meeting.

“We’ve re-branded our Ontario beef program and launched a new website,” Lipsett said, adding that the new logo was developed after focus groups were conducted with consumers.

The post Ontario beef industry tackles slaughter capacity issue appeared first on Farmtario.

Different sectors have already experienced the impact of foreign animal diseases like BSE, avian influenza, porcine epidemic diarrhea and bovine tuberculosis, said veterinarian Megan Bergman, head of the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council.

Why it matters: Disease issues may be contained to a small area, but can have national implications.

“We are in a situation in Canada where we are continuously faced with disease challenges,” she told the animal health committee of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, which met at the recent Canadian Beef Industry Conference in Calgary.

“We are fortunate in that we are in a country with excellent capacity for animal health and disease response but our responses tend to be a bit fragmented,” she said.

The council hopes to change this. It has pulled together government and industry representatives to develop a more co-ordinated animal disease emergency response to trace a disease, recover and reopen markets.

The council was formed as an advisory body to work with federal and provincial governments, as well as industry representatives to build a plan before a crisis strikes.

It is attempting to identify the gaps in current response plans and better integrate all services and expertise in the event of a serious disease outbreak.

Surveillance is under way but there is no cohesive system to share information or work effectively together.

A national forum on the threat of African swine fever showed gaps and risks in the system. One of the gaps is whether there are enough people available to deal with a fast-moving contagion like ASF, which has devastated the Chinese swine industry.

The federal and provincial governments have legal requirements they must follow, but clear cost-sharing models, mandates and responsibilities are needed.

“We have gaps, we want to be more engaged and we want to be more effective in our animal disease response,” Bergman said.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has plans to deal with diseases but the livestock industry wants to be a full partner to make plans for animal health and disease responses because farmers dealing with animals bear the cost.

“This is not going to be a small shift. What we need is a culture shift in how we handle animal health issues in Canada,” Bergman said.

The cattlemen’s association supports the approach and wants a fast response that includes enlisting local veterinarians.

“When we have one of these things, we need every hand on deck. They are out there already on the ground in many areas,” said rancher Pat Hayes.

The CFIA has a veterinary reserve and if local practitioners are called up, they may need specialized training to deal with an emergency.

“We want to see things put in place now so when this happens we are not doing the scramble. We see them as a resource that could help greatly,” said Hayes, who co-chairs the cattlemen’s animal health committee that has pushed for using local vets.

“Our CFIA does not have enough people on the ground and we need to get some protocols in place.

“Look at the (tuberculosis) case in Alberta. That time frame could have been shortened if they had utilized (local veterinarians) but they are a department that is on their own,” he said.

Time is of the essence. Rapid diagnosis and plans are needed to prevent delays in containing a disease, said Eugene Janzen of the University of Calgary’s faculty of veterinary medicine.

“If we had a three-week delay (in disease containment) in feedlot alley in Alberta you wouldn’t have to worry about zoning because by then we would likely have contaminated the western United States,” he said.

CFIA officials agree they need help.

“CFIA cannot do it alone. We will always be looking for support from our provincial partners from industry and certainly all the preparedness work we have done on African swine fever has shown us how important this is,” said Dr. Debbie Barr of the agency’s animal health, welfare and biosecurity division.

Early detection of any disease is a key and the agency is trying to enhance field staff training.

The CFIA approach to an emergency works on a day-by-day framework.

If a foreign animal disease is found in Canada, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) is informed and in some cases, certain trading partners will be told before any public announcements are made.

“There needs to be a recognition that borders will close and markets will close on day one regardless of any predetermined arrangements,” she told the health committee meeting.

If there was a suspected case of foot-and-mouth disease, the CFIA would move into action before confirmation was received.

It then works to prevent further infection, quarantine, eradicate and contain the disease with a goal to open markets as soon as possible. Some outbreaks could cause border closure for months rather than weeks.

Different types of mechanisms can be used depending on the outbreak and what measures are considered necessary.

Zoning to contain a disease is an accepted OIE approach but some countries are reluctant to adopt it. Zoning is not just about boundaries but what is done once zones are set up. CFIA’s current policy is to make zones as small as possible to contain the disease to a geographic area.

The post Co-ordinated animal disease response sought appeared first on Farmtario.