Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


What Do We Feed
Food-Production Animals?
A Review Of Animal Feed

From Terry S. Singeltary Sr

From farm to fork, a wide variety of food for thought. a disgusting and appalling review of what you are forced to eat via big industry. and as far as the recent OIE review of the USA BSE, i stand by my previous convictions, ''bought and paid for by your local cattle dealer.'' You be the judge. -- Terry Singletary
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1 1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA; 3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated.
DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to monitor etiologic agents "from farm to fork."
CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health surveillance systems and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers, and veterinary and public health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues.
KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding operations, fats, human health effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses. Environ Health Perspect 115:663­670 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 8 February 2007]
U.S. Animal Feed Production The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest producer of animal feed in the world (Gill 2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary animal feed, including mixes of feed grains, mill by-products, animal proteins, and microingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins, minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in the United States (Gill 2004). In the same year, the United States exported nearly $4 billion worth of animal feed ingredients (International Trade Centre 2004).
Rendered animal products. In 2003, the U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million metric tons of rendered animal products, including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct meal, blood meal, and feather meal (National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b). Most of these products were incorporated into animal feed. However, data concerning the specific amounts of rendered animal protein that are used in animal feed are difficult to obtain because the information is neither routinely collected at the federal or state level nor reported by the rendering industry. The latest available data, collected by the USDA in 1984, estimated that > 4 million metric tons of rendered animal products were used as animal feed ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes these ingredients are listed on animal feed labels as "animal protein products." Thus, it is difficult to discern precisely which animal protein products are included in a particular animal feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006). Animal waste. Another major animal protein­based feed ingredient is animal waste, including dried ruminant waste, dried poultry litter, and dried swine waste (AAFCO 2004; Haapapuro et al. 1997). As with rendered animal products, there are no national data on the total amounts of animal waste included in animal feeds, although some states have collected limited data concerning this practice. In 2003, it was estimated that approximately 1 million tons of poultry litter were produced annually in Florida, and an estimated 350,000 tons of this litter were available for use in feed (Dubberly 2003). Yet, information concerning the precise amount of this "available" poultry litter that was actually incorporated into Florida animal feed was unavailable. Recycling animal waste into animal feed has been practiced for > 40 years as a means of cutting feed costs. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not offi- cially endorse the use of animal waste in feed and has issued statements voicing the agency's concern about the presence of pathogens and drug residues in animal waste, particularly poultry litter (FDA 1998). In line with these concerns, the AAFCO, an organization that develops guidelines for the safe use of animal feeds, advises that processed animal waste should not contain pathogenic microorganisms, pesticide residues, or drug residues that could harm animals or eventually be detected in animal- based food products intended for human consumption (AAFCO 2004). Nonetheless, these guidelines are not adequately enforced at the federal or state level.
Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used in U.S. animal feeds. a Origin, raw material Examples Plant Forage Alfalfa meal and hay, Bermuda coastal grass hay, corn plant, and soybean hay Grains Barley, corn (organic and genetically modified), oats, rice, sorghum, and wheat Plant protein products Canola meal, cottonseed cakes and meals, peanut meal, safflower meal, and soybean (organic and genetically modified) feed and meal Processed grain by-products Distillers products, brewers dried grains, corn gluten, sorghum germ cake and meal, peanut skins, and wheat bran Fruit and fruit by-products Dried citrus pulp, apple pomace, and pectin pulp Molasses Beet, citrus, starch, and cane molasses Miscellaneous Almond hulls and ground shells, buckwheat hulls, legumes and their by-products, and other crop by-products Animal Rendered animal protein from Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter of food by-product meal, dried animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg-shell production animals and other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry, hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and animal animals digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals including deer and elk Animal waste Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste, dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products Marine by-products Fish meal, fish residue meal, crab meal, shrimp meal, fish oil, fish liver and glandular meal, and fish by-products Dairy products Dried cow milk, casein, whey products, and dried cheese Mixed Fats and oils Animal fat, vegetable fat or oil, and hydrolyzed fats Restaurant food waste Edible food waste from restaurants, bakeries, and cafeterias Contaminated/adulterated food Food adulterated with rodent, roach, or bird excreta that has been heat treated to destroy pathogenic organisms Other Antibiotics Tetracyclines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and streptogramins By-products of drug manufacture Spent mycelium and fermentation products Arsenicals Roxarsone and arsanilic acid Other metal compounds Copper compounds and metal amino acid complexes Nonprotein nitrogen Urea, ammonium chloride, and ammonium sulfate Minerals Bone charcoal, calcium carbonate, chalk rock, iron salts, magnesium salts, and oyster shell flour Vitamins Vitamins A, D, B12, E, niacin, and betaine Direct-fed organisms Aspergillis niger, Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium animalis, Enterococcus faecium, and yeast Flavors Aloe vera gel concentrate, ginger, capsicum, and fennel Enzymes Phytase, cellulase, lactase, lipase, pepsin, and catalase Additives generally regarded Acetic acid, sulfuric acid, aluminum salts, dextrans, glycerin, beeswax, sorbitol, as safe (GRAS) and riboflavin Preservatives Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and sodium bisulfite Nutraceuticals Herbal and botanical products Plastics Polyethylene roughage replacement aData adapted from AAFCO (2004).
Antibiotics. The use of antibiotics in animal feed is also a public health concern. Antibiotics are administered at nontherapeutic levels in feed and water to promote growth and improve feed efficiency. This practice has been shown to select for antibiotic resistance in both commensal and pathogenic bacteria in a) the animals themselves (Aarestrup et al. 2000; Bager et al. 1997; Gorbach 2001; Wegener 2003); b) subsequent animal-based food products (Hayes et al. 2003; White et al. 2001); and c) water, air, and soil samples collected around large-scale animal feeding operations (Chapin et al. 2005; Chee-Sanford et al. 2001; Gibbs et al. 2006; Jensen et al. 2002). Although the use of nontherapeutic levels of antibiotics in animal feed is approved and regulated by the FDA (2004), there is no U.S. data collection system regarding the specific types and amounts of antibiotics that are used for this purpose. In response to this significant data gap, several estimates of nontherapeutic antibiotic usage have been published based on USDA livestock production data and FDA antibiotic usage regulations. For example, Mellon et al. (2001) estimated that as much as 60­80% of antibiotics produced in the United States are administered in feed to healthy livestock at nontherapeutic levels. Many of these antibiotics are the same compounds that are administered to humans in clinical settings, and include tetracyclines, macrolides, streptogramins, and fluoroquinolones (FDA 2004). Additional information regarding the types and amounts of antibiotics used in U.S. livestock is available in AAFCO (2004), FDA (2004), and Mellon et al. (2001). Metals. Metal compounds are also administered in animal feeds, and the compounds currently added to both swine and poultry feeds that are particularly concerning from a public health perspective are organoarsenicals. The most commonly used organoarsenical, roxarsone (4-hydroxy-3-nitrobenzenearsenic-acid), is administered to feeds at concentrations ranging from 22.7 g/ton to 45.4 g/ton to promote growth and improve feed efficiency (Chapman and Johnson 2002). When used in combination with ionophores, roxarsone also act as a cococcidiostat to control intestinal parasites (Chapman and Johnson 2002). Once roxarsone is ingested by animals, the parent compound can be degraded into inorganic arsenite (AsIII) and inorganic arsenate (AsV) in animal digestive tracts and animal waste (Arai et al. 2003; Stolz et al. 2007). Both AsIII and AsV are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as group A human carcinogens (U.S. EPA 1998). Many other metallic compounds are also mixed into feeds, including copper, manganese, magnesium, and zinc compounds, as well as metal amino acid complexes (AAFCO 2004).
Table 2. Biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents detected in animal feed and their potential human health impacts. Etiologic agent Examples Potential human health impacts References Bacteria Salmonellaspp., E. coliO157:H7 Bacterial infections a Angulo 2004; Crump et al. 2002; Davis et al. 2003 Antibiotic-resistant E. faecium, E. coli, C. jejuni Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections a Aarestrup et al. 2000; Dargatz et al. 2005; bacteria b Schwalbe et al. 1999; Sorensen et al. 2001 Prions Causative agent of BSE vCJD c Gizzi et al. 2003; Smith 2003 Arsenicals Roxarsone, AsIII, AsV Increased human exposures to inorganic arsenic that may Chapman and Johnson 2002; Lasky et al. 2004 contribute to increases in cancer risk a Mycotoxins Aflatoxins, ochratoxins, fumonisins, Increased human exposures to mycotoxins that may Bhat and Vasanthi 1999; Hussein and Brasel trichothecenes contribute to increases in cancer and noncancer risks a 2001 Dioxins and dioxin-like PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs Increased human exposures to dioxin-like compounds that Eljarrat et al. 2002; Fries 1995; Huwe and compounds may contribute to increases in cancer and noncancer risks a Larsen 2005 vCJD, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. aInsufficient data are available to fully understand the magnitude of potential human health impacts associated with contaminated animal feed. bIncludes antibiotic-resistant bacteria initially present in animal feed due to contaminated feed ingredients, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria resulting from the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in feed. cDomestically acquired human cases of vCJD have not been documented in the United States.
In another study, 165 rendered animal protein products originating from poultry, cattle, and fish were sampled from a poultry feed mill and tested for antibiotic-resistant bacteria (Hofacre et al. 2001). Eighty-five percent of all feed ingredients sampled contained bacteria resistant to one or more of the following four antibiotics: ampicillin, amoxicillin, clavulanic acid, and cephalothin. Poultry meal and bone and meat meal (nonpoultry) samples represented the greatest number of feed ingredient samples containing bacteria resistant to five or more antibiotics (Hofacre et al. 2001).
Prions. In addition to bacteria, animal feeds (in particular, cattle feeds) can be contaminated with the infectious agent associated with BSE (Gizzi et al. 2003). BSE, which is commonly referred to as mad cow disease, belongs to a group of progressively degenerative neurologic diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) (Deslys and Grassi 2005; Smith 2003). The causative agent of TSEs is believed to be an infectious proteinaceous entity called a prion, which is composed largely of a protease-resistant misfolded protein (PrPSc). Infectious prions can be present in animal feed as a result of using rendered animal products from diseased animals as feed ingredients. Although prions may be present in all body tissues of diseased animals, it is generally acknowledged that prions accumulate in highest concentrations in central nervous system tissues (GAO 2002; Smith 2003) that are referred to as specified risk materials (SRMs). As defined by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA 2005b), SRMs include the skull, brain, eyes, parts of the vertebral column, spinal cord, trigeminal ganglia, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle > 30 months of age, as well as the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle. In 1997, the FDA banned SRMs from use in cattle and other ruminant feed (GAO 2002). Nonetheless, SRMs were allowed to be incorporated into feeds for nonruminants (including poultry), and subsequent waste products from nonruminants are still permitted in ruminant feeds (USDA 2005b). As of yet, there are no definitive tests for BSE infectivity in live animals (before symptoms appear) (Deslys and Grassi 2005; GAO 2002). However, a number of rapid screening tests based on ELISA or Western blot analyses have been approved for post-mortem BSE testing in cattle. Currently, the USDA is conducting a national BSE testing program; yet, only high-risk cattle are included in the program and there are no plans to test animal feed samples (that could include animal protein from asymptomatic rendered animals) in this surveillance effort (USDA 2004). A variety of tests do exist for the detection of animal tissues (in general) in animal feed, including microscopic analyses, polymerase chain reaction, immunoassay analyses, and near infrared spectroscopy (Gizzi et al. 2003); nonetheless, these methods are not robust enough to distinguish between bovine products that are permitted in ruminant feeds (i.e., milk and blood) and bovine products that are prohibited from ruminant feeds (GAO 2002; Momcilovic and Rasooly 2000).
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Beyond bacterial infections, a chronic human health risk that has been linked to animal feeding practices is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a novel human neurodegenerative prion disease that is currently untreatable and fatal (Collinge 1999). vCJD was first described in 1995 in two teenagers in the United Kingdom and was believed to be caused by infection with the causative agent of BSE or mad cow disease (Smith 2003). Molecular strain-typing studies and experimental transmission studies in mice published in 1996 and 1997 confirmed that vCJD is caused by the same prion strain that causes BSE (Collinge 1999). The primary routes of human exposure to prions remain debatable; however, the most likely route is through the ingestion of beef derived from cattle that were infected when rendered animal proteins from diseased cattle were included in their feed. It is hypothesized that the UK population may have experienced the highest exposures to BSE from 1989 to 1990, when the incidence of BSE was still increasing in cattle and specific bans on high-risk rendered bovine products were still being implemented (Collinge 1999). From 1995 to 2002, there were 121 fatalities out of 129 diagnosed cases in the United Kingdom (Smith 2003). To date, domestically- acquired human cases of vCJD have not been identified in the United States. However, since BSE was first identified in the United States in 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have enhanced national surveillance for all types of CJD in the United States through the analysis of multiple cause-of-death data derived from death certificates (CDC 2005). Active CJD surveillance is also being implemented through the Emerging Infections Programs established in four sites across the United States (CDC 2005).
Conclusions Food-animal production in the United States has changed markedly in the past century, and these changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed formulations. While this industrialized system of food-animal production may result in increased production efficiencies, some of the changes in animal feeding practices may result in unintended adverse health consequences for consumers of animal-based food products. Currently, the use of animal feed ingredients, including rendered animal products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting animal-based food products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human health effects among consumers could include increases in bacterial infections (antibioticresistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential human health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed. In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail meat products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked to this information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to conduct rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments that could identify the extent to which specific human health risks are ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human foodborne bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype Agona are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human bacterial infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to determine whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004), contributes to increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within the United States: a) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific amounts and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are incorporated into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered animal products, fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents throughout the animal-based food-production chain "from farm to fork" to human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and collaboration among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and veterinary and public health officials.
Sapkota et al. 668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 · Environmental Health Perspectives
CVM Update May 18, 2007
May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
To help prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) through feed in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule, Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called the Ruminant Feed Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has assembled data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of May 12, 2007. As of May 12, 2007, FDA had received over 53,000 inspection reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted by State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials. Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified with OAI violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory sanctions to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified with VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. These include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.
An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions or practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.
The results to date are reported here both by "segment of industry" and "in total". NOTE ­ A single firm can operate as more than one firm type. As a result, the categories of the different industry segments are not mutually exclusive.
These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 269
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed ­ 161 (60 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 161 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
4 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI
FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter withdrawal time. This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from FDA is not required to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed Ban.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 1,074
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed ­ 444 (41 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 444 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
5 firms (1.1 %) were classified as VAI
These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 5,183
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed ­ 2,391 (46 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 2,391 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.1 %) were classified as OAI
56 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI
These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 386
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed ­ 183 (47% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 183 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
1 firm (0.5 %) was classified as OAI
7 firms (3.8 %) were classified as VAI
This category includes only those firms that actually use prohibited material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or feed ingredients.
Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 6,604
Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials ­ 497 (7.5 %)
Of the 497 active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.4 %) were classified as OAI
24 firms (4.8 %) were classified as VAI
Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and animal feed transporters.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 17,227
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed ­ 5,415 (31% of those active firms inspected)
Of the 5,415 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
2 firms (0.04 %) were classified as OAI
186 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI
Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm category; therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm categories will be more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms, as presented below.
Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA ­ 19,705
Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in ruminant feed ­ 6,146 (31 % of those active firms inspected)
Of the 6,146 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most recent inspection revealed that:
3 firms (0.05 %) were classified as OAI
200 firms (3.3 %) were classified as VAI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Issued by: FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Communications Staff,
HFV-12 7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II ___________________________________
PRODUCT Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007 CODE Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007 RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007. Firm initiated recall is ongoing. REASON Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 42,090 lbs. DISTRIBUTION WI
PRODUCT Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI ­ 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J ­ PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007 CODE The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified. RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete. REASON Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 9,997,976 lbs. DISTRIBUTION ID and NV
May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE
what about BASE ???
18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7 December 2006 are now available.
64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.
Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.
3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse
Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve University
Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to be infected after more than 2 years.
***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than classical BSE in humans.***
6:30 Close of Day One
There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance collection.
He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.
Subject: OIE BSE RECOMMENDATION FOR USA, bought and paid for by your local cattle dealers i.e. USDA Date: May 14, 2007 at 9:00 am PST
(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)
11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries. The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status or other significant events that were not promptly reported to then Central Bureau............



This Site Served by TheHostPros