Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Hosted by members of the University of Minnesota Extension Beef and Dairy Teams, The Moos Room discusses relevant topics to help beef and dairy producers be more successful. The information is evidence-based and presented as an informal conversation between the hosts and guests.
What is up, everybody? It's doctor Joe Armstrong, and today is 52824 at 11 AM. I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend. I didn't want to ruin anybody's weekend, but we have some news from Friday, May 24th from USDA, and it it isn't great. Not gonna lie to you on that one.
Joe Armstrong:What do we have? Well, USDA released a new update on their beef safety studies. So if you recall what they were doing, they had 3 different studies going in addition to what they had done originally. The 3 studies they announced they were gonna continue to do when we're looking at beef safety we're collecting samples of ground beef from retail and then a ground beef cooking study as well. Those 2 we've covered.
Joe Armstrong:There was no virus found in any ground beef samples obtained at retail markets, and the ground beef cooking study showed that cooked meat is incredibly safe even when virus is present, which, again, it was not found at retail, but they spiked burgers, patties with virus and then cooked them to different temperatures and found that even down at a 120 degrees, the virus is inactivated. Those two studies are really important and why I'm going over them again is because of the next study that they did, and that was looking at beef muscle sampling of cold dairy cows condemned at select FSIS inspected slaughter facilities. So what were they going to do? They collected mussel samples at FSIS inspected slaughter facilities from cold dairy cattle that had been condemned for systemic disease. K.
Joe Armstrong:So let's go over what that means. FSIS is going to take samples from culled dairy cows that were pulled from the line and condemned, meaning they were never going to enter the food supply, but they provide an opportunity to sample. As part of routine inspections of the slaughter facility and the process itself. Certain animals can be pulled or railed out, and then they are evaluated and either they can continue with additional testing or they are condemned outright. So those animals will never enter the food supply.
Joe Armstrong:That's part of what makes our food supply so safe, is that we have inspectors that look at animals and make sure, as best they can, that animals that should not end up in the food supply are pulled from the line, and then they are condemned. They never do enter the food supply. And those animals that are pulled from the line are what we are testing in this study. So in this study, they're using PCR, which we'll go over again what that means, what do results mean with PCR, to test tissue, including muscle samples, from these culled dairy cows for h5n1. So on Friday, what they announced was that they had completed 96 out of the 109 muscle samples that were collected, And that one cow, they detected with PCR viral particles in tissue samples, including diaphragm muscle from 1 cow.
Joe Armstrong:Now it's tempting to say okay we've only got 1 cow that tested out of the 96, but when we look at how many animals go through per day in the US, 96 is not a big sample, so the fact that we even found 1 is big news and potentially a big problem for global trade. Now I think it's good to be reminded of the fact that PCR samples and test results do not allow you to identify if that virus is viable or not. Right? It does not tell you whether or not you have live virus or if you just have pieces of virus or viral fragments. So that is something that we need to keep in mind.
Joe Armstrong:Also we need to think about pcr and how incredibly powerful it is at detection of small amounts of things So, I have a lot of questions about what tissues, when they say tissues, tested positive in addition to the diaphragm muscle. Now, diaphragm is the barrier between the thorax and the abdomen. That means it is sitting right up against lung. So if you take diaphragm muscle and it is physically touching lung tissue, which we know has tested positive in the past for h five n one, and makes sense that it has tested positive. Could you get a positive diaphragm muscle because it was touching infected lung?
Joe Armstrong:Very possible. Very possible. So I want to know what else tested positive from this one cow, if there was any other muscle tissue that tested positive because that would be much more concerning than diaphragm, and I would love for them to run immunohistochemistry on this diaphragm sample to show whether or not the muscle cells themselves are actually infected with the virus or if it's just sitting on the surface and it's a contact issue because that diaphragm is touching lung. Now, another thing that's going on here when we look at this whole process and how this study is being conducted is that we have a statement in the USDA document in the update about the study, and I'll quote it to you. Quote, FSIS and APHIS are working together to conduct traceback, including notification to the producer to gather further information.
Joe Armstrong:End quote. So, they are establishing precedent that if you have an animal that tests positive at the packing plant, they're going to trace it back and they're going to try to figure out which herd this positive animal came from. That is another avenue that we need to be paying attention to if you are choosing to have a symptomatic herd but not test. That is your choice, but it puts you in a tricky spot if something like this happens where they catch a positive at the packing plant and they can identify it came from your farm. You gotta be thinking about the risk and the liability involved as both a veterinarian and a producer if you are symptomatic as a herd that fits the case profile and you're choosing not to test.
Joe Armstrong:We're establishing new ways that you can be identified. You need to be thinking about that when you're talking about the choices and the risks involved in not testing. We can add that to our pros and cons list when we're looking at what we talked about last week, which are those payments for affected herds that are going to be available that USDA announced. Plus, we're looking at new ways that they are going to be identifying infected herds. Whether or not you are testing, there are now ways to identify that your herd was affected in some way.
Joe Armstrong:So, again, I think this relates to the conversation that we had last week about we're running out of carrots when we talk about whether or not we're going to treat the situation from a regulatory standpoint with carrots or sticks, we're running out of carrots, and this only adds pressure to that. I'm not going to get on my soapbox like I did last week as much, but we got to get on board with an industry led voluntary program that can be adopted and that we can make work for us, get that established, and make the rules for ourselves before they are made for us. Now, when I say adopted, I mean when we make a plan as an industry, as a state, someone taking the lead, that plan, if it works well and it has the framework set up, can be adopted by USDA or other states, but someone's got to take the lead. In my opinion, that should be Minnesota. We have the setup with all the experts when it comes to influenza here in Minnesota.
Joe Armstrong:We have a great dairy industry, a great poultry industry, a great swine industry all in one place. In my opinion, Minnesota should set the standard and take the lead on what this looks like for a control program that can be adopted not only by USDA but by other states. That is the next step, in my opinion, is figuring out how to make it work for those industries, including dairy, everyone at the table, let's find a way to make this work before something that isn't going to work is dictated to us by either another state or USDA. The pressure is on. The urgency is real.
Joe Armstrong:Waiting and sitting around to wait to see what USDA is going to do is not an option, in my opinion. USDA has somewhat provided the framework for what should happen next. We talked about last week how USDA released a guidance document for exhibitions. That document provided recommendations, not requirements, but recommendations to exhibitions and states for what should happen with lactating dairy cattle at shows. Now, in my opinion, even though that document was recommendations and not requirements, the way it was laid out and if you read between the lines, it was very clear in my opinion that USDA was recommending that lactate in dairy cattle not be at shows.
Joe Armstrong:And I agree, lactate in dairy cattle should not be at shows. Now USDA is continuing to release pieces that kinda guide states in this is where you need to be headed. One of those things came out last week where they announced a pilot program for a voluntary herd status program involving bulk tank sampling. We don't have a ton of details on this program yet, but basically what it involves is official enrollment, an agreement that's signed by the State veterinarian and the dairy that agrees to a herd monitoring plan, and then you are allowed to bulk tank sample on a provisional basis. Once you have 3 weeks in a row where your bulk tank is negative, you are then considered a monitored herd that is unaffected as long as you remain negative on your bulk tank sample.
Joe Armstrong:Now the benefit to that is that if you're negative on your bulk tank, you can move animals without pre movement testing. That's a big benefit. Big time saver. The framework for that plan also laid out what happens if you are positive on your bulk tank, what happens next. Now it's not very specific, and I don't expect it to be because we don't have all the details yet, but it says that there will be an epidemiological investigation and they will evaluate the movement for low risk animals.
Joe Armstrong:So I would expect that definition of low risk animals to include nonlactating animals. You then have to have 2 consecutive weeks of sampling, including the hospital pen, not just the bulk tank, with negative results, and you have to have an absence of clinical signs and production changes for 2 weeks. Then you regain your status of monitored and unaffected, and you can go back to just having negative bulk tag samples that allow you to move animals without pre movement testing. So this is the first time that we've hinted at here's how you get out of the box. You get put in the box because you're positive.
Joe Armstrong:How do you get out? It's the first time that we have a plan or at least the framework of a plan for how you get out of the box, and that is encouraging. Now I think there are potential issues with this plan, but I don't wanna comment on those until we have all the details. They are saying that they're going to roll out this pilot program in June and that many states are also interested in being a part of this. This is the most encouraging thing I've seen from USDA so far is an attempt to actually get a handle on this.
Joe Armstrong:Now it's voluntary, so that comes with other issues. And I think there's some, like I said, there's some other issues with the framework, but I don't wanna comment until we have all the details because that might get ironed out still. But back to our discussion on why we started talking about this at all is USDA is pointing at the road they would like things to go, and I think still, in some ways, waiting for a state or a piece of the industry to just take the lead and say, this is what we should do, and this is what's going to work for us, and they're already providing some of the framework to do that. We're real close to another soapbox, so I'll just quit there on my commentary. Remind everyone before we get out of here, meat is safe.
Joe Armstrong:Okay? Despite the fact that we have PCR tests showing that tissues are positive from cold dairy animals including diaphragm, muscle, meat is safe. We have studies to prove that. Milk is also safe. We have studies to prove that as well.
Joe Armstrong:So I'm going to continue to eat meat. I'm going to continue to drink milk. I'm going to continue to have my kids eat meat and drink milk as well. With that, scathing rebuttals, comments, questions, they go to the booze room at umn.edu. You can certainly call me as well.
Joe Armstrong:612-624-3610. Check out our website, extension.umnedotedu. Thank you for listening. We will catch you next episode.