Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for U.S. beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase U.S. shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower.

“We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that U.S. Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE,” the post continued.

Australia imports minimal U.S. beef

Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterization many economists dispute.

“For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on U.S. beef,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia’s decision a “major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for U.S. farmers and ranchers.”

Australia is not a significant importer of beef but the United States is and a production slump is forcing it to step up purchases.

Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $2.9 billion to the United States, with just 269 tons of U.S. product moving the other way.

Relaxed restrictions unrelated to trade talks says Australia

Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of U.S. biosecurity practices.

Canberra has restricted U.S. beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico.

On Wednesday, Australia’s agriculture ministry said U.S. cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States.

The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector.

“We need to know if (the government) is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump,” shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement.

Australia, which imports more from the U.S. than it exports, faces a 10 per cent across-the-board U.S. tariff, as well 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200 per cent tariff on pharmaceuticals.

Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: “I’m not too sure.”

“We haven’t done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement,” he said. “We think that they should do that anyway.”

— Reporting by Kanishka Singh, Ismail Shakil and Peter Hobson

The post Trump says US will sell ‘so much’ beef to Australia appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Tessa Thomas, a livestock and feed extension specialist with the Government of Saskatchewan, spoke about biosecurity at the Livestock Happy Hour at AIM on Tuesday, July 16. She said while biosecurity in the beef industry is not as thorough as in other livestock industries, it is just as important.

“Disease spread may not be on top of mind,” she said.

Follow all of our Ag in Motion coverage at the Western Producer.

“You get kind of used to your day-to-day routine, but you never know when disease can strike, and just some of our day-to-day actions can be improved to prevent that spread.”

When certain diseases spread, they can impact the state of Canada’s imports and exports, which means it is important to know what is going on when it comes to disease on an operation.

Thomas recommends having a biosecurity checklist. Many small things can be done, such as:

• Disinfect your boots and trailer.
• Keep animal movement and health records.
• Work with a vet.
• Have a herd health management program.
• Avoid bringing in dairy calves or calves from other farms.
• Isolate new animals.
• Isolate animals showing signs of illness.
• Avoid shared fence lines with other ranches (if possible).
• Have a disease response plan and a plan for disposing of dead livestock.
• Clean drinking facilities and feeders/bunks.
• Have a written biosecurity plan in place.

“There are a lot of small steps that we can take to make our farms just a little bit more biosecure,” Thomas said.

When disinfecting your boots and trailer, using household bleach is good enough, unless the disease is parasitic. She advised using a 1:32 ratio of water to bleach, but if you are concerned about disease, use a 1:10 ratio.

She also highlighted investigating deaths to figure out exactly what may be going on.

“Investigating deaths is something I know some people struggle with. I know there’s no way to save that animal, so sometimes it’s hard to put extra money out when they’re already dead, but it’s key to understand why that animal died, and it could save you a lot of money in the end,” Thomas said.

Though the checklist may seem like it consists of a lot of things, Thomas said the biggest thing with a biosecurity plan is that it doesn’t have to be complicated.

“You don’t have to go out of your way to make a really complicated thing. It’s easier to make something simple that you can follow and follow through with because small changes become habits. With big changes, sometimes it’s hard to follow through with things, so it’s always better to start small.”

The post Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said in a June 19 notice to industry it’s the first time the virus has been detected in a commercial operation in Canada since 1973.

The disease, caused by the avian paramyxovirus type 1, is highly contagious and can infect both domestic fowl and wild birds. According to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), Newcastle Disease can present clinically very similar to avian influenza, including a drop in egg production, respiratory distress, nervous signs (such as tremors, paralyzed wings, head and neck twisting) and diarrhea. Mortality can be variable.

To minimize trade disruptions, the CFIA has set up primary control zones 10 kilometres around each of the infected premises. The agency said the infected birds have been depopulated and a thorough cleaning and disinfection of the premises must be completed to help prevent spread of the virus to other poultry premises.

Poultry producers in the area are encouraged to practice heightened biosecurity as the disease is mainly transmitted by direct contact with diseased or carrier birds. The CFIA said infected birds may shed the virus in their feces, contaminating the environment. The virus can survive for days in litter, feed, water, soil, carcasses, eggs and feathers. The disease spreads rapidly among birds in close confinement.

The virus can also spread unintentionally through the movement of contaminated material, footwear and equipment.

Most commercial broiler, turkey, layer and breeder flocks in Canada are vaccinated for the disease.

The CFIA said Newcastle disease is not a food safety concern.

The post Newcastle disease identified in British Columbia appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Bill C-275 would amend the Health of Animals Act and make it illegal for anyone to unlawfully enter a barn or building where livestock are kept.

The private member’s bill was sponsored by Conservative agriculture critic John Barlow and passed in the House of Commons last fall with support from both opposition and government members.

Since the Senate committee began its study earlier this year, it has heard repeatedly that the bill should apply to everyone.

Last week, legal and scientific experts said the bill is entirely about trespassers.

Jodi Lazare, associate professor and associate dean at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law, said courts look at what a law actually does.

“It’s quite clear that this bill is about shutting down activism and trespass, about protecting animal agriculture. In fact, it has been explicitly stated a few times now that this bill is about the protection of private property,” she said during testimony.

The bill doesn’t actually target the most likely sources of risk, which are the people who are lawfully entitled to be in the barn, she said.

University of Toronto law professor Angela Fernandez agreed.

“The legally present people are the problem in terms of biosecurity,” she said, adding there is a real risk that this bill, if passed, would be challenged.

Lazare added courts will look behind the name or function of a law to examine why it was passed and its practical effects. Laws have been found invalid on that basis, she said.

However, senator Don Plett said there would have been lawyers among the MPs who supported the bill. He suggested it could be improved.

Lazare said applying it to everyone would make it about biosecurity.

Amy Greer, associate professor in the department of population medicine at the University of Guelph, said she was sympathetic to the mental stress and anguish experienced by farmers who have found activists or trespassers in their barns.

However, she too said the biosecurity risk is low. The actual risk of a pathogen being introduced is the combination of the probability of transmission given an effective contact and the frequency that effective contact occurs.

“Even for easily transmitted pathogens, the current frequency of these trespass occurrences at a national scale, to me, would be incredibly low compared to the frequency of the occurrence of farm contacts for lawful reasons,” she told the committee. “As a result, the biosecurity risk associated with these trespass events is very low.”

Jan Hajek, clinical assistant professor and infectious disease specialist at the University of British Columbia, said he is among the 20 specialists who last year sent a letter expressing their concern about Bill C-275.

“The doctors were concerned that the way this bill was promoted misrepresented infectious disease risk and misused people’s genuine concern about biosecurity to pass additional anti-trespass legislation,” he said.

“In stating the need for this bill, some individuals repeatedly made unfounded claims that trespassers introduced infectious diseases on farm and pointed to devastating impact of diseases like BSE, or mad cow disease, a disease whose introduction had nothing to do with trespass.”

Hajek said the bill is unlikely to improve the health of animals but added trespass must remain illegal.

Government officials from Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency noted that trespass is largely a provincial jurisdiction. Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, chief veterinary officer, said six provinces have passed enhanced legislation to prohibit trespassing where animals are kept.

Senators heard that biosecurity standards are voluntary and depend on species and individual producers. The CFIA does not track this information.

“We all agree biosecurity on farms is important, which is why I’m disquieted to hear you say that our standards are voluntary and that you’re not tracking the data,” said Alberta senator Paula Simons.

“So we don’t actually know how big the problems are. It would seem to be common sense that the bigger source of contamination might be from farmers not observing any standards than from protesters who have never been shown to track disease onto farms.”

Plett disagreed that trespassers have never caused a problem, citing the appearance of rotavirus for the first time in 40 years after protesters appeared on a Quebec hog farm and distemper at a mink farm in Ontario.

—Updated Oct. 6.

The post Senators told biosecurity bill C-275 is really about trespassing appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“The best defense against [highly pathogenic avian influenza] is having a biosecurity plan in place,” said Mary Keena, NDSU Extension livestock environmental management specialist. “It is your job as an animal owner to create a line of separation between your clean animals and the potential unclean issues that wildlife or visitors may bring.”

The risk of avian flu transmission increases in hunting season due to increased interaction with wild birds, NDSU staff said in an article posted this month. Waterfowl, gulls, terns and shorebirds are the primary carriers of avian influenza A —the strain responsible for deadly outbreaks in poultry flocks and, more recently, milder outbreaks in U.S. dairy herds.

“Infected birds shed bird flu viruses in their saliva, mucous and feces,” said Miranda Meehan, NDSU Extension livestock environmental stewardship specialist. “If you hunt game or wild birds and own domestic poultry or livestock, do not wear hunting clothes or footwear while you are interacting with your poultry or livestock.”

NSDU extension staff recommended the following biosecurity measures:

• Avoid hauling the disease home by changing clothings and footwear before crossing the clean/dirty line to care for animals.
• Avoid driving through areas where waterfowl and other wildlife feces may be. If it cannot be avoided, clean shoes, vehicles and equipment thoroughly.
• Field dress birds where possible.
• Keep dogs away from poultry or livestock if they’ve interacted with waterfowl. Dogs aren’t a high risk to contract the virus, but may transmit bird flu to domestic flocks.
• If visitors are interacting with flocks or herds, find out where they’ve been. Require them to wash hands and wear clean or disinfected clothing and shoes.
• Clean up litter and spilled food around animal housing to reduce attractiveness for wild birds.
• Consider bringing in any free-range guinea fowl and waterfowl.

—Updated Sept. 19. Removes reference to documented cases of dogs spreading bird flu to poultry. 

The post Hunters urged to take biosecurity measures against bird flu appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Every living thing contains carbon, and everything — including cattle, grasslands,
and people — is part of the carbon cycle. Raising beef cattle can have both positive
and negative impacts on the carbon cycle and different management practices
can increase or decrease the sector’s carbon footprint. Learn more about how
production systems stack up by visiting the Beef Cattle Research Council website.

Biosecurity and livestock

All livestock and poultry producers should have biosecurity plans tailored to their
specific operations. Producers are encouraged to work with industry organizations,
veterinarians and other animal health professionals in developing their plans. All farm
staff and anyone living on the farm need to understand the importance of biosecurity.
Preventing disease from entering or leaving Alberta farms protects human and animal
health, and supports sustainable livestock production.

The post Briefs: Carbon and beef cattle; biosecurity and livestock appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The report, “Protecting Against Animal Biosecurity Risks: The State of Canada’s Preparedness,” included seven recommendations to combat existing and future disease concerns.

Animal disease outbreaks can seriously damage the financial health of affected farms and, depending on the disease, can have implications for trade of livestock and animal products.

The committee’s interest follows continued avian influenza outbreaks across Canada. While cases have not reached 2022’s fever pitch in the U.S. and Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency counted 76 actively infected premises as of Dec. 14. Since late 2021, the disease had affected more than 10.9 million domestic birds as of that date.

In April, the committee adopted a motion to “undertake a study regarding the preparedness and safeguards in place.”

In May, witnesses reassured committee members on the state of Canada’s biosecurity preparedness. Experts on the industry cited “extensive efforts undertaken at the farm and industry-wide levels to prepare for … outbreaks,” the report reads.

That was not reason to relax. Producers and others involved in the livestock chain “nonetheless encouraged continued vigilance from the federal government” in the area of biosecurity preparedness, the report noted.

Recommendations

The committee concluded that Canada should improve its biosecurity preparedness by working closely with international partners, increasing funding for biosecurity technologies and conducting annual reviews of biosecurity protocols.

It also recommended that Canada’s ability to respond to outbreaks be bolstered by developing new vaccines through public-private partnerships, encouraging the standardization and harmonization of requirements for animal medications, and developing and maintaining vaccine banks.

Witnesses expressed concern over a shortage of qualified veterinarians in Canada, and called on the federal government “to increase immigration pathways for overseas veterinarians.”

A similar issue was brought forward at November’s meeting of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, in which local governments agreed that the organization should lobby the province to ease the way for foreign-trained veterinarians.

Other recommendations included a national awareness campaign on the importance of biosecurity preparedness, prioritizing protocol agreements with Canada’s trading partners, reviewing compensation policies in the case of necessary animal destruction and reviewing the requirements for disposal of risk materials.

The full report can be found on the standing committee’s government webpage.

– With files from Alexis Stockford

The post House committee urges biosecurity boost appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Conservative MP John Barlow brought forward Bill C-275, “an Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms),” as a private members bill. It arrived before the Commons standing committee on agriculture and agri-food on Sept. 28.

Barlow, the Conservatives’ shadow minister for agriculture, agri-food and food security, and MP for the southwestern Alberta riding of Foothills, had also put forward the previous version, Bill C-205, in 2020. The new bill takes up roughly where it left off.

It states: “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.”

It applies fines up to $250,000 or up to two years’ jail time for individuals, and fines up to $500,000 for organizations.

While not explicitly mentioned, Barlow indicated the bill is in reaction to actions of activists, such as those who snuck into a turkey farm in his riding — likely a reference to a 2019 incident in which a group of activists broke into a turkey barn on a Hutterite colony north of Fort Macleod.

Barlow told the committee the bill applies existing penalties in the Health of Animals Act to people who trespass on farms in ways that contravene biosecurity practices and increases penalties to groups who encourage these actions.

While a few provinces have similar laws, “I think it behooves us as the federal government to have a national program in place that will cover all provinces and territories because that is not happening now,” Barlow said.

He added that while trespassing laws might apply to these scenarios, they only applied small fines that would not be enough to deter groups who he said fundraise off protests.

“There has to be teeth to this,” he said.

Barlow said the act would not limit people’s rights to protest, or target whistleblowers who lived or worked on the farm.

“This bill does not limit an individual’s rights to peaceful protest on public property,” he said. “This bill also does not prevent whistleblowers from coming forward when they are witnesses to practices that jeopardize our food security, our food safety or the welfare of animals. Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals.”

Barlow also argued that the bill would help protect the mental health of farm families who feel targeted and attacked by activists.

Bill C-275 incorporates some of the amendments made to C-205 but drops a previous amendment that dropped “without lawful authority or excuse.”

When questioned about this, he told the committee that stakeholders saw this as redundant, as the bill had already been carefully worded to protect whistleblowers.

That amendment had been made by NDP agriculture critic Alistair MacGregor, who argued that references to trespassing must be removed as trespassing laws are not federal jurisdiction.

“If you are a farmer or farm employee, if you are a transport driver or if you are a protester, if you violate the biosecurity protocols in place on a farm, this law applies equally to you. That’s the main essence of my putting it forward,” he said in a committee meeting in June 2021.

In a meeting Thursday, Barlow said that on Oct. 16, the Commons ag committee would consider the bill clause by clause before returning it to the Commons to be voted on.

— Geralyn Wichers is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Anti-activist bill back before Commons committee appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Bill C-275 would make it an offence to enter a place where animals are kept, without lawful authority or excuse, if doing so could result in a biosecurity risk.

“Simply put, this amendment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farm property and facilities where animals are kept,” Alberta Conservative MP John Barlow said during the bill’s second parliamentary reading May 1.

The bill cleared second reading in the Commons on June 21 and was referred to the Commons standing committee on agriculture and agri-food for its consideration. The Commons adjourned later that day for the summer and is not scheduled to return until Sept. 18.

“The bill would not, in any way, disallow protesters from protesting on public property about the issues that they are passionate about and that are important to them,” he added.

However, it would add significant fines to organizations that encourage trespass into livestock zones, said Barlow. He maintained that it would not hinder whistle-blowers from reporting practices that jeopardize the safety and welfare of livestock.

“What this really focuses on is the biosecurity risk and the health of our animals. We saw what COVID-19 did to Canada’s economy, a human-borne virus,” Barlow stated.

“It devastated not only our economy, but economies around the world. Imagine what a similar animal-borne pandemic would do to Canada’s agriculture industry.”

Protesters aren’t willingly jeopardizing farm biosecurity, he added, but they don’t understand protocols and how proactive measures protect against potential animal pandemics.

“Strengthening the biosecurity measures for trespassers is something farmers, ranchers, food processors and farm groups across the country all support,” he said.

Barlow referenced the highly pathogenic strain of avian influenza that resulted in a $360-million loss to the poultry sector in 2004 and, in more recent outbreaks, saw more than 7.5 million domestic birds euthanized across Canada from late 2021 to present day.

He said an outbreak of African swine fever in Canada would cost billions to Canada’s pork industry, which employs 45,000 people and involves billions of dollars in export revenue.

“We know that agriculture and agri-food is going to be a critical pillar of our economy moving forward. To ensure it can reach its full potential, our farm families need to know that the government of Canada and the House of Commons stand with them, will protect them, and put these measures in place,” Barlow said.

Francis Drouin, parliamentary secretary to the federal agriculture minister, said the government supports the bill with amendments.

“Bill C-275, as worded, creates legal risks,” he cautioned during the reading.

He added that, “existing federal and provincial statutes can be used for managing cases of trespassing on farms.”

As written, the bill primarily focuses on broadly prohibiting protesters from trespassing, rather than protecting animal biosecurity as it relates to the spread of disease, Drouin said, and that falls outside the government’s scope of responsibility.

Drouin said an amendment focused more squarely on biosecurity inside the farm gates would also reinforce the benefit of biosecurity zones, which are critical to prevent spread of animal disease.

“We need to be mindful of how best to do that without creating legal challenges,” said Drouin. “Fundamentally, legislation should not introduce new legal issues. It should also complement, not duplicate, the laws we already have.”

In recent years, five provinces have passed legislation prohibiting trespass on farms or areas where animals are housed.

In Manitoba in 2021, the province passed two such laws. The Animal Diseases Amendment Act made it an offence to go into a biosecure farm area or interact with animals on that site without permission, interact with animals without permission during transport or interfere with animal shipment trucks.

Another piece of legislation removed the requirement for trespassers to be warned before they could be charged with trespassing, so long as land is marked or partially enclosed.

Drouin’s concerns around the proposed bill’s wording echoed those of animal rights advocates, who said Bill C-275, like its predecessor, targeted animal rights protests on agricultural property under the guise of strengthening biosecurity measures.

Bloc Quebecois MP Yves Perron said he supports the bill, and recalled the impact on Saint-Hyacinthe’s Porgreg pig farm in 2019 following a sit-in by animal advocates.

“They (protesters) were taking pictures and saying that they wanted to protect the animals whose health and safety they were jeopardizing,” said Perron. “Afterwards, it was discovered that a disease had been introduced into the herd because biosecurity protocols had been violated.”

He acknowledged existing laws govern this. However, it is challenging to connect the disease and the trespassing incident in a court of law.

In the Porgreg case, 11 activists were found guilty of obstruction and break and enter in April 2022. The Quebec Crown sought a suspended sentence with two years of probation and 150 hours of community service in December 2022, but an official sentence hasn’t been announced.

Perron called for more significant consequences to discourage the behaviour and minimize the potential for harm to livestock.

“We ask agricultural producers to take strict precautions when it comes to meeting health standards,” Perron said. “We cannot have people deciding to jeopardize all that based on an ideology that is a little extreme.”

A version of this article first appeared in Farmtario.

The post Federal bill aims to tighten biosecurity and trespass protections appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency in April has reported detections of high-path avian flu at 13 sites in that province, including:

• three commercial barns in the regional county municipality (RCM) of Rouville, east of Montreal, including two detected on April 3 and one on April 4;
• a backyard (non-commercial) poultry site at Sherbrooke, on April 13;
• seven commercial barns in the RCM of Les Maskoutains, around St-Hyacinthe, including one each detected April 13, 17 and 18 and two each detected April 19 and 22; and
• two commercial barns in the RCM of La Vallée-du-Richelieu, just west of Les Maskoutains, detected April 18 and 21.

The Quebec government announced April 6 it will put up $800,000 for the province’s poultry disease control team (EQCMA) to go toward producer training; updating biosecurity protocols; building up “field expertise” in cleaning and disinfection of barns; and buying and developing new systems for rapid culling on infected farms.

The province also said it would set up new supports for small farms, including the establishment of a voluntary ID registry; biosecurity training for backyard and smaller-scale poultry operations; and development of a best practices guide for construction of chicken coops.

Provincial Ag Minister Andre Lamontagne said at the time that the investment “will allow us to be better prepared and more agile during future avian flu outbreaks.”

Relatively few cases have been spotted so far this month elsewhere in Canada. They include a non-commercial, non-poultry site in central Alberta’s Lacombe County, detected Friday, and two commercial poultry barns in southwestern Ontario, one detected April 5 at Middlesex Centre, the other April 19 in Norfolk County.

As of April 19, the run of high-path avian flu through Canada that began in late 2021 is estimated to have impacted 7.596 million domestic birds on 319 premises across nine provinces. Of those 319, 58 are still under CFIA quarantine pending culls and/or disinfection.

In the U.S., the run of high-path avian flu that began there in early 2022 has so far affected an estimated 58.79 million domestic birds in 325 commercial and 507 backyard flocks across 47 states.

The most recent cases reported to the U.S. Department of Agriculture include an outbreak with no details yet available in northern Colorado’s Routt County, reported Monday; two outbreaks on commercial turkey farms reported April 19, one in southern North Dakota’s Dickey County and one in east-central South Dakota’s Beadle County; and an outbreak at a “live bird market” in Brooklyn in New York City, reported April 18. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Avian flu outbreaks climb in Quebec poultry appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.