worms in flesh
- Thread starter rbrwrm
- Start date
Your bird had a parasite normally called Rice Breast. It is very similar as you pointed out to wormy perch or bass. It is a very small round worm that only affects ducks. Supposedly safe to eat the bird if you cook it well.....but.....not at all appetizing to this cheff.
Could get Ugly
Well-Known Member
Over the years I have got 3 mallards and one goose with the grubs in them that looked like rice. After the 1st one I call a biologist at the MNR and asked what was it? He said it was worms but do not [xx(] eat the duck. I offered to drop the duck off for testing but they didn't want it. Hope I never get another one.
Hello Guys,
If it is "Rice Breast" then what you are seeing are the cysts of the parasitic worm larvae.
I do not recall the scientific name of the parasitic worm "off hand" but the ducks are safe to eat after properly cooking them.
This is an esthetic problem as many hunters would prefer not to eat these infected ducks.
Having said that you may no longer want to eat any pork products because pigs carry parasitic cysts within their muscles that if not properly cooked would (not could) present a human health problem.
This is also a problem in cattle but it is far less common.
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
PS I would like to see a picture at some point.
If it is "Rice Breast" then what you are seeing are the cysts of the parasitic worm larvae.
I do not recall the scientific name of the parasitic worm "off hand" but the ducks are safe to eat after properly cooking them.
This is an esthetic problem as many hunters would prefer not to eat these infected ducks.
Having said that you may no longer want to eat any pork products because pigs carry parasitic cysts within their muscles that if not properly cooked would (not could) present a human health problem.
This is also a problem in cattle but it is far less common.
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
PS I would like to see a picture at some point.
canvasbacksca
Well-Known Member
Hey, Jerome! The "rice breast" parasite is called Sarcocystis. And stop trying to scare people about eating pork because of Trichinella cysts -- there hasn't been a case of Trichinellosis due to pork in Canada since 1980:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_sheet.htm
EXCERPT:
Certification by region - Canada has adopted the approach of regional freedom from trichinae in domestic pigs based on a history of testing and finding animals to be negative. This means that most of Canada is considered a "trichinae-free" zone; in one small focus of infection which is not included in the trichinae-free zone, pigs are tracked and tested regularly. The basis for this regional approach is found in the OIE Code of Animal Health. OIE is an international organization devoted to animal and veterinary public health. The OIE Code states the following: A country, or part of the territory of a country may be considered free from trichinae in domestic swine when: 1) trichinellosis humans and animals is compulsorily notifiable in the country; 2) there is in force an effective disease reporting system shown to be capable of capturing the occurrence of cases; and 3) it has been found that trichinae infection does not exist in the domestic swine population as determined by regular testing of a statistically significant sample of the population; or 4) trichinellosis has not been reported in five years and a surveillance program shows that the disease is absent from wild animal populations.
In Canada, no cases of human trichinellosis caused by pork have been reported since 1980 and extensive surveillance has been in place since 1966. From 1980 through 1995, over 550,000 pigs were tested. This surveillance demonstrated that, except for one infected zone in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada is free from trichinae in domestic pigs. Within the infected zone, movement of pigs is restricted. All pigs from the infected zone are tested at slaughter and depopulation of infected herds is required.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_sheet.htm
EXCERPT:
Certification by region - Canada has adopted the approach of regional freedom from trichinae in domestic pigs based on a history of testing and finding animals to be negative. This means that most of Canada is considered a "trichinae-free" zone; in one small focus of infection which is not included in the trichinae-free zone, pigs are tracked and tested regularly. The basis for this regional approach is found in the OIE Code of Animal Health. OIE is an international organization devoted to animal and veterinary public health. The OIE Code states the following: A country, or part of the territory of a country may be considered free from trichinae in domestic swine when: 1) trichinellosis humans and animals is compulsorily notifiable in the country; 2) there is in force an effective disease reporting system shown to be capable of capturing the occurrence of cases; and 3) it has been found that trichinae infection does not exist in the domestic swine population as determined by regular testing of a statistically significant sample of the population; or 4) trichinellosis has not been reported in five years and a surveillance program shows that the disease is absent from wild animal populations.
In Canada, no cases of human trichinellosis caused by pork have been reported since 1980 and extensive surveillance has been in place since 1966. From 1980 through 1995, over 550,000 pigs were tested. This surveillance demonstrated that, except for one infected zone in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada is free from trichinae in domestic pigs. Within the infected zone, movement of pigs is restricted. All pigs from the infected zone are tested at slaughter and depopulation of infected herds is required.
canvasbacksca
Well-Known Member
Dicker -- you can see a photo and read a description of Sarcocystis here: http://www.unbc.ca/nlui/wildlife_diseases_bc/sarcocystis.htm
Hello Dave,
A few points:
1) My brain's memory bank was working a bit slow that day and I recalled that "Rice Breast" was Sarcocystis later that night. I had a problem with my new truck to deal with but I was coming back on to clarify that today.
2) I was not trying to scare anyone from eating pork but rather just trying to calm anyone's concerns about eating their ducks. Infected pork is fine to eat as long as it is cooked properly and that is why there are specific requirements for the preparations of processed meats containing pork.
3) Our Canadian pork is considered the best in the world but much of it is exported to the USA and Japan ... we then import inferior pork from other countries to fill our own domestic demand.
4) The OIE oversees the international trade of live animals and products of animal origin ... meat, meat by-products, hides, eggs, embryos, semen etc.
I have documented several examples in which veterinarians employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have repeatedly signed Misleading, Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated and Fraudulent export documents in violation of the OIE guidelines to facilitate international trade while I was employed by the CFIA. These have been referred to as MIUF Export Documents in my extended series of letters submitted to the various representatives of the CFIA management, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA), College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) and elected officials. There have been other concerns that have been documented by other veterinarians employed by the CFIA as well ... some of which have been published within the national newspapers.
I eventually resigned under protest, without prejudice and on non-amicable terms from the CFIA regarding several unresolved issues.
Other veterinarians have just quit the CFIA and found work elsewhere while one veterinarian committed suicide.
The concerns and problems with the CFIA continue and will probably only get worse with time.
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
Former PIPSC Steward
Former Member of the Staff Relations Committee
Former Member of the VM Group National Executive
Former Member of the National Operational Health and Safety Committee
Former Member of the Meat Hygiene Reform Committee
A few points:
1) My brain's memory bank was working a bit slow that day and I recalled that "Rice Breast" was Sarcocystis later that night. I had a problem with my new truck to deal with but I was coming back on to clarify that today.
2) I was not trying to scare anyone from eating pork but rather just trying to calm anyone's concerns about eating their ducks. Infected pork is fine to eat as long as it is cooked properly and that is why there are specific requirements for the preparations of processed meats containing pork.
3) Our Canadian pork is considered the best in the world but much of it is exported to the USA and Japan ... we then import inferior pork from other countries to fill our own domestic demand.
4) The OIE oversees the international trade of live animals and products of animal origin ... meat, meat by-products, hides, eggs, embryos, semen etc.
I have documented several examples in which veterinarians employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have repeatedly signed Misleading, Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated and Fraudulent export documents in violation of the OIE guidelines to facilitate international trade while I was employed by the CFIA. These have been referred to as MIUF Export Documents in my extended series of letters submitted to the various representatives of the CFIA management, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA), College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) and elected officials. There have been other concerns that have been documented by other veterinarians employed by the CFIA as well ... some of which have been published within the national newspapers.
I eventually resigned under protest, without prejudice and on non-amicable terms from the CFIA regarding several unresolved issues.
Other veterinarians have just quit the CFIA and found work elsewhere while one veterinarian committed suicide.
The concerns and problems with the CFIA continue and will probably only get worse with time.
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
Former PIPSC Steward
Former Member of the Staff Relations Committee
Former Member of the VM Group National Executive
Former Member of the National Operational Health and Safety Committee
Former Member of the Meat Hygiene Reform Committee
canvasbacksca
Well-Known Member
None of that negates the fact that there's not been a case of Trichinellosis in Canada for over 20 years and our pork does NOT need to be cooked well-done:
http://www.saskpork.com/pdfs/pork_cooking_guide.pdf
EXCERPT:
Pork Need Not Be Overcooked
It can be cooked to medium 160›F (70›C) to give a juicy and tender product. Years ago consumers were concerned about trichinosis in pork and therefore overcooked it. Today, as a result of improved production methods in Canada, there has not been a case of trichinosis for over 20 years. Now, if pork is cooked to a higher temperature, the meat tends to dry out and become tough. The exception is ground pork and sausage, which like all ground meats, should be cooked thoroughly.
http://www.saskpork.com/pdfs/pork_cooking_guide.pdf
EXCERPT:
Pork Need Not Be Overcooked
It can be cooked to medium 160›F (70›C) to give a juicy and tender product. Years ago consumers were concerned about trichinosis in pork and therefore overcooked it. Today, as a result of improved production methods in Canada, there has not been a case of trichinosis for over 20 years. Now, if pork is cooked to a higher temperature, the meat tends to dry out and become tough. The exception is ground pork and sausage, which like all ground meats, should be cooked thoroughly.
ship wrecked
Well-Known Member
I enjoy reading all the stuff on here but if ducks tasted like pork I would be doing a lot more shooting 
Hello Ship Wrecked:
I do not dispute what Canvasback has stated however further to my post of November 14, 2011 and your response of November 15, 2011 you may find the following of interest:
1) Anyone who grew up in Canada during the 1950s and 1960s probably ate some pork that was contaminated with a few parasitic cysts without any consequences if the pork was cooked properly.
2) By the mid 1970s the concern was still present within Agriculture Canada and the food industry but to a lesser degree.
3) I can also confirm that by 1977 we were not detecting any parasitic cysts within the pork samples that were being tested in the Toronto area.
4) The processing regulations remained in force to treat all pork (regardless of the country of origin) as if it was infected.
5) After the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) came into being on April 01, 1997 there was to have been a two year "grace period" whereby there would be no changes within the CFIA from the former regulatory body.
6) However by September of 1997 I had to start refusing to sign certain CFIA export documents as the wording within them was no longer valid.
7) Following that two year "grace period" we noticed that Food Safety appeared to had taken a secondary role within the CFIA and some serious concerns were being raised.
8) I remember that CFIA veterinarians were instructed to certify that beef shipments leaving Canada had originated from Canadian cattle herds (which we could not possibly have known at the time) and that none of the animals within these Canadian cattle herds had shown any signs of BSE (which we could not possibly have known because we never had examined any of these Canadian cattle herds). Note: BSE is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or "Mad Cow Disease".
9) Any CFIA veterinarian refusing to sign a CFIA export document for whatever reason had consequences and individual veterinarians could often be "coerced" into signing future export documents ... until March of 2002.
10) At a meeting held in March of 2002 the CFIA management announced that no CFIA veterinarian should sign any export document that they were not "comfortable" with. This was just three months before a Public Service Labour Relation Board (PSLRB) Adjudication Hearing regarding one of my complaints against the CFIA was scheduled to start.
11) However a "backroom" meeting would often "make" a CFIA veterinarian "comfortable" with signing an export document that they had not previously signed.
12) Ms. E. Henry (Adjudicator, PSLRB) handled down her decision (about 56 pages in length) regarding the Katchin vs CFIA case in the spring of 2003 in which she criticized the CFIA management paragraph after paragraph for about 8 pages.
13) The apparent abuse of power and corruption within the CFIA falls under what some call Risk Assessment Management or "how far can we go without getting caught". Another way to look at it is "how many consumers are we willing to put at risk (get sick or die) to save this amount of money from our budget".
14) The money spent on Food Safety is not money wasted! For more information check out the Food Saftey First web page.
Having said that I believe that the waterfowl that we hunt and eat are generally wholesome and fit to eat ... so enjoy.
Sincerely,
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
Former PIPSC Steward
Former Member of the Staff Relations Committee
Former Member of the VM Group National Executive
Former Member of the National Operational Health and Safety Committee
Former Member of the Meat Hygiene Reform Committee
I do not dispute what Canvasback has stated however further to my post of November 14, 2011 and your response of November 15, 2011 you may find the following of interest:
1) Anyone who grew up in Canada during the 1950s and 1960s probably ate some pork that was contaminated with a few parasitic cysts without any consequences if the pork was cooked properly.
2) By the mid 1970s the concern was still present within Agriculture Canada and the food industry but to a lesser degree.
3) I can also confirm that by 1977 we were not detecting any parasitic cysts within the pork samples that were being tested in the Toronto area.
4) The processing regulations remained in force to treat all pork (regardless of the country of origin) as if it was infected.
5) After the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) came into being on April 01, 1997 there was to have been a two year "grace period" whereby there would be no changes within the CFIA from the former regulatory body.
6) However by September of 1997 I had to start refusing to sign certain CFIA export documents as the wording within them was no longer valid.
7) Following that two year "grace period" we noticed that Food Safety appeared to had taken a secondary role within the CFIA and some serious concerns were being raised.
8) I remember that CFIA veterinarians were instructed to certify that beef shipments leaving Canada had originated from Canadian cattle herds (which we could not possibly have known at the time) and that none of the animals within these Canadian cattle herds had shown any signs of BSE (which we could not possibly have known because we never had examined any of these Canadian cattle herds). Note: BSE is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or "Mad Cow Disease".
9) Any CFIA veterinarian refusing to sign a CFIA export document for whatever reason had consequences and individual veterinarians could often be "coerced" into signing future export documents ... until March of 2002.
10) At a meeting held in March of 2002 the CFIA management announced that no CFIA veterinarian should sign any export document that they were not "comfortable" with. This was just three months before a Public Service Labour Relation Board (PSLRB) Adjudication Hearing regarding one of my complaints against the CFIA was scheduled to start.
11) However a "backroom" meeting would often "make" a CFIA veterinarian "comfortable" with signing an export document that they had not previously signed.
12) Ms. E. Henry (Adjudicator, PSLRB) handled down her decision (about 56 pages in length) regarding the Katchin vs CFIA case in the spring of 2003 in which she criticized the CFIA management paragraph after paragraph for about 8 pages.
13) The apparent abuse of power and corruption within the CFIA falls under what some call Risk Assessment Management or "how far can we go without getting caught". Another way to look at it is "how many consumers are we willing to put at risk (get sick or die) to save this amount of money from our budget".
14) The money spent on Food Safety is not money wasted! For more information check out the Food Saftey First web page.
Having said that I believe that the waterfowl that we hunt and eat are generally wholesome and fit to eat ... so enjoy.
Sincerely,
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
Former PIPSC Steward
Former Member of the Staff Relations Committee
Former Member of the VM Group National Executive
Former Member of the National Operational Health and Safety Committee
Former Member of the Meat Hygiene Reform Committee