30 Month Rule Withdrawn

[TimH]

Oldtimer wrote-

As I understand it the tests only show that the disease hasn't manifested itself in the animal- not that it can't be incubating the disease- which could show up in later years...

Ok, but the way understand it , is that Ron claims that his test will detect BSE if it is there, period. Maybe Ron will be kind enough to clarify this for us.

Until then, what about SRM removal on boxed beef, or live animals for that matter? Is it necessary if the animal tests negative for BSE???

Personally I think there is way too much faith put in SRM removal- and much of it is a smokescreen...According to some knowledgeable sources that I have talked to is that during SRM removal their are huge chances of contamination if the disease is there... I almost think the tests are more reliable...
But I also don't think we should weaken any of our safeguards- and until the extent of the disease can be ascertained in Canada, we should require tested and SRM removal on Canadian over TWENTY month cattle....

What about SRM removal on domestic OTMs, then??? Is born, raised and slaughtered in the USA OTM beef putting the US consumer at risk??? You do have BSE in you native herd, in case you forgot. :wink:
I'd love to stay and fight... I mean... discuss some more more but I really gotta run away!!! :wink:

 

[Murgen]

How about you do the double tests up there until you prove Canada is free of BSE and not again ride on the US industry and taxpayer ...

Oh we'll pay for the tests, don't worry about that!

Except for the Urine ones, they'll be in a validation process. Maybe we can even get Creekstone to foot some of the bill so they can satisfy their customers!

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Tim, I guess this would be a perfect time to take Tester up on his offer of free tests. We test everything, ship them to the US, and then they track them until they hit the killfloor and then test them to find out if the tests work.

Works out for everybody.

1) test validation
2) COOL
3) 2 tests on the same animal, for food safety
4) The US gets to test out their NAIS, and COOL

Unless it's about trade?

How about you do the double tests up there until you prove Canada is free of BSE and not again ride on the US industry and taxpayer ...[/quote]

Oldtimer, it just came out that your not worried about BSE your jsut worried about keeping our beef out of the US. You are a protectionist and they are just asbad for the US as are Terrorists!

 

[Anonymous]

OT, have you ever wondered why no tests have been done on the muscle cuts of a BSE positive to find out where the misshapen prions are present?

Or for that matter included an infected animal in feed and tested to see if it was passed on?

I think their has been some of that testing done in Europe- and mishapen prions were found- altho at a lesser quantity- in the nerves and blood of muscle cuts (which can't be removed), if I remember right..Flounder or reader2 might still have the info....

And I believe their have been tests conducted feeding infected feed...

My understanding Murgen is that the thing that sent a shiver thru not only the scientific community but even the USDA bureaucrats is the fact of this last animal only being 4 years old...The science of today indicates that the quality(potency) of the infection and the quantity (amount in the feed) have been tied to the age that the disease manifests itself in animals and humans-- and with cattle this young showing up they are thinking there is some powerful stuff in larger quantitys floating around up there.....

 

[Anonymous]

Tim, I guess this would be a perfect time to take Tester up on his offer of free tests. We test everything, ship them to the US, and then they track them until they hit the killfloor and then test them to find out if the tests work.

Works out for everybody.

1) test validation
2) COOL
3) 2 tests on the same animal, for food safety
4) The US gets to test out their NAIS, and COOL

Unless it's about trade?

How about you do the double tests up there until you prove Canada is free of BSE and not again ride on the US industry and taxpayer ...[/quote]

Oldtimer, it just came out that your not worried about BSE your jsut worried about keeping our beef out of the US. You are a protectionist and they are just asbad for the US as are Terrorists!

WHY should the US taxpayer pick up the tab for testing Canadian beef? Thats idiotic :roll:

 

[Murgen]

Works out for everybody.

1) test validation
2) COOL
3) 2 tests on the same animal, for food safety
4) The US gets to test out their NAIS, and COOL

Unless it's about trade?

I was just thinking about this a bit more. Canada could track them for you and show you that re-inventing the wheel is not neceassry, and reduce your costs at the same time for NAIS. CFIA will also do the testing, we have a great record in this department.

And...

Companies like Creekstone will be able to satisfy their consumers, by labelling it as BSE tested (make the labelling mandatory) and only they will buy the OTM's and that will cut out the "market power" of the Multinationals!

This would also get around the dis-trust that the consumer has for the USDA.

And all this cause Canada just wants to give our customer what they want.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

OT- I have never ever heard you say anything good about the Canadian beef industry. Your jsut upset because we have such a quality product up here!

 

[Anonymous]

OT- I have never ever heard you say anything good about the Canadian beef industry. Your jsut upset because we have such a quality product up here!

I'm not upset- I am just answering some of your hypotheticals..

In fact, I'm pleased with the fact that the message finally got thru to USDA--- now we need to convince them ( or Congress/Courts) to overhaul the rest of the rule and bring it up to date....

And I did too say something nice about Canada's industry- I told ol rkaiser how nice those shaggy bulls of his look- and I like the look of Rods shorthorns- look like the shorthorns of old that we used to run 50 years ago (which I wouldn't mind doing again if a guy could get the buyers past that false color fixation they now have)... :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[Econ101]

I guess he thinks the burden of proving a product is safe is on the consumer.

Same old line the packers are throwing out and the USDA has given up on insuring.

I would like to know how many of bse tester's tests or another validated and accrurate test could be bought for the 49 million that was given to Tyson.

Heck, for that amount we could have tested every head of cattle and all the people too.

 

[Murgen]

My understanding Murgen is that the thing that sent a shiver thru not only the scientific community but even the USDA bureaucrats is the fact of this last animal only being 4 years old...The science of today indicates that the quality(potency) of the infection and the quantity (amount in the feed) have been tied to the age that the disease manifests itself in animals and humans-- and with cattle this young showing up they are thinking there is some powerful stuff in larger quantitys floating around up there.....

I guess theyll be testing the carcass on that case then. I'm sure we'll hear of any results! If it's in any muscle cuts, it should be in that cow, due to the "powerful" strain.

Here is a practical test they could do:

They could grind her up, mix her into some feed and see if there are mis-shapen prions present in the feed!

They could show that SRM removal doesn't protect the feed from contamination!

 

[Anonymous]

I would like to know how many of bse tester's tests or another validated and accrurate test could be bought for the 49 million that was given to Tyson.

You just said it Econ...Canada could have tested millions of cows- kept their markets open- and found out the true extent of the disease and possibly had a clearer picture where its coming from and how to eradicate it-

BUT

Instead the multinational corporate influenced Canadian government and NCBA buddy cattle groups buy into USDA's no test theory, get a one time subsidy thru- which allows the packers to come out smelling like a rose and the Canadian producer taking it in the shorts-- the Canadian cattle groups refuse to even question how it was paid out-- and many of the Canadian producers still just set back and blame it all on the US..... :roll: SHEEESH

 

[Sandhusker]

I would like to know how many of bse tester's tests or another validated and accrurate test could be bought for the 49 million that was given to Tyson.

You just said it Econ...Canada could have tested millions of cows- kept their markets open- and found out the true extent of the disease and possibly had a clearer picture where its coming from and how to eradicate it-

BUT

Instead the multinational corporate influenced Canadian government and NCBA buddy cattle groups buy into USDA's no test theory, get a one time subsidy thru- which allows the packers to come out smelling like a rose and the Canadian producer taking it in the shorts-- the Canadian cattle groups refuse to even question how it was paid out-- and many of the Canadian producers still just set back and blame it all on the US..... :roll: SHEEESH

You forgot to add that R-CALF caused all the problems......... :lol:

 

[bse-tester]

OT Wrote:

As I understand it the tests only show that the disease hasn't manifested itself in the animal- not that it can't be incubating the disease- which could show up in later years...

Wrong OT - the test will identify the presence of PrPsc in the animal, regardless of age, providing the PrPsc has replicated to sufficient numbers and that typically will not take too long after the first infection by whatever means it may have occrred. The urine that filters the blood, will exrete the PrPsc along with the normal PrP and they will both be detected.

Also, for clarification, we have suggested that a urine sample be taken from the animal within a wekk or so of it being slughtered and then, during the sluaghter process, a hypodermic needle will take another sample from the exposed bladder and this will act as the confirmatory test for the animal. The first sample is logged and tagged to be from a specific animal and the second sample is logged as taken from the same animal. This will require that the animal is tagged as it enters the slaughterhouse or existing ID tag info is kept on the animal at least until the sample is taken and the results are back. So what if the animal goes from that stage to storage for a brief time until the test result is back? The most important aspect of this is that the ID of the animal and the sample must be precisely matched at all times including the time that the sample remains in cold storage - approxiamtely 3 months after the animal is processed. This appears to be long enough to allow for the period that encompasses the routing from the pasture to the plate!!

If the PrPsc has not manifested itself in the animal it could be concluded that the animal is BSE free!! The term "manifest" is such a lose word in this sense. It could mean that the animal is BSE free and therefore shows no clinical signs and having BSE could mean the the animal is infected but shows no symptoms of infection.

As for muscle cuts - tests have been done on muscle that formed part of an homogenate in saline. The tests were conducted in the UK and in Scotland. The results showed that muscle cuts, shanks and rumps and tails contained PrPsc in the meat. The contamination from the blood appears to have infitrated the entire animal and this has occurred long before the animals displayed the ataxic symptoms of shaking and falling. To all intents and purposes, the animals tested were known to be carriers from the tests performed on their brain tissues, but displayed no outward symptoms and yet PrPsc was detected in blood, muscle and other tissues, including the brain, tongue, eyeballs, saliva glands. spleens, liver and spinal fluid, to name but a few. As far as I know, the results of these tests have never been formally published. I will however, try to come up with some info.

 

[Anonymous]

I would like to know how many of bse tester's tests or another validated and accrurate test could be bought for the 49 million that was given to Tyson.

You just said it Econ...Canada could have tested millions of cows- kept their markets open- and found out the true extent of the disease and possibly had a clearer picture where its coming from and how to eradicate it-

BUT

Instead the multinational corporate influenced Canadian government and NCBA buddy cattle groups buy into USDA's no test theory, get a one time subsidy thru- which allows the packers to come out smelling like a rose and the Canadian producer taking it in the shorts-- the Canadian cattle groups refuse to even question how it was paid out-- and many of the Canadian producers still just set back and blame it all on the US..... :roll: SHEEESH

You forgot to add that R-CALF caused all the problems......... :lol:

I figured that would come up anyway- always does when they run out of anything else... :wink: :lol:

 

[bse-tester]

Econ wrote:

I would like to know how many of bse tester's tests or another validated and accrurate test could be bought for the 49 million that was given to Tyson.

Well Econ, let's see how many!!

US$49 Million minus the antibody costs of US$25,000.00 per million samples equals an antibody cost of approximately: US$ 1,225,000.00

That leaves us a balance of US$ 47,77,5000.00

So now, if we conservatively suggest a "Per Test Price" of approximately US$20.00 (May be high) this then equates to the number of tests being availbe for the price shown above at:

2,388,750 animals tested.

But, if we agree to sell the test for around US$12.00 per test then the number of cattle able to be tested would climb to around 4,083,333

How much market revenue would that translate to folks?? A lot more than a kick in the pants me thinks!!! That is an incredible amount of meat and meat by-product going to market with the term "BSE Tested" on it or even "BSE Free." Hell, or both!!

How many head were tested in the United States and Canada in the last 2 years and at what cost?? Does anyone know??? I bet it did not come close to the animal numbers above but I also bet that the cost to test less animals was way more. Also Econ, do not forget the vast amounts of money given to Tyson, Lakeside and Cargill here in Alberta by the Alberta Government when they were dishing out the money to ranchers and to those who "owned" cattle - it was multi-millions here, literally multi-millions, while the rancher got almost nothing compared to the packers who showed that since they bought the cattle from the producers, then they too were entitled to funding as they were also owners.

 

[Murgen]

As for muscle cuts - tests have been done on muscle that formed part of an homogenate in saline. The tests were conducted in the UK and in Scotland. The results showed that muscle cuts, shanks and rumps and tails contained PrPsc in the meat. The contamination from the blood appears to have infitrated the entire animal and this has occurred long before the animals displayed the ataxic symptoms of shaking and falling. To all intents and purposes, the animals tested were known to be carriers from the tests performed on their brain tissues, but displayed no outward symptoms and yet PrPsc was detected in blood, muscle and other tissues, including the brain, tongue, eyeballs, saliva glands. spleens, liver and spinal fluid, to name but a few. As far as I know, the results of these tests have never been formally published. I will however, try to come up with some info.

Were tests also done to prove oral transmission.

Don't you think there is something funny going on if these tests were not published. Did they not show what they are telling us is the case, is that why?

 

[bse-tester]

Murgen wrote:

Were tests also done to prove oral transmission.

Don't you think there is something funny going on if these tests were not published. Did they not show what they are telling us is the case, is that why?

Nothing funny was going on Murgen. No conspiracy theories here I am afraid.

I am talking about the Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries. They routinely tested entire animals during the first outbreak leading up to the full blown epidemic in the UK. The Ministry is usually not in the habit of publishing - they do work that is routinely scrutinized by the standing committees that watchdog health and safety issues surrounding food and health in the UK. Government agencies rarely publish there. They do have arms-length establishments that do however and I shall try to source some stuff.

One of the main research thrusts in the UK was to establish the case for oral transmission. Horizontal transmission (Oral transmission) studies played a major role in the establishment of the Feed Ban. So, to a leeser degree, did "Vertical Transmission" studies, otherwise known as the direct transmission from mother to calf which was thought to occur through infection during birth, from the ingestion of muscus and ambionic fluids during the birthing process along with vaginal contamination through blood, muscous and other fluids and also nuzzling, perhaps milk and from licking, to name a few means of transmission.

 

[Anonymous]

OT Wrote:

As I understand it the tests only show that the disease hasn't manifested itself in the animal- not that it can't be incubating the disease- which could show up in later years...

Wrong OT - the test will identify the presence of PrPsc in the animal, regardless of age, providing the PrPsc has replicated to sufficient numbers and that typically will not take too long after the first infection by whatever means it may have occrred. The urine that filters the blood, will exrete the PrPsc along with the normal PrP and they will both be detected.

Also, for clarification, we have suggested that a urine sample be taken from the animal within a wekk or so of it being slughtered and then, during the sluaghter process, a hypodermic needle will take another sample from the exposed bladder and this will act as the confirmatory test for the animal. The first sample is logged and tagged to be from a specific animal and the second sample is logged as taken from the same animal. This will require that the animal is tagged as it enters the slaughterhouse or existing ID tag info is kept on the animal at least until the sample is taken and the results are back. So what if the animal goes from that stage to storage for a brief time until the test result is back? The most important aspect of this is that the ID of the animal and the sample must be precisely matched at all times including the time that the sample remains in cold storage - approxiamtely 3 months after the animal is processed. This appears to be long enough to allow for the period that encompasses the routing from the pasture to the plate!!

If the PrPsc has not manifested itself in the animal it could be concluded that the animal is BSE free!! The term "manifest" is such a lose word in this sense. It could mean that the animal is BSE free and therefore shows no clinical signs and having BSE could mean the the animal is infected but shows no symptoms of infection.

As for muscle cuts - tests have been done on muscle that formed part of an homogenate in saline. The tests were conducted in the UK and in Scotland. The results showed that muscle cuts, shanks and rumps and tails contained PrPsc in the meat. The contamination from the blood appears to have infitrated the entire animal and this has occurred long before the animals displayed the ataxic symptoms of shaking and falling. To all intents and purposes, the animals tested were known to be carriers from the tests performed on their brain tissues, but displayed no outward symptoms and yet PrPsc was detected in blood, muscle and other tissues, including the brain, tongue, eyeballs, saliva glands. spleens, liver and spinal fluid, to name but a few. As far as I know, the results of these tests have never been formally published. I will however, try to come up with some info.

Thanks BSE-tester- I never did understand that part of your test...

TimH- if the test is verified and accepted I would have no problem with tested cattle coming down of any age- altho it may be too soon to discontinue SRM removal, mainly because at this time I think we should be strenghthening safeguards still instead of weakening them...I also still believe all imported cattle from this day forward from anywhere coming into the US should be permanently IDed and tracked...Millions were lost by American producers with USDA's fumbling around on the identification of the Washington cow.....
And all beef has to be labeled as to the country of origin so the final decision can be left to who it should be-- the consumer that is buying and eating it...

 

[Murgen]

Sounds like my solution would work for you OT. And we'll foot the bill.

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds like my solution would work for you OT. And we'll foot the bill.

If Canada picked up the test costs at the US plant on anything with Canadian origin - I'd go for it......