• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

BEEF Imports- UP

Help Support Ranchers.net:

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Oldtimer said:
TimH said:
Maybe a little history will clear this up........

Prior to 2003, thousands of CDN cows went to slaughter every year, in the US. The inedible offal of these cattle entered the US feed chain and some was, presumably, fed to cattle(legally prior to '97,the year that identical feed bans were brought in in Canada and the USA).
American cattle consumed tons of this feed. And yet not one case of "typical" BSE has been detected in an American cow.
WHY NOT??? You would think that if at least a few head of those cattle born prior to '97 would have came up positive. None, nada,zip.Amazing.

There are several possible explanations for this........Bse isn't transmissable through feed. This is of course heresy.
OR, American cattle are somehow immune to BSE.
OR, The USA's testing program targeted the wrong cattle and skewed the results.Possible.
OR, it is the result of Divine Intervention, maybe even a friggin' miracle.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Or US cattlemen/feed producers honored the feedban :wink: :lol:

Remember the US put in a voluntary feedban way back in the 80's when the UK first started having the "madcow" problem-- and altho it wasn't official law until 1997- they refused to give import permits to feed/cattle from those areas starting way back in the late 80's--same time the US cattle associations asked the feed producers/suppliers to remove any MBM from cattle feed...

I see, Oldtimer.........but doesn't that sort of blow the crap out of R-calf's current arguement against Canadian OTMs??? You know, something about "loopholes and deficiencies" in your feedban.
Which way is it, either your feed ban worked and IS working ,or it doesn't and never did???
:D :D :D :D

Wait........I think I see the good old "just too many unknowns" manoever coming........... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
where would cdc get good numbers to work with when usda was busy hiding all the positives? all the statistics in the world won't help if they're bogus. how can there be that big a difference when you slaughtered as many canadian cattle as you did and your regulation of feedstuffs was no better than anybody else's - maybe worse?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
Oldtimer said:
TimH said:
Maybe a little history will clear this up........

Prior to 2003, thousands of CDN cows went to slaughter every year, in the US. The inedible offal of these cattle entered the US feed chain and some was, presumably, fed to cattle(legally prior to '97,the year that identical feed bans were brought in in Canada and the USA).
American cattle consumed tons of this feed. And yet not one case of "typical" BSE has been detected in an American cow.
WHY NOT??? You would think that if at least a few head of those cattle born prior to '97 would have came up positive. None, nada,zip.Amazing.

There are several possible explanations for this........Bse isn't transmissable through feed. This is of course heresy.
OR, American cattle are somehow immune to BSE.
OR, The USA's testing program targeted the wrong cattle and skewed the results.Possible.
OR, it is the result of Divine Intervention, maybe even a friggin' miracle.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Or US cattlemen/feed producers honored the feedban :wink: :lol:

Remember the US put in a voluntary feedban way back in the 80's when the UK first started having the "madcow" problem-- and altho it wasn't official law until 1997- they refused to give import permits to feed/cattle from those areas starting way back in the late 80's--same time the US cattle associations asked the feed producers/suppliers to remove any MBM from cattle feed...

I see, Oldtimer.........but doesn't that sort of blow the crap out of R-calf's current arguement against Canadian OTMs??? You know, something about "loopholes and deficiencies" in your feedban.
Which way is it, either your feed ban worked and IS working ,or it doesn't and never did???
:D :D :D :D

Wait........I think I see the good old "just too many unknowns" manoever coming........... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not really Tim--those that have brought forward this theory also think it is only in the last 3 or 4 years that the BSE has truly began manifesting itself in Canada and gone to an epidemic stage in the cluster area...For this reason- altho our feedban worked for our domestic and the small amount of BSE Canada was importing into the country previously--we are not set up with a strong enough one to handle the much greater risk now presented by the Canadian OTM cattle at this time in which as far as we know the disease is still replicating itself....CFIA even showed proof of this when they admitted the old feedban was not working for the amount of/risk from infected animals and had to install the new one which only went into effect in July 2007......So far, Canada has not shown any evidence that the disease is being eradicated or even slowed in its spread....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Silver said:
So now the CDC is the Holy Grail of stats? And I was allways under the impression stats were only as good as the numbers used.
I guess if you were in Iraq when the information minister was telling everyone the americans were being beaten back (because after all, it was his JOB to know these things) you'd have been soaking up every word he said.
Funny.... W.H.O stats and guidelines mean nothing to you. In fact there's a long list of information you choose to ignore on a regular basis to carry on your little vendetta of hate against honest producers across the line.
Are you even a producer? Do you know which end the feed goes in and which end it comes out?

If you want to know about the space shuttle, call a NASA scientist.
If you want to know about the beef industry, call a banker.
:roll:

And if the CDC want's to know the true extent of the US's testing system, call a Canadian rancher. :roll:

I dare say the CDC knows a heck of a lot more about stats than you do. You seem to think Canada was testing all of the at-risk cattle in the country and the USDA was only testing yearlings. We were testing the same type of cattle as you were. Even if we weren't, don't you think the folks at CDC would of figured that out? You can't imagine that one of their questions might of been "What animals did you test?" They've figured out infection rates on lord knows how many diseases from all kinds of data. When it comes to disease, they know what to look for and what questions to ask. The CDC worked with both countries directly to see what was going on and what was found, but you did a google search and know more? Good grief, your arrogance or plain disillusionment is monumental.

Every dang bit of data you can find points to a higher infection rate up there than here. YOU HAVE A HIGHER RATE OF INFECTION. Get out of denial and deal with it.

Sandhusker out.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,164
Reaction score
35
Location
BC
Well thats your story and your stickin' to it eh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Silver said:
Well thats your story and your stickin' to it eh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you look at the facts and the real numbers, there can be no other conclusion.
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Sandhusker............You claim USDA was testing the same type of cattle as Canada.......WRONG! The vast majority USDA tested were cows delivered to kill plants and obviously would have been of clean enough health and mobility to meet slaughter protocols. Compare that to CFIA's strategy of concentrating on 4D type cattle (Deads,diseased, disabled or distressed) the vast majority of which were euthanized on farms and voluntarily submitted for testing. If I remember properly OIE guidelines stated that each such submission was equal to at least 100 regular slaughter cow tests and 1000 head of youthful slaughter tests. YOU MIGHT JUST AS WELL HAVE BEEN TESTING YEARLINGS because your testing percentages and strategies never came close to approaching Canada's targeted surveillance programs.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Well thats your story and your stickin' to it eh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you look at the facts and the real numbers, there can be no other conclusion.

We have watched you twist the facts on this site for years; so much so that it is hard not to think of the old saying"figures lie and liars figure". The fact is that the US doesn't currently and since 2003, never has tested from entirely the same risk population as Canada.

The reason that Canada was able to test a smaller percentage relative to their cowherd size than the US is as cowsense writes; because we have been testing EVERYTHING from the HIGHEST risk (4-D) population. That has been previously explained on this site numerous times but of course Sadhusker likes to keep playing "Groundhog Day" and spinning in circles.

I also have a hard time believing that CDC is the shining light of truth in the US as would they not be one of the US gov't departments that was tainted by the hiding of the first native US BSE case?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Well thats your story and your stickin' to it eh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you look at the facts and the real numbers, there can be no other conclusion.

We have watched you twist the facts on this site for years; so much so that it is hard not to think of the old saying"figures lie and liars figure". The fact is that the US doesn't currently and since 2003, never has tested from entirely the same risk population as Canada.

The reason that Canada was able to test a smaller percentage relative to their cowherd size than the US is as cowsense writes; because we have been testing EVERYTHING from the HIGHEST risk (4-D) population. That has been previously explained on this site numerous times but of course Sadhusker likes to keep playing "Groundhog Day" and spinning in circles.

I also have a hard time believing that CDC is the shining light of truth in the US as would they not be one of the US gov't departments that was tainted by the hiding of the first native US BSE case?

Now the CDC is hiding the truth, too? Talk about blindly throwing mud in the hope that some sticks :roll: Maybe the CDC was behind 911? Possibly a CDC "agent" was the figure on the grassy knoll? Tell you what, Bill. You get Google warmed up and just tell us what BSE the CDC has been suspected of covering up. Start a new thread, I can't wait.

You've found roughly 1 positive per 1 million animals, we're at 1 per 45. Looks to me the CDC is already making allowances calling you 26 times higher. You're telling me that your testing is 45 times better than ours? You have tested 45 times more at risk cattle than we have per capita?

Again, I can't believe the foolishness, arrogance, whatever of you folks suggesting the CDC is unable to differentiate any differences there would of been in the US and Canada's testing programs after working directly with both countries - but you folks can. Even when disease is their job! "Canada was testing at risk cattle and the US wasn't - and they didn't figure it out...." :shock: :roll:


Denial, denial, denial.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Well thats your story and your stickin' to it eh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you look at the facts and the real numbers, there can be no other conclusion.

We have watched you twist the facts on this site for years; so much so that it is hard not to think of the old saying"figures lie and liars figure". The fact is that the US doesn't currently and since 2003, never has tested from entirely the same risk population as Canada.

The reason that Canada was able to test a smaller percentage relative to their cowherd size than the US is as cowsense writes; because we have been testing EVERYTHING from the HIGHEST risk (4-D) population. That has been previously explained on this site numerous times but of course Sadhusker likes to keep playing "Groundhog Day" and spinning in circles.

I also have a hard time believing that CDC is the shining light of truth in the US as would they not be one of the US gov't departments that was tainted by the hiding of the first native US BSE case?


None of this testing beats private testing to make sure the tests by the government are honest.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Tex said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
If you look at the facts and the real numbers, there can be no other conclusion.

We have watched you twist the facts on this site for years; so much so that it is hard not to think of the old saying"figures lie and liars figure". The fact is that the US doesn't currently and since 2003, never has tested from entirely the same risk population as Canada.

The reason that Canada was able to test a smaller percentage relative to their cowherd size than the US is as cowsense writes; because we have been testing EVERYTHING from the HIGHEST risk (4-D) population. That has been previously explained on this site numerous times but of course Sadhusker likes to keep playing "Groundhog Day" and spinning in circles.

I also have a hard time believing that CDC is the shining light of truth in the US as would they not be one of the US gov't departments that was tainted by the hiding of the first native US BSE case?


None of this testing beats private testing to make sure the tests by the government are honest.

Agreed and especially one out of country like the lab in Weybridge England.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
Tex said:
Bill said:
We have watched you twist the facts on this site for years; so much so that it is hard not to think of the old saying"figures lie and liars figure". The fact is that the US doesn't currently and since 2003, never has tested from entirely the same risk population as Canada.

The reason that Canada was able to test a smaller percentage relative to their cowherd size than the US is as cowsense writes; because we have been testing EVERYTHING from the HIGHEST risk (4-D) population. That has been previously explained on this site numerous times but of course Sadhusker likes to keep playing "Groundhog Day" and spinning in circles.

I also have a hard time believing that CDC is the shining light of truth in the US as would they not be one of the US gov't departments that was tainted by the hiding of the first native US BSE case?


None of this testing beats private testing to make sure the tests by the government are honest.

Agreed and especially one out of country like the lab in Weybridge England.

One run by a consumer interest group, or at least overseen by a consumer interest group would work too. We are forgetting the consumer interests in this debate. Our product IS for the consumer.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
If you look at the facts and the real numbers, there can be no other conclusion.

We have watched you twist the facts on this site for years; so much so that it is hard not to think of the old saying"figures lie and liars figure". The fact is that the US doesn't currently and since 2003, never has tested from entirely the same risk population as Canada.

The reason that Canada was able to test a smaller percentage relative to their cowherd size than the US is as cowsense writes; because we have been testing EVERYTHING from the HIGHEST risk (4-D) population. That has been previously explained on this site numerous times but of course Sadhusker likes to keep playing "Groundhog Day" and spinning in circles.

I also have a hard time believing that CDC is the shining light of truth in the US as would they not be one of the US gov't departments that was tainted by the hiding of the first native US BSE case?

Now the CDC is hiding the truth, too? Talk about blindly throwing mud in the hope that some sticks :roll: Maybe the CDC was behind 911? Possibly a CDC "agent" was the figure on the grassy knoll? Tell you what, Bill. You get Google warmed up and just tell us what BSE the CDC has been suspected of covering up. Start a new thread, I can't wait.

You've found roughly 1 positive per 1 million animals, we're at 1 per 45. Looks to me the CDC is already making allowances calling you 26 times higher. You're telling me that your testing is 45 times better than ours? You have tested 45 times more at risk cattle than we have per capita?

Again, I can't believe the foolishness, arrogance, whatever of you folks suggesting the CDC is unable to differentiate any differences there would of been in the US and Canada's testing programs after working directly with both countries - but you folks can. Even when disease is their job! "Canada was testing at risk cattle and the US wasn't - and they didn't figure it out...." :shock: :roll:


Denial, denial, denial.

Sadhusker questioning conspiracy theories? :roll: How ironic for you to play that card against a Canadian. Conspiracy theories? Maybe ask yourself, Oldtimer, Tex, Flounder, etc. etc. about some of their conspiracy theories we have been reading about for years. :roll: Heck we just pick up on the grassy knolls from y'all. Good one there Sadhusker.

Here is a question for you though. Would the Centre for Disease Control not be charged with the task of controlling disease and know about positive and suspicious BSE tests? Probably huh? Why then did it take Pyllis Fong and the OIG's investigation to say wait a minute ..........wait just one minute ....................you guys didn't even run the proper tests!

Where was the CDC on that one?

I see you started a new thread so get at it! Go twist around what majority means in the US.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Why don't you ask them, Bill? Their website is www.cdc.gov. Do a little research and bring something.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Why don't you ask them, Bill? Their website is www.cdc.gov. Do a little research and bring something.

You've been treed so many times this week its incredible. Try not to keep falling out of them.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
4,341
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
cowsense said:
Sandhusker............You claim USDA was testing the same type of cattle as Canada.......WRONG! The vast majority USDA tested were cows delivered to kill plants and obviously would have been of clean enough health and mobility to meet slaughter protocols. Compare that to CFIA's strategy of concentrating on 4D type cattle (Deads,diseased, disabled or distressed) the vast majority of which were euthanized on farms and voluntarily submitted for testing. If I remember properly OIE guidelines stated that each such submission was equal to at least 100 regular slaughter cow tests and 1000 head of youthful slaughter tests. YOU MIGHT JUST AS WELL HAVE BEEN TESTING YEARLINGS because your testing percentages and strategies never came close to approaching Canada's targeted surveillance programs.

If I could make a suggestion, or rather ask if someone will do this, (not sure how to myself :? )Instead of all the back and forth about which country tested what and where, why not a poll on this topic about who actually has had a 4D animal tested from their own herd, or at least knows someone who has? or would be willing to? If both Americans and Canadians could answer maybe the picture might become clearer as to the actual testing that has gone on outside of the packing plants, where as cowsense said, those cows have to be ambulatory. As I said, just a suggestion, and it MIGHT make things clearer and only if it could be done with anonymity(sp?) as I don't believe anyone needs to be able to name names or point fingers!
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
We've had cows tested quite regularly since BSE was found. Right after the onset of BSE there was absolutely no market outlet for cows and when kill plants did start handling cows the prices were terrible and have never fully recovered to pre-BSE levels. Producers were forced to retain cows well past normal stages of culling and thus for several years many herds would have above normal numbers of cripples,open olds and crock cows. The only real choice was to shoot these cows. I know of many local producers that had CFIA techs come out and remove the brain stems for testing. In Saskatchewan the province paid $70 per head to cover dead stock removal costs if required.
Never in my life had I figured that I would be forced to use a rifle to do my cow culling. We run both PB & commercial cattle and always have taken pride in our cowherd management and in years prior to 2003 these cows would have been shipped long before they ever reached a stage where euthanizing was required.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Same as cowsense; we have sent samples in and have neighbors that have as well.

Nothing to hide or be ashamed of so no need for an anonymous poll.
 

Latest posts

Top