If you want to know about the beef industry, call a banker.
:lol: :lol: :lol: That's funny!
If you want to know about the beef industry, call a banker.
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.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
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...
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.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
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???
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wait........I think I see the good old "just too many unknowns" manoever coming........... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
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:
Silver said:Well thats your story and your stickin' to it eh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sandhusker said:Why don't you ask them, Bill? Their website is www.cdc.gov. Do a little research and bring something.
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.