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

Canadians Recognize Firewalls are Missing

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
How do you do that little brown box thing you old fart. You're one up on me there.

Otherwise you said,

How do you know? Seems like USDA hasn't been able to make a turn without worry of breaking CFIA's neck since the two anatomy's were connected...Didn't CFIA know about USDA's allowing banned beef ? I think both are so bought and paid for by your buddies the multinational packers that its hard to trust either......

This kind of talk about trusting neither country's testing system still has no relationship to your quarantine plan Oldtimer. Must have something to do with yer cull cow price not.

Oh and by the by, Multinational packers are a fair ways away from being my buddies. I don't think I could sell a load of fats in my name to Cargil or Tyson in the next ten years.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam- As long as we allow cattle to eat chicken sh*t, allow table scraps to be put into rendered product that can go back into animal feed, allow blood or mammal product into milk replacer we do not have adequate firewalls as far as I'm concerned- cattle were never meant to eat cattle....

Then to even go further and suggest lowering the firewalls more by changing the rules to allow importing beef and live cattle from a country that statistically is at a much higher risk for BSE is ludicrous......Especially while OIG is still investigating whether our firewalls are sufficient.....

Now when all the credibility of USDA's investigations are up in the air.... They have already been caught trying to go around the producers and consumers back to allow packers to import banned products--OIG said they put economics ahead of US consumer and herd safety-now there are questions of coverup or incompetency in their testing....How can we believe that their investigation into Canadas standards, testing, and feed ban isn't flawed or compromised??...

So you are saying that Leo is Wrong :shock: That you don't have the highest standards in the WORLD and therefore the safety of your WORLD SAFEST beef is called into question. Better not tell the US consumers that Oldtimer if you get MCOOL passed they may decide not to trust US beef and buy only good old imported. That is the problem with trying to prove all Canadian beef is a genuine risk of death and the USDA doesn't have firewalls in place to protect consumers and herd from imports. When you find BSE in the US you have to live with the stories you have been telling. How is LEO going to spin his stories if this cow comes back positive if your firewalls can't protect you from imports, Oldtimer. Remember he guaranteed the consumers wouldn't stop eating beef if you look them right in the eye and told them about your standards and firewalls. Canada's standards and firewalls are higher and better than the US's but that didn't stop him from bad mouthing our beef to anyone that would listen to his rant. The USDA was not the only group that investigated Canada the International panel of experts from the OIE also investigated maybe you should read their report. R-CALF painted the whole US beef industry into the same small corner and now you are going to have a chance to see just what it is like to live with R-CALF lies hanging over your heads. I feel sorry for the US producers that could see what R-CALF was doing was wrong but as for you and the rest of the R-CALF gang as the new song says "My Give a Damn is Busted". :wink:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Good post Tam, The vegans are probably just eating this up in the US. The problem I see is it hurts us all. and they wonder why we as Canadians have a problem with R-calf lowering consumer confidence in beef. Big picture, look past the gate, you might see it! :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy: "How do you do that little brown box thing you old fart. You're one up on me there."

After you have clicked "Respond", scroll down your "topic review" at the bottom of the page and copy/paste the quote you want to respond to by placing your cursor (blinking line) at the front of the quote. Left click your mouse and hold it down while you drag your mouse to the end of the quote which will highlight it. Let up on your left click at the end of the quote and the quote should stay highlighted. With the quote highlighted, point your cursor arrow at the highlighted quote and right click your mouse one time. You will then see a menu displayed with "undo", "cut", "copy", "paste" "delete" and "select all". Point your arrow cursor at "copy" and left click your mouse one time to copy the quote and once again to get rid of the highlighted area. Now that quote is stored in your computer memory.

With your cursor in the place you want to "paste" the quote, right click your mouse one time and you will see "undo" "paste", "delete", and "select all" displayed. Point your arrow at "paste" to highlight it and left click your mouse one time. Shazaam! There's the quote you want to respond to.

Now highlight that quote again. With the quote highlighted, run your arrow up to the word "quote" in the little box above and left click on it. You will see the word "quote" in brackets before and after the quote you wanted to respond to. When you submit your response, this quote will now be in a little brown box. You can put the same quote in italics or bold by clicking either one of those boxes as well. I use itallics for all quotes I am responding to for easier differentiation.

I would hate to see the old R-CULT fart having one up on you.

Please do not reveal these instructions to Haymaker. I taught him how to copy paste before and created a monster. I could only imagine what would happen if he started using quotes, itallics, and the bolding feature.

Heaven forbid!


Mike: "Randy, Trade will depend on the Big 3 packers. Since they are involved in Australia, it is my opinion they are not hasty to open trade with Japan, Canada & USA."

Mike, how do you explain AMI's lawsuit to allow cattle in from Canada that are over 30 months of age if they are not hasty to open trade with Canada???

That packer "action" proves your anti packer "words" DEAD WRONG!


Oldtimer,

R-CALF has been saying that we have the safest beef in the world. How can we have the safest beef in the world if you are also saying that USDA hasn't gone far enough to assure the safety of beef?

Your conflicting arguments are a laugh and a half!



~SH~
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Please do not reveal these instructions to Haymaker. I taught him how to copy paste before and created a monster. I could only imagine what would happen if he started using quotes, itallics, and the bolding feature.

But we haven't had to deal with Haymaker too often since last Friday, I hope it's not that he's too busy, to grace us with his presence.

Maybe it's the whole thing about having a "spontaneous" case of BSE within his beloved Texas.

Hey Haymaker, how is that place, you mistakenly assumed was called "buzzard hollow"?
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
~SH~ said:
I would hate to see the old R-CULT fart having one up on you.

Please do not reveal these instructions to Haymaker. I taught him how to copy paste before and created a monster. I could only imagine what would happen if he started using quotes, itallics, and the bolding feature.

Heaven forbid! ~SH~]

. . . A fate worse than deaf...



:lol: :lol:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Mike, how do you explain AMI's lawsuit to allow cattle in from Canada that are over 30 months of age if they are not hasty to open trade with Canada???

Gotta look good in the eyes of those who beleive they do nothing wrong.

Thanks for the lesson SH, worked fairly well wouldn't you say?
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
Oldtimer said:
rkaiser said:
Tell me how on earth this would support an import ban Oldtimer?

Sounds like desperation time for Rcalf to me.

kaiser- Seems to me to be just another link in showing a chain of deception and mistakes made by USDA which is trying to prove that they have all their ducks in a row, firewalls in place, and sh*t together to open the border to imports from a country with a greater number of and therefore higher risk for BSE cases..

...


Higher risk :roll: You can.t get any higher risk then using a test that does not work OT..give yer head a shake.


oldtimer said:
From some of the Canadians I've talked to, I don't think that Canada's testing program is so magnificent as Tam does-- Most just say they are not going to be the next one who finds a BSE positive and be ostrasized by the nation--in other words they ain't testing- which fits more into my knowledge of human nature.......

We have nothing to hide here OT...Of course we actually do use a B.S.E test that works unlike the U.S.. system.Seems to me your b.s.e testing program down there is a joke.Just like R-Calf.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
frenchie said:
Oldtimer said:
rkaiser said:
Tell me how on earth this would support an import ban Oldtimer?

Sounds like desperation time for Rcalf to me.

kaiser- Seems to me to be just another link in showing a chain of deception and mistakes made by USDA which is trying to prove that they have all their ducks in a row, firewalls in place, and sh*t together to open the border to imports from a country with a greater number of and therefore higher risk for BSE cases..

...


Higher risk :roll: You can.t get any higher risk then using a test that does not work OT..give yer head a shake.


oldtimer said:
From some of the Canadians I've talked to, I don't think that Canada's testing program is so magnificent as Tam does-- Most just say they are not going to be the next one who finds a BSE positive and be ostrasized by the nation--in other words they ain't testing- which fits more into my knowledge of human nature.......

We have nothing to hide here OT...Of course we actually do use a B.S.E test that works unlike the U.S.. system.Seems to me your b.s.e testing program down there is a joke.Just like R-Calf.

What gets me is the US system is suppose to be designed to find BSE but when someone dares to retest a questionable negitive result with a better test, just to make sure the system is working the whole beef industry starts to yell. So I ask is it designed and supported to find the prevalence of BSE in the US herd or is it designed and supported only to find negitive test results? :???:
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
I still would like to know if Canada uses the western blot test on all those they have tested or do you use the same test we did. I haven't gotten the answer yet unless I missed it . Can anyone help me out with a definite answer?
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Thanks reader for the reply but is that immunohistochemistry (sp?) the Western Blot . I looked at the definitions and the chart and it funnels to different tests. I'm sorry if I'm slow to comprehend but just want to know for certain. We assume the US should be using the Western Blot and I just wanted to know if other countries are using it also, not just the UK and I think Japan. Thanks.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Thanks so much for the answers. So now when their are certain ones pointing thier fingers at us and saying we are using the wrong tests, I know there are 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. Thanks.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
feeder said:
Thanks so much for the answers. So now when their are certain ones pointing thier fingers at us and saying we are using the wrong tests, I know there are 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. Thanks.

What Canadians have said the US is using the wrong tests?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
Many bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing laboratories throughout the world have adopted the use of “rapid tests” to quickly screen cattle for BSE. Rapid testing allows for reduced turn-around-time of reporting test results, which in turn allows for reduced holding time of carcasses at slaughtering plants or rendering facilities. By using automated equipment, a large number of samples (hundreds to thousands) can be tested rapidly.
In anticipation of increased BSE testing requirements in Alberta and Canada, following the positive BSE diagnosis in May 2003, the Food Safety Division (FSD) of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD) recently renovated its O.S. Longman Laboratory in Edmonton. Enhancements were made to the biocontainment level 2 transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) laboratory and the Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA rapid test was selected as the diagnostic test for rapid BSE screening. Bio-Rad TeSeE is an enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) test. It has been validated by the European Union (EU), Canada and the United States (US) and has demonstrated both high sensitivity and specificity for detecting BSE prions in cattle.

Many European countries, the United Kingdom (UK), Japan and the US also currently use the Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA for BSE screening. Due to the test’s widespread usage, the international community should readily accept results generated by Alberta’s FSD laboratory.

Sensitivity is a measure of a test’s ability to detect truly infected subjects. A test with a high sensitivity will have a high probability of detecting truly infected subjects. For example, if a screening test is used to detect BSE in 100 samples known to have BSE and identifies a positive result in 99 of them, its sensitivity would be 99/100 x 100 = 99%. A test with 99% sensitivity would have a 99% chance of detecting one infected sample, even if there was only one positive case in one million negative cases.

Specificity is a measure of as a test’s ability to correctly classify subjects as being uninfected in the absence of disease. A test with a high specificity generates few false positive results. For example, if a screening test is used to detect BSE in 100 samples known to be uninfected with BSE and produced a negative result in 99 of them, its specificity would be 99/100 x 100 = 99%. A test with 99% specificity would be expected to produce false positive results 1% of the time.

Research shows that the probability of Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA failing to detect a single case of BSE in a large group of samples is in the range of 1.1 – 3.6 per 1000 tests (p< 0.05) (sensitivity). Reports from Japan, where every single animal is tested, show that the false positive rate for the Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA test is 1 in 30,000 (specificity). When either of these situations happens, the test is known to be “inconclusive” and will require further testing to truly identify whether the sample is positive or negative.

Reasons, besides test sensitivity and specificity, for why “inconclusive” or “positive reactor” tests results might occur include:

* Technical error—The Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA has the capability of detecting cattle with both clinical signs of BSE (clinical BSE infections) as well as apparently healthy cattle that are in the late stages of the incubation period of BSE (pre-clinical infections). However, for the test to be able to detect pre-clinically infected cattle, a specific area of the brainstem, called the obex, must be sampled and tested. Research has shown that BSE prion proteins accumulate primarily in the brainstem of cattle and the obex is the site where they begin to accumulate first. The obex is only 2-3 millimetres wide, thus laboratory technicians who prepare and process samples for BSE testing must be very skilled and precise. Inaccurate sampling and missing the obex is one factor that can affect the result of the test.

* Condition of sample—The more intact and well preserved the obex is, the more accurate testing results will be. Sometimes, due to decomposition or physical trauma (e.g. during stunning or humane killing of the animal; or during removal of the head or brainstem), the obex may not arrive at the laboratory intact. If this happens, it is more difficult for a technician to accurately identify and sample the obex. The sample may also be contaminated with other material, which may interfere with test accuracy. Severe decomposition of a sample may result in an inaccurate test result.

In the AAFRD FSD rapid testing lab, if the initial Bio-Rad TeSeE ELISA screening test generates either an “inconclusive” or “positive reaction”, duplicate samples of the obex are prepared and both are tested again. If both repeat tests are negative, the brain sample is considered negative for BSE. If however, both of the repeat tests yield an “inconclusive” or “positive reactor” test result, further testing, using immunohistochemistry staining (the international “gold standard” test for detecting prions) and a western blot technique, is conducted to determine if the sample is truly positive or negative. This testing is performed at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) National BSE Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg. If the CFIA test on the sample is positive, confirmatory testing is performed at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency in Weybridge, UK (World Reference Laboratory for BSE Testing). This is all completed before the CFIA announces the test results to the international community.
 

Latest posts

Top