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

Is there anyone left who can reason???

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Does Japan remove SRM's?

Yes, they do.

Do they remove all nerve tissue?


Strange they remove SRM's

They test all cattle.

Which one are they stepping away from doing?

Strange you would hold them as an example after supporting the denial of their request for tested cattle from the US and Canada..... What was that about "no scientfic basis" or something like that....?

Are prions in nerve tissue?

Are all nerve tissues removed as SRMs?
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Please read this quote:

bse-tester said:
S.S.A.P. wrote:

A question for bse-tester
Does your live (urine) test require that each and every animal have the brain stem test as a followup?

Once it is validated and accepted then the only test required as a confirmatory test will be that which the government mandates. We will of course, strongly suggest that upon our test being validated and accepted by the OIC and subsequently by the USDA and the CFIA, that the only confirmatory testing needing be done in the event of a positive sample being found will be to confirm that animal only and any blood-line or herd-members associated with it.

Having said that, we will be conducting, as part of the total testing procedure, a second test for all animals as it is common practice that all tests come in two parts - preliminary and secondary/confirmatory.

The sample taken for the second test, unlike the first test which is done using only urine, will include urine, liver and brain tissue in an homogenate and a portion of that second sample mixture will be tested and the remainder will be kept in a minus 80 C freezer for a period that is equal to the average time it takes for the beef product to go from producer to slaughter to kitchen and consumption. Of course, we do factor in the average time a steak might sit in a domestic freezer also. Our IT guys have told us that we can easily keep any number of traceable records indefinitely and that we can keep stored tissue samples for as long as necessary and as many as necessary.


A little math pertaining to our program over the past twelve months; using the number of sales transactions, corresponding number of vet mileage fees , the breeding herd we retain and the cost for the number of “urine kits” needed plus vet's per head charges. . . .

$28,000.00 (min) to $61,350.00 (max.) - just for one, 12 month period!!
The spread reflects the min. & max. (I think) the Vet will charge -
Minimum being; Vet urine collection/processing fee equal to a preg checking charge, and the max. amount using a semen testing fee.

No $ amount allocated for personal time needed to run the cattle through the chutes for collecting. (gawd, the thought of that just gives me the shivers)

So as a _marketing tool_ we’re looking at $28G to $61G and we have not yet “paid” for the secondary/confirmatory tests and storage of second sample tissue and SRM removal - via packer involvement of.

As I see it, there is no way the world is going to stop SRM removal even if the urine test is validated. (is the packer going to 'hold' the carcass with SRM intact until secondary/confirmatory test has been completed). I believe in progressive marketing techniques but enough already!!

Off the top of my thoughts;
How long is this test “good for”? As in how often is the live test needed to be done to classify as a “BSE free herd”? Breeding stock (heading to slaughter) will be retested when losing a calf or ripping a sheath in a year or two? Or will all this be mandatory for the seller's of fat/slaughter cattle only?
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
bse-tester said:
RobertMac wrote:

Whether or not SRM removal is discontinued if testing is implemented is "irrelevant"???

TimH wrote:

Are you friggin' serious???


The fact is, it is the government(s) that make that decision and simply because a test is available to ensure that the product is safe and free of BSE would negate the need to remove SRM's is not the point. The point is whether or not the government of the day would discontinue what would then become a useless practice.
If the test has been accepted by the authorities and mandated throughout the world as the test for BSE, then once an animal has passed through the testing protocol and proven to be BSE free then it can be declared to have been tested for BSE and catagorically declared to have no sign of the disease in the carass whatsoever. It then follows that the removal of SRM's will be considered a mute point and would likely also be declared an unnecessary expense of time and money on the line.

As for the other point regarding the use of muscle tissue and/or brain tissue in homogenate for prion testing:

The point that prions are not found in muscle tissue is perhaps one of the more moronic statements that TImH has repeatedly made as part of his misguided attacks on prion research. - hence his use of the term "Sirloin Steak" and he has convinced himself that the only means of removing ALL PrPsc from the carcass is to remove all SRM's and that by doing so will render the carcass free of PrPsc.

SRM removal will take out those areas of the carcass that are known to hold concentrations of PRPsc but will not eradicate PrPsc from the carcass completely. Once PrPsc has replicated enough to manifest itself in sufficient numbers within the SRM's, it is absolutely going to be found in all other tissues throughout the body. Perhaps it will not be found in such numbers as is found in SRM's but it will be found nonetheless. To count on only SRM removal is courting tragedy on a huge scale and to put it mildly, utterly stupid.

Perhaps TimH can answer these questions:

How does the PrPsc manage to concentrate itself in SRM's and not in muscle tissue as he is so convinced??

Why is PrPsc, according to TimH, not found in muscle tissue?

Is PrPsc evident in the blood in an infected animal?

How does PrPsc travel within the host animal?

How many PrPsc does it take to declare an animal infected?

Can PrPsc be found in the vascular and lymphatic system of the animal?

What is the typical incubation period in cattle Vs. Human hosts?

Would Timh eat "Sirloin Steak" from a "PrPsc Positive" carcass after all of the SRM's have been removed?

"The point is whether or not the government of the day would discontinue what would then become a useless practice."
The Japanese government didn't. Thanks for making my point ,wizard.
Why not just answer my other question Ron, and hold the rhetoric.....Do researchers use brain tissue or muscle tissue in transmission studies and WHY??? C'mon Ronnie, I know you know the answer.
One more..... are vCJD cases worldwide increasing or decreasing?? I'll bet Veronica knows the answer to this one ,as well. :lol: :lol:
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I know personally know three prion researchers who routinely use muscle tissue to detect the presence of PrPsc in an homogenate of muscle tissue and sterile phosphate-buffered saline (ph7) - of course, there are nerve fibrils embedded in the muscle, but then, how does one take them out Timmy??

As for the cases of vCJD Tim, if you had any idea of how prion diseases affect humans, then you would not ask that question due to your incredible knowledge of how long the incubation period we humans have when infected with PrPsc. It could well be decades before we see any clinical signs of dramatic increases in vCJD - something that the UK Government stated clearly in their own admissions when questioned about the long term effects of human exposure prior to and during the early stages of the UK BSE outbreak. The published an alert which stated that they expect to see approximately 4300 cases of vCJD within the UK alone in the next two to three decades from exposure prior to the UK outbreak in which 185,000 sanimals were found to be BSE positive.

But nooooooooo, Timmyboy knows all about prion disease and how it affects us humans and further more, he is the self-appointed expert when it comes to which parts of the animal will have PrPsc in it and which parts will not.

Folks, we are in the presence of true magnificence with our Timmyboy and wow, if we had only known that back in the early outbreak days in the UK!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

I also know that you failed to answer the questions I posed to you Timmy - why is that? Well Tim, are you smarter than a first grader?? Here is another chance for you to show us all just how smart you really are Tim. Go for it.

Time for you to give us some answers Tim. Try it, afterall, this should be easy for someone with your level of indepth prion experience. :roll: :roll:

How does the PrPsc manage to concentrate itself in SRM's and not in muscle tissue as he is so convinced??

Why is PrPsc, according to TimH, not found in muscle tissue?

Is PrPsc evident in the blood in an infected animal?

How does PrPsc travel within the host animal?

How many PrPsc does it take to declare an animal infected?

Can PrPsc be found in the vascular and lymphatic system of the animal?

What is the typical incubation period in cattle Vs. Human hosts?

Would Timh eat "Sirloin Steak" from a "PrPsc Positive" carcass after all of the SRM's have been removed?
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
bse-tester said:
I know personally know three prion researchers who routinely use muscle tissue to detect the presence of PrPsc in an homogenate of muscle tissue and sterile phosphate-buffered saline (ph7) - of course, there are nerve fibrils embedded in the muscle, but then, how does one take them out Timmy??

As for the cases of vCJD Tim, if you had any idea of how prion diseases affect humans, then you would not ask that question due to your incredible knowledge of how long the incubation period we humans have when infected with PrPsc. It could well be decades before we see any clinical signs of dramatic increases in vCJD - something that the UK Government stated clearly in their own admissions when questioned about the long term effects of human exposure prior to and during the early stages of the UK BSE outbreak. The published an alert which stated that they expect to see approximately 4300 cases of vCJD within the UK alone in the next two to three decades from exposure prior to the UK outbreak in which 185,000 sanimals were found to be BSE positive.

But nooooooooo, Timmyboy knows all about prion disease and how it affects us humans and further more, he is the self-appointed expert when it comes to which parts of the animal will have PrPsc in it and which parts will not.

Folks, we are in the presence of true magnificence with our Timmyboy and wow, if we had only known that back in the early outbreak days in the UK!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

I also know that you failed to answer the questions I posed to you Timmy - why is that? Well Tim, are you smarter than a first grader?? Here is another chance for you to show us all just how smart you really are Tim. Go for it.

Time for you to give us some answers Tim. Try it, afterall, this should be easy for someone with your level of indepth prion experience. :roll: :roll:

How does the PrPsc manage to concentrate itself in SRM's and not in muscle tissue as he is so convinced??

Why is PrPsc, according to TimH, not found in muscle tissue?

Is PrPsc evident in the blood in an infected animal?

How does PrPsc travel within the host animal?

How many PrPsc does it take to declare an animal infected?

Can PrPsc be found in the vascular and lymphatic system of the animal?

What is the typical incubation period in cattle Vs. Human hosts?

Would Timh eat "Sirloin Steak" from a "PrPsc Positive" carcass after all of the SRM's have been removed?

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine, truthfully.(maybe you would be kind enough to post links to the peer reviewed work of these 3 prion researchers you claim to know....as if!) :roll:
My first question was in regards to transmission studies(read transmitting BSE via muscle tissue homogenate), my second question required only a one-word answer. Either increasing or decreasing.

And Veronica, before you question whether or not I'm smarter than a first grader, here's a couple of tips.... it's "moot" point, not "mute", also it's "masquerade", not "maskerade" or however the hell you butchered it in another post.
If you're going to try to suggest that I'm an idiot, you really should avoid showing what an imbecile you are.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Does Japan remove SRM's?

Yes, they do.

Do they remove all nerve tissue?



Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Safety Measures in Japan
Kazuya YAMANOUCHI and Yasuhiro YOSHIKAWA
Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, Vol. 69 (2007) No. 1 pp.1-6

SNIP...

Removal of SRM (head, excluding the tongue and cheek flesh, spinal cord, distal ileum) has been mandatory since October 2001 and the removal of the vertebral column containing the dorsal root ganglion in February 2004.

Accumulation of relatively small amounts of abnormal prion protein was found in the peripheral nerves and adrenal glands by the Western blot method in some BSE-positive animals that were subjected to a comprehensive examination. As these tissues are not listed as SRM, a further study on the distribution of BSE prion in these tissues is ongoing [2, 3].


http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/69/1/1/_pdf



TAFS1 Position Paper on Specified Risk Materials (May 29, 2007)

Specified Risk Materials, or SRM, are tissues that have been designated for removal from the
carcases of cattle, and excluded from human food. They have been shown, or assumed, to
contain significant amounts of BSE infectivity in infected animals. By prohibiting their
consumption it is considered to provide a substantial reduction in risk to consumers in
countries where BSE has been shown to exist and in countries having a likely BSE-risk. SRM
are also designated in sheep and goats. This was stipulated as a precautionary measure
assuming that sheep and goats may have become infected with BSE. The finding of BSE in
one goat has confirmed this assumption.
SRM are also usually removed from animal feed as well, and this strengthens more general
feed bans that are intended to prevent infection of cattle and small ruminants with BSE and
lead to the elimination of BSE in each country. This document essentially concentrates on
SRM in the context of human health, except in explaining the evolution of definitions and
protective measures.
Considerable confusion surrounds the term “specified risk materials” or SRM. This confusion
ranges from the reasons for designation of such tissues or organs for destruction rather than
consumption, and the extent to which it is necessary to ensure full compliance with
regulations that require their removal from the food chain. This note briefly summarises the
reasons for the designation of SRM, and concludes by listing current rules in the Europe. This
table will be modified as rules change. Although the table includes a list of sheep and goat
tissues that are defined as SRM, the note primarily addresses the background
to bovine SRM.

Why are tissues designated as SRM?


snip...


Has BSE infectivity been detected in all SRM listed later in this position
paper?

• Yes. research on bovine tissues, from naturally and experimentally infected cattle,
has now progressed to the point where there is a clearer picture of which tissues
are infectious, and those where no infectivity has been found17,20 .
• In naturally infected cattle the brain, spinal cord and retina (eye) have been
shown to be infectious21,23. In addition, positivity or infectivity was detected in
some peripheral nerves that would not normally be removed as SRM3,13,14. The
amount of infectivity present is low, and considered be up to 1000-fold lower than
the brain. Unpublished evidence suggests at the moment that these become
positive only after the brain and spinal cord.
• In experimentally infected cattle, brain and spinal cord were again been
confirmed to be infectious, but in addition the distal ileum (lower small intestine)
also contained significant amounts of infectivity22. Two key ganglia, which are
key intermediate points linking the central and peripheral nervous systems, namely
the trigeminal and dorsal root ganglia (DRG), were also clearly infectious24. This
is not surprising given their close association with central nervous tissue.
• In addition, in experimentally infected cattle, single incomplete results have
indicated the possible presence of infectivity in bone marrow at about the time of
clinical onset24. These studies are incomplete, but it has not been possible to verify
the results at other time points in the incubation so far.
• In addition, a low amount of infectivity was detected in tonsil early in the
incubation and maintained during the time course9,25.
• A similar single, un-interpretable, result also indicates the presence of infectivity
in the third eyelid of naturally infected cows. This study is also still in progress.
Why are other tissues/organs not expected to be infectious included in the list for
exclusion from consumption?
• Some SRM have not been inherently shown to be infected, but with experience it
is clear that their close association with other SRM, especially the central nervous
system, represents a real risk of cross contamination20. Again, a precautionary
approach has been adopted.
• For example, the skull has not been demonstrated to be inherently infectious, but it
is impossible to remove the brain from the skull without leaving traces of brain
tissue behind20. Similarly the eye is also infected. Therefore, the definition of skull
as SRM acknowledges the remaining risk due to the retained brain tissue, or
contamination with brain as a result of the slaughtering process. The designation
of skull means that the practicalities of compliance and enforcement are easier to
handle, and there is less exposure of abattoir operators to brain tissue while it
remains encased within the skull.
• The vertebral column is also designated because of its close association with
dorsal root ganglia (DRG) and due to contamination with spinal cord tissue.
DRG sit just on the outside of the spine where the spinal nerves pass through from the
spinal cord20. If the vertebral column (spine) was left attached to meat, for
example in a T-bone steak, there is therefore a danger that the DRG would be
consumed. The spinal cord contamination arises as a result of the splitting process
as the saw that cuts the carcase in half passes through the cord and contaminates
the cut surface of the spine.
• In both situations described above the use of vertebral column for the
production
of mechanically recovered meat, or mechanically separated meat, would strip
off
the DRG and contamination, transferring infectivity into the MRM/MSM which
is
used in manufactured meat products. Indeed, European legislation has gone
further
than just designating vertebral column as an SRM. The use of ruminant bones
for
production of mechanically recovered meat (MRM) is prohibited.
Have all tissues been tested for the presence of infectivity?
• No. There are limits to the number of tissues that can be tested.
Decisions on
which tissues to test have historically been driven by several factors such
as:-
• which represent a risk to consumers because they are eaten,
• which are key tissues in understanding the biology of BSE in cattle, and
• which represent a risk to humans through the manufacture of other
products such as pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
• Nevertheless, based upon evidence from other species (sheep scrapie) and
the
results of assays of bovine tissues, and audits of the use of bovine
tissues, it is
considered that all key tissues have been assayed.
Will the list be dynamic?
• Yes10. Research is still ongoing, and it is still possible that
infectivity will be
detected in tissues that have been negative so far. The use of cattle for
infectivity
assays, or technological breakthroughs to produce alternative assay systems
(see
above) mean that the analytical sensitivity of current assays is greater
than those
used in earlier studies. It is therefore not possible to exclude the
possibility that
new positive results will arise. Their significance, in terms of quantifying
the
amount of infectivity present, will be critical to risk assessments that
will
determine whether authorities define them as SRM.
• Nevertheless, current evidence suggests that this is a theoretical rather
than real
scenario. Authorities and expert committees cannot however remain oblivious
to
new findings, and may need to take into account consumer confidence as well
as
risk assessments in determining whether or not to add new tissues to the SRM
list.
• Also it has to be taken into account that new findings of positive tissues
may come
at a time when the prevalence of BSE is very low and decreasing and the vast
majority of cattle consumed have to be considered uninfected. In this
situation
authorities may conclude that the addition of further tissues to the list
may be
disproportionate to the risk.
• In the TSE roadmap of the EU, published in July 2005,
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/bse/roadmap_en.pdf) next steps in
the BSE
policy on different points are evaluated. Concerning SRM it is discussed,
that the
list of SRM could be modified in the medium term, based on new and evolving
scientific knowledge and the results of the surveillance programs.
Designated bovine SRM in Europe
• Brain – expected to be infectious by extrapolation from sheep scrapie, and
subsequently confirmed for BSE. Experimental evidence suggests that the
brain
becomes infectious in the later stages of incubation.
• Spinal cord – expected to be infectious by extrapolation from sheep
scrapie, and
subsequently confirmed for BSE. Experimental evidence suggests that the
spinal
cord becomes infectious in the later stages of incubation.
• Tonsil – expected to be infectious by extrapolation from sheep scrapie,
but not
subsequently confirmed for BSE from naturally infected cattle, even by
bioassay
in cattle. Result from experimentally infected cattle, suggests that the
palatine
tonsil becomes infectious in the early stage of the incubation and the very
low
infectivity is maintained during the time course5,9,25. Tongue itself is not
considered as SRM. However, according to EU-legislation, “tongue should be
harvested by a transverse cut rostral to the lingual process of the basihoyd
bone”,
due to possible contamination of tonsil tissue.
• Intestine – the distal ileum was expected to be infectious by
extrapolation from
sheep scrapie, and this was subsequently confirmed for BSE in experimentally
infected cattle especially in the early stages of incubation. Logic suggests
that it
must also be infectious in naturally infected cattle in the early stages of
incubation.
This infectivity was particularly associated with Peyer’s patches,
collections of
lymphoid tissue that form a first line of defence against infection through
the
intestinal wall. This result has not been replicated in naturally infected
cattle,
although immunostaining methods have shown the presence of abnormal prion
protein in the nervous plexuses of the intestine. This discrepancy is
considered to
be most probably due to the fact that the Peyer’s patches regress as cattle
reach
maturity, and consequently reduce the likelihood of finding any infectivity
that
may remain. The majority of infected cows die of clinical BSE at five to
seven
years of age, after the Peyer’s patches have regressed. Nevertheless, the
positive
immunostaining of the nervous plexuses, which extend throughout the
intestine,
does justify continued listing of intestine as SRM while there is a danger
that cattle
will have been exposed to BSE7,19.
• Skull – designated because of association with brain and eye, with
resultant
contamination through the slaughtering process or because of residual brain
tissue
following removal of the brain.
• Vertebral column – designated because of a combination of close
association
with DRG, and the superficial contamination of the cut surface of the spine
with
spinal cord during the carcase splitting process.
• Age restrictions4,20 – all of the above tissues will not necessarily be
designated for
all ages of cattle consumed. This is because experimental evidence has
suggested
that they only represent a risk at particular stages of the incubation. If a
tissue is
infectious early in the incubation then it is normal to designate the tissue
for all
ages. If infectivity is detected late in the incubation then it is possible
to designate
the tissue in older animals only, especially where the designation is a
result of
contamination (eg. vertebral column).
Designated ovine SRM
• SRM designated in sheep are based primarily on evidence from the study of
sheep
scrapie, but the outcome is consistent with our understanding of the
behaviour of
BSE in sheep that are susceptible to infection with BSE2,6,11.
• The designation adopts a cautious balance between significantly reducing
the risk
to consumers should BSE be present in the sheep and goat population and the
introduction of extensive SRM removal which would significantly damage sheep
and meat industries in affected countries6,16,18.
• There is no doubt that the confirmation that BSE is present in the sheep
population
will result in an immediate revision of this list, or possibly even a
prohibition of
the consumption of certain categories of sheep meat. The confirmation of BSE
in a
goat8 did not however have this effect on the definition of SRM. The list of
SRMs
in small ruminants was not modified as a result of this finding (see
position paper
on BSE in small ruminants). ...

snip...see full text ;

http://www.tafsforum.org/position_papers/TAFS_POSITION_PAPER_SPECIFIED%20RISK%20MATERIALS_070529.pdf



> There is no doubt that the confirmation that BSE is present in the sheep
population

> will result in an immediate revision of this list, or possibly even a
prohibition of

> the consumption of certain categories of sheep meat


DECLARATION OF EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY BECAUSE OF AN ATYPICAL T.S.E. (PRION
DISEASE) OF FOREIGN ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES [Docket No. 00-072-1]

http://foiamadsheepmadrivervalley.blogspot.com/


CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE MAD COW BASE UPDATE USA

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2007/11/phenotypic-similarity-of-transmissible.html


NOR-98 ATYPICAL SCRAPIE CASES USA

http://nor-98.blogspot.com/


TSS
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Well Timmy, I gess yu kan reed afta all huh?? So what if there are some speillnng mistooks - go to Harvard and bitch at them. Like I give a damn what you think.

It matters not what I post or if you read it and suggest that I am lying about the three researchers. Whatever I post you take exception with anyway so to hell with you and your rhetoric. I care not what you think and I am sure that nobody else cares.

Having said that, it is obvious to all that once again, you have shown that you are not interested in civil discussion at all. Once again, you have shown that you care little for research and protocol. Once again you have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are a complete and utter moron who has only one agenda and that is to create arguments, mayhem and distortion of the truth. Once again, when someone wants to share information, you take it upon yourself to wade in create more of your stupid BS.

As for supplying you the info your so desperately need - do your own research and find them yourself because frankly, I would not want those three well respected scientists to be subjected to an idiot like you. If anyone else wishes to know who they are, simply "pm" me and I will gladly share that info but until Timmy answers all of my questions as posted earlier, he has "little or no chance" of getting any info from me.

TimH, all I asked you to do was to answer some simple questions and you again avoid them like the plague. Why is that? Surely you are not going to act like a little girl and keep on saying, "you first, you first?" Oh wait, you already did huh??? What a piece of work you are Timmy.

But, of course, we all know why you refuse to answer them now don't we?

Go ahead Buckwheat, try to be an adult and answer them - answer them and I will consider your request. Like you said - "as if!" :roll:

We really could use an ignore button on this board as his shock treatments ain't working worth a damn!!! Still licking that cattle prod Timmy??
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Well folks, I started this thread to see if there was any hope of there being someone specific on here who could actually provide evidence of being able to reason or not to reason and specifically targeted TimH as he has taken it upon himself to target me with innuendo and insults beyond what one might consider only a casual passing.

In a nutshell, it has been proven beyond all doubt that when it comes to being able to reason, even at a simple "Grade One" level, old "Bubble-wrap TimH" is going to have to go back and repeat his first grade - yet again. Not only has he failed, he has shown that he could not possibly pass even if his teacher and Principle wrote the test for him. Hell Timmy, if you threw your sorry butt towards the floor you would miss it!!!

So folks, after having to deal with TimH, I am sure you will agree that this little experiment was a profound success. :lol: :lol: :D :D

Like the man said - if you built a mouse trap, some stupid jerk of a dumb-ass mouse like TimH is bound to show up and get caught at his own game. Guess what happened? The man was right!! TimH showed up by dang and got himself caught in his own purpose-built trap. I never even had to put bait in it :roll: :roll:

No hope at all for that putz so therefore, I shall consider this experiment completed and this thread finished. :D 8)
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
ah . . excuse me Mr. bse-tester

I was wondering if you could answer my questions.
http://ranchers.net/forum/post-254373.html#254373
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
S.S.A.P Wrote:

Off the top of my thoughts;
How long is this test “good for”? As in how often is the live test needed to be done to classify as a “BSE free herd”? Breeding stock (heading to slaughter) will be retested when losing a calf or ripping a sheath in a year or two? Or will all this be mandatory for the seller's of fat/slaughter cattle only?

Sorry S.S.A.P. - I was involved in catching a rather large mouse or was it a rat???.

The Test is primarily done on cattle about to be shipped to slaughter, and/or on animals that are displaying unusual behavour or obvious symptoms of illness. It is done only once prior to slaughter (within a day or so) and then again during the slaughter process, another sample is taken for confirmation and a portion of it is kept frozen until a suitable time equal to the average time meat products go from farm to plate. We anticipate that the cost of the primary test will include the cost of the secondary test and storage. It is not in our interest to make a test that is economically prohibitive and less expensive it can be the better it will be accepted.

As for animals that suffer from a ripped sheath or having lost a calf, why would a test be required??

Also, I want you to realize that our interest is only in getting this test validated and accepted by the authorities. We leave whatever mandates are required to be made to those authorities that make them. That is not our job - it is the job of the USDA and the CFIA here in North America.

Also, S.S.A.P. wrote:

As I see it, there is no way the world is going to stop SRM removal even if the urine test is validated. (is the packer going to 'hold' the carcass with SRM intact until secondary/confirmatory test has been completed). I believe in progressive marketing techniques but enough already!!

What do you care how long the packer holds the carcass? Look, consider the fact that the animal is tested just prior to shipping off to the slaughterhouse - or it is tested in the holding yard at the packers facility or the feed-lot - wherever it is, it is tested before it even goes to slaughter. If that test comes back positive, that animal never goes to the packer in the first place. Once the primary test has been concluded, then, upon passing that test, the animal is given the ok to go to slaughter, the secondary test is done to yes, provide a backup confirmation and also to take a portion of tissue/urine so it can be kept as a traceable sample.

The timeline between taking the second sample and getting a response from the lab is going to be a matter of probably only 5 - 12 hours, depending on volume anyway. So the packer may have to add to his freezer space but once the line is in place it is only a matter of logistics for him and he would only have to hold for the length of one work-shift.

Ah, I hope that answers your questions ?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker: "So, are you going to tell us SRM removal assures beef safety?"

Oh no! Sandhusker is busted after all these years of you telling the world SRM removal ISN'T protection against BSE????

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
mrj said:
Sandhusker: "So, are you going to tell us SRM removal assures beef safety?"

Oh no! Sandhusker is busted after all these years of you telling the world SRM removal ISN'T protection against BSE????

mrj


Would you cook up a mess of T-bones for your family from a BSE positive animal that had SRMs removed?
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
bse tester please confirm, thank you:

are these your words Ron? Is this from your testing protocol?

"The sample taken for the second test, unlike the first test which is done using only urine, will include urine, liver and brain homogenate in an homogenate and a portion of that second sample mixture will be tested and the remainder will be kept in a minus 80 C freezer for a period that is equal to the average time it takes for the beef product to go from the producer to slaughter to kitchen and consumption."
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Kathy asks:

bse tester please confirm, thank you:

are these your words Ron? Is this from your testing protocol?

Quote:
"The sample taken for the second test, unlike the first test which is done using only urine, will include urine, liver and brain homogenate in an homogenate and a portion of that second sample mixture will be tested and the remainder will be kept in a minus 80 C freezer for a period that is equal to the average time it takes for the beef product to go from the producer to slaughter to kitchen and consumption."

Those words are not from my Test Protocol at all. They do not form any part of it and were not included in the Paper published in 2005. Having said that, those words were provided to me by an individual who represents a rather large Rancher's Co-op and is the actual protocol that they have suggested that they would like to follow when they use the test on their member's animals. I have indicated to them that I would not only support but adopt whole-heartedly such a protocol wherein a portion of the urine and selected tissue samples (not necessarily all the ones they chose) taken as part of the confirmatory test would be kept to provide a real urine/tissue traceability sample instead of just documentation.

My reason for quoting it Kathy, is because I agree with it and think it provides an enhancement not only to the Risk Management of the tested animals but also that is provides for a ready and real reference in the event that an animal does in fact, test positive on the second test or if questions relating to that animal were to arise post-slaughter. Of course, I would state that the second test is not really necessary in light of the accuracy and sensitivity of the test period! But I do not make those rules.

Now Kathy, if you were planning to slap me with words along the line of "Why is the 2nd test necessary?" I will only say this:

I do know that the authorities will probably mandate it, so why not go that extra yard and do it right?
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
BSE tester, I do not intend to slap you with anything!

The steps involved in this protocol have certain qualities that intrigue me. However, I will do some research and queries before I provide my more detailed comments.

For now all I will say, is that the kidneys cannot excrete anything over 5 nanometers in diameter/size.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Kathy, make sure that you are versed in the conversion of kDa and nm.

Kilodaltons vs nanometers.

I think I know where you are going with this - I am impressed with your tenacity. Not too many people would even begin to think of going into this realm of science and the smaller parts of life.

Be aware that the kidney filtration constraints (max/min size passable) vary from one species to another.
 

Latest posts

Top