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

Judge Delays Border Opening

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
but if the USDA doesn't test to find the true prevalance, the adjustments may be wrong to properly protect the industry and the consumers.

I suppose you believe you are more capable to detect the true prevalance of BSE,than the USDA MISS TAM?you are getting way to big for your -------...............good luck, LOL
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I know that it was recommended by the OIE and Science that testing the 4D's is the best way to find BSE and if you test healthy animals you have to test 100 times as many to get the same picture. The USDA is getting their test samples from slaughter houses that by their own rules are not suppose to accept downers. So what are they testing Haymaker "downer that aren't really downers at all", like the Washington Cow. And if they are to test 200,000 downers to find the prevalance then by OIE standards they should be testing 20,000,000 healthy slaughter animals but Leo said this morning on Sask radio station that the USDA has tested 240,000 but he forgot or just didn't say was that they are slaughter plant samples. According to the USDA they will go back to 40000 after they do their joke aggressive testing program. Canada has to test 30000 for about five years in a row to get the true picture and we all know that Canada is testing the recommended target animals because the ranchers are turning them over. But according to Nebrusker the US shouldn't have to test the 4D as they pose no food safety risk as their aren't be eaten. Well neither are Canada's but just what do you think would happen to us if we said we just aren't going to test something we don't want to.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
I guess the same thing that will happen if we do follow the rules. Protectionist elements will always find a way to keep borders closed. D*(&m the consequences.

What I am wondering is what would happen if we took a page out of R-Calf's book and were to go to the media with horror stories about the safety of American beef?

If we were to go public with stories of flaws in the American surveillance system, or with lies and half truths about the safety of American beef? This is exactly what they have made into a crusade regarding Canadian beef. They are hailed as heroes in some circles for their disregard for the truth and for the overall maintenance of consumer confidence in beef in general.

The truth is that both Canadian and American beef is safe.

I think there has been a tremendous restraint shown on our side of the border to stay away from the dangerous path these people are determined to take American producers down.

If they want the border closed so they can make more money, then SAY THAT! Be honest about it. Tell everyone that it's evil if anyone else makes a profit, but it's somehow different for R-Calf members. That's what they are thinking, so be out front and say it.

We can accept that. What we can't accept is two years of slander and insult. Don't toss a bunch of lies around about our cattle just to justify the border staying closed.It's wearing pretty thin.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
If we were to go public with stories of flaws in the American surveillance system, or with lies and half truths about the safety of American beef? This is exactly what they have made into a crusade regarding Canadian beef. They are hailed as heroes in some circles for their disregard for the truth and for the overall maintenance of consumer confidence in beef in general.[/code]

KATO you wouldn't even have to do that, just use some quotes from R-calf, or Cebull saying that Canadian beef is unsafe and then just let everybody know how many Canadian born animals are hitting the food system in the US. RIGHT NOW. (dairy culls and everything)
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Reader - concerning the statement "your importing more UK cattle" (in reference to Canada)

.....although I can't pinpoint official numbers for years previous to 1981 these are the numbers per;

USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1981 - 1989

USA = 496

CANADA = 198
*last UK import to Canada, 14 in 1990

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/ahra/bseris/bserise.pdf


"DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
1220 N Street, Suite 409
Sacramento, CA 95814
BACKGROUND SHEET
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Management Plan
March 2001

-BSE emerged in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1986
-496 UK cattle imported into the US between 1981 and 1989, and 38 German and two Belgium cattle imported before 1997.

For further information, please contact the CDFA Office of Public Affairs at (916) 654-0462.
-------------------
For what it's worth I posted this on another board where a US poster responded
"In percentage terms to expose the US industry to the same risk 10 times the number of UK imports to the USA as to canada would have to occur. "

To bad we couldn't use the above posters theory in regards to unwanted pregnancy!

It only takes one..... even though both sides of the border tracked down and depopulated, a few had already been slaughtered or rendered. By (un)lucky chance Canada just happened to test the right category to find it. It is utterly frustrating that we find the positive but that alone proves we are willing to look for it.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
At the moment the main difference I am aware of is in the type of animals being tested.

Here the emphasis is on true 4 D cattle, with programs in place to test animals on the farms. This is where we need to look, as from what I have been hearing on this board, testing animals at the slaughter plant is not an indicator of the prevalence of BSE.

Those animals most likely to test positive are not going to be at a slaughter plant, they are also going to be ineligible to even get in a truck to ride to one.

Before we can assume that there is no BSE in America, as R-Calf is so sure, we need to see some test results from a significant number of cattle that meet the 4 D criteria. Down, Diseased, Dying and Dead. If animals that are very unlikely to ever test positive are the only ones being tested, then it's not much of a surveillance system. This is probably a much bigger roadblock to Japan than Canadian cattle ever will be.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
reader (the Second) said:
Despite Agman's kind words, I am not an expert on Canada versus U.S. surveillance. I would have thought that both countries are following similar surveillance practices from what I have read. The big difference appears to be in the BSE cases found in Canada and not in the U.S. and in possibly whatever led up to that difference -- for example imperfect feed ban implmentation or your importing more UK cattle. Again, I'm not an expert here. The U.S. and Canada could be similar except in the number of cases found in each. Of course some of you believe that Canada is finding cases because it's testing more of the high risk category. I wish I had more info on how many of the 240,000 the U.S. tested are really high risk.
I'm not even sure you know what you are talking about. the US imported more UK cattle and the the implimentation of the feed bans in both countries were done without recalling the feed in the systems. Compliance to the US feed system is questionable by reports done by the US government and Canada has according to the USDA and NCBA a good compliance record and records to prove it. And you yourself posted this about the USDA testing program just days ago


If the USDA were testing a significant number of 4D, it would be doing EXACTLY what is recommended by the most knowledgeable TSE experts, so I don't think confining most of the testing to 4D is wrong. However, they have to test in the hundreds of thousands annually. According to the quote from Lisa Ferguson I posted yesterday, there are up to 600,000 downers. And they have to incentivize the producers to notify of 4D cattle. And they have to test on the farm. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this is being done and the 40,000 to be tested in 2005 is WAY too small a number in such a large high risk population.


Now the USDA has said they get their test samples from slaughter plants so what are they really testing the high risk or the HIGHEST RISK cattle like Canada. You said that the USDA "have to incentivize the producers to notify of 4D cattle. And they have to test on the farm. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this is being done " Then you say "Of course some of you believe that Canada is finding cases because it's testing more of the high risk category." Which way is it in your mind who is doing the recommended job and who isn't?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
reader:"and wonder how they are doing it if they aren't going to the farms and paying for these 4D"

They are coming to the farm here and taking samples for testing. $50 bucks to help dispose of the animal too.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Tam, with your persistence and relentless drive to produce the true story on an issue, I would hope that you are holding a position in a cattle or political organization.

I also think that most of the people who make the mistake of arguing with you don't really know what they are getting into or have a clue that they are in way over their heads.

Keep it up and time will will prove you to be right.

John.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Mike- what type of animals are being tested though. In Canada they have to be preapproved( call to Clinic) by showing neuro signs etc. They aren't just paying for any animal here, they must qualify within a high risk category!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Tam - re-read my message carefully. Specifically the words "for example". I was ASKING what differentiated Canada and the U.S. in terms of risk, giving possible reasons, not defending or claiming that these were the actual reasons.

I read your post more than once and both your examples were false as we didn't import more and the feed bans were implimented the same in both countries in regards to no recall.


Similarly I mentioned that Canada has found more infected animals but that some would claim that it was because they were testing more thoroughly

although it appears that Canada is testing high risk animals and the U.S. claims it is but I haven't seen proof of that.


You say it appears that we are and the US isn't, so doesn't that justify our claim. :???:


.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
James said:
Here south of the border if they want to put in a pipeline or electric line or road in and you say NO they can then condem the ground and you are SOL Was dissappointed to hear about the border not being opened

Can ,t see that happening when its a foreign interest involved.
 

Latest posts

Top