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

Just for you Haymaker

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Just want you to know Haymaker that it looks as if Canada will hit their 2005 test quota of 30,000 head. I know how worried you were about us not making it last year. So just so you don't have to worry your little mind I thought I would let you know as of Apr 26 2005 Canada has already tested 21,347 head. With over 8 months to go we should be able to get the other 8653 head.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Tam, will you keep testing or just quit for the year?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Our quota for 2004 was 8000 we kept right on testing to the turn of 23550 head so why would we stop testing if we hit the magic number of 30,000.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Where did the USDA ever say they were going to test 300,000 head?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Even After 2 New BSE Cases This Year, Canada Decreases Testing by 28%; Disease Likely Still Present in Herd, but not Being Detected


(Billings, Mont.) – Despite the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) found in four Canadian cattle in the past two years – two of those cases being announced in January – the number of Canadian cattle being tested for BSE per month has substantially decreased, making it impossible to monitor the effectiveness of Canada’s BSE risk-mitigation measures.



“Reports by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) show that Canada tested 7,088 cattle for BSE during December 2004, while the average number tested per month for January, February and March totaled only 5,258 cattle per month – a 28 percent drop,” noted Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president and co-founder. “At this slow rate of testing, even a relatively large BSE problem may remain hidden for many months or years.”



Canada has maintained that if it tested 30,000 cattle per year, it would be able to detect one BSE case in a million, but Canada has not yet tested this many cattle per year, and yet four cases have been detected under far less testing. This suggests a BSE prevalence rate significantly higher than 1 per million.



“Statistically, the detection sensitivity of a testing program is driven by the number of cattle tested per month, not the size of the herd,” said nationally renowned disease risk-assessment expert Louis Anthony Cox Jr., Ph.D., of Cox Associates in Denver, Colo. “Canada would have to double its testing rate, then double it again, then double it yet a third time to reach parity with the U.S. in the level of scrutiny being given to cattle to protect consumers and the cattle industry against BSE.



“Just as the accuracy of a political poll depends only on the number of people interviewed rather than on the total number of voters, so the accuracy with which the prevalence rate of BSE-positive tests among inspected cattle can be determined depends only on the number of cattle tested, rather than on the total size of the herds,” explained Cox. “In both cases, what matters is just the proportion of the respondents that indicate a certain result.



“Canada’s BSE test results to date suggest a possible true BSE prevalence rate greater than about 5.5 case per million head of cattle, which is the same order of magnitude as the BSE incidence rate found in countries considered to have a serious BSE problem, such as France and Germany,” Cox continued. “Moreover, unlike those countries, there is no historical trend in BSE testing results in Canada to indicate that the rate of BSE infection in the Canadian herd is decreasing.”



R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said that the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) will not allow countries with a BSE prevalence rate of two cases per million head of native cattle to be classified as ‘minimal BSE risk.’



“Even if a country met all of the other OIE criteria for ‘minimal BSE risk’ status – which Canada does not – a country must also have found its BSE prevalence rate to be less than two cases per million head during each of the last four consecutive 12-month periods to qualify as a ‘minimal BSE risk,’” Bullard pointed out.



In contrast, the United States continues to test at the rate of over 45,000 cattle per month, but has never detected BSE in its domestic herd. Additionally, the U.S. already has exceeded its plans to test 268,500 domestic high-risk cattle – those animals judged most likely to exhibit BSE if the disease were present.



As of April 8, 2005, the U.S. had tested more than 305,000 of the 446,000 cattle targeted for testing, with no cases of BSE detected. At Canada’s recently reduced rate of testing, it would take approximately 51 months (268,500/5258) to achieve the same level of inspection (number of cattle tested) that the U.S. achieved in the first quarter of 2005, according to Cox.



“All other BSE-affected countries – following initial detection of BSE in their native herds – immediately begin a mandatory testing program that includes testing all high-risk cattle over the age at which tests results are meaningful, and/or cattle subject to normal slaughter,” McDonnell said. “Canada’s testing program cannot provide a science-based estimate of its BSE prevalence rate, and it follows none of the crucial protocols established by other BSE-affected countries.”



As a result of these inadequate policies – along with multiple discoveries of BSE – it’s very likely that additional BSE-positive cattle exist in the Canadian herd but aren’t being detected, and Canada’s decision to reduce BSE testing after the two most recent cases could indicate that adequate testing may not be forthcoming.



The table below compares Canada’s testing program to those of other BSE-affected countries reporting fewer than 30 cases of BSE since 2003. It illustrates the inadequacy of Canada’s surveillance program and the testing gap between Canada and other countries. The chart also reveals both the inadequacy of Canada’s testing program when compared to international BSE surveillance practices as well as the inappropriateness of estimating Canada’s BSE incidence rate based on Canada’s adult cattle population. Canada’s testing data is simply insufficient to accurately estimate Canada’s BSE prevalence, but the data that is available when contrasted with other countries that have tested far more cattle, suggests that Canada’s BSE prevalence cannot be characterized as low. This deficiency is particularly obvious when comparing the number of BSE tests conducted as a percentage of each country’s adult cattle population.



Country
Adult Cattle Population
High-Risk Cattle Tested Per Year
Cattle Subject to Normal Slaughter Tested
Total Cattle Tested Per Year
No. of BSE Cases Reported Since 2003

Canada
5,500,000
23,550
None reported
23,550
4

Denmark
834,000
37,332
250,558
289,702
3

Slovenia
214,000
11,357
54,751
66,167
3

Slovakia
287,000
21,805
65,192
87,010
9

Japan
2,040,500
See Note 18
See Note 18
881,700
16

Netherlands
954,000
65,943
439,403
506,325
25

Belgium
1,424,000
34,988
356,184
392,465
26

Poland
3,175,000
26,873
428,452
455,413
27





“R-CALF recommends that Canada begin testing hundreds of thousands of cattle on an annual basis – rather than the mere tens of thousands Canada is proposing – as the only means by which Canada can conclude that its prevalence rate is not as high as those of countries considered to have a serious BSE problem,” Bullard said. “Until – and unless – Canada begins a statistically meaningful BSE surveillance program, every country will lack crucial scientific data needed to assess the risk of accepting beef and cattle from Canada.”



Note: To view the complete report titled “Inadequacy of Canada’s BSE Surveillance Program,” log on to: www.r-calfusa.com and click “BSE-Litigation.”

# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 14,500 strong – are located in 46 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
two of those cases being announced in January – the number of Canadian cattle being tested for BSE per month has substantially decreased, making it impossible to monitor the effectiveness of Canada’s BSE risk-mitigation measures
.

I love the fact that our testing has dropped by 28%. R-CALF took one month, the highest month DEC of testing numbers to come up with this drop. Can you tell us how many Canada tested in SEPT Haymaker just three months before? why didn't they say in 2004 Canada averaged 1962.5 head of cattle per month and so far in 2005 they have averaged 5336.75 head per month 260% increase over the previous years monthly average. ? It just doesn't show the same picture does it. Canada put a push on to do the testing at the end of the year to make sure we had enough to cover the quota and by taking that number their make it look as if we are not doing the same testing what a joke.

Canada has maintained that if it tested 30,000 cattle per year, it would be able to detect one BSE case in a million, but Canada has not yet tested this many cattle per year, and yet four cases have been detected under far less testing. This suggests a BSE prevalence rate significantly higher than 1 per million
.


The US also said if they tested 210,000 head they would detect the same but is the US planning on repeating this testing to prove the prevalence of BSE in the US herd NO they will be going back to 40,000 head in a herd that is 7 times the size as the Canadian herd after one year. . another joke.

“Statistically, the detection sensitivity of a testing program is driven by the number of cattle tested per month, not the size of the herd,” said nationally renowned disease risk-assessment expert Louis Anthony Cox Jr., Ph.D., of Cox Associates in Denver, Colo. “Canada would have to double its testing rate, then double it again, then double it yet a third time to reach parity with the U.S. in the level of scrutiny being given to cattle to protect consumers and the cattle industry against BSE.
That is funny the OIE told us it was what you test (the 4D catagory) that will give you the true prevalance ? according to R-CALF expert we should test 240,000 head in a herd that is one seventh the size to reach parity with the US test number of 200,000. come on.

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said that the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) will not allow countries with a BSE prevalence rate of two cases per million head of native cattle to be classified as ‘minimal BSE risk
.’

That funny the OIE told Canada we could find eleven positives in a herd our size and still be minimal risk. I think after the last statement from the OIE about what R_CALF has misquoted about OIE rules that Bullard would be a little more carefull about what he quotes from the OIE.

a country must also have found its BSE prevalence rate to be less than two cases per million head during each of the last four consecutive 12-month periods to qualify as a ‘minimal BSE risk,’” Bullard pointed out.

Did Canada find any in 2001 or 2002 No

In contrast, the United States continues to test at the rate of over 45,000 cattle per month, but has never detected BSE in its domestic herd. Additionally, the U.S. already has exceeded its plans to test 268,500 domestic high-risk cattle – those animals judged most likely to exhibit BSE if the disease were present.

That is funny as the US tested 176,467 head by the end of 2004 averaging 14705 per month. Four months into 2005 that number is now 305000 which is a difference of 128,533 divide that by 4 months and you get just over 32000 head per month. Where in the He** does the 45,000 cattle per month come from? And where are these test samples coming from again? I thought the OIE said the ON farm dead dieing and downers were what was suppose to be tested not slaughter animals.

305,000 of the 446,000 cattle targeted for testing,

Where did the USDA ever say they plan to test 446,000 cattle I read on the USDA web site that if they tested 268,000 they would be 99% sure of the rate but I also read they never planned to test more that 210,000 head in a 12 to 18 month one time shot. R-CALF just said in this very statement "the U.S. already has exceeded its plans to test 268,500 domestic high-risk cattle [/b]now its 446,000 cattle targeted for testing which is it Haymaker, they lie so much you can catch them up in their own statements in the same press release. :lol:

At Canada’s recently reduced rate of testing, it would take approximately 51 months (268,500/5258) to achieve the same level of inspection (number of cattle tested) that the U.S. achieved in the first quarter of 2005,

Now R-CALF is saying you tested 268,000 head of cattle in the first quarter of 2005 :lol: What happen to the 305,000 head that included the 176,467 head tested in 2004? Has anyone in the R-CALF office taken math to see these number don't work. :???: even if they averaged 45,000 per month they couldn't have tested 268,000 head in the first quarter of 2005 that would only be 135,000 head. and again why should Canada have to test the same number of cattle our herd is ONE SEVENTH THE SIZE

“All other BSE-affected countries – following initial detection of BSE in their native herds – immediately begin a mandatory testing program that includes testing all high-risk cattle over the age at which tests results are meaningful, and/or cattle subject to normal slaughter,” McDonnell said. “Canada’s testing program cannot provide a science-based estimate of its BSE prevalence rate, and it follows none of the crucial protocols established by other BSE-affected countries.”

Does anyone remember why Japan and these other countries had to do the testing wasn't it because they did not have a pro active feed ban in place or any other safeguards and they did the testing to keep consumer confidence. The Testing has nothing to do with food safety it has everything to do with finding the true prevalance and Canada is doing the testing recommended by the OIE whether R-CALF believes it or not. We are not 100% testing because we have our consumer confidence intacted unlike those other countries.

it follows none of the crucial protocols established by other BSE-affected countries.” aren't we following the same protocol as the US and don't say the US hasn't had a case as you did have one of our case in your food system and hundreds of thousands if not a million of other Canadian cattle that live in the US will also go through your food system undetected.

Canada’s decision to reduce BSE testing after the two most recent cases could indicate that adequate testing may not be forthcoming.

Canada is not the one that decided to go back to a 40,000 head quota after one year. According to R-CALF we are averaging 5258 cattle per month so by the end of 2005 we will have tested 63,096 head and our quota is 30,000 head for 2005 so how can they say Canada made a decision to reduce BSE testing. We will at this rate have tested twice as many as we needed to reach our quota. Can the US say they tested twice as many as their quota of the catagory of cattle that they were recommended to?


R-CALF recommends that Canada begin testing hundreds of thousands of cattle on an annual basis – rather than the mere tens of thousands Canada is proposing – as the only means by which Canada can conclude that its prevalence rate is not as high as those of countries considered to have a serious BSE problem,” Bullard said. “Until – and unless – Canada begins a statistically meaningful BSE surveillance program, every country will lack crucial scientific data needed to assess the risk of accepting beef and cattle from Canada.”

Well I recommend that the US at least test the ones that were recommended by the OIE but I don't see that happening either. And if we are to test hundreds of thousands then the US should tested at least the same percentage of cattle which is 7 times as many, not 40,000. As we are both considered minimal risk in the eyes of the rest of the world. Until – and unless – the US begins a statistically meaningful BSE surveillance program, every country will lack crucial scientific data needed to assess the risk of accepting beef and cattle from the US .”
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
More ammunition for Fair Market Beef's legal team.........can't wait to see lieing Leo and company pay the price for their deliberate lies :mad:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I agree I think R-CALF saying Canada decided to reduce BSE testing should be used in any court action. :x

I think R-CALF should fire at least one lawyer and hire a math teacher. I read in one of their press releases where Leo McDonnell said “We test annually over 150,000 more cattle than Canada tests.” When in fact the US tested a total of 57147 head of cattle in the time period between 1992 and 2003. so how could they have annually tested 150,000 more cattle than Canada? Yes in 2004 the US tested 152,918 more head but that is not annually, according to Websters ANNUALLY means each year; every year; yearly, And the BSE testing has been going on from more than a decade. And the US has a herd 7 times the size so they should had to test at least 164,850 to test the same percentage add the claimed 150,000 on top and the US should have tested 314,850 head to out test Canada by 150,000 in that one year and they only tested 176,468 head of cattle in 2004. Do the math boys R-CALF is lieing again :p

Hey Reader see how easy it is to discredit with facts instead of opinions of a persons job. :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top