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

NCBA membere eUpdate

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Not a single mention of BSE of the handling of it. Is that a little odd?

Member eUpdate

June 28, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THIS ISSUE:

Cattle Industry Counters Bogus CAFTA Claims

CAFTA-DR on the Hill This Week!!!: Ask your Senators and Congressmen to vote YES! on S. 1307 and H.R. 3045

CAFTA-DR Status Update: S. 1307 and H.R. 3045

OVER HERD!

The Latest on the John Deere Vehicles Partnership Program
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
BSE was very well covered in the June 24 Member eAlert. Jim McAdams covered it very well, as did Sec. Johanns on Agri-Talk, too. Maybe they will be on that show again tomorrow. Think I heard the subject will be the current BSE situation.

Seems to me when one hears the facts that it is pretty much a bogus flap, as it was handled properly last November. They had to dig awfully hard to find a very light 'case' if that even is the proper term, and sounds to me like if they were to run the test several times, it is just as likely to have more negative than positive results. I believe the guy at Weybridge said the USDA had done things properly in the first place and it was just luck of the draw that the positive turned up now. That is the way I heard it. But then, I'm not much of a conspiracy buff, either.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
BSE was very well covered in the June 24 Member eAlert. Jim McAdams covered it very well, as did Sec. Johanns on Agri-Talk, too. Maybe they will be on that show again tomorrow. Think I heard the subject will be the current BSE situation.

Seems to me when one hears the facts that it is pretty much a bogus flap, as it was handled properly last November. They had to dig awfully hard to find a very light 'case' if that even is the proper term, and sounds to me like if they were to run the test several times, it is just as likely to have more negative than positive results. I believe the guy at Weybridge said the USDA had done things properly in the first place and it was just luck of the draw that the positive turned up now. That is the way I heard it. But then, I'm not much of a conspiracy buff, either.

MRJ

MRJ- Below is parts from the Meatingplace article-- Does this sound like this is a bogus flap and that USDA had any idea what they were doing :???: :?

Now its being revealed they actually had 2 positive and one negative back in November- And they didn't look any further :???: :? Or even properly store the evidence sample :? :???:

------------------------------

Meanwhile, leading U.S. newspapers published scathing attacks on USDA for, among other things, mingling the parts of the suspect animal with parts from other animals from different herds; freezing the remains, which makes detection more difficult; and failing to order the most definitive test on the market, the Western blot test.

But the blockbuster came from the New York Times, which reported on Sunday that USDA had actually received a positive result from an experimental test protocol, but chose not to report that result. "Until Friday, it was not public knowledge that an 'experimental' test had been performed by an Agriculture Department laboratory on the brain of a cow suspected of having mad cow disease, and the test had come up positive," the newspaper reported. USDA claimed that this result was never reported to Washington from the laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

In an Associated Press interview, Dr. John Clifford, USDA's chief veterinarian, said that test results were delayed because the animal in question was misidentified by breed, perhaps due to feces discoloring its hide, and its body parts were mixed with remains of other cattle. When USDA initially tried to trace the animal, the farmer said that it couldn't be his, because he raised a different breed of cattle. USDA believes it has now identified the animal's home herd and is using DNA testing on presumed herd mates to confirm that.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
OT, you know you can blame the USDA all you want, but months ago, these incompetencies were brought to your attention, right here on Ranchers.

What did you do about it, you continued to support a group that buried their heads in the sand and blamed Canada and ridiculed us. Who was it that said something awhile ago about glass houses?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murgen said:
OT, you know you can blame the USDA all you want, but months ago, these incompetencies were brought to your attention, right here on Ranchers.

What did you do about it, you continued to support a group that buried their heads in the sand and blamed Canada and ridiculed us. Who was it that said something awhile ago about glass houses?

Murgen-- And who was the group that has questioned USDA's actions from day one? Remember R-CALF did not sue Canadians- they sued the USDA because of USDA"s huge gaps in their policies, their ineptness, and outright deceptive practices of allowing packers to import banned beef....

Much of what is happening right now only shows what R-CALF has been saying for sometime- and a federal judge said too-- USDA put economics ahead of their primary role- US consumer and US herd health safety.......
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
MRJ you must have missed this post below.

Canada says no change needed in its mad cow tests

REUTERS

By Roberta Rampton

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Canada is not looking at changing the way it confirms tests for mad cow disease because it is confident it is finding positive cases, a senior food safety official said in an interview.

The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Friday it will revise its protocol for dealing with suspect cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, after it failed to immediately confirm a positive case in November.

The USDA said it will change the way it runs the "gold standard" immunohistochemistry (IHC) confirmatory test, and add a second type of test called Western Blot to its regimen.

Those are tools that Canada is using already, said Darcy Undseth, a senior veterinarian at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

"We already have those elements in place, so at this point, there is no indication that we would have to change our protocol," Undseth told Reuters.

A sample from a U.S. beef cow tested positive for the disease last November using a rapid screening test.

But when the USDA ran the IHC test on the sample, it came back negative.

The sample was found to be positive this month when it was retested by the USDA and by a lab in Weybridge, England, that is considered to be the world expert on mad cow disease.

The IHC test identifies the prions that cause mad cow disease with a stain. The stain is attached to an antibody that sticks to the prion, Undseth said.

The USDA had used only one antibody, but Canada has been constantly adjusting the antibodies it uses in consultation with the Weybridge lab, Undseth said.

"We have a panel of antibodies, and we use usually nine or 10 antibodies," he said.

The USDA said on Friday it will work with the Weybridge lab to determine what antibodies it should use in its IHC test.
Canada has confirmed three cases of mad cow disease in its herd in the past two years, all using the IHC method, Undseth said.

Out of more than 61,000 animals screened for the disease using rapid tests since 2003, another three returned inconclusive results, Undseth said.

The three samples were thought to be the result of laboratory error, but were retested at Canada's federal animal disease lab in Winnipeg, first with a rapid test, which came back negative, and then with the IHC test, which was also negative, he said.

Samples from another three animals found in the field showing symptoms of mad cow disease were sent directly to the Winnipeg lab last year, Undseth said.

On those animals, both the rapid screening tests and the IHC tests were negative, he said.

"So far we've had very clearly negative or clearly positive cases," Undseth said.

But should Canada find cases that were strongly positive using the rapid test, but returned negative results using the IHC method, Canada's policy is to run the Western Blot test, Undseth said.

The Western Blot test is also useful for samples that have partially decomposed, he said.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is not concerned that it took seven months for the USDA to confirm the positive case, Undseth said.

Out of 388,000 cattle screened by the USDA with rapid tests in the past year, only three initially came back inconclusive, with only one of those found positive, Undseth said.

"We know that they test a very large number ... and they've had very few screening positives," he said.

"We have full confidence that it's showing there's a very low prevalence of BSE in North America."
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
ot: And who was the group that has questioned USDA's actions from day one? Remember R-CALF did not sue Canadians- they sued the USDA because of USDA"s huge gaps in their policies, their ineptness, and outright deceptive practices of allowing packers to import banned beef....

Much of what is happening right now only shows what R-CALF has been saying for sometime- and a federal judge said too-- USDA put economics ahead of their primary role- US consumer and US herd health safety.......

trouble is ot that all this was done to further a protectionist, isolationist agenda that did not enhance the safety of american beef. this has been definitively shown now that fong is gonna show what a farce usda has been running. r-calf didn't make the american consumer any safer; you only used what the rest of the world knew about usda to keep the border closed because you're afraid of competition. tell us what r-calf did to enhance consumer safety and now you can't say that a closed border was the answer. maybe things like segregated kill lines or banning litter from feeds would have helped but you were silent on all those measures.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
ot: And who was the group that has questioned USDA's actions from day one? Remember R-CALF did not sue Canadians- they sued the USDA because of USDA"s huge gaps in their policies, their ineptness, and outright deceptive practices of allowing packers to import banned beef....

Much of what is happening right now only shows what R-CALF has been saying for sometime- and a federal judge said too-- USDA put economics ahead of their primary role- US consumer and US herd health safety.......

trouble is ot that all this was done to further a protectionist, isolationist agenda that did not enhance the safety of american beef. this has been definitively shown now that fong is gonna show what a farce usda has been running. r-calf didn't make the american consumer any safer; you only used what the rest of the world knew about usda to keep the border closed because you're afraid of competition. tell us what r-calf did to enhance consumer safety and now you can't say that a closed border was the answer. maybe things like segregated kill lines or banning litter from feeds would have helped but you were silent on all those measures.

As you probably know from your Canadian experiences with Cargil, Tyson, CCA and ABP- one group in a country can not alone immediately change the rules- especially when the multinational packers are spending huge sums to keep them from being changed and have groups like NCBA and USDA in their pocket...

And don- R-CALF has been calling for years for the end of feeding chicken litter- blood products and table scraps... Along with calling for increased testing in both countries to find the extent of the disease and to eradicate it now- rather than wait until it is too late... And they have asked and criticized USDA for not allowing private packers like Creekstone to test- which could have opened the export market to Asia a year ago while also testing more cattle in the nation....It has been R-CALF all along that has called for stricter BSE firewalls rather than USDA's current plan of reducing them......And it was the consumer groups that also have been questioning USDA's ability and motives for years , that saw the true committment that a cattle organization had-- that then came to R-CALF and echoed these fears.......
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Canada has confirmed three cases of mad cow disease in its herd in the past two years, all using the IHC method, Undseth said.
YUP ,wonder how many would they would have with WESTERN BLOT and with the Japanese running the TESTING?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
PORKER said:
Canada has confirmed three cases of mad cow disease in its herd in the past two years, all using the IHC method, Undseth said.
YUP ,wonder how many would they would have with WESTERN BLOT and with the Japanese running the TESTING?
:lol: :lol: :lol: I think you have more to worry about in your own back yard! :lol: :lol: :lol: Hey according to the mixed up tissues there were actually 4 Texas cows that were positive and that's why they were mixed. :roll:

Did you happen to read the BOLD print that said Canada was working with the experts in the UK while the US is now being forced too? They have been crowing about testing 300,000 animals and they don't even know what antibodies they should be using?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Bill said:
MRJ you must have missed this post below.

Canada says no change needed in its mad cow tests

REUTERS

By Roberta Rampton

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Canada is not looking at changing the way it confirms tests for mad cow disease because it is confident it is finding positive cases, a senior food safety official said in an interview.

The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Friday it will revise its protocol for dealing with suspect cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, after it failed to immediately confirm a positive case in November.

The USDA said it will change the way it runs the "gold standard" immunohistochemistry (IHC) confirmatory test, and add a second type of test called Western Blot to its regimen.

Those are tools that Canada is using already, said Darcy Undseth, a senior veterinarian at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

"We already have those elements in place, so at this point, there is no indication that we would have to change our protocol," Undseth told Reuters.

A sample from a U.S. beef cow tested positive for the disease last November using a rapid screening test.

But when the USDA ran the IHC test on the sample, it came back negative.

The sample was found to be positive this month when it was retested by the USDA and by a lab in Weybridge, England, that is considered to be the world expert on mad cow disease.

The IHC test identifies the prions that cause mad cow disease with a stain. The stain is attached to an antibody that sticks to the prion, Undseth said.

The USDA had used only one antibody, but Canada has been constantly adjusting the antibodies it uses in consultation with the Weybridge lab, Undseth said.

"We have a panel of antibodies, and we use usually nine or 10 antibodies," he said.

The USDA said on Friday it will work with the Weybridge lab to determine what antibodies it should use in its IHC test.
Canada has confirmed three cases of mad cow disease in its herd in the past two years, all using the IHC method, Undseth said.

Out of more than 61,000 animals screened for the disease using rapid tests since 2003, another three returned inconclusive results, Undseth said.

The three samples were thought to be the result of laboratory error, but were retested at Canada's federal animal disease lab in Winnipeg, first with a rapid test, which came back negative, and then with the IHC test, which was also negative, he said.

Samples from another three animals found in the field showing symptoms of mad cow disease were sent directly to the Winnipeg lab last year, Undseth said.

On those animals, both the rapid screening tests and the IHC tests were negative, he said.

"So far we've had very clearly negative or clearly positive cases," Undseth said.

But should Canada find cases that were strongly positive using the rapid test, but returned negative results using the IHC method, Canada's policy is to run the Western Blot test, Undseth said.

The Western Blot test is also useful for samples that have partially decomposed, he said.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is not concerned that it took seven months for the USDA to confirm the positive case, Undseth said.

Out of 388,000 cattle screened by the USDA with rapid tests in the past year, only three initially came back inconclusive, with only one of those found positive, Undseth said.

"We know that they test a very large number ... and they've had very few screening positives," he said.

"We have full confidence that it's showing there's a very low prevalence of BSE in North America."

{Bill, and OT, apparently you place more credibility in newsservices and the NYTimes than I can after some of the scandals of bogus stories in their fairly recent history.

I certainly would like to see this argued in a court with an honest judge! We also heard Johanns state on Agri-Talk a few days past that he was blind-sided by people making a decision without notifying him and that it would not happen again!

Do you really not understand that entrenched bureaucracies, and yes, I do believe that exists in the USDA as well as in every department of government, will try to undermine the "new guy" if they can get away with it? Could some of the consumer groups have more influence than the "boss" in this case? I see that possibility as those groups will be players long after Johanns is gone, so the career bureaucrats might well side with them. I do recall the depth of influence of Carol Tucker Foreman and doubt it has disappeared to this day! The fact that a very large part of the budget of USDA has nothing to do with farmers, and everything to do with consumers, especially "the underprivileged" among us may carry more weight than it should with some in the bureaucracy, IMO. Agriculture is fortunate to have the small measure of power that we do enjoy in this dept. MRJ}
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Did anybody watch the Senate committee hearing on BSE a few months ago, I watched it on the web that day, and my first thought was that Johanns was trying to let the comm. know that this could all happen in the US, so let's move on with the border issue and all will be forgotten.

I forget when the hearing was, but I believe it was just before March 07, can anybody remind me of the date. I should have saved the video, but didn't.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
{Bill, and OT, apparently you place more credibility in newsservices and the NYTimes than I can after some of the scandals of bogus stories in their fairly recent history.

I certainly would like to see this argued in a court with an honest judge! We also heard Johanns state on Agri-Talk a few days past that he was blind-sided by people making a decision without notifying him and that it would not happen again!

Do you really not understand that entrenched bureaucracies, and yes, I do believe that exists in the USDA as well as in every department of government, will try to undermine the "new guy" if they can get away with it? Could some of the consumer groups have more influence than the "boss" in this case? I see that possibility as those groups will be players long after Johanns is gone, so the career bureaucrats might well side with them. I do recall the depth of influence of Carol Tucker Foreman and doubt it has disappeared to this day! The fact that a very large part of the budget of USDA has nothing to do with farmers, and everything to do with consumers, especially "the underprivileged" among us may carry more weight than it should with some in the bureaucracy, IMO. Agriculture is fortunate to have the small measure of power that we do enjoy in this dept. MRJ}
Yes at this time I do place more faith in the reports from Reuters and Canadian news sources than the bungling of the USDA. When a senior veterinarian with CFIA says that the US tests have not been up to par with Canada's, I believe him. If the US had been as up front and thorough as Canada. through all of this we wouldn't be at this stage today.

Your support for USDA is admirable but shared by few. Although the R-Calfers will always try to twist whatever the USDA does for their own goals I hope Johann's & Co. will soon take some steps to regain the faith of people such as myself.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Yes at this time I do place more faith in the reports from Reuters and Canadian news sources than the bungling of the USDA. When a senior veterinarian with CFIA says that the US tests have not been up to par with Canada's, I believe him. If the US had been as up front and thorough as Canada. through all of this we wouldn't be at this stage today

Hard not to believe them when they are proven right, a few months after those quotes were made. Didn't CBC do a special news report on the hiding of facts when it comes to BSE, I guess they were right.
 

Latest posts

Top