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

Porker

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Location
GWN
I have twice asked the question below regarding your comments on a BSE urine test. You must have missed it the first two times so here it is again.

PORKER wrote:
If the scientists are correct and all it takes is a couple of grams of pre-feedban contaminated feed, then I would expect that the odd cow would be coming down with bse for years to come as the stuff could lurk in feed bins for years into the future.

The other way is that the offspring are born with it and every herd should be either tested with a bse blood test when avaiable or a bse urine test which works now.


What countries have accepted and are currently using a urine test for detection of BSE?
 
I have 4 times now asked you this question. I know you didn't miss any of them.

Do you have a loophole problem up there or a compliance problem?
 
Sandhusker said:
I have 4 times now asked you this question. I know you didn't miss any of them.

Do you have a loophole problem up there or a compliance problem?

Isn't your favorite diversion: "It's in the archives" find the answer yourself.
 
Bill said:
I have twice asked the question below regarding your comments on a BSE urine test. You must have missed it the first two times so here it is again.

PORKER wrote:
If the scientists are correct and all it takes is a couple of grams of pre-feedban contaminated feed, then I would expect that the odd cow would be coming down with bse for years to come as the stuff could lurk in feed bins for years into the future.

The other way is that the offspring are born with it and every herd should be either tested with a bse blood test when avaiable or a bse urine test which works now.


What countries have accepted and are currently using a urine test for detection of BSE?

I don't think I have read where Porker said that any countries were using the urine test yet. But because they don't, doesn't mean that they won't one day. There's a blood test being tested now also.

It took the USDA "YEARS" to approve a rapid test that has proven to be more accurate than their "Gold Standard" of old. They are only about 5 years behind in technology. :???: :???: :???:
 
Mike said:
Bill said:
I have twice asked the question below regarding your comments on a BSE urine test. You must have missed it the first two times so here it is again.

PORKER wrote:
If the scientists are correct and all it takes is a couple of grams of pre-feedban contaminated feed, then I would expect that the odd cow would be coming down with bse for years to come as the stuff could lurk in feed bins for years into the future.

The other way is that the offspring are born with it and every herd should be either tested with a bse blood test when avaiable or a bse urine test which works now.


What countries have accepted and are currently using a urine test for detection of BSE?

I don't think I have read where Porker said that any countries were using the urine test yet. But because they don't, doesn't mean that they won't one day. There's a blood test being tested now also.

It took the USDA "YEARS" to approve a rapid test that has proven to be more accurate than their "Gold Standard" of old. They are only about 5 years behind in technology. :???: :???: :???:
Mike, do a search on bse urine test.

For the amount of times Porker has mentioned using it I thought for sure there must be some country that is actually using it.
 
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
I have 4 times now asked you this question. I know you didn't miss any of them.

Do you have a loophole problem up there or a compliance problem?

Isn't your favorite diversion: "It's in the archives" find the answer yourself.


OK, Bill. The archives say "both".
 
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
I have 4 times now asked you this question. I know you didn't miss any of them.

Do you have a loophole problem up there or a compliance problem?

Isn't your favorite diversion: "It's in the archives" find the answer yourself.


OK, Bill. The archives say "both".
And the archives also hold record of the US having the same and more problems as chicken litter was more recently being fed in the US.

It is those such as Oldtimer and yourself who keep crying "Wolf" about Canada and their "problem" whenever a post feed ban positive is found. As I said in the other thread, a different song will be coming out of Billings when the US starts announcing it's post feed ban cases.

Regarding the topic of this thread Sandhusker, is there a urine or blood test approved in any jurisdiction for any TSE. If there is I would be interested in seeing where it is.
 
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Isn't your favorite diversion: "It's in the archives" find the answer yourself.


OK, Bill. The archives say "both".
And the archives also hold record of the US having the same and more problems as chicken litter was more recently being fed in the US.

It is those such as Oldtimer and yourself who keep crying "Wolf" about Canada and their "problem" whenever a post feed ban positive is found. As I said in the other thread, a different song will be coming out of Billings when the US starts announcing it's post feed ban cases.

Regarding the topic of this thread Sandhusker, is there a urine or blood test approved in any jurisdiction for any TSE. If there is I would be interested in seeing where it is.

Bill is a govt. sponsored testing procedure of urine a prerequisite for the existence of such a test or just the existence of ANOTHER EXCUSE?
 
Bill said:
Mike said:
Bill said:
I have twice asked the question below regarding your comments on a BSE urine test. You must have missed it the first two times so here it is again.

PORKER wrote:



What countries have accepted and are currently using a urine test for detection of BSE?

I don't think I have read where Porker said that any countries were using the urine test yet. But because they don't, doesn't mean that they won't one day. There's a blood test being tested now also.

It took the USDA "YEARS" to approve a rapid test that has proven to be more accurate than their "Gold Standard" of old. They are only about 5 years behind in technology. :???: :???: :???:
Mike, do a search on bse urine test.

For the amount of times Porker has mentioned using it I thought for sure there must be some country that is actually using it.

Again, just because a country is NOT using a blood or urine test does NOT mean that they are not accurate or available. The politics of BSE has become a science within itself Bill.

There are proteins in all blood and urine. All you have to do is separate the proteins from everything else then pinpoint the misfolded ones.

A live animal test will upset the whole apple-cart of beef trade around the world.
 
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
OK, Bill. The archives say "both".
And the archives also hold record of the US having the same and more problems as chicken litter was more recently being fed in the US.

It is those such as Oldtimer and yourself who keep crying "Wolf" about Canada and their "problem" whenever a post feed ban positive is found. As I said in the other thread, a different song will be coming out of Billings when the US starts announcing it's post feed ban cases.

Regarding the topic of this thread Sandhusker, is there a urine or blood test approved in any jurisdiction for any TSE. If there is I would be interested in seeing where it is.

Bill is a govt. sponsored testing procedure of urine a prerequisite for the existence of such a test or just the existence of ANOTHER EXCUSE?
Obviously it is the huge and final step of validating such a test.
 
Bill:Obviously it is the huge and final step of validating such a test.

The USDA did not validate the Western Blot test until it had been used for over 5 years in Europe and Japan with remarkable results.

Clearly the step is not as huge and final as you would have others believe.
 
Mike said:
Bill:Obviously it is the huge and final step of validating such a test.

The USDA did not validate the Western Blot test until it had been used for over 5 years in Europe and Japan with remarkable results.

Clearly the step is not as huge and final as you would have others believe.
As I would have others believe?


To my knowledge there isn't a single country in the world using the test Porker keeps referring to. It seems to me that there is a few more than I who are skeptical or are Europe and Japan currently using urine and blood tests. Until some country actually uses one of these tests I will remain undecided about their validity.
 
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
And the archives also hold record of the US having the same and more problems as chicken litter was more recently being fed in the US.

It is those such as Oldtimer and yourself who keep crying "Wolf" about Canada and their "problem" whenever a post feed ban positive is found. As I said in the other thread, a different song will be coming out of Billings when the US starts announcing it's post feed ban cases.

Regarding the topic of this thread Sandhusker, is there a urine or blood test approved in any jurisdiction for any TSE. If there is I would be interested in seeing where it is.

Bill is a govt. sponsored testing procedure of urine a prerequisite for the existence of such a test or just the existence of ANOTHER EXCUSE?
Obviously it is the huge and final step of validating such a test.

Tests like this could be fast tracked. The fact is that the packer run USDA does not want to do that or they would have. Maybe bse tester can tell us if his tests have been fast tracked or not.

I am not saying that the USDA should skip over the science of testing the accuracy of the tests, but they could sure fast track it. The govt. should not be in the position of approving poor tests, nor should they be in the business of slowing down the process or making the process of approving tests a cumbersome bureacratic nightmare. Cattle producers are losing their markets for beef. This is another example where the policy at the USDA is a packer policy and not a producer policy.

If there was a good test for bse prior to slaughter that was accurate, the poultry litter loophole might (I said might) be solved. It would sure make the bse being used as an ecomomic weapon against producer interests harder. Just who are you trying to protect with your arguments, Bill?

a) the govt. bureaucracy of inefficiency and incompetence
b) the packers
c) all of the above

It sure doesn't seem like you are trying to argue for producers.
 
Econ101 said:
Tests like this could be fast tracked. ..

Much like FDA and USDA did when the West Nile Virus appeared in the US- the vaccine was fast tracked thru testing....

But USDA has taken a completely opposite course under the misguided leading of the multinational Packers........
 
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill is a govt. sponsored testing procedure of urine a prerequisite for the existence of such a test or just the existence of ANOTHER EXCUSE?
Obviously it is the huge and final step of validating such a test.

Tests like this could be fast tracked. The fact is that the packer run USDA does not want to do that or they would have. Maybe bse tester can tell us if his tests have been fast tracked or not.

I am not saying that the USDA should skip over the science of testing the accuracy of the tests, but they could sure fast track it. The govt. should not be in the position of approving poor tests, nor should they be in the business of slowing down the process or making the process of approving tests a cumbersome bureacratic nightmare. Cattle producers are losing their markets for beef. This is another example where the policy at the USDA is a packer policy and not a producer policy.

If there was a good test for bse prior to slaughter that was accurate, the poultry litter loophole might (I said might) be solved. It would sure make the bse being used as an ecomomic weapon against producer interests harder. Just who are you trying to protect with your arguments, Bill?

a) the govt. bureaucracy of inefficiency and incompetence
b) the packers
c) all of the above

It sure doesn't seem like you are trying to argue for producers.
What exactly is your problem Econ? Your determination to fault USDA and spread your grassy knoll theories is getting quite old and is making you read things that aren't there. USDA needs to fast track this? For God's sake Europe has been dealing with BSE for 20 YEARS! Do you think just maybe they thought of trying to find a live test?

I am an actual cattle producer. Get it? Unlike you I have felt substantial impact on our operation over the past 3 years and am looking for answers. If there was an accepted live test I along with other producers would be doing cartwheels as it would go a long ways towards putting an end to this nonsense.
 
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Obviously it is the huge and final step of validating such a test.

Tests like this could be fast tracked. The fact is that the packer run USDA does not want to do that or they would have. Maybe bse tester can tell us if his tests have been fast tracked or not.

I am not saying that the USDA should skip over the science of testing the accuracy of the tests, but they could sure fast track it. The govt. should not be in the position of approving poor tests, nor should they be in the business of slowing down the process or making the process of approving tests a cumbersome bureacratic nightmare. Cattle producers are losing their markets for beef. This is another example where the policy at the USDA is a packer policy and not a producer policy.

If there was a good test for bse prior to slaughter that was accurate, the poultry litter loophole might (I said might) be solved. It would sure make the bse being used as an ecomomic weapon against producer interests harder. Just who are you trying to protect with your arguments, Bill?

a) the govt. bureaucracy of inefficiency and incompetence
b) the packers
c) all of the above

It sure doesn't seem like you are trying to argue for producers.
What exactly is your problem Econ? Your determination to fault USDA and spread your grassy knoll theories is getting quite old and is making you read things that aren't there. USDA needs to fast track this? For God's sake Europe has been dealing with BSE for 20 YEARS! Do you think just maybe they thought of trying to find a live test?

I am an actual cattle producer. Get it? Unlike you I have felt substantial impact on our operation over the past 3 years and am looking for answers. If there was an accepted live test I along with other producers would be doing cartwheels as it would go a long ways towards putting an end to this nonsense.


Then there is something we can both agree on. During the meantime, it is being used as an economic weapon against producers and you seem to be advocating the tools of that system (govt. ID systems for all cattle) instead of the solutions (accurate and fast testing) of solving the answers of bse. I don't know if bse-tester has a good test---I don't know all the hurdles he has to go through for "scientific" certitude, but I do know that same process was given up for Tyson and Cargill's economic self interests when it comes to using MBM in cattle feed and in poultry feed. That was one of the main arguments that r-calf had in its lawsuit. We have a double standard here.

By the way, Brittian is trying to say that bse is no longer a problem with the number of cases way down. They want to export beef again.

Do we have to wait until we have results of a long incubation period to do some of the things we could do now to solve this problem?

Your inferences of conspiracy do nothing but get in the way of competent decisions that could have enormous consequences to the beef industry, and this comes after you have personally seen the economic impact of some of those decsions.

If you don't get the economics right, nothing else will be right. It seems the politicians and policy makers are erring on the side of packer economics instead of the integrity of science.

I wonder why? Could it be that we have too many politicians instead of statesmen and that they would sell out the interests of the country for their own? When the country is run off of loyalty instead of integrity, we all have a major problem. Most of these politicians spend too much time inside the beltway instead of their districts and are given too much money from outside of their districts. They then represent "The Party" instead of "The People".

It is the integrity/loyalty paradigm I brought up to Tam on the analogy of child abuse, the Catholic Church and abusive priests, and the nature of man's self interest if they think they have no consequence.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top