Question for BSE tester

[Tam]

BUT if BSE tester can't stick to the truth of the issue when trying to sell us on his test, why should we believe it can do what HE CLAIMS IT WILL DO? Maybe he should think about how his credibility is holding him back.

He don't "HAVE" to sell you on his test. You'll never have a need for one. (I hope) He ain't selling nothing here.

Except what's on his mind. And I find him quite credible.

Is this credible in your eyes Mike

It is an absolute fact that of the original herd that came from England back in the late 80's and early 90's, not all have been accounted for. Of those that we found, BSE was found to be rampant in them. As for the whereabouts of the others - who can say.

When in fact NONE of the cattle tested positive in 1994 or when the ten year old samples were pulled from cold storage and retested to make sure of the original test results with the more modern test.

 

[Mike]

Everyone is credible to me Tam. Even Dittmer.

Hell.......Even you!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Relax, this is a chat forum, we're here to learn and have fun.

Why get bent out of shape? I would tell you to take "One" but you must be out. :lol: :lol:

 

[Tam]

Tam posted:

USDA has sole control of the testing processes in meat plants. And its officials say they have rejected Creekstone Farms' pleas because the
company's tests don't detect mad cow disease in animals younger than 30
months. Most U.S. beef comes from 12- to 18-month-old cows.

Tam, you are and have to be the only person on this board to make me laugh!! Do you honestly believe this line about not being able to detect BSE in animals younger than 30 months garbage?? Oh, I guess you do!!

The USDA, after reviewing the so-called test that Creekstone proposed issued a statement that the Creekstone test would not and could not detect PrPsc in animals younger than 30 months. If you believe that statement to be true, I will still sell you that bridge in the darn desert, HECK, I WILL EVEN GIVE IT TO YOU.
There is a chance of course that the Creekstone test was simply not sensitive anough to detect any PrPsc - period, regardless of the animals age!!

.

from ECON ; In order for Canadian producers to have an absolute open market around the world for their product, we have to show that world-wide market place that our product going to market is free of BSE. We cannot do that with only a random sampling. Sure, it is no secret that I advocate 100% testing for BSE. It is also no secret that I most certainly do not agree with the statements like "...BSE tested does not mean BSE free!" Having said that, if Creekstone was thinking of using the currently accepted test being used by the USDA, then I would certainly agree with it. That test is flawed!! Creekstone, by the way, never made any such statement from what I have read.

Does it matter what I think BSE Tester :lol: I only provide the quote I didn't put Pentz's words in his month when he was quoted to have said THE COMPANY KNOWS THAT . The USDA said it wasn't designed to find them and Pentz said Creekstone knew that that is all that should matter.

Again if Japan uses your test why didn't they just insist the USDA, Creekstone and the CFIA use it if they wanted to ship beef to Japan why did they drop the under 20 month testing requirement if your test works on all age cattle?

 

[Econ101]

Tam posted:

USDA has sole control of the testing processes in meat plants. And its officials say they have rejected Creekstone Farms' pleas because the
company's tests don't detect mad cow disease in animals younger than 30
months. Most U.S. beef comes from 12- to 18-month-old cows.

Tam, you are and have to be the only person on this board to make me laugh!! Do you honestly believe this line about not being able to detect BSE in animals younger than 30 months garbage?? Oh, I guess you do!!

The USDA, after reviewing the so-called test that Creekstone proposed issued a statement that the Creekstone test would not and could not detect PrPsc in animals younger than 30 months. If you believe that statement to be true, I will still sell you that bridge in the darn desert, HECK, I WILL EVEN GIVE IT TO YOU.
There is a chance of course that the Creekstone test was simply not sensitive anough to detect any PrPsc - period, regardless of the animals age!!

.

from ECON ; In order for Canadian producers to have an absolute open market around the world for their product, we have to show that world-wide market place that our product going to market is free of BSE. We cannot do that with only a random sampling. Sure, it is no secret that I advocate 100% testing for BSE. It is also no secret that I most certainly do not agree with the statements like "...BSE tested does not mean BSE free!" Having said that, if Creekstone was thinking of using the currently accepted test being used by the USDA, then I would certainly agree with it. That test is flawed!! Creekstone, by the way, never made any such statement from what I have read.

Does it matter what I think BSE Tester :lol: I only provide the quote I didn't put Pentz's words in his month when he was quoted to have said THE COMPANY KNOWS THAT . The USDA said it wasn't designed to find them and Pentz said Creekstone knew that that is all that should matter.

Again if Japan uses your test why didn't they just insist the USDA, Creekstone and the CFIA use it if they wanted to ship beef to Japan why did they drop the under 20 month testing requirement if your test works on all age cattle?

Tam, that quote you have above is NOT from me. Maybe dittmer should write an article on you. :lol:

 

[Tam]

Tam posted:



Tam, you are and have to be the only person on this board to make me laugh!! Do you honestly believe this line about not being able to detect BSE in animals younger than 30 months garbage?? Oh, I guess you do!!

The USDA, after reviewing the so-called test that Creekstone proposed issued a statement that the Creekstone test would not and could not detect PrPsc in animals younger than 30 months. If you believe that statement to be true, I will still sell you that bridge in the darn desert, HECK, I WILL EVEN GIVE IT TO YOU.
There is a chance of course that the Creekstone test was simply not sensitive anough to detect any PrPsc - period, regardless of the animals age!!

.

from ECON ; In order for Canadian producers to have an absolute open market around the world for their product, we have to show that world-wide market place that our product going to market is free of BSE. We cannot do that with only a random sampling. Sure, it is no secret that I advocate 100% testing for BSE. It is also no secret that I most certainly do not agree with the statements like "...BSE tested does not mean BSE free!" Having said that, if Creekstone was thinking of using the currently accepted test being used by the USDA, then I would certainly agree with it. That test is flawed!! Creekstone, by the way, never made any such statement from what I have read.

Does it matter what I think BSE Tester :lol: I only provide the quote I didn't put Pentz's words in his month when he was quoted to have said THE COMPANY KNOWS THAT . The USDA said it wasn't designed to find them and Pentz said Creekstone knew that that is all that should matter.

Again if Japan uses your test why didn't they just insist the USDA, Creekstone and the CFIA use it if they wanted to ship beef to Japan why did they drop the under 20 month testing requirement if your test works on all age cattle?

Tam, that quote you have above is NOT from me. Maybe dittmer should write an article on you. :lol:

Gee I have to admit I was wrong it wasn't you Econ I meant to type BSE tester and I got you instead. I guess BSE tester is wrong on this comment too.

remember this lady, are you so damn perfect that you do not make mistakes?? I suspect you do but you cannot possibly admit it can you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[bse-tester]

Tam, yesterday, I asked you to provide a simple answer to a simple question and for you to try to do it without ranting on and posting numerous quotes like you do. You failed miserably. It was such a simple question for a gal of your obvious talent and flair for writing, but you could not even do that!!!! What does that tell all of us about you???

It was such a simple question posed to the one person on this board who has placed herself above all others and who should know the answer, in light of her vast and bottomless pit of knowledge and who should be able to post it easily, but you obviously refuse to do so. Such a pity as it leaves me and the rest of this board wondering if you are capable of answering anything that even remotely resembles a simple question, or are you here simply to make accusations and incite others to join your crusade to denounce anything that doesn't fit the "Tam" way of doing things?? I would hate to think that this was even possible.

So, just to be fair, in case you missed it, which I doubt, here it is again Tam. Read it slowly, pause between the big words if you must, and then post your answer - because at the root of this question lies the answer to why it is possible to test an animal regardless of its age. Since you are so determined to challenge the science and put down those of us who wish to pursue the science, tell us how a test protocol for PrPsc works Tam. Step up to the plate or Tam, you may fined your credibility severely tarnished by your own inaction. It is a case of put up or shut up!!!

Here is the question as posted by me yesterday Tam. Have at it girl.

Do you know how a test actually works Tam??? Plese tell all of us.

Tell us how the test isolates the PrPsc from the rest of the matrix???? Come on Tam, you are the resident expert around these parts so get off your high horse and tell us all how the Creekstone test works or any test for that matter - even mine - and hey, I am really interested in how the test will identify the age of the animal by simply looking at the prion at the correct marker location???? Now that is something I need you to tell me also Tam. So put up or shut up!!

Can you give me a straight answer to that simple question Tam?? I very much doubt it, so let me spell it out for you in plain English!!!

TELL ME HOW A "LIVE ANIMAL URINE OR BLOOD OR BRAIN HOMOGENATE TEST" FOR PrPsc WORKS AND INCLUDE THE PART WHERE THE ANIMAL'S AGE HAS A MAJOR BEARING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TEST? LET US SAY THE ANIMAL IS KNOWN TO HAVE bse IN ITS BODY SO COME ON TAM, SHOW ME YOUR STUFF GIRL.

YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE ROOM WAITING TO READ YOUR WORDS, BUT NO MORE THAN ME!! NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE US ALL BELIEVERS TAM - DON'T WASTE THIS OPPOTUNITY WITH MORE RANTING OR PASTING COMMENTS FROM BEFORE. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, THAT'S ALL.

Tam, remember, no ranting, no posting of quotes or making accusations, no spitting of fire or throwing rocks - just answer the question. We are all waiting - patiently.

 

[Tam]

Tam, yesterday, I asked you to provide a simple answer to a simple question and for you to try to do it without ranting on and posting numerous quotes like you do. You failed miserably. It was such a simple question for a gal of your obvious talent and flair for writing, but you could not even do that!!!! What does that tell all of us about you???

It was such a simple question posed to the one person on this board who has placed herself above all others and who should know the answer, in light of her vast and bottomless pit of knowledge and who should be able to post it easily, but you obviously refuse to do so. Such a pity as it leaves me and the rest of this board wondering if you are capable of answering anything that even remotely resembles a simple question, or are you here simply to make accusations and incite others to join your crusade to denounce anything that doesn't fit the "Tam" way of doing things?? I would hate to think that this was even possible.

So, just to be fair, in case you missed it, which I doubt, here it is again Tam. Read it slowly, pause between the big words if you must, and then post your answer - because at the root of this question lies the answer to why it is possible to test an animal regardless of its age. Since you are so determined to challenge the science and put down those of us who wish to pursue the science, tell us how a test protocol for PrPsc works Tam. Step up to the plate or Tam, you may fined your credibility severely tarnished by your own inaction. It is a case of put up or shut up!!!

Here is the question as posted by me yesterday Tam. Have at it girl.

Do you know how a test actually works Tam??? Plese tell all of us.

Tell us how the test isolates the PrPsc from the rest of the matrix???? Come on Tam, you are the resident expert around these parts so get off your high horse and tell us all how the Creekstone test works or any test for that matter - even mine - and hey, I am really interested in how the test will identify the age of the animal by simply looking at the prion at the correct marker location???? Now that is something I need you to tell me also Tam. So put up or shut up!!

Can you give me a straight answer to that simple question Tam?? I very much doubt it, so let me spell it out for you in plain English!!!

TELL ME HOW A "LIVE ANIMAL URINE OR BLOOD OR BRAIN HOMOGENATE TEST" FOR PrPsc WORKS AND INCLUDE THE PART WHERE THE ANIMAL'S AGE HAS A MAJOR BEARING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TEST? LET US SAY THE ANIMAL IS KNOWN TO HAVE bse IN ITS BODY SO COME ON TAM, SHOW ME YOUR STUFF GIRL.

YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE ROOM WAITING TO READ YOUR WORDS, BUT NO MORE THAN ME!! NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE US ALL BELIEVERS TAM - DON'T WASTE THIS OPPOTUNITY WITH MORE RANTING OR PASTING COMMENTS FROM BEFORE. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, THAT'S ALL.

Tam, remember, no ranting, no posting of quotes or making accusations, no spitting of fire or throwing rocks - just answer the question. We are all waiting - patiently.

Where did I say I knew how the test was set up all I said was the USDA said the test was not designed to find BSE in younger animals and Creekstone admitted they knew that. Do you think you can comprehend that or do you want me to type r e a l l y __ s l o w .

By the way BSE testers I'm still waiting for your explanation of why Japan dropped the required testing of cattle under twenty months if they were using your test and as you claim it will detect from cattle of all ages?
W h y__ d i d n't__ t h e y __ j u s t __ d e m a n d __ t h e__ U S D A __ u s e__ y o u r__ t e s t?

 

[bse-tester]

So Tam, you do not know everything - wow, you are normal! That's a relief. Just teasing you.

Look Tam, I have no answer as to why the Japanese didn't make those demands to the USDA and the CFIA. I would have liked to see that obviously, but I cannot speak for them or get involved in their policy making. It would be grandiose for me to even think I had that kind of influence. They have their own reasons for making those decisions and anything I do is not going to make one bit of difference to the way they do business. I did however, send a letter over to my partners in the UK and they, as far as I am aware, sent a letter to Japan suggesting that discussions be put into force to attempt to convince the USDA and the CFIA to join in an effort to consolidate and get everyone to use our test, but especially not the current protocol being used by the USDA. I guess they were not interested in following it up so here we are - arguing about something that is out of our control.

Now please Tam, can we bury this darn hatchet and get on with straight forward exchanges of information? I will even promise to try my best to answer all of your questions logically and with as much information and accuracy as possible. This board deserves that at least. We may not agree on a lot of things but that doesn't mean we have to engage in these exchanges as we have been. So I am making the first move here and hoping that you will accept that.

One other thing that comes to mind. The USDA may well have mentioned that the test was not set up to find BSE in animals under 20 months. Is that because they were perhaps not testing any under 20 months? First of all, tests are not "set up." They are simply "Tests." With the urine test, we can take a sample of urine from a live donor and put it through the testing protocol. What we are left with is an artifact that is then subjected to Western Blot. It is during this process that we identify the marker position of the sample and this position tells us whether or not the sample contains normal PrP, or the precurser PrPc or the deadly strain, PrPsc. The marker is the final word so-to-speak. But nowhere during the test, can anyone assertain the age of the animal simply by analysis of the prions in the urine. It is like seeing a urine stain of the rug left by the cat and saying - "yup, that critter is 8 years old!! No doubt about it."

Can't be done!!

I would be more than happy to share with you how the test protocol works and I think you will find that I am not the "bad guy" you think I am.

 

[Tam]

Now please Tam, can we bury this darn hatchet and get on with straight forward exchanges of information? I will even promise to try my best to answer all of your questions logically and with as much information and accuracy as possible. This board deserves that at least. We may not agree on a lot of things but that doesn't mean we have to engage in these exchanges as we have been. So I am making the first move here and hoping that you will accept that.

I feel, like most do ,that what this board deserves is the TRUTH and as long as You stick to the truth that you can prove, you will not have problems with most of us. It is when you make comments like this

It is an absolute fact that of the original herd that came from England back in the late 80's and early 90's, not all have been accounted for. Of those that we found, BSE was found to be rampant in them. As for the whereabouts of the others - who can say.

and this

Canada continues to test approximately 30,000 animals per year taken from random sampling of already slaughtered animals - for the most part - on a test and hold protocol as well as those animals that are suspected of harboring BSE or some other disease. The USA however, as shown below, has tested and continues to test far more than the Canadian number of 30,000 animals.

and countless others, that you are going to run into problems. So do yourself a favor if you are really serious about burying the hatchet don't make comments like these.

And as far as you explaining your test to me, I don't mean for this to sound mean but I have to ask, why are you spending so much time trying to convince me? I don't do BSE testing, never have and I probably never will. Why don't you spend your valuable time trying to convince people that actually do the testing? I agree if your test works as you claim, it would be great. That said, I don't need to know the blow by blow explanation of how it works. I don't know how the test we use now works as I have said already. I only know what the OIE, the USDA and the CFIA have reported about the limitations of the test which is the test we use does have it's limitations whether you agree with them or not. So Please don't spend valuable time on this issue trying to convince me it will not do the industry as a whole any good.

 

[Econ101]

Tam:

So Please don't spend valuable time on this issue trying to convince me it will not do the industry as a whole any good.

Well spoken.

 

[bse-tester]

OK Tam, no more comments like those. I will only refer to my testing protocol if I am asked about it. We have kicked this damn mule to death and frankly, I am sick and tired of the fact that in order to make a point on this board, we have to resort to posting quotes about this and that until the darn cows come home - pardon the pun!

Perhaps some of my comments have been somewhat misinformed and out of date, for that I apologise. I never intentionally went out of my way to spin lies or to post anything that I thought was untrue. If I have made some comments that are deemed to be untrue or misleading, I sincerely apologize to all on this board. That was not my intention and any information I have posted, I was led to believe to be the truth since it came from what I deemed to be trustworthy sources. Of course, I shall have to revisit those sources and verify that information to re-evaluate it.

Crow does have a bitter taste, but one has to taste it once in a while I guess.

All I ask is that we get past this and hopefully engage in some worthwhile sharing of information? It is time to move on and engage in topics that can be shared by everyone and to make those topics as something that can inform and be of some substance to all.

 

[Anonymous]

You know I like Tam's previous avatar. I just can't bring myself to read the long posts with the chicken head. CHANGE IT BACK. What was it before?

Naw- I think the Canadian Fools Hen avatar is more fitting :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[rkaiser]

Gee wizzickers, a fellow can't leave this site for a couple of days of bull hauling and all hell breaks loose. Thought of you when I went by Weyburn on my way to points east of there Tam and BMR.

After reading a bit of this thread, I actually thought I might have to come out and defend Tam. Those comments about rampant BSE in the UK import cows and the number of tests in the USA vs. Canada were ridiculous bse-tester and I am glad that you are revisiting your source.

I will however say that this site is an important place for bse-tester to explain his procedure, and try to explain it to someone like Tam. BMR is a member or delegate on the SSGA, and these producer groups not only have a place in the discussion of BSE testing, but have the ability to collectively take this issue from the current (packer driven) monetary one to one with more producer advantage. Everyone will argue the science, however, the bottom line is always money, and producers of both the USA and Canada could see export potential rise along with prices should testing become common. That, my friends, is a simple fact.

It has long been time to take advantage of the opportunity of testing. It will happen when that opportunity is seen more clearly and the monetary issue is resolved. If bse-testers test were accepted and cost a mere ten bucks today, the multinational packer would change their tune in a matter of moments ---- count on that Tam. Canada is wasting an opportunity. We have the jump on the USA with identity and could implement testing a lot quicker and easier. The longer we wait, the more time Cargill, Tyson, and yes the Canadian boys, have to legally steal more producer cattle. We need to allow the new plants a chance at this opportunity - let them test if they have a market. And despite the opinion of Tam and some of the other packer sympathetic CCA folks, there is a market for BSE tested beef.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Gee wizzickers, a fellow can't leave this site for a couple of days of bull hauling and all hell breaks loose. Thought of you when I went by Weyburn on my way to points east of there Tam and BMR.

After reading a bit of this thread, I actually thought I might have to come out and defend Tam. Those comments about rampant BSE in the UK import cows and the number of tests in the USA vs. Canada were ridiculous bse-tester and I am glad that you are revisiting your source.

I will however say that this site is an important place for bse-tester to explain his procedure, and try to explain it to someone like Tam. BMR is a member or delegate on the SSGA, and these producer groups not only have a place in the discussion of BSE testing, but have the ability to collectively take this issue from the current (packer driven) monetary one to one with more producer advantage. Everyone will argue the science, however, the bottom line is always money, and producers of both the USA and Canada could see export potential rise along with prices should testing become common. That, my friends, is a simple fact.

It has long been time to take advantage of the opportunity of testing. It will happen when that opportunity is seen more clearly and the monetary issue is resolved. If bse-testers test were accepted and cost a mere ten bucks today, the multinational packer would change their tune in a matter of moments ---- count on that Tam. Canada is wasting an opportunity. We have the jump on the USA with identity and could implement testing a lot quicker and easier. The longer we wait, the more time Cargill, Tyson, and yes the Canadian boys, have to legally steal more producer cattle. We need to allow the new plants a chance at this opportunity - let them test if they have a market. And despite the opinion of Tam and some of the other packer sympathetic CCA folks, there is a market for BSE tested beef.

Randy you should have dropped in for coffee. I can argee with most of what you said. Yes if BSE Testers has a live BSE test that could be used in a Eradication program or test cattle destined for slaughter it could work but testing for export now would be to costly as we don't have the infrustructure to handle the numbers of tests and maintain the integraty of carcass and offal for a long enough period on time. Also poles have been done that say if we were to test for export the domestic consumer would demand testing as well.
Hope you had good roads as that always makes the trip seem shorter.

 

[rkaiser]

BMR -

Randy you should have dropped in for coffee. I can argee with most of what you said. Yes if BSE Testers has a live BSE test that could be used in a Eradication program or test cattle destined for slaughter it could work but testing for export now would be to costly as we don't have the infrustructure to handle the numbers of tests and maintain the integraty of carcass and offal for a long enough period on time. Also poles have been done that say if we were to test for export the domestic consumer would demand testing as well.
Hope you had good roads as that always makes the trip seem shorter.

Roads were good BMR, and hope they will be for the last two loads out to SW Sask and the Lloyd country.

As far as your opinion on costs and domestic speculation, I think we both know where we stand. I simply do not agree, and never have agreed with the points that you mention in your post. But hey, that's life, and like I said, the reason that bse-tester should continue to supply information to this site. Some day BMR you will see the potential for testing for export marketing purposes and see that the decisions being made right now are based on money just as you suggest money as holding it back.

Good luck with your views, I am not going to argue the point any more right now. You and Tam are wrong BMR and that is just fine, some day you will see the light. If it is after the point that Cargill and Tyson jump all over testing for marketing, I guess the rest of us here on ranchers will just have to wait.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Well Randy I think your wrong on our ability to test all cattle at slaughter and do it in a timely fashion that won't disrupt our markets. Nice thing about opinion is we each can have our own.

BSE Tester if i understand how you explained your test is that the urine is used to provide a sample for the Western Blot similar to the brain stem sample that is currently used. So wouldn't that make your test better for a eradication test done on farm or to check herdmates with a confirmed cases rather then a in house test for packing plants that could use the brain stem and eliminate one step?

 

[bse-tester]

BMR Wrote:

BSE Tester if i understand how you explained your test is that the urine is used to provide a sample for the Western Blot similar to the brain stem sample that is currently used. So wouldn't that make your test better for a eradication test done on farm or to check herdmates with a confirmed case rather then a in house test for packing plants that could use the brain stem and eliminate one step?

The simple answer BMR is "Yes."

We have considered the method of taking a urine sample on the farm and then shipping it directly to the lab just a day or two prior to the cattle being shipped. This would then bring about the question of the sample being subjected to a very strict "chain of custody." We would have to be absolutely sure that the urine sample was not lost or exchanged along the way or tampered with in any way whatsoever. This could easily be done by setting up a special freight service with a national courier service like DHL/Loomis or Purolator and the method of cartage would be in special sealed boxes which would house the samples.

As you know also BMR, the question of why does the entire herd on a farm or ranch have to be slaughtered to confirm their health when a herd-mate is suspect and/or diagnosed as having BSE. This creates serious problems for the producer especially when he or she may have spent many many years or generations developing the herd. You and I know the compensation package is not that great anyway. We can go in with our test, isolate each animal in the squeeze, the local vet can then use his tube to extract urine and we go to the lab and test it. No more wholesale slaughter to prove that they are pos or neg. Within 14 - 24 hours, we will know with absolute certainty. We log each animals ID and go from there.

We also thought about the slaughterhouse and how to approach testing there. Since the test takes only 14 - 24 hours to confirm one way or another, it would be a matter of taking a sample from the bladder while the animal is either about to be loaded at the farm or ranch for shipment or during its stay in the corals at the feed lot or wherever. There are numerous ways to consider that would not cause to much disruption of the slaughter porcess and getting the product to market.

Using the brainstem requires making an homogenate, a milkshake for want of a better discription. This is then refined down to a final product that takes time and costs more to get to that point. Our test simply takes urine, reduces it to a final product for testing also using Western Blot. We can BMR, detect PrPsc in as little as 1 ml of urine and an average lab can easily process as many as 2000 tests per day. Imagine if we set up labs with more techs working or even put the lab on shift work over 24 hours. Eliminating one step is easy and we enhance the overall risk management aspect of the industry at the same time.

Lastly, we are also revisiting our estimated costs. It is entirely possible BMR, that each test can cost less than CAN$ 10.00 per animal. Batch testing is not out of the question, but that means that if we combine the urine of say 20 or more cattle (all from the same herd only), they cannot move from their location until the testing is complete and that may create some issues. But then the same applies to a single animal anyway, but it would certainly speed up the number of animals being tested.

 

[Mike]

Ron, I know some have questions as how to get a urine sample from cattle.

I recently took a bull to Auburn Univ after he showed a high titer for Lepto. As you must know, serology only detects antibodies, and we wanted to check to see if he actually had Spirochetes of Lepto in the kidneys.

Anyway, The vet gave him a shot of some type of diuretic after we got him in the chute, and within a minute or so, he was whizzing.

Just to let you know there is an easy way to collect urine from bulls. :wink:

 

[Tam]

You know I like Tam's previous avatar. I just can't bring myself to read the long posts with the chicken head. CHANGE IT BACK. What was it before?

:roll: :roll:



Just for you reader(the Second) I wouldn't want to distract you from the topics if I can help it. :wink:

By the way Reader did you know that most think Dairy cows are more prone to MAD COW what does that say about your avatar :shock: :lol:

 

[bse-tester]

Hey Mike, I have heard all the jokes about how one gets urine out of a bull. Visions of getting kicked to death while underneath the bull and playing with that dangly thing about midships while holding a little cup, we figure it would go into the squeeze after receiving a diurectic. The problem is not the collection Mike, it is controling the flow!!! Not too many folks like the idea of being on the downhill side of the dam when it breaks!! Mind you, cows tend to let the dam break a heck of a lot more though. One almost has to wear scuba gear!!!

Also, while testing for BSE, we are considering conducting hormone testing also. Some folks out there in the market place are looking at "hormone free" products also and have approached us to see about testing for that. It is fairly easy inthat we just change the antibody and one aspect of the test.