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

R-CALF calls for stronger feedban-Will NCBA?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
August 5, 2005 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Statement: Negative Test Result on Non-Definitive BSE Case


(Billings, Mont.) – Regarding this week’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the recent ‘non-definitive’ bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) test result has been determined as negative for the disease, please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard:



“R-CALF USA is pleased with this result, as it reinforces our belief that the single case of BSE detected in June was an extremely isolated case and likely resulted from an early failure of the United States’ first line of defense against BSE – the 1989 ban on imports from countries affected by BSE. However, given the tremendous amount of confusion and uncertainty surrounding USDA’s current testing program, we believe a more scientifically valid testing program is needed in order to establish the highest level of confidence that both U.S. import restrictions and the feed ban have protected our domestic herd from this disease.



“Under the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE’s) new approach for BSE testing, if a country only wanted to have the ability to detect one case per 100,000 cattle, approximately 187,000 cattle should be tested, regardless of the size of a particular country’s cattle herd. The United States already has tested more than 426,000 cattle, with only one confirmed domestic case. However, in the rest of the world where BSE has been found, testing is done at rates that allow those BSE-affected countries to detect more than one case per million head of cattle. The exception is Canada, which has tested only around 60,000 cattle – far fewer than any other BSE-affected country and far fewer than is recommended even by the OIE. Notwithstanding the limited testing done in Canada, four cases have already been detected in the province of Alberta.



“In response to USDA’s June announcement of the detection of a 12-year old cow with BSE, R-CALF USA called upon the agency to allow private firms to voluntarily test cattle of any age for BSE to meet international and domestic demand, as well as to expand the BSE testing program in the United States.



“If USDA were to take at least two additional steps, the public’s confidence in the United States’ BSE protection strategy would be boosted significantly, and future USDA announcements regarding uncertain test results would generate far less anxiety than agency announcements over the past year.



“First, USDA should prevent any further exposure to the United States from known sources of BSE. This can only be accomplished by maintaining strict import restrictions against countries where BSE was known to occur in cattle born after implementation of a country’s feed ban. Both Canada and Japan have detected BSE in animals born after the implementation of their respective feed bans.



“Secondly, USDA should reinforce the known weaknesses in the United States’ feed ban. The European experience has proven that a reinforced feed ban is required to prevent the spread of BSE. R-CALF USA continues to call upon USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exclude all animal protein and animal by-products from all livestock and poultry feed, including blood, poultry litter, plate waste, tallow, and specified risk materials (SRMs), as well as to ban the use of ruminant blood meal, bone meal, and ruminant tallow in milk replacer and colostrums.



“What USDA’s limited testing shows so far is that the United States has a very low prevalence of BSE, with only one domestic case detected, while Canada has a much higher prevalence in much younger cattle. This limited data suggests the U.S. should strengthen, not weaken, its import restrictions and its feed ban - the two most important measures to prevent the introduction and spread of BSE in the United States.”
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
August 5, 2005 Phone: 406-672-

Under the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE’s) new approach for BSE testing, if a country only wanted to have the ability to detect one case per 100,000 cattle, approximately 187,000 cattle should be tested, regardless of the size of a particular country’s cattle herd. The United States already has tested more than 426,000 cattle, with only one confirmed domestic case. However, in the rest of the world where BSE has been found, testing is done at rates that allow those BSE-affected countries to detect more than one case per million head of cattle. The exception is Canada, which has tested only around 60,000 cattle – far fewer than any other BSE-affected country and far fewer than is recommended even by the OIE. Notwithstanding the limited testing done in Canada, four cases have already been detected in the province of Alberta.

Oh who Oh who shall we believe

taken from the NCBA web site
Further Guidance for BSE Testing

Another important change to the code involves BSE surveillance. OIE has always made recommendations for BSE surveillance based on a country’s risk, the intended purpose for surveillance and the size of its cattle population. Changes from the May OIE meeting provide more detail for the reduced testing category of maintenance-level surveillance. But the OIE code continues to encourage active surveillance, and now provides a statistical sampling protocol for estimating prevalence.

I say I would have to believe the size of the herd would have just a bit to do with the amount of cattle tested. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
The importance of herd size on this board seems to be like the USDA's sound science - it varies considerably from case to case. We're supposed to fling open the border because BSE prevalence is "identical", ( 4 to 1 with 1/7 the herd :roll: ), but then we're supposed to test more because we have more cows. :?
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Sandhusker said:
The importance of herd size on this board seems to be like the USDA's sound science - it varies considerably from case to case. We're supposed to fling open the border because BSE prevalence is "identical", ( 4 to 1 with 1/7 the herd :roll: ), but then we're supposed to test more because we have more cows. :?

Weeellll, now wait just a minute, Sandhusker. Before we tell you that you should test more, I think perhaps we should tell you to use a test that actually tells you what is there on the ones you ARE testing, huuummmm?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Sandhusker said:
The importance of herd size on this board seems to be like the USDA's sound science - it varies considerably from case to case. We're supposed to fling open the border because BSE prevalence is "identical", ( 4 to 1 with 1/7 the herd :roll: ), but then we're supposed to test more because we have more cows. :?

Weeellll, now wait just a minute, Sandhusker. Before we tell you that you should test more, I think perhaps we should tell you to use a test that actually tells you what is there on the ones you ARE testing, huuummmm?

Then we should explain to them that they are to be testing the 4D catagory of cattle not slaughter cows. :wink:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Then I guess we should also tell Sandhusker that if they test more, they will actually find more. So test away and then ask the rest of the world for tougher standards, good luck with that!
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
Oldtimer said:
However, given the tremendous amount of confusion and uncertainty surrounding USDA’s current testing program, we believe a more scientifically valid testing program is needed in order to establish the highest level of confidence that both U.S. import restrictions and the feed ban have protected our domestic herd from this disease. .”

your domestic herd is already infected





Oldtimer said:
Under the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE’s) new approach for BSE testing, if a country only wanted to have the ability to detect one case per 100,000 cattle, approximately 187,000 cattle should be tested, regardless of the size of a particular country’s cattle herd. The United States already has tested more than 426,000 cattle, with only one confirmed domestic case. .”

and then Bullard goes on to say this.......What USDA’s limited testing shows so far is that the United States has a very low prevalence of BSE

On one hand hes saying they have done an adequate job of testing, then he sayes they have not


while the U.S might have been testing , were they using a reliable test..If they were then why the Nov screw up

.




 
A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CULT is still trying to save face after getting beat up so bad at the 9Th circuit level.

Nobody's buying their bullsh*t but them.


I listened to Bullard babbling on about how the 9th Circuit was not privy to the same facts that Cebull was.

DID YOU FORGET TO PRESENT THEM IN COURT BULLARD?


These guys have absolutely no shame in spreading their lies.



~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
~SH~ said:
R-CULT is still trying to save face after getting beat up so bad at the 9Th circuit level.

Nobody's buying their bullsh*t but them.


I listened to Bullard babbling on about how the 9th Circuit was not privy to the same facts that Cebull was.

DID YOU FORGET TO PRESENT THEM IN COURT BULLARD?


These guys have absolutely no shame in spreading their lies.



~SH~

No SH, Leo and Bill weren't whispering the same facts in their ears, like how good it would look if you side with us :wink: what a different it would make in R-CALFs membership drive, donations and your livestyle :wink: How you have such a great golf game :wink: and you must work out because you are so fit, grrrr :wink: Can I buy you, I mean a drink friend. :wink: That is the info they weren't privy to. I doubt a court of appeal would overturn a ruling if they weren't looking at the same evidence. :roll: And by the looks of the written ruling they looked at enough to know Cebull was the one not looking at all the evidence. :eek: I just hope Cebull stops now to look at all of it and decides to stop this destructive court case. :?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Murgen, Tam, MLA,
I'll agree with you 100% that our testing thus far has been suspect, to say the least. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies on your side as well. :)
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Murgen, Tam, MLA,
I'll agree with you 100% that our testing thus far has been suspect, to say the least. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies on your side as well. :)

Sandhusker I have posted the true test numbers on here several times and for some reason you R-CALFers seem to believe Leos lies about the testing over the true numbers. Canada has always tested a larger percentage of our herd than the US, up until you want to make it look like you were doing a better job. But if you were using the wrong test what different did it really make? Your trading parnters still don't trust your meat and now they have better reason not to. The only way your enhanced testing was going to help is if it showed a true picture of the BSE prevalance in the US but now all of those tests are questionable. If Vets were legally putting preservative on the sample that rendered the rapid test ineffective how many of those pre June samples were read wrong because the rapid test wasn't working. did they retest those samples using a different test or just consider them negative? Your whole system is questionable right back to the cows you test.
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
the 9th Circuit was not privy to the same facts that Cebull was.

Feel free to correct me - is Cebull's daughter (or daughter-in-law) an R-CALF director/executive or not?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
The importance of herd size on this board seems to be like the USDA's sound science - it varies considerably from case to case. We're supposed to fling open the border because BSE prevalence is "identical", ( 4 to 1 with 1/7 the herd :roll: ), but then we're supposed to test more because we have more cows. :?

In the interest of accuracy here, Sandhusker, have you really seen anyone post that "BSE prevalence (Canada and USA) is identical"? Or have some said that the protocols against BSE are VIRTUALLY THE CAME in the two nations? There is a difference! And I grant that you, bing on this site more than I, may have seen something I have missed.

I, for one of many, believe that the border should be open because the OIE protocols indicate that we have similar risks AND because the sooner trade in cattle and beef is returned to normal pre-BSE terms, the better the cattle/beef industry will be for BOTH nations.

I totally reject the implications (including some outright statements) of some R-CALF members and supporters, that there is a danger the US cattle herd will somehow get BSE due to co-mingling with Canadian cattle.

MRJ
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
August 5, 2005 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Statement: Negative Test Result on Non-Definitive BSE Case


(Billings, Mont.) – Regarding this week’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the recent ‘non-definitive’ bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) test result has been determined as negative for the disease, please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard:



“R-CALF USA is pleased with this result, as it reinforces our belief that the single case of BSE detected in June was an extremely isolated case and likely resulted from an early failure of the United States’ first line of defense against BSE – the 1989 ban on imports from countries affected by BSE. However, given the tremendous amount of confusion and uncertainty surrounding USDA’s current testing program, we believe a more scientifically valid testing program is needed in order to establish the highest level of confidence that both U.S. import restrictions and the feed ban have protected our domestic herd from this disease.



“Under the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE’s) new approach for BSE testing, if a country only wanted to have the ability to detect one case per 100,000 cattle, approximately 187,000 cattle should be tested, regardless of the size of a particular country’s cattle herd. The United States already has tested more than 426,000 cattle, with only one confirmed domestic case. However, in the rest of the world where BSE has been found, testing is done at rates that allow those BSE-affected countries to detect more than one case per million head of cattle. The exception is Canada, which has tested only around 60,000 cattle – far fewer than any other BSE-affected country and far fewer than is recommended even by the OIE. Notwithstanding the limited testing done in Canada, four cases have already been detected in the province of Alberta.



“In response to USDA’s June announcement of the detection of a 12-year old cow with BSE, R-CALF USA called upon the agency to allow private firms to voluntarily test cattle of any age for BSE to meet international and domestic demand, as well as to expand the BSE testing program in the United States.



“If USDA were to take at least two additional steps, the public’s confidence in the United States’ BSE protection strategy would be boosted significantly, and future USDA announcements regarding uncertain test results would generate far less anxiety than agency announcements over the past year.



“First, USDA should prevent any further exposure to the United States from known sources of BSE. This can only be accomplished by maintaining strict import restrictions against countries where BSE was known to occur in cattle born after implementation of a country’s feed ban. Both Canada and Japan have detected BSE in animals born after the implementation of their respective feed bans.



“Secondly, USDA should reinforce the known weaknesses in the United States’ feed ban. The European experience has proven that a reinforced feed ban is required to prevent the spread of BSE. R-CALF USA continues to call upon USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exclude all animal protein and animal by-products from all livestock and poultry feed, including blood, poultry litter, plate waste, tallow, and specified risk materials (SRMs), as well as to ban the use of ruminant blood meal, bone meal, and ruminant tallow in milk replacer and colostrums.



“What USDA’s limited testing shows so far is that the United States has a very low prevalence of BSE, with only one domestic case detected, while Canada has a much higher prevalence in much younger cattle. This limited data suggests the U.S. should strengthen, not weaken, its import restrictions and its feed ban - the two most important measures to prevent the introduction and spread of BSE in the United States.”

OT, who really cares what R-Laugh has to say? Only a fool would stay with that organization following the total butt kicking they received from the Ninth Circuit Court. They were wrong on every count, just as they have been wrong on virtually every other lame-brain position they espouse. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. Truth, not misinformation, will prevail as it has. You can turn out the lights, their party is over. They are on their way to extinction just like the NFO and AAM.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,069
Reaction score
287
Location
Big Muddy valley
S.S.A.P. said:
the 9th Circuit was not privy to the same facts that Cebull was.

Feel free to correct me - is Cebull's daughter (or daughter-in-law) an R-CALF director/executive or not?



I don't know about that SSAP but Oldtimer told us that his Brother-in-law was one of the court of appeals judges. Wonder what the talk will be around the Thanks Giving table will be this fall? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
S.S.A.P. said:
the 9th Circuit was not privy to the same facts that Cebull was.

Feel free to correct me - is Cebull's daughter (or daughter-in-law) an R-CALF director/executive or not?



I don't know about that SSAP but Oldtimer told us that his Brother-in-law was one of the court of appeals judges. Wonder what the talk will be around the Thanks Giving table will be this fall? :wink:

Big Muddy- When did I say this? News to me...You hitting the bottle again or is the heat getting to you? :lol: :lol:

SSAP-Sounds like another Canuck rumor...Show us the facts-- Or as ~SH~ would say is this just another Canadian LIE?
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
I typed:
"Feel free to correct me - is Cebull's daughter (or daughter-in-law) an R-CALF director/executive or not? "

Oldtimer I typed "Correct me if I'm wrong" AND put a question mark at the end of the sentence .................... Your answer Oldtimer was: "SSAP-Sounds like another Canuck rumor...Show us the facts-- Or as ~SH~ would say is this just another Canadian LIE?"

Yes, someone told me this - I'm asking if there is any truth to it ..... savvy?????

PS: using the search tool, I could not find his family's / children's names to cross-reference with any R-calf info. As there are some die-hard r-calfer's reading this, as well as some American ANTI-r-calvers, I thought maybe someone would/could tell me that none of his immediate family is or has been recently so involved with the r-calf organization.

On second thought, I can't expect an honest answer from a r-calf member. Is there anyone reading this that can provide me with an answer to my question .... please?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Or as ~SH~ would say is this just another Canadian LIE?"

Never used the words "Canadian lie".

That in itself is a lie!

Par for your course OT!

You shouldn know better than to try to get away with that here.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
OT: "Or as ~SH~ would say is this just another Canadian LIE?"

Never used the words "Canadian lie".

That in itself is a lie!

Par for your course OT!

You shouldn know better than to try to get away with that here.


~SH~

SH - you are probably right- you probably never said Canadian lie because that would be against your cults upbringing to question anything about Canada- which was proven after the members brought up the 11 points- which were quickly dismissed and pooh poohed away by the leadership.....

Sorry if I stole your style--I won't use it again :lol: :lol: You can go back to calling everyone liars- :lol: :lol: The style doesn't fit me....
 

Latest posts

Top