Ridley Agrees to Settlement in Canadian BSE Lawsuit

[Sandhusker]

So R-CALF buys a pot of Canadian cows, sends the brain tissues to England and 2 come back positive. R-CALF goes to the USDA and says "Look at what we've found". The USDA would say, "So what, we already said we would probably be importing over 100". So now what, Q? All R-CALF did was prove the USDA right, and you and don were the only ones questioning them in the first place.

 

[don]

you're right sandhusker, your inaction is totally justified. you love to sit and bench and then say there's nothing you can do about it. what a guy!

 

[Sandhusker]

you're right sandhusker, your inaction is totally justified. you love to sit and bench and then say there's nothing you can do about it. what a guy!

What the hell do you want from a guy? Am I wrong? Did the USDA say they would be importing positives from Canada or not? Would anybody be surprised if positives were found? You two are the only ones that are in denial. Answer some questions for once.

Why don't you two rocket scientists explain how positives WON'T cross the border. Let's hear it. Bring something factual if you can.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you think I'm wrong, you tell me what the USDA's reaction would be.

 

[QUESTION]

Sh - 2 out of 38 (approx # on a pot load) the border would be closed. No doubt. No that wouldn't make the news and there would be no reasons to close the border. get real. we are activley looking and not finding as many positives as you say. keep on sitting on your butt and complaining and blaming. If R-CALF thought it could be done it would already have bought a bunch of OTM culls and gotten them tested instead of paying out millions in legal fees. Face it - no legs to stand on. No OTM positives from Canada will be found in the US for various reasons - Age verification, responsilbe canadian producers, cull rates to mention a few and of course you can blame the USDA for not testing.

 

[Sandhusker]

Keep on denying and ignoring facts, Q. You don't have a flipping leg to stand on. You point out the lack of positive tests to make your point, even though it's common knowledge those tests aren't even being done. :roll: I can't understand why you and don don't work for NASA.

Even the USDA - your best friend in this whole deal - says you're importing BSE down here. There'S only two possible ways that they could be wrong;
1) You don't have BSE in the population being sent down here.
2) They are being screened at the border.

TELL ME WHICH ONE IT IS, Q.

 

[QUESTION]

Sh do you even know the requirements for canadian OTM cattle to go to the US? :roll: First of all - age verification - so pedigreed cattle are done but they are a small portion of the total cowherd. Age verifivation is costly and time consuming enough that it makes it prohibative. The essentially your rules screen at the border. Secondly anything other than the youthful cows are not looked at by order buyers for the US market because the yeild difference on a granny and a youthful cow make enough of a differnence because the margins in the grind market are so slim. So again your US buyers are screening.Thirdly with the average age of a cull being 7, how many cows fall into being born in the highest risk age, 15% of the canadian cowherd is 7 and older acchording to stats canada. And even the youngest post feedban case was in that last 15% so you can do the math. Within the next year the vast majority of cows that could have been exposed will be gone. Cattle life cycle is taking the high risk cattle out of the chain. So yes the population of canadian culls being sent down to the US are not the right group to find BSE in. It is kind of like testing yearling steers which some of your contractors do to pad the numbers. Forthly with the extensive buying of canadian steers calves which is estimated to be 80% of the steer calf crop in my province, packers are well below capacity in canada on fats so the are killing more cows as a percentage of their total kill even with the cost of srm disposal rules. Do i need to keep going ???? Oh yeah if is a criminal offence to transport a downed animal. so what happened in chino isn't worth the fines anywhere to get the granny to the border it isn not worth the risk for a $300 cow as the transport company gets fined, the owner gets fined and they are checked before they cross the border. Oh yeah we get paid to submit samples in my provines $75 per sample i have heard in ab. it is over double so instead of giving away money to packers small plants up here are custom processing for burger and you can make more on culls that way. Do I really need to keep going ? I think you get my point. The canadian OTM cattle that are making it to the US are the top cut from the culls - good young fat cows. The ones least likely to test positive. What did you expect when importing from a country with higher standards and stronger regualtions than yours. :roll:
As for the lack of testing in the US that is something you should have some influence on afterall do you not elect the government . Or do i have to move down to the US and get things changed for you because of your apathy. Maybe the lack of testing is so the that more indeginouse US cases will not be found as that would hurt the US cattle producer more. Too bad you are not better imformed about what is happening up here maybe do some reading and get a understanding of what is going on before spouting r-calf rhetoric. :roll:
Personal attack on myself and is expected as that is where you go when you have or are losing a debate.
Maybe send a letter to the r-calf executive on how they should try to prove canadian OTM's are bringing in BSE by buying a pot load and sending samples to the Eu for testing. That is IF you really think BSE is coming into the US. :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Q, you spend most of your post talking about 7 year olds, but your second-to-last case was born in 2002. That would make it a 6 year old now and it was 5 when it was found. The infection dates keep getting pushed forward with each discovery. Your enhanced feed ban was an admission that the first one didn't do the trick, and it was just implemented - and who knows if that is even going to work.

You talk about only young healthy cattle coming down here. Even if that is true, the hole in that arguement is that doesn't exclude them from being BSE carriers. BSE has been found in animals under 30 months of age, and they generally don't show outward signs of the disease until the very late stages.

To summarize for you; Because of the fact that a young healthly looking 30 month old animal can have BSE and that your old feedban has been proven to have holes in it, claiming that your "younger" cattle couldn't have BSE can't be backed up. The facts shoot your hypothesis down twice.

 

[Kato]

Here's a thought.

Has anyone wondered why the USDA is being so called careless letting Canadian cattle into the U.S.?

Perhaps because they know full well the extent of BSE in your country, that it is there, and that it is a low level, just as ours is.

I would bet that if you got one of the head honchos in a quiet corner you'd find out that they are very aware of the fact that BSE is a fact of life, and that other than the SRM removal protocol and feed ban, there is nothing anyone can do until the national cow herds in both countries are old enough to have been living their entire lives under the risk mitigation measures in place now.

They know the real facts. They know how these facts can get blown all out of proportion and be used to distort markets, not to the benefit of cattlemen BTW, and that with time this is going to be a non-issue.

I believe that they are using the best science available at this time to safeguard the food supply. That's all anyone can go by right now, and we are all doing what we can. If people don't like it, then they will have to find new scientific evidence to point a new direction. In the meantime, this is what we've got to work with.

 

[QUESTION]

Changing the topic again :roll: Majority of the post talking about 7 yr old cows :???: -approximately 5 sentances out of 40 that is 12.5 percent , usally 12.5 percent is not called a majority . Is that r-calf math :lol:
Maybe get your facts straight - case 10 was born in 2001 and case 9 was born in 2000. that is on the CFIA web site. So which one are you talking about born in 2002 :liar: or have you found one and not told anyone about it until now . That would make the cow 7 and the bull 8 now Thus supporting my point. Now the fact is the cow had acess to prepared feed as a calf and the CFIA concluded that is where the infection came from. Where did the feedmill get it's protien and minerals from for supplements and prepared feed? Southern BC feedmills used to get most of their supplies from the US particularly washington state Oh wait the US has BASE not BSE :? It couldn't have come from there :lol2:
Yes the canadian feedban had holes as it matched the US ban :roll: , but loopholes still exsist in the US feedban.
Why are you so scared of doing a trial and buying canadian OTM cattle and getting them tested? The logical response is that you know the odds of finding a positive are miniscule at best and would prove the USDA and OIE correct in that the border should be open and canadian OTM's are safe.
As for your statement claiming i said 30 month old cattle can't have BSE :liar: you are at it again twisting words to fit your adgenda. What i said is the probability of finding BSE in younger cull cows is significantly less because of their age and apparent good health. And even less likeley because the US is cutting back on testing . It is like looking for a fish in the desert. You have to looking the right place to find something. The highest risk and animals in canada that have been found were submitted for testing because they were in the high risk group of which most of the OTM cattle going to the US are not.
Ok SH- time for you to go on a tangent, make a personal attack :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Kato, "Has anyone wondered why the USDA is being so called careless letting Canadian cattle into the U.S.?"

There's nothing to wonder about, they've said the reason; TRADE

Perhaps because they know full well the extent of BSE in your country, that it is there, and that it is a low level, just as ours is.

So then you're going to completely disregard the CDC. BTW, the "D" in CDC is "Disease".

They know the real facts. They know how these facts can get blown all out of proportion and be used to distort markets, not to the benefit of cattlemen BTW, and that with time this is going to be a non-issue.

How can you say they know the real facts when they could not put a scale on what the "low" in "low risk" is? If I was your doctor and said there was a "low" risk of a nasty side effect and then you asked me to clarify by giving you mathematical odds - and I couldn't do it - would you consider me knowledgable?

I believe that they are using the best science available at this time to safeguard the food supply. That's all anyone can go by right now, and we are all doing what we can. If people don't like it, then they will have to find new scientific evidence to point a new direction. In the meantime, this is what we've got to work with.


The EU, Japan, and Korea don't believe they are using the best science available.

 

[Sandhusker]

Changing the topic again :roll: Majority of the post talking about 7 yr old cows :???: -approximately 5 sentances out of 40 that is 12.5 percent , usally 12.5 percent is not called a majority . Is that r-calf math :lol:
Maybe get your facts straight - case 10 was born in 2001 and case 9 was born in 2000. that is on the CFIA web site. So which one are you talking about born in 2002 :liar: or have you found one and not told anyone about it until now . That would make the cow 7 and the bull 8 now Thus supporting my point. Now the fact is the cow had acess to prepared feed as a calf and the CFIA concluded that is where the infection came from. Where did the feedmill get it's protien and minerals from for supplements and prepared feed? Southern BC feedmills used to get most of their supplies from the US particularly washington state Oh wait the US has BASE not BSE :? It couldn't have come from there :lol2:
Yes the canadian feedban had holes as it matched the US ban :roll: , but loopholes still exsist in the US feedban.
Why are you so scared of doing a trial and buying canadian OTM cattle and getting them tested? The logical response is that you know the odds of finding a positive are miniscule at best and would prove the USDA and OIE correct in that the border should be open and canadian OTM's are safe.
As for your statement claiming i said 30 month old cattle can't have BSE :liar: you are at it again twisting words to fit your adgenda. What i said is the probability of finding BSE in younger cull cows is significantly less because of their age and apparent good health. And even less likeley because the US is cutting back on testing . It is like looking for a fish in the desert. You have to looking the right place to find something. The highest risk and animals in canada that have been found were submitted for testing because they were in the high risk group of which most of the OTM cattle going to the US are not.
Ok SH- time for you to go on a tangent, make a personal attack :roll:

Read this;
Dec 18, 2007 (CIDRAP News) – Canadian officials today reported the country's 11th case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, ....... The latest BSE case is Canada's third this year. The disease was found in a 6-year-old bull from an Alberta farm in February and in a 5-year-old dairy cow from British Columbia in May.

A 5-year old found in 2007 would of been born in 2002. You ought to know what the hell you're talking about before putting your little liar emoticon on.

Where did I claim you said 30 month cattle can't have BSE? I didn't. Who's twisting words? You're struggling.

Try again, Q.

 

[QUESTION]

SH go to the CFIA website :roll: - They found the BSE cases and did investigations so they ought to know when the cattle were born. Acchording to their CFIA and their website the BC dairy cow a recorded Holstein was born in 2001, Unless the CFIA is making things up :roll: and the non-registered angus bull born to a registered first calf heifer was part of the 2000 calf crop acchording to the DNA and registratation of his matching dam. So check your facts. Just google CFIA :dunce: and you will find your article quoted is incorrect. Check it out and the appoligy will be accepted that you were wrong because you got bad imfornmation.
Sh you wrote and i quote - "claiming that your "younger" cattle couldn't have BSE can't be backed up" where did i write that younger cattle could not have BSE, i have checked all my posts and have never written that so quit :liar: And now you are squeeling trying to turn things around and be the victim of a big bad canadian :roll: grow a set and admit when you messed up. By the way nicely done changing the subject
Nice try but a swing and a miss :lol2:

 

[Anonymous]

SH go to the CFIA website :roll: - They found the BSE cases and did investigations so they ought to know when the cattle were born. Acchording to their CFIA and their website the BC dairy cow a recorded Holstein was born in 2001, Unless the CFIA is making things up :roll: and the non-registered angus bull born to a registered first calf heifer was part of the 2000 calf crop acchording to the DNA and registratation of his matching dam. So check your facts. Just google CFIA :dunce: and you will find your article quoted is incorrect. Check it out and the appoligy will be accepted that you were wrong because you got bad imfornmation.
Sh you wrote and i quote - "claiming that your "younger" cattle couldn't have BSE can't be backed up" where did i write that younger cattle could not have BSE, i have checked all my posts and have never written that so quit :liar: And now you are squeeling trying to turn things around and be the victim of a big bad canadian :roll: grow a set and admit when you messed up. By the way nicely done changing the subject
Nice try but a swing and a miss :lol2:

Questionable-- The last I knew 66 months was 5 years old :???: which is what Sandhusker said....

No apology necessary- as I and Sandhusker don't require them or expect them from the mentally challenged :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

BSE CASE CONFIRMED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
OTTAWA, May 2, 2007 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has confirmed the diagnosis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a mature dairy cow from British Columbia. The animal's carcass is under CFIA control, and no part of it entered the human food or animal feed systems.

Preliminary information indicates that the age of the animal (66 months) falls well within the age range of previous cases detected in Canada and is consistent with the recognized average incubation period of the disease. This signifies that the animal was exposed to a very small amount of infective material, most likely during its first year of life.

An epidemiological investigation directed by international guidelines is underway to identify the animal's herdmates at the time of birth and the pathways by which it might have become infected. All findings will be publicly released once the investigation concludes.

Canada has a suite of robust BSE control measures which exceeds the recommended international standards. Assessment of Canada's programs by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has resulted in a recommendation for recognition as a controlled risk country. The OIE categorization process is based on an evaluation of the comprehensive set of risk mitigation measures implemented by a given country.

Canada has taken all necessary measures to achieve the eventual elimination of BSE from the national cattle herd. The enhanced feed ban, which comes into effect on July 12, 2007, will prevent more than 99 percent of potential BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system. The CFIA expects to detect a small number of cases over the next 10 years as Canada progresses towards its goal of eliminating the disease from the national cattle heard.

The British Columbia animal was identified at the farm level by the national surveillance program, which has detected all cases found in Canada. The program targets cattle most at risk and has tested about 160,000 animals since 2003. The surveillance results reflect an extremely low incidence of BSE in Canada.

It is not unexpected to find BSE-infected animals born after the feed ban. This has proven to be the case in most other countries with targeted surveillance programs, similar to that in Canada.

-30-

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Media relations: 613-228-6682


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2007/20070502e.shtml

 

[Yanuck]

Sandhusker I have a question for you and/or anyone else who doesn't want the border open, USCA says that they would have liked to have the "born after date" to be 2003 instead of 1999 for OTM cattle, if that was the date the Gov't had gone with, would you be okay with the border opening?
Here's the links to the CFIA website concerning the BSE cases
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/9investe.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2007/10investe.shtml

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker I have a question for you and/or anyone else who doesn't want the border open, USCA says that they would have liked to have the "born after date" to be 2003 instead of 1999 for OTM cattle, if that was the date the Gov't had gone with, would you be okay with the border opening?
Here's the links to the CFIA website concerning the BSE cases
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/9investe.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2007/10investe.shtml

What is the reasoning for 2003?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker I have a question for you and/or anyone else who doesn't want the border open, USCA says that they would have liked to have the "born after date" to be 2003 instead of 1999 for OTM cattle, if that was the date the Gov't had gone with, would you be okay with the border opening?
Here's the links to the CFIA website concerning the BSE cases
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/9investe.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2007/10investe.shtml

Personally Yanuck-- I would prefer nothing born before 2007-- since the CFIA has admitted that the Canadian feedban prior to the new one that was implemented in July 2007 was a complete failure-and did not work/was not working-and that they have an unknown quantity of cattle still manifesting the disease in Canada (CFIA says 20+-- the Canadian TSE expert says 50-- the US CDC says 26 times more than the US).....

And the fact that over half the cattle found in Canada already were born POST 1997 feedban....

 

[Mrs.Greg]

Sandhusker I have a question for you and/or anyone else who doesn't want the border open, USCA says that they would have liked to have the "born after date" to be 2003 instead of 1999 for OTM cattle, if that was the date the Gov't had gone with, would you be okay with the border opening?
Here's the links to the CFIA website concerning the BSE cases
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/9investe.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2007/10investe.shtml

Personally Yanuck-- I would prefer nothing born before 2007-- since the CFIA has admitted that the Canadian feedban prior to the new one that was implemented in July 2007 was a complete failure-and did not work/was not working-and that they have an unknown quantity of cattle still manifesting the disease in Canada (CFIA says 20+-- the Canadian TSE expert says 50-- the US CDC says 26 times more than the US).....

And the fact that over half the cattle found in Canada already were born POST 1997 feedban....

OT...I'm wondering what R-calf is doing about getting the cattle post 1997 thats ALREADY crossed into your country tested ?????

 

[Yanuck]

This is from the USCA's website, the reasoning behind the 2003 date rather than 1999.


USCA (November 16, 2007) - The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Final Rule permitting the resumption of trade in older cattle from Canada will become effective Monday, November 19. The U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) said today it remains concerned that USDA has resisted changing the March 1, 1999 effective feed ban date established by the agency and included in new regulations regarding the importation of cattle into the U.S. from minimal risk regions published recently on the USDA web site.
Five of Canada's bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were born after March 1, 1999, with one infected animal born as late as 2002, raising questions about Canada's effective feed ban enforcement on March 1, 1999.

USCA suggested, in both official comments to USDA and during informal meetings with agency administrators, that the effective enforcement date of Canada's feed ban be moved to January 1, 2003, a full six months after the birth of the youngest infected animal.

"U.S. Cattlemen's Association has consistently contended that USDA's priority should be regaining lost U.S. export markets," stated Chuck Kiker, USDA Director and Animal Health Committee chairman, Beaumont, TX. "It is perplexing that USDA fails to recognize this discrepancy in the Final Rule. This issue continues to serve as a roadblock for regaining lost export markets, a situation exacerbated by quality control issues that have occurred in recent months when export markets received shipments of beef containing banned materials. It's time for USDA to explain to producers how the decision was made to set an effective feed ban date for Canada well before the feed ban was effectively implemented."

Historically, critical fire walls have protected the U.S. from infection and spread of BSE, including import restrictions on countries infected with the disease; effective feed ban implementation; and removal of specified risk materials when cattle are processed. "The March 1, 1999 feed ban implementation date effectively compromises two of these fire walls," noted Kiker. "Unfortunately, USDA's decision appears to be politically driven rather than based on the best available science and data."

"Consumer confidence both domestically and internationally is something U.S. cattle producers take very seriously," noted Danni Beer, USCA Region X Director, South Dakota. "The U.S. produces the safest beef in the world. Mitigation measures have been implemented and extensive testing has been conducted to ensure the U.S. feed ban has been effective. In the wake of numerous food recalls as well as consumers' growing concern about the safety of foreign produced food and goods, this is no time for the U.S. to lower its import standards and risk a negative outcome."

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker I have a question for you and/or anyone else who doesn't want the border open, USCA says that they would have liked to have the "born after date" to be 2003 instead of 1999 for OTM cattle, if that was the date the Gov't had gone with, would you be okay with the border opening?
Here's the links to the CFIA website concerning the BSE cases
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/9investe.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2007/10investe.shtml

Personally Yanuck-- I would prefer nothing born before 2007-- since the CFIA has admitted that the Canadian feedban prior to the new one that was implemented in July 2007 was a complete failure-and did not work/was not working-and that they have an unknown quantity of cattle still manifesting the disease in Canada (CFIA says 20+-- the Canadian TSE expert says 50-- the US CDC says 26 times more than the US).....

And the fact that over half the cattle found in Canada already were born POST 1997 feedban....

OT...I'm wondering what R-calf is doing about getting the cattle post 1997 thats ALREADY crossed into your country tested ?????

They tried to get USDA to track them all down and test them-- some states even did the tracking down on their own...But USDA again wouldn't do anything....