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

Ridley Agrees to Settlement in Canadian BSE Lawsuit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
QUESTION said:
:roll: :roll: gee thanks for telling me what and how to think and that everything the CFIA has told me was wrong. Good to know you know more of what is going on up here than the people living thru it or the officals who are in charge of BSE elimination. :roll: :P Your r-crap may fly with others but if you can not tell this is sarcasm and again no answer and since you won't answer i take it as that is the right answer but you are too scared to admit it. Grow some or shut up

I'm not telling you how to think. I'm telling you that I don't believe your story and I explained why.

I won't answer? What are the last 5 words of my previous post?
 
You mean you do not want to believe the facts, because it doesn't fit your adgenda. As for your stories they are entertaining too bad they are not true.
I will ask one last time but if the past is any guide you will ignore or disregaurd my question . But here it goes - For the saftey of the US consumer the US border should be shut to all imports from all countries who have ever reported BSE/BASE and for the safety withinUS and the US having BASE and no accurate measure of the infection, no US beef should be able to be sold domestically or internationally for human consumption unless the animal can be traced back to possible points of infection, as well every animal must be tested and confirmed negative for BSE/BASE prior to sale for human consumption. Do you agree this is the only way to make sure 100% the consumer is safe from BSE/BASE? Here is you solution go implement is since r-calf is so powerful. :tiphat:
 
I'm the guy with the "stories"? :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: Let's see...there was the downers, the signed forms, the test results of the nonexistent tests, the feed that can't possibly be fed... :roll:

I believe in national sovereignity. Therefore, I think that any country can do whatever they feel is in their best interest regarding our beef or any other product from any country. Sure, there will most likely be consequences for any action, but the choice is their's to make. If they want to ban our beef, it's their call.

I don't think we should ban our beef domestically because we haven't been informed of the extent of the problem by a credible source. How can you propose a solution when you don't know for sure the breadth of the problem - or even if a problem exists? First things first.
 
WOW, go and see the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary. You won't admit there is a problem is the US even though cases have been found and it is better to do nothing than to err on the side of caution. But when it comes to canadian beef it is better to err on the side of caution than do nothing :???: That is two sides of the debate and you are one both but it depends on what we are talking about. Acchording to this last post you want a double standard, two sets of rules one for you and another for everyone else. Sorry but that is not how the world works!! QUOTE SH - How can you propose a solution when you don't know for sure the breath of the problem- or even if a problem exsists? So you do not know BSE is coming in to the US from canada,so closing the border is the solution :???: prove you are importing then close the border!!! it is just like using numbers from 2 different counties with different standards is applicable :oops: to determining risk levels :roll: Take all the pot shots you can that is all you have :oops: :P :lol:You state other countries can do what ever they want yet when the close the borders because of import regulations being broken and yet you complain that is not fair, which is it :? You state you believe you should be able to do what ever you want, even if that means you are potentially feeding BASE infected beef to US citizens and spreading the diseases worldwide. That is called neglegence.Maybe one day you will get it but i do not think that will be today :( :cry: All i was asking for an yes or no answer not the convoluded double standard is the only way answer.
 
I don't know why I even bother with you, Q.

All I KNOW about the US is that we had two cases a-typical in old cows. Do we have more cases? Do we have typical BSE? Nobody knows, and we aren't going to find out with the USDA having a monopoly on testing. Banning US beef here would be premature until we know what we have and what it will take to fix it. There's erring to safety, and then there's flying off the handle like a panicked idiot.

I KNOW Canada has BSE in the population that are eligible for export to the US. We just had a 3-day exchange where you tried to explain how that wasn't happening - and fell on your face. A signed contract by some cattlemen stops the nationwide spread of BSE? Geeeeeeeeeze.

There should be two sets of rules because the latest bit of information that exists says the situtations between the two countries are different. Until you have real information - and not your opinions on signed statements - to the contrary, you have to act on what you KNOW.
 
Is the hampster running backward :roll: ? YOU KNOW YOU have a atypical strain of BSE, do you know anything else about it- if the border closure is about saftey the nobody should be selling beef if you are not 100% sure it isn't harmfull. You have already admitted you do not know the extent of the infection, or is it not safe for people to eat the US beef does logic not follow that selling beef from with in the US is unsafe as well. :oops: Maybe you want to get rid of inspectors too. why worry about food safety at all :roll: Banning anyone from selling US beef seems to be the only way to be safe!!!! IF you know what animals have BSE well then take one off the kill line and show a positive test prove you allegations. Shut the border tight!!! what is so hard about that??? You are right we have had this exchange about r-calf buying old culls testing them for BSE and proving the theroy true . Not done it yet and not going to do it. why ? WELL too lazy to get the border closed - NO? they know they will not find any? :oops: :P :P :oops: or is the r-calf exec getting a percenteage kick back from the r-calf laywers :lol:
And you don't believe that cattlemen can take control of the issue and eliminate BSE? Then who's problem is it in the US? In canada cattlemen have taken the bull by the horns signing contracts not to feed animal based protein and there by forcing change upon feed manufactureing companies (unlike the US), voulenteering animals who are considered high risk for testing (UNLIKE THE US) and a tracking system to follow the animal back to the herd of origin in case of disease outbreak ( unlike the US) . Then on top of it SRM rules and a feed ban tha sets the gold standard. We are being proactive in eliminating disease and all you do is sit and you have the unmitigated gall to belittle the effort of the canadian cattleman. GARL :evil:
And then you say you actually believe in a double standard. OK so why should any asian country have to take any US beef unless it is 100% compliant to their rules :roll: I now know you do not want to get rid of BSE atypical or not you just want to sell BEEF where ever you want be dammed the consequence to the consumer. You make me want to wretch!!!! It is people like you are dragging the agriculture indusrty down!!
RM the animal with BSE came first and was inadvertantly imported from the UK and showed no signs of BSE and was rendered before we knew any better.
 
sandie is like the energizer bunny - can go around in circles all day making noise but no brain. question you might as well save your breath to cool your soup or he'll get into the constitutionality of cattle trade. lol.
 
APHIS has conducted scientific studies to estimate the prevalence of BSE in both Canada and the United States.

Canada's prevalence of BSE in the worst case scenario is one BSE positive out of every 625,000 cattle.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSE_Prevalence.pdf

The United State's prevalence of BSE in the worst case scenario is one BSE positive out of every 1,312,500 cattle.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSEprev-estFINAL_7-20-06.pdf

Unless there are some PhD epidemiologists out there that want to argue with the dynamics of these studies (credibility required), it seems obvious to even a certified lunkhead like me that the problem is not BSE itself, it is the irrational and unfounded fear of BSE.
 
Shaft said:
APHIS has conducted scientific studies to estimate the prevalence of BSE in both Canada and the United States.

Canada's prevalence of BSE in the worst case scenario is one BSE positive out of every 625,000 cattle.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSE_Prevalence.pdf

The United State's prevalence of BSE in the worst case scenario is one BSE positive out of every 1,312,500 cattle.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSEprev-estFINAL_7-20-06.pdf

Unless there are some PhD epidemiologists out there that want to argue with the dynamics of these studies (credibility required), it seems obvious to even a certified lunkhead like me that the problem is not BSE itself, it is the irrational and unfounded fear of BSE.

I'll bet the CDC has a few PhD epidemiologists on their staff. What did they say?
 
Sh no denials- i finally got it right. SH you could careless about the beef industry, consumers or anyone else as long as you maximize profits. And a nice little personal attck to deflect from the fact he has nothing :roll: other than his straight jacket :lol2: He can't debate the points because he has already agreed to a few different points of view. The only thing he knows is US GOOD - EVERYWHERELSE BAD. Sad to see at this point in time in history a person can be so uninformed and biggoted in his views. No wonder people are dying needlessly in this world :cry:
 
Sandhusker,

The CDC provides the link to the two APHIS prevalence studies on their website under the heading 'BSE Prevalence', with the lead-in 'for more information on this topic'.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/
 
BSE Prevalence
In September 2007, The US Department of Agriculture published updated results of the two statistical models used by Harvard University investigators to estimate the prevalence of BSE in Canada. The updated results incorporated the 11 Canadian-born animals with BSE that had been reported by that time. A key advantage of these models is that they provide statistical confidence limits that measure some of the uncertainty associated with expected estimates. To view the results of the model, called BSurvE , that is most comparable to the observed surveillance data see ( page 15 [PDF – 261 KB]). This model estimates that the true prevalence of BSE in Canada is 90% likely to be between 18-fold and 48-fold higher than the previously published best estimate of the prevalence of BSE in the United States. The previously published best estimate of Canada's BSE prevalence in 2006 using the BSurveE model was 23-fold higher than that of the United States and is the estimate of the BSE prevalence in Canada that continues to be used in the Harvard Risk Assessments' "worst case" analyses when evaluating the risk of imported Canadian cattle causing BSE to spread among US animals.
 
BSE Prevalence
In September 2007, The US Department of Agriculture published updated results of the two statistical models used by Harvard University investigators to estimate the prevalence of BSE in Canada. The updated results incorporated the 11 Canadian-born animals with BSE that had been reported by that time. A key advantage of these models is that they provide statistical confidence limits that measure some of the uncertainty associated with expected estimates. To view the results of the model, called BSurvE , that is most comparable to the observed surveillance data see ( page 15 [PDF – 261 KB]). This model estimates that the true prevalence of BSE in Canada is 90% likely to be between 18-fold and 48-fold higher than the previously published best estimate of the prevalence of BSE in the United States. The previously published best estimate of Canada's BSE prevalence in 2006 using the BSurveE model was 23-fold higher than that of the United States and is the estimate of the BSE prevalence in Canada that continues to be used in the Harvard Risk Assessments' "worst case" analyses when evaluating the risk of imported Canadian cattle causing BSE to spread among US animals.

For more information on this topic:

An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States, July 20, 2006 (PDF – 259 KB)
APHIS, USDA, Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy risks associated with the importation of certain commodities from BSE minimal risk regions (Canada), Attachment 1, October 27, 2006 (PDF – 279 KB)
APHIS, USDA's BSE Surveillance Efforts Factsheet, July 2006 (PDF – 56 KB)

Yep, given that the previously published Harvard risk analysis (2001) found that there was virtually no chance of BSE in the US, anything would have to be higher. The point is that these latest studies are accurate, and as your good buddies at the CDC pointed out, the older studies are inaccurate.

The numbers from the studies are straightforward. In Canada the worst case scenario is 23.2 BSE positives in total. In the US the worst case scenario is 31 BSE positives in total.

Given that the cattle herds for each country are approximately 15 million and 42 million respectively, forgive me if I see this as a public education and PR issue rather than a public health issue, especially as both countries no longer allow SRMs into human food.

The only thing that BSE fearmongering does is drive consumers to alternate sources of protein. Now Sandhusker, you wouldn't by any chance be a chicken or pig producer, would you?
 
Sandhusker said:
I'll bet the CDC has a few PhD epidemiologists on their staff. What did they say?



In this context, a word is in order about the US testing program. After the
discovery of the first (imported) cow in 2003, the magnitude of testing was
much increased, reaching a level of >400,000 tests in 2005 (Figure 4).
Neither of the 2 more recently indigenously infected older animals with
nonspecific clinical features would have been detected without such testing,
and neither would have been identified as atypical without confirmatory
Western blots. Despite these facts, surveillance has now been decimated to
40,000 annual tests (USDA news release no. 0255.06, July 20, 2006) and
invites the accusation that the United States will never know the true
status of its involvement with BSE.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm



CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006


The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end


http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r


CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm




PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM


"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow
issue for some years,
and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and
recommendations to both the
USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=8125



suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf



OIG


We also disagree with APHIS/FSIS' contention that because they have tested over 375,000 of their 446,000 estimate of high risk cattle, few in the high-risk population are being missed, including those that might be pre-screened before entering a slaughter facility's property. In our prior audit, we reported that APHIS underestimated the high-risk population; we found that this estimate should have been closer to 1 million animals (see Finding 1). We recognize that BSE samples are provided on a voluntary basis; however, APHIS should consider industry practice in any further maintenance surveillance effort. Animals unsuitable for slaughter exhibiting symptoms not inconsistent with BSE should be sampled and their clinical signs recorded. However, this cited industry practice results in rejected animals not being made available to either APHIS or FSIS veterinarians for their observation and identification of clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. Although these animals may be sampled later at other collection sites, the animals are provided post mortem without information as to relevant clinical signs exhibited ante mortem. For these reasons, we believe APHIS needs to

USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 27

observe these animals ante mortem when possible to assure the animals from the target population are ultimately sampled and the clinical signs evaluated.



snip...



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf



[GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness
Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao


[2]

[GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness
Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao




SCRAPIE and TSE to human UPDATE 2008 (ambiguous terms of transition and
reality set in)


Laboratory transmission studies with animal models: Since the publication of the
Opinion new data have become available with regards to L type of BSE, which
has now been identified in various EU members states (Biacabe et al., 2004;
Casalone et al., 2004; Baron et al., 2007). This TSE agent, differing from that
causing Classical BSE by its biochemical signature and transmission features in
mouse models, has been transmitted to a Tg mouse model expressing Human
M129 PRP gene (Beringue et al. 2007)2. Here again, uncertainty arises from the
limitations of these animal models for the estimation of the human species barrier.
These 'proof of principle' experiments provide data supporting the ability of TSE agents
other than those causing Classical BSE to cross the human species barrier. Even so, it is
important to remember that as mentioned in the EFSA 2007 opinion, transmission to
primates:

• "… does not allow to take into account the human gene PRNP polymorphisms
(in particular the M/V 129), that have been identified to play a major role on
relative susceptibility towards prion disease. In addition, genes other than the
PrP gene may also be influential in determining overall susceptibility to TSEs."
Despite the interests in the area, studies of the transmissibility of currently known TSE
agents using animal models will remain incomplete for several years.
In conclusion, the reply to the ToR number 2 is:
• Experimental transmissions to primate and to transgenic (Tg) mouse models
expressing the human PrP gene, are currently used as to evaluate the potential
capacity of a TSE agent to cross the human species barrier.
• TSE agents other than the Classical BSE agent from three field TSE cases (two
Classical Scrapie cases and one L type BSE case) have been demonstrated to
cross the modelled human species barrier.



http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/vla/science/documents/science-tse-rl-ringtrial.pdf



7 February 2008 - A Statement on the potential human health risk from
changes to classical scrapie controls(41 KB) has been published.


http://www.seac.gov.uk/statements/scrapiestatement080207.pdf



FC5.5.2 Transmission of Italian BSE and BASE Isolates in Cattle Results into a Typical BSE Phenotype and a Muscle Wasting Disease

Zanusso, G1; Lombardi, G2; Casalone, C3; D'Angelo, A4; Gelmetti, D2; Torcoli, G2; Barbieri, I2; Corona, C3; Fasoli, E1; Farinazzo, A1; Fiorini, M1; Gelati, M1; Iulini, B3; Tagliavini, F5; Ferrari, S1; Monaco, S1; Caramelli, M3; Capucci, L2 1University of Verona, Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 2IZSLER, Italy; 3IZSPLVA, Italy; 4University of Turin, Animal Pathology, Italy; 5Isituto Carlo Besta, Italy

The clinical phenotype of bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been extensively reported in early accounts of the disorder. Following the introduction of statutory active surveillance, almost all BSE cases have been diagnosed on a pathological/molecular basis, in a pre-symptomatic clinical stage. In recent years, the active surveillance system has uncovered atypical BSE cases, which are characterized by distinct conformers of the PrPSc, named high-type (BSE-H) and low-type (BSE-L), whose clinicopathological phenotypes remain unknown. We recently reported two Italian atypical cases with a PrPSc type similar to BSE-L, pathologically characterized by PrP amyloid plaques. Experimental transmission to TgBov mice has recently disclosed that BASE is caused by a distinct prion strain which is extremely virulent. A major limitation of transmission studies to mice is the lack of reliable information on clinical phenotype of BASE in its natural host. In the present study, we experimentally infected Fresian/Holstein and Alpine/Brown cattle with Italian BSE and BASE isolates by i.c. route. BASE infected cattle showed survival times significantly shorter than BSE, a finding more readily evident in Fresian/Holstein, and in keeping with previous observations in TgBov mice. Clinically, BSE-infected cattle developed a disease phenotype highly comparable with that described in field BSE cases and in experimentally challenged cattle. On the contrary, BASE-inoculated cattle developed an amyotrophic disorder accompanied by mental dullness. The molecular and neuropathological profiles, including PrP deposition pattern, closely matched those observed in the original cases. This study further confirms that BASE is caused by a distinct prion isolate and discloses a novel disease phenotype in cattle, closely resembling the phenotype previous reported in scrapie-inoculated cattle *** and in some subtypes of inherited and sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Oral Abstracts 14



snip...



P04.27

Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route

Holznagel, E1; Yutzy, B1; Deslys, J-P2; Lasmézas, C2; Pocchiari, M3; Ingrosso, L3; Bierke, P4; Schulz-Schaeffer, W5; Motzkus, D6; Hunsmann, G6; Löwer, J1 1Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany; 2Commissariat à l´Energie Atomique, France; 3Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy; 4Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease control, Sweden; 5Georg August University, Germany; 6German Primate Center, Germany

Background:

In 2001, a study was initiated in primates to assess the risk for humans to contract BSE through contaminated food. For this purpose, BSE brain was titrated in cynomolgus monkeys.

Aims:

The primary objective is the determination of the minimal infectious dose (MID50) for oral exposure to BSE in a simian model, and, by in doing this, to assess the risk for humans. Secondly, we aimed at examining the course of the disease to identify possible biomarkers.

Methods:

Groups with six monkeys each were orally dosed with lowering amounts of BSE brain: 16g, 5g, 0.5g, 0.05g, and 0.005g. In a second titration study, animals were intracerebrally (i.c.) dosed (50, 5, 0.5, 0.05, and 0.005 mg).

Results:

In an ongoing study, a considerable number of high-dosed macaques already developed simian vCJD upon oral or intracerebral exposure or are at the onset of the clinical phase. However, there are differences in the clinical course between orally and intracerebrally infected animals that may influence the detection of biomarkers.

Conclusions:

Simian vCJD can be easily triggered in cynomolgus monkeys on the oral route using less than 5 g BSE brain homogenate. The difference in the incubation period between 5 g oral and 5 mg i.c. is only 1 year (5 years versus 4 years). However, there are rapid progressors among orally dosed monkeys that develop simian v CJD as fast as intracerebrally inoculated animals.

The work referenced was performed in partial fulfilment of the study "BSE in primates" supported by the EU (QLK1-2002-01096).



Subject: Aspects of the Cerebellar Neuropathology in Nor98

Date: September 26, 2007 at 4:06 pm PST

P03.141

Aspects of the Cerebellar Neuropathology in Nor98

Gavier-Widén, D1; Benestad, SL2; Ottander, L1; Westergren, E1 1National Veterinary Insitute, Sweden; 2National Veterinary Institute, Norway

Nor98 is a prion disease of old sheep and goats. This atypical form of scrapie was first described in Norway in 1998. Several features of Nor98 were shown to be different from classical scrapie including the distribution of disease associated prion protein (PrPd) accumulation in the brain. The cerebellum is generally the most affected brain area in Nor98. The study here presented aimed at adding information on the neuropathology in the cerebellum of Nor98 naturally affected sheep of various genotypes in Sweden and Norway. A panel of histochemical and immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings such as IHC for PrPd, synaptophysin, glial fibrillary acidic protein, amyloid, and cell markers for phagocytic cells were conducted. The type of histological lesions and tissue reactions were evaluated. The types of PrPd deposition were characterized. The cerebellar cortex was regularly affected, even though there was a variation in the severity of the lesions from case to case. Neuropil vacuolation was more marked in the molecular layer, but affected also the granular cell layer. There was a loss of granule cells. Punctate deposition of PrPd was characteristic. It was morphologically and in distribution identical with that of synaptophysin, suggesting that PrPd accumulates in the synaptic structures. PrPd was also observed in the granule cell layer and in the white matter. *** The pathology features of Nor98 in the cerebellum of the affected sheep showed similarities with those of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.


full text ;


http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf


NOR-98 ATYPICAL SCRAPIE USA UPDATE AS AT OCT 2007

http://nor-98.blogspot.com/


USA MAD COW CASES IN ALABAMA AND TEXAS

***PLEASE NOTE***

USA BASE CASE, (ATYPICAL BSE), AND OR TSE (whatever they are calling it today), please note that both the ALABAMA COW, AND THE TEXAS COW,
both were ''H-TYPE'', personal communication Detwiler et al Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:52 PM. ...TSS



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19779


tss
 
Look again, the previous published estimate was in 2006, not 2001.
An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States, July 20, 2006 (PDF – 259 KB)

You need to more than double our herd size. Last I saw, we had around 90 million.

Removing SRMs only lessens the risk of getting BSE. For example, the spinal column is a SRM, but every bite of beef you eat contains nerve tissue. Would you feed your family a roast that you knew came from a BSE positive animal?

I don't believe in fearmongering anything. I believe in truth and accountability. The truth is that everything we know today says that Canada has a higher BSE rate than the US. You just brought information that says exactly that. The truth is that you can't eradicate a disease if you continue to import it. The truth is that the USDA's job is to keep disease out of the country, not knowingly import it. The truth is that if this disease spreads, it could devestate the US cattle industry. The truth is that US producers have absolutly nothing to gain from the game of Russian Roulette the USDA is playing and everything to lose.
 
Sandhusker said:
Look again, the previous published estimate was in 2006, not 2001.
An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States, July 20, 2006 (PDF – 259 KB)

You need to more than double our herd size. Last I saw, we had around 90 million.

Removing SRMs only lessens the risk of getting BSE. For example, the spinal column is a SRM, but every bite of beef you eat contains nerve tissue. Would you feed your family a roast that you knew came from a BSE positive animal?

I don't believe in fearmongering anything. I believe in truth and accountability. The truth is that everything we know today says that Canada has a higher BSE rate than the US. You just brought information that says exactly that. The truth is that you can't eradicate a disease if you continue to import it. The truth is that the USDA's job is to keep disease out of the country, not knowingly import it. The truth is that if this disease spreads, it could devestate the US cattle industry. The truth is that US producers have absolutly nothing to gain from the game of Russian Roulette the USDA is playing and everything to lose.




All cattle and calves in the U. S. and Canada combined totaled 110.6 million
head on January 1, 2008, down slightly from a year ago. All cows and heifers
that have calved, at 47.7 million head, was down 1 percent from a year ago.

All cattle and calves in the United States as of January 1, 2008, totaled
96.7 million head, slightly below the 97.0 million on January 1, 2007 but
virtually unchanged from the 96.7 million two years ago.

All cattle and calves in Canada as of January 1, 2008, totaled 13.9 million
head, down 1 percent from the 14.2 million on January 1, 2007, and 5 percent
below the 14.7 million two years ago. All cows and heifers that have calved,
at 5.97 million, was down 1 percent from the 6.02 million on January 1, 2007,
and 5 percent below the 6.27 million from two years ago.




TSS
 
Here is a quote from the bottom of page 22 - top of page 23 of the APHIS estimate of BSE prevalence in the US herd:

"The number of BSE-infected adults in the U.S. population of 42 million is then estimated to be 19 with lower and upper limits of 2 and 32, respectively."

Here is a quote from page 17 of the APHIS estimate of BSE prevalence in the Canadian herd:

"Table 5 summarizes the results of the estimation of BSE prevalence in the standing Canadian adult cattle population as of August 15, 2006. Based on the expected prevalence value under the BBC model and the estimated adult herd size (Table 1), the expected number of BSE-infected animals in the standing Canadian adult cattle population is 4.1. By comparison, the expected value obtained under BSurvE Prevalence B is 3.9 per million, which corresponds to an estimated 23.2 BSE-infected animals in the standing Canadian adult cattle population."

Please note there are two reports here. One for Canada, one for the US. The July 20, 2006 paper deals with the US herd, the October 27, 2006 paper deals with the Canadian herd. The previous Harvard risk assessment for the US herd was released in 2001. Lots of negative peer reviews, lots of criticism on that one (yes, some fine people from the CDC were among the critics). About time they tried again. Appears they may have got it right this time.

The point of the piece is that the total numbers of potential BSE positives in both countries are absolutely trivial. We have a range in the US of somewhere between 2 and 32 infected animals in total in the entire national herd and a range in Canada of somewhere between 4 and 23 infected animals in total in the entire national herd. What is not trivial is the overblown hoopla and fearmongering about BSE that can only serve to hurt all cattle producers in both Canada and the US.

You boys need to be focussing your energy and venom on Argentina and Brazil. They are the real threat.

semper ad meliorum
 

Latest posts

Back
Top