The Saga continues

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Sandhusker the fantasies I write have more truth in them than these R-CALF quotes
Quote:
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of the country's cattle herd.

Not long ago, you were spouting the same stuff. I asked you to bring to the table exactly what the OIE recommends. You never replied. The floor is yours again.

 

[cowsense]

Sandhusker: As usual you are diverting; answer my question about the incubation period of BSE and your own question will be thus answered! We do not ignore the problem as we have been living with the consequences for almost 4 years now and we do know WHAT is happening in our own industry. As I stated before our feed ban is superior to yours and it will soon be enhanced even further!

What does an incubation period have to do with cattle born POST feedban :???:

They had to be infected AFTER the feedban was instituted--so IF the feedban was working they should not have gotten infected...

So that means the feedban is not working--FOUR times at least....

Four times?? Three of these cases were born before the feed ban and the 50 Month cow died of blood poisoning and the resulting necropsy showed that she was in the very preliminary stages of BSE. The resulting investigation showed that a single batch of feed delivered to this farm may have been contaminated by an operating error that bypassed the approved flushing protocols established by CFIA. This case has led to even higher standards of feedmill inspection than ever before. Better look at your own system closer before you start trashing ours!

 

[Sandhusker]

4 times. Check your facts.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep cowsense, Sandhusker is right---CFIA says feedban went in effect in 1997 --#3-- born in 1998--#4 -- born in 2000---#5-- born in 2000 ---# 7 born in 2002....

Check it out:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/comenqe.shtml

 

[Bill]

Sandhusker; With your vast knowledge perhaps you could comment on the incubation period of BSE and how the American feedban system is superior to Canada's. In the entire time I've been on this board you only have a handful of standard responses that are repeated over and over......you're about as entertaining as a trained parrot and just about as annoying. Perhaps you should approach the R-clan office for new speaking points or are you already using all that's available???

I keep repeating the same thing because it is a material fact on a huge issue that keeps getting ignored - you Canucks don't seem to want to talk about it. Can you explain to me how a feed ban can be effective but yet have cases showing up 5 years after it's implementation? Maybe you can convice me that an ineffictive feed ban is no big deal.

Unlike you Sadhusker most of us don't live in a perfect world. Just because Canada has had post BSE positves doesn't mean its feed ban hasn't been effective. Even though there have been numerous infractions of te feed ban in BOTH countries it has certainly reduced the number of cases.

The question is how is it that the good 'ol USDA has not identified any post fed-ban cases. Have they been covered up the same as the Texas cow was for months? Only a fool would believe there won't be American post feed-ban BSE positives. The question is when will they be announced, before the decison on Rule #2 is announced or immediately after. Next month or next week.

Canada is detecting it's cases why isn't the US?

 

[Sandhusker]

Bill, "Just because Canada has had post BSE positves doesn't mean its feed ban hasn't been effective."

The feed ban is supposed to stop new cases of BSE. Your's hasn't. How then is it effective?

 

[Kato]

The point is if you don't look you don't find. The general opinion held by most trading partners of the U.S. is that you're not looking. :shock: The animals that are tested here must qualify by being either dead down or diseased. That alone makes our testing more stringent, regardless of numbers. Testing fairly young healthy looking animals is just for show.

An opinion poll was being reported on in the Canadian media before Christmas that found that Canadian consumers had significantly higher confidence in Canadian beef than American consumers had of American beef. Why? :???: How can that be?? :???:

Perhaps someone can find this story somewhere and post it. I just remember hearing it on the TV, but I'm sure it's somewhere on the net.

 

[Sandhusker]

You'll never catch me bragging on the USDA's testing. I won't try to BS you on that. I'd appreciate of you folks didn't try to BS me about your wonderous feed ban.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Tam,

I think you have jsut written a sequel to Broke Back Mountain.....good job!!

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Sandhusker the fantasies I write have more truth in them than these R-CALF quotes
Quote:
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of the country's cattle herd.

Not long ago, you were spouting the same stuff. I asked you to bring to the table exactly what the OIE recommends. You never replied. The floor is yours again.

Sandhusker If this R-CALF statement is true then why was the US claiming before identifing any cases, that they were exceeding OIE recommended testing[/b
From the USDA

USDA began a surveillance program in 1990, and for the past 11 years has met or exceeded international standards as outlined by the Office of International des Epizootes (OIE), or the World Organization for Animal Health. The OIE is the internationally recognized forum for the development and review of standards, guidelines and recommendations on animal health. USDA's surveillance program has targeted the high-risk population in accordance with the OIE recommendations. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, BSE surveillance levels increased significantly, with approximately 20,000 animals tested in each year. Before December 23, 2003, we had plans to double that number for fiscal year 2004.

According to the OIE, the United States consistently has met or exceeded the international guidelines for BSE surveillance in cattle since 1993, Veneman said.

How could they have exceeded R-CALF claimed OIE recommendation of 187,000 when in fact they were only testing

Years ---- U.S. numbers

1992 ----- 251
1993 ----- 736
1994 ----- 692
1995 ----- 744
1996 ----- 1,143
1997 ----- 2,713
1998 ------ 1,080
1999 ------ 1,302
2000 -------2,681
2001 ------ 5,272
2002 ------ 19,990
2003 ------ 20,543

And why does the OIE continually refer to the size of the Adult Population of a country's herd if the testing is based on "regardless of the country's herd size." :? :?


Now don't divert the question Sandhusker answer them, I'll repeat them

How did the USDA exceed the OIE recommended testing if the testing was to be 187,000 head consecutively according to R-CALF?????

Why does the OIE continually refer to the size of the adult population in the country's herd if the size of the herd doesn't matter?

:? :? :?

 

[frenchie]

And you still divert away from those pesky telling post ban positives..... They happened, Tam. They happened because no matter what your regulations are, no matter who says your ban is working, it failed. FIVE YEARS after a ban that is supposed to stop new cases from showing up, here one is.

If I inspected a boat and told you it was fine - and then is promplty sank, would you brag about my inspection abilties? Would you hire me to inspect another boat?

Tell me Sandhusker if someone shot 1300 holes in your boat would your boat still be fine?

 

[Bill]

Bill, "Just because Canada has had post BSE positves doesn't mean its feed ban hasn't been effective."

The feed ban is supposed to stop new cases of BSE. Your's hasn't. How then is it effective?

And the following line says says it all.

Even though there have been numerous infractions of te feed ban in BOTH countries it has certainly reduced the number of cases.

It of course is the feed ban that has not been perfect in either country but has redued the number of cases of BSE.

Your R-Klan type pick and choose, twist and spin antics must be getting you dizzy as I don't know how it can be said much clearer than that.

I actually am hoping you keep blindly whipping this feed ban thing Sadhusker because it is only a matter of time until the first post feedban positiveS are announced in the US. Only a absolute idiot would believe that the US feedban completely removed BSE from your feed supply and that it won't happen. It's simply question of when. When will USDA be forced to announce it and when will it least impact the markets.

Were you one of the fools who thought back in the summer of 2003 that the US didn't have BSE Sadhusker? That "it can't happen here"? That "God must truly bless America"........and only America? Were you one of those supporting taking out ads in the Washington Post and doing whatever you could think of to nail those dam Canadians? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Keep squawking about feed bans and post-ban cases Sadhusker. It will be a pleasure to watch you, Oddtimer and Haymaker and the rest of the Klanners once agan back-tracking as fast as you can while being chased by your fellow Americans.

 

[Sandhusker]

So, Tam, you're telling us R-CALF is wrong on their numbers, but you don't know what those numbers are. Why don't you just go get the info from the OIE itself?

 

[Tam]

So, Tam, you're telling us R-CALF is wrong on their numbers, but you don't know what those numbers are. Why don't you just go get the info from the OIE itself?

From the OIE "the size of the countries adult herd population " I would guess THERE IS NO SET NUMBER, the number depends on the HERD SIZE unlike R-CALF's little statement where they claimed it did matter what the herd size was.

And you never answered how could the US claim they met or exceeded the OIE recommended testing if they were according to R-CALF suppose to test 187,000 head consecutively. THEY NEVER TESTED 187,000 HEAD IN ALL THE TESTING THEY DID IN THE BLOODY DECADE BEFORE BSE WAS INDENTIFIED WITHIN THEIR HERD. :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "From the OIE "the size of the countries adult herd population " I would guess THERE IS NO SET NUMBER, the number depends on the HERD SIZE unlike R-CALF's little statement where they claimed it did matter what the herd size was."

That's your proof the Bill was wrong? You can't even bring a full sentence? :lol: :lol: :lol: Like I've said before, a prosecuting attorney you're not! :lol: :lol:

Tam, "And you never answered how could the US claim they met or exceeded the OIE recommended testing if they were according to R-CALF suppose to test 187,000 head consecutively. THEY NEVER TESTED 187,000 HEAD IN ALL THE TESTING THEY DID IN THE BLOODY DECADE BEFORE BSE WAS INDENTIFIED WITHIN THEIR HERD."

Bill made that comment in 2006. 2005 would of been the latest year that he had data on, and we did test that many then.

You're just so dedicated to trying to find fault in every sentence anybody halfway affiliated with R-CALF says by running over it with a magnifying glass you're missing simple messages. It's both funny and sad.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "From the OIE "the size of the countries adult herd population " I would guess THERE IS NO SET NUMBER, the number depends on the HERD SIZE unlike R-CALF's little statement where they claimed it did matter what the herd size was."

That's your proof the Bill was wrong? You can't even bring a full sentence? :lol: :lol: :lol: Like I've said before, a prosecuting attorney you're not! :lol: :lol:

Tam, "And you never answered how could the US claim they met or exceeded the OIE recommended testing if they were according to R-CALF suppose to test 187,000 head consecutively. THEY NEVER TESTED 187,000 HEAD IN ALL THE TESTING THEY DID IN THE BLOODY DECADE BEFORE BSE WAS INDENTIFIED WITHIN THEIR HERD."

Bill made that comment in 2006. 2005 would of been the latest year that he had data on, and we did test that many then.
You're just so dedicated to trying to find fault in every sentence anybody halfway affiliated with R-CALF says by running over it with a magnifying glass you're missing simple messages. It's both funny and sad.

Lets look at this again R-CALF's statement was

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of the country's cattle herd.

Sorry Sandhusker BUT
identify Any cases :? Where doesn't it say any native cases? it says any cases. Since the OIE told the USDA they could not consider the Washington cow as imported, she was to be considered "INDIGENOUS TO NORTH AMERICA" The Washington cow proved the US had BSE at least to the OIE, the very people that make the recommendations on testing, and did make recommendations in their report to the USDA on Feb. 2 2004. Hence the OIE RECOMMENDED Enhanced Surveillance testing Program in the US to prove true prevalence.

Now if your first OIE recognized case was discovered in DEC 2003, any testing that was done after that point was as a "BSE affected" country not as a "not yet identified ANY CASES" country . Anything tested after Dec 2003 doesn't count as testing done to satisfy the not yet identified testing that R-CALF claimed was to be 187,000 head . :wink: If you take all the testing the USDA did prior to identifying the first indigenous case you would have 57,147 head tested . No where close to the 187,000 head R-CALF claimed was the OIE recommendations.

BUT the USDA claimed

USDA began a surveillance program in 1990, and for the past 11 years has met or exceeded international standards as outlined by the Office of International des Epizootes (OIE), or the World Organization for Animal Health.

and

According to the OIE, the United States consistently has met or exceeded the international guidelines for BSE surveillance in cattle since 1993, Veneman said.

I ask again how can the USDA claimed they exceeded OIE testing recommendation for the PAST 11 YEARS and in the second quote since 1993 when they only tested 57,147 head in all prior to having found BSE? :?

The CFIA have also claimed they have exceeded OIE recommended testing but guess what Sandhusker we never tested 187,000 prior to the May 2003 cow either. How can this be? :?

And if the size doesn't matter then why did the OIE APPROVE Canada to test at least 30,000 and the US was to test at least 210,000 Is it just a coincidence that these two number were picked out of the air and that your HERD SIZE is about 7 times that of ours?

Sandhusker you are so busy defending R-CALF crap, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you where the sun doesn't shine. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Tam- When did this so called OIE rule of 187,000 come about? Can you give it in context....I question it because at one time they were saying that the standard testing of countries not having found BSE was much lower...That Australia was only testing less than 500 at one time and it met world standards...

I believe there is an old post on it in the archives from about 3-4 years ago- but aren't going looking :roll:

 

[Tam]

Tam- When did this so called OIE rule of 187,000 come about? Can you give it in context....I question it because at one time they were saying that the standard testing of countries not having found BSE was much lower...That Australia was only testing less than 500 at one time and it met world standards...

I believe there is an old post on it in the archives from about 3-4 years ago- but aren't going looking :roll:

You might want to tell Sandhusker about how many cattle Australia is testing :wink:

And here is the quote used in context

http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/012406-cattle.htm

Cattle Producers Respond to Recent Canadian, Japanese BSE Cases; Japan's Import Ban on U.S. Beef
R-CALF
January 25, 2006
BILLINGS, MONT. (January 24, 2006)
snip
R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said it is no surprise that Canada has detected another case of BSE, and that Canada, all along, has acknowledged more cases are likely to be found in their cattle.

"Scientific experts have projected that the circumstances surrounding the first four cases of BSE detected in Canadian cattle do indeed strongly suggest that Canada has a significant BSE problem, and that it remains hidden from view because Canada has yet to test enough cattle to truly determine the scope of its disease problem," Bullard said.

"The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of that country's cattle herd," he continued. "Canada has only tested approximately 90,000 head since the discovery of their first case of BSE in 2003, and even after discovering four confirmed cases of BSE, Canada tested only 57,000 cattle in all of 2005, an amount insufficient to meet the minimal testing requirements recommended by the OIE.

"The U.S. meets this recommendation, while Canada does not," noted Bullard. "Not only is Canada not testing the minimal number of cattle for a country not yet affected by BSE, but in addition, Canada should be testing a much greater number of cattle, given the multiple cases of BSE already identified in cattle of Canadian origin. Every other country in the world that has detected multiple cases of BSE has implemented a mandatory testing program to test every animal over 30 months of age."

Sandhusker didn't believe me maybe he will believe you
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW Oldtimer maybe you would like to explain why we were to test the number of cattle for a country "not affected by BSE yet" when we were already affected by the time this statement was written and OIE had approved our BSE affected testing Quota of 30,000 annually ? :?

 

[Anonymous]

I know prior to Canada finding BSE the testing was way down...That was when the question/discussion came up on here about how adequate it really was...Actually I think it was Maxine that was arguing that this was an acceptable amount- which I was a little leery about ....So that would have been in 2003- I see this statement was made in 2006- and OIE as we know has been ever changing with their ages, rules, classifications, and so forth- so that is why I wondered when they could have put out those numbers......OIE has been so flipfloppy that I can't say they don't have this number somewhere in their reams of rules.....

 

[don]

so it's the oie's fault you guys can't keep your story straight :shock: