US scaling back testing

[mrj]

Sure is a lot of blame and fingerpointing, apparently the favorite hobby of many on this site.

1. the purpose of the testing was surveillance, to get an idea of the condition of the US cattle herd. Other means such as srm removal are to protect the consumer from POSSIBLE exposure to BSE materials.

2. Sen. Harkins political campaign aside, the reduction in testing (well within parameters of the protocols of the testing) should have no effect on consumer confidence in US beef. Testing the 670,000 + animals DID show the prevalence rate in the US herd. The ongoing smaller testing will monitor that prevalence. BTW, I recall that testing regimen was to find BSE in the USA if there were so few as 3 or 15 in the entire herd, not certain of the number, but am of the 3 to 15 frame.

Econ, How does the USA prevalence of BSE compare with that of Japan? That number makes makes many people suspicious of their motives in stopping US beef from entering their country. As usual, your zeal to trash USDA and/or NCBA is monumental, while your real knowledge of NCBA is miniscule to non-existant.

rkaiser, where did I say I believed the species leaping theory? I don't, but that is what the science seems predicated upon, and until there is verifiable science to disprove it, isn't that what the world operates on? I also do not believe there is more than a minute chance that humans are at risk.

reader2, see point 2. above for the number deal. I'm quite sure it was not per 15 Million head, but for the entire US cow herd.

How do you know the statistical experts are not at least as well qualified to design mathematically/statistically based systems to find BSE prevalence in the USA as would be the "experts on TSE's" who very well may have no expertise in designing such systems? Wouldn't one naturally look to "number crunchers" to design number crunching systems?

You do not know me well enought to judge whether I am too trusting or not, re. "educated people" or those "in positions of authority".....if you did, you would understand that I'm more inclined to be skeptical than to trust with no verification. Yet, if we do not trust anyone in the internationally respected scientific community, whom are we to look to for info? Some of the fringe or dissenting people playing at science?

Re. your comment on my "weird statement about BSE", I intended to say that if THEY, the experts in numbers, can't design a statistic based model to find BSE, why should we think any other such model would be correct? This nation seems quite eager to use such systems for studying the outcome of many scenarios, some good, some not so good, depending on garbage in = garbage out, IMO.

In posting the piece by Blumenthal from 2004, you seem to be saying the Harvard design for the testing of cattle for BSE cannot be accurate because some people and organizations of people involved in and knowledgeable of the cattle industry were sources for scientific input and support for the design, while consumer groups with no such knowldge or experience were "shut out". Why aren't knowledgeable people acceptable as resources, while those without such knowledge, even at the least, somewhat antagontistic to the industry would be? That is just backward, especially considering they are a few among dozens, rather than the ONLY sources of information.

Re. your post on PR and communications strategy, I don't know about USDA, but CBB and NCBA PR people work from the position of: the organizations do good things and members and consumers are entitled to know about it.

What is your source of your claim that USDA (or anyone else) is claiming cooking is a "safeguard" against BSE?

Why do you believe it is wrong for USDA to tell consumers that removal of SRM's make the meat safe to eat when that is the position of the best available science on the situation?

don, what is the factual basis that makes you believe reader 2's claim re. "USDA PR and communications strategy....to get the US consumer used to the idea of low-level BSE", etc.? Speculation from both of you, IMO, which is fine, but factual? You should present some corroboration if you want anyone to believe you on any but an emotional basis.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

MRJ wrote;


It would be helpful if Johanns has stated that the protocol for the testing, the most at-risk animals tested in the highest numbers (more than 650,000 in recent story about it), the 20,000 + of healthy older cows tested, and the time frame for the testing, was all designed by top scholars from the best universities in the nation to show the prevalence of BSE in the US cattle herd if there should be so few as 15 (not totally certain of the exact number, but think this is fair representation of it) positives in the entire US cattle herd.

If this system of testing, and the protocol design for it is flawed, then why shouldn't the entire body of work and all the things based upon it, for the entire US university systems should be discounted or eliminated as flawed, too.

======================

simple, read the peer review of the Harvard BSE risk assessment instead of the one that was bought and paid for by your local cattle dealer :lol: :lol: :lol:

no fair cheating though, you must read all 132 pages


suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002


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



TSS

flounder, if the paper was "suppressed" as you claim, how can it be available?

Can you be honest and admit that the cattle industry is different than some other types of industry, in that those engaged in the production segments of it actually live, as well as work very closely with their product?

The fact is that we also eat that product, and feed it to our children and grandchildren. We would not do so it we believed it dangerous to their health.

Those in other segments of the cattle/beef industry are knowledgeable about their areas of production. Who better to ask for input into designing a protocol to measure and help to stop BSE?

Yes, we do have a sort of vested interest, in that we LIVE very close to the problem and we desperately want to know if there is a real danger, since that danger would affect our families the first and the most.....IF IT IN FACT DOES EXIST.

I might actually read the info in your "suppressed" paper.....if it a little more readable than your usual rambling posts.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

The thing that I'm can't understand is that The CFIA has told producers in Canada that the OIE says we have to test 30,000 4D cattle in a herd our size for 5 or 6 years or until we find no more to prove our prevalence to BSE and stay within the Minimal risk Catagory. And if we test healthy animals we have to test 100 healthy animals for every one 4D animal that we don't test. We have tested over 91,000 4D since Jan 2004 just because we care and want to know. But the USDA is telling us that a study done within the US tells them to test so many in a one time shot and that will tell everyone of the prevalence within the US herd. And we already know their NOT all 4D cattle like Canada's are. So I ask you Where is the OIE guidelines we are living by in Canada when it comes to the US testing? 40,000 in a herd the size if the US herd is a JOKE!!!!!!!! DON'T LOOK DON'T FIND

The USDA only follows the OIE when they want to. A prime example is their "minimal risk" category.

TAm, while I don't know the answers to whether or not USDA follows the OIE recommendations as strictly as they maybe should, is your understanding the same as mine?

THat is, the 650,000+ cattle tested WERE 4-D, and that an additional 20,000+ of older, healthy animals were also tested within that 18+ month time frame, and that the testing would continue at the lower rate for some time into the future?

I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above. Don't know how that compares with your percentages tested, nor how the protocol designed to find the rate of infectivity in the USA compares with OIE recommendation.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

MRJ:I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above.

One little catch in the testing here.

I am sure that everyone expects the USDA us to use a test that actually works. Remember the false postives? Were they really false positive?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ: "Econ, How does the USA prevalence of BSE compare with that of Japan? That number makes makes many people suspicious of their motives in stopping US beef from entering their country. As usual, your zeal to trash USDA and/or NCBA is monumental, while your real knowledge of NCBA is miniscule to non-existant."

Why don't you do your own research, MRJ? People are suspicous of the USA prevalence of BSE because the testing methods have been suspect and Johanns indicated in his remarks about the Texas cow that he was more interested in controlling the tests and the information than the truth. The USDA has been run poorly for quite some time and it is finally being exposed. JoAnn Waterfield reports directly to Johanns. Someone was asleep in that relationship or too enamoured with the position to do the jobs.

I don not need to know a lot about the NCBA and whenever I want to know something about them that I don't already know, I will ask you. You can't think on your own but you sure make a good secretary for the NCBA. I know NCBA has a lot of good people in it, but they seem to be either pretty shy or sheep, neither of which allows them to do their job in making sure the packers don't run over producers.

 

[mrj]

MRJ:I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above.

One little catch in the testing here.

I am sure that everyone expects the USDA us to use a test that actually works. Remember the false postives? Were they really false positive?

While it appears you hope they were true, werent they further tested and found to be negative?

MRJ

 

[mrj]

MRJ: "Econ, How does the USA prevalence of BSE compare with that of Japan? That number makes makes many people suspicious of their motives in stopping US beef from entering their country. As usual, your zeal to trash USDA and/or NCBA is monumental, while your real knowledge of NCBA is miniscule to non-existant."

Why don't you do your own research, MRJ? People are suspicous of the USA prevalence of BSE because the testing methods have been suspect and Johanns indicated in his remarks about the Texas cow that he was more interested in controlling the tests and the information than the truth. The USDA has been run poorly for quite some time and it is finally being exposed. JoAnn Waterfield reports directly to Johanns. Someone was asleep in that relationship or too enamoured with the position to do the jobs.

I don not need to know a lot about the NCBA and whenever I want to know something about them that I don't already know, I will ask you. You can't think on your own but you sure make a good secretary for the NCBA. I know NCBA has a lot of good people in it, but they seem to be either pretty shy or sheep, neither of which allows them to do their job in making sure the packers don't run over producers.

Why don't you do your own research, Econ, and give us the exact quote verbatim where Johanns said he was "more interested in controlling the tests and the information THAN THE TRUTH"? You owe us that much on such a claim, can't you agree?

I've never argued against the point that USDA has been run poorly. However I believe it is the nature of bloated bureaucracies, while you implyt it is evil incarnate coming to light. Show your proof!

Actually, many of the "good people in NCBA" tell me I'm wasting my time to try to point out the fallacies of zealots like yourself who are determined that evil abounds in the beef industry because you WANT to believe the worst rather than search out the facts. No one asks me to do this. I just hate to see misinformation and lies seem to prevail by going unchallenged.

I also have a lot of natural curiosity, which leads me to ask why you believe that packers have been "running over the producers" when we have had the highest cattle prices in history for some time now? Surely you don't think they "allowed" that to happen out of the goodness of their hearts, do you? If you don't believe that, and you do believe they control the prices, why have they allowed the high prices?

MRJ

 

[Mike]

MRJ:I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above.

One little catch in the testing here.

I am sure that everyone expects the USDA us to use a test that actually works. Remember the false postives? Were they really false positive?

While it appears you hope they were true, werent they further tested and found to be negative?

MRJ

Yes, and so was the Texas cow. :???: :???: :???:

 

[greg]

:roll: It is a pain in the @#$#-testing and tagging etc. ,but needs to be done unfortunatly.

 

[Tam]

The thing that I'm can't understand is that The CFIA has told producers in Canada that the OIE says we have to test 30,000 4D cattle in a herd our size for 5 or 6 years or until we find no more to prove our prevalence to BSE and stay within the Minimal risk Catagory. And if we test healthy animals we have to test 100 healthy animals for every one 4D animal that we don't test. We have tested over 91,000 4D since Jan 2004 just because we care and want to know. But the USDA is telling us that a study done within the US tells them to test so many in a one time shot and that will tell everyone of the prevalence within the US herd. And we already know their NOT all 4D cattle like Canada's are. So I ask you Where is the OIE guidelines we are living by in Canada when it comes to the US testing? 40,000 in a herd the size if the US herd is a JOKE!!!!!!!! DON'T LOOK DON'T FIND

The USDA only follows the OIE when they want to. A prime example is their "minimal risk" category.

TAm, while I don't know the answers to whether or not USDA follows the OIE recommendations as strictly as they maybe should, is your understanding the same as mine?

THat is, the 650,000+ cattle tested WERE 4-D, and that an additional 20,000+ of older, healthy animals were also tested within that 18+ month time frame, and that the testing would continue at the lower rate for some time into the future?

I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above. Don't know how that compares with your percentages tested, nor how the protocol designed to find the rate of infectivity in the USA compares with OIE recommendation.

MRJ

The 4D catagory of cattle are Dead, Dieing, Diseased and Downers. according to USDA rules the slaughter plants are not to process these types of animals. Even Leo said The US doesn't process downers. :wink: BUT the USDA told the CFIA that most of their samples are collected from slaughter plants. So I ask you what were they testing from slaughter houses that qualified as a 4D? :? Ours in Canada are being turned over by the producers as ON farm 4D's. We are always hearing reminders that if we want to prove our pervalence we have to turn them over and we have to the tune of over 57,000 to hit a 30,000 head quota. I do have to say I'm glad the Alabama cow was found on farm but one thing that does bother me is that in Canada the CFIA takes the infected carcass and incinerates it but the Alabama cow was just buried on the farm. What is going to happen in say ten or twenty years when her remains start to surface. Isn't it true that the prion can stay infectious for years what happens if they leach out of the ground because she wasn't disposed of properly?

 

[Mike]

Tam, The owner called the vet to a dying cow. The vet took a sample just as they do on most here that are showing CNS problems.

What were they to do with the cow? The rendering companies won't come and pick her up without a big charge anymore, even if you can find one.

You can't just leave one laying around for a week or so after it's tested.

I would guess the sample was taken a week or two prior to the news last Friday. Besides, it was better that they buried her because they needed more info. Now they will incinerate her. No use in burning a negative.

I bet in the vets wildest dreams did he think it would be positive. :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

Mike- Ol Tam forgets that not all the US is in a deep freeze 9 months of the year like that country north of the Medicine Line :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Mike- Ol Tam forgets that not all the US is in a deep freeze 9 months of the year like that country north of the Medicine Line :wink: :lol: :lol:

I guess you could leave one out for that long up there.

Heck, we got flies already. :???:

 

[Tommy]

Tam...but one thing that does bother me is that in Canada the CFIA takes the infected carcass and incinerates it but the Alabama cow was just buried on the farm.

I have read that the prion can survive very high temperatures, does your incineration method kill all the prions?

 

[Tam]

Tam...but one thing that does bother me is that in Canada the CFIA takes the infected carcass and incinerates it but the Alabama cow was just buried on the farm.

I have read that the prion can survive very high temperatures, does your incineration method kill all the prions?

No but the ashes from and infected carass can be stored in a lot safer way than just burying the whole carcass.

And Oldtimer In Canada we don't just test our cattle in winter we also test them in the heat of the summer and are expected to keep the carass intact until the test results are back.

Mike, I didn't read anything about them digging her up until just now. In the USDA tele conference and press release I read after they found her they just said she had been buried on the farm with no mention of digging her up.

 

[bse-tester]

I heard, and read, that once the temperature hits 700 - 800 C, the prions are consumed and burned up. But then, that has never been confirmed. I am not aware of anyone doing a homogenate test on ashes to see if the prions are still there. But, it is possible that there are studies out there that would indicate the desired temp to eradicate them.

 

[mrj]

The USDA only follows the OIE when they want to. A prime example is their "minimal risk" category.

TAm, while I don't know the answers to whether or not USDA follows the OIE recommendations as strictly as they maybe should, is your understanding the same as mine?

THat is, the 650,000+ cattle tested WERE 4-D, and that an additional 20,000+ of older, healthy animals were also tested within that 18+ month time frame, and that the testing would continue at the lower rate for some time into the future?

I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above. Don't know how that compares with your percentages tested, nor how the protocol designed to find the rate of infectivity in the USA compares with OIE recommendation.

MRJ

The 4D catagory of cattle are Dead, Dieing, Diseased and Downers. according to USDA rules the slaughter plants are not to process these types of animals. Even Leo said The US doesn't process downers. :wink: BUT the USDA told the CFIA that most of their samples are collected from slaughter plants. So I ask you what were they testing from slaughter houses that qualified as a 4D? :? Ours in Canada are being turned over by the producers as ON farm 4D's. We are always hearing reminders that if we want to prove our pervalence we have to turn them over and we have to the tune of over 57,000 to hit a 30,000 head quota. I do have to say I'm glad the Alabama cow was found on farm but one thing that does bother me is that in Canada the CFIA takes the infected carcass and incinerates it but the Alabama cow was just buried on the farm. What is going to happen in say ten or twenty years when her remains start to surface. Isn't it true that the prion can stay infectious for years what happens if they leach out of the ground because she wasn't disposed of properly?

Tam, I believe that downers are processed in dog food plants, or rendering plants, thus they may go through a plant, just not a food for humans production facility, is my understanding.

Very early in the BSE saga, I attended a meeting where composting of cattle was discussed. As I recall, there was specific system for doing that to dispose of possibly dangerous materials. Number one was that it be on an area of ground that was not conducive to leaching, and that extra materials were added to the animal (s) to assure quick and complete breakdown. I don't recall the time frame, but was impressed with how fast it had happened in tests, as well as the high levels of heat produced in the center of the pile. Realizeing the level of heat to sanitize the BSE elements, there are other aspects of composting than just the heat, so don't know what the process achieves on that score.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

TAm, while I don't know the answers to whether or not USDA follows the OIE recommendations as strictly as they maybe should, is your understanding the same as mine?

THat is, the 650,000+ cattle tested WERE 4-D, and that an additional 20,000+ of older, healthy animals were also tested within that 18+ month time frame, and that the testing would continue at the lower rate for some time into the future?

I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above. Don't know how that compares with your percentages tested, nor how the protocol designed to find the rate of infectivity in the USA compares with OIE recommendation.

MRJ

The 4D catagory of cattle are Dead, Dieing, Diseased and Downers. according to USDA rules the slaughter plants are not to process these types of animals. Even Leo said The US doesn't process downers. :wink: BUT the USDA told the CFIA that most of their samples are collected from slaughter plants. So I ask you what were they testing from slaughter houses that qualified as a 4D? :? Ours in Canada are being turned over by the producers as ON farm 4D's. We are always hearing reminders that if we want to prove our pervalence we have to turn them over and we have to the tune of over 57,000 to hit a 30,000 head quota. I do have to say I'm glad the Alabama cow was found on farm but one thing that does bother me is that in Canada the CFIA takes the infected carcass and incinerates it but the Alabama cow was just buried on the farm. What is going to happen in say ten or twenty years when her remains start to surface. Isn't it true that the prion can stay infectious for years what happens if they leach out of the ground because she wasn't disposed of properly?

Tam, I believe that downers are processed in dog food plants, or rendering plants, thus they may go through a plant, just not a food for humans production facility, is my understanding.

Very early in the BSE saga, I attended a meeting where composting of cattle was discussed. As I recall, there was specific system for doing that to dispose of possibly dangerous materials. Number one was that it be on an area of ground that was not conducive to leaching, and that extra materials were added to the animal (s) to assure quick and complete breakdown. I don't recall the time frame, but was impressed with how fast it had happened in tests, as well as the high levels of heat produced in the center of the pile. Realizeing the level of heat to sanitize the BSE elements, there are other aspects of composting than just the heat, so don't know what the process achieves on that score.

MRJ

Biological breakdown, maybe. The heat, no. Heat will not generally go over 200 F, and that is with good mixing. Not enough heat if bse survives the numbers posted.

 

[Tam]

TAm, while I don't know the answers to whether or not USDA follows the OIE recommendations as strictly as they maybe should, is your understanding the same as mine?

THat is, the 650,000+ cattle tested WERE 4-D, and that an additional 20,000+ of older, healthy animals were also tested within that 18+ month time frame, and that the testing would continue at the lower rate for some time into the future?

I think I've noticed you say we were not testing 4-D's here, but am quite certain that it has been as I stated above. Don't know how that compares with your percentages tested, nor how the protocol designed to find the rate of infectivity in the USA compares with OIE recommendation.

MRJ

The 4D catagory of cattle are Dead, Dieing, Diseased and Downers. according to USDA rules the slaughter plants are not to process these types of animals. Even Leo said The US doesn't process downers. :wink: BUT the USDA told the CFIA that most of their samples are collected from slaughter plants. So I ask you what were they testing from slaughter houses that qualified as a 4D? :? Ours in Canada are being turned over by the producers as ON farm 4D's. We are always hearing reminders that if we want to prove our pervalence we have to turn them over and we have to the tune of over 57,000 to hit a 30,000 head quota. I do have to say I'm glad the Alabama cow was found on farm but one thing that does bother me is that in Canada the CFIA takes the infected carcass and incinerates it but the Alabama cow was just buried on the farm. What is going to happen in say ten or twenty years when her remains start to surface. Isn't it true that the prion can stay infectious for years what happens if they leach out of the ground because she wasn't disposed of properly?

Tam, I believe that downers are processed in dog food plants, or rendering plants, thus they may go through a plant, just not a food for humans production facility, is my understanding.

Very early in the BSE saga, I attended a meeting where composting of cattle was discussed. As I recall, there was specific system for doing that to dispose of possibly dangerous materials. Number one was that it be on an area of ground that was not conducive to leaching, and that extra materials were added to the animal (s) to assure quick and complete breakdown. I don't recall the time frame, but was impressed with how fast it had happened in tests, as well as the high levels of heat produced in the center of the pile. Realizeing the level of heat to sanitize the BSE elements, there are other aspects of composting than just the heat, so don't know what the process achieves on that score.

MRJ

We were told slaughter plants with no mention of renders or pet food plants. :?
The credibility of the US surveillance system has been on shakey ground from the day they announced it. Due to reports of targeted cattle disappearing before samples could be taken, to using the wrong testing protocol which allowed the first positive US cow to go unconfirmed for 7 months. There are even stories about the ages of some of the cattle being under 30 months and the USDA tells everyone that the test they use isn't designed for under 30 months. :? I doubt many believe the testing that the US has done has been on the UP and UP. It's a good thing that it's not done as a food safety measure. But if the US is to ever know if their system works they had better do the true testing to find out how big the problem is.

 

[Mike]

APHIS/USDA:"This inconclusive result does not mean we have found a new case of BSE. Inconclusive results are a normal component of most screening tests, which are designed to be extremely sensitive so they will detect any sample that could possibly be positive.

Tam: the USDA tells everyone that the test they use isn't designed for under 30 months. Confused

Your statement has been replaced Tam. Same tests...........different day. Your statement by the USDA was only to keep Creekstone from testing. Inconsistent? You bet! :wink: