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

USA BSE Surveillance

mrj

Well-known member
Published in the Green Sheet, Aberdeen, SD, June 30 issue.

USDA's Enhanced BSE Surveillance Program continues to test targeted animals identified as most likely to have the disease. Since June 1, 2004, the program has tested 735,318 cattle , finding only two confirmed cases, evidence that our safeguards are working and the prevalence of BSE in the USA is extremely low. Testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at at rate of 1 in 10,000,000 adult cattle at a 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at at rate of 1 in 10,000,000 adult cattle at a 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL.

Addendum: Provided the proper test and the proper procedures are used by competent technicians.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Mike said:
Testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at at rate of 1 in 10,000,000 adult cattle at a 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL.

Addendum: Provided the proper test and the proper procedures are used by competent technicians.


Mike, comments like yours have had considerable play on this site.

Where are the verifiable FACTS supporting that contention?

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Mike said:
Testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at at rate of 1 in 10,000,000 adult cattle at a 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL.

Addendum: Provided the proper test and the proper procedures are used by competent technicians.


Mike, comments like yours have had considerable play on this site.

Where are the verifiable FACTS supporting that contention?

MRJ

Just one of 1,000's:

Today 6/28/2005 10:24:00 AM

USDA's BSE Test Protocols Spur Worldwide Rumblings



Taiwan snapped its border shut to U.S. beef hours after Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced that a false-negative test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy had been confirmed as positive by a British laboratory. Japan's initial reaction was moderate, but after discovering more details about the evidently bungled testing protocols USDA has used, demanded full records of the tests that took place last fall.

Meanwhile, leading U.S. newspapers published scathing attacks on USDA for, among other things, mingling the parts of the suspect animal with parts from other animals from different herds; freezing the remains, which makes detection more difficult; and failing to order the most definitive test on the market, the Western blot test.

But the blockbuster came from the New York Times, which reported on Sunday that USDA had actually received a positive result from an experimental test protocol, but chose not to report that result. "Until Friday, it was not public knowledge that an 'experimental' test had been performed by an Agriculture Department laboratory on the brain of a cow suspected of having mad cow disease, and the test had come up positive," the newspaper reported. USDA claimed that this result was never reported to Washington from the laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

Taiwan reinstitutes beef ban, Japan demands details

Taiwan Premier Frank Hsieh immediately ordered an end to imports of American beef upon hearing the report about the positive test of the animal, now believed to be a beef animal from Texas. He said, however, that existing supplies of U.S. beef could continue to be sold.

Members of Taiwan's parliament immediately launched a lawsuit against the country's health department chief, Hou Sheng-Mao, demanding that he remove the U.S. beef from the marketplace.

"Hou was suspected of using his authority to benefit U.S. beef importers and markets," one legislator said. Another demanded that Hou resign immediately.

If it turns out that the latest reported case of BSE involves an animal born in the U.S., Japan says "the planned resumption of U.S. beef imports will likely be delayed," Asia Pulse reported Monday.

Japan plans to demand full details about the animal and USDA testing procedures, the news service said. Japanese officials had initially said that the discovery made no difference in their deliberations, since they expected at least a handful of cases would be found eventually in the U.S. herd.

U.S. will change testing protocols, reconsider surveillance strategy

In an Associated Press interview, Dr. John Clifford, USDA's chief veterinarian, said that test results were delayed because the animal in question was misidentified by breed, perhaps due to feces discoloring its hide, and its body parts were mixed with remains of other cattle. When USDA initially tried to trace the animal, the farmer said that it couldn't be his, because he raised a different breed of cattle. USDA believes it has now identified the animal's home herd and is using DNA testing on presumed herd mates to confirm that.

Johanns said that in light of the testing failure, USDA will consult with international and U.S. authorities to develop a more effective set of protocols, probably involving the Western blot test to settle any ambiguous situations. He also said that in light of the discovery of what is presumed to be a native animal, the department will reconsider its plan to scale back surveillance testing of high-risk animals. Several critics have suggested that USDA begin checking younger, asymptomatic cattle as well as older, symptomatic animals to get a true picture of the prevalence of BSE in the herd.

Johanns said that Inspector General Phyllis Fong ordered the retests with the Western blot three weeks ago without his knowledge, and he was unaware of the testing until it was underway. The day before the initial positive result was reported, on June 9, Johanns was asked by Meatingplace.com why the department refused to use the Western blot. Johanns replied that, despite the previous policy that called the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test the "gold standard" in BSE testing, there are "two gold standards," but USDA had decided to go with IHC testing for consistency's sake. In December 2003, when the first U.S. case of BSE was detected, USDA used the Western blot to confirm it.





Source: Pete Hisey, Meatingplace.com
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Mike wrote:

In an Associated Press interview, Dr. John Clifford, USDA's chief veterinarian, said that test results were delayed because the animal in question was misidentified by breed, perhaps due to feces discoloring its hide, and its body parts were mixed with remains of other cattle. When USDA initially tried to trace the animal, the farmer said that it couldn't be his, because he raised a different breed of cattle. USDA believes it has now identified the animal's home herd and is using DNA testing on presumed herd mates to confirm that.

Misidentified because the animal was covered in feaces covering its hide???? As I look at a herd of cattle, I notice that the animals, for the most part, have some poop on their butts, but only on their butts and not too much at that! So, in light of the average animal having such a small amount of poop usually just under the tail and perhaps on their butts, how is it even possible to misidentify a breed due to the typical poop coverage?? I have yet to see an animal completely covered in poop to a point where it is not a recognizable breed!!!! But hey, any excuse will do huh?? Further to this, how is it possible for the USDA representatives on site to even misidentify by breed, let alone using that poop excuse??? Can it be that they simple do not know what a darn cow looks like or that they are holding the wrong picture by which they have to compare breeds??? :shock: :D :D :D :D :D :???: :???:

That other potential excuse - "Mixed in with other animal parts!: That brings aboard the question of "Cross Contamination" and has the USDA even bothered to consider where those other parts originated?? I doubt it. Yet they make these excuses constantly in order to placate the general public into thinking all is well. But is it??

The fact is that all trust in the USDA has now fallen through the floor of that which they call confidence and the simple fact of the matter is that the USDA has again demonstrated just how incompetent that department truly is and yet some of the folks on this board still feel they are the last word in consumer confidence!! Not I says me!! Heck, we tried to introduce the Western Blot to them 3 years ago and they wanted nothing to do with it!! Ron.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
bse-tester said:
Mike wrote:

In an Associated Press interview, Dr. John Clifford, USDA's chief veterinarian, said that test results were delayed because the animal in question was misidentified by breed, perhaps due to feces discoloring its hide, and its body parts were mixed with remains of other cattle. When USDA initially tried to trace the animal, the farmer said that it couldn't be his, because he raised a different breed of cattle. USDA believes it has now identified the animal's home herd and is using DNA testing on presumed herd mates to confirm that.

Misidentified because the animal was covered in feaces covering its hide???? As I look at a herd of cattle, I notice that the animals, for the most part, have some poop on their butts, but only on their butts and not too much at that! So, in light of the average animal having such a small amount of poop usually just under the tail and perhaps on their butts, how is it even possible to misidentify a breed due to the typical poop coverage?? I have yet to see an animal completely covered in poop to a point where it is not a recognizable breed!!!! But hey, any excuse will do huh?? Further to this, how is it possible for the USDA representatives on site to even misidentify by breed, let alone using that poop excuse??? Can it be that they simple do not know what a darn cow looks like or that they are holding the wrong picture by which they have to compare breeds??? :shock: :D :D :D :D :D :???: :???:

That other potential excuse - "Mixed in with other animal parts!: That brings aboard the question of "Cross Contamination" and has the USDA even bothered to consider where those other parts originated?? I doubt it. Yet they make these excuses constantly in order to placate the general public into thinking all is well. But is it??

The fact is that all trust in the USDA has now fallen through the floor of that which they call confidence and the simple fact of the matter is that the USDA has again demonstrated just how incompetent that department truly is and yet some of the folks on this board still feel they are the last word in consumer confidence!! Not I says me!! Heck, we tried to introduce the Western Blot to them 3 years ago and they wanted nothing to do with it!! Ron.

Yeah, but you got to remember this was the same USDA fellow that said one of the cows was a Santa Gertrubis and spelled it for the press: S-A-N-T-A G-E-R-T-R-U-B-I-S :???: :lol: :lol:

And MRJ has unwaivering, unquestioning faith in this group? :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
And MRJ has unwaivering, unquestioning faith in this group?

If I've told her once, I've told her a hundred times.............

lay off the gin and get herself a good bottle of wine.
 

flounder

Well-known member
MRJ, you might want to read this ;


Audit Report

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II

and

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III



Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006




full text 130 pages ;



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



TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

no wonder USA is not documenting any young cattle yet with mad cow disease,
hell, its a miracle USDA et al have documented any mad cow at all at this
rate ;


Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in
identifying and testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in
identifying the universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design
procedures to obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical
to the success of the BSE surveillance program. The surveillance program was
designed to target nonambulatory cattle, cattle showing signs of CNS disease
(including cattle testing negative for rabies), cattle showing signs not
inconsistent with BSE, and dead cattle. Although APHIS designed procedures
to ensure FSIS condemned cattle were sampled and made a concerted effort for
outreach to obtain targeted samples, industry practices not considered in
the design of the surveillance program reduced assurance that targeted
animals were tested for BSE. In our prior report, we recommended that APHIS
work with public health and State diagnostic laboratories to develop and
test rabies-negative samples for BSE. This target group is important for
determining the prevalence of BSE in the United States because rabies cases
exhibit clinical signs not inconsistent with BSE; a negative rabies test
means the cause of the clinical signs has not been diagnosed. Rabies
Negative Samples APHIS agreed with our recommendation and initiated an
outreach program with the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory
Diagnosticians, as well as State laboratories. APHIS also agreed to do
ongoing monitoring to ensure samples were obtained from this target
population. Although APHIS increased the samples tested from this target
group as compared to prior years, we found that conflicting APHIS
instructions on the ages of cattle to test resulted in inconsistencies in
what samples were submitted for BSE testing. Therefore, some laboratories
did not refer their rabies negative samples to APHIS in order to maximize
the number tested for this critical target population. In addition, APHIS
did not monitor the number of submissions of rabies negative samples for BSE
testing from specific laboratories. According to the Procedure Manual for
BSE Surveillance, dated October 2004, the target population includes:
Central nervous system (CNS) signs and/or rabies negative - sample animals
of any age (emphasis added): a. Diagnostic laboratories –samples submitted
due to evidence of CNS clinical signs.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 19
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 20
b. Public health laboratories – rabies negative cases. c. Slaughter
facilities – CNS ante mortem condemned at slaughter, sampled by FSIS. d.
On-the-farm – CNS cattle that do not meet the criteria for a foreign animal
disease investigation. For FYs 2002, 2003, and 2004 (through February 2004),
NVSL received 170, 133, and 45 rabies-negative samples, respectively.
Between June 1, 2004, and May 29, 2005, the number of samples received for
testing increased to 226 rabies suspect samples. The collection sites
submitting these samples follow. Collection Site Number of Rabies Suspect
Submissions * Slaughter Plant 0 Renderer 2 On-Farm 11 Public Health Lab 94
Diagnostic Lab 81 3D-4D 8 Other 4 Total 200 * 26 were tested but not counted
by APHIS towards meeting the target goals because the obex was not
submitted. We obtained a copy of a memorandum, dated July 13, 2004, that
APHIS sent to diagnostic and public health laboratories providing them
instructions on submitting samples for cattle showing signs of CNS diseases,
but testing negative for rabies. The letter was sent to about 170 State
veterinary diagnostic and public health laboratories and discussed the need
to submit specimens to NVSL of all adult cattle (emphasis added) that showed
signs of CNS diseases, but tested negative for rabies. This directive did
not specify the age of the cattle. The Procedure Manual for BSE
Surveillance, dated October 2004, specified samples of cattle of any age
should be submitted. We contacted laboratories in six States to determine if
it was standard procedure to submit all negative rabies samples to NVSL. We
found that, because of the lack of specificity in the APHIS letter and
inadequate followup by APHIS, there were inconsistencies in the age of
cattle samples submitted for BSE testing. For those States contacted, the
following samples were submitted versus tested as negative for rabies.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 21
Rabies Negative Tests Not Sent for BSE Testing Since June 1, 2004 State
Negative Rabies Tests Sent for BSE Testing Not Sent for BSE Testing
Pennsylvania a/ 33 15 18 Kansas b/ 85 69 16 Wisconsin c/ 12 1 11 South
Dakota d/ 7 0 7 Arizona e/ 5 5 0 Mississippi e/ 4 4 0 Total 146 94 52 a/ A
Pennsylvania laboratory official said only rabies negative cattle over 20
months of age were submitted for BSE testing. The laboratory did not submit
18 samples for BSE testing because the animals were less than 20 months of
age. b/ Kansas laboratory officials said early in the expanded surveillance
program, there was confusion as to the cattle ages that should be submitted
for BSE testing. They did not know if cattle should be submitted that were
above 20 months or 30 months of age. Of the 16 animals not submitted for BSE
testing, 14 were under 20 months of age from early in the expanded
surveillance program. The other two animals were not tested due to internal
laboratory issues. The Kansas and Nebraska area office officials contacted
the laboratory and told the officials to submit rabies negative cattle of
any age for BSE testing. The laboratory now submits all rabies negative
cattle for BSE testing. c/ A Wisconsin laboratory official said only rabies
negative cattle samples 30 months of age or older are submitted for BSE
testing. Of the 11 animals not submitted for BSE testing, 8 were less than
30 months of age. Wisconsin laboratory officials were not certain why the
other three samples were not submitted. d/ Laboratory officials from South
Dakota said they did not receive notification from APHIS regarding the
submission of rabies negative cases for BSE testing. The section supervisor
and laboratory director were not aware of any letter sent to the laboratory.
The section supervisor said most bovine rabies tests at the laboratory are
performed on calves. We confirmed the laboratory’s address matched the
address on APHIS’ letter distribution list. However, there was no evidence
that the South Dakota area office contacted the laboratory. The laboratory
was not listed on the documentation from the APHIS regional office detailing
the area office contacts with laboratory personnel. We contacted the South
Dakota area office and were advised that while some contact had been made
with the laboratory, the contact may have involved Brucellosis rather than
BSE. On May 4, 2005, the area office
advised us they recently contacted the laboratory regarding the submission
of rabies negative samples for BSE testing. e/ Arizona and Mississippi
laboratory officials said they submitted all rabies negative samples for BSE
testing regardless of the age of the animal. An NVSL official stated that
APHIS is not concerned with rabies negatives samples from cattle less than
30 months of age. This position, however, is contrary to APHIS’ published
target population. Our prior audit recognized the significant challenge for
APHIS to obtain samples from some high-risk populations because of the
inherent problems with obtaining voluntary compliance and transporting the
carcasses for testing. USDA issued rules to prohibit nonambulatory animals
(downers) from entering the food supply at inspected slaughterhouses. OIG
recommended, and the International Review Subcommittee33 emphasized, that
USDA should take additional steps to assure that facilitated pathways exist
for dead and nonambulatory cattle to allow for the collection of samples and
proper disposal of carcasses. Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005, the
APHIS database documents 27,617 samples were collected showing a reason for
submission of nonambulatory and 325,225 samples were collected with reason
of submission showing “dead.” Downers and Cattle that Died on the Farm APHIS
made extensive outreach efforts to notify producers and private
veterinarians of the need to submit and have tested animals from these
target groups. They also entered into financial arrangements with 123
renderers and other collection sites to reimburse them for costs associated
with storing, transporting, and collecting samples. However, as shown in
exhibit F, APHIS was not always successful in establishing agreements with
non-slaughter collection sites in some States. APHIS stated that agreements
do not necessarily reflect the entire universe of collection sites and that
the presentation in exhibit F was incomplete because there were many
collection sites without a payment involved or without a formal agreement.
We note that over 90 percent of the samples collected were obtained from the
123 collection sites with agreements and; therefore, we believe agreements
offer the best source to increase targeted samples in underrepresented
areas. We found that APHIS did not consider industry practices in the design
of its surveillance effort to provide reasonable assurance that cattle
exhibiting possible clinical signs consistent with BSE were tested.
Slaughter facilities do not always accept all cattle arriving for slaughter
because of their business requirements. We found that, in one State visited,
slaughter facilities pre-screened and rejected cattle (sick/down/dead/others
not meeting business
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 22
33 Report from the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and
Poultry Diseases, February 13, 2004.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 23
standards) before presentation for slaughter in areas immediately adjacent
or contiguous to the official slaughter establishment. These animals were
not inspected and/or observed by either FSIS or APHIS officials located at
the slaughter facilities. FSIS procedures state that they have no authority
to inspect cattle not presented for slaughter. Further, APHIS officials
stated they did not believe that they had the authority to go into these
sorting and/or screening areas and require that the rejected animals be
provided to APHIS for BSE sampling. Neither APHIS nor FSIS had any process
to assure that animals left on transport vehicles and/or rejected for
slaughter arrived at a collection site for BSE testing. FSIS allows
slaughter facilities to designate the area of their establishment where
federal inspection is performed; this is designated as the official
slaughter establishment.34 We observed animals that were down or dead in
pens outside the official premises that were to be picked up by renderers.
Animals that were rejected by plant personnel were transported off the
premises on the same vehicles that brought them to the plant.35 A policy
statement36 regarding BSE sampling of condemned cattle at slaughter plants
provided that effective June 1, 2004, FSIS would collect BSE samples for
testing: 1) from all cattle regardless of age condemned by FSIS upon ante
mortem inspection for CNS impairment, and 2) from all cattle, with the
exception of veal calves, condemned by FSIS upon ante mortem inspection for
any other reason. FSIS Notice 28-04, dated May 20, 2004, informed FSIS
personnel that, “FSIS will be collecting brain samples from cattle at
federally-inspected establishments for the purpose of BSE testing.” The
notice further states that, “Cattle off-loaded from the transport vehicle
onto the premises of the federally-inspected establishment (emphasis added),
whether dead or alive, will be sampled by the FSIS Public Health
Veterinarian (PHV) for BSE after the cattle have been condemned during ante
mortem inspection. In addition, cattle passing ante mortem inspection but
later found dead prior to slaughter will be condemned and be sampled by the
FSIS PHV.” 34 FSIS regulations do not specifically address the designation
of an establishment’s “official” boundaries; however, FSIS Notices 29-04
(dated May 27, 2004) and 40-04 (dated July 29, 2004) make it clear that FSIS
inspection staff are not responsible for sampling dead cattle that are not
part of the “official” premises. 35 APHIS’ area office personnel stated that
it was their understanding that some establishments in the State were not
presenting cattle that died or were down on the transport vehicle to FSIS
for ante mortem inspection. The dead and down cattle were left in the
vehicle, if possible. In rare circumstances, dead cattle may be removed from
the trailer by plant personnel to facilitate the unloading of other animals.
36 A May 20, 2004, Memorandum between the Administrators of APHIS and FSIS.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 24
APHIS has the responsibility for sampling dead cattle off-loaded onto
plant-owned property that is adjoining to, but not considered part of, the
“official premises.37 FSIS procedures38 provide that “Dead cattle that are
off-loaded to facilitate the off-loading of live animals, but that will be
re-loaded onto the transport vehicle, are not subject to sampling by FSIS.
While performing our review in one State, we reviewed the circumstances at
two slaughter facilities in the State that inspected and rejected unsuitable
cattle before the animals entered the official receiving areas of the
plants. This pre-screening activity was conducted in areas not designated by
the facility as official premises of the establishment and not under the
review or supervision of FSIS inspectors. The plant rejected all
nonambulatory and dead/dying/sick animals delivered to the establishment.
Plant personnel refused to offload any dead or downer animals to facilitate
the offloading of ambulatory animals. Plant personnel said that the driver
was responsible for ensuring nonambulatory animals were humanely euthanized
and disposing of the carcasses of the dead animals. Plant personnel informed
us that they did not want to jeopardize contracts with business partners by
allowing unsuitable animals on their slaughter premises. In the second case,
one family member owned a slaughter facility while another operated a
livestock sale barn adjacent to the slaughter facility. The slaughter
facility was under FSIS’ supervision while the sale barn was not. Cattle
sometimes arrived at the sale barn that were sick/down/dead or would die or
go down while at the sale barn. According to personnel at the sale barn,
these animals were left for the renderer to collect. The healthy ambulatory
animals that remained were marketed to many buyers including the adjacent
slaughter facility. When the slaughter facility was ready to accept the
ambulatory animals for processing, the cattle would be moved from the sale
barn to the slaughter facility where they were subject to FSIS’ inspection.
We requested the slaughter facilities to estimate the number of cattle
rejected on a daily basis (there were no records to confirm the estimates).
We visited a renderer in the area and found that the renderer had a contract
with APHIS to collect samples for BSE testing. In this case, although we
could not obtain assurance that all rejected cattle were sampled, the
renderer processed a significant number of animals, as compared to the
slaughter plants’ estimates of those rejected. Due to the close proximity
(less than 5 miles) of the renderer to the slaughter facilities, and the
premium it paid for dead cattle that were in good condition, there was a
financial incentive for transport drivers to dispose of their dead animals
at this renderer. 37 FSIS Notice 40-04, dated July 29, 2004. 38 FSIS Notice
29-04, dated May 27, 2004.
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 25
In our discussions with APHIS officials in Wisconsin and Iowa, they
confirmed that there were plants in their States that also used
pre-screening practices. On May 27, 2005, we requested APHIS and FSIS to
provide a list of all slaughter facilities that pre-screened cattle for
slaughter in locations away from the area designated as the official
slaughter facility. Along with this request, we asked for information to
demonstrate that either APHIS or FSIS confirmed there was a high likelihood
that high-risk animals were sampled at other collection sites. In response
to our request, the APHIS BSE Program Manager stated that APHIS did not have
information on slaughter plants that pre-screen or screen their animals for
slaughter suitability off their official plant premises. To their knowledge,
every company or producer that submits animals for slaughter pre-sorts or
screens them for suitability at various locations away from the slaughter
facility. For this reason, USDA focused its BSE sample collection efforts at
other types of facilities such as renderers, pet food companies, landfills,
and dead stock haulers. Further, in a letter to OIG on June 14, 2005, the
administrators of APHIS and FSIS noted the following: “…we believe that no
specific actions are necessary or appropriate to obtain reasonable assurance
that animals not presented for slaughter are being tested for BSE. There are
several reasons for our position. First, we do not believe that the practice
is in fact causing us to not test a significant enough number of animals in
our enhanced surveillance program to invalidate the overall results. Second,
OIG has concluded that because of the geographical proximity and business
relationships of the various entities involved in the case investigated,
there is reasonable assurance that a majority of the rejected cattle had
been sampled. Third, it is also important to remember that the goal of the
enhanced surveillance program is to test a sufficient number of animals to
allow us to draw conclusions about the level of BSE (if any) in the American
herd…We believe that the number we may be not testing because of the
“pre-sorting” practice does not rise to a significant level. The number of
animals tested to date has far exceeded expectations, so it is reasonable to
infer that there are few of the animals in question, or that we are testing
them at some other point in the process…APHIS estimated…there were
approximately 446,000 high risk cattle…[and APHIS has]…tested over 375,000
animals in less than 1 year. This indicated that we are missing few animals
in the high-risk population, including those that might be pre-sorted before
entering a slaughter facility’s property.” We obtained 123 APHIS sampling
agreements and contracts with firms and plotted their locations within the
United States (see exhibit F). We also analyzed the samples tested to the
BSE sampling goals allocated to each State under the prior surveillance
program. This analysis showed that there are
USDA/OIG-A/50601-10-KC Page 26
sampling gaps in two large areas of the United States where APHIS did not
have contracts with collection sites. These two areas are shown in the
following chart (Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wyoming – Group 1
and Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee – Group 2): State Original
Sampling Goal Based on (268,500 sampling goal) Samples collected as of May
31, 2005 Deficit No. of BSE Sampling Agreements/ Contracts39MT 5,076 182
4,894 2 SD 6,938 2,792 4,146 1 ND 3,616 174 3,442 0 WY 2,513 61 2,452 0 AREA
TOTAL 14,934 OK 7,792 2,407 5,385 1 AR 3,672 353 3,319 0 TN 4,938 3,050
1,888 1 LA 2,312 452 1,860 1 AREA TOTAL 12,452 APHIS notes that for the
current surveillance program, it had established regional goals and APHIS
was not trying to meet particular sampling levels in particular States.
However, we believe that it would be advantageous for APHIS to monitor
collection data and increase outreach when large geographical areas such as
the above States do not provide samples in proportion to the numbers and
types of cattle in the population. 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 39APHIS noted that
sites with agreements do not necessarily reflect the entire universe of
collection sites and at some sites APHIS collects samples with no payment
involved and no agreement in place. OIG agrees that not all collection sites
are reflected in our presentation of the 123 sites with reimbursable
agreements. OIG believes obtaining sampling agreements is one of the primary
methods available to increase sample numbers in areas with sampling gaps.
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. Recommendation 3.......


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


TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
that nice lady at bio-rad was correct when i spoke with her, it's very ''loaded and political''. ...


BIO-RAD

> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
> > Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > To:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello xxxx and Bio-Rad,
> >
> > Happy Holidays!
> >
> > I wish to ask a question about Bio-Rad and USDA BSE/TSE testing
> > and there inconclusive. IS the Bio-Rad test for BSE/TSE that
complicated,
> > or is there most likely some human error we are seeing here?
> >
> > HOW can Japan have 2 positive cows with
> > No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP- ,
> > BUT in the USA, these cows are considered 'negative'?
> >
> > IS there more politics working here than science in the USA?
> >
> > What am I missing?
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: USDA: More mad cow testing will demonstrate beef's safety
> > Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:19 -0600
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > snip...end
> >
> >
> > Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results
>
>
>
> snip...END
>
> WELL, someone did call me from Bio-Rad about this,
> however it was not xxxxxx xxxxx.
> but i had to just about take a blood oath not to reveal
> there name. IN fact they did not want me to even mention
> this, but i feel it is much much to important. I have omitted
> any I.D. of this person, but thought I must document this ;
>
> Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04
>
> Finally spoke with ;
>
>
> Bio-Rad Laboratories
> 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
> Hercules, CA 94547
> Ph: 510-741-6720
> Fax: 510-741-5630
> Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant
> phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA
> and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem
> to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak
> directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB.
> X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation
> of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries
> do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X
> I understood that it was a very loaded question and X
> agreed several times over and even said a political one.
>
> my question;
>
> Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive,
> without WB, and considering the new
> atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???
>
> ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch
> and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not
> want any of this recorded or repeated.
>
> again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of
> retaliation, but again said X tell
> me what other countries are doing and finding, and that
> i should take it from there.
> "very difficult to answer"
>
> "very political"
>
> "very loaded question"
>
> outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in
> house WB, SAF, along with
> IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several
> talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS
> NEGATIVE. again, look what
> the rest of the world is doing.
> said something about Dr. Houston stating;
> any screening assay, always a chance for human
> error. but with so many errors (i am assuming
> X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false
> positives?
> said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were
> positive''. ...
>
>
> TSS
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Your questions
> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
> From: To: [email protected]
>
>
>
> Hi Terry:
>
> ............................................snip Let me know your phone
> number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test.
> Thank you
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Bio-Rad Laboratories
> 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
> Hercules, CA 94547
> Ph: 510-741-6720
> Fax: 510-741-5630
> Email: =================================
>
>
> END...TSS
>
>
> ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
##########


ONE final comment tonight, i just cannot take anymore. well, ill just let the facts speak for themselves, no need to even comment ;


Section 2. Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Controls

In November 2004, USDA announced that its rapid screening test, Bio-Rad Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), produced an inconclusive BSE test result as part of its enhanced BSE surveillance program. The ELISA rapid screening test performed at a BSE contract laboratory produced three high positive reactive results.40 As required,41 the contract laboratory forwarded the inconclusive sample to the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for confirmatory testing. NVSL repeated the ELISA testing and again produced three high positive reactive results.42 In accordance with its established protocol, NVSL ran its confirmatory test, an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, which was interpreted as negative for BSE. In addition, NVSL performed a histological43 examination of the tissue and did not detect lesions44 consistent with BSE.

Faced with conflicting results, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded no further testing was necessary because testing protocols were followed. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision not to do additional testing because the IHC is internationally recognized as the "gold standard." Also, they believed that conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA’s established testing protocols.


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


NOW, what did Dr. Detwiler try to tell them back a few years ago, around about the time before she ........ retired



USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip.............


Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip...


FULL TEXT;


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado


2005


National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Testing Summary

The BSE enhanced surveillance program involves the use of a rapid screening test, followed by confirmatory testing for any samples that come back "inconclusive." The weekly summary below captures all rapid tests conducted as part of the enhanced surveillance effort. It should be noted that since the enhanced surveillance program began, USDA has also conducted approximately 9,200 routine IHC tests on samples that did not first undergo rapid testing.


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse_testing/test_results.html


TSS
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Published in the Green Sheet, Aberdeen, SD, June 30 issue.

USDA's Enhanced BSE Surveillance Program continues to test targeted animals identified as most likely to have the disease. Since June 1, 2004, the program has tested 735,318 cattle , finding only two confirmed cases, evidence that our safeguards are working and the prevalence of BSE in the USA is extremely low. Testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at at rate of 1 in 10,000,000 adult cattle at a 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL.

MRJ

MRJ, after reading the replies on this post, do you still hold to the USDA's propaganda you posted? Does the Japanese consumer?

Perhaps it is easy to fool someone in the Dakotas or easy to find a fool in the Dakotas.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period.

We NEED a Any age BSE test NOW .............
 

Latest posts

Top