Voluntary BSE testing for animals over 20 months

[Mike]

So Tam, I guess you know more than this guy:

Prusiner also contends that the rapid diagnostic tests, which are proving useful in the mass screenings in Europe and Japan, still have limitations. They depend on dangerous prions accumulating to detectable amounts – quite often relatively high levels in an animal's brain. Yet, because BSE often takes three to five years to develop, most slaughter-age cattle, which tend to be younger than two years, usually do not test positive, even if they are infected.
According to Prusiner, because of the limitations of the existing tests, developing one that is able to detect prions in the bulk of the beef supply – that is, asymptomatic young animals destined for slaughter—continues to be one of the most important weapons in confronting prion disease outbreaks.
"Given that seemingly healthy animals can potentially carry pathogenic prions, I believe that testing all slaughtered animals is the only rational policy," Prusiner told Scientific American in the July issue. "Until now, the tests have been inadequately sensitive. But the advent of rapid, sensitive tests means universal screening can be the norm. I see no other option for adequately protecting the human food supply."
If the market (Japan) demands it, and customers are willing to pay for it, then we should be allowed to do it. Our goal is to quickly help open up the Japanese market. Our decision is similar to some rancher's decisions to sell organic or natural beef. Certain customers will pay for it even though there is no scientific evidence that "natural" or "organic" beef is healthier than conventionally produced beef. This, combined with the fact that not enough is known about prion diseases, is reason enough to allow for private testing above and beyond USDA plans.
If more were known about the science of prion diseases in animals and humans, a more balanced and acceptable science-based regulatory approach might be attainable. In the absence of such knowledge, when a Nobel Prize-winning researcher, one of the most respected authorities on prion disease in the world, believes in 100 percent universal testing, then perhaps that's justification enough for the USDA to allow Creekstone Farms to test.

Hey Tam, Guess who was the keynote speaker at the OIE/TSE Conference last year?

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
The Japanese feel that 100% is part of a SCIENTIFIC PROCESS TO ENSURE FOOD SAFETY.

Tam, "What percentage feel this Rod. If the majority of the Japanese GOVERNMENT felt that way then why would they agree to drop their own under twenty month testing. See this is the problem I have with what you say Rod the Japanese Governments actions don't seem to match what you say."

There's been several polls posted on this site showing the vast majority of customers in Japan want tested beef.

Why do you think the Japanese Government dropped their testing requirements, Tam? I think if you consider their actions lately, I think Rod is right on.

Quote:
They are not asking for something at the drop of a hat, nor are they asking for something that has no scientific basis.

Tam, "The Japanese Government is not asking for 100% testing anymore they are asking for untested under twenty month old boneless beef of which Canada is providing it to them UNTESTED. "

They aren't asking for 20 month boneless beef. They were forced and bullied into accepting that. If that is what they wanted, they wouldn't of asked for testing. If that is what they wanted, they wouldn't be letting a little bit of bone hold up business. Figure it out, Tam.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting- The ranchersnet polls show that 81% support voluntary under twenty month testing and 84% support voluntary over twenty month testing...

From discussions with and posts on all the websites by producers from both countries I believe that is probably pretty close to being an actual feeling of all producers.... Most feel that government should have allowed the Creekstones of the world to test if they wanted to- especially when it could have opened closed markets years ago....

But Tam- as a self proclaimed so called Canadian cattlemans organization representative- will still fight against it :roll:

Been kind of par for many of the organizations that claim they represent the cattleman- we don't care what you think, we know what is good for you better than you do... Which industry do you support Tam- the producers cattle industry or Tyson/Cargills multinational corporate bank account..... :???:

 

[Tam]

Interesting- The ranchersnet polls show that 81% support voluntary under twenty month testing and 84% support voluntary over twenty month testing...

From discussions with and posts on all the websites by producers from both countries I believe that is probably pretty close to being an actual feeling of all producers.... Most feel that government should have allowed the Creekstones of the world to test if they wanted to- especially when it could have opened closed markets years ago....

But Tam- as a self proclaimed so called Canadian cattlemans organization representative- will still fight against it :roll:

Been kind of par for many of the organizations that claim they represent the cattleman- we don't care what you think, we know what is good for you better than you do... Which industry do you support Tam- the producers cattle industry or Tyson/Cargills multinational corporate bank account..... :???:

Oldtimer do these organizations not run by MAJORITY VOTE RULES?

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting- The ranchersnet polls show that 81% support voluntary under twenty month testing and 84% support voluntary over twenty month testing...

From discussions with and posts on all the websites by producers from both countries I believe that is probably pretty close to being an actual feeling of all producers.... Most feel that government should have allowed the Creekstones of the world to test if they wanted to- especially when it could have opened closed markets years ago....

But Tam- as a self proclaimed so called Canadian cattlemans organization representative- will still fight against it :roll:

Been kind of par for many of the organizations that claim they represent the cattleman- we don't care what you think, we know what is good for you better than you do... Which industry do you support Tam- the producers cattle industry or Tyson/Cargills multinational corporate bank account..... :???:

Oldtimer do these organizations not run by MAJORITY VOTE RULES?

Some do...Did all your members get a vote on this question?

 

[Mike]

do these organizations not run by MAJORITY VOTE RULES?

John and Don Tyson own the majority of voting shares! :lol: :lol:

That makes them the majority. :shock:

 

[Tam]

So Tam, I guess you know more than this guy:

Prusiner also contends that the rapid diagnostic tests, which are proving useful in the mass screenings in Europe and Japan, still have limitations. They depend on dangerous prions accumulating to detectable amounts – quite often relatively high levels in an animal's brain. Yet, because BSE often takes three to five years to develop, most slaughter-age cattle, which tend to be younger than two years, usually do not test positive, even if they are infected.
According to Prusiner, because of the limitations of the existing tests, developing one that is able to detect prions in the bulk of the beef supply – that is, asymptomatic young animals destined for slaughter—continues to be one of the most important weapons in confronting prion disease outbreaks.
"Given that seemingly healthy animals can potentially carry pathogenic prions, I believe that testing all slaughtered animals is the only rational policy," Prusiner told Scientific American in the July issue. "Until now, the tests have been inadequately sensitive. But the advent of rapid, sensitive tests means universal screening can be the norm. I see no other option for adequately protecting the human food supply."
If the market (Japan) demands it, and customers are willing to pay for it, then we should be allowed to do it. Our goal is to quickly help open up the Japanese market. Our decision is similar to some rancher's decisions to sell organic or natural beef. Certain customers will pay for it even though there is no scientific evidence that "natural" or "organic" beef is healthier than conventionally produced beef. This, combined with the fact that not enough is known about prion diseases, is reason enough to allow for private testing above and beyond USDA plans.
If more were known about the science of prion diseases in animals and humans, a more balanced and acceptable science-based regulatory approach might be attainable. In the absence of such knowledge, when a Nobel Prize-winning researcher, one of the most respected authorities on prion disease in the world, believes in 100 percent universal testing, then perhaps that's justification enough for the USDA to allow Creekstone Farms to test.

Hey Tam, Guess who was the keynote speaker at the OIE/TSE Conference last year?

Mike where did I claim any such thing? What I posted was

Testing all animals slaughtered for human consumption is not supported by science as an effective food safety measure. The removal of specified risk materials from animals at slaughter is the most effective food safety measure that can be taken.

Testing all animals is not recommended by the OIE, the world organization for animal health and international standards setting body, nor is it recommended by the majority of countries affected by BSE or the international teams of experts that reviewed the Canadian and American BSE responses.

This was taken from the CFIA website not my website and I bet if you look on the USDA website you will find the same information. So why didn't you put, So the CFIA, USDA, OIE, the officials from the majority of countries affected by BSE and the international team of EXPERTS that investgated both the US and Canada think they know more than this guy. :wink:

 

[Mike]

And you listen to the OIE, USDA, and CFIA? :???: :???:

I guess all the screw-ups the USDA made has earned them credibility with you?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Get this............the OIE, and CFIA both are pressured into submission by the USDA. And guess who rules the USDA? One guess.

Answer: Lobbyists Tam, Big Money Lobbyists from the AMI.

 

[Tam]

Interesting- The ranchersnet polls show that 81% support voluntary under twenty month testing and 84% support voluntary over twenty month testing...

From discussions with and posts on all the websites by producers from both countries I believe that is probably pretty close to being an actual feeling of all producers.... Most feel that government should have allowed the Creekstones of the world to test if they wanted to- especially when it could have opened closed markets years ago....

But Tam- as a self proclaimed so called Canadian cattlemans organization representative- will still fight against it :roll:

Been kind of par for many of the organizations that claim they represent the cattleman- we don't care what you think, we know what is good for you better than you do... Which industry do you support Tam- the producers cattle industry or Tyson/Cargills multinational corporate bank account..... :???:

Oldtimer do these organizations not run by MAJORITY VOTE RULES?

Some do...Did all your members get a vote on this question?

All those that care enough to attend a meeting did. If they care enough then they will see to it that their vote counts. If the majority wants it then the majority better make sure they are at the place where the vote is held. Polls are only as good as the one asking the question and the information that the voter has to base his/her vote on. The reason we don't use world wide web polls to make changes to our industry is who knows who is voting. We ask qualifeid voters to put their mark on a ballot after we verify that they have the right to vote. But the funny thing about most organization you have to be a member to have the right to say how that organization supports any issue. And the MAJORITY of those that care enough to show up and vote, WIN. So if there are some that think they are not being represented then maybe they should make sure their view on the issue is known and that they have the right to vote, AND BE THERE WHEN THE VOTE IS TAKEN

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

as they can be wrong under certain conditions and are to be used as a monatorying tool only?

You should re-read some of the information, not just the CFIA website (which I suspect is out of date). There are NO FALSE NEGATIVES. If it comes back negative, ITS NEGATIVE.

The Japanese have used tests to detect BSE in animals at 20 months of age. 20 months. They've got more experience with BSE than the CFIA does. I'd say you're listening to the wrong experts.

The tests that Mike posted are certified by the EU. Once again, the EU has close to 20 years of experience dealing with BSE. More than the CFIA and the USDA. If I were going to take someones word for something, it would be the scientists in the EU, not a Canadian government agency.

Your point that an animal may not be far enough along to show on the tests is a decent one, however is it better to let some positives into the food chain without even TRYING to find if they are there? Every BSE positive animal that we remove from the food chain ADDS TO SAFETY. Every last single one of them, whether they be 20 months old or 20 years old.

Have these claims of 100% effectiveness been validated?

They've been certified by the EU. The CFIA claim on their website only means that the tests haven't been certified by the CFIA.

The Japanese feel that 100% is part of a SCIENTIFIC PROCESS TO ENSURE FOOD SAFETY.

What percentage feel this Rod. If the majority of the Japanese GOVERNMENT felt that way then why would they agree to drop their own under twenty month testing. See this is the problem I have with what you say Rod the Japanese Governments actions don't seem to match what you say.

Their actions match perfectly. They're not allowing over 20 month animals in BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT BSE CAN BE DETECTED IN THOSE ANIMALS. I've also never said that BSE testing was the only way they'd allow in animals. Our tracking system and our devotion to testing a good percentage of animals has certainly helped. My arguement, backed by studies and consumer demand is that 100% BSE will open that market even wider, and you have shown no evidence to refute that.

they are asking for untested under twenty month old boneless beef of which Canada is providing it to them UNTESTED.

So why not over 20 months? They accepted over 20 months BEFORE BSE, why not now with all the SRMs removed?

As a side note, does anyone know if the level of infection in an animal isn't high enough to be detected, is it still dangerous to a human? Has anyone done any studies or posted something that I may have missed?

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Oldtimer do these organizations not run by MAJORITY VOTE RULES?

Some do...Did all your members get a vote on this question?

All those that care enough to attend a meeting did. If they care enough then they will see to it that their vote counts. If the majority wants it then the majority better make sure they are at the place where the vote is held. Polls are only as good as the one asking the question and the information that the voter has to base his/her vote on. The reason we don't use world wide web polls to make changes to our industry is who knows who is voting. We ask qualifeid voters to put their mark on a ballot after we verify that they have the right to vote. But the funny thing about most organization you have to be a member to have the right to say how that organization supports any issue. And the MAJORITY of those that care enough to show up and vote, WIN. So if there are some that think they are not being represented then maybe they should make sure their view on the issue is known and that they have the right to vote, AND BE THERE WHEN THE VOTE IS TAKEN

Tam You sound embarassed about your process :wink: :lol: I guess apparently then that your organization doesn't represent much of a percentage of the producers and definitely what the majority feel since over 80% agree with testing.....

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Tam, BMR, just out of curiosity, how many members are in the SSGA? And as a side note, one of the reasons I dislike the SSGA is the requirement of having to be at the meetings to make your vote count. Many other organizations allow proxy or mail in voting. Why not the SSGA? We can take this into a new thread, if you would prefer.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod

Your point that an animal may not be far enough along to show on the tests is a decent one, however is it better to let some positives into the food chain without even TRYING to find if they are there? Every BSE positive animal that we remove from the food chain ADDS TO SAFETY. Every last single one of them, whether they be 20 months old or 20 years old.

AMEN- If there are two safety measures and someone wants to use both- why would anyone stop them...Maybe it only catchs a few animals, maybe only one-- but that would be one more removed from the chain....

Its a NO BRAINER :roll:

 

[bse-tester]

Tam Wrote:

Now According to the industry leaders that have been having meeting since day one on this topic, the only way is to have a lab in every slaughter facility big and small to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars per. And since the test would only be recognised by our trading partners, according to the CFIA, if the CFIA oversee all testing. That means a CFIA pathologist in every lab. Now some seem to think the test will cost very little, around $20. But according to the CFIA information I recieved that cost is closer to 5 times that. $100 per test, when you consider the professional pathologist salaries, lab overhead. technology upkeep and quality assurance, to mention a few things that you forget to add to the cost of the kit. If every plant that exports beef has to build a few hundred thousand dollar lab and employ a CFIA pathologist just how many will be able to afford it? and just what go you think the cost of that lab and special personel salary is going to do to the price of the cattle we sell. And after all is said and done is the beef any safer than if we just made sure the SRM removal restrictions weren't being violated????

A couple of things need to be cleared up here. First of all, the amount of tests that can be produced each day or even every 12 hours is only limited to the amount of lab space available. Each Province can conduct testing within their own borders and not rely on a two lab theory for all of Canada. As for the CFIA and their so-called Gospel of what testing is all about - when we met with them in their offices in Winnipeg, they informed us that hey had never seen a test protocol like our period and would give their eye teeth to have it. But, their problem was and still is, the intense level of beurocratic crap that was flourishing in Ottawa under the Liberal banner. They knew that the cost per test was not an issue back in 2003 when we met with them and they understood perfectly that a BSE test could be done using a urine sample for less than CAN$20.00 per test and that is necessary, a large number of animals from a known producer could easily be batch tested - for the same darn amount of money!! An average lab with 2 or 3 technicians can easily produce 2000 tests each and every 12 hour shift but that seems to be a little mind stretching for some, so we can provide a few more techs to help out and not see an unusual amount of expenditure go too crazy. As for the costs being floated at $100.00 or more, that is pure political BS. Even Ralph Klein tried to push $300.00 per test but quickly backed up his bus to a more reasonable amount of $50.00 or less. If the information you have Tam is reflecting all of the costs as you say, please post them so we can refute them properly. But I can tell you this much - the cost of the salaries will be covered by the CAN$20 per haed testing based upon the numbers of tests being performed. I can also tell you scientifically that the removal of SRMs' is pure bunk!! The CFIA knew that they were in need of something to make the trading partners feel less tense and they offered up one hell of a smoke screen called SRM Removal. Any scientist worth his or her salt will clearly state that the removal of SRM material will only remove those parts of the animal that PrPsc tends to cluster in. The rest of the animal however will still contain enough PrPsc to be of a consumate danger to anyone who ingests it. But then, if you feel that the word of the CFIA is akin to the world of God, who am I to be blasphemous? Lastly, the cost of testing even at CAN$10 or 12 per head will cover the entire operational costs of a lab that is consistently testing even 500 -1000 head per day each and every day. Let us say that an average size lab is processing 500 tests at CAN$20 per head/test. That equates to CAN10,000 to 20,000 per day in flow through funds. Based on an average working year of 364 days per year, that equates to approximately CAN$ 3.6 Million to around CAN$7.3 Million Dollars per year in income for the lab. It is conceiable that any lab making that level of income can afford to hire the best lab techs available - anywhere in the world.

Private testing is the thing of the future and until the legacy of incompetence and bungling that seems to thrive within the halls of the USDA and the CFIA is toppled, we shall be repeating the problem of what constitutes safe testing and by whom??

Finally, the question of whether or not BSE testing is or is not all about food safety?? DAMN RIGHT IT IS!! The very fact that we saw our markets shrivel before our eyes and the losses amounting to in excess of 7 Billion Dollars in North America - due to the finding of one single cow, was all about food safety! It was the very idea that the deadly prion was found that put the fear of Christ into the market place and the market place reacted to it for a few reasons. One abviously was to stop the hypothesized spreading ability of the disease. The other was to make darn sure that no PrPsc had a chance to enter the human food chain - period!! Oh, before I forget!! Tam also asked what the cost of testing would do to the price of our beef?

The answer is simple - the cost per pound will go up about CAN$0.025 per pound based upon an 800lb animal. Half of that will be the cost of the antibody that glues the entire test together and makes it work. The market can easily embrace that amount of upcost in order to have their product BSE Tested and declared -yes, here it comes folks - BSE FREE!!! Afterall, if it tests negative, it has to be allowed the stamp that states clearly and loudly - BSE FREE Product.

 

[Jason]

I have to laugh when testing is discussed and no one considers logistics, cost to sample or hold up times. They get brief mention, but really think about it.

Live urine sample... who is going to stand under a steer and wait for him to pee? Oops missed 3 others in the pen waiting for this one. Dang dropped the container. Ouch you @#%$%$ kicked me.
Quick mark that one I got it...what number, oops.

Maybe we can stand them in chutes and wait for them to pee. I can see it now ... 20 chutes full of steers. None peeing. Wait the ones in the holding pen are peeing...

Dead test taking brain stem samples. Wait don't cut that one we haven't got the test results back yet. What do you mean the chain can't stop for a 2 hour test? Oh ok we'll kill em and hang em before we gut them and split them. What do you mean e-coli in the gut will contaminate more?

Whats the solution? Hmmmm maybe testing old 4D cows and not putting them into the food chain. Testing any animal displaying clinical symptoms no matter their age. SRM removal just in case there might be 1 prion starting to change in an animal (they collect in those areas first, even before detection may be possible).

Sounds like what is happening now... imagine that!

 

[Mike]

Live urine sample... who is going to stand under a steer and wait for him to pee? Oops missed 3 others in the pen waiting for this one. Dang dropped the container. Ouch you @#%$%$ kicked me.
Quick mark that one I got it...what number, oops.

Maybe we can stand them in chutes and wait for them to pee. I can see it now ... 20 chutes full of steers. None peeing. Wait the ones in the holding pen are peeing...

Took some bulls for lepto testing to the Large Animal Clinic at Auburn University last fall. Each bull got a shot (IM) just before he reached the squeeze chute. A student was standing by with a funnel on a long handle -with a test tube attached to the bottom of it. By the time the bull reached the chute he was peeing. Took the student longer to exchange test tubes and mark them than it took to take the sample.

Was quicker than drawing blood.

Plus, this could be done at the feedyard before the cattle are delivered to the packer.

There are many ways to skin a cat. If you want to.

 

[Jason]

So now we have a drug injected into the beef just before slaughter... one that makes him pee... I wonder if consumers will like any side effects from that one?

How much does it cost for the drug, the chute set-up, person taking the sample, the one labeling it plus the lab tech, the extra workers loading the animals in the chute, the extra dark cutters from the stress of the chute?

 

[Anonymous]

How much does it cost for the drug, the chute set-up, person taking the sample, the one labeling it plus the lab tech, the extra workers loading the animals in the chute, the extra dark cutters from the stress of the chute?

But you think it is plumb great for the International Corporate Packers/Walmarts/McDonalds of the world to require producers to hire help and spend time and money to headgate, RFID tag, pay for movement inspection readings, etc etc- not because it is for premiums, but because they have bought out the government agencies to mandate it ... Don't you think every time the animals are handled for this Corporation Pushed ID program won't cause stress and cost money? Except Jason your happy with that because its producers paying it not your Corporate buddies :???:

Do the producers that buy bulls from you know what a Corporate backer you are :???: Wouldn't last long in country where people still think independently :wink: ........

 

[Murgen]

International Corporate Packers/Walmarts/McDonalds of the world to require producers to hire help and spend time and money to headgate, RFID tag, pay for movement inspection readings, etc etc

And if voluntary testing is pushed long and hard enough, it will come to pass. Where is the logical place to do live testing, on farm!

That is why I have said in the past, that the packers will make it a requirement to sell to them, if it happens.

"As producers, you wanted this, so you can pay for it, here's your $10 premium!"

Isn't that what the packers will say to testing? If producers are saying that the packers are reaping the financial benefit of NOT testing, then logically they are also saying that it is the PRODUCER that will reap the benefits of testing. Are the producers willing to pay for that added value?

 

[Anonymous]

International Corporate Packers/Walmarts/McDonalds of the world to require producers to hire help and spend time and money to headgate, RFID tag, pay for movement inspection readings, etc etc

And if voluntary testing is pushed long and hard enough, it will come to pass. Where is the logical place to do live testing, on farm!

That is why I have said in the past, that the packers will make it a requirement to sell to them, if it happens.

"As producers, you wanted this, so you can pay for it, here's your $10 premium!"

Isn't that what the packers will say to testing? If producers are saying that the packers are reaping the financial benefit of NOT testing, then logically they are also saying that it is the PRODUCER that will reap the benefits of testing. Are the producers willing to pay for that added value?

But Murgen- Creekstone has already offered to test and pick up the cost saying their consumers will pay to cover that cost... :???: