|
| Author |
Message |
Tam
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 10405
Location: Sask
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Bill wrote: |
| Murgen wrote: |
| Testing steers for a sperm count is useless! |
R-Klan called for increased testing on June 7th of what year Sandhusker?
Where were their statememnts or cries of outrage when USDA said they were REDUCING testing? Nonexistant. They don't want an increase in testing in the US any more than the packers do because they will find more!
One passing comment is nothing more than like winking at a pretty girl. If you want something to actually happen you have to follow through to be taken seriously. |
If some of you Canucks ever got a hankering to actually find out what R-CALF said and/or advocates, all you have to do is check out the website. |
From R-CALF's website Jan 2006
| Quote: |
“The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of that country’s cattle herd,” he continued. “Canada has only tested approximately 90,000 head since the discovery of their first case of BSE in 2003, and even after discovering four confirmed cases of BSE, Canada tested only 57,000 cattle in all of 2005, an amount insufficient to meet the minimal testing requirements recommended by the OIE.
“The U.S. meets this recommendation, while Canada does not,” noted Bullard. “Not only is Canada not testing the minimal number of cattle for a country not yet affected by BSE, but in addition, Canada should be testing a much greater number of cattle, given the multiple cases of BSE already identified in cattle of Canadian origin. Every other country in the world that has detected multiple cases of BSE has implemented a mandatory testing program to test every animal over 30 months of age.” |
Question Sandhusker where did Bill come up with the OIE recommendation of 187,000 for a country that has not yet identified any cases come from? WHAT YEAR DID THE US MEET THE 187,000 testing numbers? And where was Bill asking for increased testing in the USA?
Year U.S. numbers
1992 ---251
1993 --- 736
1994 ----692
1995 ----744
1996 --- 1,143
1997 --- 2,713
1998 --- 1,080
1999 ----1,302
2000 ----2,681
2001 ---- 5,272
2002 ---- 19,990
2003 ---- 20,543
2004 ----- 176,468
2005 You found BSE so the "not yet identified" qualification stopped.
Jan 2006 Bill Bullard made the statement so again what year did the US meet the OIE recommendation?
And has the US implemented testing everything over 30 months now that they have multiple cases of BSE? Has Bill asked for it?
Leo McDonnell said “We test annually over 150,000 more cattle than Canada tests.”
Sandhusker what years did the US test 150,000 more cattle than Canada tested? And where has Leo asked for additional US testing?
See what you find when you have a hankering to look at the R-CALF web site. MORE LIES. and begging and pleaded for members to top up the legal fund. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 27190
Location: Northeast Montana
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bill
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2067
Location: GWN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18481
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know, Tam, you've got a talent for misunderstanding simple comments. You should of been a lawyer. Why do we always go thru this?
Bill is talking on whether or not Canada tested 187K. You didn't. In 2005 - the last complete year he had data on as he made the comment in 2006 - we did.
He didn't claim that we had been meeting it in prior years, as you are trying to peg on him to manufacture a lie. He made no mention at all of prior years. He said 6 words,“The U.S. meets this recommendation" and at the time that he said it, we did.
When I suggested that you folks needed to visit the website, I didn't think that some of you would need an interpreter.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
flounder
Rancher
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2790
Location: TEXAS
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tam wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Bill wrote: |
| Murgen wrote: |
| Testing steers for a sperm count is useless! |
R-Klan called for increased testing on June 7th of what year Sandhusker?
Where were their statememnts or cries of outrage when USDA said they were REDUCING testing? Nonexistant. They don't want an increase in testing in the US any more than the packers do because they will find more!
One passing comment is nothing more than like winking at a pretty girl. If you want something to actually happen you have to follow through to be taken seriously. |
If some of you Canucks ever got a hankering to actually find out what R-CALF said and/or advocates, all you have to do is check out the website. |
From R-CALF's website Jan 2006
| Quote: |
“The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of that country’s cattle herd,” he continued. “Canada has only tested approximately 90,000 head since the discovery of their first case of BSE in 2003, and even after discovering four confirmed cases of BSE, Canada tested only 57,000 cattle in all of 2005, an amount insufficient to meet the minimal testing requirements recommended by the OIE.
“The U.S. meets this recommendation, while Canada does not,” noted Bullard. “Not only is Canada not testing the minimal number of cattle for a country not yet affected by BSE, but in addition, Canada should be testing a much greater number of cattle, given the multiple cases of BSE already identified in cattle of Canadian origin. Every other country in the world that has detected multiple cases of BSE has implemented a mandatory testing program to test every animal over 30 months of age.” |
Question Sandhusker where did Bill come up with the OIE recommendation of 187,000 for a country that has not yet identified any cases come from? WHAT YEAR DID THE US MEET THE 187,000 testing numbers? And where was Bill asking for increased testing in the USA?
Year U.S. numbers
1992 ---251
1993 --- 736
1994 ----692
1995 ----744
1996 --- 1,143
1997 --- 2,713
1998 --- 1,080
1999 ----1,302
2000 ----2,681
2001 ---- 5,272
2002 ---- 19,990
2003 ---- 20,543
2004 ----- 176,468
2005 You found BSE so the "not yet identified" qualification stopped.
Jan 2006 Bill Bullard made the statement so again what year did the US meet the OIE recommendation?
And has the US implemented testing everything over 30 months now that they have multiple cases of BSE? Has Bill asked for it?
Leo McDonnell said “We test annually over 150,000 more cattle than Canada tests.”
Sandhusker what years did the US test 150,000 more cattle than Canada tested? And where has Leo asked for additional US testing?
See what you find when you have a hankering to look at the R-CALF web site. MORE LIES. and begging and pleaded for members to top up the legal fund. |
hi tam,
just a few pointers with those figures of the infamous usda enhanced bse cover-up
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r
*** Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle Still Remain
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
TSS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bill
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2067
Location: GWN
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flounder wrote: |
| Tam wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Bill wrote: |
| Murgen wrote: |
| Testing steers for a sperm count is useless! |
R-Klan called for increased testing on June 7th of what year Sandhusker?
Where were their statememnts or cries of outrage when USDA said they were REDUCING testing? Nonexistant. They don't want an increase in testing in the US any more than the packers do because they will find more!
One passing comment is nothing more than like winking at a pretty girl. If you want something to actually happen you have to follow through to be taken seriously. |
If some of you Canucks ever got a hankering to actually find out what R-CALF said and/or advocates, all you have to do is check out the website. |
From R-CALF's website Jan 2006
| Quote: |
“The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommends that nations that have not yet identified any cases of BSE should test at least 187,000 cattle consecutively just to determine if they have the disease, regardless of the size of that country’s cattle herd,” he continued. “Canada has only tested approximately 90,000 head since the discovery of their first case of BSE in 2003, and even after discovering four confirmed cases of BSE, Canada tested only 57,000 cattle in all of 2005, an amount insufficient to meet the minimal testing requirements recommended by the OIE.
“The U.S. meets this recommendation, while Canada does not,” noted Bullard. “Not only is Canada not testing the minimal number of cattle for a country not yet affected by BSE, but in addition, Canada should be testing a much greater number of cattle, given the multiple cases of BSE already identified in cattle of Canadian origin. Every other country in the world that has detected multiple cases of BSE has implemented a mandatory testing program to test every animal over 30 months of age.” |
Question Sandhusker where did Bill come up with the OIE recommendation of 187,000 for a country that has not yet identified any cases come from? WHAT YEAR DID THE US MEET THE 187,000 testing numbers? And where was Bill asking for increased testing in the USA?
Year U.S. numbers
1992 ---251
1993 --- 736
1994 ----692
1995 ----744
1996 --- 1,143
1997 --- 2,713
1998 --- 1,080
1999 ----1,302
2000 ----2,681
2001 ---- 5,272
2002 ---- 19,990
2003 ---- 20,543
2004 ----- 176,468
2005 You found BSE so the "not yet identified" qualification stopped.
Jan 2006 Bill Bullard made the statement so again what year did the US meet the OIE recommendation?
And has the US implemented testing everything over 30 months now that they have multiple cases of BSE? Has Bill asked for it?
Leo McDonnell said “We test annually over 150,000 more cattle than Canada tests.”
Sandhusker what years did the US test 150,000 more cattle than Canada tested? And where has Leo asked for additional US testing?
See what you find when you have a hankering to look at the R-CALF web site. MORE LIES. and begging and pleaded for members to top up the legal fund. |
hi tam,
just a few pointers with those figures of the infamous usda enhanced bse cover-up
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r
*** Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle Still Remain
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
TSS |
.........and the R-Klanners ae silent!
What say you Sandhusker, Oldtimer and the rest of the merry R-klowns?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 27190
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill- Go read like Sandhusker said-- and you will find from day one that R-CALF has called for increased testing instead of the USDA reduced testing policy-- and have called for private enterprise (Creekstone, etal) to be allowed to test like is being done in England, Europe, and Japan.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18481
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd say he's probably right.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
bse-tester
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 517
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: TimH |
|
|
TimH wrote & quoted:
| Quote: |
Oldtimer wrote:
TimH wrote:
Oldtimer wrote:
TimH wrote:
Oldtimer wrote:
Quote:
Hey Oldtimer, I'll bet that if you asked your buddy Flounder, real nice, he would be more than happy to re-post all of the American feed-ban violations and re-calls that have occured.
Whats the difference between "Canuck" science and USDA(safest beef in the world) science, Dick???
A whole bunch of Canucks on here saying that CFIA/USDA/OIE's science of prion transmission/SRM removal is wrong.....
You can't have it both ways.....
The POST feedban cattle (as young as 50 months old) shows that it isn't working.....
Who, other than Ron(buy my test kit)bse-testerArnold ever said that SRM removal is wrong????
Well kaiser- Kathy- and in cheerleader Bill for starters all believe it isn't transmitted by prions or by eating it-- so what good is SRM removal if its radioactive meat/cattle that transmit it by exposure
Well, that's interesting. I don't think that anyone but Ron(the pee-pee tester) said that srm removal was wrong, however.
Let's take a short-cut here OT. What is the official Dick/R-calf position on just how bse is transmitted??? |
I have stated that the removal of SRM makes little or no difference since the rest of the animal will most certainly harbour PrPsc. SRM removal was, is and remains, a smoke and mirror campaign to appease the masses and to placate the political apsect of meat marketing in my opinion and please do not lump me in with the rest of your discussion regarding what other Canadians do or do not know or even suggest.
For the record, I do think that SRM removal is a waste of time if the animal is proven to be BSE positive. SRM removal from animals that test negative is also a waste of time. SRM removal from an animal that has not been tested is a consumate waste of time since nobody can be sure what the status [BSE] of that animal is to begin with!!!
Have fun with that Timmy boy, I am sure you will.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18481
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Bill- Go read like Sandhusker said-- and you will find from day one that R-CALF has called for increased testing instead of the USDA reduced testing policy-- and have called for private enterprise (Creekstone, etal) to be allowed to test like is being done in England, Europe, and Japan..... |
They don't care, OT. They just want to squak. R-CALF is the boogy man for them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bill
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2067
Location: GWN
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Bill- Go read like Sandhusker said-- and you will find from day one that R-CALF has called for increased testing instead of the USDA reduced testing policy-- and have called for private enterprise (Creekstone, etal) to be allowed to test like is being done in England, Europe, and Japan..... |
.....and as has been pointed out time and time again that they were and remain absolutely SILENT since the two home grown positive BSE cases and USDA announced they were reducing testing.
I guess using one of your own common phrases that would tell us that R-Klan is ALSO in bed with USDA, NCBA and the packers on this one.
Maybe one of y'all should bring forth an official RESOLUTION to the upcoming meeting of the R-Klanners to pressure USDA to CHANGE its plans and actually increase BSE testing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18481
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Bill- Go read like Sandhusker said-- and you will find from day one that R-CALF has called for increased testing instead of the USDA reduced testing policy-- and have called for private enterprise (Creekstone, etal) to be allowed to test like is being done in England, Europe, and Japan..... |
.....and as has been pointed out time and time again that they were and remain absolutely SILENT since the two home grown positive BSE cases and USDA announced they were reducing testing.
I guess using one of your own common phrases that would tell us that R-Klan is ALSO in bed with USDA, NCBA and the packers on this one.
Maybe one of y'all should bring forth an official RESOLUTION to the upcoming meeting of the R-Klanners to pressure USDA to CHANGE its plans and actually increase BSE testing. |
R-CALF said they were for increased testing. We're in favor of Creekstone. Only an idiot wouldn't be able to figure out what our policy on testing is.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God only knows what theories your chicken head has dreamed up