Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
ANIMAL HEALTH REPORT 2006 (BSE h-BASE EVENT IN ALABAMA)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="flounder" data-source="post: 485685" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States </p><p></p><p>Prepared by </p><p>Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health </p><p>National Surveillance Unit </p><p>April 27, 2006 </p><p></p><p></p><p>DRAFT </p><p></p><p>DRAFT DRAFT </p><p></p><p>4 </p><p></p><p>Executive Summary </p><p></p><p>The United States has conducted bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) surveillance </p><p>with increasing intensity since 1990, including an enhanced effort following the </p><p>identification of a Canadian cow that tested positive in 2003 (APHIS 2006). The goal of </p><p>this analysis is to estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States using surveillance </p><p>data that have been collected over the 7-year period prior to March 17, 2006; this </p><p>surveillance timeframe reflects World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines, </p><p>which suggest determining prevalence over a 7-year period. This information will help </p><p>guide and support future requests for consideration of the overall BSE status of the </p><p>United States. This report is considered a draft and will undergo peer review. Moreover, </p><p>in the interest of transparency, this information will also be made publicly available on </p><p>the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. </p><p></p><p>Among the 735,213 cattle sampled in the 7 years prior to March 17, 2006, two infected </p><p>indigenous animals were identified by the surveillance in addition to the 2003 imported </p><p>cow from Canada. The results of this analysis suggest that the number of infected cattle </p><p>in the United States is very low. </p><p></p><p>We estimated the prevalence using two methods. The first estimate is from the BSurvE </p><p>model (Wilesmith et al., 2004) and is based only on surveillance testing data with no </p><p>additional information about an effective feed ban. The second method, the Bayesian </p><p>Birth Cohort model (BBC), was suggested by Vose Consulting in an independent review </p><p>of the analysis1 and uses the point assignments (sample's information value) from the </p><p>BSurvE model. It assumes that the U.S. feed ban implemented in 1997 was at least as </p><p>effective as a feed ban initiated by the United Kingdom (UK) in 1988 and that prevalence </p><p>in the United States would decline proportionately. The mathematical techniques used in </p><p>this method combine the surrogate UK feed ban effectiveness with U.S. surveillance data </p><p>to provide a more precise estimation of the expected prevalence in the United States. </p><p>The most likely value (with upper and lower confidence levels) for the estimated number </p><p>of BSE infected cattle from the two models was 4(1 , (BBC) and 7(3 , 24) (BSurvE) in </p><p>a population of approximately 42 million adult cattle. The results, including upper </p><p>bounds of both methods, support a conclusion that the prevalence of BSE in the United </p><p>States is less than 1 infected animal per million adults. </p><p></p><p>The data were re-analyzed to determine the sensitivity of the prevalence estimate to: </p><p></p><p>1. The BSurvE algorithm and its assumptions, </p><p></p><p>2. Inclusion of additional cases (for example, the Canadian origin animal) with the </p><p>same amount of negative surveillance, and </p><p></p><p>3. Alternatives for assumptions and input parameters to the BSurvE model. </p><p>In each case, the magnitude of change due to the uncertain parameters was not substantial </p><p>and did not change the conclusion that the prevalence of BSE is less than 1 BSE infected </p><p>animal per million adult cattle. The upper and lower bounds from these analyses were 1 </p><p>to 30 infected animals. Further, when as many as 5 BSE cases (2 indigenous and 3 </p><p>hypothetical) were included in the surveillance data but no additional negatives, the </p><p>conclusion remained robust with an upper bound (95th percentile) of 40. </p><p></p><p></p><p>DRAFT </p><p>DRAFT DRAFT </p><p>6 </p><p>Introduction ... snip ... END </p><p></p><p></p><p>SEE FULL TEXT 43 PAGES ; </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/content/printable_version/BSEprevalence-estimate4-26-06.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... -26-06.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>i would take this with a grain of salt. just like the original Harvard BSE risk assessment that was so terribly flawed. check out the peer review of the original Harvard risk assessment. then add to that all the OIG and GAO reports trying to keep them in line, and you have another biased i.e. 'loaded' assessment, </p><p>to say the least, and when i say loaded, it's loaded in their favor i.e. minimal guesstimate of home grown BSE/BASE/? cases. i find it amazing the USA has </p><p>some kind of mad cow resistant bovines, and that they are simply not finding any, after those two h-BASE atypical BSE cases were found in Texas and Alabama, </p><p>and this after leaving the suspect mad cow samples to sit on a shelf for 7+ plus months all the while certifying GWs and the OIE BSE MRR policy. daaa. then to think of the stumbling and staggering mad cow suspect that they did manage to cover up in Texas, the credibility of the USDA et al is as about as near nothing as it gets. ...tss </p><p></p><p></p><p>[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine </p><p>Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) </p><p></p><p>MY comments/questions are as follows ; </p><p></p><p>1. SINCE the first Harvard BSE Risk Assessment was so flawed and fraught with error after the PEER REVIEW </p><p>assessment assessed this fact, how do you plan on stopping this from happening again, will there be another peer </p><p>review with top TSE Scientist, an impartial jury so-to-speak, to assess this new and updated Harvard BSE/TSE risk </p><p>assessment and will this assessment include the Atypical TSE and SRM issues ? </p><p></p><p>*** Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002 *** </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 0011-1.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>SEE FAILURES ; </p><p></p><p>Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle </p><p>Still Remain Our prior report identified a number of inherent problems in </p><p>identifying and testing high-risk cattle. We reported that the challenges in </p><p>identifying the universe of high-risk cattle, as well as the need to design </p><p>procedures to obtain an appropriate representation of samples, was critical </p><p>to the success of the BSE surveillance program. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>[GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses </p><p>Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness </p><p>Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY </p><p></p><p><a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao" target="_blank">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... s/data/gao</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>January 2002 </p><p>MAD COW DISEASE Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>February 2005 </p><p>MAD COW DISEASE </p><p>FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has </p><p>Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses </p><p>Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05101.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05101.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Tuesday, January 1, 2008 </p><p>BSE OIE USDA </p><p></p><p><a href="http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/01/bse-oie-usda.html" target="_blank">http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -usda.html</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA </p><p></p><p><a href="http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 485685, member: 3519"] An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States Prepared by Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health National Surveillance Unit April 27, 2006 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 4 Executive Summary The United States has conducted bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) surveillance with increasing intensity since 1990, including an enhanced effort following the identification of a Canadian cow that tested positive in 2003 (APHIS 2006). The goal of this analysis is to estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States using surveillance data that have been collected over the 7-year period prior to March 17, 2006; this surveillance timeframe reflects World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines, which suggest determining prevalence over a 7-year period. This information will help guide and support future requests for consideration of the overall BSE status of the United States. This report is considered a draft and will undergo peer review. Moreover, in the interest of transparency, this information will also be made publicly available on the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. Among the 735,213 cattle sampled in the 7 years prior to March 17, 2006, two infected indigenous animals were identified by the surveillance in addition to the 2003 imported cow from Canada. The results of this analysis suggest that the number of infected cattle in the United States is very low. We estimated the prevalence using two methods. The first estimate is from the BSurvE model (Wilesmith et al., 2004) and is based only on surveillance testing data with no additional information about an effective feed ban. The second method, the Bayesian Birth Cohort model (BBC), was suggested by Vose Consulting in an independent review of the analysis1 and uses the point assignments (sample’s information value) from the BSurvE model. It assumes that the U.S. feed ban implemented in 1997 was at least as effective as a feed ban initiated by the United Kingdom (UK) in 1988 and that prevalence in the United States would decline proportionately. The mathematical techniques used in this method combine the surrogate UK feed ban effectiveness with U.S. surveillance data to provide a more precise estimation of the expected prevalence in the United States. The most likely value (with upper and lower confidence levels) for the estimated number of BSE infected cattle from the two models was 4(1 , (BBC) and 7(3 , 24) (BSurvE) in a population of approximately 42 million adult cattle. The results, including upper bounds of both methods, support a conclusion that the prevalence of BSE in the United States is less than 1 infected animal per million adults. The data were re-analyzed to determine the sensitivity of the prevalence estimate to: 1. The BSurvE algorithm and its assumptions, 2. Inclusion of additional cases (for example, the Canadian origin animal) with the same amount of negative surveillance, and 3. Alternatives for assumptions and input parameters to the BSurvE model. In each case, the magnitude of change due to the uncertain parameters was not substantial and did not change the conclusion that the prevalence of BSE is less than 1 BSE infected animal per million adult cattle. The upper and lower bounds from these analyses were 1 to 30 infected animals. Further, when as many as 5 BSE cases (2 indigenous and 3 hypothetical) were included in the surveillance data but no additional negatives, the conclusion remained robust with an upper bound (95th percentile) of 40. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 6 Introduction ... snip ... END SEE FULL TEXT 43 PAGES ; [url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/content/printable_version/BSEprevalence-estimate4-26-06.pdf]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_ ... -26-06.pdf[/url] i would take this with a grain of salt. just like the original Harvard BSE risk assessment that was so terribly flawed. check out the peer review of the original Harvard risk assessment. then add to that all the OIG and GAO reports trying to keep them in line, and you have another biased i.e. 'loaded' assessment, to say the least, and when i say loaded, it's loaded in their favor i.e. minimal guesstimate of home grown BSE/BASE/? cases. i find it amazing the USA has some kind of mad cow resistant bovines, and that they are simply not finding any, after those two h-BASE atypical BSE cases were found in Texas and Alabama, and this after leaving the suspect mad cow samples to sit on a shelf for 7+ plus months all the while certifying GWs and the OIE BSE MRR policy. daaa. then to think of the stumbling and staggering mad cow suspect that they did manage to cover up in Texas, the credibility of the USDA et al is as about as near nothing as it gets. ...tss [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) MY comments/questions are as follows ; 1. SINCE the first Harvard BSE Risk Assessment was so flawed and fraught with error after the PEER REVIEW assessment assessed this fact, how do you plan on stopping this from happening again, will there be another peer review with top TSE Scientist, an impartial jury so-to-speak, to assess this new and updated Harvard BSE/TSE risk assessment and will this assessment include the Atypical TSE and SRM issues ? *** Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002 *** [url=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf]http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf[/url] [url=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf]http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments ... 0011-1.pdf[/url] SEE FAILURES ; 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. [url=http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf]http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf[/url] [GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY [url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao]http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... s/data/gao[/url] January 2002 MAD COW DISEASE Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts [url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf]http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf[/url] February 2005 MAD COW DISEASE FDA’s Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness [url=http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf]http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05101high.pdf[/url] [url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05101.pdf]http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05101.pdf[/url] Tuesday, January 1, 2008 BSE OIE USDA [url=http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/01/bse-oie-usda.html]http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -usda.html[/url] BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA [url=http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/]http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/[/url] TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
ANIMAL HEALTH REPORT 2006 (BSE h-BASE EVENT IN ALABAMA)
Top