<font color="blue"> Then we're about even on testing. .05% represents about the amount of cattle in those countries combined compared to the US.
</font color>
Come on Doc! You know more about statistics and sampling than that. [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] I've a small cow/calf operation and I believe that we're headed in the right direction in the U.S. Reaction to such issues generally is similar to the pendulum motion. Swings way to the left and right . Hope we all can find the right balance on this issue.
What I meant was that the amount of cattle slaughtered in those countries is probably about 1% of the total slaughtered in the US. If we're going to talk about # of animals tested I'm sure we're testing just as many. Also those tests are federally subsidized and funded. Thankfully our government has been rational on this. The testing from what I've been told and read is consistent with the symptoms. Also the testing is somewhat flawed as well with a very high percentage of false negatives and false positives.
<font color="blue">If we're going to talk about # of animals tested I'm sure we're testing just as many. </font color>
Doc,
To this point, I think the U.S. has acted responsibly and I sincerely hope we continue doing so. A knee jerk reaction serves to benefit none except the anti-beef folk's agenda. I suppose I was pulling your chain abit on the #s tested. An example of my point was: If the tests WERE equal, a 1000 cows tested from a population of a 1,000,000 cows would having a greater probability of detecting a problem than would a 1000 cows tested from a population of 10,000,000. This of course assumes that the samples were chosen randomly in both cases.
Reply With Quote
