So with that, I will turn it over to Secretary Veneman.

    SECRETARY VENEMAN: “Well, thank you very much, Alisa. And thank you all for joining us this afternoon. I understand from the operator that there's over 100 people on the call, so we really appreciate the continuing interest in the issues that surround BSE.

    “As Alisa Harrison indicated, we have Dr. DeHaven with us today. And he's going to provide you a more complete technical briefing on the topics that we're discussing. But I wanted to make a few opening remarks this afternoon.

    “Our team here at USDA continues to spend an incredible amount of time addressing the issue of BSE and the complex various things that we've had to deal with surrounding BSE since we determined that we had a BSE-positive case on December 23rd. Then as you all recall on December 30th, just one week after the announcement that we found BSE, I announced that we would take a series of actions including the appointment of an international scientific review panel to review USDA's investigation into the BSE find in Washington state and then provide some recommendations.

    “Last month this panel which we had operating as a Subcommittee of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases released their report. They complimented USDA on the investigative efforts and they reiterated -- and I think this is an important point -- that the removal of the specified risk materials from the animals from the food supply was the single most important action we took to protect public health in our human population.

    “The panel also recommended a temporary enhanced surveillance program. They recommended targeting greater numbers of animals from the cattle population considered at highest risk for the disease as well as a random sampling of animals from the aged cattle population.

    “We are committed to ensuring that a robust surveillance program continues in this country. We've worked hard to develop a system that will allow us to test at a higher level to determine more definitively what level of BSE is present in our system.

    “This is a fully science-based system, and it complies with the recommendation of the International Scientific Review Team. This enhanced plan will augment our aggressive measures taken over the past decade by strengthening BSE surveillance in the high-risk cattle population and establishing random surveillance in the general population.

    “As we have developed this plan we have sought further input from the expert panel as well as the International Review Team, both of which support the plan. The enhanced surveillance plan incorporates recommendations of the International Scientific Review Panel and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, both of which support the program being announced today.

    “In addition, we have worked closely with the relevant committees of Congress throughout this process including the House and Senate Agriculture Committee, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and the House Government Reform Committee in developing this robust, aggressive surveillance plan.

    “We have appreciated the interest from the committees, and they have helped us as we have developed this surveillance plan.

    “The objective for the new surveillance program is to obtain increased samples from the targeted high-risk adult cattle population and obtain a small random sample of apparently normal aged animals. This intensive effort will allow USDA to more accurately estimate the possible prevalence of BSE in the U.S. cattle population.

    “To pay for this system we will transfer approximately $70 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation. We will begin immediately to prepare for the increased testing with the anticipation that the program will be ready to be fully implemented on June 1, 2004. Testing will be conducted through USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, and through a network of laboratories across the country.

    “Now before I turn it to Dr. DeHaven I would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard to put together this surveillance plan. We continue to pursue all of the issues surrounding BSE, especially opening markets that have been closed around the world. We were very pleased with the recent announcement by Mexico that they have partially reopened their markets, and we urge our other trading partners to follow suit.

    “We are hopeful that this surveillance plan will help to assure our trading partners that we are committed to a strong BSE prevention program.

    “I will now turn this over to Dr. Ron DeHaven who has done a superb job as we've gone through this BSE situation, and he will outline the details of this plan.”

    DR. RON DEHAVEN: “Secretary Veneman, thank you very much; and we appreciate very much you being with us here today.

    “Let me retrace some of the same steps but go into more detail about this plan that we've developed.

    “Let's start by saying that our BSE surveillance program has historically over the past 14 years or so focused on cattle populations considered to be the highest risk of having the disease-- not that we think that there is a high risk in the United States but rather targeting that population because if it does exist it's most likely to occur in that high risk population of adult cattle, typically those that would be showing signs consistent with a case of BSE. That would include animals that are exhibiting central nervous system disorders, nonambulatory cattle, and those that die on the farm of unknown causes.

    “The objective for our new surveillance program is to obtain samples from as many of this targeted high-risk population as is possible as well as to obtain a random sample of the normal but older animals at slaughter. This intensive effort will allow the Department to more definitively determine if BSE exists in our national herd and, if so, accurately estimate the prevalence of the disease in the U.S. cattle population.

    “The Secretary mentioned we will immediately initiate actions to ramp up our system and expect to reach full capacity within two to three months time.

    “Again, the targeted population for this increased surveillance system would include nonambulatory cattle. That would include cattle that can neither walk nor rise from a recumbent position as well as animals that are severely weakened, and though they may be able to walk or stand it would just be for brief periods.

    “Second, cattle with central nervous system signs-- any kind of nervous disorder, and that would include animals that at public health laboratories would test negative for rabies.

    “Third, any other cattle exhibiting signs that may be associated with or consistent with a case of BSE including cattle that were condemned or euthanized or died as a result of a moribund condition, animals that are emaciated, suffer injuries or are nonambulatory.

    “And fourth, dead cattle -- any dead cattle where the specimen is of diagnostic quality and the cause of death or the clinical signs prior to death if known do not preclude it from being part of this targeted population.

    “We will be collecting those samples at a number of different locations. We do know that animals will continue to become nonambulatory en route to slaughter, and so that we would be collecting some of these samples at state or federally inspected slaughter establishments as well as custom exempt slaughter establishments. We hope to collect many on the farm, at rendering facilities, at veterinary diagnostic laboratories, at animal feed slaughter facilities-- for example, those that slaughter animals for pet food; public health laboratories that do a lot of the rabies testing, veterinary clinics or other sites that accredited veterinarians might utilize, and of course sale barns and livestock auctions.

    “And again, we will test as many of those animals, and the goal of this program is to test as many of those animals in that targeted high-risk population as possible in a 12 to 18-month period.

    “We estimate the total number of animals in that group to be approximately 446,000 on an annual basis. To ensure that the samples that are collected for BSE surveillance are geographically representative of the U.S. cattle population we will ensure collection of samples are geographically disbursed and in proportion to the adult cattle populations in each of the states.

    “Now if we assume that many if not all of the cases of BSE in the United States are present in that target or high-risk population, if we are able to collect 201,000 samples this would allow us to detect BSE with a 95 percent degree of confidence if the prevalence of the disease is just one positive cow in 10 million adult cattle.

    “Similarly, if we can collect 268,000 samples, that would allow us to detect with a 99 percent degree of confidence that same prevalence level -- one positive cow in 10 million. So the difference between the 201,000 samples and 268,000 samples is the difference between being able to detect at 1 in 10 million at a 95 percent confidence level or a 99 percent confidence level.

    “As Secretary Veneman mentioned, we will also be sampling animals randomly from clinically normal but older slaughter cattle; in fact, we intend to collect 20,000 such samples. We are targeting this older population because again this is a disease of older cattle with a typical incubation period between 3 and 8 years. And secondly, by targeting the older cattle we would most likely be testing animals that were born before the feed ban was imposed by the FDA in August of 1997.

    “Since more than 86 percent of the adult cattle slaughtered in the United States are slaughtered at one of 40 plants in 17 different states, we will focus our collection effort to those 40 plants and again sample approximately 20,000 normal but older slaughter cattle. This random sampling provides yet another assurance of the overall efficacy of our BSE preventative measures.

    “I want to emphasize that this intense surveillance program is a one-time effort. After the 12 to 18-month sample collection period is over, we will analyze the results and evaluate what future actions might be appropriate -- again, based on the results of that intense period of surveillance and sample collection.

    “We believe that the prevalence of BSE in this country based on the more than decade of sampling that's been done already, that the prevalence if it exists at all is extremely low. Nevertheless, there is, and I think we need to recognize, that there is a chance that we could find more positive cattle. I think it's critically important that we keep it in perspective. The steps that we have already taken assume that there is the potential for infected cows in the U.S., and these measures provide the necessary safeguards for the protection of our public.

    “These methods ensure that consumers of our beef, both in the U.S. and abroad, can safely continue to eat our beef. Most notably the removal of specified risk material, those tissues or portions of the carcass that would contain the infectious agent, are being removed from all animals over 30 months of age.

    “In addition we have a feed ban that's been in place since August of 1997 that precludes the animal-to-animal transmission and ensures that the BSE agent is not recirculating in our cattle feed.

    “Testing of the samples under this enhanced surveillance plan will be done primarily within a geographically dispersed network of state and university laboratories. USDA will certify each of the laboratories doing that testing; and as our surveillance expands, the number of network laboratories will be increased as necessary to meet that demand.

    “By ensuring that we have a geographical dispersed laboratory network across the United States, we will ensure that test results are available within the shortest time possible.

    “Our National Veterinary Services Laboratories, or NVSL, located in Ames, Iowa, will run a number of the rapid screening tests in order to maintain their own proficiency. But more importantly, NVSL will remain the national reference laboratory.

    “This means that NVSL will conduct confirmatory testing on any animals found to be suspect on any of the rapid screening tests.

    “We would anticipate being able to license one or more of the test kits that are out there within a short period of time and anticipate additional tests will be available and subject to approval within two or three months time.

    “The Department at NVSL will continue to use the immunohistochemistry, or IHC, for quality control testing, and in addition if any of the rapid screen test comes back with a suspect positive then NVSL will use the IHC as well as other tests necessary to confirm the results.

    “I would remind everyone that the immunohistochemistry or IHC is the internationally recognized gold standard test for BSE.

    “Let me say up front that we expect that there will be positive results on these screening tests, and that's just the nature of the beast. That's because screening tests by design are intended to be very sensitive and not to miss any positive animals. But with that high degree of sensitivity also comes the possibility for false positive test results. And again that's to be expected.

    “We're calling those animals "suspects," and of course any suspect test results will be sent to NVSL for confirmatory testing with the full battery of tests. That would include the IHC.

    “This new surveillance plan and the use of a network of testing laboratories as well as the use of the rapid screening tests are all consistent and in accordance with the recommendations of the International Review Subcommittee's Report that is consistent with the recommendation of the International Review Subcommittee that operated under the authority of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases.

    “Indeed, we asked the Subcommittee as well as the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to review the plan; and as the Secretary mentioned both felt that the plan was comprehensive, and the International Review Committee felt that it was consistent with their recommendations to the Department.

    “Let me mention just a couple of related topics very briefly before we go to questions. And the first is that on March 4 we published in the Federal Register a Blood and Tissue Collection Final Rule. This rule provides for a mechanism for us to collect any additional blood and tissue samples as may be needed for our disease surveillance and eradication efforts. And while cooperation with the Food Safety and Inspection Service and slaughter establishments already allows us to sample large numbers of animals for program diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis, this new regulation allows the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to collect additional samples as may be necessary to improve our ability to detect animal diseases of concern for health as well as biosecurity reasons.

    “In short, this rule gives APHIS, or the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, access to slaughter houses and rendering plants in order to collect all of the blood and tissue samples we need for optimum disease surveillance and eradication purposes, and that would include for our BSE testing purposes.

    “With our ramped up testing for BSE and our continued surveillance for other livestock and poultry diseases, this new rule helps us to be responsive to new as well as evolving disease threats, and again thus helps us to ensure the health of the nation's livestock and poultry and ultimately the safety of the food for American consumers as well as consumers of our products abroad.

    “The second related issue is a republication on March 8 of a proposed rule that would amend the current regulations to establish minimal risk country or regions for BSE purposes and thus allow for the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products from such countries or regions that would be recognized as minimal risk. That proposed rule would recognize Canada as such a minimal risk region.

    “This rule published on November 4 had an initial closing date of January 5, but we held in abeyance any action because of the finding of the positive cow in the state of Washington on December 23rd. So we have republished that rule, soliciting comments on it again with one change; and that specifically is to solicit comments on the importation of beef from animals over 30 months of age that come from or originate from minimal risk regions. This would require that those minimal risk regions have processes that are comparable to the restrictions that we have in place such as SRM removal and the exclusion of nonambulatory from entering the food supply.

    “This new comment period closes on April 7, so we would encourage and actively solicit comments from all interested parties on this rule.

    “So with that, Operator, I think we are ready for questions and answers. We can go to the first question.”

    OPERATOR: “Yes, sir. Our first question is coming from Andrew Dworkin. Your line is open, sir. State your company, please?

    ANDY DWORKIN: “Yes. It's Andy Dworkin with the Oregonian.

    “I just wanted to actually try and clarify a couple things real quick especially as it relates to geographic distribution. One was, am I correct that you'll be testing in terms of number of tests you'll be comparing state by state to make sure you get a good number of tests with the adult cattle population and not by the previous regions?

    “And also, do you know at this point where the 17 state and university labs are, or is that on your website somewhere where we can find it?”

    DR. DEHAVEN: “ Thank you. As to your first question, we do want to make sure that we get a representative sampling across the states and proportionate to the relative adult cattle populations within each state. So I would just emphasize again that our stated goal is to test as many samples in that targeted high-risk group as we possibly can ensuring that we get a minimum number by state so that we have a proportionate sampling consistent with the distribution of cattle across the United States.

    “We in that laboratory network anticipate having some laboratories that would be high through-put. In other words, they would have automation capable of testing large numbers of samples and that we would distribute those laboratories within those states that have large cattle population as well as some geographical dispersion of those high through-put laboratories across the country and probably four to six of the high through-put laboratories.

    “Then we can add to that network additional laboratories as necessary to meet the demand. So we don't have in mind at this point a specific number of laboratories. We do have a network of 26 laboratories that we have certified to run testing for us for chronic wasting disease purposes; and so we certainly within the laboratories have a lot of expertise and experience in running similar tests.

    “So we have a broad network of state veterinary diagnostic laboratories that would be available, and we will grow that laboratory as the need for testing grows starting with again half a dozen or so of the high through-put laboratories.

    “Operator, next question, please?”

    OPERATOR: “Yes. Our next one is coming from Elizabeth Weiss. Please state your company.”

    ELIZABETH WEISS: “This is Elizabeth Weiss with USA Today.”

    “I actually had two questions. First off, when you say you're looking for 1 in 10,000 cases, is USDA doing any work to find out the possibility of whether or not BSE exists in a spontaneous form in the way that it does in humans and elk populations?

    “And secondly, how will any of this fit into some of the consternation that's been raised in California and with the Midwest packer that wanted to test all of its cattle?

    “Thanks.”

    DR. DEHAVEN: “All right. I think we've got three different questions in there, and I'll try to touch on each one of them.

    “First of all, let me correct just a technical issue, and that is you mentioned 1 in 10,000. And actually our surveillance system currently is designed, the one that we have in place now is designed to detect 1 positive in 1 million cattle, and I gave some numbers between 200,000 and 268,000 that would allow us to detect 1 in 10 million as opposed to 1 in 10,000.

    “So we would, if we were able to collect in the ballpark of those numbers of samples then we with increasing numbers of samples have an increasingly statistically valid sample from which to determine, one, whether or not the disease exists and, if so, at what prevalence level.

    “So our real emphasis is to test as many of those animals as we can, ensure that we get an appropriate geographical distribution, but not setting a specific number as far as a target. Again, consistent with the recommendation from the International Review Team, their recommendation was to test all of them.

    “So that's consistent with where we're going is to test as many as we possibly can.

    “As far as spontaneous cases, that is a very difficult issue. There is no evidence to prove that spontaneous BSE occurs in cattle; but here again it's an issue of proving a negative. We do know that CJD, the human version of the disease, does occur spontaneously in humans at the rate of about 1 in 1 million. We don't have enough data to definitively say that spontaneous cases of BSE in cattle occur or do not occur.

    “Again, it's a very difficult situation to prove a negative.

    “So a lot of research is ongoing. Certainly if we do come up with any positive samples in the course of this surveillance we will be looking at that question in evaluating those samples but no scientifically hard evidence to confirm or refute whether or not spontaneous cases of BSE occur.

    “As far as some of the other petitions that have been received for different kinds of testing, I would just emphasize that the testing that we're talking about here today is for our surveillance purposes and for our surveillance purposes only. There has been some discussion about testing for marketing purposes. And I would simply say that for surveillance purposes the science just doesn't justify or support testing every animal.

    “Again, we know this is a disease of older animals; it has an incubation period typically of three to eight years. And so based on recommendations from the International Review Team as well as the international standards that exist out there, there is virtually no surveillance value in testing normal slaughter animals under 30 months of age, which is where most of the proposals for testing would go.

    “We would consider those to be marketing or marketability tests, and indeed those kinds of proposals are actively under consideration as we speak with no definitive decision made one way or the other from that.

    “Operator, next question, please?”

    OPERATOR: “Yes, sir. Our next one is coming from Jan Goldstein. Please state your company, ma'am.”

    DAN GOLDSTEIN: “Yes. Actually it's, I think it's Dan Goldstein. Bloomberg.”

    OPERATOR: “ I'm sorry, sir.”

    DAN GOLDSTEIN: “That's okay.”

    “Dr. DeHaven, what kind of tests are going to be used by these laboratories? Are they going to be the rapid tests, the Eliza, or the Western Blot tests? And also, was the decision, I guess, of Japan to back off from their position that the U.S. had to test every animal, was that also related to some of the work you've been doing in that regard?”

    DR. DEHAVEN: “As to your first question, when one of the state university veterinary diagnostic laboratories agrees to do this testing on a fee-for-service basis for us, one of the requirements will be a very short turnaround on the test results. So that will dictate that they would have to use one of the rapid screening tests that we would approve for that purpose.

    “So again, for the quick turnaround it would be necessary for, for example, carcasses that are being held pending potential use in rendered product we would be looking at a rapid turnaround on those results.

    “We wouldn't dictate to the laboratories which one of the tests that they would use, only that they have to use the test within the parameters that we determine, and they can only use tests that we have licensed or permitted for that purpose.

    “So we would envision being able to license one or more of those test kits in very short order. We would anticipate in two or three month’s time being able to license perhaps a couple of more of those tests. So it will be up to the diagnostic state laboratory to run the tests that they would want to. Our laboratory at NVSL would be proficient in running all of those screening tests, but then of course they would do confirmatory testing on any of the samples that were suspect on one of the screening tests.

    “As to Japan, I'm not aware that they have made any decision yet in terms of what conditions they might or might not allow export of U.S. beef or beef products. I would simply say that, from a surveillance standpoint, the value is in testing animals--in the target population that we've identified, as opposed to some of the testing of younger animals that again I would characterize as marketing tests or testing for marketability that, from a surveillance perspective, have little or no value, because again it's not a population of cattle that we would anticipate testing positive for this disease.

   Operator, next question?

   OPERATOR: “Yes. Our next one is coming from Scott Kilman. Please state your company, sir”

   SCOTT KILMAN: “Yeah, hi. This is Scott Kilman with the Wall Street Journal.”

   “A couple questions. One is, can you be more specific on what the goal is for the number of cattle to test in the 12 to 18-month period? If the funding for it is for $70 million, how many animals does that cover? Is it the 200-something, or is the 400-something thousand?”

   “And the second question is, are you changing in any way who will be actually physically responsible for deciding which animal to pick and collect a sample from? Under the old program employees of meat packing companies or meat plants often picked that animal. Will that now be the job of a federal employee?”

   DR. DEHAVEN: “As far as the goal on the numbers of samples that we want to collect, again we by intent are not establishing a specific number that we are targeting to test; rather, consistent with the International Review Report, we want to test as many of those animals as we possibly can.

   “Given that, I would just repeat the number that I gave you, that if we are able to test 201,000, that would allow us to detect 1 in 10 million positive. So if we had 1 cow out of 10 million adult cattle that was positive, if we are able to test 201,000 samples and they were all negative, that would either allow us to confirm with a 95 percent confidence level that we don't have the disease, or if we do have some positives it would give us the ability to determine what prevalence we have the disease at a 95 percent confidence level.

   “If we can test as many as 268,500 that tells us the same thing but at a 99 percent confidence level; and then any number in between would give us a level of confidence in between the 95 and 99 percent level.

   “In terms of who will be picking which samples that we're going to test, within the plan which I should mention that we will post the plan on our website. If it's not already up, it will be shortly. But include the chart in terms of who would be collecting those samples. We would anticipate a lot of the samples being collected by APHIS or FSIS employees, and they could be permanent full-time employees or they could be temporary employees that we train specifically for this purpose and would use them for that 12 to 18-month period.

   “We would use some contractors to pick some samples. Those contractors could in fact be some plant employees with oversight by FSIS inspectors or APHIS employees. But I would emphasize that it doesn't matter who identifies those animals because our goal is to test all of them now contrary to the way it was before where we wanted a representative sample that might be going to slaughter. At this point we want to test all of them. And it is virtually impossible to determine clinically based on what you may see an animal exhibiting as far as abnormal behavior or being nonambulatory -- it's impossible to without a test to determine whether an animal has BSE. You clinically cannot make the diagnosis; it can only be made by testing.

   “So we will have certainly some oversight for whoever it is that's collecting those samples, but with this new plan our goal has changed, and that is to collect all of the samples so it's not an issue of someone who thinks they can pick and choose among the testable animals and try and pick one that might or might not have the disease.

   “Operator, next question, please?”

   OPERATOR: “Yes. The next one is from Andrew Martin. Please state your company, sir?”

   ANDREW MARTIN: “Hi. I'm from the Chicago Tribune.”

   “Two questions. First, I'd like to follow up on Scott's question, and that is, I'm still a little unclear of the purpose of this. Previously I think the number was your surveillance program would find 1 in a million. Now it's 1 in 10 million. What's the sort of end game here? What are you trying to do?

   “And my second question is, I wondered if you could explain your rationale for not allowing Breakstone (sp) to do their own testing as well as there's a proposal out of California to do the same thing.

   DR. DEHAVEN: “Well, to your first question which basically is, what are we trying to accomplish? -- what we're trying to accomplish with this intensive effort is to determine to high level of sampling whether or not we have cases of BSE indigenous in our national herd, and, if so, what is the prevalence?

   “We do that by, as is consistent with the recommendation from the International Review Subcommittee -- we do that by testing as many of that target population as we possibly can. And for me to try and predict how many samples we will be able to collect in a new program that we don't have any experience from would simply be a wild guess and inconsistent with the goal of trying to test as many of them as we can.

   “So again, the stated goal is to test as many of those animals as we can with the expectation that we will collect enough samples to be able to say with statistical significance whether or not we have the disease indigenous in our cattle and if so at what prevalence.

   “The purpose of this testing is not for marketability. It's not a food safety test. It's a surveillance test. Surveillance testing by definition is done to determine whether or not you have a disease; if you have it, where is it and at what prevalence do you have it? So that's the purpose of this program.

   “And the announcement today is independent and not related to other proposals that would suggest that we would be doing testing for other purposes-- the marketability test if you wil,l that would be done not because it's scientifically valid, not because it would add anything to our surveillance program, but it would be done for export or marketing purposes.

   “We have those kinds of proposals before us. They are under evaluation and consideration at this point with no decision made. But again, the announcement today is strictly related to testing for surveillance purposes as I just redefined it or I should say defined it again.

   “Operator, next question, please?”

   OPERATOR: “Yes. The next one is coming from Track Weiner. Please state your company, sir?”

   ERIC WEINER: “I believe that's Eric Weiner, Tokyo Broadcasting System.

   My question is just a brief one. I just wanted to know if there are any plans to make this or future related announcements on camera or any press availabilities?”

   DR. DEHAVEN: “Let me defer this to Alisa Harrison our press secretary”.

   MS. HARRISON: “At this point we don't have any future conferences scheduled, but we'll certainly take that into consideration. If you want to follow up with my office, we'll try to accommodate you.

   “Operator, we have time for two more questions.”

   OPERATOR: “Okay. Then the next question is from Lori Struff. Please state your company, Lori.

   LORI STRUFF: “Thank you. I'm with the Brownfield Network.”

   “My question -- this may have been asked; I had to step away for a moment -- what's going to be the plan of action for these companies that want to do 100 percent testing of the cattle they process? Will they be able to do that, and what kind of timeframe are you looking at?”

   DR. DEHAVEN: “I would just reiterate that again the announcement today is an enhanced, more robust testing program for surveillance purposes which is separate and apart from the testing that you're referring to which is testing for marketability purposes and would test a different population of animals, not for valid surveillance or scientifically valid surveillance purposes but be done for export or marketing purposes.

“We have those proposals or we have received such requests; those proposals are actively under consideration within the Department. I hesitate to make any prediction on how soon there might be a response or a decision with regard to those. I'd simply say that those proposals, we are aware of them, and they are actively under consideration within the Department at this point.

   “Operator, last question, please?”

   OPERATOR: Yes. Our last one is coming from Bill Thomson. Please state your company, sir.”

   BILL THOMSON: Oster Dow Jones.

   “Dr. DeHaven, I'm just -- you seem to be saying here that if you can test 201,000 animals you'll be able to have a certain level of confidence-- if you can test as much as 268,000. But you're not giving us an estimate on how many animals you will test. Is there a possibility that you'll test less than 201,000 animals? And if that's the case, will this be a failed experiment?”

   DR. DEHAVEN: “You guys are doing your best to get me to identify a number, and I'll emphasize again that the goal of this is to test as many of that target population as we can. That target population is 446,000 total estimated in the United States in a year's time; and we'll test as many of that 446,000 estimated population as we can.

   “And we're walking out on, treading new ground here. And so again to estimate how many we will be able to collect is simply premature. It's possible that we would collect somewhere less than 200,000 and still have a very scientifically statistically valid sampling. If we are able to test more than 200,000, the higher the number above that 200,000 the more statistically valid would be any statement we could make about whether or not we have the disease in the United States and, if so, at what prevalence.

   “So again, we'll test as many as we can. Based on the end of that testing and the number of samples we get and the result of that testing, then we'll determine whether or not we need to continue that for a period of time to create or have greater statistical validity. We can determine that we've tested enough and based on the results we can make some scientifically or statistically valid statement about the existence or nonexistence of the disease, and if we have it, at what prevalence. So again, just another way of saying it's premature for me to set a target number or an expected number.

   “We're going to test as many as we can. If we need to extend the testing out for the full 18-month period to get as many samples as we can and increase the statistical validity, we will. But it's just premature to set a goal or state a number.

   “I do think it's important to say that we will be working at the state level. Our area veterinarian in charge, our federal veterinarian, senior federal veterinarian with APHIS in each state, will be working very closely with his or her state counterpart, the state veterinarians, and other state officials to develop plans within that state for collecting as many of those samples within the state as we can.

   “And we do know that there's a big variation in the cattle populations, the types of cattle operations, and other activities. And so we'll be putting out general parameters for a program nationally, but then would expect there to be state plans developed within a matter of weeks. And those state plans would take into account cattle populations, the cattle industry, beef versus dairy, the concentration points within the state -- whether those be slaughter plants, stockyards, rendering plants, etcetera -- and means of doing the best job of collecting those samples given the unique circumstances in each state.

   “So I think by approaching it at that way and working from the bottom up we optimize the numbers of samples that we'll collect. But again, I'll say, we just can't predict at this point what at the end of this period that number is going to be. It's going to be as many as we can possibly get.

   “With that, Operator, I think that was the last question. I'll turn it back to Alisa Harrison to wrap up.”

   MS. HARRISON: “Thank you, Dr. DeHaven. And as he said earlier, the plan is posted on the website as well as the press release. Feel free to call us if you have any questions on that. We will have a transcript of this session out just as soon as we can. So with that, thank you, and have a good afternoon.”

#