• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Agman

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
"Mike, I am curious what information that you have to refute the statements made in the AMI fact sheet. Have a great day. agman"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the AMI fact sheet they make the statement:

"By law all cattle destined for human consumption must have SRM's removed"

Page 2 - Paragraph 2
--------------------------------------------------------

I can find nothing in the USDA rules about any SRM's having to be removed UTM. They state several times that OTM's do.
Is this a lie by AMI?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Mike,
The AMI does not lie. They are sometimes mistaken or the information used against them is outdated. If the information is current and it APPEARS the AMI is lying, it is simply an isolted incident. :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Sandhusker said:
Mike,
The AMI does not lie. They are sometimes mistaken or the information used against them is outdated. If the information is current and it APPEARS the AMI is lying, it is simply an isolted incident. :wink:
-------------------------------------------------------------

You probably could not be more wrong Sandhusker. Now read this statement from the AMI website under" U.S. BSE PREVENTION STRATEGIES:
Federal government inspects borders. The U.S. allow imports only from countries at "minimal risk" for BSE.Only food products that have been shown to be safe and do not harbor the infective agent may be imported."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another half-truth. They are implying that cattle are tested before being imported.

 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:shock: Is it true that one of the top members of AMI is Cargil foods? With this in mind, I would like to eliminate the science for a moment. Cargil has a major packing plant in Southern Alberta as we all know. One of two plants that control as mich as 80% of the annual Canadian Harvest. AMI has succeded in challenging the portion of the new rule calling for OTM boxed beef. Darn good thing. The Cargil plant would not be able to switch over to OTM cattle, but the Tyson plant has killed cows in the past and would have switched in a heartbeat should the rule to have stood. Tyson is a member of the NMA; am I wrong. Why did NMA not fight the OTM rule?

I will not beleive for a moment that any of this crap is about BSE. It is simply a struggle for power and money. :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
rkaiser said:
:shock: Is it true that one of the top members of AMI is Cargil foods? With this in mind, I would like to eliminate the science for a moment. Cargil has a major packing plant in Southern Alberta as we all know. One of two plants that control as mich as 80% of the annual Canadian Harvest. AMI has succeded in challenging the portion of the new rule calling for OTM boxed beef. Darn good thing. The Cargil plant would not be able to switch over to OTM cattle, but the Tyson plant has killed cows in the past and would have switched in a heartbeat should the rule to have stood. Tyson is a member of the NMA; am I wrong. Why did NMA not fight the OTM rule?

I will not beleive for a moment that any of this crap is about BSE. It is simply a struggle for power and money. :D
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nmaonline.org/html/pr_2_10_05.htm
NMA has petitioned alongside AMI in the court in Billings, Montana concerning live cattle. I'm not following you thoroughly.
I have no idea about whether Tyson is a member of NMA, AMI, or both.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:shock: Thanks reader.

I wonder if Agman could help us out concerning NMA membership of Tyson.
Certainly Cargil is a member of AMI, and what I am saying is that I agree that AMI and maybe NMA as well are fighting to have live OTM cattle shipped to the USA.

But AMI also fought and won the blocking of OTM boxed beef for the time being. This move was to protect their interest in plants in the USA, and to stop Tyson from switching the Brooks plant in Alberta to killing cows and sending boxed OTM beef to the USA.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:shock: Answer to your question is very likely no BullBurger.

What has that got to do with mutinational companies jockeying for position in a battle that is supposed to be about science? All at the expense of the Canadian Cattle producer, and when the time is right, the American cattle producer as well.

I do not claim to be a packer blamer, bullburger, only a reality based observer who knows that producers on both sides of the border can talk all they want; the real business will be done by the government and the packers.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:wink: In fact Bullburger, Sh's statement could not be more true. In stead of Blaming Canadian Producers, Blaming American or Canadian politics, or Blaming the packers for legally taking whatever they can....... Producers of both countries could maintain control, and gain post slaughter benefits if they would wake the hell up, quit wasting time and money on all of the above, and start building their own slaughter plants.

http://www.beef-initiative-group.com/

Randy Kaiser - 0ne of half a dozen or so founding members.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
:shock: Thanks reader.

I wonder if Agman could help us out concerning NMA membership of Tyson.


Response...I expect all the major packers are members of the AMI and NMA. Their degree of involvement in the NMA is likely determined by the extent of their involvement in cow slaughter plants. Have a great day.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Mike said:
"Mike, I am curious what information that you have to refute the statements made in the AMI fact sheet. Have a great day. agman"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the AMI fact sheet they make the statement:

"By law all cattle destined for human consumption must have SRM's removed"

Page 2 - Paragraph 2
--------------------------------------------------------

I can find nothing in the USDA rules about any SRM's having to be removed UTM. They state several times that OTM's do.
Is this a lie by AMI?

Response...SRM's are removed from all cattle destined for human consumption. The guideline is more stringent for OTM and the product is boneless. Have a great day.

P.S. I settled on the Zeiss 4 x 14 x 44, any comments?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Specific SRMs at specific animal ages.Agman was a little off and the AMI is down for the count.The AMI doesn't know a SRM when they see one.The word all should be stricken from the press release.BSE SRM's are different and this AMI quote is a sham"By law all cattle destined for human consumption must have SRM's removed" A down right LIE from AMI and that LIE depends on animal age and a stupid public.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Guest said:
Specific SRMs at specific animal ages.Agman was a little off and the AMI is down for the count.The AMI doesn't know a SRM when they see one.The word all should be stricken from the press release.BSE SRM's are different and this AMI quote is a sham"By law all cattle destined for human consumption must have SRM's removed" A down right LIE from AMI and that LIE depends on animal age and a stupid public.

REsponse...Guest, you need to get your information correct. The guidelines being followed differ slightly for UTM and OTM. I will get the specifics tommorow.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/2004/bseregs.htm
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Agman - I'll be very miffed if I find out that the central nervous system (CNS), the most infectious part, is only removed from OTM ... If you do find discrepancies in OTM and UTM, please also find the explanation, if you can.[/quote]

Response... The spinal CORD is removed from all cattle destined for human consumption, UTM's and OTM's. In addition, the entire spinal COLUMN is removed from OTM's and product from those animals must be boneless. Have a great day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Agman: "The spinal CORD is removed from all cattle destined for human consumption, UTM's and OTM's. In addition, the entire spinal COLUMN is removed from OTM's and product from those animals must be boneless."

Another R-CALF promoted myth gets shot down in flames!

Long live Ranchers.net!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
reader (the Second) said:
~SH~ said:
Agman: "The spinal CORD is removed from all cattle destined for human consumption, UTM's and OTM's. In addition, the entire spinal COLUMN is removed from OTM's and product from those animals must be boneless."

Another R-CALF promoted myth gets shot down in flames!

Long live Ranchers.net!


~SH~

Try finding Agman's source instead of just believing whatever he posts without attribution... I posted contradictory info on SRM straight from the USDA website. I'm waiting for Agman to tell me his source.

What agman is saying is contradictory to what I can find also. He's even contradictory to the AMI website information.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
3.6 REMOVAL OF SPINAL CORD

The spinal cord of cattle aged 30 months or older is a SRM and must be removed in its entirety, on the kill floor before the final carcass wash, and disposed of as inedible product. Lifting the cord out of the vertebral canal can be achieved using a knife. Other specialized tools can be used, but chain link gloves are not suitable due to the increased risk of gross cross-contamination.

Separate knives or other tools must be provided for exclusive use in removing and handling spinal cords of cattle aged 30 months or older. These knives/tools, as well as steels must be identified by a color coding or other visual system. Standard washing and sanitizing procedures apply.

Note: The spinal cord of cattle less than 30 months of age is not designated as a SRM but, nevertheless, must still be completely removed from all split carcasses on the kill floor before the final carcass wash. In the case of carcasses that are split after chilling (i.e. hide-on veal carcasses), the spinal cord must be removed during boning/cutting operations. This is required to prevent incorporation of spinal cord tissue into any meat products, ensuring compliance with established meat product standards and simplifying verification measures
 

Latest posts

Top