Mike
Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Only a bit more to me. The spinal cord is still not designated a SRM in UTM's. Neither are brains etc.
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.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Agman
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Only a bit more to me. The spinal cord is still not designated a SRM in UTM's. Neither are brains etc.
Steve
Well-known member
one of the reasons for allowing the OTM and UTM SRMs to be different is the preferance of cuts, and how the are presented for sale.
this page gives some easy read answers,
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/FAQ/bse_techcenter.htm
Can't see a world with out a T-bone, it just would not be right.,
9. Can T-bones, brains, and the like, be saved from older animals (30 months and older) in custom exempt facilities?
SRMs are considered adulterated and ineligible for human food. This applies to custom slaughter as well as to inspected operations. As such, traditional bone-in cuts of beef, such as T-bones, porterhouse, and rib roasts cannot be saved for human food, unless the SRM portion of the cut (i.e. the vertebral column) is removed, resulting in a semi-boneless cut. The other alternative is to completely bone out the product.
this page gives some easy read answers,
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/FAQ/bse_techcenter.htm
Can't see a world with out a T-bone, it just would not be right.,
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."
Mike: "What agman is saying is contradictory to what I can find also. He's even contradictory to the AMI website information."
Information posted by Mike: "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"
Where's the contradiction Mike?
~SH~
Mike: "What agman is saying is contradictory to what I can find also. He's even contradictory to the AMI website information."
Information posted by Mike: "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"
Where's the contradiction Mike?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Mike said: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.
And another "R-CALF lie/myth" is shown to be factual after all!
Long Live Ranchers.net!
A
Anonymous
Guest
The regulations at 9 CFR 310.22(a) designate the following materials as SRMs and prohibit their use for human food:
the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30 months of age and older, and
the tonsils and the distal ileum (distal ileum is a SRM, but to ensure effective removal of the distal ileum, the establishment is required to remove the entire small intestine from all cattle)?
that if it does not segregate cattle 30 months of age and older from younger cattle it is to handle all cattle as if they were 30 months of age and older?
that it is recommended if old and young cattle are slaughtered and intended to be segregated, that the young cattle are slaughtered before old cattle or that the equipment used on the cattle 30 months of age and older is sanitized and there is no cross-contamination of carcasses less than 30 months of age.
the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30 months of age and older, and
the tonsils and the distal ileum (distal ileum is a SRM, but to ensure effective removal of the distal ileum, the establishment is required to remove the entire small intestine from all cattle)?
that if it does not segregate cattle 30 months of age and older from younger cattle it is to handle all cattle as if they were 30 months of age and older?
that it is recommended if old and young cattle are slaughtered and intended to be segregated, that the young cattle are slaughtered before old cattle or that the equipment used on the cattle 30 months of age and older is sanitized and there is no cross-contamination of carcasses less than 30 months of age.
A
Anonymous
Guest
PORKER said:that it is recommended if old and young cattle are slaughtered and intended to be segregated, that the young cattle are slaughtered before old cattle or that the equipment used on the cattle 30 months of age and older is sanitized and there is no cross-contamination of carcasses less than 30 months of age.
A question that jumped into my mind while reading this--How do they sanitize the equipment? I read one place where they threw away medical tools after surgery because of the fact in not being able to kill the prions when doing surgery on known vCJD victims.... I thought the prions were able to withstand heat, radiation, chemicals, etc... How do they sanitize equipment at the slaughter houses? Do they know something the medical field doesn't?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker..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.[/quote]
What agman is saying is contradictory to what I can find also. He's even contradictory to the AMI website information.[/quote]
And another "R-CALF lie/myth" is shown to be factual after all!
Long Live Ranchers.net![/quote]
REsponse... A better idea is for you to get your facts straight. But what do you care about facts though. You waste your brain cells believing the R-Calf crap. You simply do no have the contacts to engage in this debate so you perpetuate R-Calf's misinformation. You prove me wrong if you think you can. Good luck and have a great day.
What agman is saying is contradictory to what I can find also. He's even contradictory to the AMI website information.[/quote]
And another "R-CALF lie/myth" is shown to be factual after all!
Long Live Ranchers.net![/quote]
REsponse... A better idea is for you to get your facts straight. But what do you care about facts though. You waste your brain cells believing the R-Calf crap. You simply do no have the contacts to engage in this debate so you perpetuate R-Calf's misinformation. You prove me wrong if you think you can. Good luck and have a great day.
A
Anonymous
Guest
reader (the 2nd) I don't belong to R-CALF and I don't support them in this forum. I post questions and when I have information relevant to y'all, I post it. What makes you so omniscient that you know my motivations? You waste your brain cells ascribing erroneous motivations to people on this forum, you are so paranoid. Now shut up, please and get yourself a moniker at least you dummy.
Respone... For a bright person you really have this one wrong. Where have I accused you of anything or know of your motivations? Please post that reference. My reference was strictly to Sandhusker and no one else. If you cannot determine Sandkusker's allegiance and motivaion than you too are just as blind to that fact as he is. Unlike Sandhusker, I beleive your posts are very well thought out and your position is explained quite thoroughly. I respect that immensely although I may not always agree. On some issues we can agree to respectfully disagree. Have a great day.
Respone... For a bright person you really have this one wrong. Where have I accused you of anything or know of your motivations? Please post that reference. My reference was strictly to Sandhusker and no one else. If you cannot determine Sandkusker's allegiance and motivaion than you too are just as blind to that fact as he is. Unlike Sandhusker, I beleive your posts are very well thought out and your position is explained quite thoroughly. I respect that immensely although I may not always agree. On some issues we can agree to respectfully disagree. Have a great day.
A
Anonymous
Guest
reader (the Second) said:Anonymous said:reader (the 2nd) I don't belong to R-CALF and I don't support them in this forum. I post questions and when I have information relevant to y'all, I post it. What makes you so omniscient that you know my motivations? You waste your brain cells ascribing erroneous motivations to people on this forum, you are so paranoid. Now shut up, please and get yourself a moniker at least you dummy.
Respone... For a bright person you really have this one wrong. Where have I accused you of anything or know of your motivations? Please post that reference. My reference was strictly to Sandhusker and no one else. If you cannot determine Sandkusker's allegiance and motivaion than you too are just as blind to that fact as he is. Unlike Sandhusker, I beleive your posts are very well thought out and your position is explained quite thoroughly. I respect that immensely although I may not always agree. On some issues we can agree to respectfully disagree. Have a great day.
Got it. My argument back to you would be to ask Sandhusker to check out for himself the "R-CALF crap" as you put it. Some of it is in fact correct, including their discussion of SRMs (in Canada I presume). The USDA's Feb 2 refutation says that it's not warranted to remove SRMs from UTM in a minimal risk country, given the other firewalls. I personally disagree with the USDA position on that, as did the international committee that Venneman brought in after the Washington State BSE case. I understand that it is expensive to remove SRMs but since we don't have a continuing program to test all downers -- which would discover the BSE trends and prevalence, we have to take this expensive precaution. I'd prefer several years of testing all 4D, which is a number around 600,000. And believe me, if we have BSE, we should be removing the SRMs of UTM. Even if we have "only" in the tens or hundreds of cases. Because of AMPLIFICATION -- if a TSE gets into the food supply or the blood supply or the biological or medical device supply, it is amplified time 4 - 5 at least. Witness the several hundred cases of HGH and dura mater CJD worldwide -- and those are only the documented cases. I know from personal experience -- mine and others -- that the CDC does not concern itself overly much with such cases, so the undocumented but nearly certain cases are so-called "sporadic".
reader- I'm going to throw out another rumor from the hill- take it for just that - it is a rumor and can't be confirmed....If you have noticed many of USDA's rules do not agree with FDA's recommendations- they follow what the AMI wants and not what FDA thinks is correct.... but since USDA has the final say on meat they overrule FDA.... anyway there apparently has been a continuing fight going on between FDA and USDA over the BSE food safety guidelines amongst other issues... That frustration on implementing safe practices is one of the reasons Tommy Thompson stepped down- also one of the reasons he left quite bitter and slammed the administrations food safety (especially the vulnerability of imported products) in his departure speach....
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Anonymous said:Sandhusker..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.[/quote]
And another "R-CALF lie/myth" is shown to be factual after all!
Long Live Ranchers.net![/quote]
REsponse... A better idea is for you to get your facts straight. But what do you care about facts though. You waste your brain cells believing the R-Calf crap. You simply do no have the contacts to engage in this debate so you perpetuate R-Calf's misinformation. You prove me wrong if you think you can. Good luck and have a great day.[/quote]
If you have a problem with my facts, list your grievances and we'll chew the fat. If you would rather go on an anti-R-CALF tirade or lob generic personal attacks don't expect an answer from me.
Mike
Well-known member
Reader (2nd) :"You, me, Mike, Agman all posted info from reliable sources."
Contrary to your statement reader, agman never posted info from a reliable source except "His" contacts. I don't know if they are reliable or not. And neither do you.
He stated that ALL spinal cords were being removed from cattle. That, I'm sure is what his contacts told him but that is not the law. Spinal cords among other questionable CNS components are not SRM's in cattle in cattle under 30 months. Only small intestine and tonsils are. The Canadian website from which I posted said that spinal cords "must" be removed but they are not held to it by law, same as here. The "Final Rule" was ambiguously written to deceive the public as was intended.
Contrary to your statement reader, agman never posted info from a reliable source except "His" contacts. I don't know if they are reliable or not. And neither do you.
He stated that ALL spinal cords were being removed from cattle. That, I'm sure is what his contacts told him but that is not the law. Spinal cords among other questionable CNS components are not SRM's in cattle in cattle under 30 months. Only small intestine and tonsils are. The Canadian website from which I posted said that spinal cords "must" be removed but they are not held to it by law, same as here. The "Final Rule" was ambiguously written to deceive the public as was intended.
PORKER
Well-known member
Spinal cords among other questionable CNS components are not SRM's in cattle in cattle under 30 months. Only small intestine and tonsils are.And when you clean up after each slaughter group you will never get rid of an BSE animals pirons if it was in that group of animals withOUT throwing out the equipment as everything is contammitied .TESTING for BSE is STILL the route to go and its cheaper then SRM removal as the Europeans have found OUT.I would expect Canada to take advantage of doing BSE tests on all BOVINES
Mike
Well-known member
PORKER said:Spinal cords among other questionable CNS components are not SRM's in cattle in cattle under 30 months. Only small intestine and tonsils are.And when you clean up after each slaughter group you will never get rid of an BSE animals pirons if it was in that group of animals withOUT throwing out the equipment as everything is contammitied .TESTING for BSE is STILL the route to go and its cheaper then SRM removal as the Europeans have found OUT.I would expect Canada to take advantage of doing BSE tests on all BOVINES
There is a difference in philosophy here Porker. The USDA has said many times that their BSE testing protocol is NOT for food safety reasons. Europe and Japan are shooting for food safety AND animal health issues.
PORKER
Well-known member
ITS food safety and NOT animal safety since a human life is worth more than a STATES HERD of cattle.Only a profiteer would think of animal safety .
A
Anonymous
Guest
reader (the Second) said:Mike said:Reader (2nd) :"You, me, Mike, Agman all posted info from reliable sources."
Contrary to your statement reader, agman never posted info from a reliable source except "His" contacts. I don't know if they are reliable or not. And neither do you.
He stated that ALL spinal cords were being removed from cattle. That, I'm sure is what his contacts told him but that is not the law. Spinal cords among other questionable CNS components are not SRM's in cattle in cattle under 30 months. Only small intestine and tonsils are. The Canadian website from which I posted said that spinal cords "must" be removed but they are not held to it by law, same as here. The "Final Rule" was ambiguously written to deceive the public as was intended.
I don't understand Agman. He postures like an expert but it's awfully simple to get access to the current Govt regulations. How come when I asked him numerous times, he can't post an official link to the USDA regulation vis a vis SRMs that shows that central nervous system is removed from UTM??? He better put his money where his mouth is or more of us are going to doubt that he knows what he's talking about.
Agman is taken by some on here as an "expert on everything" since he is a beancounter that supports NCBA's positions -- whatever that might be from day to day-- hard to keep track of lately- I agree he is a very knowledgible man on counting beans, but all the beancounting in the world does not make him a BSE expert ..... I've been asking him , ~SH~, MRJ, and all other NCBA members to fill me in on the scientific reasoning that came out of the preconvention change of NCBA's position, but haven't received a reply yet from anyone-- been kind of silent on if this is really a new science outlook or just a way to save losing the last of the membership.......
Reader- as I said before if you look at the recommendations coming from FDA which is looking at human health issues and then the rules that come out from USDA that are heavily influenced by the packer and retail meat lobby, many are in exact opposition-- but the industry is not governed by human health, but the almighty lobbyiest dollar.........How did we go overnight from supporting a North American Industry to no mention of North American products?
Today I thank God for the courts- hopefully they will let this go to a full trial and all the info can come out- not just what USDA, AMI, NCBA, CFIA or any other party wants to come out.........
OT, I suppose it is confusing for you to keep up with change as determined by a membership driven organization such as NCBA. Policy and Resolutions are not set in concrete and do change as the members deem necessary.
Why do you believe we NCBA members need to justify to you any policy decisions we make?
I don't know that there was any one specific reason for change on the Canadian Trade issue. Policy re. BSE has always been to use the best available science as the basis for our policy, and that has not changed. I do believe the continued propaganda put out by R-CALF to convince consumers that there is danger of human illness from imported beef (which I do not believe is based on science, but on economics) may have played a part in wanting to reassure consumers by emphasizing that NCBA does want proper protocols and BSE prevention assured before the border is opened.
So, OT, what do you think could possibly "come out" in court that hasn't already been aired, re. opening the Canadian border?
MRJ
Why do you believe we NCBA members need to justify to you any policy decisions we make?
I don't know that there was any one specific reason for change on the Canadian Trade issue. Policy re. BSE has always been to use the best available science as the basis for our policy, and that has not changed. I do believe the continued propaganda put out by R-CALF to convince consumers that there is danger of human illness from imported beef (which I do not believe is based on science, but on economics) may have played a part in wanting to reassure consumers by emphasizing that NCBA does want proper protocols and BSE prevention assured before the border is opened.
So, OT, what do you think could possibly "come out" in court that hasn't already been aired, re. opening the Canadian border?
MRJ
A
Anonymous
Guest
MRJ said:OT, I suppose it is confusing for you to keep up with change as determined by a membership driven organization such as NCBA. Policy and Resolutions are not set in concrete and do change as the members deem necessary.
Why do you believe we NCBA members need to justify to you any policy decisions we make?
I don't know that there was any one specific reason for change on the Canadian Trade issue. Policy re. BSE has always been to use the best available science as the basis for our policy, and that has not changed. I do believe the continued propaganda put out by R-CALF to convince consumers that there is danger of human illness from imported beef (which I do not believe is based on science, but on economics) may have played a part in wanting to reassure consumers by emphasizing that NCBA does want proper protocols and BSE prevention assured before the border is opened.
So, OT, what do you think could possibly "come out" in court that hasn't already been aired, re. opening the Canadian border?
MRJ
MRJ- What happened to NCBA's "sound science" that it had to change to "best science available"? Thats what I would like to see come out in court..... It appears to me to be a "very grey area science" that is based very little on science and a lot on packer politics and lobbying money-- USDA's rules don't even come close to FDA's recommendations or their own pre 2003 policy......A whole lot of unanswered questions and flipflops...But for whatever reason I was glad to see NCBA finally see more of the whole picture.....
Tommy
Well-known member
mj...I don't know that there was any one specific reason for change on the Canadian Trade issue.
mj, you may be like Jan Lyons when she stated "We were'nt listening" when talking about membership views.
mj, you may be like Jan Lyons when she stated "We were'nt listening" when talking about membership views.
Mike
Well-known member
Tommy said:mj...I don't know that there was any one specific reason for change on the Canadian Trade issue.
mj, you may be like Jan Lyons when she stated "We were'nt listening" when talking about membership views.
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Mike said:Reader (2nd) :"You, me, Mike, Agman all posted info from reliable sources."
Contrary to your statement reader, agman never posted info from a reliable source except "His" contacts. I don't know if they are reliable or not. And neither do you.
He stated that ALL spinal cords were being removed from cattle. That, I'm sure is what his contacts told him but that is not the law. Spinal cords among other questionable CNS components are not SRM's in cattle in cattle under 30 months. Only small intestine and tonsils are. The Canadian website from which I posted said that spinal cords "must" be removed but they are not held to it by law, same as here. The "Final Rule" was ambiguously written to deceive the public as was intended.
I wonder if SH is going to call Agman out for "lying".... :wink:
