Itchmo Forums for Cats & Dogs Brought to you by Itchmo: Essential news, humor and info for cats, dogs and pet owners.
October 29, 2020, 05:07:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Go To Itchmo.com: Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Merrick Company Letter  (Read 6607 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ancona
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 428


« on: March 23, 2008, 02:12:18 PM »

Does anyone know where in the bowels  I can find the letter from the Pres of Merrick, regarding using downer animals, it was sent I think to his  Reps and Senators in Washington, asking that the laws not be changed as the food would become too expensive.


Also, on the grain free list, are not some of these companies that would not reveal where their foods are manufactured.

I have the list ,  Dry Foods

Addiction Foods  Azmira,  Blue Buffalo, Cloud Star, Newman's  Owen Mandville, Petguard, Royal Canin , Solid Gold Timerwolf and Evolve,  either no re sponse or would not reveal where foods are manufactured.

Also, why are some foods high in ash??  Is this leading to the kidney problem with animals in this country??


Sandi
Logged
shibadiva
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1412


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2008, 07:24:16 PM »

Here's one.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKETS/dailys/04/aug04/081304/04n-0264-c00033-vol7.pdf
Logged

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~~ Gandhi
ancona
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 428


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2008, 05:32:52 AM »

Thank you
Logged
menusux
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2008, 08:49:59 AM »

I have a link to a 2005 one--but what we need to make clear is that the Lee Merrick mentioned is the president of Karem in WI, as shown at the link above and the one I'm posting here:

http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=cache:XX0rNCXzwT4J:www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC37-Attach-2.doc+karem&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&lr=&client=FDA&site=FDA&proxystylesheet=FDA&oe=UTF-8

http://www.marshall-wi.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B1DCC4FF2-7704-4DCA-BC12-4F11CD0F574D%7D&DE=%7BACDADE55-DF4A-43D0-91EC-EB30826C73B9%7D

Village of Marshall, WI.

"Lee Merrick had a rendering plant just outside the village limits.

"Lee Merrick annexed and rezoned property for a park on the east side of the Village.  Mr. Merrick opened Little A-Merrick-a Amusement Park.  The park features a 1/3 size railroad, operating an array of steam and diesel engines and proto-typical freight and passenger cars, with over 3-miles of track touring the surrounding property filled with animals of all sorts."

OK--what we see at the link here:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKETS/dailys/04/aug04/081304/04n-0264-c00033-vol7.pdf

is a 10 page pdf with the beginning of a Tejas Industries letter.  Here's the link for the entire 2 page letter:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/aug04/081304/04n-0264-c00034-vol7.pdf

What I don't know is whether the first page of the Tejas Industries letter was meant to be with the Karem one or not--when you view the docket, they are listed as separate entries--one for Karem, Inc. and one for Tejas Industries.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/aug04/081304/081304.htm

Dockets August 13, 2004

C 33 link on the page is Karem Inc. of WI, C 34 link is for Tejas Industries

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/aug04/081304/04n-0264-c00033-vol7.pdf

Karem

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/aug04/081304/04n-0264-c00034-vol7.pdf

Tejas.

If you look at the top of the Tejas letter, you'll see that it was faxed from Hereford Bi-Products:

http://www.shopcpn.com/webpage/display.cfm?ID=3617

"Dead stock removal.

Hereford Bi-Products
Hereford Bi-Products
P.O. Box 2257
Hereford, TX 79045"

http://tammi.tamu.edu/carcasscompostasae032263b.pdf

A Low-Maintenance Approach to Large Carcass Composting

Page 3

"In 2001, Hereford Bi-Products, a large rendering outfit in the panhandle of Texas, picked up and processedmore than 114 thousand metric tons (250 million pounds) of mortality from feed lots, farmers, packing houses and dairies in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Merrick 2002). According to Merrick (2002), lack of demand for beef in pet food, closing and consolidation of pet food canneries, and restrictions placed on meat and bone meal use for cattle feed have caused a steady decline in pick-up and rendering of animal mortalities."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5084297.html

Animal hoof dog food product and method for making same
United States Patent 5084297
Inventors:Merrick, Garth (Hereford, TX)
Assignee:HEREFORD BI PRODUCTS INC (US)

http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.8Wx8.18.htm

Windy Hill Pet Food Company, Inc.

"1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are Merrick Pet Foods, a 
division of Hereford Bi-Products, Inc., Highway 60 and FM 2943, Hereford, Texas
79045, a Texas corporation ("Merrick")
, and Hubbard Milling Company, P.O. Box   
8500, 424 North Riverfront Drive, Mankato, Minnesota 56001, a Minnesota         
corporation ("Hubbard")."

http://72.14.205.104/search?hl=en&q=cache:f8QX57xtXOoJ:http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/comm_exec/agendas/comm/marked/1999/990616.html+hereford+bi+products

Texas Natural Resource Commission June 16, 1999

"Item 11. Docket No. 1998-1168-AGR-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Hereford Bi-Products dba Stratford Bi-Products in Sherman County; No Permit; for water quality violations pursuant to TEX. WATER CODE chs. 7 and 26 and the rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (Tommy Nisbet)"

http://www.texasgreyhoundassociation.com/LatestNews.htm

"9-26-05

We understand that Tejas Industries (Hereford Bi-products) is out of the meat business as of September 19. In the future, it will just be carrying dry and canned products."

But it is still apparently in the rendering business.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/8/8.F3d.1010.93-1045.html

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Millard F. McAFEE, Defendant-Appellant.

"During the 1987 deposition, McAfee testified as follows:

Q. Do you know the names of any persons who have sold any hides to the hide plant for cash?

A. Um, Chester Peterson, he always wants cash; and there's a guy out of El Paso that we call "Southwest Exchange", and he always wants cash. He's a Mexican man; I don't know anything else about him.

A. On the Chester Peterson deal, I was trying to protect Garth and his father.

Q. Okay. What about your bull hides?

A. I didn't think that was any of your business.

In 1990 the testimony was:

Q. Who's Chester Peterson?

A. Chester Peterson, was--he was a guy that worked for Garth, some kind of mechanic, carpenter or something.

Q. And how do you come to find that out?

A. I'm really not sure who he was. I never met him. Garth had us make checks to him periodically.

Q. Going back to July 30th, 1987 deposition, I asked you about Chester Peterson ...

Q. Well, that's not really correct, is it, if Chester Peterson was Garth or somebody working for Garth, you knew where his business was, didn't you?

A. Chester Peterson was a name that Garth gave us to pay for those calf skins, I don't even remember this here.

Q. Why didn't--in 1987, why didn't you tell me that when you were asked?

A. I didn't want to answer it.

Q. Question on line 13 on page 5: Do you know the name of any company he is affiliated with?

A. No.

Q. Well, today you just told us Chester Peterson is affiliated with Hereford Bi-Products.

A. What I'm telling you today is the truth."

So while we can connect Tejas Industries, Hereford Bi-Products and Stratford Bi-Products to the Merricks in Texas, we really don't know if Karem Inc. in WI also has a connection.             
« Last Edit: March 24, 2008, 09:28:32 AM by menusux » Logged
menusux
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2008, 10:32:21 AM »

More re: Tejas Industries:

http://72.14.205.104/search?hl=en&q=cache:wVj2nZvk8voJ:https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/168556f5aa7a82ba85256ed00044eb1f/b5773ca9a76035d487256edf00540410/Body/M2%3FOpenElement+tejas+industries

"From:    Garth Merrick
            P. O. Box 2257
            Hereford, Texas  79045   

July 28, 2004

Tejas Industries, Inc.

P. O. Box 2257

Hereford, Texas  79045

 
Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane

Room 1061

Rockville, MD  20852

RE:     Federal Measures To Mitigate BSE Risks:  Considerations for Further Action

                   Docket #04-047-1

"ANPR’s proposed rule to prohibit SRM’s from all animal food including pet food and prohibiting materials from non ambulatory cattle and dead stock from all animal feed creates the below listed consequences of disposal of pounds that previously could be manufactured into animal feed.  These numbers are for Texas, primarily, but since our service area includes parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Kansas, those areas will have consequences as well.  SRM’s in cattle under 30 months of age have been estimated to be 20 pounds per head.  In Texas there are four packing houses processing approximately 100,000 head per week times 20 pounds equals 2,000,000 times 52 weeks equals 104,000,000 of product that no one has discussed what to do with.  Also, in Texas, there are approximately 18,000 head of cows over 30 months of age slaughtered weekly at four packing plants which have approximately 60 pounds per head of SRM material equals 1,080,000 per week equals 56,160,000 pounds per year.  Our company services mostly Texas and parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas.  Last year we processed 255,000 head of dead stock not counting calves with an average weight of 600 pounds per carcass.  The total weight comes to 153,000.000 pounds that makes its way into feed ingredients.  If you total these three categories, they total over 300,000,000 pounds that no one is discussing what to do with.  If you cannot render it for feed to be fed to chickens, swine or pet food, then you have destroyed a system that currently works.  We are the original recyclers.  These numbers are only for Texas; when you consider the other lower 47 states, the consequences are inconceivable as to what the health hazards could be if these products are not processed the way they are currently being done.  There is not a cost to local, state or federal agencies now, but if these proposed rules are adopted, then someone else will have to step in and I fear, they will not be as efficient or cost effective as what private industry is doing now.  There are huge consequences to be reckoned with and these consequences have to do with an effective way to dispose of these billions of pounds which are currently processed in an environmentally friendly way.

"If the system isn’t broken, why not applaud the efforts that this American Industry is doing and not try to copy a failed system that other countries have implemented?  If we cannot export our pet food or cattle, chicken, hogs, unless we adapt this strategy then so be it.  We have to consider consequences and not just react to pressure of international companies and governments.  What is best for America should be our government’s priority.  These proposals will cost thousands of jobs without accomplishing any good.  There is not a justified danger now and there is no science to support such radical changes to feed rules that will potentially do much more harm than good.  We must make decisions on the basis of scientific knowledge to insure we do not become a culture of alarmists.  We have already tested over 65,000 “probable animals” in the U.S. and have yet to find one domestically born and raised case.  We have just started on June 1, 2004, a new program to test an additional 20,000 head per month.  It’s not like we’re not doing anything.  Can you not see the benefit of giving this current testing campaign by the USDA time to prove itself?  The “firewalls” in place which includes the ban on feeding ruminant proteins to cattle, have been shown to be very effective in curtailing any potential outbreaks of BSE.  The Harvard Risk Analysis Center has stated that not only is the risk extremely small, but we are on the downside of any risk at all of seeing BSE as a problem in the United States.

"If the consumer is ever going to have confidence in any aspect of public safety in the U.S., they have to have some confidence that our government agencies’ actions are based on scientific evidence and no on emotional outpouring, speculation and scare tactics.  U.S. business also has the right to expect action based on science.  Where there is no reproducible evidence to support, no action needs to be taken.  When you consider the amount of material that would be produced without a place to go and then the health dangers that would be created, there is absolutely no logical reason to make any changes to the feed rules as they now exist.

 
Sincerely,

Garth Merrick

President"

The letter was originally on the USDA site but when you try the Google link:

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/168556f5aa7a82ba85256ed00044eb1f/b5773ca9a76035d487256edf00540410/Body/M2?OpenElement

"Error 404
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - File does not exist"

It still DOES exist when you use Google cached page--link and paste above.
Logged
petslave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5178


« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2008, 11:11:03 AM »

Geez, that 1987 testimony sounds like the script from a B grade movie.

I read that hoof food patent, that is totally gross, hope they never come out with this product with all that propylene glycol they use, but there's also an interesting peragraph at end.  How it's made:

"An animal hoof is soaked in a solution containing from about 50% to about 100% propylene glycol and from about 0% to about 50% water, then pressure cooked in a solution containing from about 50% to about 100% propylene glycol and from about 0% to about 50% water, the cooked in vegetable oil. The cooked hoof may then be filled with an edible filer such as dry dog food."

Yuck.  Now what do we stuff them with:

"The cavity of the hoof may then be filled with an edible filler so as to prevent the hoof from collapsing during vacuum sealing of the hoof. The edible filler is preferably dry dog food which can be any commercially available dry dog food. An example of a suitable dry dog food is that sold by Merrick Petfoods Inc. of Hereford, Texas under the trademark 27% Track Pro and containing the following ingredients: beef, ground yellow corn, soybean meal, corn gluten meal, wheat middling, ground wheat, beef bi-products, animal fat preserved with BHA, bone meal, salt, yeast culture, dicalcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, fish meal, distillers dried grains, choline chloride, iron proteinate, dried whey, vitamin E supplement, zinc proteinate, manganese proteinate, vitamin A acetate (stability improved), vitamin B12 supplement, copper proteinate, calcium pantothenate, ascorbic acid, niacin, soy lecithin, D-activated animal sterol (source of vitamin D3), riboflavin, menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of vitamin K activity), ethylene diamine dihydriodide, folic acid, magnesium proteinate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, cobalt proteinate, and thiamine mononitrate. The hoof is then placed in a vacuum sealable pouch and vacuum sealed under nitrogen."

Logged
menusux
Guest
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2008, 12:12:44 PM »

http://www.merrickpetcare.com/store/treats_detail.php?c=18&s=05014

I think this is them.  I also love the quote from the letter--"We are the original recyclers."
Logged
petslave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5178


« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2008, 02:04:10 PM »

I hope that's not them.  From the full descrip, sounds like they actually became chewy instead of hard, and would come in a vacuum pack.

But the fact that they recommended Merrick dog food be stuffed in the hoof does make it look like Merrick Petfoods & Hereford Bi-products are linked.  (which is the most obvious link among all these names of course).
Logged
menusux
Guest
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2008, 02:30:00 PM »

http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.8Wx8.18.htm

"1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are Merrick Pet Foods, a 
division of Hereford Bi-Products, Inc., Highway 60 and FM 2943, Hereford, Texas
79045, a Texas corporation ("Merrick")
, and Hubbard Milling Company, P.O. Box   
8500, 424 North Riverfront Drive, Mankato, Minnesota 56001, a Minnesota         
corporation ("Hubbard")."

There's the link right there--Merrick Pet Foods, a division of Hereford Bi-Products, Inc.--in the SEC filing for Windy Hill Pet Food Company.
Logged
petslave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5178


« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2008, 03:03:37 PM »

you did it, yes!!
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Copyright 2007 Itchmo.com: Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines | Sitemap