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

Animal ID

Help Support Ranchers.net:

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
ocm: "Under their plan a SINGLE consortium would run the national database."

Like I said, where is your proof that NCBA wants a "SINGLE" consortium to run the national database?



~SH~

In all the press releases there is a single database (it is always singular). A consortium is to run it--that means a group composed of organizations. This is a single group, ridiculous to read it any other way.

Reference from the ncba website

http://ranchers.net/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=60567
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
PPRM said:
Porker,

The Japanese consumer wants not only information, they are used to a system that tests cattle in thier own country. By testing all, they have found more..... As far as source verified age, Tyson and Beef northwest Packers have a program in place. Here's the problem, there's no guarentee of a premium. Also, even if you have calves that meet the age requirement, they usually need to grade high choice or better. It was neat to se the program they have though...

OCM,

NCBA didn't put on th presentation I was at.....On the issue of Animal ID in the event of a disease outbreak, I can tell you that with the current procedures in place, the majority of animals in a geographic area will remain under quarenteen for awhile. With Animal ID, more will be released more quickly. How do I know this? I workedi n vegetable processing where I was a QA Supervisor. Individual cases of product have codes on thm for ID. If there is a food safety problem, they can very narrowly identify potentiall contaminated food.......Of course, I have never understood how so much Hamburger can get recalled like it does, but it is the way they want to do the burger...

OCM,

I think the basis of our different viewpoints go back to our opinions of NCBA. You seem to be Anti-NCBA, I tend to not always agree, but don't search until I find fault with everything. We could go back and forth forever, but, for the most part, most of what we say wouldn't address the basic foundation of this disagreement. That is why I have spent less time on this side of the forum...I see good people getting worked up and throwing darts, sometimes handgrenades at each other. I have yet to see anything productive come out of this kind of arguing.....You seem like a good enough guy, if we were discussing this in person, my next comment would be, "Boy, I drove by your place and saw some great looking calves, where are you getting your bulls from?" ...That's code for Let's Change The Subject, This is Going Nowhere and while I disagree, I want to stay on good terms, LOL....


Hope your cattle winter well,

PPRM

PPRM, they put all that stuff to grind in one large grinder. There is a place close to you that does the same thing for Yum Yum Foods that you can tour. They put a lot of chicken breasts in one large container to grind it up and mix it for Taco Bell and the others. If you want, I will find out for you who it is. That is the reason for so many recalls. One big vat. All it needs is one "bad apple" to spoil the bunch. It is "efficient" but it carries more risk.
 

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,964
Reaction score
11
Location
NE Oregon
Econ,


I understand the "Big Vat" concept....I just never understood why they didn't try to break it up. I alo never understood why they didn't do more testing. This comes from a food processing background perspective where we found it best to catch all quality issues before it went out the door. I guesss maybe recalls are truly rare or they really cost much less than changing theway they do business......

I didn't know there was any major chicken processing close to me. Wouldn't mind touring it, I gon't eat chickn, so it wouldn't turn me off. Might give me some stories to turn folks off of chicken tho, LOL,


PPRM
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
PPRM said:
Econ,


I understand the "Big Vat" concept....I just never understood why they didn't try to break it up. I alo never understood why they didn't do more testing. This comes from a food processing background perspective where we found it best to catch all quality issues before it went out the door. I guesss maybe recalls are truly rare or they really cost much less than changing theway they do business......

I didn't know there was any major chicken processing close to me. Wouldn't mind touring it, I gon't eat chickn, so it wouldn't turn me off. Might give me some stories to turn folks off of chicken tho, LOL,


PPRM

I would suspect (no proof here) that these recalls are being handled in a more political manner than a legal or rule-following manner. There are many recalls that never get all of the product back and the money returned to those who bought. When a recall is made, it would be good if the regulatory agency kept tabs on how much of the product was recalled and how much was actually returned. Those stats should be provided to all of us and not hidden. Any amount not returned should not be a boon to the seller.

All of these issues can be thought out and if economic principles were used, could stop any incentives that lead to the degrading of food safety like the big vat method of processing. We just have to have the will to do so in the USDA and the meddling of politicians into the process for the benefit of their donors exposed. That is not happening right now. The USDA claims that "our food is safe, and this recall proves it" instead of really fixing the problems. It takes school kids getting sick or some other big and apparent problem for things to change.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "Under their plan a SINGLE consortium would run the national database."

OCM: "In all the press releases there is a single database (it is always singular). A consortium is to run it--that means a group composed of organizations. This is a single group, ridiculous to read it any other way."

Hahaha!

A "SINGLE CONSORTIUM" composed of and representing various producer "ORGANIZATIONSSSSSS" will run a single database agreed upon by the various organizations as opposed to a "SINGLE GOVERNMENT" running a "SINGLE DATABASE".

Sounds like a winning SELF GOVERNED plan to me.

"Single consortium", what a nice play on words to imply "special interest".

How OCM of you!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
OCM: "Under their plan a SINGLE consortium would run the national database."

OCM: "In all the press releases there is a single database (it is always singular). A consortium is to run it--that means a group composed of organizations. This is a single group, ridiculous to read it any other way."

Hahaha!

A "SINGLE CONSORTIUM" composed of and representing various producer "ORGANIZATIONSSSSSS" will run a single database agreed upon by the various organizations as opposed to a "SINGLE GOVERNMENT" running a "SINGLE DATABASE".

Sounds like a winning SELF GOVERNED plan to me.

"Single consortium", what a nice play on words to imply "special interest".

How OCM of you!


~SH~

You could say the same thing about the Farm Bureau but they sure do not represent the interests of farmers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Farm Bureau certainly represents farmers just not the whining, anti corporate, conspiracy oriented, victim mentality, blaming segment of the farmers that are represented by phonies like you.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Farm Bureau certainly represents farmers just not the whining, anti corporate, conspiracy oriented, victim mentality, blaming segment of the farmers that are represented by phonies like you.


~SH~

Or ones who will not along with the scams of the day?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Farm Bureau certainly represents farmers just not the whining, anti corporate, conspiracy oriented, victim mentality, blaming segment of the farmers that are represented by phonies like you.


~SH~

Do you have any idea on the % of their customers that are actually farmers? You ought to do some research before making comments like the one above.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Do you have any idea on the % of their customers that are actually farmers? You ought to do some research before making comments like the one above."

If you have a point make it rather than trying to create another "ILLUSION" again.


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Farm Bureau certainly represents farmers just not the whining, anti corporate, conspiracy oriented, victim mentality, blaming segment of the farmers that are represented by phonies like you.


~SH~

Do you have any idea on the % of their customers that are actually farmers? You ought to do some research before making comments like the one above.


Sandhusker, do YOU have any idea of the % of Farm Bureau members voting on the decisions of the organization that are NOT farmers or ranchers?

Looks to me like the insurance business is not only good for those who are able to purchase it, but for people in the membership organization and has nothing to do with their policy decisions.

Surely your bank has Farm Bureau members who are customers and are active in the organization. Why do you insult them with that question?

Econ, since FARMERS are the ones voting on the issues that organization supports and does not support, where is your verification of your statement that FB does not "represent the interests of farmers"? The fact that there are hard fought battles in organizations like Farm Bureau or NCBA, for that matter, indicates a living, breathing, give and take among the members, rather than as in the unanimous votes of some organizations where the members toe the "party line" pushed by the leadership.

BTW, ocm, a SINGLE consortium can be composed of representatives of MANY divergent organizations of a single species involved, as well as representatives of each of the many species involved. I seriously doubt anything has been cast in stone, at this point in time.

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
OCM: "Under their plan a SINGLE consortium would run the national database."

OCM: "In all the press releases there is a single database (it is always singular). A consortium is to run it--that means a group composed of organizations. This is a single group, ridiculous to read it any other way."

Hahaha!

A "SINGLE CONSORTIUM" composed of and representing various producer "ORGANIZATIONSSSSSS" will run a single database agreed upon by the various organizations as opposed to a "SINGLE GOVERNMENT" running a "SINGLE DATABASE".

Sounds like a winning SELF GOVERNED plan to me.

"Single consortium", what a nice play on words to imply "special interest".

How OCM of you!


~SH~

You miss the legal point--made here often--that if I am compelled to join ANY organization (or any organization from an approved list) in order to be represented, then that is unconstitutional.

If the government mandate that I participate in an ID program, and there is only one database that I must participate with and that is run by any entity that claims to represent cattlemen, but I cannot be represented unless I join some organization, that violate the principle of freedom of association. Get it? It's a constitiutional question Scalia already brought up when discussing the checkoff decision. He as much said that the suit was brought on the wrong premise--it should have been brought under the idea of freedom of association, not freedom of speech. Being an originalist he only decided the case on the issue before him. As proposed by the NCBA a private consortium would NOT be representative of ALL cattlemen and thus would be unconstitutional. Challenge guaranteed.

Ask any lawyer. Show him what I have written here. See what he says. This isn't even iffy.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Farm Bureau certainly represents farmers just not the whining, anti corporate, conspiracy oriented, victim mentality, blaming segment of the farmers that are represented by phonies like you.


~SH~

Do you have any idea on the % of their customers that are actually farmers? You ought to do some research before making comments like the one above.


Sandhusker, do YOU have any idea of the % of Farm Bureau members voting on the decisions of the organization that are NOT farmers or ranchers?

Looks to me like the insurance business is not only good for those who are able to purchase it, but for people in the membership organization and has nothing to do with their policy decisions.

Surely your bank has Farm Bureau members who are customers and are active in the organization. Why do you insult them with that question?

Econ, since FARMERS are the ones voting on the issues that organization supports and does not support, where is your verification of your statement that FB does not "represent the interests of farmers"? The fact that there are hard fought battles in organizations like Farm Bureau or NCBA, for that matter, indicates a living, breathing, give and take among the members, rather than as in the unanimous votes of some organizations where the members toe the "party line" pushed by the leadership.

BTW, ocm, a SINGLE consortium can be composed of representatives of MANY divergent organizations of a single species involved, as well as representatives of each of the many species involved. I seriously doubt anything has been cast in stone, at this point in time.

MRJ

The census bureau says there are 2 million farmers in the US. Farm Bureau membership is about 5 million.

So the Farm Bureau represents approximately 250% of the farmers in the US.


On the animal ID question--see my reponse to ~SH~. You guys really need to talk to a lawyer.
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
Your remarks OCM,Are very true as Scalia already brought up when discussing the checkoff decision. He as much said that the suit was brought on the wrong premise--it should have been brought under the idea of freedom of association, not freedom of speech.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
Do you have any idea on the % of their customers that are actually farmers? You ought to do some research before making comments like the one above.


Sandhusker, do YOU have any idea of the % of Farm Bureau members voting on the decisions of the organization that are NOT farmers or ranchers?

Looks to me like the insurance business is not only good for those who are able to purchase it, but for people in the membership organization and has nothing to do with their policy decisions.

Surely your bank has Farm Bureau members who are customers and are active in the organization. Why do you insult them with that question?

Econ, since FARMERS are the ones voting on the issues that organization supports and does not support, where is your verification of your statement that FB does not "represent the interests of farmers"? The fact that there are hard fought battles in organizations like Farm Bureau or NCBA, for that matter, indicates a living, breathing, give and take among the members, rather than as in the unanimous votes of some organizations where the members toe the "party line" pushed by the leadership.

BTW, ocm, a SINGLE consortium can be composed of representatives of MANY divergent organizations of a single species involved, as well as representatives of each of the many species involved. I seriously doubt anything has been cast in stone, at this point in time.

MRJ

The census bureau says there are 2 million farmers in the US. Farm Bureau membership is about 5 million.

So the Farm Bureau represents approximately 250% of the farmers in the US.


On the animal ID question--see my reponse to ~SH~. You guys really need to talk to a lawyer.

Just guessing here, but what if to buy the insurance FB sells, one has to be, or is considered a member? What if a family has two parents, x number of children, but ONE farm. There could realistically be half a dozen FB members on that one farm. Suppose grandma and grandpa also has FB ins.? And uncle and aunt and their two kids? You could very easily have 11 FB members on that ONE family farm. Legitimately and reasonably! We haven't required other organizations to document how they count their members, but I would not complain if we did! I'm very certain "my" organizations would come out honest and accurate.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
MRJ said:
ocm said:
Do you think a private monopoly is better than a representative government?


ocm, are you just refusing to understand that what NCBA, to this date, has proposed is a consortium of REPRESENTATIVES of beef (and if I understand correctly, ALL OTHER species affected by M-ID) to form a non-profit organization to do the work at the lowest possible cost, with the least possible information required to fulfill the government requirements for M-ID?

What I'm seeing in comments like yours is a desperate attempt by anti-NCBA forces uniting to denigrate that organization for the members/ decision to be pro-active on working to make regulations that ARE going to be placed upon the cattle producer, among many others, something that we can live with and that will benefit cattle producers and consumers alike.

MRJ

What you are missing is that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for there for be a consortium that represents all beef producers. In order for me to be represented I would be compelled to join some organization that is a member of the consortium. If I don't, then I am not represented. It is unconstitutional to require me to join any particular organization. That is freedom of association. That was Scalia's issue on the checkoff. It is a well established principle of law. It is similar to compelling someone to join a union in order to get a job. Remember, unions are private--not government.

NO private organization EVER represents ALL of anybody.

Please note how you say PRIVATE, but you're not allowing competition. There will be only ONE consortium. That is PRIVATE MONOPOLY.

If you want it to be private (my real preference) then it must NOT be mandatory and there MUST be competitive choice. Otherwise it is merely government by proxy--not private.

We don't need NAIS. State brand programs are improving and there has been no evidence presented to show us what they are unable to do. State brand programs are imperfect. But NAIS is costly and imperfect.

I'll ask you again. Who has authorized it. And while you're at it. Show me a cost/benefit analysis. NONE EXISTS. Why are we even going down this road if we don't know what we will get (above what we have now) and what it will cost.

ocm, are you saying that NCBA would be the ONLY cattle organization represented in a possible consortium to manage M-ID.

I do not believe that is what anyone is pushing. And I haven't been able to look up the info on the NCBA website yet, but am guessing it might be similar to SD BIC which has representatives of eight SD cattle groups to manage the Beef checkoff, which I believe is one of the broadest based state beef checkoff groups in the nation. Especially the SDLMA claims they represent all the cattle producers who do not join groups......though, of course, they have no vote in SDBIC. Back to the consortium, I would guess it might either cover ALL affected species with reps from their associations.......or it might cover only cattle with reps from various nationwide cattle orgs. But I'm speculating, since I haven't seen anything concrete on that aspect.

What I believe one of the most important aspects of M-ID is the danger of animal diseases deliberately or accidentally spread among our cattle, such as Foot and Mouth or some other serious and costly disease. Why would you be against having fast tracking for protection of our herds?

It is daily more apparent that the marketplace is going to drive M-ID if government doesn't. That is probably right along with disease prevention in cattle as reasons NCBA members are determined to be pro-active on this issue. The USA already is behind much of the rest of the world on this important issue.

It really is immaterial to me if you participate or not, expect for the fact that if your herd is carrying something that will endanger my cattle. That is my only reason for wanting mandatory, because the market place will sort out the value of ID and those using it will benefit while those not using it will be hurt. It will be by choice.

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
ocm said:
MRJ said:
ocm, are you just refusing to understand that what NCBA, to this date, has proposed is a consortium of REPRESENTATIVES of beef (and if I understand correctly, ALL OTHER species affected by M-ID) to form a non-profit organization to do the work at the lowest possible cost, with the least possible information required to fulfill the government requirements for M-ID?

What I'm seeing in comments like yours is a desperate attempt by anti-NCBA forces uniting to denigrate that organization for the members/ decision to be pro-active on working to make regulations that ARE going to be placed upon the cattle producer, among many others, something that we can live with and that will benefit cattle producers and consumers alike.

MRJ

What you are missing is that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for there for be a consortium that represents all beef producers. In order for me to be represented I would be compelled to join some organization that is a member of the consortium. If I don't, then I am not represented. It is unconstitutional to require me to join any particular organization. That is freedom of association. That was Scalia's issue on the checkoff. It is a well established principle of law. It is similar to compelling someone to join a union in order to get a job. Remember, unions are private--not government.

NO private organization EVER represents ALL of anybody.

Please note how you say PRIVATE, but you're not allowing competition. There will be only ONE consortium. That is PRIVATE MONOPOLY.

If you want it to be private (my real preference) then it must NOT be mandatory and there MUST be competitive choice. Otherwise it is merely government by proxy--not private.

We don't need NAIS. State brand programs are improving and there has been no evidence presented to show us what they are unable to do. State brand programs are imperfect. But NAIS is costly and imperfect.

I'll ask you again. Who has authorized it. And while you're at it. Show me a cost/benefit analysis. NONE EXISTS. Why are we even going down this road if we don't know what we will get (above what we have now) and what it will cost.

ocm, are you saying that NCBA would be the ONLY cattle organization represented in a possible consortium to manage M-ID.

I do not believe that is what anyone is pushing. And I haven't been able to look up the info on the NCBA website yet, but am guessing it might be similar to SD BIC which has representatives of eight SD cattle groups to manage the Beef checkoff, which I believe is one of the broadest based state beef checkoff groups in the nation. Especially the SDLMA claims they represent all the cattle producers who do not join groups......though, of course, they have no vote in SDBIC. Back to the consortium, I would guess it might either cover ALL affected species with reps from their associations.......or it might cover only cattle with reps from various nationwide cattle orgs. But I'm speculating, since I haven't seen anything concrete on that aspect.

What I believe one of the most important aspects of M-ID is the danger of animal diseases deliberately or accidentally spread among our cattle, such as Foot and Mouth or some other serious and costly disease. Why would you be against having fast tracking for protection of our herds?

It is daily more apparent that the marketplace is going to drive M-ID if government doesn't. That is probably right along with disease prevention in cattle as reasons NCBA members are determined to be pro-active on this issue. The USA already is behind much of the rest of the world on this important issue.

It really is immaterial to me if you participate or not, expect for the fact that if your herd is carrying something that will endanger my cattle. That is my only reason for wanting mandatory, because the market place will sort out the value of ID and those using it will benefit while those not using it will be hurt. It will be by choice.

MRJ

You're missing my point. If every single cattle organization in existence were a part of the "consortium" it would not represent all cattle producers. It would only represent those who belonged to some cattle organization or another. What if I didn't want to be part of ANY cattle organization, then I would be unrepresented. It is unconstitutional to REQUIRE me to be a part of an organization in order to have representation in a mandatory program. As long as the program is voluntary, there is no issue. As soon as it is mandatory and is run by a single consortium basing its membership on belonging to one of its constituent organizations, it crosses the line. It is no longer constitutional. This is the right of association. I cannot be compelled to join any organization (or even my choice of one from an approved list) in order to gain the right of representation.

ANY cattle organization (or consortium of organizations) only represents its membership PERIOD (LMA included). When I talk about participation, I'm not talking about participation in an ID program. I'm talking about participating in an organization that is a member of the consortium. If I choose not to be a member then I am disenfranchised (lose my right to vote) with regard to something the government mandates. No government mandate, no problem. Government mandate--unconstitutional.

I am not against fast tracking diseased animals. I am opposed to instituting unneeded and unconstitutional solutions that are the best solutions.

Is 48hr traceback necessary? If so, can we do it with programs already in existence. If we can, then why do we need national ID?

Remember South Dakota traced some bulls in three hours. What if instead of spending millions on a national ID program we could spend thousands improving existing programs to meet the goals of animal disease tracking and control.

IF I can be shown a cost/benefit analysis that has covered and answered all of these questions and more, then maybe I would say there is evedence of need for national ID.

You like to talk about the private approach. What kind of private businessman is it that doesn't project both the costs and the benefits before spending money on improvements. Shouldn't we do the same with national ID?

Remember ID systems are not perfect. What if an ID system is 95% perfect. What if a current system is 90% perfect. What would it cost to raise the level of effectivity that 5%?

In actuality I understand tag retention rates may be as low as 85%. Are we going to spend money only to find that we have to fall back on our old systems for 15% of tracebacks? That would be nuts!!

Who has answered these questions? I haven't seen them answered anywhere. I heard from a pilot program supervisor that NO cost/benefit analysis has been done. That is unconsionable!! It is the blind leading the stupid.
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
We do that with brands in other countrys

,OCMQuote,Remember South Dakota traced some bulls in three hours. What if instead of spending millions on a national ID program we could spend thousands improving existing programs to meet the goals of animal disease tracking and control.

We agree and have a system that helps brand inspectors nomatter the country.We do it in real time(seconds).Our system can mix brands and tagged animals all at the same time and branding is still the cheapest ID in the world for a premises code.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
STAFF said:
We do that with brands in other countrys

,OCMQuote,Remember South Dakota traced some bulls in three hours. What if instead of spending millions on a national ID program we could spend thousands improving existing programs to meet the goals of animal disease tracking and control.

We agree and have a system that helps brand inspectors nomatter the country.We do it in real time(seconds).Our system can mix brands and tagged animals all at the same time and branding is still the cheapest ID in the world for a premises code.

Thanks for the comment. I don't know how your system works but I do know something about databases. They really are not so complicated that it takes millions to develop and run simple programs. I'm sure yours is simple, but more complicated than NCBA's. Other aspects of an ID program are much more complicated than the database itself.

I'm for what you have. I really don't want a mandatory program, but if we have to have one I think producers should be able to use any program they want, there should be no "national" database and let the government "search" private databases for movement info only. Would this be workable, do you think?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
MRJ said:
ocm said:
What you are missing is that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for there for be a consortium that represents all beef producers. In order for me to be represented I would be compelled to join some organization that is a member of the consortium. If I don't, then I am not represented. It is unconstitutional to require me to join any particular organization. That is freedom of association. That was Scalia's issue on the checkoff. It is a well established principle of law. It is similar to compelling someone to join a union in order to get a job. Remember, unions are private--not government.

NO private organization EVER represents ALL of anybody.

Please note how you say PRIVATE, but you're not allowing competition. There will be only ONE consortium. That is PRIVATE MONOPOLY.

If you want it to be private (my real preference) then it must NOT be mandatory and there MUST be competitive choice. Otherwise it is merely government by proxy--not private.

We don't need NAIS. State brand programs are improving and there has been no evidence presented to show us what they are unable to do. State brand programs are imperfect. But NAIS is costly and imperfect.

I'll ask you again. Who has authorized it. And while you're at it. Show me a cost/benefit analysis. NONE EXISTS. Why are we even going down this road if we don't know what we will get (above what we have now) and what it will cost.

ocm, are you saying that NCBA would be the ONLY cattle organization represented in a possible consortium to manage M-ID.

I do not believe that is what anyone is pushing. And I haven't been able to look up the info on the NCBA website yet, but am guessing it might be similar to SD BIC which has representatives of eight SD cattle groups to manage the Beef checkoff, which I believe is one of the broadest based state beef checkoff groups in the nation. Especially the SDLMA claims they represent all the cattle producers who do not join groups......though, of course, they have no vote in SDBIC. Back to the consortium, I would guess it might either cover ALL affected species with reps from their associations.......or it might cover only cattle with reps from various nationwide cattle orgs. But I'm speculating, since I haven't seen anything concrete on that aspect.

What I believe one of the most important aspects of M-ID is the danger of animal diseases deliberately or accidentally spread among our cattle, such as Foot and Mouth or some other serious and costly disease. Why would you be against having fast tracking for protection of our herds?

It is daily more apparent that the marketplace is going to drive M-ID if government doesn't. That is probably right along with disease prevention in cattle as reasons NCBA members are determined to be pro-active on this issue. The USA already is behind much of the rest of the world on this important issue.

It really is immaterial to me if you participate or not, expect for the fact that if your herd is carrying something that will endanger my cattle. That is my only reason for wanting mandatory, because the market place will sort out the value of ID and those using it will benefit while those not using it will be hurt. It will be by choice.

MRJ

You're missing my point. If every single cattle organization in existence were a part of the "consortium" it would not represent all cattle producers. It would only represent those who belonged to some cattle organization or another. What if I didn't want to be part of ANY cattle organization, then I would be unrepresented. It is unconstitutional to REQUIRE me to be a part of an organization in order to have representation in a mandatory program. As long as the program is voluntary, there is no issue. As soon as it is mandatory and is run by a single consortium basing its membership on belonging to one of its constituent organizations, it crosses the line. It is no longer constitutional. This is the right of association. I cannot be compelled to join any organization (or even my choice of one from an approved list) in order to gain the right of representation.

ANY cattle organization (or consortium of organizations) only represents its membership PERIOD (LMA included). When I talk about participation, I'm not talking about participation in an ID program. I'm talking about participating in an organization that is a member of the consortium. If I choose not to be a member then I am disenfranchised (lose my right to vote) with regard to something the government mandates. No government mandate, no problem. Government mandate--unconstitutional.

I am not against fast tracking diseased animals. I am opposed to instituting unneeded and unconstitutional solutions that are the best solutions.

Is 48hr traceback necessary? If so, can we do it with programs already in existence. If we can, then why do we need national ID?

Remember South Dakota traced some bulls in three hours. What if instead of spending millions on a national ID program we could spend thousands improving existing programs to meet the goals of animal disease tracking and control.

IF I can be shown a cost/benefit analysis that has covered and answered all of these questions and more, then maybe I would say there is evedence of need for national ID.

You like to talk about the private approach. What kind of private businessman is it that doesn't project both the costs and the benefits before spending money on improvements. Shouldn't we do the same with national ID?

Remember ID systems are not perfect. What if an ID system is 95% perfect. What if a current system is 90% perfect. What would it cost to raise the level of effectivity that 5%?

In actuality I understand tag retention rates may be as low as 85%. Are we going to spend money only to find that we have to fall back on our old systems for 15% of tracebacks? That would be nuts!!

Who has answered these questions? I haven't seen them answered anywhere. I heard from a pilot program supervisor that NO cost/benefit analysis has been done. That is unconsionable!! It is the blind leading the stupid.

ocm, you are going to extremes here, and not being consistent.

How is a brand inspection program such as that in SD and probably other states any different? The SDSGA obviously profits from conducting that program, yet not all who are affected by it are members. Most likely there are other such systems serving well.

It is apparent your problems with the idea of NCBA trying to determine if something can be worked out for a system outside our slow bureaucratic government agencies is driven by your bias against that organization. Our membership should not be castigated for trying to find solutions.

You are part of the problem if you are only throwing brick bats at NCBA and failing to ask questions and offer solutions. It is not exclusively NCBA working to solve this problem.

Maybe you don't remember the way markets dropped when RUMOR of a POSSIBLE Foot and Mouth case surfaced in Nebraska a couple of years ago. What do you think would happen if there was a confirmed case and our animal ID system was still in the disarray it is today? Do you really want to risk NOT having a good system that can trace cattle quickly?

BTW, are you very sure about that bull you say was traced in three hours? Maybe it was after it was found to be in SD, BUT what was the total time from place of origin to MT to SD to.......was it ever really "found"?

MRJ
 
Top