Animal ID

[ocm]

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

1. The SDSGA have a contract for running the brand program under a competitive bid situation (as far as I understand). They were not anointed by the State without a bid and a contract taking place. The NCBA/NAIS/USDA situation is nothing like that. No bid, no competition, the USDA said it will pick a consortium--no contract either. It would be like the state picking you to patrol a section of highway near your place and telling you they won't pay you for it, but you have the right to issue speeding tickets which are payable to you.

2. Nobody has shown that an improved brand program will not be adequate. Why not just improve current programs instead of inventing a new one. That is part of the missing cost/benefit analysis. Who has done such a study? You are essentially telling me that a brand program will NEVER work. Ok, show me. A computerized brand program(which some states are initiating) will do traceback in under three minutes. Isn't that good enough? And at what cost--virtually nothing above current brand program costs. Computerizing them is actually making some parts of the job easier.

3. You say your membership is trying to find solutions. The USAHA (which first addressed NAIS) was somewhat critical of NCBA for going out on its own and ignoring USAHA's previous work. The "at least we're working on something" idea that Mr. Johns presented in his article doesn't go too far with me. There is a vast difference between just doing something and doing the right thing. You are also assuming that I want the federal government to come up with a solution. I DO NOT. This is also R-CALF's position. There are 50 states that can work on solutions with the tiniest bit of coordination from USAHA. There are countless competing profit motivated organizations working on solutions or partial solutions. You (and the NCBA) confuse private with free-enterprise. A monopolistic private approach is not free-enterprise. I want free enterprise. But faced with a choice between a private monopoly and representative government, I'll take the government. But I don't want national ID. I think we can reach the necessary goals of disease tracking and control without it.

 

[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

1. The SDSGA have a contract for running the brand program under a competitive bid situation (as far as I understand). They were not anointed by the State without a bid and a contract taking place. The NCBA/NAIS/USDA situation is nothing like that. No bid, no competition, the USDA said it will pick a consortium--no contract either. It would be like the state picking you to patrol a section of highway near your place and telling you they won't pay you for it, but you have the right to issue speeding tickets which are payable to you.

2. Nobody has shown that an improved brand program will not be adequate. Why not just improve current programs instead of inventing a new one. That is part of the missing cost/benefit analysis. Who has done such a study? You are essentially telling me that a brand program will NEVER work. Ok, show me. A computerized brand program(which some states are initiating) will do traceback in under three minutes. Isn't that good enough? And at what cost--virtually nothing above current brand program costs. Computerizing them is actually making some parts of the job easier.

3. You say your membership is trying to find solutions. The USAHA (which first addressed NAIS) was somewhat critical of NCBA for going out on its own and ignoring USAHA's previous work. The "at least we're working on something" idea that Mr. Johns presented in his article doesn't go too far with me. There is a vast difference between just doing something and doing the right thing. You are also assuming that I want the federal government to come up with a solution. I DO NOT. This is also R-CALF's position. There are 50 states that can work on solutions with the tiniest bit of coordination from USAHA. There are countless competing profit motivated organizations working on solutions or partial solutions. You (and the NCBA) confuse private with free-enterprise. A monopolistic private approach is not free-enterprise. I want free enterprise. But faced with a choice between a private monopoly and representative government, I'll take the government. But I don't want national ID. I think we can reach the necessary goals of disease tracking and control without it.

ocm, 1. How many times as any other organization ever bid against SDSGA for that contract?

The NCBA/NAIS/USDA "situation" is not to the point of contracts yet, is it?

So far as "speeding tickets payable..." if a multi-species NEW group, or Consortium is a NON-PROFIT, working in the best interests of producers of those species AND the safety of all affected by animal health, and with government oversight, do you really doubt there will be checks and balances on all aspects of the work, ESPECIALLY the finances?

2. Re. using brands. I have NEVER said that an improved brand program CANNOT work. You, untill this post I believe, have not indicated that we need anything MORE than a "brand" program. There are many thousands of cattle that are never branded that will need accounted for, besides the duplications and other glitches in the current brands across the areas using them.

3. I well know that USAHA and NCBA and predecessor organizations have had a fairly compatible working relationship for many years, having a spouse who was involved with both organizations. I also know that bureaucracies tend to move very slowly (USAHA/USDA) and much of the rest of the world is far ahead of the USA on this. You may have a fancier dictionary, but my Readers Digest and Merriam Webster both say "private enterprise" IS "free enterprise", with only one definition as written after "Free Enterprise". Neither I nor NCBA has had any problem with supporting FREE or PRIVATE enterprise over excessive government mandates, when warranted. I have NOT assumed anything about what you want......but you state in your post you will not believe a consortium is not a monopoly, indicating you would prefer government to anything NCBA might come up with. Re. your desire for the states to control ID for animal health reasons......aren't there currently disagreements between states regarding animal disease controls that will have to be agreed upon before a coordinated, fast, secure system for tracking animals can be developed? How will that fit with R-CALF determination to prevent trace-back to the producer as in their COOL law?

Finally, it is not only government that is mandating ID, but the marketplace will demand it sooner than government can at the current pace. I just want a voice in what is mandated by government, which is what NCBA is attempting to gain for cattle producers. You can go your own way and we will let the marketplace sort your stuff off to your "niche" market if you choose not to participate in that aspect of it. But darned if I want you to be allowed to put other peoples' cattle in danger from communicable diseases simply because of your bias against NCBA, which is what this appears to be about.

MRJ

 

[theHiredMansWife]

There are many thousands of cattle that are never branded that will need accounted for, besides the duplications and other glitches in the current brands across the areas using them.


I would say it's more like millions. If I'm recalling my USDA stats accurately, only about 1/2 of the cattle raised in this country are raised in states/parts of states that require branding.

So far as ID-ing...
The lesser half decided he was going to put birth dates on the tags of all of our calves this year. Easy enough.
When we sold, of the 7,000 some calves that ran through Ogallala Live, only one other consigner had done anything similar. And I think both of us got a little more because of it...

That's not much of an ID system obviously, but it seemed some buyers were happy to be able to aquire calves with known ages.

 

[ocm]

There are many thousands of cattle that are never branded that will need accounted for, besides the duplications and other glitches in the current brands across the areas using them.


I would say it's more like millions. If I'm recalling my USDA stats accurately, only about 1/2 of the cattle raised in this country are raised in states/parts of states that require branding.

So far as ID-ing...
The lesser half decided he was going to put birth dates on the tags of all of our calves this year. Easy enough.
When we sold, of the 7,000 some calves that ran through Ogallala Live, only one other consigner had done anything similar. And I think both of us got a little more because of it...

That's not much of an ID system obviously, but it seemed some buyers were happy to be able to aquire calves with known ages.

Then let those states require an ID system and leave the rest of us alone. Is that so difficult?

Or better yet, let the free market drive it.

 

[Bill]

There are many thousands of cattle that are never branded that will need accounted for, besides the duplications and other glitches in the current brands across the areas using them.


I would say it's more like millions. If I'm recalling my USDA stats accurately, only about 1/2 of the cattle raised in this country are raised in states/parts of states that require branding.

So far as ID-ing...
The lesser half decided he was going to put birth dates on the tags of all of our calves this year. Easy enough.
When we sold, of the 7,000 some calves that ran through Ogallala Live, only one other consigner had done anything similar. And I think both of us got a little more because of it...

That's not much of an ID system obviously, but it seemed some buyers were happy to be able to aquire calves with known ages.

Then let those states require an ID system and leave the rest of us alone. Is that so difficult?

Or better yet, let the free market drive it.

Time to make that leap from 1885 to 2005. If you want to be left alone you had better not be producing anything that is made into food as consumers demands on quality and traceability are only going to intensify.

 

[Econ101]

Bill, market information can be used to manipulate the markets. Ask Agman. He knows. Manditory ID has this potential problem. If the regulatory agencies of the USDA can not get the data necessary for free and transparent markets, why should we trust them with an ID program? Why should we allow political positions that are filled with the friends of "big business" collect such a potentially damaging information against producers?

Packers that support an ID system for beef and not manditory COOL are looking for their own interests, not the interests of the domestic markets.

 

[theHiredMansWife]

Then let those states require an ID system and leave the rest of us alone. Is that so difficult?


well sure.
If you can somehow guarantee that your animals aren't going to be entering the national food supply.

The free market has already driven this.
that's why there's such a push these days for a national ID system. It's going to happen. We can't change that. But I would think people would want to be in on it from the start to help determine the course.

 

[Bill]

Then let those states require an ID system and leave the rest of us alone. Is that so difficult?


well sure.
If you can somehow guarantee that your animals aren't going to be entering the national food supply.

The free market has already driven this.
that's why there's such a push these days for a national ID system. It's going to happen. We can't change that. But I would think people would want to be in on it from the start to help determine the course.

I agree. The hangup seems to be convincing US producers and others like Econ that this will happen with or without their consent. It is best to be part of the process from the beginning and develop a system that works for all involved.

Potentially damaging information? All information is potentially damaging depending on how it's used. Good to know that at least one US producer grouip is onside and working to improve the industry.

 

[Econ101]

Then let those states require an ID system and leave the rest of us alone. Is that so difficult?


well sure.
If you can somehow guarantee that your animals aren't going to be entering the national food supply.

The free market has already driven this.
that's why there's such a push these days for a national ID system. It's going to happen. We can't change that. But I would think people would want to be in on it from the start to help determine the course.

I agree. The hangup seems to be convincing US producers and others like Econ that this will happen with or without their consent. It is best to be part of the process from the beginning and develop a system that works for all involved.

Potentially damaging information? All information is potentially damaging depending on how it's used. Good to know that at least one US producer grouip is onside and working to improve the industry.

Bill, I am not necessarily against an ID system. I am saying that there are some market information risk assessments that need to be made for the producer's interests.

Your comments remind me of Clayton Williams' comments when running for governor. A statement was attributed to him that went something like this: When a woman is getting raped, she might as well sit back and enjoy it and then do something about it after it happens.

He lost the election.

Some people are just smarter than others.

 

[theHiredMansWife]

Improving the safety of the national food supply is akin to a woman getting raped? :???:

That is offensive on so many different levels.

 

[Econ101]

Improving the safety of the national food supply is akin to a woman getting raped? :???:

That is offensive on so many different levels.

I totally agree, producers allowing packers to make and influence the laws so that they get "raped" later is offensive on many different levels.

Clayton Williams was put in the camp of people who think that women ask for rape by the way they look or dress. I don't know if this was Clayton's real belief or not. It played out in the election.

Making ID look as if it is improving the safety of the national food supply and then using that information for market manipulation is something that needs to be addressed for producer's protections before it actually occurs. Rape in either case is unexcusable.

 

[Anonymous]

The solution to this is so obvious. Let progressive, forward thinkers enter into source verified branded beef programs and the first sign of a health scare in the U.S., they can prove themselves while the ID blamers watch as their industry withers on the vine. ID blamers should not be forced to benefit from ID against their will.

I agree with OCM, let the free enterprise system drive "M"ID and don't force regressives to become progressives. LET THEM DIE A SLOW DEATH IF THEY INSIST! Who are we to save them from themselves?

NCBA's roll in this issue should be to evaluate ID programs that meet USDA qualifications then support the "VOLUNTARY" use of those ID programs.



~SH~