~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~
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 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
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."
~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~
~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~
~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~
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."
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.
~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~
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
