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

Branding alone won't work.

Bill

Well-known member
MSU University News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branding alone won't work in national animal ID program

Montana ranchers have branded their livestock for more than a century, and it works well in Montana. However, it won't work by itself as a national animal identification system, says a Montana State University beef expert who's involved with animal ID on the state and federal levels.

Most states don't have brand laws or a department of livestock like Montana does, said John Paterson, MSU Extension beef specialist and director of the Montana Beef Network. Besides that, similar brands may be used in more than one state, making it harder to trace the origins of specific animals especially since the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mandate for tracing cattle in case of a disease outbreak.

Mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state in 2003, prompting U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman to call for the establishment of a national livestock ID program. The goal was a verifiable animal tracking system that could trace animals to their original ranch in 48 hours.

Ever since, Montanans have been discussing issues and asking questions about the logistics of implementing a program of this magnitude, Paterson said. During statewide meetings in August, the first question ranchers asked was where branding fits into an ID program, he added. The Montana Beef Network, Pfizer Animal Health and the Montana Stockgrowers Association held the meetings to update beef producers about animal identification and other issues in the cattle industry. The Montana Beef Network is a partnership between MSU and the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

Many ranchers wondered why they needed to switch from branding to a new identification system that involves ear tags, electronic readers and computers, Paterson said. They said elderly ranchers especially would find it difficult to master the new technology.

"We already have a way to identify animals that we have been using for 150 years," Paterson said, reporting their comments. "It works well for us. We have one of the best brand departments in the United States, so why do I have to use different technology?"

But Montana is one of only 13 states that have branding laws and departments, said Andy Kellom, field representative for the Montana Beef Network. And all of those states are in the West.

"So what happens when calves from Montana are shipped to Iowa where there are no brand laws, no brand inspector and no infrastructure to support that?" Kellom asked. "And what if the same feedlot is buying cattle from Colorado with the same brand, and they co-mingle them in the feeding pens?"

Paterson said branding works well when Montana-born cattle stay in Montana, but not as well when they cross state lines and are finished in Midwestern feedlots.

"You certainly can do it, but it becomes much more difficult, especially when the USDA has suggested a 48-hour traceback," Paterson said.

Besides branding, Montana ranchers are concerned about record confidentiality. They want to know which ear tags and scanners to buy, Paterson said. He told the ranchers that, as part of a USDA pilot project, MSU has been investigating the use of prescanned ear tags and storing data in a private data base which should provide the confidentiality producers are demanding. This approach means that cow-calf producers would not have to invest in expensive computer hardware.

Montana ranchers also wonder if the national ID program will provide them with carcass characteristics and calves' feedlot performance if they want that information, Paterson said.

"The short answer is ‛No' because the national animal ID program is only for disease trace back which starts at the ranch and ends when the animals are delivered to the packing plant," Paterson said. "Auction markets, feedlots and packing plants will also have to participate. It is a live-animal program and is not to be confused with the Country of Origin legislation which is basically a meat program which informs consumers where their meat is coming from.

"These are benefits they already receive through the Montana Beef Network which has had an animal identification program since 1999 and also provides carcass data back to the rancher," Paterson said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MSU's pilot program has also found many flaws in the system- problems with retention/readability rate, readers not working in cold weather, readers not working well around metal corrals and chutes (recommend redesign to plastic), tags that won't work into current producers tagging practices (won't allow addition of inked numbers), etc, etc...All of which means additional cost to the producers and which so far does not allow the tagging/reader system to work at the normal speed of commerce...

The tagmaker boys need to go out and do some work to make their product more workable and compatable....
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MSU's pilot program has also found many flaws in the system- problems with retention/readability rate, readers not working in cold weather, readers not working well around metal corrals and chutes (recommend redesign to plastic), tags that won't work into current producers tagging practices (won't allow addition of inked numbers), etc, etc...All of which means additional cost to the producers and which so far does not allow the tagging/reader system to work at the normal speed of commerce...

The tagmaker boys need to go out and do some work to make their product more workable and compatable....
And that's exactly what they are doing!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
does not allow the tagging/reader system to work at the normal speed of commerce... Try the ScoringAg database with the I.D.ology Readers

The tagmaker boys need to go out and do some work to make their product more workable and compatable.... This is why !
 

ocm

Well-known member
Bill said:
MSU University News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branding alone won't work in national animal ID program

Montana ranchers have branded their livestock for more than a century, and it works well in Montana. However, it won't work by itself as a national animal identification system, says a Montana State University beef expert who's involved with animal ID on the state and federal levels.

Most states don't have brand laws or a department of livestock like Montana does, said John Paterson, MSU Extension beef specialist and director of the Montana Beef Network. Besides that, similar brands may be used in more than one state, making it harder to trace the origins of specific animals especially since the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mandate for tracing cattle in case of a disease outbreak.

Mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state in 2003, prompting U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman to call for the establishment of a national livestock ID program. The goal was a verifiable animal tracking system that could trace animals to their original ranch in 48 hours.

Ever since, Montanans have been discussing issues and asking questions about the logistics of implementing a program of this magnitude, Paterson said. During statewide meetings in August, the first question ranchers asked was where branding fits into an ID program, he added. The Montana Beef Network, Pfizer Animal Health and the Montana Stockgrowers Association held the meetings to update beef producers about animal identification and other issues in the cattle industry. The Montana Beef Network is a partnership between MSU and the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

Many ranchers wondered why they needed to switch from branding to a new identification system that involves ear tags, electronic readers and computers, Paterson said. They said elderly ranchers especially would find it difficult to master the new technology.

"We already have a way to identify animals that we have been using for 150 years," Paterson said, reporting their comments. "It works well for us. We have one of the best brand departments in the United States, so why do I have to use different technology?"

But Montana is one of only 13 states that have branding laws and departments, said Andy Kellom, field representative for the Montana Beef Network. And all of those states are in the West.

"So what happens when calves from Montana are shipped to Iowa where there are no brand laws, no brand inspector and no infrastructure to support that?" Kellom asked. "And what if the same feedlot is buying cattle from Colorado with the same brand, and they co-mingle them in the feeding pens?"

Paterson said branding works well when Montana-born cattle stay in Montana, but not as well when they cross state lines and are finished in Midwestern feedlots.

"You certainly can do it, but it becomes much more difficult, especially when the USDA has suggested a 48-hour traceback," Paterson said.

Besides branding, Montana ranchers are concerned about record confidentiality. They want to know which ear tags and scanners to buy, Paterson said. He told the ranchers that, as part of a USDA pilot project, MSU has been investigating the use of prescanned ear tags and storing data in a private data base which should provide the confidentiality producers are demanding. This approach means that cow-calf producers would not have to invest in expensive computer hardware.

Montana ranchers also wonder if the national ID program will provide them with carcass characteristics and calves' feedlot performance if they want that information, Paterson said.

"The short answer is ‛No' because the national animal ID program is only for disease trace back which starts at the ranch and ends when the animals are delivered to the packing plant," Paterson said. "Auction markets, feedlots and packing plants will also have to participate. It is a live-animal program and is not to be confused with the Country of Origin legislation which is basically a meat program which informs consumers where their meat is coming from.

"These are benefits they already receive through the Montana Beef Network which has had an animal identification program since 1999 and also provides carcass data back to the rancher," Paterson said.

According to this article nothing works. The absurdity here is that the national ID people are trying to impose unworkable systems on the producers who have to live or die by these systems.

R-Calf USA's animal ID committee is working with the NAIS people to come up with solutions that really work. Brands are a part of the system, but not the whole system. The idea is to use existing processes. Some of these differ from state to state. They can be coordinated without drastic changes.

One great example is scoring ag's approach. Mark any way you want to, they can still record it. Many states without brand laws require health inspections. Health paper can be used.

A couple of principles to keep in mind.

The cost difference between tracking groups and tracking individuals is dramatic. The benefit difference between tracking groups and tracking individuals (from a health standpoint) is minute.

Any animal that does not leave the state of birth should never have NATIONAL tracking imposed on it.

I have not worked extremely closely with the R-Calf ID committee but believe I have represented their approach fairly.
 

Bill

Well-known member
ocm said:
Bill said:
MSU University News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branding alone won't work in national animal ID program

Montana ranchers have branded their livestock for more than a century, and it works well in Montana. However, it won't work by itself as a national animal identification system, says a Montana State University beef expert who's involved with animal ID on the state and federal levels.

Most states don't have brand laws or a department of livestock like Montana does, said John Paterson, MSU Extension beef specialist and director of the Montana Beef Network. Besides that, similar brands may be used in more than one state, making it harder to trace the origins of specific animals especially since the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mandate for tracing cattle in case of a disease outbreak.

Mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state in 2003, prompting U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman to call for the establishment of a national livestock ID program. The goal was a verifiable animal tracking system that could trace animals to their original ranch in 48 hours.

Ever since, Montanans have been discussing issues and asking questions about the logistics of implementing a program of this magnitude, Paterson said. During statewide meetings in August, the first question ranchers asked was where branding fits into an ID program, he added. The Montana Beef Network, Pfizer Animal Health and the Montana Stockgrowers Association held the meetings to update beef producers about animal identification and other issues in the cattle industry. The Montana Beef Network is a partnership between MSU and the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

Many ranchers wondered why they needed to switch from branding to a new identification system that involves ear tags, electronic readers and computers, Paterson said. They said elderly ranchers especially would find it difficult to master the new technology.

"We already have a way to identify animals that we have been using for 150 years," Paterson said, reporting their comments. "It works well for us. We have one of the best brand departments in the United States, so why do I have to use different technology?"

But Montana is one of only 13 states that have branding laws and departments, said Andy Kellom, field representative for the Montana Beef Network. And all of those states are in the West.

"So what happens when calves from Montana are shipped to Iowa where there are no brand laws, no brand inspector and no infrastructure to support that?" Kellom asked. "And what if the same feedlot is buying cattle from Colorado with the same brand, and they co-mingle them in the feeding pens?"

Paterson said branding works well when Montana-born cattle stay in Montana, but not as well when they cross state lines and are finished in Midwestern feedlots.

"You certainly can do it, but it becomes much more difficult, especially when the USDA has suggested a 48-hour traceback," Paterson said.

Besides branding, Montana ranchers are concerned about record confidentiality. They want to know which ear tags and scanners to buy, Paterson said. He told the ranchers that, as part of a USDA pilot project, MSU has been investigating the use of prescanned ear tags and storing data in a private data base which should provide the confidentiality producers are demanding. This approach means that cow-calf producers would not have to invest in expensive computer hardware.

Montana ranchers also wonder if the national ID program will provide them with carcass characteristics and calves' feedlot performance if they want that information, Paterson said.

"The short answer is ‛No' because the national animal ID program is only for disease trace back which starts at the ranch and ends when the animals are delivered to the packing plant," Paterson said. "Auction markets, feedlots and packing plants will also have to participate. It is a live-animal program and is not to be confused with the Country of Origin legislation which is basically a meat program which informs consumers where their meat is coming from.

"These are benefits they already receive through the Montana Beef Network which has had an animal identification program since 1999 and also provides carcass data back to the rancher," Paterson said.

According to this article nothing works. The absurdity here is that the national ID people are trying to impose unworkable systems on the producers who have to live or die by these systems.

R-Calf USA's animal ID committee is working with the NAIS people to come up with solutions that really work. Brands are a part of the system, but not the whole system. The idea is to use existing processes. Some of these differ from state to state. They can be coordinated without drastic changes.

One great example is scoring ag's approach. Mark any way you want to, they can still record it. Many states without brand laws require health inspections. Health paper can be used.

A couple of principles to keep in mind.

The cost difference between tracking groups and tracking individuals is dramatic. The benefit difference between tracking groups and tracking individuals (from a health standpoint) is minute.

Any animal that does not leave the state of birth should never have NATIONAL tracking imposed on it.

I have not worked extremely closely with the R-Calf ID committee but believe I have represented their approach fairly.


Any animal that does not leave the state of birth should never have NATIONAL tracking imposed on it


HUH??

An animal who shows up with FMD or BSE should not be tied into a national tracebaack system even though it may have contminated others in an assembly yard or sale barn?

All this talk of 20 or 40 individual state ID systems makes no sense when one national one will work.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Bill said:
Any animal that does not leave the state of birth should never have NATIONAL tracking imposed on it


HUH??

An animal who shows up with FMD or BSE should not be tied into a national tracebaack system even though it may have contminated others in an assembly yard or sale barn?

All this talk of 20 or 40 individual state ID systems makes no sense when one national one will work.


Every one of the fifty states has its own animal health agency. Those state agencies are quite capable of dealing with instate health issues. In the case of FMD coordinating state and federal agencies would not be a problem. If the issue crosses state lines because cattle cross state lines then it is indeed a federal issue. In many cases they do not.

One national ID system will not work. That comes from the article. A great deal of the proposed NAIS ID and animal health issues are already widely addressed on the state level. National ID would be unnecessary duplication.

A current illustration is our driver's license system. This is a state system. However, the FBI or any other state can get information from any state quickly and easily. There is no federal driver's license system. ID could be handled similarly. In addition, there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis done on individual vs group ID.

These are the kinds of things R-CALF is addressing and other groups are not. R-CALF is trying to help create a system that works, that features local (state) control, is based on existing systems already in place, and provides the least intrusing into individual producer's privacy.

In my home state every animal is documented at ownership transfer and also at every movement across county lines. This information in now in the process of being computerized. The computerization of this process is at very little additional cost. When this project is fully implemented every movement of every animal will be in a state database. Why duplicate it on the national level and do so with a tremendous increase in cost?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill, this is a US deal. I don't understand why a Canadian is concerned and critiqueing.
When you export into Canada it becomes our concern as well.

Yep- You and Tam are right- shut em down, since we don't want to follow your rules!!! :wink: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill, this is a US deal. I don't understand why a Canadian is concerned and critiqueing.
When you export into Canada it becomes our concern as well.

Set up your own requirements. Those that want to export to you will follow them. We've got some concerns about you exporting to us too, but we're supposed to swallow them in the name of trade.
 

William Kanitz

Well-known member
OCM you got that right .The idea is to use existing processes. Some of these differ from state to state. They can be coordinated without drastic changes.

One great example is scoring ag's approach. Mark any way you want to, they can still record it. Many states without brand laws require health inspections. Health paper can be used.

Sign in at * https://www.scoringag.com//Ag.cfm?sfa=main.register

From Pasture to Plate traceback, your customers will pay you extra bucks.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill, this is a US deal. I don't understand why a Canadian is concerned and critiqueing.
When you export into Canada it becomes our concern as well.

Set up your own requirements. Those that want to export to you will follow them. We've got some concerns about you exporting to us too, but we're supposed to swallow them in the name of trade.

There are international rules for trading Sandhusker and the one you R-CALFers don't seem to be able to understand is
“The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it’s measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market
Those rules were set up to stop irrational unjustified trade barriers . But If we all followed that rule most countries would not be excepting US beef, As no matter how many newspaper ads R-CALF buys to claim that the US produces the World Safest Beef to the World Highest Standards, we all know that is not the truth don't we? :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
When you export into Canada it becomes our concern as well.

Set up your own requirements. Those that want to export to you will follow them. We've got some concerns about you exporting to us too, but we're supposed to swallow them in the name of trade.

There are international rules for trading Sandhusker and the one you R-CALFers don't seem to be able to understand is
“The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it’s measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market
Those rules were set up to stop irrational unjustified trade barriers . But If we all followed that rule most countries would not be excepting US beef, As no matter how many newspaper ads R-CALF buys to claim that the US produces the World Safest Beef to the World Highest Standards, we all know that is not the truth don't we? :wink:

Who made that rule, Tam?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
When you export into Canada it becomes our concern as well.

Set up your own requirements. Those that want to export to you will follow them. We've got some concerns about you exporting to us too, but we're supposed to swallow them in the name of trade.

There are international rules for trading Sandhusker and the one you R-CALFers don't seem to be able to understand is
“The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it’s measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market

I have been a part of R-CALF discussions where those very points have been made. Certain issues had been investigated to make sure they didn't cross the line. R-CALF is very careful about this point.

Now me personally, I would rather pull out of the WTO (which I refer to as the UN on steroids) and just have a trade free for all. Every nation just needs to look out for its own interests. The alternative is to have a superior power (the WTO, etc) telling us what we can and can't do.
 

ocm

Well-known member
William Kanitz said:
OCM you got that right .The idea is to use existing processes. Some of these differ from state to state. They can be coordinated without drastic changes.

One great example is scoring ag's approach. Mark any way you want to, they can still record it. Many states without brand laws require health inspections. Health paper can be used.

Sign in at * https://www.scoringag.com//Ag.cfm?sfa=main.register

From Pasture to Plate traceback, your customers will pay you extra bucks.

I didn't mean it to be a ad for scoring ag but so be it. The approach is so logical that it has already been used (by you guys). Everything else is absurd. I also would never support giving anyone a monopoly---no one! Being a true contractor for certain individuals or entities would be different. I wish you guys the best.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
ocm said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Set up your own requirements. Those that want to export to you will follow them. We've got some concerns about you exporting to us too, but we're supposed to swallow them in the name of trade.

There are international rules for trading Sandhusker and the one you R-CALFers don't seem to be able to understand is
“The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it’s measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market

I have been a part of R-CALF discussions where those very points have been made. Certain issues had been investigated to make sure they didn't cross the line. R-CALF is very careful about this point.

Now me personally, I would rather pull out of the WTO (which I refer to as the UN on steroids) and just have a trade free for all. Every nation just needs to look out for its own interests. The alternative is to have a superior power (the WTO, etc) telling us what we can and can't do.


R-CALF has crossed the line so many times they don't even know where the line is anymore. :roll:

And if it wasn't for the WTO and the OIE the only Super Power that would be telling anyone what they can and can't do would be the US. Just like R-CALF thinks they should be able to do now. DO AS I SAY NO AS I DO, would be the world rules when it comes to trade with the US. At least with the WTO/OIE we can hope that the beef you export is safe and not threatening our lives.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
BMR, " At least with the WTO/OIE we can hope that the beef you export is safe and not threatening our lives."

Canada needs the WTO/OIE to keep you safe? Ottawa doesn't have to power to say, "That doesn't come into our country?"
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
BMR, " At least with the WTO/OIE we can hope that the beef you export is safe and not threatening our lives."

Canada needs the WTO/OIE to keep you safe? Ottawa doesn't have to power to say, "That doesn't come into our country?"[/quote]

Do you mean there are things coming into Canada that we should NOT be importing? :shock: Could that be US cattle and beef? :wink:
I personally would rather see your cattle coming across than your beef. It would help keep our slaughter industry growing, more value adding jobs is better for the economy. We all know that Canada has had a better record at keeping BSE infected cattle out of our Human food chain. We also seem to beable to remove the SRM's better than you. And now with our new and improved feed ban we should be able to keep it out of our herd ( alot better than you) . Four very good reasons to take your cattle and not your beef. By taking your cattle we are also showing consumers that we trust our system will beable to handle them PROPERLY as not to put anything or anyone in danger. Unlike you and your fear mongering "We can't take their cattle as they will be risking our herds and our consumers health". As if you had firewalls to protect your herd and consumers from ALL BSE it wouldn't matter where it was from.

The OIE is there to set guidelines for all member counties so global trade can be fair not one sided in the US's favor.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, there's a difference between rules and guidelines. Rules have to be followed or there are penalties, guidelines are simply suggestions. Having an effective feed ban for 7 years comes to mind.

Tam, "Do you mean there are things coming into Canada that we should NOT be importing? Could that be US cattle and beef?"

It's your country. You decide.

Tam, "The OIE is there to set guidelines for all member counties so global trade can be fair not one sided in the US's favor."

I tried to tell you that the OIE was created for trade, but you told me they were the experts on health. Did you change your mind?
 
Top