Ringwall, speaking on behalf of cow-calf producers, said producers are looking for a market environment with flexibility where buyers can openly bid on their calves.
“There is much uncertainty surrounding calf marketing. The national and international discussion about age and source verification has heightened that uncertainty,” Ringwall testified.
“Today's producer markets a calf but also markets the information about that calf, a process that is still struggling in the pens and alleyways of the cattle business,” Ringwall continued. He pointed out that the market has not determined the value of records producers put together about their calves at their own expense.
“One point is becoming very clear: The actual information contains the keys to unlock the various doors needed to enter the more complex marketplace, not only domestically, but also internationally,” Ringwall said.
Producers wonder if age and source verification is a burden or an opportunity for them to not just recoup their costs, but gain value for doing so in the marketplace, he said.
Ringwall presented an age and source verification project at DREC that followed calves. The project individually tagged 14,432 calves during 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Combining the three years, 19.5 percent remained on the ranch or farm of birth as replacements. Of the calves for sale, 13 percent were traced to backgrounding lots, 29.3 percent were traced to feedlots for finishing, and 27.5 percent were successfully traced to harvest.
Some 10.3 percent were unable to be traced and effectively lost, he said.
“The bottom line, despite the enthusiasm and desire for these cow-calf producers to provide not only the calf but also the corresponding data as a marketable package, only one in four calves arrived at harvest with the data package,” Ringwall said. “(In other words) only one of four calves at harvest was eligible for markets requiring age and source verification.”
He went on to say that after adding up all costs directly related to the source verification, the total cost estimate per calf was $20.
Those cost estimates included:
(this price below has fell under $3.00 bucks)
€ $5 for tags, data management and verification;
(Sounds a little High)
€ $7 for working calves, including tag placement and documentation; and
( Still TOO high priced)
€ $8 for feedlot and harvest data collection and chute feeds.
Ringwall said some of the extra costs for producers include shrink and weight loss while handling calves.
“No one debates the need to move, process and work cattle, but it does cost money. The dollars are made in growth, and are meant to be profit, not cost recovery,” Ringwall said. “This weight loss may not seem like much, but it does add up. When we've measured shrink in the cattle we have worked during the project, we estimated up to $10 to $20 in lost income potential per calf, regardless of the management activity applied.”
He told the ITC that the CalfAID program was developed at DREC for source and data management.
Complications have arisen for livestock producers with the low frequency electronic ear tags, but work on high frequency ear tags will be more useful to producers who handle lots of calves at one time, he added.
Animal identification and disease management are closely linked and work together.
“The tracking of animals that cross borders is considered essential for the well being of the industry. The introduction of a highly pathogenic disease, such as foot and mouth disease, would affect millions of animals and have a devastating effect on our markets and producers,” he said.
Ringwall spoke about other diseases affecting the livestock industry including Johne's Disease, anthrax, and BSE.
“BSE is transmittable through feed and may take years to develop clinical signs, and cases must be traced back to the herd of origin to investigate the source,” he said. “Mandatory electronic animal identification programs have been instituted in efforts to assist in containing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis.”
While producers and veterinarians remain vigilant, Ringwall said the health of the U.S. herd - which relates to public health and trade markets - needs to be the utmost priority in the country.
“Regulatory standards should be high enough to prevent any question as to the wholesomeness and safety of the food we all consume,” he added. “Demand for and marketability of our nation's animals and products then easily follows.”
Ringwall said proper guidance is all producers need to be up to any challenge.
“The beef industry needs a modern, effective system of individual accountability, a system respectful of local concerns, realistic in response to pathogenic challenges, but responsive to industry needs and consumer desires for both animals and people,” he added.