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

Good Bye NAIS..............

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
USDA is going to have less money than hoped for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) this year. Congress trimmed the Bush administration's budget request for NAIS in fiscal year 2008 by more than two-thirds.

This past Wednesday, USDA unveiled a new business plan for the NAIS. Later that day, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Bruce Knight told Brownfield one of the reasons the new plan will work is because the Bush administration planned to fully fund the program.

"Because of the importance of animal ID, we're carrying forward full speed ahead with the optimism that we will be able to garner enough funds from Congress and from carryover to be able to implement this program in a robust and full manner," Knight said.

But Congress didn’t cooperate. In the omnibus spending measure passed by Congress last week, lawmakers approved just $9.75 million for the NAIS animal in fiscal year 2008, less than a third of the more than $33.2 million requested by USDA.

The impact of the decision by Congress to slash funding for animal identification isn’t yet clear. But it seems unlikely that sufficient carryover money will be available to make-up the difference between the Bush administration's budget request for the NAIS and the funding actually approved by Congress.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Mandatory livestock ID works in the U.K.
December 26, 2007, 3:07 pm

by Bob Meyer

When USDA unveiled their new animal identification plan last week, they pointed to the success of the British ID program as a prime example of how a successful system works. Alison Maddrell is with Holstein UK, the British version of our Holstein Association, she says they are very happy with how the system worked earlier this year when Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD) was found outside a research laboratory. “The measures put in place by the government are fantastic,” Maddrell says, “the speed at which we deal with it is absolutely awesome.” She says the minute there is any hint of a problem they shut the operation in question down promptly, then investigate. If no problem exists, they lift any restrictions.

The UK animal ID system is mandatory, a major difference with the USDA plan for a voluntary animal ID system. Maddrell says the government helped subsidize the start-up but the program is pretty-well paid for by livestock owners. Producers apply for a “passport” for every animal within a month after birth. That passport and double eartags will stay with that animal throughout its life. “Even in transport, the passport goes with the driver.” Maddrell says with the system, they can trace any animal from birth-to-table, “And all the dairies know where the milk came from.”

Maddrell says the biggest selling point is the fact that even with the problems the U.K. has had with FMD and BSE, they have retained the confidence of the British consumer. In fact, she says it has strengthened the desire to buy local, “People realize they need to keep the farmer in business, they need to know where the food on their plate comes from.”
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
See how NAIS is working for the Australians......

When Canada first found BSE in 2003, they traced herd mates into Montana. Montana did their homework and discovered the trail to some of them went to South Dakota. They called South Dakota and within 3 hours, South Dakota had all of them accounted for. All this with no NAIS, no special tags, no passport, etc... It looks to me that Pierre and Billings should be telling Washington what it takes to track animals instead of visa versa.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Mexico to Argentina all has HOT IRON Brands.
What's your point? Are you suggesting that Mexico has any type of traceablity system or that the US is as poorly equipped as Mexico?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
All States and Districts from Mexico to Argentina have Hot Iron registry's. It works locally for traceablity when cattle are lost or a bull strays. I read somewhere that Mexico is using a French traceback system for Cattle and I know they use ScoringAg for produce.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
See how NAIS is working for the Australians......

When Canada first found BSE in 2003, they traced herd mates into Montana. Montana did their homework and discovered the trail to some of them went to South Dakota. They called South Dakota and within 3 hours, South Dakota had all of them accounted for. All this with no NAIS, no special tags, no passport, etc... It looks to me that Pierre and Billings should be telling Washington what it takes to track animals instead of visa versa.

Let's be honest. The incident you raise had very little to do with any US surveillance system and everything to do with the Canadian ID they were carrying. Despite the help the Canadians gave; state officials had no clue of which bull went to which destination point.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
See how NAIS is working for the Australians......

When Canada first found BSE in 2003, they traced herd mates into Montana. Montana did their homework and discovered the trail to some of them went to South Dakota. They called South Dakota and within 3 hours, South Dakota had all of them accounted for. All this with no NAIS, no special tags, no passport, etc... It looks to me that Pierre and Billings should be telling Washington what it takes to track animals instead of visa versa.

Let's be honest. The incident you raise had very little to do with any US surveillance system and everything to do with the Canadian ID they were carrying. Despite the help the Canadians gave; state officials had no clue of which bull went to which destination point.

Actually at that time- the cattle tracing had little to do with Canadian ID and they were all tracked by brand registration/brand inspection, after they had entered the US.... And it was done on a weekend when federal officials don't work anymore.... :roll: :wink: :(
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
See how NAIS is working for the Australians......

When Canada first found BSE in 2003, they traced herd mates into Montana. Montana did their homework and discovered the trail to some of them went to South Dakota. They called South Dakota and within 3 hours, South Dakota had all of them accounted for. All this with no NAIS, no special tags, no passport, etc... It looks to me that Pierre and Billings should be telling Washington what it takes to track animals instead of visa versa.

Let's be honest. The incident you raise had very little to do with any US surveillance system and everything to do with the Canadian ID they were carrying. Despite the help the Canadians gave; state officials had no clue of which bull went to which destination point.

The Canadians tracked the cattle through Montana, into South Dakota, accounted for them and then reported to Montana?
 

Longcut

Well-known member
I am not about to get into a debate involving your usual exchange of stories or what someone may have heard but here are some facts.

There were 5 bulls which had entered the US in April of 1997 which were sold from the May 2003 Canadian BSE source herd; they all carried CANADIAN ID. Sandhusker wrote that they had no special ID which is not true. Each bull possessed a metal tag with a Canadian Health of Animals case number as well as an ear tattoo which indicated Canadian herd of origin as well as ID number and year of birth letter which supplelmented any brands they may have had applied AFTER they entered the US. Despite all of this it was not positively verified WHICH bull went to WHICH destination point, only that A bull from that herd was carrying the herd brand and MAY have went to one of SEVERAL destination points for harvest. There was no record that any particular bull was in fact one of the Canadian bulls. This was not anyones fault but the result of an inadequate tracking system.

Although I can't share any of the official exchange between governemt departments, there are other sources which are fairly accurate. This is taken from the government of Monatana website and dated June 5 2003.
In 1997, a Montana producer imported five yearling bulls from the Saskatchewan herd. They were added to his existing herd. A total of 22 bulls were subsequently sold and/or shipped to slaughter facilities from 1997 to 2002. Traceouts on all 22 bulls have been conducted.

“All 22 bulls were sold out-of-state, and we have confirmation that 21 were slaughtered between 1997 and 2002,” Bridges said. Records show three bulls went to slaughter in Nebraska, five bulls went to slaughter in Minnesota, two bulls went to slaughter in Texas, and 11 bulls went to slaughter in South Dakota. The slaughter of one bull in Wyoming is awaiting confirmation.
No where is it mentioned where the CANADIAN bulls were harvested and in the end it was not certain that all 22 bulls were ever accounted for.

U.S. won't confirm Canadian bulls BSE-free
Last Updated: Friday, June 6, 2003 | 9:58 PM ET
CBC News
Officials in Montana say five Canadian bulls sold to an American rancher have been slaughtered and are free of mad cow disease, but federal officials in Washington aren't so sure.
The bulls were born on the same Saskatchewan farm where Canadian officials believe a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was born.

The executive secretary of the Montana Livestock Department said Thursday it took just 20 hours to trace the bulls' movements.

He said U.S. Department of Agriculture documents confirm they had been slaughtered and none tested positive for the disease.

However, officials with the department were unable to confirm any of his statements.

Ron Dehaven, deputy director of veterinary services with the Department of Agriculture, said the Montana rancher was able to tell investigators how many bulls he sold for slaughter, but could not identify which ones.

Dehaven said investigators can only assume the Canadian bulls have been slaughtered.

"That certainly is our presumption, but again it's a presumption and we will clearly follow up and verify that," he said.

Dehaven said investigators are examining export certificates and talking to Canadian officials to get a better identification on the bulls.

The investigators will also check with the slaughterhouses to see if they can confirm the bulls were processed.

Dehaven complimented Canadian investigators, saying their work appears to have been comprehensive, thorough and based on science.

Even a letter from Denny Rehnberg to the USDA avoids mention that the Montana system couldn't ID the 5 Canadian bulls from their eventual Montana herdmates DESPITE the fact they carried SPECIAL ID to supplelment their US brands.

January 9, 2004

Secretary Ann Veneman
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Veneman,

Thank you for your leadership in responding to the recent discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Washington state. Continued confidence in America’s beef industry from consumers and foreign trading partners will depend greatly on the expeditious investigation of any suspected BSE case. Consequently, I encourage you to quickly implement a national animal identification program.

When developing a national animal identification program, I urge you to implement a program similar to the proven and highly effective tracing system the State of Montana currently uses. Through a series of standardized brand inspections, health certificates, and bills of sale issued by state certified inspectors, Montana can quickly trace the location of animals within the state. For example, after the Canadian BSE situation in May 2003, Montana officials were able to quickly trace the whereabouts of 22 bulls from a ranch in Montana, including five bulls that originated from Canada. Within ten hours, these animals had been traced from their entry into Montana in 1997 to slaughter facilities in five different states from 1997 to 2002. As you can see, Montana employs a proven, thorough system that would provide an excellent template for a national program.

I also want to extend an invitation to you and appropriate members of your staff to join me for a meeting with Montana’s livestock producers and officials with the Montana Department of Livestock to discuss our identification program. I would be happy to make all the necessary arrangements for such a meeting. Thank you for your time and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Denny Rehberg
Member of Congress

Proven and highly effective tracing system? It is clearly obvious that although Montana MAY have one of the best ID systems in the US, it falls short of a true tracking program because it only IDs an animal to A herd and doesn't uniquely ID it from any of its herdmates. Until the US adopts some type of national system we will all continue to fail and make excuses.

One other thing Oldtimer. As is the case in any emergency, Federal officials do work on weekends and if you have anything concrete which indicates otherwise and that may have impacted this investigation then you should take it up with your elected officials.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut, "Sandhusker wrote that they had no special ID which is not true."

I was referring to the article you posted about England having passports and double tags, which the Canadian cattle did not have.

I still don't see what you're carping about. They wanted to track down Canadian bulls, and they did that very quickly. They accounted for all of them, DONE DEAL. From your posting, "The executive secretary of the Montana Livestock Department said Thursday it took just 20 hours to trace the bulls' movements. He said U.S. Department of Agriculture documents confirm they had been slaughtered and none tested positive for the disease. " WHAT NEEDED INFORMATION IS LACKING?

If you're trying to show how we can't track cattle and need the USDA's NAIS, why did you use Rehbert's letter? He said, "proven and highly effective tracing system the State of Montana currently uses." He's telling Veneman how well Montana's system worked and that the USDA needs to use them for a model, EXACTLY WHAT OT AND SOME OF US OTHERS HAVE BEEN SAYING, WHICH WAS THE POINT IN MY FIRST POST! Here you are trying to argue againt us, but in the process you're bring evidence that supports us - and Question is applauding! :shock: :lol: :clap:
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Arguing against you? I have no desire to argue with anyone, especially with someone who consistently chooses to avoid the facts. I merely corrected and added to what you omitted in your earlier post as well as adding further facts from other sources.

The Montana system that YOU so quickly held up as a shining example DID NOT TRACK DOWN the 5 Canadian bulls as they could not distinguish their movement from the other 16 OR WAS IT 17 bulls from the same ranch. No one determined what plants the Canadian bulls went to but gave several options of where they may have ended up. Montana officials were ecstatic that they could say they had left the state and it was the end of story in their minds.

When Canada first found BSE in 2003, they traced herd mates into Montana. Montana did their homework and discovered the trail to some of them went to South Dakota. They called South Dakota and within 3 hours, South Dakota had all of them accounted for. All this with no NAIS, no special tags, no passport, etc... It looks to me that Pierre and Billings should be telling Washington what it takes to track animals instead of visa versa.
That is so full of holes it is pathetic and either shows your attempt to decieve or your complete lack of understanding of what actually happened. We will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter and if you can tell us where each of the 5 Canadian bulls ended up you will have done something no one from the State of Montana was able to do. If you can bring something of real value to this discussion please feel free to do so otherwise have a good day.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You tell me why it is important to know if Domino 756 went to Nebraska and if Domino 757 went to South Dakota or visa versa? You seem to think that is crucial information.
 
Top