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

ID Quote

A

Anonymous

Guest
This is the one thing I have questioned from day one....

"Imagine the bureaucracy it will take to maintain the numbers and data on every livestock animal in America. Have you ever had to conduct business with the Social Security Administration?"
(Source: The Northwest Arkansas Morning News, September 9, 2006)
Dr. Max Thornsberry, region VI director for R-CALF USA, cautioning Arkansas cattlemen against NAIS.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
This is the one thing I have questioned from day one....

"Imagine the bureaucracy it will take to maintain the numbers and data on every livestock animal in America. Have you ever had to conduct business with the Social Security Administration?"
(Source: The Northwest Arkansas Morning News, September 9, 2006)
Dr. Max Thornsberry, region VI director for R-CALF USA, cautioning Arkansas cattlemen against NAIS.

Max must not be very versed in the workings of the ID system.

There will be no "One" entity that holds the responsibility of keeping up with every number in the nation. The database will be held by salebarns, cattlemen, feedlots, and the such.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
This is the one thing I have questioned from day one....

"Imagine the bureaucracy it will take to maintain the numbers and data on every livestock animal in America. Have you ever had to conduct business with the Social Security Administration?"
(Source: The Northwest Arkansas Morning News, September 9, 2006)
Dr. Max Thornsberry, region VI director for R-CALF USA, cautioning Arkansas cattlemen against NAIS.

Max must not be very versed in the workings of the ID system.

There will be no "One" entity that holds the responsibility of keeping up with every number in the nation. The database will be held by salebarns, cattlemen, feedlots, and the such.

Not the way the original proposed rule is written...USDA wrote one thing- is now saying another because of all the opposition they got....But they still haven't presented Congress with their supposed revised version of how it will work and how much it will cost....

As we know what USDA says and what they actually do if they can get away with it leaves a lot to desire....
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Mike said:
Max must not be very versed in the workings of the ID system.

Max must not be very well versed with the workings of computer systems, PERIOD. He compares a complex system like Social Security with its tie ins to the IRS to a SIMPLE tracking database like NAIS.

And yes, these databases are SIMPLE. A first year university student could easily write a simple interface and database that stores all the information necessary for tracking and indeed progeny information. Updating the database via electronic submissions is also not rocket science. Most modern programming languages have these tools built right into them so its a matter of drag and drop, a few lines of code, and away you go. With the proliferation of the internet, distributed systems are simply a matter of clicking a checkbox on the .NET IDE before starting the project. A web interface for anyone who wanted to look up information, and you're all done.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Mike said:
Max must not be very versed in the workings of the ID system.

Max must not be very well versed with the workings of computer systems, PERIOD. He compares a complex system like Social Security with its tie ins to the IRS to a SIMPLE tracking database like NAIS.

And yes, these databases are SIMPLE. A first year university student could easily write a simple interface and database that stores all the information necessary for tracking and indeed progeny information. Updating the database via electronic submissions is also not rocket science. Most modern programming languages have these tools built right into them so its a matter of drag and drop, a few lines of code, and away you go. With the proliferation of the internet, distributed systems are simply a matter of clicking a checkbox on the .NET IDE before starting the project. A web interface for anyone who wanted to look up information, and you're all done.

Rod

Rod there in lies part of the problem- you have to have somebody inputting the data...Half these old cowboys have never ever been on a computer, let alone input info into one...

Under USDA's original proposal every pasture movement (out of county?) and ownership change would have to be individually read by each animal ID, input into the computer by an official (brand inspector, vet, USDA bureaucrat, official reading station, ??? ) ....

This is not like Canada's last person to put a tag in the ear system- this was proposed and the original plan written as a full blown track and input every movement of the animal system....

Then you have to have someone removing the animal from the system (deaths, slaughter, ) or you end up with the mess Australia now has of thousands of missing tags....

Australia has the system now- they have spent millions of $- keep pouring in millions $ more-- and it still is not working according to those using it.....
 

Kathy

Well-known member
The ID tag in Canada must be placed in the animals ear "from its herd of origin".

Meetings in Canada promised this and that, then changed, then changed again. The system is being used, by LAW, not by choice.

A while back I posted some information about a "Quality starts Here" meeting I attended. A top ALberta (lady) vet stated that the ID system was a "sales tool/gimic" for the organic industry. She said the organic industry was not the target of the ID system.

This revealed to me, that the only reason they want the ID system is to monitor the many chemicals and drugs which are being injected, fed and poured onto our cattle.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Kathy said:
The ID tag in Canada must be placed in the animals ear "from its herd of origin".

Meetings in Canada promised this and that, then changed, then changed again. The system is being used, by LAW, not by choice.

A while back I posted some information about a "Quality starts Here" meeting I attended. A top ALberta (lady) vet stated that the ID system was a "sales tool/gimic" for the organic industry. She said the organic industry was not the target of the ID system.

This revealed to me, that the only reason they want the ID system is to monitor the many chemicals and drugs which are being injected, fed and poured onto our cattle.
When a calf is sold are you under the impression a health record is attached to the tag?? You confuse me with statement.Please explain.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
1) Rod there in lies part of the problem- you have to have somebody inputting the data...Half these old cowboys have never ever been on a computer, let alone input info into one...

2) Under USDA's original proposal every pasture movement (out of county?) and ownership change would have to be individually read by each animal ID, input into the computer by an official (brand inspector, vet, USDA bureaucrat, official reading station, ??? ) ....

1) I got into a debate with Tam once about this. You have those old cowpokes write down the tag number and the animal its being placed into, then send that scrap of paper into a competent data entry clerk. I worked the numbers for Tam (who of course didn't believe me) and it would have taken 2 competent data entry clerks all of a month to enter in each and every single animal in Canada. Since the US's herd is 8x that size, we're looking at 16 clerks for a month. That is not mind boggling stuff.

2) With the RFID tags and boluses, all that needs to doing is an animal be scanned, then the new owner ID input. Plug the little scan tool into port, and away goes the information. Even my 87 yr old grandmother once plugged my Pocket PC back into its socket for me after I told her how over the phone in 10 seconds.

On the Australian matter, that was a simple database design error. Obviously, Australia didn't hire competent people to build their system, nor did they use up to date tools to build it. You can't use that example as an arguement against a national ID system.

Anyone who stands against a national ID system I believe is putting their own welfare ahead of that of the industry. When the CCIA was rolling out their tagging program, the only people truly arguing against were those who were 1) confused by what the program was to do, or 2) too damned lazy to put a tag in an animals ear. Education solved 1). And those 2)'s eventually faded into the background as an unpleasant reminder that there are truly some lazy fools running cattle.

And Kathy, I'm a little confused by your statement as well. There are no health records attached to any ID system used by the CCIA.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oldtimer said:
1) Rod there in lies part of the problem- you have to have somebody inputting the data...Half these old cowboys have never ever been on a computer, let alone input info into one...

2) Under USDA's original proposal every pasture movement (out of county?) and ownership change would have to be individually read by each animal ID, input into the computer by an official (brand inspector, vet, USDA bureaucrat, official reading station, ??? ) ....

1) I got into a debate with Tam once about this. You have those old cowpokes write down the tag number and the animal its being placed into, then send that scrap of paper into a competent data entry clerk. I worked the numbers for Tam (who of course didn't believe me) and it would have taken 2 competent data entry clerks all of a month to enter in each and every single animal in Canada. Since the US's herd is 8x that size, we're looking at 16 clerks for a month. That is not mind boggling stuff.

And add in every movement and change of ownership entry, which in many cases is several times in a single year...Plus the people to record and verify those movements and ownership changes (inspectors) along with those to police and prosecute it if its going to become mandatory...You have a new bureaucracy that will need to be created...

2) With the RFID tags and boluses, all that needs to doing is an animal be scanned, then the new owner ID input. Plug the little scan tool into port, and away goes the information. Even my 87 yr old grandmother once plugged my Pocket PC back into its socket for me after I told her how over the phone in 10 seconds.

And what will the cost for this equipment (readers, scanners, computers, data bases, etc.) be ? How many will be needed to equip a new bureacracy of inspectors nationwide?

On the Australian matter, that was a simple database design error. Obviously, Australia didn't hire competent people to build their system, nor did they use up to date tools to build it. You can't use that example as an arguement against a national ID system.

And you think USDA has more competent people :???: :wink: :lol:

Anyone who stands against a national ID system I believe is putting their own welfare ahead of that of the industry. When the CCIA was rolling out their tagging program, the only people truly arguing against were those who were 1) confused by what the program was to do, or 2) too damned lazy to put a tag in an animals ear. Education solved 1). And those 2)'s eventually faded into the background as an unpleasant reminder that there are truly some lazy fools running cattle.

Rod- I'm not against an ID system- I'm not convinced that the system proposed is workable or cost effective- Is it worth what it will cost? ...I'm still waiting for USDA to come up with their cost estimate and compare it with what Australia has put in so far ( I believe it averages out to over $37 per head )....I'm also not convinced its necessary...Maybe some areas of the US need a kick in the butt to get them to do something (anything)- but many areas have done great IDing, tracking animals, and controlling disease for years already without the USDA sticking their nose in...

And Kathy, I'm a little confused by your statement as well. There are no health records attached to any ID system used by the CCIA.

Under USDA's original proposal- every health inspection would have to be input into the data base...Even every time the vet looked at an animal (shots, C-section, bangs vaccination, etc)....

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
1) And add in every movement and change of ownership entry, which in many cases is several times in a single year...Plus the people to record and verify those movements and ownership changes (inspectors) along with those to police and prosecute it if its going to become mandatory...You have a new bureaucracy that will need to be created...

2) And what will the cost for this equipment (readers, scanners, computers, data bases, etc.) be ? How many will be needed to equip a new bureacracy of inspectors nationwide?

3) And you think USDA has more competent people :???: :wink: :lol:

4) Rod- I'm not against an ID system- I'm not convinced that the system proposed is workable or cost effective- Is it worth what it will cost?


1) With a properly designed system, each movement trace would be simple. That Pocket PC that my old Granny plugged in for me would suffice, and I see those units selling for $99 now. Just about anyone in the professional industry, such as vets and brand inspectors carry one right now.

As far as "many" animals changing hands "several" times in a year, I think you need to rethink that. Almost all cattle are born on a ranch, get sold as calves to a feedlot, then travel to a packing plant to be slaughtered. Thats three movements. Breeding stock differs of course, but breeding stock is a small percentage of the total animals being processed.

2) The actual computers that would record all this are cheap like borsche (sp?). A distributed system could be obtained for well under 6 figures that would store BILLIONS of records. I _know_ there are unused cycles on dozens of government mainframes just waiting for use. They're already paid for, just use them. As I mentioned, Pocket PCs and Palm Pilots are also dirt cheap. There is no need to get fancy with end user equipment.

3) Actually the US and Canada do have more competent IT people than anywhere in the world. No insult to Australians on here, but their IT departments are in the stone ages.

4) I'm wondering how the $37/hd average was worked out? How is it that a private company like ScoringAg (this is not an ad for them, but simply evidence) can make a profit while only charging 50 cents an animal for registration? This is the question I've posed to my MP when I discovered that the CCIA has a budget of 12 million yearly. I think someone is dreaming when they come up with the $37 figure.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oldtimer said:
1) And add in every movement and change of ownership entry, which in many cases is several times in a single year...Plus the people to record and verify those movements and ownership changes (inspectors) along with those to police and prosecute it if its going to become mandatory...You have a new bureaucracy that will need to be created...

2) And what will the cost for this equipment (readers, scanners, computers, data bases, etc.) be ? How many will be needed to equip a new bureacracy of inspectors nationwide?

3) And you think USDA has more competent people :???: :wink: :lol:

4) Rod- I'm not against an ID system- I'm not convinced that the system proposed is workable or cost effective- Is it worth what it will cost?


1) With a properly designed system, each movement trace would be simple. That Pocket PC that my old Granny plugged in for me would suffice, and I see those units selling for $99 now. Just about anyone in the professional industry, such as vets and brand inspectors carry one right now.

Different around here- Out of the 12 brand inspectors in our county- only 4 or 5 are anyway computer literate- and/or even have a computer....(And I included myself in the 4 or 5, since I have a computer- but admit to being a computer idiot) And who will do all these inspections and inputting in the areas that now have no inspectors?

As far as "many" animals changing hands "several" times in a year, I think you need to rethink that. Almost all cattle are born on a ranch, get sold as calves to a feedlot, then travel to a packing plant to be slaughtered. Thats three movements. Breeding stock differs of course, but breeding stock is a small percentage of the total animals being processed.

Again I guess each area is different...Around here the biggest number of cattle are run on leases (BLM. Forest Service, State, Tribal) where they are only there usually 6-8 months a year...And since many of these run in large common pastures thats at least twice a year inspections for the entire herd... Also many of the calves here are lights (500 lbers)- which go to the wheatfields or background lots (inspection), many then come back on the grass to be run as yearlings (inspection) and /or then to the feedlots (inspection) to be fed out and slaughtered (inspection).....Even if the owner keeps the calves to run as yearlings, but puts them in a lot to feed for the winter they will have to be inspected in and out (2 inspections) because the proposed rule called for any time they were comingled with other cattle.....

2) The actual computers that would record all this are cheap like borsche (sp?). A distributed system could be obtained for well under 6 figures that would store BILLIONS of records. I _know_ there are unused cycles on dozens of government mainframes just waiting for use. They're already paid for, just use them. As I mentioned, Pocket PCs and Palm Pilots are also dirt cheap. There is no need to get fancy with end user equipment.

Not a computer knowledgeable person- but my history in law enforcement has shown me that you cannot use just any old thing off the counter- your going to have to have a standard- with all types of security built into them if you are maintaining any type of government records- which a mandatory ID will be....We used to have to bring a very expensive company in a couple times a year to debug or check for bugs on all our landline phone lines, computer systems and watts lines--That was because they were tied into state and federal systems....Nothing associated with the federal government is ever simple or cheap....We'd get by at 1/4 the cost if the states do it....

3) Actually the US and Canada do have more competent IT people than anywhere in the world. No insult to Australians on here, but their IT departments are in the stone ages.

4) I'm wondering how the $37/hd average was worked out? How is it that a private company like ScoringAg (this is not an ad for them, but simply evidence) can make a profit while only charging 50 cents an animal for registration? This is the question I've posed to my MP when I discovered that the CCIA has a budget of 12 million yearly. I think someone is dreaming when they come up with the $37 figure.

That was the last figure I saw for the cost of the building of their system- the funding of the tags and tagging, the readers, the bureuacracy and infrasture to operate and police it......Since the government there is putting up the cost of the entire system, its been closer to track the true cost involved...

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Not a computer knowledgeable person- but my history in law enforcement has shown me that you cannot use just any old thing off the counter- your going to have to have a standard- with all types of security built into them if you are maintaining any type of government records- which a mandatory ID will be....We used to have to bring a very expensive company in a couple times a year to debug or check for bugs on all our landline phone lines, computer systems and watts lines--That was because they were tied into state and federal systems....Nothing associated with the federal government is ever simple or cheap....We'd get by at 1/4 the cost if the states do it....

I wasn't talking about any old thing off the shelf. I was talking full RAID equipped machines with the necessary firewalls to keep the bad guys out. Bear in mind that when you were in law enforcement, phone lines were utilized to keep offices in touch with one another. With the advent of 128 bit encryption and the Internet, communication between offices got a whole bunch cheaper. I spent some time with Sask Justice, and I know how staggering the costs were with the dedicated wide area networks of old. Sask Justice's WAN costs are now a fraction of what they used to be.

As far as the computer literate part goes, that just doesn't wash OT. Any fool can point a gun (or Pocket PC) at an animal, click a button, then enter in a code. After a days work, the worker simply plugs in the Pocket PC like they would a cell phone (I hope you don't try to tell me they don't know how to use one of those) and the computer takes care of everything. All automatic updates.

I will agree that tracking each movement, at least in so far as moving to community pastures and whatnot sounds excessive to me too, but tracking between ownership changes and medical treatments is cakewalk stuff. Especially when its not going to be too long before all consumers start demanding safer food. With E-Coli and bird flu and, and, and..........

As far as your comment about the government and them tracking the dollars, don't you guys have a taxpayers association down there? Get them to ask WTF? $37/animal is just excessive and it sounds as there is a pile of waste that you, as a taxpayer, have the right to know where its going.

Rod
 

ocm

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oldtimer said:
Not a computer knowledgeable person- but my history in law enforcement has shown me that you cannot use just any old thing off the counter- your going to have to have a standard- with all types of security built into them if you are maintaining any type of government records- which a mandatory ID will be....We used to have to bring a very expensive company in a couple times a year to debug or check for bugs on all our landline phone lines, computer systems and watts lines--That was because they were tied into state and federal systems....Nothing associated with the federal government is ever simple or cheap....We'd get by at 1/4 the cost if the states do it....

I wasn't talking about any old thing off the shelf. I was talking full RAID equipped machines with the necessary firewalls to keep the bad guys out. Bear in mind that when you were in law enforcement, phone lines were utilized to keep offices in touch with one another. With the advent of 128 bit encryption and the Internet, communication between offices got a whole bunch cheaper. I spent some time with Sask Justice, and I know how staggering the costs were with the dedicated wide area networks of old. Sask Justice's WAN costs are now a fraction of what they used to be.

As far as the computer literate part goes, that just doesn't wash OT. Any fool can point a gun (or Pocket PC) at an animal, click a button, then enter in a code. After a days work, the worker simply plugs in the Pocket PC like they would a cell phone (I hope you don't try to tell me they don't know how to use one of those) and the computer takes care of everything. All automatic updates.

I will agree that tracking each movement, at least in so far as moving to community pastures and whatnot sounds excessive to me too, but tracking between ownership changes and medical treatments is cakewalk stuff. Especially when its not going to be too long before all consumers start demanding safer food. With E-Coli and bird flu and, and, and..........

As far as your comment about the government and them tracking the dollars, don't you guys have a taxpayers association down there? Get them to ask WTF? $37/animal is just excessive and it sounds as there is a pile of waste that you, as a taxpayer, have the right to know where its going.

Rod

Rod they've done field tests with that equipment you're talking about. They got a multitude of missed readings and a few double readings. The phrase they use us that they want this stuff to work "at the speed of commerce." So far it doesn't.

Reading wands have to be within about 12 inches to read properly. If the eartag is turned the wrong way, that may not even be enough. And guess what, metal in the surroundings interfere with the readings. There go steel working facilities.

There are high frequency systems that don't have some of these problems, but the USDA has chosen a low frequency standard that doesn't work well enough. There's "sound science" again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM,

Since you Country of Origin Labeling advocates were demanding that consumers know where their beef comes from, what ID system have you proposed to accomplish this or did you once again find your comfort zone amongst the sideline critics who bitch about everything but propose nothing?



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "....or did you once again find your comfort zone amongst the sideline critics who bitch about everything but propose nothing?"

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM,

Since you Country of Origin Labeling advocates were demanding that consumers know where their beef comes from, what ID system have you proposed to accomplish this or did you once again find your comfort zone amongst the sideline critics who bitch about everything but propose nothing?



~SH~

Perhaps we could send the major packers and their USDA puppets to Vietnam to see how the Vietnamese and Thialand shrimp farmers efficiently put on their required labels under COOL.


They don't get to sell it in the U.S. unless it is labeled. It is a strong incentive.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Sorry to confuse you Mrs. Greg.

there is no health record with the tag number. However, should there be a need by the CFIA to trace an animal, due to some problem, say a broken needle, or excessive amounts of a chemical in the animals system, the CFIA has authority to follow the tag number to all the owners and demand to see your records.

This is why, if you are treating the cattle with anything, you had better cover your ass with records. Otherwise, they may accuse you of doing something that a previous, or subsequent, owner did.

Since the majority of feedlots are into "programs" for animal health which the packers are mutually aware of (because most share information), it is very easy for the packer and researchers to test animals from the line and co-ordinate the tag # to the feedlot.

The organic industry does not need to be monitored according to the vet which spoke, it was her words that the ID system was a "gimmick for the organic industry".

Our own herd health records must be supplied when requested by the CFIA. I hope this helps to explain my earlier statement.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Kathy said:
there is no health record with the tag number. However, should there be a need by the CFIA to trace an animal, due to some problem, say a broken needle, or excessive amounts of a chemical in the animals system, the CFIA has authority to follow the tag number to all the owners and demand to see your records.

Kathy, can you point me to the documents to back this up? One of the CCIA's promises to producers was that their information would not be released UNLESS it was in the case of disease and only diseased animals. Broken needles and other reasons were specifically not included (although I did hear some rumblings about the CFIA trying to get broken needles in place). In other words, unless specifically passed by law, the CFIA CAN NOT demand information from the CCIA. Unless things have changed since the introduction of the ID program, we're completely protected by the privacy act.

As far as the speaker's comments about a tagging system only being a gimmick for the organic industry, I'd say the speaker knows nothing about the intentions of the ID program. It was set in place to trace back for one purpose alone: to trace diseased animals back to their herd of origin. Since no-one outside of the CCIA and CFIA (in specific circumstances, and excepting birthdates for age verification) has access to the information in the CCIA database, I fail to see how the ID program could even remotely be used as a gimmick. I suspect the speaker has some hidden agenda, probably one the lazy bunch that didn't want to go through the work of tagging their animals and fought the ID program out of sheer idiocy. Does anyone really believe that the US border would be open today if we weren't able to rapidly trace our BSE positives?

Rod
 

William Kanitz

Well-known member
Since you Country of Origin Labeling advocates were demanding that consumers know where their beef comes from, what ID system have you proposed to accomplish this or did you once again find your comfort zone amongst the sideline critics who bitch about everything but propose nothing?
~SH~
I propose that everyone use our system ScoringAg which handles Brands,tatoos,ear tags ,barcodes and RFID from field to fork or to any place inbetween.
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM,

Since you Country of Origin Labeling advocates were demanding that consumers know where their beef comes from, what ID system have you proposed to accomplish this or did you once again find your comfort zone amongst the sideline critics who bitch about everything but propose nothing?



~SH~

The same one they're using for segregation in the plants for Korea.
 
Top