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

Johanns' comments on NAIS to NCBA Convention

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
A huge crowd, but only part of the 6,100 registered at the NCBA convention heard Ag. Sec. Johanns comment on NAIS.

Quoting re. NAIS from USDA's release of Johanns' speech "First, though, I would like to commend the NCBA members for showing tremendous leadership in the industry-led ID effort. The new U.S. animal identification organization has presented its database to us. That represents real progress. Now we feel as you do that the ID system must be grounded in partnership. Our longstanding goals remain, to move forward quickly without causing unnecessary burden on producers and without unduly increasing the size of government.

We believe that the system that we've been talking about, the meta-data system would get this job done--which brings me to the questions that we have heard.

Now some have asked whether this system is a retreat from our position that private databases should contain the animal movement data. Let me assure you that I'm not changing course. Some time ago we proposed a system that would require raw data to be held in a private database. The widespread support for privately owned data was dampened by concerns among states and industry about sharing a single database. And we worried about gridlock. But APHIS did not throw in the towel; instead our staff went back and we started to work to determine how we could move forward in a way that addressed the concern.

APHIS came back with this proposal as a means to allow for multiple private databases that could own the data while providing USDA with a portal that we will need at times to access information.

Under this proposal you, the industry, would continue to own and have control over the animal movement data. But through agreements established between private entities and the USDA, we would be able to access those pieces of information that are necessary in the event that we would need to do something like complete an investigation.

Organizations that wish to consolidate their tracking data can still do so and in fact are encouraged to do so. But this system provides the flexibility that so many have requestted and I might add, allows for a robust private sector.

But, we've also been asked whether this system will slow the pace at which we enter into agreements with the private sector to access their information. The system will not slow that pace because it does not need to be operational before we enter into the agreements.

Now the first step is to develop criteria for the agreements. We're working on that. Our goal is to soon have the first draft of that criteria posted. And we're going to invite your comment. Once we finalize the criteria, we will move forward with agreements at the same time that we are implementing the system.

Some have asked how much money we have dedicated to animal ID, since this was kicked off, and today I can report to you that nearly $100 million in funding and resources have been dedicated to this effort. More than two-thirds of that has come from the USDA. I can also tell you that our commitment to that effort continues. I wil not preview and really I can't preview the President's budget; it's his budget, and he'll release it next week. But that funding information will be available on Monday.

Finally, some simply want to know why we are putting so much effort in animal ID. It's a subject that brings debate. It would be a crucial tool in safeguarding the health of agricultural animals from disease. One only need look through to other parts of the world, to Australia or other countries to understand another reason why it's important--and I think you understand this. My friends, they are aggressively marketing, aggressively marketing their animal traceability to gain whatever competitive advantage that they can gain.

Now, I know this industry understands the importance of exports. A national animal identification system is needed to protect this crucial source of income and protect your future. I hope that helps to clear some of the questions that maybe have circulated through this conference. With NCBA's CONTINUED LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE AND OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER GROUPS, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO BE A WIN/WIN SITUATION FOR THE INDUSTRY AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. (emphasis by MRJ, sorry I haven't learned to bold the type yet)

Final thoughts: The history of the cattle industry is the story of America. It's a proud heritage that threshed and harvested and ranched the land in this nation to agricultural greatness. The state of our beef industry is strong, like the state of our union. The President is as committed as ever and I am too, to ensuring that this industry remains vibrant, that agriculture remains a cornerstone of the U.S. economy." Close quote.

Sounds like a good system to me. I would rather that those who do not want to participate be left out of the system. But that would endanger the herds of ALL cattle producers if accidental or intentional FMD were introduced in our nation, so should not be allowed, IMO. Tailing up people who are natural born, or easily led, "agginers" is tiresome at best.

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
A huge crowd, but only part of the 6,100 registered at the NCBA convention heard Ag. Sec. Johanns comment on NAIS.

Quoting re. NAIS from USDA's release of Johanns' speech "First, though, I would like to commend the NCBA members for showing tremendous leadership in the industry-led ID effort. The new U.S. animal identification organization has presented its database to us. That represents real progress. Now we feel as you do that the ID system must be grounded in partnership. Our longstanding goals remain, to move forward quickly without causing unnecessary burden on producers and without unduly increasing the size of government.

We believe that the system that we've been talking about, the meta-data system would get this job done--which brings me to the questions that we have heard.

Now some have asked whether this system is a retreat from our position that private databases should contain the animal movement data. Let me assure you that I'm not changing course. Some time ago we proposed a system that would require raw data to be held in a private database. The widespread support for privately owned data was dampened by concerns among states and industry about sharing a single database. And we worried about gridlock. But APHIS did not throw in the towel; instead our staff went back and we started to work to determine how we could move forward in a way that addressed the concern.

APHIS came back with this proposal as a means to allow for multiple private databases that could own the data while providing USDA with a portal that we will need at times to access information.

Under this proposal you, the industry, would continue to own and have control over the animal movement data. But through agreements established between private entities and the USDA, we would be able to access those pieces of information that are necessary in the event that we would need to do something like complete an investigation.

Organizations that wish to consolidate their tracking data can still do so and in fact are encouraged to do so. But this system provides the flexibility that so many have requestted and I might add, allows for a robust private sector.

But, we've also been asked whether this system will slow the pace at which we enter into agreements with the private sector to access their information. The system will not slow that pace because it does not need to be operational before we enter into the agreements.

Now the first step is to develop criteria for the agreements. We're working on that. Our goal is to soon have the first draft of that criteria posted. And we're going to invite your comment. Once we finalize the criteria, we will move forward with agreements at the same time that we are implementing the system.

Some have asked how much money we have dedicated to animal ID, since this was kicked off, and today I can report to you that nearly $100 million in funding and resources have been dedicated to this effort. More than two-thirds of that has come from the USDA. I can also tell you that our commitment to that effort continues. I wil not preview and really I can't preview the President's budget; it's his budget, and he'll release it next week. But that funding information will be available on Monday.

Finally, some simply want to know why we are putting so much effort in animal ID. It's a subject that brings debate. It would be a crucial tool in safeguarding the health of agricultural animals from disease. One only need look through to other parts of the world, to Australia or other countries to understand another reason why it's important--and I think you understand this. My friends, they are aggressively marketing, aggressively marketing their animal traceability to gain whatever competitive advantage that they can gain.

Now, I know this industry understands the importance of exports. A national animal identification system is needed to protect this crucial source of income and protect your future. I hope that helps to clear some of the questions that maybe have circulated through this conference. With NCBA's CONTINUED LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE AND OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER GROUPS, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO BE A WIN/WIN SITUATION FOR THE INDUSTRY AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. (emphasis by MRJ, sorry I haven't learned to bold the type yet)

Final thoughts: The history of the cattle industry is the story of America. It's a proud heritage that threshed and harvested and ranched the land in this nation to agricultural greatness. The state of our beef industry is strong, like the state of our union. The President is as committed as ever and I am too, to ensuring that this industry remains vibrant, that agriculture remains a cornerstone of the U.S. economy." Close quote.

Sounds like a good system to me. I would rather that those who do not want to participate be left out of the system. But that would endanger the herds of ALL cattle producers if accidental or intentional FMD were introduced in our nation, so should not be allowed, IMO. Tailing up people who are natural born, or easily led, "agginers" is tiresome at best.
MRJ

Someday I would like someone to explain to me how ID would help in case of FMD. It is the most frequently used scenario. Yet our state vet said they would use a compass on a map to draw a radius and quarantine EVERYTHING in that radius. Then they would go from there. FMD spreads by HERDS, by WIND, by being in the same county, not by individuals.

We eradicated FMD in this country years ago and have successfully kept it out WITHOUT ID. How is it suddenly absolutely necessary for FMD prevention?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM,

Weren't you the ones telling consumers they had the right to know where their beef was "BORN, RAISED, and processed"???

What gives now?

Change your collective minds again?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
OCM,

Weren't you the ones telling consumers they had the right to know where their beef was "BORN, RAISED, and processed"???

What gives now?

Change your collective minds again?


~SH~

I would add to that, who actually processes it. Unfortunately the packers are not willing to do any premiums for traceback or it would have already happened, SH. They want it traced back to farms, but they do not want to have to trace it back from the retail.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Unfortunately the packers are not willing to do any premiums for traceback or it would have already happened, SH."

YET ANOTHER LIE!

Here's the proof that it is a lie folks:


Here is a quote from a recent letter from Angus Gene Net that markets cattle through Swift & CO.

"We will continue our premium of $6.00 per head for all source verified cattle until April 1, 2006. The owner of the cattle signing an affidavit stating the ranch or origin, ranch address, and group calving dates, etc., handles this source verification. However, these cattle are not eligible to be exported or receive the added premium. If you want your cattle to receive the added export premium, you will need to have your cattle USDA source and age verified as I have stated above. This added export premium will vary from week to week depending on Japan's demand. This week there is a $2.00 per cwt in the beef plus the $6.00 per head for cattle that are eligible for export."

Tell us again Conman how packers are not paying premiums for source verification.

Why don't you stop while you're so far behind with all your lies.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Unfortunately the packers are not willing to do any premiums for traceback or it would have already happened, SH."

YET ANOTHER LIE!

Here's the proof that it is a lie folks:


Here is a quote from a recent letter from Angus Gene Net that markets cattle through Swift & CO.

"We will continue our premium of $6.00 per head for all source verified cattle until April 1, 2006. The owner of the cattle signing an affidavit stating the ranch or origin, ranch address, and group calving dates, etc., handles this source verification. However, these cattle are not eligible to be exported or receive the added premium. If you want your cattle to receive the added export premium, you will need to have your cattle USDA source and age verified as I have stated above. This added export premium will vary from week to week depending on Japan's demand. This week there is a $2.00 per cwt in the beef plus the $6.00 per head for cattle that are eligible for export."

Tell us again Conman how packers are not paying premiums for source verification.

Why don't you stop while you're so far behind with all your lies.


~SH~

Then let the market handle this issue. If the market will pay enough for source verification to make it worth a producer or feeder's time, it will happen. The USDA obviously has enough on its hands. They can't even get a much publicized inspection on beef going to Japan correct. Why give them anything else to mess up?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman gets caught red handed in another lie and never skips a beat.

Conman: "Then let the market handle this issue. If the market will pay enough for source verification to make it worth a producer or feeder's time, it will happen. The USDA obviously has enough on its hands."

I agree!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman gets caught red handed in another lie and never skips a beat.

Conman: "Then let the market handle this issue. If the market will pay enough for source verification to make it worth a producer or feeder's time, it will happen. The USDA obviously has enough on its hands."

I agree!



~SH~

So are you going to now say that you are against M-ID?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "So are you going to now say that you are against M-ID?"

I am all for source verification but I have always been against a "MANDATORY" government mandated ID program.

I am for the free enterprise system driving the ID process, not the government.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "So are you going to now say that you are against M-ID?"

I am all for source verification but I have always been against a "MANDATORY" government mandated ID program.

I am for the free enterprise system driving the ID process, not the government.


~SH~

Start writing your letters to Tyson then. They seem to be all for it.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,147
Reaction score
371
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Unfortunately the packers are not willing to do any premiums for traceback or it would have already happened, SH."

YET ANOTHER LIE!

Here's the proof that it is a lie folks:


Here is a quote from a recent letter from Angus Gene Net that markets cattle through Swift & CO.

"We will continue our premium of $6.00 per head for all source verified cattle until April 1, 2006. The owner of the cattle signing an affidavit stating the ranch or origin, ranch address, and group calving dates, etc., handles this source verification. However, these cattle are not eligible to be exported or receive the added premium. If you want your cattle to receive the added export premium, you will need to have your cattle USDA source and age verified as I have stated above. This added export premium will vary from week to week depending on Japan's demand. This week there is a $2.00 per cwt in the beef plus the $6.00 per head for cattle that are eligible for export."

Tell us again Conman how packers are not paying premiums for source verification.

Why don't you stop while you're so far behind with all your lies.


~SH~

Then let the market handle this issue. If the market will pay enough for source verification to make it worth a producer or feeder's time, it will happen. The USDA obviously has enough on its hands. They can't even get a much publicized inspection on beef going to Japan correct. Why give them anything else to mess up?



So Econ why can't the industry drive M'COOL?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
YET ANOTHER LIE!

Here's the proof that it is a lie folks:


Here is a quote from a recent letter from Angus Gene Net that markets cattle through Swift & CO.



Tell us again Conman how packers are not paying premiums for source verification.

Why don't you stop while you're so far behind with all your lies.


~SH~

Then let the market handle this issue. If the market will pay enough for source verification to make it worth a producer or feeder's time, it will happen. The USDA obviously has enough on its hands. They can't even get a much publicized inspection on beef going to Japan correct. Why give them anything else to mess up?



So Econ why can't the industry drive M'COOL?

BMR, the M-ID will not reach all the way to the consumer. The buying decision is with the consumer. The more information they have and the more choices they have, the better. Hiding information (like the big BSE surveilance smokescreen by the USDA) only plays into the hands of the packers.

Like I said before, I don't think that M-COOL will effect Canadian producers negatively if it is used as a marketing tool. It should help them if indeed their beef is "a cut above". I would gladly go out and buy some if I saw it in the store to test your above quote.

This last month I was at Wal-Mart and decided to try some of their top round. It was packaged in one of those airtight packages (probably CO2 packaging). When I got it home, one of the two pieces looked good but was a little slimy. I smelled it and it did not smell like the other piece in the package. I called the number on the package and asked a few questions about the meat. The lady said that it was choice but there was no USDA markings on the meat that said that it was choice. I don't really know if it was or not. I always like more information. Some people do not know how to look for information on meat but I do.

As I said before, I would pick up an identified Canadian package that was graded rather than a non graded package if I were at a store.

M-Cool will just give customers more information about the meat. You shouldn't be scared of it if you have a good product.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Pete Hisey had a story about CO Packaging on the meatingplace website today. It is quite informative and interesting.

He acknowledged, in reply to my email, that there could be a problem in that it is possible for the meat to get too warm during packaging if care is not taken. That could lead to spoilage. Cargill is working on a means to identify such problems to the processor and to the consumer. USDA and FDA have not yet made any real decisions about the usage of CO packaging, so processors are not totally comfortable with this technology which offers great promise for better beef now, and even more so when a few tweaks take care of the problems.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Pete Hisey had a story about CO Packaging on the meatingplace website today. It is quite informative and interesting.

He acknowledged, in reply to my email, that there could be a problem in that it is possible for the meat to get too warm during packaging if care is not taken. That could lead to spoilage. Cargill is working on a means to identify such problems to the processor and to the consumer. USDA and FDA have not yet made any real decisions about the usage of CO packaging, so processors are not totally comfortable with this technology which offers great promise for better beef now, and even more so when a few tweaks take care of the problems.

MRJ

Yes, MRJ, they need a temp sensitive tag and that is what they are working on. It has to do with the customer not being able to tell if the package was too warm due to the fact the meat does not respond in color with the CO as it would if it was not CO.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Pete Hisey had a story about CO Packaging on the meatingplace website today. It is quite informative and interesting.

He acknowledged, in reply to my email, that there could be a problem in that it is possible for the meat to get too warm during packaging if care is not taken. That could lead to spoilage. Cargill is working on a means to identify such problems to the processor and to the consumer. USDA and FDA have not yet made any real decisions about the usage of CO packaging, so processors are not totally comfortable with this technology which offers great promise for better beef now, and even more so when a few tweaks take care of the problems.

MRJ

Yes, MRJ, they need a temp sensitive tag and that is what they are working on. It has to do with the customer not being able to tell if the package was too warm due to the fact the meat does not respond in color with the CO as it would if it was not CO.

In fact, that is what Hisey told me, adding that they haven't yet found one that is cost-effective, but one supplier is working on a less costly RFID chip which would monitor temperature each time the meat is moved, but that is probably a couple of years away. He further stated "all in all, this is a safe product, but processors don't have the comfort of a USDA or FDA rule to follow, so they are pretty much on their own if something bad happens.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Pete Hisey had a story about CO Packaging on the meatingplace website today. It is quite informative and interesting.

He acknowledged, in reply to my email, that there could be a problem in that it is possible for the meat to get too warm during packaging if care is not taken. That could lead to spoilage. Cargill is working on a means to identify such problems to the processor and to the consumer. USDA and FDA have not yet made any real decisions about the usage of CO packaging, so processors are not totally comfortable with this technology which offers great promise for better beef now, and even more so when a few tweaks take care of the problems.

MRJ

Yes, MRJ, they need a temp sensitive tag and that is what they are working on. It has to do with the customer not being able to tell if the package was too warm due to the fact the meat does not respond in color with the CO as it would if it was not CO.

In fact, that is what Hisey told me, adding that they haven't yet found one that is cost-effective, but one supplier is working on a less costly RFID chip which would monitor temperature each time the meat is moved, but that is probably a couple of years away. He further stated "all in all, this is a safe product, but processors don't have the comfort of a USDA or FDA rule to follow, so they are pretty much on their own if something bad happens.

MRJ

I must be reading this wrong. The packers want a RFID chip to monitor temperature with every meat movement but don't want to label it with an "Originating Country" label? :???: :???: :???:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
The packers want a RFID chip to monitor temperature with every meat movement ***************Hey those type of chips are two years old and are in use everyday and you can buy RFID boluses that take your cattle's temperature everyday.
Yes, MRJ, they need a temp sensitive tag and that is what is sold everyday.but one supplier is working on a less costly RFID chip which would monitor temperature each time the meat is moved, but that is probably a couple of years away.Thats a downrite lie.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
What does "cost effective" mean porker?

A rfid that costs $16 on a package of beef that sells for $10?

Go back a couple posts and read MRJ saying they havn't got a cost effective one.
 

Latest posts

Top