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

M-COOL Affidavit

A

Anonymous

Guest
I've been using an affidavit very similar to this- but also including All Natural Verification- for about the last 10 years....

9/4/2008 7:47:00 AM


NCBA Statement On Industry-Wide Affidavit For COOL



“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is pleased to join an industry-wide coalition in announcing the development of a standardized affidavit to declare country of origin for livestock throughout the marketing chain. The affidavit is available online here http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/countryoforiginaffidavit453.pdf .



“Tomorrow, NCBA and other representatives from throughout the livestock and meat industries will meet with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary Bruce Knight to present this affidavit.



“Our goal was to create a simple, efficient, and effective means of declaring livestock origin from conception to consumer, and we believe this affidavit does exactly that. Producers can fill in information specific to their cattle and assert the origin of any animal being sold. Livestock marketers further along the ownership chain can use individual affidavits to create a single, combined affidavit for a group of animals.



“Representatives from every point in the supply chain unanimously agreed to use this standardized affidavit, which will greatly ease the burden that mandatory COOL places on producers.



“NCBA has focused on implementing COOL in a manner that provides maximum benefit and minimal disruption to our ranchers. We believe this affidavit will be a significant help in that effort.



“Additionally, NCBA is working with our industry partners on the issue of so-called ‘gap cattle,’ which are animals traded in the period between July 15, 2008 (the date that declared all livestock present in the U.S. as being of U.S. origin) and the September 30, 2008 implementation deadline. We are well aware that owners of these animals would be very hard pressed to recreate the paper trail documenting origin. The industry consensus is that current owners should be considered to have first-hand knowledge of those cattle. Therefore, these animals should be allowed to move through the marketing chain using the standard affidavit.



“NCBA will continue to work on behalf of our cattlemen to put in place an effective and accurate labeling system. Additionally, we will be leading the effort to educate producers on how to comply with the new rule.



“For more information about the industry consensus, please read our stakeholder letter http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/countryoforiginaffidavitcoverletter.pdf .”
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Here is a legal trainwreck that will be a court case.

In the case of Cattle-beef-veal, Sheep-lamb, goat, and swine-pork, a producer affidavit shall
be considered acceptable evidence on which the slaughter facility may rely to initiate the
origin claim, provided it is made by someone having first-hand knowledge of the origin of the animal(s)
and identifies the animal(s) unique to the transaction and affidavit.

Those written affidavits only says referenced livestock, nothing about( identifies THE animal) Packers are not willing to pay fines because of the traceback law COOL requires a verified audit. No unique ID on the critter and the retailers won't take the meat as the affidavit is not traceable within the 5 day requirement for the law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
Here is a legal trainwreck that will be a court case.

In the case of Cattle-beef-veal, Sheep-lamb, goat, and swine-pork, a producer affidavit shall
be considered acceptable evidence on which the slaughter facility may rely to initiate the
origin claim, provided it is made by someone having first-hand knowledge of the origin of the animal(s)
and identifies the animal(s) unique to the transaction and affidavit.

Those written affidavits only says referenced livestock, nothing about( identifies THE animal) Packers are not willing to pay fines because of the traceback law COOL requires a verified audit. No unique ID on the critter and the retailers won't take the meat as the affidavit is not traceable within the 5 day requirement for the law.

You know Porker- your continued yapping and promotion of this bureaucratic National ID and your Scoringgag has sold me on one thing-- and that is if by some chance you and this Corporate Fascist Administration gets this bureaucratic mandate called NAIS thru-- the last place I'd look to utilize the data base would be Scoringgag.... :roll: :(
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I don't want NAIS either, it's where every darn animal on a operation is exposed including you thru your premises code. We don't need a government animal ID ,we only need our own Ranch ID system .

ScoringAg is the only safeguarded encrypted database where only one of your animals or crops is exposed with out a government premises code.Your name, signature, address, and phone and your herd inventory is never exposed to anybody.

I guess you need a little education,Oldtimer, on privacy of data which is number 1 in my book. Those stupid affidavits give just way to much data like your signature for every cottonpicken place your animal moves after you sold it and when they need to check on COOL verification of source, they can and have the legal right to dig around in your personal animal and ranch files for proof. NOT ME !
 

burnt

Well-known member
Well now if nothing else, this could provide some entertainment on a slow news day - a younger drum-beater trying to educate an "Old Fool" . . . . . :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
I guess you need a little education,Oldtimer, on privacy of data which is number 1 in my book. Those stupid affidavits give just way to much data like your signature for every cottonpicken place your animal moves after you sold it and when they need to check on COOL verification of source, they can and have the legal right to dig around in your personal animal and ranch files for proof. NOT ME !

PORKER- I quite aware of what access they get to your files-- and dig around is not how I'd term it (unless I'm marketing a database and trying to sell more :roll: )...With the affidavits I've used I've offered copies of all files and all info for years- along with 3rd party state verifications (brand inspections)...Since my cattle are already openly IDed (brand), I have no problem affirmation affidavits on them....Thats worked in our history for 200 years...

It just appears to me- that some of those that are pushing the hardest to get NAIS and electronic ID are those that are looking to profiteer from it-- the tag companies, data bases, reader and technology folks....
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, specifically, how is "profiteering" from selling tags, data bases, readers, or technology needed for Animal ID at a profit worse than "profiteering" by making and selling branding irons, corral panels, squeeze chutes/calf tables, ropes, horse trailers and ranch horses needed for branding ?????

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
OT, specifically, how is "profiteering" from selling tags, data bases, readers, or technology needed for Animal ID at a profit worse than "profiteering" by making and selling branding irons, corral panels, squeeze chutes/calf tables, ropes, horse trailers and ranch horses needed for branding ?????

mrj

Probably isn't-- except its an unneeded cost when what some of us have has been working for 150 years...Federal Government shouldn't be using Millions $ of taxpayer money to shove something else down our throats..

Oh I forgot- your a supporter of the bigger government and bigger bureaucracy- federal government usurption of states/individual rights- record drunken sailor spending and national debt like we've gotten the past 7 1/2 years... :wink:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
In the Case of Mandatory ID which I don't want ,I would say that the gov. should fund all of this or as some would say ,it's a unfunded mandate rule like NAIS tried to start.
Oldtimer, I agree, This system worked fine until the lawyers started sueing everyone . We don't need a spinach deal to happen to the livestock industry because of no traceback to the packer of fault like e-coli and listeria that is going on in Canada. Well maybe it did happen with a Canadian BSE cow in our hamburger in 03.

Between paper records and web-based database records there is still a lag time with paper ,which is as slow as snail mail. Maybe you need to update your recordkeeping with some speed , just kidding. I use my wireless PDA, its just a little faster then paper.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Poor OT, still living in that fantasy world where evil lurks in every proposal which you didn't think of first!

Did you fall asleep and not know that our country was attacked by extremist Islamic terrorists and that countering that terrorism successfully enough that they have not been successful either in another attack in our nation, or in taking over Iraq to use as their base???

Yes, that has cost money.......just as has the extreme amount of 'political pork'........and my guess is, it's a pretty safe bet you haven't been demanding your part of the country send back its share of the plunder!

mrj
 

Bill

Well-known member
burnt said:
Well now if nothing else, this could provide some entertainment on a slow news day - a younger drum-beater trying to educate an "Old Fool" . . . . . :roll:


:lol: Now that's funny!


I haven't been here for quite a while but thought I would take a read through over a cup of coffee. It doesn't seem as though too much has changed but I will have to give OVI one point as the scoringgag description is quite good.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The new issue of so-called ‘gap cattle,’ which are animals traded in the period between July 15, 2008 (the date that declared all livestock present in the U.S. as being of U.S. origin) and the September 30, 2008 implementation deadline. Every packer is well aware that owners of these animals would be very hard pressed to recreate the paper trail documenting origin.

Those animals didn't have any records and there won't be any traceback to their origin source . There was not any written or computer documents for ID'ed calves to base claims for retail that will be needed next summer and fall.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The COOL law is here and 90% of the covered livestock owners were not ready for animal records movement. Lots of adjustment going on out there.

COOL law Clarifications today

Gap cattle or animals that have changed ownership since July 15 2008 and before the start date of September 30 2008 have problems. [ LMA Quote] Visual inspection for verification of origin is particularly important to the trade during the period between July 15, 2008 (the date that technically declared all livestock present in the U.S. as U.S.-origin) and whenever the final regulation is published. Producers ,stockyards , salebarns, have sold or placed livestock, particularly cattle, without all of the origin documentation that may be necessary for the COOL law. It would be very difficult and in some cases impossible to recreate the paper trail on many of these animals. We do not want livestock to become unmarketable because of a lack of a paper trail or electronic traceback records on animals that were in the trade while the regulators and industry were working to outline what level of verification is necessary.

Answer From AMS USDA;

In the COOL law as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress provided for the use of producer affidavits to declare origin information to packers. Thus, under the interim final rule, USDA will consider a producer affidavit as acceptable evidence on which a packer may rely upon to initiate an origin claim, as long as the affidavit is made by someone having first-hand knowledge of the origin of the animal(s) and identifies the animal(s) unique to the transaction. Evidence that identifies the animal(s) unique to a transaction can include a tag ID system along with other information such as the type and sex of the hogs, cattle or other livestock, number of head involved in the transaction, the date of the transaction, and the name of the buyer.
Simply meeting the minimum requirements of the law in accordance with what USDA may find acceptable may not be sufficient to satisfy packers and retailers up the supply chain. These market forces, conditions and firm-level decisions go beyond the scope of the COOL regulation. Subsequent buyers may choose to impose their own requirements on marketing partners in the supply chain. Even though USDA may be satisfied with a given recordkeeping system, producers and suppliers should know what their customer requires and make sure product labeling and documentation meets the needs of those buyers.
 

Latest posts

Top