Marketing versus health issues confuse animal I.D. issue
By SUE ROESLER, For The Prairie Star
Friday, January 19, 2007 1:56 PM MST
DICKINSON, N.D. - The livestock industry needs to “source identify” for two reasons - worldwide consumer demand and the ability to quickly trace a diseased animal, according to Dr. Robert Cannell, beef and pork purchaser for McDonald's USA Corp.
“We buy 1.3 billion pounds of beef annually,” says Cannell, adding that McDonald's interest in animal I.D. was twofold. “Not just as a way of bringing good quality beef to our customers, but also because what happens to the beef industry affects us. Our stock prices dropped after the Christmas cow, but rebounded quickly.”
Cannell was one of a group of expert panelists gathered to answer producer questions and explain their organizations' viewpoint at the Animal Identification Action Summit held at Dickinson State University in Dickinson Nov. 6.
He said McDonald's tries to purchase as much beef from the U.S. as it possibly can and claims only 9 percent is from foreign sources - currently New Zealand and Australia. However, as a producer in the audience pointed out, the company can only source verify back to the USDA packer. Cattle utilized there are not only from the U.S., but from Mexico and Canada also.
“If you could implement COOL, that would enable you to trace that beef,” Cannell told producers.
McDonald's only buys beef from a pre-approved packer list that has specific meat safety rules in place.
As to whether or not McDonald's buys the cheapest beef, Cannell said price had nothing to do with his purchasing decisions.
“It is more about competitiveness,” he said. “We have to compete with the (fast food) restaurant down the road.”
Cannell pointed out that customers do trust the scientists in this country to keep the beef safe, and that played a part in consumer confidence after a U.S. cow was determined to have BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in December 2003 - often referred to as the “Christmas cow.” However, McDonald's in other countries definitely suffered after BSE, he said.
Allen Bright, a cattle producer from western Nebraska who is on the staff at the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO), said identifying animals is still 15 to 20 years away in this country.
( System now is no longer working or being Used)
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) began the USAIO, and one of its members sits on the board, but the NCBA doesn't manage the program.
One of the main tenets of the USAIO is that state health authorities need to have access to records about animals in order to protect the beef industry, but the state veterinarian and producers are the only ones who should have access to this information.
As a private, non-profit organization, there is a cost to producers who choose to take part in the USAIO's animal I.D. program that hovers in the to 30 cents (per head) range,” Bright said. The USAIO's database records an animal's identification number, premise and movement data, he said.
Cost is a major concern for producers regarding a national identification program, Bright said.
“When you talk about identifying, what are we talking about? If we had every cow in all the breeding stocks identified - well, we have longhorn cows in this country that are 19 years old and still having calves. We have Angus cows 14 to 15 years old having calves,” he said.
“We'll never be able to identify all cattle even if we force a mandatory branding system on states,” he added.
The NCBA has adopted a “voluntary” animal identification program.
But Bright said the technology available for animal identification currently is not ready yet and that some are not affordable.
Demonstrations of the current technology took place in the DSU ag arena. The low frequency ear tags required the purchase of a reader to read each calf's identification number. That number was then inputted into a computer software program, which corresponded to data available on the calf.
Since calves are so mobile, each one was run through a chute where its head was anchored to read the tags. A concern with these tags is the reader has to be held within 3 inches of the calf's ear for the number to register. (Not Anymore since I.D.ology RFID reader works at -30 below 0 and the reader operates out a 2ft. plus reading distance at 100% read rate. )
DSU demonstrated a high frequency tag where about 40 head of cattle wearing the tags were run back and forth from one pen to another. The tags proved accurate ? percent of the time,” and several calves' tags could be read at once from a distance of several feet away. However, the technology still needs to be developed to reduce the size of the tag and to reduce the costs.
Bright said animal identification is “well respected as a way of protecting our markets.” One proof of that was with the brucellosis project, where cattle could not be shipped into other states unless they had been vaccinated.
Wade Moser, executive vice-president of the N.D. Stockmen's Association, said the cost of any identification program needs to be “known and built into the (animal I.D.) system.”
Not every producer can afford the USAIO's program - nor wants it. Many breeders have a data program that comes from their own breed association.
Dr. Richard Bowman, chair of the R-CALF USA Animal I.D. committee, said the organization has been involved with animal identification for a long time, well before the “Christmas cow.” Diseases such as foot and mouth could have a “devastating effect on individuals and the industry as a whole if there was an outbreak,” he said.
Health protection was the original focus of animal I.D., and “misconceptions” didn't arise until the marketing concept was introduced, Bright pointed out. When the USDA went mandatory, that caused further concern about the health I.D. program. The current program has been muddled with electronic identification that is a “difficult way (of identification) and not all that efficient,” Bowman said.
There are simpler programs that would work on a national level such as those recommended by the N.D. Stockmen's (branding and premise) and other proven devices such as metal clips in the ears, according to Bowman.
“Our goal is to develop a system that could talk to each other (such as Nebraska's program being able to correspond directly with Alabama's program). All the tagging systems need to have the same type of infrastructure. Everybody needs to be on the same page,” Bowman said.
He added that there were limited state and federal funds out there for an I.D. program, and public funds need to be funneled into the “animal health issue for the public good.”
Bowman said that identification cannot be market driven.
“I don't think that's what the producers want,” he said. The market will pay for its own identification program, he added. “The new technology will spread once people see the premiums in the marketplace.”
Roger Johnson, North Dakota ag commissioner, said health information is the only information gathering that is going on in North Dakota at a state level.
“That's the way the federal government should go, too,” Johnson said.
Bright agreed, saying in Nebraska, producers do not feel the feds are entitled to private information.
“We feel it's our information and you are not entitled to it,” he said. “Confidentiality is an issue to the majority of producers, and when the majority of producers want it, we'd better listen.”