Voluntary Participation Is Key To Preventing Mandatory ID Plan
By David Bowser
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — "I think everybody is tired of seeing the slides on the same old thing about NAIS, about the National Animal Identification System, and we're tired, honestly, as well about going over this same material," Dr. Kent Fowler says.
Fowler was a large animal practitioner on the California central coast area for 26 years before joining the California Department of Food and Agriculture three years ago.
The National Animal Identification System, which had been in the talking stages among animal health officials for a decade, took on a new life after a cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease, was found in Washington state just before Christmas in 2003, but while that may have been a catalyst for the National Animal Identification System, that's not what the system is about.
"This is not a BSE program," Fowler said. "Certainly, something happened back there in December 2003, that prompted the formation of this, but I think we have proven through the enhanced BSE surveillance that we have an extremely low prevalence of BSE in the country.
"What we do have and what we need to realize that we're not immune from are a lot of the other contagious animal diseases, especially a lot of the foreign animal diseases."
He turned to the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain, not the BSE reports, to warn cattle producers of a need for the National Animal Identification System.
"We need to be able to deal with that situation," Fowler said.
He said no one can convince him that the United States cattle industry is immune from that situation or some other major disease outbreak with a fast-moving viral disease or any other contagious disease.
"We are simply not immune to that," Fowler said. "We've been extremely fortunate, is what we've been."
The National Animal Identification System is intended for disease traceability.
"We've gotten mired down in a lot of details, and I'm the first to admit that for a system to work smoothly, the details have to be in place," Fowler said, "but I would encourage California Cattlemen's Association and the industry not to lose sight of the fact that this is all about disease traceability. We do need to have that capability."
Whether the cattle industry is dealing with another potential BSE situation on an individual basis or whether it's dealing with a foot and mouth disease outbreak, whether it's dealing with any other of these highly contagious diseases, the industry has to have that identification and traceability, he insisted.
Fowler said his department's viewpoint at this point is that it's important that the industry goes ahead and transitions existing premise identifications and animal identifications, such as with the brucellosis and tuberculosis testing programs, into the official NAIS program.
"We need to incorporate NAIS into these disease programs that we already have going on so that we can start seeing the functionality of an NAIS program," Fowler said. "We also encourage USDA to continue with funding and follow up with some of these programs they've put out there, some of the projects.”
He admitted that there have been some problems with the pilot projects funded by USDA around the country, but that's why they were pilot projects. They were tried to see if they would work.
"In order to work out these bumps in the road — and there have been a lot of them since the inception of this," Fowler said, "we have to continue to do some of these research projects. They need to continue to supply some money in order that those projects can be adequately pulled off."
While Fowler's focus is on disease traceability, he said he thinks there are benefits from a marketing standpoint.
"This has been one of these areas in NAIS that we've seen information coming from both sides as far as marketability," Fowler said. "The fact of the matter is we realize that this can improve the marketability of your product. At times USDA has taken the standpoint that we're going to back away from that. We're not going to address that at all, that we're not going to talk about anything other than disease traceability. Of late, they've come back toward that more and said, ‘Okay, I think we all need to admit that there's definitely some advantages on the marketability of products that are cost-effective with regard to this program.’ The strong leadership, I think, is a given on this program."
There are probably going to be some changes in that leadership coming shortly with the recent elections, he said.
The California state veterinarian, Dr. Richard E. Breitmeyer, said there are no plans to make this a mandatory program unless at some point in time that it needs to be part of a national mandatory program, Fowler said.
At the United States Animal Health Association meeting in Minneapolis, Minn., earlier this fall, the new undersecretary of agriculture, Bruce Knight, maintained that the National Animal Identification System is a voluntary program, Fowler said.
"He emphasized this over and over again," Fowler said. "The direction of the national leadership is that this is going to stay a voluntary program."
Fowler shrugged and said he's just the messenger.
"They said over and over again that they want to look at this as a voluntary program," Fowler said. "That was the message that they asked for us to pass along."
Fowler admitted that there have been a lot of confidentiality issues related to the National Animal Identification System.
"From USDA, from a national perspective," Fowler said, "what they're stating is that it will only be accessed on an as-needed basis."
He said USDA officials were adamant that this would be the case and that the data would be protected.
"I think, looking at this from a higher level down, on the value of this system, we need to be looking at continuity of business if we should have a disease outbreak, and this is really in your pocketbooks," Fowler said. "We can't afford to not have that continuity of business. We need to address the disease outbreak as quickly as we can, trace down those animals and get everybody going again. We also can't afford to have the loss of that genetic pool like the U.K. did."
Dr. Tom Talbot, second vice president for the California Cattlemen's Association, indicated that he sees an animal identification program as inevitable, but it's up to cattlemen to determine whether or nt it is done in a way they can live with.
"I'm certainly not an expert in the field of animal ID," Talbot said. "It's not my area, but it's something that we've started to talk about."
Talbot opposes a mandatory identification program but fears that is what will happen if a voluntary program cannot be implemented.
"From my standpoint, I am a very strong supporter of a voluntary program," Talbot said. "I have no intention of being a supporter of mandatory ID. Certainly, not mandatory ID with no funding, and also not mandatory ID with funding. That's important to say."
One of the obstacles he sees to implementing a national animal identification program at the grassroots level is technology.
“I'm not a technology person," Talbot said. "In our outfit, technology means you've got good batteries for the hotshot. That's as good as it gets. Technology and I do not get along very well."
Talbot said he often speaks at conferences where people make elaborate Power Point presentations.
"I just figured out e-mail," Talbot said. "How am I going to get along doing a Power Point presentation?"
He said that for a program to work at his house, it's got to be low-tech.
"We've got to figure out how to get it done, get it done to meet the letter of the law, and it's got to be something simple, something that I can do," Talbot said.
The National Animal Identification System came to the forefront after the discovery of a Canadian-born cow with BSE in Washington state just before Christmas 2003.
"If we look back on Dec. 30, 2003," Talbot said, "Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman made the statement, 'We're going to have an animal ID program.'"
She indicated that her decision was the result of the cow that stole Christmas for the cattle industry that year.
"Her response one week later to the fact that we were going to have a national animal identification program was to try to defuse some of the outrage of having this happen and what are we going to do about it," Talbot said.
He said veterinarians had been talking about such a program for at least a year and a half prior to that. Talbot said he doesn't think many producers were aware of that.
"That's where this thing came about," Talbot said. "It did not come from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It did not come from California Cattlemen's Association. It did not come from any of us out there in the industry. It came from the government saying ‘We will do this.’"
Talbot said he has taken Veneman's statement to mean that the cattle industry will have such a program, and that if they didn't, the government would impose one. He said his view of the statement is that if the industry doesn't want an animal identification program, that doesn't mean there won't be a program. It means that a program will be imposed that cattlemen are not comfortable with.
"We've been given the opportunity to have a voluntary program," he said, "and I think that's the way we need to proceed."
He said a voluntary program in his mind does not mean doing nothing.
"A voluntary program means we go ahead and continue on down the path of getting an appropriate number of premise IDs registered, getting the number of individual animal IDs registered and proceeding on down that path," Talbot said.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has published a number of benchmarks for the program.
There will be a certain number of premises registered by 2007, Talbot said. There will be a certain number of premises registered by 2008, and a certain number of individual animals identified by 2009.
"I think those are things that we need to strive for," Talbot said. "The only way I see animal ID becoming mandatory is to do nothing about it, to not do a voluntary program. If we proceed down the pathway, and we meet those benchmarks, we will continue to have a voluntary program, and it will be something that we have done, something that we're comfortable with and something that we can proceed on."
One of Talbot's major concerns is not whether to develop such a program, but who's going to pay for it.
"The way I look at this thing is ‘How am I going to benefit?’" Talbot said. "How am I going to get my money back for spending the money to buy a tag, to spend my money to put my data in a database. How am I going to get my money back?"
The problem is with the economics of the program.
"I'm not going to put my calves up for sale, have a tag in their ear — say that costs me two dollars — and expect whoever buys those is going to pay me four dollars," Talbot said. "I don't think that's the way it's going to be."
He said he thinks the way cattlemen are going to live with the National Animal Identification System is if they proceed down the path with an adequate number of premises identified and an adequate number of animals identified, then the industry can say to the public, both domestic and international, that there is an animal identification system in place.
"Therefore, we can get consumer confidence domestically and we're going to get a global market that says ‘We understand; we're comfortable taking your beef,’" Talbot said, "and that's the way we're going to receive a return on this process. This is not going to be ‘Spend a dollar today and get a dollar or two dollars back tomorrow.’ I don't see that happening."
__________________________________________________________
Cattle men absorb the costs of NAIS,packers retain the premium ..................that's why the NAIS has been a "no go"and until that changes,nothing changes,maybe we should apply the ole packer logic........"if you aint docked,consider it a premium"..............good luck
By David Bowser
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — "I think everybody is tired of seeing the slides on the same old thing about NAIS, about the National Animal Identification System, and we're tired, honestly, as well about going over this same material," Dr. Kent Fowler says.
Fowler was a large animal practitioner on the California central coast area for 26 years before joining the California Department of Food and Agriculture three years ago.
The National Animal Identification System, which had been in the talking stages among animal health officials for a decade, took on a new life after a cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease, was found in Washington state just before Christmas in 2003, but while that may have been a catalyst for the National Animal Identification System, that's not what the system is about.
"This is not a BSE program," Fowler said. "Certainly, something happened back there in December 2003, that prompted the formation of this, but I think we have proven through the enhanced BSE surveillance that we have an extremely low prevalence of BSE in the country.
"What we do have and what we need to realize that we're not immune from are a lot of the other contagious animal diseases, especially a lot of the foreign animal diseases."
He turned to the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain, not the BSE reports, to warn cattle producers of a need for the National Animal Identification System.
"We need to be able to deal with that situation," Fowler said.
He said no one can convince him that the United States cattle industry is immune from that situation or some other major disease outbreak with a fast-moving viral disease or any other contagious disease.
"We are simply not immune to that," Fowler said. "We've been extremely fortunate, is what we've been."
The National Animal Identification System is intended for disease traceability.
"We've gotten mired down in a lot of details, and I'm the first to admit that for a system to work smoothly, the details have to be in place," Fowler said, "but I would encourage California Cattlemen's Association and the industry not to lose sight of the fact that this is all about disease traceability. We do need to have that capability."
Whether the cattle industry is dealing with another potential BSE situation on an individual basis or whether it's dealing with a foot and mouth disease outbreak, whether it's dealing with any other of these highly contagious diseases, the industry has to have that identification and traceability, he insisted.
Fowler said his department's viewpoint at this point is that it's important that the industry goes ahead and transitions existing premise identifications and animal identifications, such as with the brucellosis and tuberculosis testing programs, into the official NAIS program.
"We need to incorporate NAIS into these disease programs that we already have going on so that we can start seeing the functionality of an NAIS program," Fowler said. "We also encourage USDA to continue with funding and follow up with some of these programs they've put out there, some of the projects.”
He admitted that there have been some problems with the pilot projects funded by USDA around the country, but that's why they were pilot projects. They were tried to see if they would work.
"In order to work out these bumps in the road — and there have been a lot of them since the inception of this," Fowler said, "we have to continue to do some of these research projects. They need to continue to supply some money in order that those projects can be adequately pulled off."
While Fowler's focus is on disease traceability, he said he thinks there are benefits from a marketing standpoint.
"This has been one of these areas in NAIS that we've seen information coming from both sides as far as marketability," Fowler said. "The fact of the matter is we realize that this can improve the marketability of your product. At times USDA has taken the standpoint that we're going to back away from that. We're not going to address that at all, that we're not going to talk about anything other than disease traceability. Of late, they've come back toward that more and said, ‘Okay, I think we all need to admit that there's definitely some advantages on the marketability of products that are cost-effective with regard to this program.’ The strong leadership, I think, is a given on this program."
There are probably going to be some changes in that leadership coming shortly with the recent elections, he said.
The California state veterinarian, Dr. Richard E. Breitmeyer, said there are no plans to make this a mandatory program unless at some point in time that it needs to be part of a national mandatory program, Fowler said.
At the United States Animal Health Association meeting in Minneapolis, Minn., earlier this fall, the new undersecretary of agriculture, Bruce Knight, maintained that the National Animal Identification System is a voluntary program, Fowler said.
"He emphasized this over and over again," Fowler said. "The direction of the national leadership is that this is going to stay a voluntary program."
Fowler shrugged and said he's just the messenger.
"They said over and over again that they want to look at this as a voluntary program," Fowler said. "That was the message that they asked for us to pass along."
Fowler admitted that there have been a lot of confidentiality issues related to the National Animal Identification System.
"From USDA, from a national perspective," Fowler said, "what they're stating is that it will only be accessed on an as-needed basis."
He said USDA officials were adamant that this would be the case and that the data would be protected.
"I think, looking at this from a higher level down, on the value of this system, we need to be looking at continuity of business if we should have a disease outbreak, and this is really in your pocketbooks," Fowler said. "We can't afford to not have that continuity of business. We need to address the disease outbreak as quickly as we can, trace down those animals and get everybody going again. We also can't afford to have the loss of that genetic pool like the U.K. did."
Dr. Tom Talbot, second vice president for the California Cattlemen's Association, indicated that he sees an animal identification program as inevitable, but it's up to cattlemen to determine whether or nt it is done in a way they can live with.
"I'm certainly not an expert in the field of animal ID," Talbot said. "It's not my area, but it's something that we've started to talk about."
Talbot opposes a mandatory identification program but fears that is what will happen if a voluntary program cannot be implemented.
"From my standpoint, I am a very strong supporter of a voluntary program," Talbot said. "I have no intention of being a supporter of mandatory ID. Certainly, not mandatory ID with no funding, and also not mandatory ID with funding. That's important to say."
One of the obstacles he sees to implementing a national animal identification program at the grassroots level is technology.
“I'm not a technology person," Talbot said. "In our outfit, technology means you've got good batteries for the hotshot. That's as good as it gets. Technology and I do not get along very well."
Talbot said he often speaks at conferences where people make elaborate Power Point presentations.
"I just figured out e-mail," Talbot said. "How am I going to get along doing a Power Point presentation?"
He said that for a program to work at his house, it's got to be low-tech.
"We've got to figure out how to get it done, get it done to meet the letter of the law, and it's got to be something simple, something that I can do," Talbot said.
The National Animal Identification System came to the forefront after the discovery of a Canadian-born cow with BSE in Washington state just before Christmas 2003.
"If we look back on Dec. 30, 2003," Talbot said, "Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman made the statement, 'We're going to have an animal ID program.'"
She indicated that her decision was the result of the cow that stole Christmas for the cattle industry that year.
"Her response one week later to the fact that we were going to have a national animal identification program was to try to defuse some of the outrage of having this happen and what are we going to do about it," Talbot said.
He said veterinarians had been talking about such a program for at least a year and a half prior to that. Talbot said he doesn't think many producers were aware of that.
"That's where this thing came about," Talbot said. "It did not come from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It did not come from California Cattlemen's Association. It did not come from any of us out there in the industry. It came from the government saying ‘We will do this.’"
Talbot said he has taken Veneman's statement to mean that the cattle industry will have such a program, and that if they didn't, the government would impose one. He said his view of the statement is that if the industry doesn't want an animal identification program, that doesn't mean there won't be a program. It means that a program will be imposed that cattlemen are not comfortable with.
"We've been given the opportunity to have a voluntary program," he said, "and I think that's the way we need to proceed."
He said a voluntary program in his mind does not mean doing nothing.
"A voluntary program means we go ahead and continue on down the path of getting an appropriate number of premise IDs registered, getting the number of individual animal IDs registered and proceeding on down that path," Talbot said.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has published a number of benchmarks for the program.
There will be a certain number of premises registered by 2007, Talbot said. There will be a certain number of premises registered by 2008, and a certain number of individual animals identified by 2009.
"I think those are things that we need to strive for," Talbot said. "The only way I see animal ID becoming mandatory is to do nothing about it, to not do a voluntary program. If we proceed down the pathway, and we meet those benchmarks, we will continue to have a voluntary program, and it will be something that we have done, something that we're comfortable with and something that we can proceed on."
One of Talbot's major concerns is not whether to develop such a program, but who's going to pay for it.
"The way I look at this thing is ‘How am I going to benefit?’" Talbot said. "How am I going to get my money back for spending the money to buy a tag, to spend my money to put my data in a database. How am I going to get my money back?"
The problem is with the economics of the program.
"I'm not going to put my calves up for sale, have a tag in their ear — say that costs me two dollars — and expect whoever buys those is going to pay me four dollars," Talbot said. "I don't think that's the way it's going to be."
He said he thinks the way cattlemen are going to live with the National Animal Identification System is if they proceed down the path with an adequate number of premises identified and an adequate number of animals identified, then the industry can say to the public, both domestic and international, that there is an animal identification system in place.
"Therefore, we can get consumer confidence domestically and we're going to get a global market that says ‘We understand; we're comfortable taking your beef,’" Talbot said, "and that's the way we're going to receive a return on this process. This is not going to be ‘Spend a dollar today and get a dollar or two dollars back tomorrow.’ I don't see that happening."
__________________________________________________________
Cattle men absorb the costs of NAIS,packers retain the premium ..................that's why the NAIS has been a "no go"and until that changes,nothing changes,maybe we should apply the ole packer logic........"if you aint docked,consider it a premium"..............good luck