A
Anonymous
Guest
NCBA Clouds Already Murky ID Outlook
"NCBA is prepared on behalf of cattlemen to take a leadership role in implementing a private, voluntary, value-driven animal ID system. We want to build a program that will meet the government's legitimate needs, but keeps government interference out of our business to every extent possible." That's what Mike John, president-elect of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) told folks May 13.
In fact, the organization's Web site ( www.beefusa.org in the "Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns" section, May 12) mentions that NCBA's Animal ID Commission hopes to begin implementation of its voluntary, multi-species plan Oct. 1. To that end, earlier this month, NCBA requested proposals from companies deemed able to provide software and meet specifications for what the organization calls a National Animal ID Database.
Problem is NCBA has provided no details of its plan to the industry. There was a white paper NCBA unveiled in February but it contains even less detail, and presents more questions, than can be found in USDA's Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which has been years in the making.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with NCBA's desire to create a private national database capable of collecting NAIS-compliant data, if that's what NCBA's membership wants to do. Moreover, NCBA's desire for a private database that is more likely to ensure confidentiality of producer information is understandable, as is the apparent frustration with how slowly USDA is moving forward with NAIS.
However, to intimate the organization can or should implement such a system in less than four months defies logic.
For one thing, in order to comply with NAIS, which all livestock producers must do by 2008 on a mandatory basis (which NAIS currently calls for), you'd have to get the consensus of USDA and state animal health officials, which seems unlikely.
For another, achieving the 48-hour traceback capability of NAIS requires premises ID, which USDA embarked upon last year. There are 2.1 million farms listed in the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Just over 1 million of those have beef or dairy cattle.
That means 1 million premises are in need of registration, just for cattle. As of May 13, according to the official NAIS Web site ( www.usda.gov/nais), 74,340 premises had been registered within 47 states and five tribes.
For another...well, the list runs deeper than a mineshaft in the Grand Canyon.
Never mind the fact that a trade organization with a long history, such as NCBA, has as many enemies as it does fans. It carries plenty of baggage into a proposal that requires support from most cattle producers if it's to be successful, especially on the voluntary basis NCBA champions.
"We do not feel that a government-controlled system can offer cattlemen either the confidentiality or the value component that we feel are absolutely essential for a successful program. But having said that, we very much want to work constructively -- and not in conflict -- with USDA," John said. "The livestock industry needs to make sure that USDA is comfortable with our program, and that it meets USDA's needs in terms of animal health and traceback capability in the event of an animal health emergency."
He might have added NCBA needs to make sure the livestock industry is comfortable with NCBA taking the ID bull by the horns for themselves, the rest of the beef and dairy cattle producers who are not NCBA members, as well as producers of other livestock species.
The NCBA notion, based on John's comments, is that the market will push NAIS compliance faster than government. That's hard to quibble with. Keeping the system voluntary certainly has emotional appeal, too. In our opinion, though, if the industry and government truly want 48-hour traceback, it will require a government mandate driven by the market, rather than wishful thinking that the market will assume the risks of a voluntary program. It will require cooperation and coordination, not various species and different trade organizations launching out on their own, which in effect adds confusion to the marketplace and slows the progress of what has already been an interminably sluggish odyssey.
Whether you agree with NCBA's intent or not, producers should demand detailed answers from NCBA before seriously entertaining the plausibility of a plan so far offered up only in general terms.
Remember also that USDA is accepting public comment on its NAIS Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards until July 6. Comments can be submitted at www.usda.gov/nais.
-- Wes Ishmael, BEEF Stocker Trends
"NCBA is prepared on behalf of cattlemen to take a leadership role in implementing a private, voluntary, value-driven animal ID system. We want to build a program that will meet the government's legitimate needs, but keeps government interference out of our business to every extent possible." That's what Mike John, president-elect of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) told folks May 13.
In fact, the organization's Web site ( www.beefusa.org in the "Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns" section, May 12) mentions that NCBA's Animal ID Commission hopes to begin implementation of its voluntary, multi-species plan Oct. 1. To that end, earlier this month, NCBA requested proposals from companies deemed able to provide software and meet specifications for what the organization calls a National Animal ID Database.
Problem is NCBA has provided no details of its plan to the industry. There was a white paper NCBA unveiled in February but it contains even less detail, and presents more questions, than can be found in USDA's Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which has been years in the making.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with NCBA's desire to create a private national database capable of collecting NAIS-compliant data, if that's what NCBA's membership wants to do. Moreover, NCBA's desire for a private database that is more likely to ensure confidentiality of producer information is understandable, as is the apparent frustration with how slowly USDA is moving forward with NAIS.
However, to intimate the organization can or should implement such a system in less than four months defies logic.
For one thing, in order to comply with NAIS, which all livestock producers must do by 2008 on a mandatory basis (which NAIS currently calls for), you'd have to get the consensus of USDA and state animal health officials, which seems unlikely.
For another, achieving the 48-hour traceback capability of NAIS requires premises ID, which USDA embarked upon last year. There are 2.1 million farms listed in the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Just over 1 million of those have beef or dairy cattle.
That means 1 million premises are in need of registration, just for cattle. As of May 13, according to the official NAIS Web site ( www.usda.gov/nais), 74,340 premises had been registered within 47 states and five tribes.
For another...well, the list runs deeper than a mineshaft in the Grand Canyon.
Never mind the fact that a trade organization with a long history, such as NCBA, has as many enemies as it does fans. It carries plenty of baggage into a proposal that requires support from most cattle producers if it's to be successful, especially on the voluntary basis NCBA champions.
"We do not feel that a government-controlled system can offer cattlemen either the confidentiality or the value component that we feel are absolutely essential for a successful program. But having said that, we very much want to work constructively -- and not in conflict -- with USDA," John said. "The livestock industry needs to make sure that USDA is comfortable with our program, and that it meets USDA's needs in terms of animal health and traceback capability in the event of an animal health emergency."
He might have added NCBA needs to make sure the livestock industry is comfortable with NCBA taking the ID bull by the horns for themselves, the rest of the beef and dairy cattle producers who are not NCBA members, as well as producers of other livestock species.
The NCBA notion, based on John's comments, is that the market will push NAIS compliance faster than government. That's hard to quibble with. Keeping the system voluntary certainly has emotional appeal, too. In our opinion, though, if the industry and government truly want 48-hour traceback, it will require a government mandate driven by the market, rather than wishful thinking that the market will assume the risks of a voluntary program. It will require cooperation and coordination, not various species and different trade organizations launching out on their own, which in effect adds confusion to the marketplace and slows the progress of what has already been an interminably sluggish odyssey.
Whether you agree with NCBA's intent or not, producers should demand detailed answers from NCBA before seriously entertaining the plausibility of a plan so far offered up only in general terms.
Remember also that USDA is accepting public comment on its NAIS Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards until July 6. Comments can be submitted at www.usda.gov/nais.
-- Wes Ishmael, BEEF Stocker Trends