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

Tracking beef

Bill

Well-known member
Tracking our beef

Despite concerns, some understand need to protect food supply
By Mike Corn

Hays Daily News

ZURICH - Darrell Sutor has been a rancher - raising Herefords on his Rooks County ranch - for "about a lifetime."

But he understands the importance of government intervention when it comes to health-related issues in the cattle business.

"I think being able to trace back is necessary," the 86-year-old rancher said. "When it comes to health, we've got to have the government involvement."

That's about as far as Sutor - wearing cowboy boots and hat - is willing to go. He could be considered old school; he maintains a deep disdain for government paperwork.

Despite that, Sutor's family is on the cutting edge as far as technology is concerned. His daughter, Lorna Pelton, travels the countryside performing ultrasound checks on cattle - Angus, primarily - to improve genetics and determine the ideal time to market the animals.

Darrell Sutor of Sutor Hereford Farms, a longtime beef producer in northwest Kansas, talks about his production operation as his herd grazes in a field of triticale on his ranch located southwest of Zurich in Rooks County. Photo by Steve Hausler, Hays Daily News.

In fact, Sutor is utilizing his first polled Hereford on the ranch, and keeps 300 Angus cows for a southwest Kansas rancher and cattle feeder.

But he's not so keen on government programs that offer subsidies to livestock producers hit by the drought and other weather-related calamities."It gets so complicated I just gave up," he said of the programs.

That's not the case with everyone.

Over the years, cow-calf operators didn't want the government sticking its nose in the cattle business, since few, if any, government subsidies - such as those going to their crop-growing brethren - would roll their way.

Today, cattlemen are getting small subsidies and giving only lukewarm acceptance to state and federal programs designed to help investigators determine where an animal has been over the course of its life.

The animal identification programs were brought to the forefront because of discoveries of mad cow disease - bovine spongiform encephalopathy - in Canada and the United States.

Yet those in the industry say it's more important for outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, for instance, and for acceptance into niche markets, such as trade with Japan.

Although the welcome sign might be weathered by the years, it still welcomes guests to Sutor Hereford Farms, a historic beef production ranch that has been producing beef for more than 100 years. Photo by Steve Hausler.

Currently, the identification programs strictly are voluntary and include any place with cattle - whether they have hundreds scattered across thousands of acres or are little more than a 4-H project with a steer out in the backyard.

Kansas is home to about 27,000 beef producers, two-thirds of them with fewer than 50 animals. Less than 200 have more than 500 animals.

"If you've got a barn and a couple pens, that's a premise," said Matt Teagarden, on the staff of the Kansas Livestock Association.

If everyone - from big ranchers to 4-H'ers to dairy farms and feedlots - registered under the state's premise identification plan, Teagarden thinks the total might hit 40,000.

The goal is to use ear tags that automatically read via radio signal. If a problem develops, records attached to that tag ultimately lead investigators back through the life of the animal - even back to the farm where it was born.

The federal plan envisions adoption of mandatory identification programs by 2008, but no movement in that direction has been taken. Kansas has its own voluntary plan and is supposed to remain flexible to dovetail with the federal plan.

* * *

You can almost hear KLA spokesman Todd Domer bristle when asked about the tradeoff of subsidies in exchange for government intervention.

"Our people are pretty gun shy about wanting direct payments for the products they produce," Domer said. "It's the independence - the independent streak that tends to run through ranchers."

KLA likely is the leading trade association for cattlemen in the state, although the Kansas Cattleman's Association is gaining ground in the push. Both are working with their respective national organizations to tailor an identification program that would benefit cattle producers and still allow researchers the tools needed to trace cattle through the system in the event of catastrophic illnesses.

Federal and state regulators currently are developing systems designed to register premises for identification purposes. Both at the national and state levels, the efforts purely are voluntary.

While a number of ranchers have signed up, the program has not received widespread acceptance. That fits with Sutor's belief that ranchers might be reluctant to participate.

"You're not going to get (to) every farmer - unless you have under the penalty of law - and that's not a good thing either."

But Sutor thinks identification for disease-related issues is important.

"There's so many diseases, and you never know what a screwball from overseas is going to dump on us," he said.

For Mike Schultz, a board member of the KCA, the recent outbreak of E. coli in California-grown spinach is frightening enough, "because I think they'll try to attach that to the manure deal."

Much of the focus of the investigation into the outbreak, which sickened nearly 200 people and killed three, centered on manure from livestock farms adjoining the vegetable farms from where the tainted spinach came. Exactly how the bacteria got onto the spinach is uncertain, although animals, such as wild pigs, and tainted water supplies have been identified as possible sources.

While neither the KLA nor the KCA welcome government intervention, spokesmen say they understand the possible need.

For Schultz, a Brewster rancher who maintains a 110-head cow-calf operation and alfalfa farm, the answer rests not so much on animal identification as country of origin labeling.

"If we can control what comes in, we can control what comes out," he said of the food supply in the United States.

* * *

Identification is a key issue for the KLA, and Teagarden is spending plenty of time working as a go-between for the group's members and the Kansas Livestock Commission, headed by George Teagarden, his father.

"The big push is animal health and trace-back systems," Matt Teagarden said of the government's involvement in the voluntary and confidential animal identification system.

For cattlemen, though, the draw is the markets that the identification process might open.

"It's more than a tag in the ear," he said.

If the process puts money in the pockets of producers, "they're more inclined to participate," Teagarden said.

Without the market forces, he said, "it's tougher to justify the costs for some producers."

Currently, Kansas is registering premises - anyplace where cattle are kept, no matter how big or small.

"That's the first step in tracking," Teagarden said.

While KLA actively is involved in the identification process, Teagarden said the United States is well behind similar efforts in Canada and Australia, two beef competitors.

The question now, he said, is whether a voluntary system will generate enough participation to make the plan work.

"There may be a point," Teagarden said, "when the industry has to ponder the question: Are we getting enough under voluntary systems or will it have to be mandatory?

"It's pretty hard to tell a producer to put an electronic tag in when it may never be read again."

The ultimate goal of the tracking system is to determine the background of cattle within 48 hours.

That's not the case now.

"It might take a couple weeks rather than a couple days," Teagarden said.

The KCA is working in tandem with its national association, R-CALF, for a livestock identification program that will benefit the nation's cattlemen.

But, Schultz cautioned, the KCA doesn't fully support identification programs.

"Personally, I'm not in favor of it," he said. "If everyone does it, the profit will be gone. I'm more concerned with country-of-origin labeling rather than identification. If we control the border then we don't need identification."

Schultz said cattle producers already have their animals inspected. His herd, for instance, is looked over twice a year by veterinarians.

"I'm not a big fan of identification," he said. "I think there's people in it just for the money. It's not a safety deal.

"I think we're raising good quality beef. We've eliminated a lot of headaches with ultrasound."

But as for identification, he doesn't expect widespread acceptance - not until a premium is there to make it worth the extra expense and effort.

In fact, Schultz thinks only 30 percent to 40 percent of the cattle producers will adopt identification.

"There's so many people with 25 cows," he said of the smaller producers who won't participate. "The big guys don't care."


12/11/2006; 02:37:34 AM
 

ocm

Well-known member
Bill said:
Tracking our beef

Despite concerns, some understand need to protect food supply
By Mike Corn

Hays Daily News

ZURICH - Darrell Sutor has been a rancher - raising Herefords on his Rooks County ranch - for "about a lifetime."

But he understands the importance of government intervention when it comes to health-related issues in the cattle business.

"I think being able to trace back is necessary," the 86-year-old rancher said. "When it comes to health, we've got to have the government involvement."

That's about as far as Sutor - wearing cowboy boots and hat - is willing to go. He could be considered old school; he maintains a deep disdain for government paperwork.

Despite that, Sutor's family is on the cutting edge as far as technology is concerned. His daughter, Lorna Pelton, travels the countryside performing ultrasound checks on cattle - Angus, primarily - to improve genetics and determine the ideal time to market the animals.

Darrell Sutor of Sutor Hereford Farms, a longtime beef producer in northwest Kansas, talks about his production operation as his herd grazes in a field of triticale on his ranch located southwest of Zurich in Rooks County. Photo by Steve Hausler, Hays Daily News.

In fact, Sutor is utilizing his first polled Hereford on the ranch, and keeps 300 Angus cows for a southwest Kansas rancher and cattle feeder.

But he's not so keen on government programs that offer subsidies to livestock producers hit by the drought and other weather-related calamities."It gets so complicated I just gave up," he said of the programs.

That's not the case with everyone.

Over the years, cow-calf operators didn't want the government sticking its nose in the cattle business, since few, if any, government subsidies - such as those going to their crop-growing brethren - would roll their way.

Today, cattlemen are getting small subsidies and giving only lukewarm acceptance to state and federal programs designed to help investigators determine where an animal has been over the course of its life.

The animal identification programs were brought to the forefront because of discoveries of mad cow disease - bovine spongiform encephalopathy - in Canada and the United States.

Yet those in the industry say it's more important for outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, for instance, and for acceptance into niche markets, such as trade with Japan.

Although the welcome sign might be weathered by the years, it still welcomes guests to Sutor Hereford Farms, a historic beef production ranch that has been producing beef for more than 100 years. Photo by Steve Hausler.

Currently, the identification programs strictly are voluntary and include any place with cattle - whether they have hundreds scattered across thousands of acres or are little more than a 4-H project with a steer out in the backyard.

Kansas is home to about 27,000 beef producers, two-thirds of them with fewer than 50 animals. Less than 200 have more than 500 animals.

"If you've got a barn and a couple pens, that's a premise," said Matt Teagarden, on the staff of the Kansas Livestock Association.

If everyone - from big ranchers to 4-H'ers to dairy farms and feedlots - registered under the state's premise identification plan, Teagarden thinks the total might hit 40,000.

The goal is to use ear tags that automatically read via radio signal. If a problem develops, records attached to that tag ultimately lead investigators back through the life of the animal - even back to the farm where it was born.

The federal plan envisions adoption of mandatory identification programs by 2008, but no movement in that direction has been taken. Kansas has its own voluntary plan and is supposed to remain flexible to dovetail with the federal plan.

* * *

You can almost hear KLA spokesman Todd Domer bristle when asked about the tradeoff of subsidies in exchange for government intervention.

"Our people are pretty gun shy about wanting direct payments for the products they produce," Domer said. "It's the independence - the independent streak that tends to run through ranchers."

KLA likely is the leading trade association for cattlemen in the state, although the Kansas Cattleman's Association is gaining ground in the push. Both are working with their respective national organizations to tailor an identification program that would benefit cattle producers and still allow researchers the tools needed to trace cattle through the system in the event of catastrophic illnesses.

Federal and state regulators currently are developing systems designed to register premises for identification purposes. Both at the national and state levels, the efforts purely are voluntary.

While a number of ranchers have signed up, the program has not received widespread acceptance. That fits with Sutor's belief that ranchers might be reluctant to participate.

"You're not going to get (to) every farmer - unless you have under the penalty of law - and that's not a good thing either."

But Sutor thinks identification for disease-related issues is important.

"There's so many diseases, and you never know what a screwball from overseas is going to dump on us," he said.

For Mike Schultz, a board member of the KCA, the recent outbreak of E. coli in California-grown spinach is frightening enough, "because I think they'll try to attach that to the manure deal."

Much of the focus of the investigation into the outbreak, which sickened nearly 200 people and killed three, centered on manure from livestock farms adjoining the vegetable farms from where the tainted spinach came. Exactly how the bacteria got onto the spinach is uncertain, although animals, such as wild pigs, and tainted water supplies have been identified as possible sources.

While neither the KLA nor the KCA welcome government intervention, spokesmen say they understand the possible need.

For Schultz, a Brewster rancher who maintains a 110-head cow-calf operation and alfalfa farm, the answer rests not so much on animal identification as country of origin labeling.

"If we can control what comes in, we can control what comes out," he said of the food supply in the United States.

* * *

Identification is a key issue for the KLA, and Teagarden is spending plenty of time working as a go-between for the group's members and the Kansas Livestock Commission, headed by George Teagarden, his father.

"The big push is animal health and trace-back systems," Matt Teagarden said of the government's involvement in the voluntary and confidential animal identification system.

For cattlemen, though, the draw is the markets that the identification process might open.

"It's more than a tag in the ear," he said.

If the process puts money in the pockets of producers, "they're more inclined to participate," Teagarden said.

Without the market forces, he said, "it's tougher to justify the costs for some producers."

Currently, Kansas is registering premises - anyplace where cattle are kept, no matter how big or small.

"That's the first step in tracking," Teagarden said.

While KLA actively is involved in the identification process, Teagarden said the United States is well behind similar efforts in Canada and Australia, two beef competitors.

The question now, he said, is whether a voluntary system will generate enough participation to make the plan work.

"There may be a point," Teagarden said, "when the industry has to ponder the question: Are we getting enough under voluntary systems or will it have to be mandatory?

"It's pretty hard to tell a producer to put an electronic tag in when it may never be read again."

The ultimate goal of the tracking system is to determine the background of cattle within 48 hours.

That's not the case now.

"It might take a couple weeks rather than a couple days," Teagarden said.

The KCA is working in tandem with its national association, R-CALF, for a livestock identification program that will benefit the nation's cattlemen.

But, Schultz cautioned, the KCA doesn't fully support identification programs.

"Personally, I'm not in favor of it," he said. "If everyone does it, the profit will be gone. I'm more concerned with country-of-origin labeling rather than identification. If we control the border then we don't need identification."

Schultz said cattle producers already have their animals inspected. His herd, for instance, is looked over twice a year by veterinarians.

"I'm not a big fan of identification," he said. "I think there's people in it just for the money. It's not a safety deal.

"I think we're raising good quality beef. We've eliminated a lot of headaches with ultrasound."

But as for identification, he doesn't expect widespread acceptance - not until a premium is there to make it worth the extra expense and effort.

In fact, Schultz thinks only 30 percent to 40 percent of the cattle producers will adopt identification.

"There's so many people with 25 cows," he said of the smaller producers who won't participate. "The big guys don't care."


12/11/2006; 02:37:34 AM

We already have traceback systems. They just need a little improvement. No need for the federal government to be greatly involved. States can do it. ID is overkill.
 

Bill

Well-known member
ocm:
We already have traceback systems. They just need a little improvement. No need for the federal government to be greatly involved. States can do it. ID is overkill.

ID is overkill?

mwj makes a valid point. The US tracback system couldn't ID the Alabama cow nor ID the calf out of the Washington cow a few weeks after it left the point of origin. I don't recall if they got the Texas traceback correct.

The US ID system needs more than a little improvement and it looks like ranchers like Darrell Sutor have it figured out.
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Bill, not to start a fight or anything, but standards vary from state to state. Some states like New Mexico where it is law that everything is branded and inspected when moving across district lines, change of ownership, inporting from outside the state or exporting outside the state. With our sinpsection system the NM state Vet can track anything that has moved. Other states just dont have anything and that is were the trouble is.
 

Bill

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
Bill, not to start a fight or anything, but standards vary from state to state. Some states like New Mexico where it is law that everything is branded and inspected when moving across district lines, change of ownership, inporting from outside the state or exporting outside the state. With our sinpsection system the NM state Vet can track anything that has moved. Other states just dont have anything and that is were the trouble is.
Yep I realize that and when there is a disease outbreak that needs tracing the entire US system is only as strong as its weakest states system. That's why the need for a national system that is standardized.

It doesn't necessarily need to be run by the feds but it does need to be the same type system between states.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
Bill, not to start a fight or anything, but standards vary from state to state. Some states like New Mexico where it is law that everything is branded and inspected when moving across district lines, change of ownership, inporting from outside the state or exporting outside the state. With our sinpsection system the NM state Vet can track anything that has moved. Other states just dont have anything and that is were the trouble is.

You're not going to like this, but I agree with you, nenm. Why do a complete overhaul when you could simply fix the broken parts?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, "It doesn't necessarily need to be run by the feds but it does need to be the same type system between states."

Why? If the Nebraska Vet can track an animal to when it came here from Wyoming, and then the Wyoming Vet can track it to when it entered from Montana, and the Montana Vet can track it to where it started, what difference does it make what system each state used as long as the end result was achieved?
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
See Sandhusker we are not that far apart on some things. The biggest problems are going to be the states that have more of your hobby people that fool around with 10 or 15 head on the old family place to keep the property tax under an ag rate and the states that dont have any brands or inspections.
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
See Sandhusker we are not that far apart on some things. The biggest problems are going to be the states that have more of your hobby people that fool around with 10 or 15 head on the old family place to keep the property tax under an ag rate and the states that dont have any brands or inspections.

Bill,
The only way anything will come about here is if the states do it. All the old guys will fight anything the feds try to do and some will even fight the states. We have some that would like to dump what we have and start over with something less restrictive just because they dont like the fact that most of our brand inspectors are certified law enforcement officers. What ever happens I quarantee there will always be that handfull of people that will not be happy regardless of how things come out.
 

Mike

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
See Sandhusker we are not that far apart on some things. The biggest problems are going to be the states that have more of your hobby people that fool around with 10 or 15 head on the old family place to keep the property tax under an ag rate and the states that dont have any brands or inspections.

Yup.

Like here.

And most of them don't even have a squeeze.

They outnumber the others 10 to 1.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "It doesn't necessarily need to be run by the feds but it does need to be the same type system between states."

Why? If the Nebraska Vet can track an animal to when it came here from Wyoming, and then the Wyoming Vet can track it to when it entered from Montana, and the Montana Vet can track it to where it started, what difference does it make what system each state used as long as the end result was achieved?

If you want to be an exporter you meet the standards of the of the world and those are rapidly becoming more weighted towards National programs which are consistant between all states and regions of a country.

The end result hasn't even been close to being achieved so far in the US and it doesn't look like some states even give a damn. How are the states who are livestock dependant going to control bringing those other states into the 21st century if there are no mandatory National standards?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "It doesn't necessarily need to be run by the feds but it does need to be the same type system between states."

Why? If the Nebraska Vet can track an animal to when it came here from Wyoming, and then the Wyoming Vet can track it to when it entered from Montana, and the Montana Vet can track it to where it started, what difference does it make what system each state used as long as the end result was achieved?

If you want to be an exporter you meet the standards of the of the world and those are rapidly becoming more weighted towards National programs which are consistant between all states and regions of a country.

The end result hasn't even been close to being achieved so far in the US and it doesn't look like some states even give a damn. How are the states who are livestock dependant going to control bringing those other states into the 21st century if there are no mandatory National standards?


You just changed horses. We were told that traceback was needed as a health issue, now you're talking about marketing. Different deals.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "It doesn't necessarily need to be run by the feds but it does need to be the same type system between states."

Why? If the Nebraska Vet can track an animal to when it came here from Wyoming, and then the Wyoming Vet can track it to when it entered from Montana, and the Montana Vet can track it to where it started, what difference does it make what system each state used as long as the end result was achieved?

If you want to be an exporter you meet the standards of the of the world and those are rapidly becoming more weighted towards National programs which are consistant between all states and regions of a country.

The end result hasn't even been close to being achieved so far in the US and it doesn't look like some states even give a damn. How are the states who are livestock dependant going to control bringing those other states into the 21st century if there are no mandatory National standards?


You just changed horses. We were told that traceback was needed as a health issue, now you're talking about marketing. Different deals.

After more than 3 years of this you still haven't got it figured out?
:shock: :oops: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Nobody from other countries gives a rip what you have for an ID system if you don't export. Comprende? If you want to sell outside the US they do.

That would make it both a health and marketing issue.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Nobody from other countries gives a rip what you have for an ID system if you don't export. Comprende? If you want to sell outside the US they do.

That would make it both a health and marketing issue.

Is that why the only export market of note that Canada has now is with the US? :???: So much for your ID System :wink: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What are other country's demanding, Bill? The only thing Korea said was "No Canadian". Japan just wants SRM removal and an age limit. Where are you getting traceback demands from? I haven't seen any.
 

Jason

Well-known member
FYI Canada has back 7 of its 10 top export markets.

The only major holdout is Korea which the US hasn't conquered yet either.

The other markets were only a couple million a year before BSE.

We have also got markets we didn't have before.
 

ocm

Well-known member
I find myself pretty well in agreement with this article.

Trust the People

Lost somewhere in the debate over whether animal ID should be voluntary or mandatory is the question of what the original purpose of the program was supposed to be. Originally conceived by the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), the concept of a national animal ID program was later co-opted by the NCBA and the USDA. Forgotten along the way was the question of what problem the program was supposed to solve, and the even more basic question of whether a national animal ID system was the best way to solve it.

Interstate tracking of animals for health purposes was imperfect. Improvement was necessary. Mandatory animal ID was proposed. However, producers were not involved in choosing the best solution. We have been presented with a solution that creates more problems than its solves.

By returning to the original problem of interstate animal health tracking and asking what the best solutions are, grass roots ideas can help us arrive at the best solution in each state, one that will really work and one that will receive cooperation from cattle producers. The USDA can help. The USDA can gather data to document the failures of the current systems. With that information in hand individual states with the help of cattle organizations can work together to improve those existing systems so that they meet the desirable criteria.

The problem with the USDA’s ideas about animal ID are not simply that producers prefer a voluntary program over a mandatory one. That would be gross oversimplification. What is most irritating is that we have been presented with a solution that has come from the top down. Given the opportunity, and the tools to work with, cattle producers would rather come up with a solution of their own. We would like it much better, and it would work, too. Like Ronald Reagan said, “Trust the people.”
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
ocm said:
I find myself pretty well in agreement with this article.

Trust the People

Lost somewhere in the debate over whether animal ID should be voluntary or mandatory is the question of what the original purpose of the program was supposed to be. Originally conceived by the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), the concept of a national animal ID program was later co-opted by the NCBA and the USDA. Forgotten along the way was the question of what problem the program was supposed to solve, and the even more basic question of whether a national animal ID system was the best way to solve it.

Interstate tracking of animals for health purposes was imperfect. Improvement was necessary. Mandatory animal ID was proposed. However, producers were not involved in choosing the best solution. We have been presented with a solution that creates more problems than its solves.

By returning to the original problem of interstate animal health tracking and asking what the best solutions are, grass roots ideas can help us arrive at the best solution in each state, one that will really work and one that will receive cooperation from cattle producers. The USDA can help. The USDA can gather data to document the failures of the current systems. With that information in hand individual states with the help of cattle organizations can work together to improve those existing systems so that they meet the desirable criteria.

The problem with the USDA’s ideas about animal ID are not simply that producers prefer a voluntary program over a mandatory one. That would be gross oversimplification. What is most irritating is that we have been presented with a solution that has come from the top down. Given the opportunity, and the tools to work with, cattle producers would rather come up with a solution of their own. We would like it much better, and it would work, too. Like Ronald Reagan said, “Trust the people.”


Again Cnada leads the way. We have an industry designed and driven M'ID system that is getting better all the time.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Again Cnada leads the way. We have an industry designed and driven M'ID system that is getting better all the time.

No more than you have, you should be able to track them with a Big Chief tablet and a crayon. :p
 
Top