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

US Animal Disease Control ‘Biggest Need’

flounder

Well-known member
Monday, September 10, 2007

US Animal Disease Control ‘Biggest Need’

BOWLING GREEN - More than 85 percent of those completing an informal survey at ID•INFO EXPO 2007 believe the United States is not keeping pace with other developed countries regarding animal traceability systems for marketing and disease control purposes.


85% say US lagging behind

ID•INFO EXPO 2007, held August 28-30, in Kansas City, is an event hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). More than 400 people from allied industries, government, academia, and producers attended the event, which included a trade show with 23 exhibitors.

Animal disease control topped the list when respondents ranked “the biggest needs for implementing animal traceability systems.” The second biggest need for implementing animal traceability systems, according to this audience, was export of livestock products. Value-added livestock marketing was next while food safety and country of origin labeling ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. Under the “other” needs category appeared “mandatory,” “decreased costs of production,” “a secure data collection system” and “expansion of the Locate in 48 program.”

When posed the question “What level of participation do you feel is necessary for the premises registration under NAIS to become an effective tool in supporting animal disease traceability?” nine (9) out of ten (10) respondents agreed that “80 to 100 percent” participation would be necessary. Of the remaining respondents, just 6.67 percent thought “60 to 80 percent” would be required while 3.33 percent answered “40 to 60 percent” participation. Not one person marked the “less than 40 percent” participation box.

“Incorporate and require ID standards throughout all existing disease programs” and the “other” category received the highest rankings when individuals were asked “What steps do you feel can be taken today that will give the biggest boost toward enhancing participation in a national animal disease traceability system?”

About half of respondents who checked the “other” category saw “mandatory” as the answer to enhancing participation. “Other” write-ins that moved this category to be ranked as the biggest boost included “public education,” “create a business plan and stick to it,” “guarantee privacy and limit liability to producers for infractions” and “make it an industry-run program.”

More details on the survey and ID•INFO EXPO 2007 can be found in the NIAA’s Newsletter, animalagriculturequarterly, which is available at www.animalagriculture.org. While at that website, visitors might also wish to click on the “Proceedings” button for all presentations from the event.

The National Institute for Animal Agriculture provides a forum for building consensus and advancing solutions for animal agriculture and provides continuing education and communication linkages for animal agriculture professionals. NIAA is dedicated to programs that: work towards the eradication of disease that pose risk to the health of animals, wildlife and humans; promote a safe and wholesome from supply for our nation and abroad; and promote best practices in environmental stewardship, animal health and well-being. NIAA members represent all facets of animal agriculture.


ThePoultrySite News Desk
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/12791/us-animal-disease-control-biggest-need

TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
More than 85 percent of those completing an informal survey at ID•INFO EXPO 2007 believe the United States is not keeping pace with other developed countries regarding animal traceability systems for marketing and disease control purposes.

I would expect little else from a forum/convention set up to promote animal ID :shock: :roll: :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
September 12, 2007

Member Visits Sister Organization in Australia;

Describes Aussie Animal ID Program as ‘Orwellian’



Note to Media: R-CALF USA National Membership Committee Co-Chair Joel Gill spent the last week in August ‘Down Under’ visiting members of our sister organization, the Australian Beef Association. His report is below. Gill also serves as the R-CALF USA Checkoff Committee Chair and is a cattle buyer based in Mississippi. To schedule an interview with Gill, or obtain a photo or bio of Gill, contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson.



Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia – “G'Day,” was the greeting on everyone’s lips as I met each of the directors of R-CALF USA’s sister organization, the Australian Beef Association (ABA), at its meeting before the annual convention, held here on Aug. 28. The ABA was formed in 1997 to represent independent cattle producers across Australia in their fight to be heard by Parliament/Congress in their struggles against the forces of powerful abattoirs/packers, the Meat and Livestock Australia/CBB, and the cattle council/NCBA.



These men and women face the same struggles as R-CALF USA members do. They have stood strong with their one underpaid employee, Secretary Sally Black, as she worked to assist the unpaid board of 14 and the other willing volunteers to bring their membership to a little over 1,000. (With only 20 million people occupying a nation the size of the United States, ABA’s 1,000 members is about the same as R-CALF USA's 15,000 in a nation of 300 million citizens.)



It was uncanny how our two sagas meshed so well. While each of our groups seem to face issues at home, it became glaringly clear that it was actually rampant free trade agreements and the international corporations’ desires for the lowest-cost products that are our mutual foes.

One of the areas of concern these producers have is the unworkable nature of Australia’s National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), which became mandatory three years ago.


While not as comprehensive as our NAIS because NLIS covers only cattle, it was obvious that Australia’s NLIS is a nightmarish system of Orwellian proportions. Besides the information put forward in the presentations during ABA’s convention, discussions with individual ABA members brought home the message that the traceback system there is greatly flawed. Everyone had a story of varying tag retention rates in their animals – or beasts, as they call them. The few ABA members who stood up to the system by refusing to use the tags at first, told their tales of heavy fines levied and jail time threatened for non-compliance.



One of the ABA directors, Dr. Lee McNichol, a veterinarian, related how he had refused to use the tags and was fined $1,000 ($850 US), then spent another $20,000 appealing his conviction only to lose in the end. He showed me sheet after sheet attributing individual cattle to his pic (premises number) that he did not own. The database had it wrong. When McNichol questioned the compliance officer about this situation and pointed out the error, he was told that it was an administrative matter and could be quickly corrected as soon as the particular animals were moved or sold and thus re-scanned. At that time, the administrator would know where the animals were actually located and a correction could occur.



So much for accurate disease traceback.



Others told how the actual tag retention rate was around 70 percent to 82 percent – not anywhere close to the nearly 100 percent suggested by early data from U.S. animal identification projects as reported by USDA to U.S. producers about the effectiveness of the Australian system. Some of this excessive loss is due to poor application procedures of producers, but most is due to the net-type of fencing widely utilized by producers, which will snag and pull out the tags as the calves rub their heads in it. Far from receiving any kind of premium for participation, if tag replacement is needed, a new orange RFID tag will be inserted in the animal’s ear. All cattle with these orange ear tags receive a discount at sale because they no longer qualify as having “guaranteed lifetime traceability”. (The original tags are white.) These producers’ experiences should give each of us in R-CALF USA a boost to help us continue to energize our fight against NAIS.



Now that Australia is three years into the program, the truth is coming out. While there, the Australian agriculture ministers said several times that this system was crucial for “Assuring our trading partners of age and source verification.”



What happened to health traceback?



During my one-week stay, a true health crisis did arise. Equine influenza was discovered, which brought all movement of horses nationwide to a complete halt, much as would happen in the U.S. if a case of foot-and-mouth disease were detected in cattle. Horse racing, the third largest industry in Australia, was delayed nationwide, but ultimately reopened everywhere except the states of Queensland and New South Wales, which are still counting the costs of the suspension in the tens of millions of dollars, not only to the racing industry, but to the smaller supporting industries as well. The culprits turned out to be two horses imported from Japan that were improperly inspected. Outside imports ruined an economically important national industry.


Can anyone say Canadian BSE?
 

TimH

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
September 12, 2007

Member Visits Sister Organization in Australia;

Describes Aussie Animal ID Program as ‘Orwellian’



Note to Media: R-CALF USA National Membership Committee Co-Chair Joel Gill spent the last week in August ‘Down Under’ visiting members of our sister organization, the Australian Beef Association. His report is below. Gill also serves as the R-CALF USA Checkoff Committee Chair and is a cattle buyer based in Mississippi. To schedule an interview with Gill, or obtain a photo or bio of Gill, contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson.



Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia – “G'Day,” was the greeting on everyone’s lips as I met each of the directors of R-CALF USA’s sister organization, the Australian Beef Association (ABA), at its meeting before the annual convention, held here on Aug. 28. The ABA was formed in 1997 to represent independent cattle producers across Australia in their fight to be heard by Parliament/Congress in their struggles against the forces of powerful abattoirs/packers, the Meat and Livestock Australia/CBB, and the cattle council/NCBA.



These men and women face the same struggles as R-CALF USA members do. They have stood strong with their one underpaid employee, Secretary Sally Black, as she worked to assist the unpaid board of 14 and the other willing volunteers to bring their membership to a little over 1,000. (With only 20 million people occupying a nation the size of the United States, ABA’s 1,000 members is about the same as R-CALF USA's 15,000 in a nation of 300 million citizens.)



It was uncanny how our two sagas meshed so well. While each of our groups seem to face issues at home, it became glaringly clear that it was actually rampant free trade agreements and the international corporations’ desires for the lowest-cost products that are our mutual foes.

One of the areas of concern these producers have is the unworkable nature of Australia’s National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), which became mandatory three years ago.


While not as comprehensive as our NAIS because NLIS covers only cattle, it was obvious that Australia’s NLIS is a nightmarish system of Orwellian proportions. Besides the information put forward in the presentations during ABA’s convention, discussions with individual ABA members brought home the message that the traceback system there is greatly flawed. Everyone had a story of varying tag retention rates in their animals – or beasts, as they call them. The few ABA members who stood up to the system by refusing to use the tags at first, told their tales of heavy fines levied and jail time threatened for non-compliance.



One of the ABA directors, Dr. Lee McNichol, a veterinarian, related how he had refused to use the tags and was fined $1,000 ($850 US), then spent another $20,000 appealing his conviction only to lose in the end. He showed me sheet after sheet attributing individual cattle to his pic (premises number) that he did not own. The database had it wrong. When McNichol questioned the compliance officer about this situation and pointed out the error, he was told that it was an administrative matter and could be quickly corrected as soon as the particular animals were moved or sold and thus re-scanned. At that time, the administrator would know where the animals were actually located and a correction could occur.



So much for accurate disease traceback.



Others told how the actual tag retention rate was around 70 percent to 82 percent – not anywhere close to the nearly 100 percent suggested by early data from U.S. animal identification projects as reported by USDA to U.S. producers about the effectiveness of the Australian system. Some of this excessive loss is due to poor application procedures of producers, but most is due to the net-type of fencing widely utilized by producers, which will snag and pull out the tags as the calves rub their heads in it. Far from receiving any kind of premium for participation, if tag replacement is needed, a new orange RFID tag will be inserted in the animal’s ear. All cattle with these orange ear tags receive a discount at sale because they no longer qualify as having “guaranteed lifetime traceability”. (The original tags are white.) These producers’ experiences should give each of us in R-CALF USA a boost to help us continue to energize our fight against NAIS.



Now that Australia is three years into the program, the truth is coming out. While there, the Australian agriculture ministers said several times that this system was crucial for “Assuring our trading partners of age and source verification.”



What happened to health traceback?



During my one-week stay, a true health crisis did arise. Equine influenza was discovered, which brought all movement of horses nationwide to a complete halt, much as would happen in the U.S. if a case of foot-and-mouth disease were detected in cattle. Horse racing, the third largest industry in Australia, was delayed nationwide, but ultimately reopened everywhere except the states of Queensland and New South Wales, which are still counting the costs of the suspension in the tens of millions of dollars, not only to the racing industry, but to the smaller supporting industries as well. The culprits turned out to be two horses imported from Japan that were improperly inspected. Outside imports ruined an economically important national industry.


Can anyone say Canadian BSE?

How old were the TEXAS and ALABAMA BSE POSITIVE COWS Oldtimer???
Can anyone say Dick Britzman(aka OLDTIMER) has his head up his a$$???? Again???
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ANIMAL ID IS FLAWED, REPORT SAYS

A GOVERNMENT Accountability Office report requested by Sen. Tom Harkin D-Iowa and released in August has found weaknesses in the USDA’s plan to implement a national animal identification system.
Harkin asked GAO to examine USDA’s animal ID plan in November 2005 after concerns were raised that USDA wasn’t effectively putting the system into practice and wasn’t informing farmers, ranchers and livestock market operators how much the system will cost them.
Harkin currently is chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.
In response to concerns about animal disease outbreaks, USDA announced in December 2003 that it would implement a nationwide program---later named the National Animal Identification System, or NAIS---to help livestock producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to disease outbreaks in the U. S.
“Animal diseases are a constant and very real threat to the livestock and poultry industries. An outbreak could wreak havoc for trade and our domestic markets,” says Harkin. “Yet USDA has taken a slow, indecisive and confusing adoption of the Animal ID system.”
“This GAO audit confirms the concerns producers and livestock market operators have had about USDA’s animal ID plan for some time now,” he adds. “That is, USDA has a lot more work to do to get this system on the right track and workable.”
“I strongly urge USDA to carry out GAO’s recommendations without delay and make it clear to livestock producers what is expected of them and how USDA envisions this system working.”

NAIS areas of concern---
The GAO report shows that unless corrected, these problems will undermine USDA’s ability to rapidly and effectively trace animals back to their origin when a disease breaks out. GAP identified the following issues of concern:
1. USDA lacks a comprehensive cost estimate or cost-benefit analysis to implement and maintain a national ID system. (In response to GAO’s recommendation to do so, USDA has now entered into a contract to have a cost estimate made.)
2. USDA hasn’t prioritized the implementation of the animal ID system according to economic value of the species or those most at risk for specific animal diseases.
3. USDA hasn’t developed a plan to integrate the animal ID system with preexisting animal disease eradication programs for hogs, cattle, sheep, or goats, thus duplicating effort and cost to U. S. producers.
4. USDA has awarded 169 animal ID cooperative agreements totaling $35 million, but has failed to adequately monitor those agreements or determine if the intended outcomes for which the funds were used, were achieved. USDA hasn’t consistently shared the results of the agreements with state departments of agriculture, industry groups or other stakeholders to allow them to learn from experience under the agreements.
5. The time frame for effective animal disease traceback from where animals have been raised isn’t clearly defined for specific species. Some contagious diseases need to be tracked and identified in a very short amount of time to limit further spread.
6. Tracing animals from their original origin will be problematic given USDA isn’t requiring critical information, such as type of animal species, date of birth, or approximate age of animals to be recorded in the animal ID system. This information is necessary to limit the scope of a disease investigation
7. USDA has no benchmarks to determine if there is sufficient participation to achieve an effective animal ID system. USDA hasn’t independently tested animal ID or tracking devices and this is causing producers, livestock markets and others to not invest is such devices.

The Government Accountability Office report, “USDA Needs to Resolve Several Key Implementation Issues to Achieve Rapid and Effective Disease Traceback” (GAO-07-592) is online at www.gao.gov
 

PORKER

Well-known member
USDA hasn’t independently tested animal ID or tracking devices and this is causing producers, livestock markets and others to not invest is such devices.

Problem is some tags just fall out as the stem wears out and they don't work at 3+ inches or more . I see this in Michigan as most readers are not universal at reading all RFID signals. If they tested all of the databases that are left after many bankruptcy's, they would only find one that would work with the only reader that reads at 100%. Since Michigan is mandatory on all bovines you really find out what works and what junk is out there.
 
Top