Home News Livestock Crops Markets Hay, Range & Pasture Home & Family Classifieds Resources This Week's Journal

Auction Calendar
Farm Survey

Reader Comment:
by japri19

"Very good information thanks a lot for sharing."....Read the story...
Join other discussions.


Animal identification: USDA surrenders, but it's still going to happen

By Ken Root

A tip of the Stetson or "gimme cap" to all livestock producers who opposed the government's effort to establish a national animal identification. You may take it as a salute to your tenacity or as a surrender by government bureaucracy. Either way, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is the fourth administrator who tried and failed to implement a live animal traceability program. In effect, USDA has trashed a $120 million effort and stands on the steps, dusting its hands saying: "States and tribal nations, it's yours!"

If you oppose animal identification, you have not won the anonymity of your farm, ranch or livestock; you'll just have to deal with people a little closer to home. If you cross a state or tribal boundary line, you'll be looking at the feds again.

Trying not to lose sight of the intent of the whole program, which started early in the new century when bovine spongiform encephalopathy was identified in a dairy cow in Washington state, the government attempted to get all livestock producers to register their premises and place an electronic identification tag on each animal or pen of animals that would be transported together. That effort failed miserably, especially in traditional livestock states where mistrust of government is the local pastime.

National animal identification started badly because most of the emphasis came from the top down. Looking back at the post-September 11, 2001, period, we saw the federal government become more reactionary to perceived threats. "Homeland Security" almost became an oxymoron, as we felt far less secure with every new program that was imposed upon us. Had there been a major disease outbreak or terrorist attack on our food supply, the animal identification program would be as real today as airport screening of old women for guns and explosives. As the memory of the attacks dimmed and rural America remained unscathed, the ranching community kept claiming they weren't the problem but were actually victims of the cost and hassle of federal animal identification.

USDA agreed with the logical and illogical pleadings of the livestock industry. However, the states now take over the responsibility for tracing any animals that cross their borders. This maneuver got the secretary off the hook with most small organic producers and a strongly Democratic voting sector, and it also reduced the visibility of the millions of dollars USDA was throwing down a rat hole to fund the nationwide animal identification program. Political success beats logistical failure every time.

It appears that the country will now become a patchwork quilt of animal regulation. The premises identification number will remain in place, and the millions of tags, dubbed "840" tags, will still be valid. How aggressive states become in tagging livestock will be a function of legislative action and funding. The key seems to be that any live animal that crosses a state or tribal boundary has to be traceable. That may be done easily and economically, but it still has to be accomplished.

The onrush of technology may also make animal identification more palatable. Literally everything is becoming traceable. I cite this example: In Great Britain last week, they came out with a new beer glass that won't shatter in a bar fight. You could still bludgeon your mates, but you couldn't slash them. The expert commentator made the observation that it would be easy to imbed a radio frequency identification device in the layers of resin so your pint wouldn't get mixed up with others and the bartender would know what you were drinkin' without askin.' If the technology becomes that prevalent in society, it will be hard to keep it out of a cow's ear!

The final outcome of all this political posturing is going to be determined more by the end user of the animal than the government. If you have two oxen that will live long lives on your farm, you'll never have to tag them, but if you ship steers to a feedlot or a packer--in state or out--you are going to have to comply with their wishes. Liability for disease and accountability for performance are becoming conditions of sale. You may keep your independence by selling at the local barn, but the price will be reduced by aggregators who will deduct their costs as they tag, certify and ship your animals to their customers. Freedom always has a price.

The USDA should put its resources into preventing diseased animals from entering this country. No state has that capability, and we've already shown that there are diseases north and south that will damage our livestock economy. On every continent, including our own, there are disease threats that only USDA can keep from harming our farms and ranches. New mission, greater chance of success, less likelihood of getting your tires shot flat in Montana. Go to it!

Editor's Note: Ken Root is an independent agricultural journalist. He was named the 2009 Farm Broadcaster of the Year and was the 2008 winner of the Oscar in Agriculture. He is an Oklahoma native and graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in Agriculture Education. Ken taught vocational agriculture at Union City, Okla., before taking his first broadcasting job with WKY Radio and Television. He worked in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri as an agricultural broadcaster and began writing for the High Plains Journal eight years ago. He has spent the last five years as Lead Farm Broadcaster at WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa. Ken has also been the executive director of the National AgriChemical Retailers Association in Washington, D.C. and the National Association of Farm Broadcasting in Kansas City, Mo. He and his wife Gail have two adult children and two grandchildren.


1
Click for related articles Little cattle
Closing government offices and opening our minds
Costa Rica: Prototype for the future?
Appreciating abilities

Comments on Articles article 2010- 8 - 0208RootZonesrMRFEB15.cfm
Reader Comments
Romoulus — 03/03/2010 10:03:02
Instead all the regulations and legislations were kept to prevent the acts were not been getting the sufficient responses the cattle identifications and training of the other spices of animal.

Reader Comments
flounder — 02/12/2010 10:02:13
February 10, 2010

Greetings,

IN my opinion, i think we need NAIS. i think as a consumer, we have a right to this information. as a Country importing our product, they have a right to know, it should be law. it should be mandatory that when an animal disease or human disease there from break out, the animal and or it's product can be traced. and as a producer of that product, if you are too worried about confidentiality, you are trying to hide something, then you should not be in the business. how in the world can knowing from where a cow comes from i.e. traceability, be such a threat to the producer, unless they simply want to hide something? in 2010, the USA, in relations to cattle identification and tracing, could not trace their @ss if they had both hands on it, in my opinion, and going by past history of the last two documented mad cows. the USA has been discussing this for over a decade. I don't understand it, all these other Country's that have some sort of Animal Traceability in place, they are and have been trying to eradicate BSE, that have had a feed ban in place, that have been abiding by it, testing in numbers to find and eradicate the TSEs, and the USA just seems to be doing the opposite in many ways it seems to me. if the USA is not going to trace it's meat products, why should other Country's trace theirs? The USA is BSE GBR III, all of North America is BSE GBR III (with all the evidence of breaches in the bse feed ban, the breaches in the BSE surveillance program, i personally believe it is BSE GBR IV). The problem is, the USDA just never accepted it (BSE GBR III), and then changed the rules with the BSE MRR. this BSE MRR policy literally trashed 30 years of attempted BSE GBR eradication of this disease. What about other trading partners with the U.S.A. that DO HAVE a traceability system. i think Australia is getting ready to roll over and get MRR'ed, therefore they too will just be another victim of allowing all strains of Typical and Atypical BSE/TSE into their Country via the USDA OIE BSE MRR policy, a policy of trading all strains of mad cow disease globally. The O.I.E., by bending over for the USDA with this damn BSE MRR policy, has sold their sole to the devil, and in doing so, sold yours too. ...



http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/10/atypical-bse-bse-and-other-human-and.html



Friday, January 29, 2010

14th International Congress on Infectious Diseases H-type and L-type Atypical BSE January 2010 (special pre-congress edition)


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/01/14th-international-congress-on.html




please see full text ;



Wednesday, February 10, 2010

NAIS MAD COW TRACEABILITY DUMPED BY USDA APHIS 2010


http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2010/02/nais-mad-cow-traceability-dumped-by.html



TSS

Add Your Comment
To post a comment on this story, enter your screen name and email address then click "Add Comment." Your email address will not be displayed.


232 Recommend | 2 Comments

Agriculture News from HPJ - Your Ag News Source
Google
 
Web hpj.com
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2011.  High Plains Publishers, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at
High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com

Search HPJ






Canola U registration
Harvest Heroes ad




Inside Futures

Editorial Archives