Posts Tagged NAIS Not Wanted

Wisconsin Steps up funding for NAIS/Premises ID

Oct 19

Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, NAIS | No Comments

ppjg-48

Marti Oakley

Copyright 2009  All rights reserved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Kohl of Wisconsin who had a direct hand in setting up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USDA to force the Wisconsin farmers and ranchers into the NAIS/Premises ID and who also, along with Rep. Obey facilitated the cooperative funding agreement [bribery payment] cementing that contract with the USDA, just announced that $1,550,000 has been allotted to WLIC.  This was the consortium set up after NAIS/Premises ID was shoved through the Wisconsin legislature and promoted as a strictly “voluntary” program.

Recent developments lauded by many in agricultural circles as the “end of NAIS’ as a result of funding being withheld or denied on the federal level, apparently weren’t aware that the USDA through its for-profit activities as a sub-corporation of the federal corporate government, has nearly limitless sources of funds that can be used for any thing they deem appropriate.  With the agricultural industrial complex willing to supply any and all funds necessary to overthrow traditional farming and ranching in favor of industrialized operations, USDA has no shortage of funds that can be paid to bankrupted states in desperate needs of funds to continue operating.  So what if  traditional farmers are driven off their lands and forced to forfeit everything they have worked for so long as corporations can make a profit and states can pad their coffers with bribe money.

AgriView

Kohl Secures Funding for Wisconsin Projects in 2009 Agriculture Spending Bill

From article on Agri-view comes this excerpt:

“-$1,550,000 for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium – The Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, though the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, leads the nation in developing a workable approach for premise registration, a critical element of livestock identification and tracking.  These resources will allow that work to continue.”

Apparently NAIS/Premises ID forced compliance is in full swing in Wisconsin and Senator Kohl appears to be quite proud of the fact that Wisconsin, one of three test states first bribed by the USDA to bypass Constitutional rights and protections not only on the federal level, but also in gross violation of the Wisconsin Constitution itself prides himself and his state on leading the nation in developing a “workable” approach to Premises ID and NAIS, both key components of Codex Alimentarius.

I can only presume that “workable approach” must mean the prosecution of those farmers and ranchers who have steadfastly refused to comply with this [voluntary] program and the subsequent persecution of an Amish farmer who objected on religious grounds, now forced to defend himself and his religious beliefs in court against a government machine that exists to end all but industrialized harmonization agreements and illegal and unconstitutional trade agreements.

The recent and first round of court proceedings against the Amish forced Wisconsin officials to admit neither NAIS nor Premises ID had done, or would do anything to increase the safety of the food supply.  With this admission, answers should be demanded as to why they entered into such an agreement, took the bribe money and persist in prosecuting those who refuse to convey ownership of their property to USDA acting as agent for the federal government.

Of course, Senator Kohl along with Representative Obey were instrumental in storing the data mined information on the gps location of all agricultural properties and owners, along with any other information they had mined, in the Oracle database, and moving that database off US soil into storage in Canada to make it unavailable to FOIA requests.  This move was made until a provision could be slipped not only into the 2005, but also 2008 Farm Bills making any such requests for information unobtainable by the very people logged into that database; with or without their knowledge.

No where in the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, nor in the federal Constitution does the government have any right, other than power it has granted itself under fictions of law, to implement or otherwise force compliance to these programs.  Even the illegally ceded authority granted to unelected bureaucracies can not hold up to constitutional challenges.

At what point will Wisconsin property holders demand the right to be left alone by government?  At what point will they move to impeach from office these same public officials who have violated the public trust; assaulted their property rights and have conspired with the industrialized corporate complex to defraud them of their right to life, liberty and their right to own property free of government interference?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS Enforcement Commences against Amish Farmer

Oct 16

Posted by admin in NAIS | 1 Comment

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”

For Immediate Release
Contact: Shae Dodson-Chambers, Communications Coordinator

October 14, 2009

Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: sdodson@r-calfusa.com

Op-Ed by R-CALF USA Animal ID Committee Chair Kenny Fox**
It Appears NAIS Enforcement Gets Underway in Wisconsin

Billings, Mont. — It appears that in the state of Wisconsin, which has mandated the first prong of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Animal Identification System (NAIS) through agency rule making, prosecution of individuals opposed to NAIS has begun.

On Sept. 23, 2009, an Amish gentleman named Emanuel J. Miller, Jr., was taken to Clark County Court in Neillsville, Wis., for an evidentiary hearing on complex civil forfeiture for failing to register his premises. The case immediately moved to the first stage of trial. Miller and his father, as well as their church deacon, testified as to their objections to being forced to use the NAIS premises identification number (PIN). As USDA has proudly proclaimed in many glossy brochures, premises registration is the “first step” in the NAIS, and the Wisconsin Amish have become quite aware of this.

On Oct. 21, 2009, in Polk County, Wis., R-CALF USA Members Pat and Melissa Monchilovich are going to trial for the same charges of complex civil forfeiture. Pat and his wife raise cattle in Cumberland, Wis., and have failed to register their property as a premises with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, as Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) requires by regulation.

This is the tip of the NAIS iceberg. One could look upon Wisconsin as the sentinel case in the enforcement measures necessary to bring this nation’s citizens into compliance with NAIS.

Although the statute that enables Wisconsin’s DATCP to require premises registration does indeed allow for exemptions, when DATCP wrote the regulations, it decided to disallow any exemptions. This is a major issue, particularly with the Amish community (and others) who hold religious objections to the NAIS.

At the Miller hearing, the Amish said that although they cannot state with absolute certainty that the NAIS’ premises identification number is the precursor to the “Mark of the Beast,” they do know it is the first step of NAIS that leads to the individual numbering and tracking of animals. The Amish said they believe caution is in order to avoid discovering later that they had violated their beliefs and then have no recourse to remedy that error. Their religious objections to obtaining an NAIS PIN are real and personal.

Despite a desire on the part of proponents of NAIS to negate religious objections to NAIS, the fact that it is a global program is indisputable, as enforcement measures and final details are left up to member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In Australia*, rancher Stephen Blair was fined a total of $17,300 for using the wrong tags on 177 of his cattle. Notably, the components of Australia’s National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) are the same as those in NAIS.

In March 2007*, another case in which the identification of cattle was in violation of the identification mandate to facilitate global trade happened the United Kingdom (UK). Dairy farmer David Dobbin had an unspecified number of cattle whose tags didn’t match their “passports.” The European Union (EU) regulations allowed the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), to confiscate both his cattle and his passports and to require that he positively identify the herd within 48 hours or face the loss of his cattle. It is a complete impossibility to positively identify animals with neither the animals nor their paperwork, but that was DEFRA’s requirement. The case was put off for one month and then appealed on the basis that DEFRA could ! not afford to keep feeding Dobbin’s cattle, so the animals were destroyed. Mr. Dobbin lost 567 cattle and was paid no indemnity at all.

At issue in the Wisconsin cases is that we are witnessing the first enforcement actions in the implementation of NAIS. The fines in the charges brought against Miller and the Monchilovichs are between $200 and $5,000. Premises identification is just the first step of NAIS, second is the identification of one’s animals, and third is the tracking of each and every movement of one’s animals. The final component is enforcement, which is now coming to bear in Wisconsin.

More than 90 percent of those who attended USDA’s recent “listening” sessions on NAIS said “No NAIS. Not Now, Not Ever!” If we mean that, then we must stand in support of these Wisconsin people being charged with NAIS violations.

* Background: 1) Miller trial, http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/the-lost-people-part-ii/; 2) Stephen Blair, Australia, http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/livestock/cattle/cattle-producer-ordered-to-pay-17300-for-nlis-tag-breach/798558.aspx%20); and, 3) Dobbin/UK, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545862/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html.

** Contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson-Chambers to request photo and/or bio information on R-CALF USA Animal Health Committee Chair Kenny Fox. Op-Ed is 720 words.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jolley: NAIS Staggers, Virtually Abandoned & Unwanted, Toward The Finish Line

Oct 5

Posted by admin in Food, NAIS | No Comments

Congress has decided to underfund the controversial National Animal Identification System for another year to with a meager $5.3 million. Chump change for the overspending D.C. pols, not even a rounding error when you look at the current state of federal funding. It’s just enough, I think, for them to have what’s called ‘plausible deniability’ when pro-NAIS groups come to the hill accusing them of killing the program outright.

Better to leave it to a slow, underfunded death.

Congress had pumped up NAIS with $142 million since it began in 2004. With a war chest of that size, the USDA managed to register slightly more than a third of animal premises. Last year, the USDA got $14.2 million for NAIS, but registration increased by only three percent. To hear some tell it, more than a few of those registrations were either forced or done without prior knowledge. Before anyone throws a flag on that statement, I consider requiring a 4 H’er to sign up the family farm before he or she can show an animal at a state fair to be tantamount to forced registration and an almost unforgiveable breach of trust.

Steven Wright, an oddball comic, said “I intend to live forever. So far, so good.” We can say the same thing about NAIS. It was intended to live forever and we can repeat the sardonic “So far, so good” about it but the program will ultimately die, a victim federal mishandling of the concept and a serious misread of the attitudes of small farmers. Most of them are an independent, ornery bunch happiest when the feds stay within walking distance of the Potomac.

They are scared half-to-death when they hear some variation of “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” They know federal help never comes without serious strings attached and trailing enough paperwork to keep them out of the fields for weeks on end.

Many of those who fought against NAIS are happy that the funding has been cut but still express concern that there are any dollars still behind it. In a surprisingly understated comment from the usually fire-breathing Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF, he said, “We’re disappointed with the decision.”

I think we can safely assume, though, that he will still go after the remnants of the program with hammer and tong, bayoneted rifle, nail-studded club and finally, knife and fork. Unless the USDA can pull off some last-second Hail Mary play, there will be a celebratory barbecue in downtown Billings, Montana.

Bottom line: Regardless of the original intent, when the vast majority of the people affected by NAIS replied all too often with a resounding ‘Hell, no,’ it’s time for it to go away.

Chuck Jolley is a free lance writer, based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Cattlenetwork.com and Agnetwork.com.

Comments? CRJolley@msn.com

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Congress allocates less for National Animal ID

Oct 4

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

by George Lauby (North Platte Bulletin) – 10/4/2009

Bill Bullard - Photo by George Lauby

Bill Bullard - Photo by George Lauby

A conference committee in Congress has decided to fund the controversial National Animal Identification System for another year to the tune of $5.3 million.
That will be a significant reduction from previous years, but does not placate opponents of the still floundering, five-year-old program.

“We’re disappointed with the decision,” said Bill Bullard, the chief executive of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund.

Bullard was in North Platte Saturday at a convention of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska. R-CALF USA, ICON and 91 other groups asked Congress to eliminate the funds.

The critics say existing livestock records, such as brands, ear tags, veterinary logs and auction barn records do a good job of tracking cattle movements. USDA inspections at the borders are important to disease prevention, they say.

For instance, U.S. cattle have been free of foot and mouth disease since the 1920s. Another disease, brucellosis, has been largely prevented. If an occasional case appears, it is closely monitored and controlled.

In June, Nebraska and federal officials jumped on a single case of cattle tuberculosis in the northeast part of the state. To date 11,800 head have been tested, with no positive cases.

“The USDA is going from disease prevention to disease monitoring,” a speaker at the ICON convention said.

The program is voluntary, but state and federal authorities have urged it on and said inevitably every livestock owner will take part. The program is known as the “Locate in 48” program. The goal is to track a disease outbreak to the source herd within 48 hours.

But one speaker at the convention said, “If there ever is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth, no one would wait 48 hours to take action. They’d be on it right away.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee had approved $14.6 million for the NAIS program, the amount requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but the House allocated nothing.

The appropriation is part of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Bullard said the $5.3 million could shore up the program where it is less expensive and cumbersome, such as in factory-style hog, poultry and cattle feeding operations.

Congress has appropriated $142 million for the national animal identification system since it began in 2004. The USDA has registered only 35 percent of animal premises.

Last year, the USDA got $14.2 million to run the program, but registrations increased by only three percent.

The North Platte Bulletin – Published 10/4/2009
Copyright © 2009 northplattebulletin.com – All rights reserved.
Flatrock Publishing, Inc. – 1300 E 4th St., Suite F – North Platte, NE 69101

Tags: , , , ,

Wyoming withdraws from NAIS

Sep 11

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Livestock Board returns $140,000.00 in federal funds

Cheyenne — Wyoming

Livestock Board members, meeting in Cheyenne Aug. 21, voted to abandon their agreement to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in implementing its National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

According to agency director Jim Schwartz, the agreement amounted to $140,000 in grant money.

Schwartz says the decision by the board resulted in the agency’s lost ability to utilize those funds in developing what some had hoped would be a state-level program.

“I had signed the contract,” says Schwartz, “but hadn’t spent anything.” It’s now a matter of sending the money back. Asked if other states are taking similar measures, he says most see this year’s disbursement as the last they’ll be offered and aren’t refusing the funds. Congress, citing expenditures surpassing adequate progress, is amidst debates on the future of NAIS funding. If funding continues, it will likely be at a much-reduced rate. Many believe the whole animal ID issue is dead.

Gillette rancher and veterinarian Eric Barlow brought the resolution to reject the NAIS agreement. “After reviewing the work document which outlined what we would do with the money,” says Barlow, “it did not appear to me to be building on a national program or being used to establish or fortify any program the WLSB has implemented.”

Barlow says that some members expressed hope the funds could be used in advancing the agency’s computerization efforts. “Maybe we could have, if that’s what we would have asked for,” says Barlow. “Either someone didn’t ask for that or USDA rejected it.” Barlow says the way he read the plan of work the money would have been used to register premises, educate producers on NAIS and hire staff for a six-month period for the purpose of doing those things.

Brent Larson of Laramie and Liz Philp of Shoshoni, sheep producer representatives on the board, were the two dissenting votes to the resolution.

Larson says while he doesn’t support NAIS, he did see the opportunity to use the dollars to advance Wyoming’s programs. He wanted the agency to seek amendments to its agreement with the USDA on how the dollars would have been spent.

“I thought we could make it work for us,” says; Larson. “Why not rework the plan and use the; $140,000 to build something that would work for Wyoming?” Something that would be worthwhile?

Without the $140,000 grant the Wyoming NAIS Director’s employment would possibly not be funded.

Appreciating the need to preserve the market-ability of Wyoming livestock, Barlow says he suggested that staff form a working group, including; industry representatives, to look at existing programs and how they can serve as the underpinning of a Wyoming-based program.

Larson, given the $800,000 in budget cuts the agency took earlier this year, isn’t sure where the money for a state-level program will come from. It would have been good to keep the USDA grant if it had true value to help Wyoming livestock producers. The board voted to give it all back due to too many negative strings attached.

Quotes provided by Jennifer Womack, managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.com.

Note: WYOMING REFUSES TO BE BOUGHT! Congratulations to Wyoming!! NAIS has provided generous funding for USDA offices in every state with minimal oversight in regard to premises enrollment.

States joining Wyoming have received the following “grant” funds not including 2009 funding: Colorado $4,896,995; Idaho $4,242,645; Kansas $3,882,270; Montana $2,110,256; Nebraska $3,749,005; South Dakota $3,155,907.

Although Wyoming has repented of their latest “grant,” funds, their hands are not totally clean. During 2002 to 2008 they have deposited from USDA a total of $2,054,538.

Pledging to enroll producers in the NAIS program, the Wyoming effort was costing $1,119 per premise sign up. However, if Wyoming did a good job, USDA projected future funding would allow them to harvest another $7,151,717 additional.

Wyoming is to be honored by their own livestock producers and other states for setting the example of refusing NAIS demands. The strings attached by USDA appeared to be hanging nooses to ranchers in Wyoming, and many others agree.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ding Dong NAIS IS (not) Dead! How “Market Forces” Will Bring Local Producers Into Full Compliance

Sep 2

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Re-posted from The Complete Patient

DateTuesday, September 1, 2009 at 11:31PM

I’ve been reading reports that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is in trouble. Its funding from Congress has been cut. The listening sessions around the country sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture were nearly unanimous in opposition. Is there truth to such conjecture?

Doreen Hannes, a Missouri farmer, has been an outspoken critic of NAIS for several years. She attended an agriculture conference last weekend that provided hints about the future of the program that envisions RFID tags being attached to each of hundreds of millions of farm animals across the country. The report makes for fascinating reading. Unfortunately, it isn’t encouraging.

by Doreen Hannes

How will the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) finally come to fruition?

I gleaned some answers to that tantalizing question this past weekend, when I had the dubious pleasure of speaking at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture ID Expo (the NGO pusher of NAIS) in Kansas City, Missouri, as the small producers representative on a panel, “Opportunities for Animal Identification.”

Having been to two other NIAA ID Expos, the most glaring change was the attendance being way down. As a staunch opponent of NAIS and one who has been working full time to stop it for years now, I found this a very pleasing sign.

I was allowed to speak on the condition that I not speak about NAIS. With the help of the question-and-answer segment of the panel discussion, I was able to say nearly all I wanted about NAIS based on my being a representative of small producers engaged in direct sales. I differentiated the philosophies and operations of small growers from those of industrialized ag, and drew the distinction between agribusiness and agriculture, explaining that we are not interested in the corporate agribusiness model.

What I gleaned from this panel, and other information coming from the NIAA ID Expo, is that NAIS may look dead, but really isn’t.  As in any good horror movie, the monster has super-psycho strength and, just when it seems to be defeated, it rises up and attacks again.

Remember, NAIS began as the National Food Animal Identification Plan, then became the United States Animal Identification Plan, and finally the National Animal Identification System. It will not continue to be called NAIS, but instead dubbed ‘animal identification’, as part of ‘food safety’, ‘social responsibility’ and ‘farm to fork’ initiatives.

The hammers for enforcement will be big ones and constrain small producers’ ability to market and sell their products– attached to indemnity payments, subsidies, conservation programs and access to movement certificates, or health papers.

In other words, “market forces” will force compliance on those who wish to stay out of this onerous system. There will still be ‘premises id’, but it may be changed to ‘unique location identifier.’  There will still be electronic and group ID consisting of 15-character numbers, but it won’t be to ‘NAIS’ standards, (ahem), and there will still be tracking, but it will be referenced as the ‘historical pedigree’ or some similar nonsense. It won’t be called NAIS anymore, but it will be NAIS by a different name. Be prepared for a chorus from the disinformationalists proclaiming the death of the dreaded NAIS. A little twist on what Mark Twain said is appropriate, “Rumors of NAIS’ death have been greatly exaggerated”.

Those who wish to keep NAIS at bay must realize that all of the food safety bills in Congress, and particularly HR 2749, which passed the House by an overwhelming margin, will codify ‘international standards’ under obligations to ‘international agreements’, and that means NAIS for everything. It will do nothing to improve food safety and everything to put the kabosh on the fastest growing segment of agriculture, the local food movement. We must assail the Senate and the House with the message that real food safety lies in decentralized, unconsolidated and diverse food production and distribution.

As I told the attendees of the NIAA ID Expo, “There are two kinds of people, those who want to be left alone and those who won’t leave them alone. Small producers and their customers definitely want to be left alone.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NAIS Will Render Average-Sized Producers Uncompetitive, Will Lead to More Concentration, Vertical Integration

Aug 24

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Billings, Mont. – As promised, R-CALF USA has launched a 12-day blitz of news releases to explain in detail many of the reasons our members oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

With this effort, R-CALF USA hopes to bring to light many of the dangerous aspects associated with NAIS with regard to invasion-of-privacy issues, the likely acceleration of the ongoing exodus of U.S. cattle producers from the industry, as well as other concerns we believe USDA has not even begun to ponder. Click here to view the entire 13-pages of formal comments R-CALF USA submitted to the agency on Aug. 3, 2009, to, yet again, oppose the implementation of NAIS.

In the third installment of our NAIS Opposition Blitz, we explore how NAIS will render average-sized and mid-sized cattle producers uncompetitive vis-à-vis large-scale producers and will accelerate the ongoing exodus of U.S. cattle producers, leading to more concentration and vertical integration:

* Two Kansas State University cost studies show that costs associated with NAIS are substantially lower for large-scale operations when compared to small- and mid-sized operations. For example, a spreadsheet published by KSU shows that costs of electronic identification for a herd size of 100 head (at a cost per head of $15.90) are $9.76 less when the herd size increases to 400 head.[1] Another KSU study also shows that costs per animal become substantially lower as operation size becomes larger – the average-sized U.S. cattle operation (with fewer than 50 head[2]) would experience costs that are $2.12 higher per animal than would a producer with more than 50 head but fewer than 100 head.[3] Thus, the studies clearly show that NAIS would competitively disadvantage small- to mid-sized producers when compared to larger producers. This cost disparity will accelerate the ongoing concentration and vertical integration of the U.S. cattle industry.

NAIS cost studies fail to include costs of upgrading facilities in order to accommodate scanner reading protocols. Many cattle operations use only minimal cattle-handling equipment (for example: horses, trailers, portable panels and portable chutes) to move cattle long distances and this equipment is not suitable for affixing eartags or ensuring accurate scanner readings. As a result, more elaborate and costly facilities would be required to meet NAIS standards and these upgrades would further create economic burdens on U.S. cattle producers.

The cost/benefit analysis completed by Kansas State University (KSU) is fundamentally flawed: 1) There are approx. 95 million cattle in the U.S. cattle herd. The KSU study found that the average eartag price was $2.25. Thus, the study’s conclusion that the total cost of NAIS would be $209 million would not even cover the price of one eartag for each head of cattle in the U.S. herd, let alone labor, equipment, and reading costs that would apply to each animal. 2) From 2000 through 2003, the U.S. slaughtered approx. 36 million head of fed cattle and cows and bulls each year.[4] Using the study’s average NAIS cost per animal of $5.97 per head, the study’s conclusion that the total cost of NAIS would be only $209 million per year would not even cover the cost of identifying each animal actually slaughtered during each of the four years in the middle of our current liquidation phase of the U.S. cattle cycle, which cost would be $219 million. Thus, the study erroneously assumes our U.S. cattle cycle is nonexistent and our herd size is static.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

[1] See RFID Cost.xls – A Spreadsheet to Estimate the Economic Cost of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) System, Version 7.6.06, available at www.agmanager.info/livestock/budgets/production/beef/RFID%20costs.xls.

[2] The average-sized U.S. cattle operation is 44 head, calculated by dividing the number of U.S. cows and heifers that have calved in 2008 (41,692,000) by the number of U.S. operations with cattle and calves in 2008 (956,500).

[3] See Table 2. Summary of RFID Costs for Beef Cow/Calf Operations by Size of Operation, Overview Report of the Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System, USDA APHIS, April 2009, at 18.

[4] See Livestock Slaughter Annual Summary for years 2001-2003, USDA NASS, available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1097.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This family says – “No more fairs”

Aug 13

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

They say a government program violates their private-property rights.

Cassidy Younggreen, 13, won awards for her goats at the Boulder County Fair last year, but this year she and her brother Ryan wont be there. They raise 30 goats, two llamas and 15 chickens.

Cassidy Younggreen, 13, won awards for her goats at the Boulder County Fair last year, but this year she and her brother Ryan won't be there. They raise 30 goats, two llamas and 15 chickens.

BROOMFIELD — Cassidy and Ryan Young-green won a passel of ribbons in the Boulder County Fair last year, carrying on a family tradition of putting their livestock up against any comers in annual county-fair competitions.

But this year, Cassidy, 13, and Ryan, 11, aren’t showing anything at the Boulder County Fair — not even their award-winning goats — because they would be forced to participate in an intrusive new government program, said their mom, Kellyjo Younggreen.

“They tell us you have to register, you have to register,” Younggreen said. “But I think this just goes too far.”

Some other farm families in Colorado feel the same way about a national animal-identification program that they say is a violation of private-property rights.

They are refusing to let their children enter their livestock in fair competitions — including those in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Larimer and Weld counties and the Colorado State Fair — where entries must comply with the National Animal Identification System. NAIS is a U.S. Department of Agriculture initiative designed to help regulators track animal diseases.

“There are several instances of families across the state who are simply saying no,” said John Reid, a cattle operator in Ordway and member of the Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Association. “There is overwhelming opposition to this initiative everywhere.”

But proponents say the ID program will help prevent a national outbreak of livestock disease. Fair organizers also point out protesting families are few and far between.

In fact, they say, the number of fair participants is actually up this year.

“It seems pretty isolated to maybe two families and a (4-H) club or two,” said Richard Biella, president of the Boulder County Fair board.

Biella, too, was skeptical of the ID plan. But as an owner of Angus cattle, he became a fan because he says it could prevent health problems afflicting entire operations.

Cassidy Younggreen, 13, won awards for her goats at the Boulder County Fair last year, but this year she and her brother Ryan wont be there. They raise 30 goats, two llamas and 15 chickens.

Cassidy Younggreen, 13, won awards for her goats at the Boulder County Fair last year, but this year she and her brother Ryan won't be there. They raise 30 goats, two llamas and 15 chickens.

“I understand some people don’t feel comfortable with the program,” Biella said. “But truly, if the government wanted to find out about us, they only have to look at our license plates, punch in a couple of numbers, and they’d get all they wanted.”

At the center of the NAIS are premises identification numbers, or PINs. When livestock owners register for a PIN, they must give basic contact information as well as what species of animals are on their property and the type of operation.

So far, the system is voluntary. But a handful of county fairs in Colorado this year are requiring PIN registration for 4-H livestock that might go to market.

The state fair also requires PIN registration, but that hasn’t stopped 4-H families from entering competitions, said Gwen Bosley, animal ID coordinator at the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

“There are a lot of misconceptions out there about what this is all about,” Bosley said. “But once you explain that it is simply a way to protect animals from an animal health emergency, people understand. There might be a handful of families in the state who have dropped out of fairs because of this, but that’s about it.”

Kellyjo Younggreen, however, said a national ID program will only favor corporate farms because only one animal will be registered out of a whole section of the same breed of animals. Small operators like her — with a 5-acre operation of mostly chickens, rabbits and goats — will have to tag each animal.

The possible expense of such a program — and the notion her family’s operation will be part of a massive government database — makes her nervous.

“I just don’t like the scare tactics the government is using,” Younggreen said. “It feels like we are being forced into something we don’t need.”

Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907 or mwhaley@denverpost.com

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Controlling E. coli in hamburger requires “meat ID” not animal ID

Aug 3

Posted by admin in Food, NAIS | 1 Comment

Daryll E. Ray and the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

July 24, 2009

Food safety has been getting a lot of attention lately. In response to the peanut butter, pistachio, and toll house cookie recalls, the House Energy and Safety Committee has approved the Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2009 to strengthen and expand the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) role in food safety and inspection. To gauge the response of the agricultural community, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on this legislation.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a White House Food Safety Group was formed by the Obama administration. In July 2009, the Working Group recommended “a new, public health-focused approach to food safety based on three core principles: (1) prioritizing prevention; (2) strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and (3) improving response and recovery”

(http://www.foodsafetyworkinggroup.gov/FSWG_Fact_Sheet.pdf).

In all this, major-crop and livestock farmers are worried that the move toward increased emphasis on food safety will lead to the FDA inspection of farms as part of its role in protecting the integrity of the food ingredients that are produced by farmers. Many involved in beef production are resistant to an animal identification system that would allow traceback to the farm-level.

At the same time, the meat industry, having freed itself from a government-directed inspection through the use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program (HACCP), wants to prevent a move back to a greater government involvement in the inspection of meat and meat products.

When considering issues of major importance to a sector—which this one definitely is in the case of agriculture—the rhetoric sometimes out-distances the the reality of the arguments made and fears generated.

In the case of E. coli in beef, there is nothing that cattlemen can or cannot do that will materially affect the probability of E. coli showing up in your hamburger. There is some evidence that taking cattle off the feedlot for a period of time and putting them on pasture prior to slaughter reduces the level but does not eliminate the presence of E. coli and therefore its potential for contamination. So there is no reason for the FDA to use valuable resources to visit cattle ranches or feeding operations as part of “beefing-up” prevention of E. coli contamination from beef.

Since what happens on ranches and feedlots has no effect on whether beef ultimately becomes contaminated with E. coli, traceback to production agriculture—that is, an animal identification system—is not needed to protect consumers from E. coli.

That is not to say that an animal ID program is, or is not, appropriate for other reasons. Recent arguments for animal traceback are primarily concerned with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow disease). While that may be an important issue, it is unrelated to the E. coli discussion.

Traceback is required, of course, but it is MEAT traceback that is needed, not animal traceback.

Meat traceback is needed because E. coli O157:H7 grows in the gut of beef animals, the food safety issue concerns the prevention of the contamination of slaughtered meat from sources like intestines and hides.

When E. coli O157:H7 is found in ground beef or on beef muscle meat surfaces, the problem is one that originates at the packing plant. Since the institution of the HACCP system in meat inspection, the USDA has focused its enforcement at downline facilities that process boxed beef into hamburger and resisted tracing the contamination back to the packing plant that produced the boxed beef.

The USDA has done this despite the knowledge that a processing facility that does no slaughtering lacks a source of E. coli O157:H7. The most likely source of the E. coli is on the surface of meat that came in from the slaughterhouse, thus the need for meat traceback.

The rhetoric of those speaking for meat packers and processors tend to steer attention away from the central issue. James Hodges of the American Meat Institute Foundation makes statements like “No outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 have been linked to whole muscle cuts like steaks and roasts.” Similarly, the North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) sent out a 2008 NewsFax release saying “NAMP knows of no illness that has resulted from the consumption of intact beef product.”

The issue is not the consumption of steaks, roasts, and intact beef product. Everyone acknowledges that heating the outside of those products to 160 degrees kills E. coli 0157:H7. Rather the problem comes from the fact that the presence of E. coli O157:H7 on the surface of primals is not considered an adulterant. That presence raises the opportunity for cross contamination with other foods or the incorporation of E. coli present on the surface of intact cuts into ground beef.

Cutting through the rhetoric, it seems clear that the USDA can significantly reduce the number of E. coli illnesses by declaring E. coli O157:H7 on the surface of primals to be a contaminant that must be eliminated as part of the slaughtering process and by instituting a meat traceback system that will trace contaminated ground beef back to the packing plant that provided it.

Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the Director of UT’s Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC). Daryll Ray’s column is written with the research and assistance of Harwood D. Schaffer, Research Associate with APAC.

agpolicy.org

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS – It Ain’t Over Until The Fat Lady Sings

Jul 29

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Written by: Chuck Jolley – Cattle Network

She belts one out on Monday.  Except ‘she’ will be a couple of he’s – Brooks and Dunn singing ‘That ain’t no way to go.’

The heavily promoted comment period for the U.S.D.A.’s National Animal Identification System (N.A.I.S.) listening tour will end on Monday. According to the U.S.D.A., comments received on or before this date will be considered.  Hopefully written comments received after the final Omaha meeting will be taken more seriously than spoken comments were during the ‘live,’ face-to-face meetings.

“While the roundtables and public listening sessions are complete, I encourage those of you who still would like to share your concerns and suggestions about N.A.I.S. to submit your written comments by August 3,” said Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack, “We look forward to considering all the feedback before deciding on the future direction of U.S.D.A.’s traceability efforts.”

U.S.D.A. has posted a feedback page on the N.A.I.S. Web site.  Whether you’re your for it or against it, go to www.usda.gov/nais/feedback now to provide your suggestions and comments.

If Vilsack is counting noses, N.A.I.S. will be deep-sixed on August 4.  He announced the listening tour on May 15 as a way to find common ground for the development of the always controversial program.  To be painfully blunt, common ground never existed.  Only a pitifully small handful of people stood up for a national program during the 14 city tour.  The vast majority of the often overly enthusiastic crowd spoke against N.A.I.S. using very specific and occasionally salty language.  Trying to talk those people into accepting an animal identification program will be tougher than talking a card-carrying N.R.A. member out of his gun.

In fact, more than a few N.R.A. card-carrying farmers have promised to show anyone representing NAIS who dares step foot on his or her property a personal collection of fire arms.  Barrel end first.

As a voluntary program, N.A.I.S. might have worked but only with the strongest possible assurances from the U.S.D.A. that ‘voluntary’ isn’t code for ‘mandatory’ within a few short years.  Even that approach would be a hard sell as most of the speakers were outspoken about their innate distrust of anything that smacked of “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

These are people who are used to doing it themselves.  If any help is needed, it’s neighbor-to-neighbor, not federales to farmers.  The mistake the USDA made was trying to organize this program from the top down.  Going after the cooperation of state ag agencies and trade associations, they assumed, would win the day and the big boys did fall in line, lured by the promise of an ever expanding foreign trade opportunity.  NAIS, though, is a bottom up program.  It can only succeed with the consent and cooperation of the hundreds of thousands of small farmers from Portland, ME to Portland OR.

They said no.

If there is any confusion about the meaning of that word, maybe the U.S.D.A. can understand it a little better by clicking here.

Tags: , , , , ,