|
|
NAIS UPDATE September 18, 2009 – ID INFO EXPO
The
National Conference on Animal Identification (ID INFO 2009)
was held in Kansas City, Mo., Aug. 25-27. It focused on “THE
ID MANDATE: All of the presentations are on line at, http://animalagriculture.org/Solutions/ID%20INFO%20EXPO/2009/Proceedings.html Feedstuffs magazine wrote stories on several NAIS issues covered at the conference: 1) “Traceability becoming 'global standard,” with KSU’s Dr. Ted Schroeder making three points, a) A primary benefit of NAIS is market access; b) That demand is a function of intrinsic attributes and trust, and that trust is a function of traceability; and c) That while the benefits of demand can be great, the costs associated with lost trust may well be greater. http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=49804C6972614A63A1A10DF54CD95D65&nm=Search+our+Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=4&id=4186844F7D5843A79AB56FB6960EEB34 2) “NAIS information exempted from FOIA,” where attorney Elizabeth Springsteen explains case precedents supporting exemption for NAIS but she also notes that the extent to which a court may subpoena for NAIS information has not been tested. http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=49804C6972614A63A1A10DF54CD95D65&nm=Search+our+Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=4&id=1039A86726564EBA833E6D32D29EAE0C 3) A related story, “NAIS issue is accountability, not producer's liability,” suggests that there are nuances in determining liability, including understanding liability "theories." Springsteen notes that NAIS will not increase liability but will decrease anonymity and that traceback can actually be used to help producers prove they are not liable. http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=49804C6972614A63A1A10DF54CD95D65&nm=Search+our+Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=4&id=5B68CA0ECB3B4534B909F3160BD658EF 4) Another story highlighted how KSU’s cost study has been misused by some, “NAIS cost analysis 'abused' by opponents.” http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=49804C6972614A63A1A10DF54CD95D65&nm=Search+our+Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=4&id=56DA3C726DEB49FBABF7A3FF316E22AD May 4, 2009 – Listening Sessions Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will hold a series of public listening sessions on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The meetings will take place next month in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington state. The public meetings will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time, with registration one hour prior to each meeting. The meetings will be held in the following locations: Thursday, May 14: Harrisburg, Pa.; Monday, May 18: Pasco, Wash.; Wednesday, May 20: Austin, Texas; Thursday, May 21: Birmingham, Ala.; Friday, May 22: Louisville, Ky.; Wednesday, May 27: Storrs, Conn.; and Monday, June 1: Greeley, Colo. For more information regarding the listening sessions, go to http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/feedback.shtml April 29, 2009 – Cost-Benefit Analysis USDA released the results of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis on the National Animal ID System (NAIS). The study, commissioned in July 2007 to provide comprehensive, objective economic information for producers, was completed by Kansas State University, with assistance from Colorado State University, Michigan State University and Montana State University in January of 2009. IMPACT: The objectives of this comprehensive cost-benefit analysis were to estimate the benefits and cost of adopting a NAIS by the livestock and poultry industries, as well as to determine how net benefits are likely to be allocated among industry sectors, consumers and government. Highlights include: · The estimated annual cost of implementing a “full traceability” system with 90% participation (cattle/swine/sheep/poultry) was $192.2 million dollars. · The cattle sector (beef and dairy), because of the need for individual animal identification, bore the majority of estimated costs at $175.9 million, which is significant but represents less than one-half percent of the retail value of U.S. beef products. · Estimated tag and tagging costs varied among cow/calf producers based on the size of operation and whether the operation did or did not already tag animals (with some kind of ID tag) as a normal management step. The majority of Kansas cattle operations do tag calves and the study-based estimate of costs for an operation with 50 head was $3.30 per cow unit and $3.83 per head sold. · The additive costs per head of cattle marketed, accounting for the multiple stages (cow/calf, backgrounder, feedyard, auction, and packer) was $5.97. · The swine and poultry industries each have lower costs because tracing requirements involve less infrastructure and often few to no individual devices. The study-based estimate of cost per animal marketed was $0.059 for swine and $1.39 for sheep. For poultry, the average cost per animal is $0.0195 for layers, $0.0007 for broilers and $0.0020 for turkeys. · The cost of doing nothing, for example not implementing some aspects of NAIS, will ultimately cost the beef industry access to some export markets. The study notes that, “animal identification and tracing systems [are] the norm for exporting countries and that the United States currently lags behind its major competitors and its major markets in providing traceability.” The study estimated that a 25% loss in market share would result in producer revenue dropping $18.25 per head marketed, a loss similar to the South Korean market prior to the 2003 BSE discovery. · The study examined the effects that a traceability system would have on beef demand, suggesting that consumer confidence would increase and hence beef demand would strengthen from present levels if a sound animal tracing system were put in place. The study showed that a 23 percent increase in beef export demand would completely pay for a 70% adoption of full animal identification and tracing in the U.S. beef herd over a 10-year period. In addition, it showed that only a 0.67% increase in domestic demand would be required to pay for the same above described adoption scenario. · Other benefits included federal and state government savings on animal-disease control and eradication, along with producer level savings associated with the need for less animal testing and cost reductions when testing. POLICY AFBF supports the establishment and implementation of a voluntary national animal identification system capable of providing support for animal disease control and eradication. AFBF continues to monitor four major issues that will affect the success of such a program:
KFB policy supports efforts to implement the National Animal Identification System and encourages all livestock owners to participate by registering their premises with the Kansas Animal Health Department. Voluntary vs. Mandatory This is a controversial topic but one that must be carefully and thoughtfully addressed. Initially, USDA-APHIS hinted at mandatory participation. In April of 2006, USDA-APHIS released a document which included benchmarks for participation progress: January 2007: 25% of premises registered January 2008: 70% of premises registered; 40% of animals identified January 2009: 100% of premises registered; 100% of “new” animals identified; 60% of animals <1 year of age have complete movement data In November of 2006, USDA-APHIS changed direction and began stressing that the NAIS would be a voluntary program. Two and one-half years later (as of May 4, 2009), the voluntary NAIS has resulted in only 35.6% of premises being registered and only a very small percentage of cattle being identified with USDA approved devices (not because of NAIS but largely in order to comply with USDA-AMS “age” verification programs). Today, with a democratically controlled congress and administration, there appears to be more of a focus on “moving forward with NAIS,” as it is seen as wasteful to spend dollars on a voluntary program with inadequate participation.
It should be noted that for any disease mitigation and eradication program to be successful, a relatively high level of participation must occur. If only a few voluntary animals are tracked, disease tracebacks will continue to be a costly and time consuming endeavor. For example, in the spring of 2005, because of an Arizona dairy heifer testing positive for Bovine Tuberculosis, 85,000 plus dairy animals in Western Kansas had to be tested because their operations had received animals from that Arizona facility. Without a uniform, electronic-based animal identification system, it was impossible to know which animals had been exposed, and thus all potential animals had to be tested. A team of veterinarians spent 30 days testing and retesting the animals – a direct cost to taxpayers. One dairyman estimated it cost him $20,000 per day in lost production because of the time and stress on the cattle.
While 100% tracking and reporting is unachievable – readers will fail, tags will fall out and some producers will resist – if the majority of livestock producers would attempt to participate, an acceptable level of animal tracking would take place and allow NAIS to work. Beef Verification Solution and NAIS The Beef Verification Solution (BVS) is a member driven, confidential livestock information management program developed by Agriculture Solutions, a subsidiary of Kansas Farm Bureau, in conjunction with AgInfoLink, a leading animal identification service provider. It is a comprehensive program; utilizing ISO compliant, USDA approved radio frequency identification (RFID) technology and a privately managed database, providing practical animal identification solutions for livestock data collection, management and communication throughout the food value chain. A key attribute is its flexible data collection system ranging from simple and easy to use CattleCardsTM, allowing members to participate without owning a RFID reader or even a computer, to electronic uploads or data imports of data collected through other electronic means, to BeefLinkTM software that not only collects data electronically but has several chute-side applications to record, calculate and sort livestock. The goal of the BVS Program is to not only provide members with National Animal Identification System (NAIS) compliance but to offer a range of animal Identification solutions including source and age verification, Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) compliance, and more importantly, the ability to manage and analyze animal data for better decisions and increased income opportunities. Lastly, as a member driven program, BVS strives to provide affordable solutions to animal identification; always working to offer the most competitively priced program in the industry. Data Communication and Warehousing: Communication is vital and a key component of the Beef Verification Solution Program is its internet-based, secure and private, animal traceability information management platform, or private data-sharing network (PDSN), where information collected by each participant is electronically sent. Data collected and shared is the property of the member; data will not be shared outside of the PDSN without permission of the member/producer. With member permission, the limited data needed for NAIS compliance will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities if necessary, assisting members in complying with USDA’s voluntary NAIS. Additional Links USDA’s NAIS Website: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/ Beef Verification Solution: http://www.agsolusa.com/bvs/ NAIS Benefit-Cost Overview: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/plans_reports/NAIS_overview_report.pdf Full NAIS Benefit-Cost Analysis: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/plans_reports/Benefit_Cost_Analysis_NAIS.pdf
NAIS Business Plan:
|