Now
Fair
66.0°
High
87°
Low
64°

Nebraska's cows kept identified

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY ART HOVEY / Lincoln Journal Star

Sunday, Oct 29, 2006 - 12:14:19 am CDT

Ask Dennis Hughes why Nebraska needs to give its livestock operations identification numbers, and he immediately mounts his soapbox.

Nebraska’s state veterinarian points to 2001 and to an outbreak of swine pseudorabies. A highly contagious calamity struck the pork industry four years after the state thought it had the disease under control.

“There was a major outbreak in northeast Nebraska that took us 10 months to clean up,” said Hughes, who was a field veterinarian for the state Department of Agriculture at the time.

Had the state had a system commonly described as premise ID in place, it would have been much easier to monitor livestock movements, and to track down and contain the problem.

Hughes’ personal experience with a more hit-and-miss approach helps explain why Nebraska now leads the nation in voluntary registration of the thousands of places where livestock are regularly present.

As of late October, more than 13,000 of an estimated 31,000 known locations have been logged and assigned a number.

“We are lucky or fortunate here,” he said. “We have not run into any real solidified resistance against us.”

Premise ID began in Nebraska in September 2004 as the first step toward a National Animal Identification System that U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns would like to see in place by 2009.

In the age of mad-cow disease, meat recalls and anxious overseas customers, the goal is to rein in the potential for serious disease outbreaks, including those that might be launched by acts of terrorism.

The national directive calls for voluntary participation, although Indiana and Wisconsin are examples of states that exercised their option to make premise identification mandatory.

While Nebraska is a model of progress with voluntary participation, neighboring Missouri is not. Missouri is an example of mounting federal worries about sign-ups moving too slowly.

Steve Goff, a state veterinarian and head of Missouri’s animal identification program, said the Show Me State may have as many as 104,000 locations to log, and the numbers get higher if you count horses.

So far, only about 10,200 identification numbers have been assigned. Much of the reason, according to Goff: “We may have the most well-organized opposition group.”

“They’re into rights and/or violation of rights,” he said. “This development violates too many of their rights — privacy, property, constitutional. I had one letter from an individual who wrote that it violated his natural rights, whatever that is.”

Some of the misinformation has gotten a bit wild, he said. An example of what’s being passed around, he said: “Whenever you ride (a horse) over to your neighbor’s house, you’re going to have to file a report. And people really believe that.”

“In our state,” said Goff, “we’ve got a lot of people who don’t want the government in their business more than it already is.”

Nebraskans are certainly similar, but Pete McClymont, a third-generation Holdrege cattle feeder and president of the Nebraska Cattlemen, said the state’s largest livestock organization is urging its members to cooperate.

“Animal safety and so forth, it’s paramount to making sure that herds are safe,” McClymont said, “and that we can track them in case of disease surveillance. From that standpoint, those are positive things that we need to look at as we move forward.”

That’s not to say he and his leadership peers are oblivious to concerns with the program or to the need to speak about them.

Among those concerns is liability for unforeseeable health problems.

“If there’s something wrong with an animal, and due to the animal ID system, it’s traced back to an individual producer, that’s an issue.

“Another issue would be that people who want animal ID feel it should be used for disease surveillance only, that it not be used by the IRS to make sure that you only have X-amount of cows.”

Christin Kamm, speaking for the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, said that isn’t going to happen.

“It’s completely confidential by Nebraska law.”

But others say the restrictions of the present don’t dictate everything that can happen later.

At the Nebraska Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, John Crabtree thinks beef and pork producers should be careful in being herded beyond premise ID into a system that accounts for individual animals.

One reason is that the possibility the system will be privatized, at some point, can’t be ruled out.

As far as Crabtree is concerned, it’s unclear where federal agriculture officials are headed on that issue.

“They were pretty clear on the fact that they wanted to privatize it,” he said. “Subsequently, they drew back from that a little bit.”

If too much information about what’s happening in meat production gets into the wrong hands, it could result in market manipulation, he warned.

If this identification chore is worth doing, “then it’s worth doing publicly and not privatizing the system,” Crabtree said. “Because that’s just too much of an invitation to a system that’s corrupt and that victimizes producers, especially small and medium-sized farmers.”

Reach Art Hovey at (402) 523-4949 or ahovey@alltel.net


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
George wrote on October 29, 2006 12:31 am:
" I am all in favor of being able to track food products from by lot number from beginning to end. There are many, many examples of this type of tracking that does not result in IRS crackdowns or any other "violation of rights". It should not come as a shock to players in the barnyard-to-dinner plate chain that each link holds some level of accountability, and this type of tracking is long overdue. "

Richard wrote on October 29, 2006 10:03 am:
" I think the reason that an animal I.D. System is not accepted readily by most producers is a lack of trust in how the information will be used. Just one incident of "Mad Cow" in the United States can cost ALL beef producers a bit of money, the poor rancher/farmer who owns the herd where that cow was found loses his whole herd and as far as I know there is no monetary compensation. Until these producers are assured that this tracking system will not result in their ruination it will not be accepted. It is ironic actually because the best producers could use the information from a system like this to improve the genetics of their herds. Again the trust issue comes into play. Do producers want packers to know everything about their herds? A classical Catch 22. "

Gil wrote on October 29, 2006 10:54 am:
" Adrian Smith didn't do much more than twiddle his thumbs to solve this problem, neither has Heineman. Nebraska's cattlemen deserve leadership, not rubber stamp ignorance. "

SMD wrote on October 29, 2006 12:13 pm:
" Before you decide that NAIS is a good idea first read the USDA draft plan word for word. http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/about/pdf/NAIS_Draft_Strategic_Plan_42505.pdf Of course folks are becoming more distrustful of our USDA. This really happened to some real tax paying American citizens very recently. This is just one story. http://nonais.org/index.php/2006/09/29/henshaw-incident/ Perhaps the USDA was for the average farmer long ago, but I don't think that is so any longer. They work for the Big Ag companies with their factory farms of thousands of animals. Animals that are crowded in filthy conditions, and pumped with antibiotics to keep them alive. I don't know about you, but haven't you noticed most problems with food contamination happens AFTER the food leaves the farm at the processors? FMD, pseudorabies have vaccines to stop the disease. Mad cow could be tested before it enters the food chain. That would make our food safe. Not making poor farmers put electronic tags in their animals at cost to them. This program should never be mandatory, but voluntary and market driven. Learn more about NAIS before you decide by reading the USDA document and www.nonais.org I think you will agree, a lot of common sense would make our food safer, not registering farms and electronic gadgets in animals. "

George wrote on October 29, 2006 12:31 pm:
" Well, if one incident of Mad Cow is found, the ID tracking system will be able to isolate the farm from which it came. This gets the rest of the producers in the country off the hook, so to speak, so its actually a good thing in the case of BSE. I don't see how concealing information about a herd benefits anyone at all, rather is comes across like the producer has something to hide. So I would say yes, producers should want packers and, more importantly, consumers to know everything about their herds. "

Henwhisperer wrote on October 29, 2006 4:59 pm:
" NAIS amounts to a license to farm. And that is exactly what the biggest of producers, the membership of the NIAA, are counting on. Should NAIS go through, small/private farmers/rancers, homesteaders, people who own animals for pleasure aren't going to want the government interference and will drop their animals. In a country with no local food sources what will happen when there are worse and more wide spread bacterial contaminations? Local food sources should be valued more than they are. Small/private farmers and ranchers who are raising a few meat animals, have some backyard laying hens, a horse or two, why they know where their animals are all the time and know the health of each animal. Not so in the factory farms. And that is exactly why NAIS will never work. There are already more than adequate systems in place to trace animals and disease. The way to stop BSE is to stop feeding animal proteins to cows who were designed to eat just grass, not corn, not grain, not blood protein, not rBST...just grass. Make the USDA do the job they are supposed to do and don't let them get away with this Constitutional stomping scheme. I will not comply. Will you join me? If we stand up together, we can stop this thing. "

SMD wrote on October 29, 2006 7:08 pm:
" George if Mad Cow is a concern to you, know this, your very own USDA has stopped a company from doing voluntary testing for mad cow to insure their customers it is BSE free. Don't believe it? Sounds crazy doesn't it, but it is true. Why would the USDA do this? http://creekstonefarmspremiumbeef.com/news_bse_press.html To truly insure your beef is BSE free a test of it before it goes into the grocery store would be what I would want. Not traceback, but testing. If Big Ag want to export their beef to Japan and use traceback fine, but keep it VOLUNTARY. "