|
|
|
Rumors that any cattle producer who Bangs vaccinates heifers in 2009 would be issued a Premise Identification Number (PIN) compliant with the proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS) sent 30 cattle growers to a meeting in Limon last week looking for answers.
Ranchers from Kim to Fort Morgan and Burlington to Kiowa arrived to listen to Dr. Carl Heckendorf, DVM with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, explain the program and its elements.
The United States Department of Agriculture issued a memorandum (575.19) on Sept. 22, 2008, telling veterinary services personnel to issue a “nationally unique, seven digit code” called a Premise Identification Number, generated by the National Animal Identification System program, to any livestock owner seeking vaccination, inspection, or investigation of any disease regulated through the Code of Federal Regulations. That list includes Brucellosis. There is an eradication program for the disease that includes vaccination, and issuance of an “official” eartag. Each heifer vaccinated is given an individually unique ear tag and tattoo. A copy of the record of the number assigned to the heifer and the owner’s address is recorded at local, state and federal levels. That number is not compliant with the NAIS system.
Due to producer outrage at the expense, time demanded, and privacy violations of the proposed program, NAIS was deemed a voluntary program in 2005. A producer can sign up for the program, be issued a PIN, federally recorded ear tags, leg bands, or computer chips, depending on species, and help with creating a compliant bookkeeping system.
Two years ago, participation in the Junior Livestock Sale at the Colorado State Fair hinged on an exhibitor obtaining a PIN. Many 4-H and FFA families pointed out that “voluntary” and “required” were not synonyms and dropped out. Last year, many county fairs began demanding the same registered status if a child wanted to show a livestock project.
This year’s memorandum contained similar wording. “If the producer does not wish to voluntarily register, it is still important to use the State premises registration system, to the extent possible, to obtain a PIN.” The memorandum went on to admit increased training and bookkeeping costs for the complying veterinarians would be passed on to the producers, and that “ . . the State will be provided with all resulting premise records through electronic communication processes.”
Involuntary participants would be flagged accordingly, the memorandum promised, but anyone participating in any federal program for disease management or eradication would be issued a NAIS compliant PIN.
Leadership of R-CALF USA, a national livestock producer’s group, read the memorandum, decided voluntary programs did not have involuntary participants, and sued the USDA.
On Dec. 22, 2008, USDA Veterinary Services Memorandum 575.19 was officially canceled. However, veterinary personnel were advised to strongly urge participation in the PIN program for NAIS.
It was that advice that brought Dr. Heckendorf and Dwight Rus, Colorado Department of Agriculture Animal Identification Technician, to Limon to meet with a couple of concerned producers. However, those concerned producers had talked to their neighbors and 28 cattlemen arrived to ask questions and demand answers.
“All we’re doing is taking what we’re doing now on paper and putting it into a computer,” Heckendorf said, comparing the NAIS program to using a calculator instead of a pencil to figure taxes. “We need to get a system that works so we can respond (to a disease outbreak). I want you to all get on board. This can help save you money and time.”
As an example of saving money, he told of a situation where a dairy with thousands of head of cows and multiple facilities had bought out-of-state bulls. Those bulls were tested for tuberculosis as required by law before leaving California. After being dispersed to several different facilities, test results showed that one of the bulls tested positive.
“Because that animal had an NAIS number and all the dairy facilities had PIN’s, we were able to locate that bull, and the owner only had to test the 1500 cows at that facility instead of all the cows he owns,” Heckendorf said.
“Anything tested for TB has to have a tag anyway, and that tag costs a few cents instead of thousands of dollars,” replied an audience member. “And if all those bulls had lost their tags, I’d have had you come and retest the bulls to figure out which one was positive, then test the cows at that facility. I suppose it might have taken an extra day, and I might have lost the income from that day, but how much is it going to cost me over my lifetime to meet these NAIS requirements?”
“How much money has been spent on promoting this program?” asked Kimmi Lewis, owner of Muddy Valley Ranch near Kim.
Rus said he believed it was about $250,000 in 2008.
Lewis replied that the USDA had already spent over $2 million promoting NAIS and now they were having to resort to subterfuge like encouraging 4-H and FFA members to sign up the place they keep their projects even if the land owner had refused.
Lewis pointed out there are five states that have deemed NAIS unconstitutional and forbid participation.
The debate about cost, ways, means, and rights lasted over two hours, and in the end Heckendorf stood on the need for faster traceability of individual animals and tighter control over movement of animals at the local, state, and national level.
The final answer to the question that caused the meeting: Will producers who are participating in the brucellosis program by Bangs vaccinating their heifers be issued an NAIS administered PIN against their wishes is, “not at this time.”
Rumors that any cattle producer who Bangs vaccinates heifers in 2009 would be issued a Premise Identification Number (PIN) compliant with the proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS) sent 30 cattle growers to a meeting in Limon last week looking for answers.
Ranchers from Kim to Fort Morgan and Burlington to Kiowa arrived to listen to Dr. Carl Heckendorf, DVM with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, explain the program and its elements.
The United States Department of Agriculture issued a memorandum (575.19) on Sept. 22, 2008, telling veterinary services personnel to issue a “nationally unique, seven digit code” called a Premise Identification Number, generated by the National Animal Identification System program, to any livestock owner seeking vaccination, inspection, or investigation of any disease regulated through the Code of Federal Regulations. That list includes Brucellosis. There is an eradication program for the disease that includes vaccination, and issuance of an “official” eartag. Each heifer vaccinated is given an individually unique ear tag and tattoo. A copy of the record of the number assigned to the heifer and the owner’s address is recorded at local, state and federal levels. That number is not compliant with the NAIS system.
Due to producer outrage at the expense, time demanded, and privacy violations of the proposed program, NAIS was deemed a voluntary program in 2005. A producer can sign up for the program, be issued a PIN, federally recorded ear tags, leg bands, or computer chips, depending on species, and help with creating a compliant bookkeeping system.
Two years ago, participation in the Junior Livestock Sale at the Colorado State Fair hinged on an exhibitor obtaining a PIN. Many 4-H and FFA families pointed out that “voluntary” and “required” were not synonyms and dropped out. Last year, many county fairs began demanding the same registered status if a child wanted to show a livestock project.
This year’s memorandum contained similar wording. “If the producer does not wish to voluntarily register, it is still important to use the State premises registration system, to the extent possible, to obtain a PIN.” The memorandum went on to admit increased training and bookkeeping costs for the complying veterinarians would be passed on to the producers, and that “ . . the State will be provided with all resulting premise records through electronic communication processes.”
Involuntary participants would be flagged accordingly, the memorandum promised, but anyone participating in any federal program for disease management or eradication would be issued a NAIS compliant PIN.
Leadership of R-CALF USA, a national livestock producer’s group, read the memorandum, decided voluntary programs did not have involuntary participants, and sued the USDA.
On Dec. 22, 2008, USDA Veterinary Services Memorandum 575.19 was officially canceled. However, veterinary personnel were advised to strongly urge participation in the PIN program for NAIS.
It was that advice that brought Dr. Heckendorf and Dwight Rus, Colorado Department of Agriculture Animal Identification Technician, to Limon to meet with a couple of concerned producers. However, those concerned producers had talked to their neighbors and 28 cattlemen arrived to ask questions and demand answers.
“All we’re doing is taking what we’re doing now on paper and putting it into a computer,” Heckendorf said, comparing the NAIS program to using a calculator instead of a pencil to figure taxes. “We need to get a system that works so we can respond (to a disease outbreak). I want you to all get on board. This can help save you money and time.”
As an example of saving money, he told of a situation where a dairy with thousands of head of cows and multiple facilities had bought out-of-state bulls. Those bulls were tested for tuberculosis as required by law before leaving California. After being dispersed to several different facilities, test results showed that one of the bulls tested positive.
“Because that animal had an NAIS number and all the dairy facilities had PIN’s, we were able to locate that bull, and the owner only had to test the 1500 cows at that facility instead of all the cows he owns,” Heckendorf said.
“Anything tested for TB has to have a tag anyway, and that tag costs a few cents instead of thousands of dollars,” replied an audience member. “And if all those bulls had lost their tags, I’d have had you come and retest the bulls to figure out which one was positive, then test the cows at that facility. I suppose it might have taken an extra day, and I might have lost the income from that day, but how much is it going to cost me over my lifetime to meet these NAIS requirements?”
“How much money has been spent on promoting this program?” asked Kimmi Lewis, owner of Muddy Valley Ranch near Kim.
Rus said he believed it was about $250,000 in 2008.
Lewis replied that the USDA had already spent over $2 million promoting NAIS and now they were having to resort to subterfuge like encouraging 4-H and FFA members to sign up the place they keep their projects even if the land owner had refused.
Lewis pointed out there are five states that have deemed NAIS unconstitutional and forbid participation.
The debate about cost, ways, means, and rights lasted over two hours, and in the end Heckendorf stood on the need for faster traceability of individual animals and tighter control over movement of animals at the local, state, and national level.
The final answer to the question that caused the meeting: Will producers who are participating in the brucellosis program by Bangs vaccinating their heifers be issued an NAIS administered PIN against their wishes is, “not at this time.”
