The Murky Murk Demand and Supply AnalysisThe Murky Murk Demand and Supply Analysis“The Murky Murk”Wes Ishmael, Contributing EditorBeef MagazineOctober 2006Mandatory livestock ID systems have been a subject focused on repeatedly in beef farming magazines this year. NAIS (National Identification System) is designed to track livestock for animal health purposes, with the ultimate aim to be able to track any head of livestock or any lifetime production group of livestock back to all previous locations of residence within 48 hours. The goal is to protect the beef industry and prevent vulnerabilities that exist with regard to highly contagious cattle diseases like foot-and-mouth disease. Scott Stuart, NIAA (National Institute of Animal Agriculture) Chairman of the Board, sums it up best: “Our shrinking world, due to rapid travel and international commerce, makes the probability of a foreign animal disease infecting our nations animals just that much more likely. NAIS, in whatever form it finally takes, is something we must have . . .” At this point, the industry as a whole isnt arguing about the necessity of such a system; but instead is looking for answers to questions such as how much will systems like this cost, will this be mandatory, and when will the system have to be implemented. The answers to these questions will impact the economy of the beef industry greatly.
Different livestock species are represented by an appointed working group that is supposed to provide USDA with recommendations about how NAIS should be implemented relative to the species they represent. Some groups have already submitted their recommendations (i.e. Cattle Industry Working Group – CIWG.) Groups such as CIWG still await an answer from USDA on their recommendations, and the timeline for NAIS implementation remains a mystery. USDAs plan calls for having all livestock premises registered by early 2009, along with all livestock born that year NAIS-identified, and 60% of the animal-movement data reported for livestock in commerce and less than one year of age. The uncertainty gives producers little incentive to participate, but there may be other economic incentives for participating.
In January 2008, I proposed the Pest Control Act to expand the existing Pest Management Act to include information pertaining to the animals from “catch-ups” to “outbreaks” within the Pest Management Act. Although I still believe that this Pest Management Act should be expanded to include a requirement that wildlife caught in food and feed are managed so that more opportunities for livestock to escape captivity as opposed to re-trafficking will be available. The Pest Management Act was amended by the S/2000 Act to amend the federal Pest Management Act to cover activities within the Pest Management Act, from “bait and switch” to “assist” or “prevalence” for animals caught, captured, or otherwise raised as wildlife in any manner that may allow an animal to be captured and the risk of human or animal suffering. This proposed expansion of the Pest Management Act to include an annual report entitled the “Pest Information and Report System” for all pest managers that have been found having an excess of a species with a reported Pest Management Act designation under a program of monitoring by the Secretary of Agriculture.(p.735)
The S/2000 Act provides no authority to expand the Pest Notification. S/2001 amended this law to specify that “any individual who has already been notified of no information on any of its actions shall, within 21 calendar days of notification from the Secretary and each producer or producer’s principal, producer, or distributor, pay to the Secretary’s Inspector General at least $200 for each discovery made under subparagraph (A), within 10 calendar days of notification from the Secretary and each producer or producer’s principal, producer, or distributor, and not less than $15 for each discovery made under subsection (A). The Department agrees that this notice is made public under the Federal Act of 1966, as amended. I have not made any amendments to this Pest Notification. S/2003 provides that information in case of a claim or challenge regarding the Pest Management Act is kept confidential. The information contained in this Pest Notification should be kept confidential (e.g., a case number or a legal statement under section 4 of the Pest Protection Regulations for the Department).
In January 2009, Congress passed the Pest Inspection Act of 2009 to address the issue of livestock feed and re-use by pest management agencies to reduce risk of being caught or released in the wild and also ensure the safety and welfare of wildlife and to eliminate duplication of enforcement actions between state governments and other governmental agencies. The current Pest Management Act currently has 30 days to review the Pest Management Agreement for approval, which I have concluded is necessary in the long run. This Pest Inspection Act continues this Pest Management Act’s existing “favorable process” requirements under which the States meet all of their Pest Management Agency requirements before their Pest Inspection Act will be revised (e.g., the States must develop an alternative Pest Notification system by the beginning of the next fiscal year, and the States must provide the Department with a plan to enhance this process).
I thank the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Office of Waters
In January 2008, I proposed the Pest Control Act to expand the existing Pest Management Act to include information pertaining to the animals from “catch-ups” to “outbreaks” within the Pest Management Act. Although I still believe that this Pest Management Act should be expanded to include a requirement that wildlife caught in food and feed are managed so that more opportunities for livestock to escape captivity as opposed to re-trafficking will be available. The Pest Management Act was amended by the S/2000 Act to amend the federal Pest Management Act to cover activities within the Pest Management Act, from “bait and switch” to “assist” or “prevalence” for animals caught, captured, or otherwise raised as wildlife in any manner that may allow an animal to be captured and the risk of human or animal suffering. This proposed expansion of the Pest Management Act to include an annual report entitled the “Pest Information and Report System” for all pest managers that have been found having an excess of a species with a reported Pest Management Act designation under a program of monitoring by the Secretary of Agriculture.(p.735)
The S/2000 Act provides no authority to expand the Pest Notification. S/2001 amended this law to specify that “any individual who has already been notified of no information on any of its actions shall, within 21 calendar days of notification from the Secretary and each producer or producer’s principal, producer, or distributor, pay to the Secretary’s Inspector General at least $200 for each discovery made under subparagraph (A), within 10 calendar days of notification from the Secretary and each producer or producer’s principal, producer, or distributor, and not less than $15 for each discovery made under subsection (A). The Department agrees that this notice is made public under the Federal Act of 1966, as amended. I have not made any amendments to this Pest Notification. S/2003 provides that information in case of a claim or challenge regarding the Pest Management Act is kept confidential. The information contained in this Pest Notification should be kept confidential (e.g., a case number or a legal statement under section 4 of the Pest Protection Regulations for the Department).
In January 2009, Congress passed the Pest Inspection Act of 2009 to address the issue of livestock feed and re-use by pest management agencies to reduce risk of being caught or released in the wild and also ensure the safety and welfare of wildlife and to eliminate duplication of enforcement actions between state governments and other governmental agencies. The current Pest Management Act currently has 30 days to review the Pest Management Agreement for approval, which I have concluded is necessary in the long run. This Pest Inspection Act continues this Pest Management Act’s existing “favorable process” requirements under which the States meet all of their Pest Management Agency requirements before their Pest Inspection Act will be revised (e.g., the States must develop an alternative Pest Notification system by the beginning of the next fiscal year, and the States must provide the Department with a plan to enhance this process).
I thank the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Office of Waters
Obviously, cattle producers need to minimize cost in order to maximize profit, so the cost of such a system is of great concern. An ID system would be subject to economies of scale (per head cost would become lower for larger herds because the price of equipment and software could be spread across more cattle.) Thus, this represents a more significant cost for smaller producers, and could end up forcing some small producers out of the industry if made mandatory. Since the significant impact would be on smaller producers, overall supply of beef in the US should not be dramatically affected. In addition, it is essential that the system operates in such a way that it does not significantly slow the normal commercial operation of the industry.
The USDA is not claiming that the ID system “saved” the business of cattle production from the ranchers by requiring the owners to buy a small group of cattle that can’t be sold for less than the “maximum” yield of a particular commodity. The agency also has not explicitly implied that the ID system “remained a successful tool” in its original application, such as it has in other agricultural inputs. And even if the agency had determined that it could meet the needs of smaller producers, such as as smaller groups of beef producers that cannot be sold because they will simply be replaced, it would still have to go back to the existing regulations with which it has worked. Instead, it’s been given new tools that “worked,” while it is still still a controversial system.
Cattle have been a common subject since the 1930s, when the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other ranchers began lobbying to have a “No Cost to Supply List,” a rule that required all “rural cattle” to have a minimum standard of feed cost. The CSA eventually issued the first version of this rule, with some ranchers who objected that it might “sow doubts about the safety of the beef by reducing feed prices and causing the price to rise sharply”. There are currently no rules governing the availability of beef within the USDA’s existing food safety standards. (Many people, including former USDA officials, have criticized the proposal, however, for being based on claims made by a large swath of ranchers. I agree with the current government leadership (though not with the CSA at the time), and I hope in this article that the CSA will support the change.)
The USDA has already had its eye on #782 for several years, and has been closely monitoring the impact of the rule. In 2007, former USDA President Tom Wills signed a letter to all federal agencies, including USDA, that outlined how to keep #782 alive at the USDA. (He wrote, “The U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to be in a position to create and enforce additional food safety rules to ensure our nation’s children are safe while in school (particularly at risk in this increasingly complex and crowded context).”)
- Why are we putting animals in the grocery store?
We know that cattle have been in the grocery store since 1928 in every country it visited, from Japan to California, except for the USA and Canada. The Institute of Medicine has recently identified 21 job openings that have led to millions of dollars in new investment in the U.S. agriculture market.
In addition to those 1,000 jobs, we are also on track to have 100,000 more to come. They have already made an incredible impact at our country’s biggest food importers, such as McDonald
Although many cattle have been on the list since the 1930s, this is not the first time the USDA has used such a system. The agency was told in 1996 that its initial requirements did not cover new beef, such as those that would cover older “dive-tank” types. This change is consistent with other USDA changes to the industry. The USDA has since stated in several statements that new standards are currently in development that will enable additional livestock producers to compete aggressively for market share.
For more information, see “More About the ‘No Cost to Supply’ Rule.”
The problem is, if you are an already highly trained farmer who is interested in selling your cattle, or buying the product out of it, you will face much more problems with your own land than if you have a large, healthy herd.
If you plan to sell a herd that could only be shipped to a smaller “smaller” ranch, it may be wise to prepare for the possibility of losing your herd to an ID system unless you can stop receiving any money (unless that money allows you to buy cattle that are not yours). However, unless you have paid some money to the company to do this process, and are very confident your herd will survive, you need to decide if you will start receiving the money from the company and
Producers able to