A nationwide livestock ID system has been long awaited and much discussed. Some consider it to be marked with dissension when in reality it is marked with our individuality and independence. Many try to apply a foreign model to a U.S. issue and become frustrated that it does not gain speed or acceptance. The problem lies not in cattlemen being uncooperative, but in trying to apply restrictive logic to a highly diverse market-driven industry. The Canadians and Australians approached ID from the simple perspective of protecting their export markets – where they sell the bulk of their beef. To that end, they established ID systems that are integrated into their animal-health systems. That is, they established disease surveillance ID programs to protect their markets.

We in the U.S. have long believed that good, sound science should be the basis for regulation, as well as the basis for acceptance or rejection of foreign trade in meat products, both imports and exports. To that end, we Americans have had the luxury of partitioning our thought and addressing ID separately for disease surveillance and market purposes. So why don’t we do it like they did it? There are a couple of reasons. Not only is our market structured very differently, but the U.S. cattle industry’s relationship with its government is noticeably different from any other place on earth. U.S. beef producers have historically shunned government handouts or interference in our business. At the same time, we have been very proactive and produce the best and safest beef in the world, and have used animal ID and disease surveillance for animal health issues, not marketing tools. Now the landscape is changing and animal ID is becoming part of the ante that we must put in to play in not only the world market, but also in the domestic marketplace.

Outside the U.S., livestock producers seem to be willing to accept government money and the attendant government meddling in their affairs. Both the Canadian and Australian ID programs are “private systems” but are heavily financed by their governments. Both countries recognize the value of beef exports to their economies and are willing to invest heavily to ensure their success.

In the U.S., the difference is that our basic philosophy of a government of, by and for the people demands that those things the people pay for, the people own. Thus, if we have an ID system funded by the government for the public good, the public, through mechanisms like the Freedom of Information Act, can have access to the data. Here we must recognize that protection of the national herd from disease is part of the public good. Such protection is the statutory responsibility of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the respective state animal health authorities. But it also serves producers’ direct interest in protecting our livelihoods.

As animal ID has been debated in recent years, U.S. cattle producers have been torn between the need for disease surveillance, the need for ID for more effective market access, the needs and rights of the public when government makes an investment in society, and the needs and rights of producers as businessmen and private citizens, whom the government exists to serve. To that end, producers and the U.S. government have ironed out a compromise that gives all sides what is needed, and what fits our structure of freedom in this country.

Throughout industry’s discussion of animal ID with USDA officials, APHIS has maintained that the government would not buy ear tags, nor has USDA been willing to invest in infrastructure (readers, retrofitting of facilities, software, training and other critical parts of an ID system). USDA officials were clear that they would fund, build and use the animal database that all of the other components tie into. (It brings to mind the story of the Little Red Hen, who does all the work and makes all the investments while her friends expect to reap the benefits.)

Progressive producers through organizations like NC and NCBA advanced the thought, and won agreement from APHIS through legitimate public comment and well-reasoned argument, that if the animal industry was going to pay most of the costs, industry should hold the database as well.

We industry representatives who conducted those negotiations with APHIS estimated that USDA was going to pick up only about 6 percent of the total ID system cost (assuming universal RFID tag usage) while producers paid the other 94 percent and government got the lion’s share of the benefit. So why not have industry pay for 100 percent and reap 100 percent of the benefits? APHIS planned to use its government database only for disease surveillance, but an industry-run system can be used for more, such as genetic tracking and herd improvement and other management functions – if industry so chooses. (Our estimate assumed around $5 per head for the entire system, including tags, readers, etc., but that the database itself would cost only about 30 cents a head. And that’s the initial, up-front cost. We believe database costs can go down over time.)

Out of this discussion and the policy adopted by grassroots members, the NCBA, with a vast array of help from state associations and beef producers, formed a stand-alone, non-profit entity called the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO). The board of directors of this organization is intended to be multi-species and non-political. The duty of the USAIO is to operate and manage the Animal Movement Database – nothing more, nothing less. Currently the board of directors of the USAIO has members representing the Southeast Livestock Network, the Northwest Pilot Project, the National Bison Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. While NCBA obviously is very interested in USAIO’s success and has a very substantial investment in animal ID, NCBA does not control and will not profit from the USAIO. The chairman is Charles Miller, a stocker producer from Kentucky.

As we look ahead, the debate on animal ID is far from over. However, all of us do need to recognize that ID is here to stay and will be a significant part of our businesses. We producers must begin the process of adoption. I suggest these steps:

            1.         Obtain a premises number through the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, registering either by phone or on-line.

            2.         Consider the use of a data service provider or use of simple software if value-added is in your future.

            3.         Tag your calves as they move into commerce.

Is animal ID a blessing or a curse? Added cost or increased opportunity? Government interference or bold, progressive investment in the future? You choose.    

Allen Bright, an Antioch feeder, is NC past president. Currently NCBA’s Animal ID coordinator, Bright participated in those database negotiations with USDA.