Animal ID proposal has left some local ranchers seeing red

[The Straight Story]

Animal ID proposal has left some local ranchers seeing red

Cuba, Missouri

Areas farmers and ranchers are angrier than ever about the proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS) draft plan—and telling all about it to anyone who will listen. Rex Bell was so upset he erected a large sign on his Interstate 44 property to get the message out.

Bell, a cattle rancher who lives just west of Cuba, placed a new sign recently, asking people to “Say No to NAIS.” The cattleman is part of an ongoing effort to stop the animal ID proposal coming out of Washington, DC.

NAIS is the USDA draft plan that would help the government track all livestock births, deaths, co-mingling and movements inside the United States. Currently, horses, cattle, goats, poultry, sheep, swine, alpacas, llamas, bison, deer, elk are covered. The proposal calls for a required seven-digit premise ID number and 15-digit animal ID number for each animal. Lawmakers have touted it as a way to open up the foreign meat market for larger exporting dollars. The USDA also says that it would be a way to help prevent mad cow and other animal diseases.

Recently, a meeting was held at the Interstate Regional Stockyard in Cuba regarding the NAIS issue. Farmers and ranchers from all over the region gathered to argue the pros and cons of the issue and to voice their own concerns. Since then, those opposing the mandatory requirements have sent letters to lawmakers and tried to campaign against the issue. Many feel the practice is wrong and a way to push out small farmers and leave only a few big farms in the nation.

http://www.cubafreepress.com/headlinetwo.html

[don954]

1. my grandfather was a small rancher with a few thousand head of

cattle. He had log books of every bull and cow he raised from birth to death or harvest, recorded all diseases, which bull sired which calf, to whom he sold his livestock to, etc. He tagged every single one with an ear tag and kept paper log books. That was 20 years ago, surely RFID and computers have made the job alot easier, and since these records are important to keep anyways just to see how your livestock preforms, it is not too large of a burden.

[blonndee]

4. I would imagine that it's cost that's going to hurt small ranchers

in terms of registration and the actual manpower it would take to implement the system and keep up with all of its requirements. Although, as your example shows, there is a good deal of effort already w/respect to keeping track. I wonder how expensive it will be for the ranchers. That seems to be a concern, as do the penalties for making a mistake, which big corporations could afford but smaller ranchers maybe not so much. The article goes on to say

"Chandler and Bell both think the proposed law should not be legal. They feel that the annual premise ID registration fees, livestock registration fees and costs for incorrect reports will be too high for small farmers, and run them out of the farming business."

[sandnsea]

50. Tagged ears

Isn't that what the tagged ears are for? Or did they only replace the brand? Most ranchers I've seen use the ear tags, so I don't know that it would be that much more to mark them with an individual number. Or do they not do ear tags in the midwest and east??

[Ptah]

2. How could this cost more than $4 per head?

Edit: what's the problem?

[The Straight Story]

5. More info and FAQ's at main NAIS page:

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/newsroom/factsheets/nais_qa_factsheet.shtml

[blonndee]

7. Interesting.

If I were a small rancher, my first click on the "FAQ" would have to do with cost. And here's what I'd get:

Q. How Much Will the Program Cost?
A. It is difficult to quantify the cost of a fully operational system since all of the needed components have not yet been fully defined. During fiscal year (FY) 2004, USDA has invested $18.8 million into the NAIS, and the President's FY 2005 Budget requests an additional $33 million.


Q. Who Will Pay for the Identification System?
A. The size and scope of this undertaking demand that it be a cooperative effort. Because it is being developed as an industry-government partnership, it is expected that industry and the government will share the cost of the necessary elements.

[Ptah]

9. Add the inssertion of a small ID chip to the routine vaccination.

$4 per head.

What's the problem?


Edit for spelling.

[blonndee]

11. Read #8 for my thoughts on this.

[readmoreoften]

54. Many of these people are against chipping in general.

And they are against the promotion of the government tracking things with chips. So I'm sure many are against it on principle. I would not like my property to be monitored by the government either.

[napi21]

6. I doubt it would cost even that much!

No rancher, large or small, lets a calf be born alone! The risk it too big! They've been branding cattle for eons!

This who gripe is just more compalining because the rancheers don't want any control at all!

I would thing, if they really wanted to expand their business, they'd want to eliminate the possiblilty of any illness with any of their herd, and thus be able to sell them anywhere, including Europe and Canada.

[blonndee]

8. "This who gripe is just more compalining because the rancheers don't want

any control at all!"

I'm not COMPLETELY sure what you're saying here, but I think I get it, mostly. And that's not true. Yes, they resent unnecessary intrusion, but it's not as simple as you make it sound. There ARE legitimate reasons for their objections.

Second, not ALL ranchers want to "expand their business." Many of them are happy doing what they're doing and just want to be able to scratch out a living where they're at instead of hiring a bunch of people and making a big corporation out of their living. They just want to keep where they're at, which is NOT that much of a profit for small ranchers. Not at all; in fact, many take a loss many years. It's pretty unpredictable if you don't have the giant numbers and have small herds that are subject to all sorts of problems and most of all, poor cattle prices in the U.S. Just like what small wheat (and other commodity) farmers face.

I can see the larger benefits to such a program; but I can also see how it could cause BIG problems for smaller ranchers. Even if it WERE "just" $4 a head, with a herd of say 500 or 1000, that makes a BIG difference when the market is so bad for a small business person. Not to mention the potential problems that paperwork snafus and mistakes could bring about.

[Ptah]

12. It's just one more step in the vaccination process.

:shrug:

[blonndee]

14. Well, I hope you're right.

Maybe it wouldn't be a big to-do; still, even though the "$4/head" thing seems small to you, the cost bothers me. I know firsthand how little the profit margin is on cattle and how every sack of feed, every vaccination and veterinarian expense makes a difference. And that's going to impact the smaller guy more than the bigger guy, just like everything else. Maybe in the end, it'll be a good thing. The way the country is going, though, in terms of benefitting big corporations, I'm afraid to be too optimistic about it.

[Ptah]

13. After re-reading your post, I'm left wondering what your basis for

this might be:
"There ARE legitimate reasons for their objections."

[blonndee]

15. I thought I outlined them in my post?

What was it that wasn't clear?

[Ptah]

16. How will adding a small implant chip affect these examples you asserted?

"Many of them are happy doing what they're doing and just want to
be able to scratch out a living where they're at instead of hiring a bunch
of people and making a big corporation out of their living."

"They just want to keep where they're at, which is
NOT that much of a profit for small ranchers"


"It's pretty unpredictable if you don't have the giant numbers and have
small herds that are subject to all sorts of problems and most of all,
poor cattle prices in the U.S. Just like what small wheat (and other commodity) farmers face."

[blonndee]

18. Um, because of the cost associated with it

and the potential fines they would face for making a mistake. As I explained in my other posts, these "small" costs make a bigger impact on smaller businesses than larger ones.

What's so hard to understand about that? I don't understand what problem you're having with what I said.

[Ptah]

21. Add one injection at vaccination time, no big deal.

Whether you're dealing with four or four hundred,
it's a small thing.

What's your problem with knowing where our food comes from?

[blonndee]

24. I SAID I can see the benefits of it

I'm concerned about the impact on smaller ranchers, as I have said time and time again, so stop with the ad hominem on me. I DID NOT say I'm entirely opposed to the fucking program!

[Ptah]

25. The impact on the small rancher

is not a big deal.

Maybe two more minutes per animal per year.

[blonndee]

26. Bullshit. We're not talking about HASSLE

we're talking about COST. Period.

[Ptah]

27. Since we're talking about cost, what is the cost, per cow? n/t

[blonndee]

30. YOU say it's $4 per head, so apparently

you know a lot about it, right? More than the NSIS web site provides, which I linked to in post #7:

Q. How Much Will the Program Cost?
A. It is difficult to quantify the cost of a fully operational system since all of the needed components have not yet been fully defined. During fiscal year (FY) 2004, USDA has invested $18.8 million into the NAIS, and the President's FY 2005 Budget requests an additional $33 million.


Q. Who Will Pay for the Identification System?
A. The size and scope of this undertaking demand that it be a cooperative effort. Because it is being developed as an industry-government partnership, it is expected that industry and the government will share the cost of the necessary elements.

[Ptah]

31. Your link doesn't state cost per head. n/t

[blonndee]

33. Where's your link?

Edited to add: I KNOW that "my link" doesn't have "cost per head" and THAT's what concerns me. The agency doesn't have enough information for the layperson like me or anyone else. I was basing our discussion on YOUR claim of $4/head.

[Ptah]

34. I have no link.

I do know adding one step to vaccination day,
one more line to the vet bill,
would be a tiny fraction of the cost of a beef.

[Ptah]

35. P.S.

Where in your link does it suggest cost per head?

[blonndee]

36. I fucking SAID it DOESN'T FUCKING HAVE A COST PER HEAD

and YOU are the one who came up with that. I already FUCKING SAID that the lack of forthrightness re: this is what is bothering me.

What the fuck is your problem?

[Ptah]

38. You are saying this would impose an unreasonable burden.

I disagree.

Can you show a cost more than $4/head?

[blonndee]

39. I say that $4/head WOULD be an unreasonable burden,

or at least that it could potentially be. And as I said, I'm basing this cost on what YOU proposed it would be.

[Ptah]

40. So, you would accept that $4/ haed

might be a reasonable estimate.

[blonndee]

41. I have no idea how much it would cost.

You're the one who seems to know.

[Ptah]

43. If you have no idea what it would cost, what's your outrage based on?

[blonndee]

45. My "outrage" is not based on the program.

Any outrage is based on your treatment of me, which is unwarranted. I posted some concerns about the cost to small ranchers and was hoping to have a reasonable discussion. YOU are the one who started poking and instigating. What's your interest in this? Why are YOU so unconcerned about the potential harm to small ranchers?

[Ptah]

48. Please stop taking it so personal.

I disagree with you.
I don't see it as an unreasonable burden on a rancher.
I can't see any harm to a small ranch.
I'm sorry I caused your distress.

[Ptah]

42. Could potentially be.

But you have no data or experience to support that.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ptah]

49. The chips cost about $2 each,

Two minutes to add it to the vaccination routine.
Just WAG {Wild Ass Guess}

[The Straight Story]

53. More data on costs:

Larger livestock operations will be able to tag whole groups of animals with one ID device. Smaller ranchers and farmers, however, will be forced to tag each individual animal, at a cost of anywhere from $3 to $20 per head. And NAIS applies to anyone with a single horse, pig, chicken, or goat in the backyard—no exceptions. NAIS applies to children in 4-H or FFA. Once NAIS becomes mandatory, any failure to report and tag an animal subjects the owner to $1,000 per day fines.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst052906.htm


Cost is another hold-up. No one knows what producers will pay per premise, per group of animals (as in the case of poultry) or per animal if and when national ID is in place. So far, USDA has spent $33 million in 2004 and 2005 to set the stage for NAIS; its ID budget for 2006 is another $33 million.

But that’s chickenfeed compared to what a fully implemented program might cost. At $2 per head for cattle, hogs, horses, goats, bison, and sheep, national ID would cost - what? - something north of $300 million to get started and untold millions per year to maintain?

http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2006/04/14/ag_news/columnists/alan.txt

[The Straight Story]

51. Up to $70/head perhaps as suggested here:

For a small herd of just 20, the costs come to $70 annually per head. Additionally, the program is time consuming, which is another form of cost. ...

more:

First is cost. Kevin Dhuyvetter of Kansas State University prepared a spreadsheet to estimate electronic ID costs. His figures vary depending on what source one references, but a Texas source shows the cost of the program for a 62-head herd of cattle as high as $24.10 per year per head. For a small herd of just 20, the costs come to $70 annually per head.

Additionally, the program is time consuming, which is another form of cost. Independent livestock auctions and small livestock producers have concerns that they will be not be able to afford computer reading and data dispersing equipment, therefore placing their business investments in either noncompliance violation or force them to terminate.

USDA does not give any estimated costs. However, they do say the costs will have to be shared by private owners and producers and the government. Costs would include tags or microchips and methods to implant or tag. So far $60 million has been issued to states and tribes to implement their plans.

Second, there is the issue of safety. Some veterinarians say that microchips can migrate, and cause infections and sarcoids. The doctors who claim these things say they would not put them in their own horses. Owners who use a holistic approach or religious consideration to raising animals fear they will lose control of the management of their animals’ health.

http://www.wallowacountychieftain.info/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubSectionID=6&ArticleID=9754&TM=19778.85

[Ptah]

52. I'm surprised at the $70/head.

Perhaps I need to rethink my position.

[The Straight Story]

56. It may be cheaper (see my other post) but (and the Amish?)

in the end I think a fair balance may be that farmers/livestockers who have less than X animals should have this paid for by govt funds (funded mandate). At the very least it should be a write off.

500 head of cattle at $4/pop would be 2k additional expense.

And then there are the Amish :) Not sure how that little issue is going to be addressed.

The govt always seems to underestimate the cost of things, and those costs will be passed on to someone. The ones who face the most suffering would be the small operations. If we can protect them I think it might go off ok, otherwise we are going to be harming a lot of folks who are squeaking by.

To put this in perspective - suppose a new law comes out where you have to spend $2000 more to meet it this year, and make sure you keep everything operating under the new laws - so you end up having to spend that much more each year (new cows are born, etc and so on). There would be a lot of people unable to meet that financial impact (that's what, roughly a dollar an hour in a 40 hour week they would have to make more just to keep up the status quo).

[Ptah]

57. To put this in perspective

- suppose a new law comes out where you have to spend $2000
.

Suppose a new law says you have to spend $2/head.

[The Straight Story]

58. Ah, but I was scaling it

$2/head for kids is nothing. $2/head for cattle, with the avg rancher having hundreds of them, chickens, etc, is a lot. And that is above the costs they already incur for feed, transporting, etc.

So if we transposed to kids, avg family having 2 vs 500 for cattle, that would be $500/head.

[Ptah]

60. If I have to inject one more into each cow

What the big deal.

An addition to vaccination day, two minutes per head.

How does this hurt any outfit???????????????????????

[The Straight Story]

62. not the time, the amount of money

and hey, I have been drinking so my math is 'fuzzy' (a little math joke for the late night folks)

[The Straight Story]

64. And yet even more info here:

The USDA is not projecting the cost to livestock owners for NAIS compliance. The required equipment for the owner of one or more animals, for the first ear-tag number of the first critter will be well over $1,000, with added annual update costs. Each time an animal goes to a show, sale, or transfers ownership, a computer entry is required. The average steer is owned by eight different people during a less-than-30-month life. The consumer is the eighth owner after the cow-calf, backgrounder, trader, feeder, etc. Under USDA rules for the NAIS program that would require seven computer entries, not counting lost tags and labor of scanners. If this sounds like a nightmare that we don't need, read the federal plan where they explain how important this NAIS is. Even their "spin" on the process still scares people to death.

While the USDA is spending another $33,000,000 selling NAIS, anti-NAISgroups are being formed in every state. Check with Google and pull up "NAIS OPPOSITION." It will show over 100,000 places where animal owners don't want anything to do with NAIS.

http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20060602/jasonpage.shtml

[Ptah]

61. Look, an additional step on vaccination day is not a big deal.

and you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd:


P.S. Your math isn't worthy of second grade.

[treestar]

74. there's still an overall burden here that is equal on every rancher

in terms of dollars and so more burdensome on the smaller rancher as that equal cost.

For example you have the state bar charging every lawyer something like $400 per year, no matter the size or their office or how much money they make. So to the big firm it is "nothing" but to someone starting out it is the equivalent of a month office rent.

This is why government interference in the economy must be minimized. All it does is make the lowest rung of the ladder out of reach of many people. It is to prevent new start ups from competiting with the big guys, meant to entrench their position.

And you can bet it is only the huge ranchers who have time to "meet" with government officials to talk about the best way to do this.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

66. My answer - and more:

Not $2k per head - I was saying if we transposed this to kids the avg would work out to the avg family paying 2k more (ranchers have maybe 500 cows at 4/piece, families have an avg 2 kids/marriage). Let's just wash all that away for a moment though and look at it this way - if someone told you you had to pay a couple K more to do what you are doing now (ie, adding to the cost) do you think that would help or harm the avg person?

.....

A nationally recognized agricultural economist from Utah State University did an analysis of the proposed fee structure for the ID program and found it to be much higher than had been anticipated by the developers. Rather than the anticipated fee of $2 to $3, the cost will actually be $25 to $60 per head per year depending on the size of the cowherd.

Participants learned they would be charged each time they accessed the database. With the required documenting and reporting, fees could realistically be hundreds of dollars per animal. What further angered producers was that each time movement occurred to and from their farms and ranches either intentionally or by accident (animals getting out) documentation and reporting must occur within 24 hours.

The opposition mounts. As more people became aware of the regulations, the angrier some got. Groups were formed to better understand the full meaning of the program and how it would impact their ability to make a profit and remain sustainable. The closer the draft and strategic plan was scrutinized, the more worrisome the talk became. Soon, groups formed to fight NAIS.

It became increasingly clear that this program would not only financially devastate the small producers of livestock, it would also impact the surrounding communities and cultures that exist there.

http://www.bullshop.com/blog/

[jmowreader]

55. That $4/head number only counts the tags, correct?

RFID doesn't count for much without...

* at least one RFID reader--which are expensive
* a computer to hook it to--which are expensive
* software to manage data in the way the government likes it managed--that's expensive too
* some sort of an Internet connection. Knowing the government, you'll need your connection running all the time you're reading animals. Hence, you'll need to run a phone line to the barn and you'll have to put a computer out there--IN ADDITION to the one in the house. DSL doesn't work too good in farm country--it's too spread out for DSL's distance requirements--so the farmer will need to install another telephone line. Right now he's probably got three--one for his home line, one for his office phone and one for his fax machine.
* some training so you know how to use the system
* an employee to run the computer when tags are being read off the animals.

Amortize that across all the animals in your herd. At 5000 head this gear gets cheap as hell. A five-head herd is a different story.

Okay, farm-country DUers, here's a business opportunity for you--and I'm telling you about it now so you'll be ready. Farmers who own small herds cannot afford to own the necessary equipment to deal with RFID tags in their herds. This is where you come in. Agricultural services firms have a long history of service, providing expensive equipment to farmers who don't want to park it 355 days out of the year. Downthread is a post with two photos of combines in it. No one actually OWNS a combine. They cost a quarter of a million dollars and you run them ten days a year. It's more logical to hire John's Custom Combining to harvest your wheat. Companies who do RFID reading will spring up. Why can't DUers own these companies? We're all computer-literate.

[Ptah]

59. I'm stunned.

* at least one RFID reader--which are expensive
Tens of thousans each.

* a computer to hook it to--which are expensive
No modern rancher would have that expensive gadgit.

* software to manage data in the way the government likes it managed--that's expensive too
Those clever software dudes are so much smarter than the rancher.

* some sort of an Internet connection.
OMG, a connection to the internets

Will it ever stop.

* some training so you know how to use the system
Actually have a non-brain-dead someone.

[jmowreader]

76. Your sarcasm belittles you

Let's throw out a couple of numbers:

The reader: I found a "hobbyist" RFID reader that's just the reader module, on a card, on a website for $100. Hobbyist grade stuff ain't gonna cut it in this application, so let's say that a high-quality handheld RFID reader in a case that will survive water immersion, being dropped, cows stepping on it, ammonia fumes and the like, costs $500.

You can pick up a cheap computer at Wal-Mart for $500. The computer we need has to be able to survive bad power, leaky roofs and ammonia fumes, so our especially-rugged computer will cost $1000.

Software? This is a low-volume product so, unlike Office, it won't get cheaper as time goes by. Let's throw out a number and say $499.

Internet service costs $20 per month; let's say a phone line in the barn for the computer costs $30 per month. That's $600 per year.

We're running a 100-head family farm. Farmers tend to be parents, so let's have mom and dad up Frank's allowance from $10 per week to $15 because he runs the computer now. Personnel costs: $260 per year.

Let's ditch training expenses because Frank joined the RFID Club at the local 4-H and they taught him to use the equipment. (In August, Frank entered his RFID project in the county fair and won the blue ribbon with its $25 prize. We'll let Frank keep that.)

Right now we're up to $2859 not counting any fees the government may impose. Let's be generous in this "government as a business" age and say between the federal and the state, fees are $1000. We'll add on a few more incidental expenses and run this up to $4000.

Next we get tags. All cattle in the United States are ear-tagged, so in the ear tag is the logical place to put the RFID tag. I think you're all going under the assumption that they'll microchip farm animals like they do pets. but I don't think it will be that way--they'll put the RFID tag in the ear tag because it will be quicker to find the tag to scan it, and because they won't have to pay the vet to implant it. If an RFID-enabled ear tag is $2.50, a 100-head herd will cost $250 per year to tag.

Total first-year expenses: $42.50 per head in a 100-head herd. Someone who keeps 10 head for his boutique cheese business will pay $402.50 per head.

That's first-year expenses. Second-year is obviously the $1000 government fees, plus tags, plus internet service...$18.50 per head-year for our 100-head farmer, $162.50 for the 10-head cheese guy.

Farmers don't have $4000 sitting around collecting dust, so assume all this is going to be financed. Add in interest charges.

Five years from now the government will change the data format and everyone will have to upgrade the software at $250 per seat.

It's more than just the tags, okay? This will be too expensive for the small farmer.

[treestar]

71. the government's involvement

the expense to an individual is part of doing business to his own advantage, but having to report it all to the government raises the cost of it - the paperwork, the harassment from government agents - and undoubtedly a "fee" to be paid to the government for its trouble.

[Mabus]

3. Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah, Revelations. I guess it was a mistranslation. It should have read "number of the beasts."

But seriously, it does sound like it will hit small ranchers with a lot of paperwork and cost them some money. Is this some concession to big business to run small ranchers out of business? This isn't good news for RW'ers in the red states that voted for the GOP.

[Ptah]

10. It's no big deal.

Maybe $4/head.

What's the big deal?

[Mabus]

17. How often do you fill out government paperwork?

I use some of the federal websites quite a bit and a lot of them aren't very user friendly. If the government is going to institute something like this then they will require the filing of standardized forms. Some government websites provide forms in pdf format that the user can fill out and submit on-line. Sometimes the forms get updated and their replacements in editable formats take forever to get posted. Also, the government has been re-working some of their websites so even if you bookmark one of the pages the bookmarks don't last for very long. For example the USPTO website has undergone some changes (again!) and I spent a good part of one day trying to find where they had moved one of the pages I needed.

And $4 a head cuts into profits especially when you aren't running much cattle as your primary business. Some farmers in south-central Kansas supplement their incomes by raising a few cows and keeping one or two for themselves (lots of deep freezers in farm country).

[Ptah]

19. It's just one more notation on the vet bill.

What's the big deal?

If $4 per head is going to put you in the hole,
then you're in the wrong business.

[blonndee]

20. If you think that $4 a head is "not a big deal"

as you keep saying, then you have no idea what small ranching and farming is all about. Not everyone is out to get rich. Many people love what they do and are happy to make enough to just get by. How is that being "in the wrong business"? I think it's refreshing that not everyone takes a "make as much profit as conceivably possible" approach to business, but I guess we differ on that point.

[Ptah]

23. I have a good idea what it takes to raise cattle.

Adding one injection to vaccination day is

no. big. deal.

[napi21]

28. I still don't think it would be 4.00 a head, but, if one of YOUR cows

hits the market, and if found to have mad cow, you're cost is going to be a whole lot higher than $4.00!

As I understand it, all they're trying to do is track allo the cattle from birth to slaughter and distribution.

It doesn't even dost me $3.00 to have my dog chipped, and you're telling me it's going to cost a rancher more for his entire herd?

[Ptah]

29. Perhaps I over-estimated the cost per animal.

It might be less than $2/head.

[blonndee]

32. Doesn't mad cow disease primarily originate

within large "processing plants" of animals where the animals were fed rendered organs of diseased animals? It's not spread from cow to cow, as far as I know, so I would think that free-range cattle and cattle who are fed proper feed (if necessary) wouldn't be a risk. Perhaps it's the feed industry that needs to be more heavily regulated, then?

[Mabus]

37. and that doesn't answer my question

how often do you do fill out federal and/or state compliance forms?


More questions: Once the information is entered into government databases how safe is it? A hacker got into the FBI files and got personal information on everyone up to and including the director. A computer containing VA data was stolen from a home. Why is this important? The government is asking where all the animals are so they can issue unique premise numbers for each area in which animals of a particular species are raised. Part of their justification is as protection against terrorism (fear of terrorists infecting our food supply). Well, if the FBI isn't able to guard against hackers what assurances do those who register both their properties and their individual animals have that their information will be safe? What if it falls into the wrong hands and some bad guy has the location and knows exactly how many animals there are at any given time so he can go infect them.

[treestar]

73. Because just one more "little thing" has been the argument for

50 years and now there are 50,000 little things.

It is all designed to make it impossible for a new business to start up.

[treestar]

72. exactly and they will require it to be on computer so that to be

a rancher you will have to have a computer.

It's already happening in the courts and it increases the burden tremendously. The time spent dealing with computerization is tremendous. And it does not ease any paperwork burden. This is the government, not a business, and it will require the same paperwork on top of the computerization. The government never handles its own clerical work; it imposes it on the person being regulated.

[Mabus]

78. and they will probably be dealing with multiple entities

At the very least they will be having to submit data to their state and the feds. This increases the size of government - which increases the cost again. According to one source I read the costs will probably be publiclly supported. Frankly, I'd rather have that money going into PBS, education and a host of other programs rather than being funneled into another program aimed (imho) to drive out the small businesses. Talk about a domino effect. The farmer who raises a few head for the family may find he can no longer do so. This cuts down on the business for local/small businesses that process the meat for the farmer. He goes under and takes his employees with him. There will be a ripple effect on small businesses.

[Tsiyu]

80. Exactly, Mabus

At least four of us own chickens on my road alone. Two own horses; three own goats. It's the little guys like us who keep the feed stores going.

The larger producers usually just grow the birds for someone else. Now, my hay man has a very clean, neat poultry operation for a well-known co. and practices good animal husbandry, but his feed is all supplied by that well-known-co.

Smaller feed stores and country vets would go out of business. A lot of poor folks, who keep a couple of hens for the eggs, would be hungrier.

The folks behind this chipping movement intend to make it apply to every single farm animal in this country. Can you imagine some old lady trying to come up with $1000 a day because she didn't know she had to chip her two hens?

Give me a freakin' break!

[Tsiyu]

22. Mad Cow is here already.

Stop eating beef if you really want to avoid the disease.


I'm amazed at how casually some of my fellow Americans view this intrusion on farmers' privacy and budget.

"$4 a head is all!"

Well, last year I had over 100 chickens. I would have had to spend $4 a head on a chick that cost me $1.75? Huh?

$400 may not seem much to you, but my budget could not take it. I would be forced to give up raising these animals. Gee, just what the corporate farmers want. Thanks, those of you who want to give it to them! But the people who like my eggs - who are sick of the tasteless store-bought eggs - don't thank you one bit.


Also, I fill out a survey for the Ag Dept that asks me about all the animals I own so why can't they use this database?

Hey! I know! Let's chip all of your children instead! That will help us track AIDS! Or all of your dogs and cats to control rabies!

Personally,
I don't want any strange people around my animals. THAT'S how diseases are spread.


On edit: Don't want to piss off reputable beef growers, and there are those who feed correctly and regularly test. Give these farmers your business!

[OwnedByFerrets]

44. Speaking as a complete outsider

it seems on the surface as just another way for Big Brother to keep tabs on every facet of our lives. If that makes me paranoid, so be it.

[Mabus]

47. Yes but look on the bright side

when the industry gets nationalized they'll already have most of the inventory accounted for.

[Tsiyu]

67. Yep

I'm just so happy, la-di-da after encountering a man at the feed store Friday who encouraged me to sell my hens' eggs, and just today contemplating putting together new pens and runs with the big rolls of poultry wire I purchased this spring, and checking out hatch dates for some of the chicks I'll need.

Sorry Buddy. You want to buy tasty, healthy eggs. But the Big Farmer doesn't want it. I guess I should give up now before the regulations kill me financially. You know what a good egg is. But most of America thinks the bland, rubbery eggs they are used to are the best they can do.

Underachievers.

But just wait til they want to tag all of YOUR guns (to help solve crimes!), YOUR pets (you'll never lose your doggie or parakeet!) , YOUR vehicles (it will cost you a lot more if your car is stolen!) and everything else in your life that isn't nailed down.

Just wait until the Genetically modified Goons want every gardener to submit a plant list and soil sample at $15 a pop.

Just bend the hell over, America. Become a concrete fucking pad and eat your government issued kibble....

[OwnedByFerrets]

68. What "HE" said n/t

[Tsiyu]

69. Well, we'll have a lot of game chickens for sure

Every farmer who can't afford the tags will just set his or her chickens free.

There's a country song about that, somewhere...

[Mabus]

70. We start with "Bib Brother" instead of "Big Brother"?

Since there are some farmers who wear bib overalls.

And like I said before, another concern is privacy. Who will have access to that information? How safe is the information once it entered into government computers? Not to mention that I'd hate to be the person entering all that data during calving season or after a trip to the market.

The 4-H organization should start a separate unit just to help educate those up & coming farmers/ranchers. Part of the scoring at 4-H events in the future might be how accurate and timely your government filings are. Might as well start teaching the kids early that they need to obey Big Brother or be shut-out from markets.

[U4ikLefty]

65. With a hand-held tracker, cow-tipping just became a breeze

just add a bottle of Jack.

[OregonBlue]

75. This is the same government that has forbidden ranching coops testing

every one of their cows for mad cow so they can increase their exports to places like Japan. The government is claiming it will hurt other ranchers by implying that the other ranchers beef is not completely safe.

I think that chips for all large animals makes sense. If we have to pay slightly more to assure that diseases can be tracked, it is probably worth it.

[Tsiyu]

77. If farmers wanted to beat this system, it would be easy to do

The true issue is cost. The small farmer should be exempt from this regulation.

[OregonBlue]

79. If it really is prohibitive, then the government should require testing

at the slaughter house of all animals.

I live in a ranching area and I know how hard ranchers/farmers work. I'm not for imposing more regulation or expense on them. I just think that the government needs to do something to assure safe food. If the ranchers can't handle the expense, the the Feds should. That is what we pay taxes for. For the general welfare.