Texas livestock marketers pose questions about animal i.d. plan

By JULIET BRISKIN | Staff writer

June 3, 2004 -- In sale barns and feedlots across Texas, there is no shortage of opinions when the topic of conversation is the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). The plan, which is still considered a 'work in progress' by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), will be implemented in three phases. The first phase, which involves establishing premises identification system, has a July 2004 goal date.

According to the USAIP website, "Phase I involves premises identification; Phase II involves individual or group/lot identification for interstate and intrastate commerce; and Phase III involves retrofitting remaining processing plants and markets and other industry segments with appropriate technology. "

The recommended target dates for the plan's implementation are also listed on the website, with July 2004 the goal for all states to have a premises identification system in place; by July 2005 the goal is to have all cattle, swine, and small ruminants possess individual or group/lot identification for interstate movement; and by July 2006 all animals of the remaining species or industries be in similar compliance.

In an attempt to clarify some of the ambiguities surrounding the plan and ease the concerns of their membership, the Texas Chapter of the Livestock Marketing Association (TXLMA), held a panel discussion on the USAIP during their annual meeting in Waco on May 23.

Panel members included Dr. Bob Hillman, executive director of the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), Dr. Valerie Ragan, assistant deputy administrator of USDA veterinary services, Dr. Ernie Davis of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, and Nancy Robinson, LMA's vice president of government and industry affairs. Adele Uptmore, president of the TXLMA, served as moderator and opened the discussion with a series of questions that shot straight to heart of livestock marketers and producers concerns.

"When this plan is fully operational, will all cattle that go through an auction market have to be electronically identified?" asked Uptmore.

Hillman responded by explaining that when the plan is fully implemented, all animals that enter commerce will be required to be identified.

Robinson added that the exceptions to this requirement will be animals that travel under a group lot number and will not be sold individually.

Uptmore continued by asking if all livestock taken directly to a packer will have to be electronically identified.

"The recommendation that came out of the most recent working group was that all cattle would be required to be identified, even if they went from a farm or ranch directly to a slaughter facility," asserted Hillman.

Robinson elaborated by explaining this has been one of the most controversial issues because "there are some in the cattle industry who would like to be able to move under a group lot number like swine." Also, the difficulties of maintaining two systems, where a packer would have to process and identify animals that came in under a group lot and animals that came in with individual identification numbers, were pointed out.

In addition, there are potential market disparities that could result from allowing some segments of the industry to move under one method while other segments are required to operate under another method, Robinson said.

Hillman continued to answer questions, explaining the plan, as it is currently written, will require animals to be identified prior to leaving any location.

"There are considerations within the plan that approve of agreements between a buyer and seller, where facilities are not available, that the cattle could be moved and recorded to both premises upon arrival at the buyer's location," detailed Hillman. "In addition, all cattle sold under private treaty or through video auction will have to be electronically identified."

The discussion then moved to the highly-volatile issue of confidentiality. Questions from the audience regarding access to producer information, the Freedom of Information Act, and the government's ability to access complete operation or inventory records, and who will be providing the checks and balances for the private companies contracted to store all the data, were cited.

"There may be some inventory information in these data bases, but we are only talking about the animals that leave a premises, not the ones you've got standing in the back 40," said Ragan. "Also, it is important to recognize that producers are not required to contract with a third party provider. It is an option."

In an odd turn of events, one of the other panel members questioned Ragan about who would be storing the information if not a private company.

"Are panel members supposed to ask other panel members questions?" asked Ragan, then answered: "Well, the way this is intended to be set up is there will be a national repository database for premises and animal identification information that will be fed in through the individual states."

Ragan explained that each state will determine how they want to delegate the responsibility for these tasks.

"I see a lot of mass confusion here," interjected Uptmore at one point in the discussion. "You can't take people who have done something the same way for the last 150 years-plus and have this little group do this, another little group do that and so on. There needs to be consistency."

The meeting continued with more pointed questions, but many went unanswered.

"I think it is important to recognize that right now we are all dealing with the fear of the unknown," stated Ragan. "We don't have all the answers right now and it is important for you to recognize that nobody has to do anything right now. We are not starting this out as a mandatory program and we aren't going to force things on you right out of the chute."

Ragan continued by asserting that "we need to not get too worried or distracted about the private treaty and those kinds of things. They go on anyway and they complicate things, but before we get into any type of heavy-handed enforcement, I think we need to try and let the system move into place with those who are ready for it. Let's focus on how to deal with the large operations and get those questions answered. I'm not worried about finding somebody involved in a private treaty."

In an interview following the meeting, Keith Chapman, executive director of the LMA's Texas region, voiced the on-going concerns of the TXLMA's members.

"They (the members) are very worried about the lack of concern of the animal health officials in regards to private treaty transactions," stated Chapman. "Until the USAIP administrators figure out some way to address this issue, they have a huge hole in their program."