September, 2009

...now browsing by month

 

NAIS totally useless for source Verification

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

September 29, 2009U_1730_m

by Darol Dickinson

When a critter is over 30 months of age the USDA has made a rule that the processing procedure can not saw the carcass down the middle. Slaughter must do two cuts on each side of the spinal column and not compromise the meat with the possible material from the spinal column. Supposedly if there is a contaminated BSE carcass it could affect the meat. These animals only get BSE after 30 months of age. On a fed steer we lose the T bone cut because the bone is lost in the cut.

That is the reason for source verification, to prove the animal is under 30 months.

NAIS proposed data is retained by USDA and not available for source verification unless the animal’s owner has a separate system of keeping records that they have access to.

Therefore: NAIS is useless for source verification.

Source verification is a small carrot that the declining beef industry uses to point to a flake of hope at the end of the tunnel. If everyone had source verification then there would be no premium for those who do. If cattle are over 30 months of age it is not an issue because the quasi premium of a few bucks wouldn’t be possible anyway.

Currently age verification is determined by USDA meat kill floor inspectors [mouthing] cattle. An inspector trained to visually evaluate can tell within one to 4 months a animal’s age by tooth development.

I process about 80 steers for our retail beef sales each year that are 26 to 32 months. I found some inspectors were guessing my 26 month steers at 30+ months and this loss of the T bones was costing me about $30 per carcass. I called the USDA people and cried foul play. He said; ”Tell me the age and that will be fine.”

All my steers are age number branded and we have a computer print out on every steer. Our cattle are numbered with the only method proven to be a permanent ID since before King David — fire branding.

  • I send them a computer print out showing the
  • birth date,
  • pedigree records,
  • vaccination records and,
  • rate of gain.

We have about 20 items on our computer records of each steer that no one holds in a secret vault outside the USA.

The USDA inspector respects our proven honesty and I can send him a steer 29 months and 29 days with my computer records and he regards him as under, 30 months. This is not hard, just another USDA red tape issue.

Our total record system is for genetic improvement. It is vast and cheap and far more economical than NAIS, and the tags won’t fall off!

People who are amateur and who don’t raise cattle, fight to keep from knowing the truth. One individual called Senator Blanche Lincoln’s office this week and her staff says: “She only supports voluntary NAIS”, but the reason that she voted for NAIS funding is because: “Several producers enjoy receiving the value-added from the NAIS program.”

Just for the record, there is no NAIS document concerning value-added.

These people who think this system of NAIS and Premises ID is going to benefit them, can high center on theory and die on their own sword of stupidity.

Wyoming withdraws from NAIS

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Livestock Board returns $140,000.00 in federal funds

Cheyenne — Wyoming Livestock Board members, meeting in Cheyenne Aug. 21, voted to abandon their agreement to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in implementing its National Animal Identification System (NAIS). According to agency director Jim Schwartz, the agreement amounted to $140,000 in grant money. Schwartz says the decision by the board resulted in the agency’s lost ability to utilize those funds in developing what some had hoped would be a state-level program. “I had signed the contract,” says Schwartz, “but hadn’t spent anything.” It’s now a matter of sending the money back. Asked if other states are taking similar measures, he says most see this year’s disbursement as the last they’ll be offered and aren’t refusing the funds. Congress, citing expenditures surpassing adequate progress, is amidst debates on the future of NAIS funding. If funding continues, it will likely be at a much-reduced rate. Many believe the whole animal ID issue is dead. Gillette rancher and veterinarian Eric Barlow brought the resolution to reject the NAIS agreement. “After reviewing the work document which outlined what we would do with the money,” says Barlow, “it did not appear to me to be building on a national program or being used to establish or fortify any program the WLSB has implemented.” Barlow says that some members expressed hope the funds could be used in advancing the agency’s computerization efforts. “Maybe we could have, if that’s what we would have asked for,” says Barlow. “Either someone didn’t ask for that or USDA rejected it.” Barlow says the way he read the plan of work the money would have been used to register premises, educate producers on NAIS and hire staff for a six-month period for the purpose of doing those things. Brent Larson of Laramie and Liz Philp of Shoshoni, sheep producer representatives on the board, were the two dissenting votes to the resolution. Larson says while he doesn’t support NAIS, he did see the opportunity to use the dollars to advance Wyoming’s programs. He wanted the agency to seek amendments to its agreement with the USDA on how the dollars would have been spent. “I thought we could make it work for us,” says; Larson. “Why not rework the plan and use the; $140,000 to build something that would work for Wyoming?” Something that would be worthwhile? Without the $140,000 grant the Wyoming NAIS Director’s employment would possibly not be funded. Appreciating the need to preserve the market-ability of Wyoming livestock, Barlow says he suggested that staff form a working group, including; industry representatives, to look at existing programs and how they can serve as the underpinning of a Wyoming-based program. Larson, given the $800,000 in budget cuts the agency took earlier this year, isn’t sure where the money for a state-level program will come from. It would have been good to keep the USDA grant if it had true value to help Wyoming livestock producers. The board voted to give it all back due to too many negative strings attached. Quotes provided by Jennifer Womack, managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.com.

Note: WYOMING REFUSES TO BE BOUGHT! Congratulations to Wyoming!! NAIS has provided generous funding for USDA offices in every state with minimal oversight in regard to premises enrollment. States joining Wyoming have received the following “grant” funds not including 2009 funding: Colorado $4,896,995; Idaho $4,242,645; Kansas $3,882,270; Montana $2,110,256; Nebraska $3,749,005; South Dakota $3,155,907. Although Wyoming has repented of their latest “grant,” funds, their hands are not totally clean. During 2002 to 2008 they have deposited from USDA a total of $2,054,538. Pledging to enroll producers in the NAIS program, the Wyoming effort was costing $1,119 per premise sign up. However, if Wyoming did a good job, USDA projected future funding would allow them to harvest another $7,151,717 additional. Wyoming is to be honored by their own livestock producers and other states for setting the example of refusing NAIS demands. The strings attached by USDA appeared to be hanging nooses to ranchers in Wyoming, and many others agree.

Super Human Radio: Stoping HR 2749 the Fake Food Safety Bill.

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

As you may know the US government is trying to pass a law, HR2749, which is about imposing totalitarian control on the food supply (such as mandating GMO-food) and restricting anything natural or healthy, such as access to supplements or even any natural food.  Our health and very lives and the lives of our children depend on this being stopped. This is not an exaggeration. Our food supply will be placed in the hands of large factory farms and conglomerates like Monsanto who’s only objective is profits.

This is nothing short of a full out assault on independent and family owned agricultural producers to end competition to corporate producers. Within the verbiage is language that would once and for all codify Codex Alimentarius into U.S. law. This will restrict access to all supplements currently available over-the-counter. In Europe, CODEX has restricted the availability of such OTC products as Glucosamine and Selenium and now people are required to obtain a prescription to obtain these supplements. In fact, Vitamin C will no longer be available in anything larger than a 60 Mg tablet under CODEX!!
If you would like to take an in-depth look at what HR2749 will do to our food supply while handing it over to companies like Monsanto, read this entry in the Food Freedom Newsletter “Why HR2749 Is No Good For Us“.
Every American needs to know about this, and how they can help create real change. Email your friends, family, coworkers… everyone. Tell them their ’s and the health and lives of  their children are at stake.
I have established a simple and effective way to let your opinion be known. Emails and snail mail don’t work because emails can be deleted and snail mail is shredded. BUT a fax must be read, cataloged, filed and saved FOR YEARS! I have set up a way for you to fax your State Representative or Senator in sixty seconds or less. Everything you need is on one page. You can locate your Representative and his or her fax number. I have had political activist Marti Oakley write a form letter so you can simply copy it and add your personal information. AND YOU CAN FAX THE MESSAGE RIGHT FROM MY SITE FOR FREE!
Please take action NOW. Take one minute out of your day and go to http://www.superhumanradio.com/core/2749.htm and send a fax to your State Representatives and Senators telling them that you do not want HR2749 to be voted in as Law. And copy and paste this email and pass it to everyone you know. We must act now before our God given rights to healthy natural food and supplements are sold to the large corporate monsters who put their profits far above our health and longevity.
Live Stronger, Live Longer,.
Carl Lanore
Super Human Radio
Follow Me On Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/triceptor

Super Human Radio, 2528 Glen Eagle Dr, Louisville, KY 40222, USA

NAIS ~~~~ a COCKSURE CONJECTURE

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

NAIS ~~~~ a COCKSURE CONJECTURE

By Darol Dickinson
9-9-09


Scripts for NAIS state Directors have been prepared with Delphi anti-groupthink interogation techniques. Neil Hammershmidtz & John Weimer, at USDA ahve perfected these deceptive and contridictory Fire Sale methods to barter NAIS.

Scripts for NAIS state directors have been prepared with Delphi anti-groupthink interrogation techniques. Neil Hammerschmidtz - facilitator; Larry Miller - change agent; Jeri Dick and John Weimer at USDA have perfected these deceptive, contradictory and extreme methods to high pressure sell the flawed thought of NAIS.

President Eisenhower said, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.” Born in Abilene, Kansas, an area known for corn and wheat production, was the authoritative background of this presidential quote. Oh, for a quote today with accuracy and experience to back it up! Quotes by elected leaders today contain larger words, eloquence and surety, yet completely lacking integrity.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS), proposed by profit motive industries, the World Trade Organization and fund-hungry USDA branches are riddled with pabulum substance quotes. Different from the factual Eisenhower, but similar in that quotes are coming from high up leadership with degrees as long as a wagon tongue; today’s honesty is sickly void. As highly paid government employees make poorly thought-out quotes, their numbers often reflect the serious need of a $3 Chinese calculator.

A Time To Be Serious

With up to 2000 U.S. ranchers going belly up per month, grandiose quotes of great profit from beef exports quickly perk the ear of hard working livestock people. Even though they seldom check the numbers, USDA leaders can tease a rancher off a cliff with a grandiose profit theory.

In a recent Beef Magazine article called “Put up or shut up” the author quoted, “If we do nothing and we lose market access……the losses would amount to $18.25/head if we do not adopt NAIS and we lose 25% of export market share.”

Only Listen to Exact Data

What is market share? Last year, 2008, the USA exported beef, live and processed, a total value of $2,876,906,000. The same year the USA imported beef, live and processed, paying exactly $4,764,392,000. In simple terms, this means the US doesn’t produce enough beef to feed the nation and nearly two billion dollars worth of beef must be imported. Annually this data changes very little.

If export sales are reduced there will not be a need to import as much product. If export sales are increased there will be a need to import that much more to feed the nation. Therefore, all the scuttlebutt about increasing exports to help ranchers be more profitable is no more than Botox verbiage.

The $18.25/head loss without NAIS on all 97,000,000 U.S. cattle equals $1,770,250.000. Wow, that causes most of the whole export income to go away. Perhaps the $18.25 figure was slightly exaggerated – like a 93% exaggeration! Today, not a single country requires animal tracing to purchase USA beef.

The King of Exaggerations

NCBA president and NAIS advocate, Gary Voogt says, “We’re working hard to open trade with Japan, which could add $50 per head to your bottom line.” That means Japan beef sales alone would be worth $4,850,000,000. Where would this beef product come from? Perhaps it could be imported to the USA and resold to Japan? Please, some kind soul, give Mr. Voogt a calculator!

Why are these inflated false export numbers pumped to cattle producers by college professors, USDA employees and NCBA? Perhaps as a last ditch effort, NAIS could be packaged to livestock producers pretending it will increase export sales.

The USA Can Not Feed the USA

The US continues annually to under-produce beef for the domestic market. In 2008 it under-produced by 294,000 metric tones, the equivalent of about 648 million pounds of beef.

Doing the Bird Spin

According to the American Bird Conservancy, “..scientist estimate that nationwide, cats kill hundreds of millions of song birds, and small mammals, such as rabbits, squirrels, and chipmunks each year.” In their “hate the neighbor’s cat” efforts, they carefully failed to mention reliable estimates of over 18 billion field mice, known to be major disease carriers, also eliminated by serious roaming cats. This is the same type of twisted conjecture data used by USDA and quasi college professors to encourage unqualified decisions on NAIS.

NAIS Is A Non USA Concept

This leads us to the fact that USDA’s radical NAIS concept did not originate on U.S. soil and was not predicated on a need to improve the United States’ ability to control the spread of animal diseases. It was not a rapid solution plan sparked by the highly publicized case of BSE. Instead, the impetus for NAIS was the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) goal, formulated in 1995, of facilitating international trade through the liberalization of international trade rules. BSE was an opportune excuse for NAIS 10 years after USDA’s Neil Hammerschmidtz laid out the first plans for mandatory animal ID enforcement.

The explication that export buyers are clamoring for “farm to fork” traceability of U.S. beef may be a quote with the same cocksure conjecture as song birds and field mice. If two Japanese consumers say something, perhaps that could qualify it as a “clamor.”

Dr. Ted Schroeder NCAI conference Aug. 26 said, “…if all beef export markets were to be closed to the U.S. industry, it would cost producers $9.1 million for the first day and $3.3 billion in one year.”

Another USDA cocksure exaggeration is that an outbreak of Foot & Mouth would sweep across Kansas over night and destroy the whole beef business. If that is a valid possibility, why doesn’t USDA encourage livestock producers to use Foot & Mouth vaccine? F & M is a disease of the skin, it is not fatal, and doesn’t contaminate the meat for human consumption. Why will it kill the cattle industry over night?

Official Wolf, Wolf, Wolf

USDA Listening Session NAIS Directors in every state have told livestock producers that an outbreak of anthrax would devastate the USA cattle business. What about the 7 counties in Texas that have anthrax regularly and have found that an eighty-cent vaccination provides protection? Commerce from those counties is not adversely affected by anthrax. Why falsely overstate these invented pandemics that historic pharmaceutical companies have already dealt with years ago – and solved?

W. Ron DeHaven, AVMA CEO reveals his out of touch swivel chair knowledge saying, “if the United States is to remain competitive or grow export markets, an effective NAIS will be required.” Unfortunately, cocksure DeHaven, in his Congressional report, does not know that the USA is a net import nation and has not produced enough beef to feed the nation for several dozen years. No export expansion is needed. Wake up Dr.DeHaven, you are still living in 1940!

USDA’s animal health safeguarding systems have largely stayed ahead of evolving risks and have been highly effective in preventing the introduction of serious animal diseases such as F & M into the United States. This is according to Dr. John Clifford, USDA/APHIS.

CEO Calls His Own Association Outdated

Dr. W. Ron Dehaven is Executive VP, CEO of the American Veterinary Medical Assn., established in 1863. He states, “AVMA is the largest veterinary medical association in the world.” DeHaven stated before congress March 11, 2009 that “….the current outdated system which often relies on outdated paper trail systems…” is not adequate today in the case of an animal disease outbreak. Yet in total contradiction, DeHaven says these veterinarians are “highly trained professionals.” It can’t be both!

What staff is available in case of a major disease? Currently there are 100,728 USDA licensed veterinarians. The U.S. Government has 930 Federal Veterinarians, most employed by APHIS, plus Homeland Security has 23 staff veterinarians. Still USDA employees say they are not prepared for a disease problem. They demand a new NAIS tag in every critter, and the owners must pay the total cost of monitoring, application and enforcement.

In the USA, today, every licensed practicing food animal veterinarian is a validated, accredited USDA veterinarian. All are trained in disease identification. Each veterinarian can quarantine a whole state at a moments notice, from the field. These veterinarians report the diseases and contain them, not people behind desks like DeHaven and Clifford who, most often, are the last to know. No country has the trained veterinarians like the USA anywhere in the world, and that is why there is less disease in the US, and less need for NAIS.

Major Diseases Eliminated With Pioneer Staff

When Texas had rampant F & M during the twenties, how did they eliminate it with less than 3% of the current budget and less than 5% of the current number of federal veterinarian staff? How did they do it with no cell phones, fax machines, modern vaccines, jet travel, and most communication was done by train or horse and buggy. How did they eliminate screw worms and scabies during the same period and hammered anthrax down to an easily controlled disease by developing a valid vaccine?

How did Mexico eliminate F & M with less budget and staff than the USDA? Their staff often traveled by burro.

Dr. Clifford and DeHaven, when you testify to Congress that you have a professional staff, but you aren’t technically astute enough to control a future disease outbreak; you demand to have every livestock owner help you NAIS number every animal!

Your NAIS conjecture is cocksure. You should resign!

You are doing a pitiful job, and honesty is not your calling!

Ding Dong NAIS IS (not) Dead! How “Market Forces” Will Bring Local Producers Into Full Compliance

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Re-posted from The Complete Patient

DateTuesday, September 1, 2009 at 11:31PM

I’ve been reading reports that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is in trouble. Its funding from Congress has been cut. The listening sessions around the country sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture were nearly unanimous in opposition. Is there truth to such conjecture?

Doreen Hannes, a Missouri farmer, has been an outspoken critic of NAIS for several years. She attended an agriculture conference last weekend that provided hints about the future of the program that envisions RFID tags being attached to each of hundreds of millions of farm animals across the country. The report makes for fascinating reading. Unfortunately, it isn’t encouraging.

by Doreen Hannes

How will the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) finally come to fruition?

I gleaned some answers to that tantalizing question this past weekend, when I had the dubious pleasure of speaking at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture ID Expo (the NGO pusher of NAIS) in Kansas City, Missouri, as the small producers representative on a panel, “Opportunities for Animal Identification.”

Having been to two other NIAA ID Expos, the most glaring change was the attendance being way down. As a staunch opponent of NAIS and one who has been working full time to stop it for years now, I found this a very pleasing sign.

I was allowed to speak on the condition that I not speak about NAIS. With the help of the question-and-answer segment of the panel discussion, I was able to say nearly all I wanted about NAIS based on my being a representative of small producers engaged in direct sales. I differentiated the philosophies and operations of small growers from those of industrialized ag, and drew the distinction between agribusiness and agriculture, explaining that we are not interested in the corporate agribusiness model.

What I gleaned from this panel, and other information coming from the NIAA ID Expo, is that NAIS may look dead, but really isn’t. As in any good horror movie, the monster has super-psycho strength and, just when it seems to be defeated, it rises up and attacks again.

Remember, NAIS began as the National Food Animal Identification Plan, then became the United States Animal Identification Plan, and finally the National Animal Identification System. It will not continue to be called NAIS, but instead dubbed ‘animal identification’, as part of ‘food safety’, ‘social responsibility’ and ‘farm to fork’ initiatives.

The hammers for enforcement will be big ones and constrain small producers’ ability to market and sell their products– attached to indemnity payments, subsidies, conservation programs and access to movement certificates, or health papers.

In other words, “market forces” will force compliance on those who wish to stay out of this onerous system. There will still be ‘premises id’, but it may be changed to ‘unique location identifier.’ There will still be electronic and group ID consisting of 15-character numbers, but it won’t be to ‘NAIS’ standards, (ahem), and there will still be tracking, but it will be referenced as the ‘historical pedigree’ or some similar nonsense. It won’t be called NAIS anymore, but it will be NAIS by a different name. Be prepared for a chorus from the disinformationalists proclaiming the death of the dreaded NAIS. A little twist on what Mark Twain said is appropriate, “Rumors of NAIS’ death have been greatly exaggerated”.

Those who wish to keep NAIS at bay must realize that all of the food safety bills in Congress, and particularly HR 2749, which passed the House by an overwhelming margin, will codify ‘international standards’ under obligations to ‘international agreements’, and that means NAIS for everything. It will do nothing to improve food safety and everything to put the kabosh on the fastest growing segment of agriculture, the local food movement. We must assail the Senate and the House with the message that real food safety lies in decentralized, unconsolidated and diverse food production and distribution.

As I told the attendees of the NIAA ID Expo, “There are two kinds of people, those who want to be left alone and those who won’t leave them alone. Small producers and their customers definitely want to be left alone.”