It was the voice of the people in opposition to NAIS and the lack of voluntary participation that dealt it the death blow. It is up to those same people, and hopefully more, to watch out that the new framework does not burden us as NAIS would have.

The USDA published a seven-page FAQ sheet called Questions and Answers: New Animal Disease Traceability Framework. It is worth your time to read. In it, the vision for this new traceablility framework is laid out in their answers to the questions. One strategy remains from NAIS, is that it will still be implemented at the state level.

What is certain is that animal disease traceability will be required for animals moving in interstate commerce. However, each State and Tribal Nation will be able to determine the specific approaches and solutions it wants to use to achieve the minimum animal disease traceability performance measures.

It does seem that the federal program will leave small farmers, who only move animals within their own state, alone. Be watchful, however, of your state government programs.

Animals not moved out of state, as well as small producers who raise animals to feed themselves, their families, and their neighbors, are not a part of the framework’s scope and focus.

Much of what was developed for NAIS will be reused.

The money invested in NAIS will not go to waste. Many elements of the NAIS system can be used in this new animal disease traceability framework, should States and Tribal Nations elect to use them.

I don’t want to be overly cynical, as the discontinuation of NAIS is great news! However, I am suspicious that this is simply a repackaging of the whole program.  Of this, I am extremely wary.

Missouri and South Dakota

Texas

The opposition has been overwhelmingly against a National Animal Identification System. Do you think our government will listen?

For the latest news on NAIS go to the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website.

Answer:  To move to another premises and cause a reportable event.

(And I always thought it was to get to the other side in search of food!)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will hold a series of listening sessions on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

The meetings will take place next month in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington state.

Why are the sessions only being held in seven states?  I don’t know.  There should be a session held in every state, as everyone will be affected by this program.

The full article can be read here.

I vote NO NAIS!

I know that Asther has an unusual talent! But she really brings up a great point. NAIS is not needed. It will not make food safe. Widespread food-caused illnesses really started with industrialized food processing. Small, local farms don’t cause massive outbreaks of illness caused by bacterial contamination. If a small farmer has bad product, he is out of business!

NAIS will also make a lot of money for the companies that sell chips, tags, computer software, and other equipment. It will cost that same amount of money for the farmer or rancher to comply with the program.

I’m with Asther. I vote NO for NAIS too!

Love, Asther

My farm came with a few acres along the creek in a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Along with the CRP came paperwork and lots of it. In fact, I was shocked by the amount of paperwork, information, and signatures required for these few acres.

This takes me back to when we purchased another parcel of land. We went across the road to meet the neighbors. After talking for a while they asked me, “Are you going to get your money?” I replied, “What money?” This older couple went on to explain that I needed to go to the county FSA office, sign the papers, and get my money. They told me it would amount to about $600 a year.

Curious, I looked into it, including reading the paperwork. Do you want to know what I found? In order to get “my money” I would have to agree not to do certain things on my land. For example, I could not raise peanuts or plant nut trees. I didn’t like that restriction, as we have raised peanuts in our garden and had plans to plant some nut trees. No, the money was not worth the restrictions.

The next time I saw our older neighbors they asked if I went down to get my money. (I think they were just trying to teach me the ropes!) I told them no, it had too many restrictions. They didn’t understand and probably thought I was an idealistic dreamer.

Government farm programs are designed to make you do certain things while stopping you from doing certain other things. When you sign the papers, you are under their control and jurisdiction. This is true even for my few acres, at least until the CRP agreement expires. I did look into buying out the CRP contract but that is so expensive, it is like buying the land a second time. Unfortunately, I will have annual papers to sign related to my CRP acres for many years to come.

One last point. If you think these farm program are bad, just wait until NAIS is the law of the land. Now that will be a lot of paperwork! I am wondering if you went into farming to become a paper-pushing, cubicle dweller. Did you?

Why write about this on Free to Farm? This is the kind of farm operation that will suffer the most under NAIS. As the Book family is just starting out and markets their farm products directly to consumers, their farm enterprise is fragile like any other startup business. Increased regulations only serve to raise the bar of entry into business. How do you add the burden of reporting under NAIS to a young family with a new farm? Ethan has to work off the farm to make a go of it now. It is hard to get started, but the Book family seems to be doing well. The people who buy their beef from the Book family know where the beef comes from. Animal ID is not needed! I would also bet that Ethan knows all of his animals well. It’s not hard on a small farm. The government doesn’t need to know what the Book family is doing.

Ethan and Becca: I pray you all of God’s blessing for your family and farm.

Wal-Mart is one of the most technologically advanced retailers in the world. Their distribution system is second to none. Yet, their RFID initiative has all but failed. Recently, Computerworld ran an article called Some Suppliers Gain From Failed Wal-Mart RFID Edict. (The quotes below are from the article.)

RFID is the most likely technology to implement the NAIS program. Also, it is reported that NAIS needs nearly 100% participation for it to be effective. While I don’t believe that NAIS will be effective for the stated goals, even if there is 100% participation, it is hard to imagine that if Wal-Mart can’t accomplish their mandated goal for 60,000 suppliers, how will the USDA accomplish their goal for all the farms and ranches in our nation.

But Wal-Mart’s mandate didn’t work out so well — or even work out at all — for most of its other suppliers. The retail giant says that many of its 600 top suppliers, which account for three-fourths of the company’s sales volume, use RFID technology today to “some degree.” Most of the rest — some 60,000 strong — are not using it at all.

There are some stunning cost figures in the article.

While analysts bicker over exactly how much it costs to implement RFID technology, there’s a general consensus that a small supplier would have to spend between $15,000 and $20,000 just for the tags, readers and middleware needed to get started. Add the cost of planning, training and handling all the new information compiled by RFID systems, and the price keeps escalating.

Such a significant expense, especially for suppliers that may still be struggling to get bar codes in the right places, is a lot to ask to keep just one customer happy — even one the size of Wal-Mart.

There are also penalties.

Simley noted that untagged pallets that arrive at distribution centers after deadlines will be tagged by Wal-Mart employees. The suppliers will be charged a $2 fee per missing tag, which could quickly become a major expense.

While retail stores and distribution centers are challenging environments for equipment, that is nothing compared to a farm. Also, large companies can afford technology specialists to keep all of this working. Do you need to hire another service for your farm to operate? Yes, the expenses and hassle will be overwhelming.

It is also important to note that Wal-Mart is first implementing at the pallet level. This is where they are having all the problems. NAIS wants to implement at the individual animal level, with some exceptions for larger producers. If Wal-Mart and their suppliers can’t do it at the pallet level, how can livestock producers do it at the individual animal level?

Keep resisting this in every way you can. You can’t afford it and it may just be impossible to comply with anyway.

]]> http://freetofarm.org/2008/05/02/if-wal-mart-cant-do-it/feed/ 0 http://freetofarm.org/2008/01/14/what-we-are-up-against/ http://freetofarm.org/2008/01/14/what-we-are-up-against/#comments Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:24:42 +0000 Mike http://freetofarm.org/?p=39 It is no secret that corporations or bureaucracies can outlive the will or strength of an individual person. Why do I bring this up? I do this because the National Animal Identification is being pushed on farmers and ranchers by corporate businesses and a huge government bureaucracy, the USDA. Believe me; they do not have your best interests in mind.

I read an email last week from Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance that the USDA Plans to Use Breed Registries to Implement NAIS. I encourage you to read this article and take action if you are a member of any breed registry. There is no inherent requirement for breed registries to use a national animal identification. Once again, this is an unnecessary expense and record-keeping burden for farmers, rancher, and breeders.

People do have a voice when they all act in unison. If it is only a few vocal individuals, then corporations and bureaucracies take no notice, labeling these folks as radicals and fundamentalists. However, when multitudes of people refuse to participate in NAIS, then there is little that corporations or the government can do about it. If the majority of people who use breed registries withhold their cooperation, stop sending any money, or form competing registries, then their voice is heard!

Stand up for your freedoms! Act together and act decisively. Your words as a customer will make a difference, especially when the money dries up for there is one thing that corporations and bureaucracies need to survive. It is your money.

]]> http://freetofarm.org/2008/01/14/what-we-are-up-against/feed/ 0 http://freetofarm.org/2007/11/04/feeling-like-cattle/ http://freetofarm.org/2007/11/04/feeling-like-cattle/#comments Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:23:40 +0000 Mike http://freetofarm.org/?p=36 Have you ever been to a conference or meeting where you were herded around like cattle? Now you really can experience NAIS for yourself! Computerworld published a story, IBM Uses RFID to track conference attendees, that describes IBM’s public trial of this technology. One interesting quote:

Of the 6,500 people here, approximately 2% didn’t want a name tag with an RFID chip in it, said Mary Ann Alberry, IBM’s conference manager.

Granted, this conference is for technology professionals who are quick to adopt new technical trends. It still surprised me that only 2% declined the RFID tag. It shows that people are not aware of the issues surrounding RFID tags and the information tracking these tags make possible. Also, from the article:

The RFID system, coupled with what the conference knows about the person wearing the name badge, is providing lots of raw data, and Alberry said the company hasn’t figured out all the ways it may use it.

I did not see any use of data, from the article, that could not have been accomplished by using another method to measure. The primary function of the RFID tags is to collect ubiquitous data so that it can be analyzed. Is that really necessary?

Now let’s look at NAIS. One of the main selling points of NAIS, we are told, is that it will help to eliminate disease in our national livestock herd. This sounds good on the surface, but is it dealing with the root cause of disease? I would say that it is not. Dealing with the root cause is the only way to eliminate a problem. This is about data collection for future, unspecified, uses.

My final question. Will farmers opt out at a rate greater than 2%?

]]> http://freetofarm.org/2007/11/04/feeling-like-cattle/feed/ 0