September 12, 2007
Member Visits Sister Organization in Australia;
Describes Aussie Animal ID Program as 'Orwellian'
Note to Media: R-CALF USA National Membership Committee Co-Chair Joel Gill spent the last week in August 'Down Under' visiting members of our sister organization, the Australian Beef Association. His report is below. Gill also serves as the R-CALF USA Checkoff Committee Chair and is a cattle buyer based in Mississippi. To schedule an interview with Gill, or obtain a photo or bio of Gill, contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson.
Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia – "G'Day," was the greeting on everyone's lips as I met each of the directors of R-CALF USA's sister organization, the Australian Beef Association (ABA), at its meeting before the annual convention, held here on Aug. 28. The ABA was formed in 1997 to represent independent cattle producers across Australia in their fight to be heard by Parliament/Congress in their struggles against the forces of powerful abattoirs/packers, the Meat and Livestock Australia/CBB, and the cattle council/NCBA.
These men and women face the same struggles as R-CALF USA members do. They have stood strong with their one underpaid employee, Secretary Sally Black, as she worked to assist the unpaid board of 14 and the other willing volunteers to bring their membership to a little over 1,000. (With only 20 million people occupying a nation the size of the United States, ABA's 1,000 members is about the same as R-CALF USA's 15,000 in a nation of 300 million citizens.)
It was uncanny how our two sagas meshed so well. While each of our groups seem to face issues at home, it became glaringly clear that it was actually rampant free trade agreements and the international corporations' desires for the lowest-cost products that are our mutual foes.
One of the areas of concern these producers have is the unworkable nature of Australia's National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), which became mandatory three years ago.
While not as comprehensive as our NAIS because NLIS covers only cattle, it was obvious that Australia's NLIS is a nightmarish system of Orwellian proportions. Besides the information put forward in the presentations during ABA's convention, discussions with individual ABA members brought home the message that the traceback system there is greatly flawed. Everyone had a story of varying tag retention rates in their animals – or beasts, as they call them. The few ABA members who stood up to the system by refusing to use the tags at first, told their tales of heavy fines levied and jail time threatened for non-compliance.
One of the ABA directors, Dr. Lee McNichol, a veterinarian, related how he had refused to use the tags and was fined $1,000 ($850 US), then spent another $20,000 appealing his conviction only to lose in the end. He showed me sheet after sheet attributing individual cattle to his pic (premises number) that he did not own. The database had it wrong. When McNichol questioned the compliance officer about this situation and pointed out the error, he was told that it was an administrative matter and could be quickly corrected as soon as the particular animals were moved or sold and thus re-scanned. At that time, the administrator would know where the animals were actually located and a correction could occur.
So much for accurate disease traceback.
Others told how the actual tag retention rate was around 70 percent to 82 percent – not anywhere close to the nearly 100 percent suggested by early data from U.S. animal identification projects as reported by USDA to U.S. producers about the effectiveness of the Australian system. Some of this excessive loss is due to poor application procedures of producers, but most is due to the net-type of fencing widely utilized by producers, which will snag and pull out the tags as the calves rub their heads in it. Far from receiving any kind of premium for participation, if tag replacement is needed, a new orange RFID tag will be inserted in the animal's ear. All cattle with these orange ear tags receive a discount at sale because they no longer qualify as having "guaranteed lifetime traceability". (The original tags are white.) These producers' experiences should give each of us in R-CALF USA a boost to help us continue to energize our fight against NAIS.
Now that Australia is three years into the program, the truth is coming out. While there, the Australian agriculture ministers said several times that this system was crucial for "Assuring our trading partners of age and source verification."
What happened to health traceback?
During my one-week stay, a true health crisis did arise. Equine influenza was discovered, which brought all movement of horses nationwide to a complete halt, much as would happen in the U.S. if a case of foot-and-mouth disease were detected in cattle. Horse racing, the third largest industry in Australia, was delayed nationwide, but ultimately reopened everywhere except the states of Queensland and New South Wales, which are still counting the costs of the suspension in the tens of millions of dollars, not only to the racing industry, but to the smaller supporting industries as well. The culprits turned out to be two horses imported from Japan that were improperly inspected. Outside imports ruined an economically important national industry.
Can anyone say Canadian BSE?
