Producer Applications Committee


During the BIF Producer Applications Committee meeting, a panel of speakers shared perceptions of a national animal ID system. Pictured, left to right, are NCBA Animal ID Commission Chair Allen Bright, Antioch, Neb.; University of Georgia Extension Educator Ronnie Silcox; cattle feeder John Haverhals, Hudson, S.D.; and cow-calf producer Marshall Edleman, Willow Lake, S.D.
Topics addressed during Wednesday afternoon’s Producer Applications Committee discussion included perspectives on a national animal identification system, featuring input from various cattle industry segments. Also discussed were popular producer misconceptions regarding tools for seedstock selection.

Opening the discussion of animal identification (ID) was Allen Bright, president of the Nebraska Cattlemen and chairman of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Animal Identification Commission. Bright said industry recommendations for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) have been submitted for consideration by the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) of USDA. He stressed that the goal of the proposed national program is disease surveillance.


South Dakota cattle feeder John Haverhals says marketing advantages may be achieved through source and process verification facilitated by individual animal ID.
“Many people view a national ID system as a way to create traceability for other purposes, but our focus is disease surveillance. The goal is traceability to the source of a disease outbreak, such as BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) or foot-and-mouth disease, within 48 hours,” Bright explained.

The recommended plan calls for assignment of premises ID numbers to cattle operations, followed by individual animal ID numbers allowing tracking of animals through movement to different premises and changes of ownership. NAIS recommendations call for use of radio frequency identification (RFID) ear tags. Initiated on a voluntary basis, the system would be phased in, moving toward required industry-wide participation.

South Dakota cow-calf producer Marshall Edleman said secondary benefits of a national system could include opportunities to add value to cattle through source, age and process verification of individually identified animals.


Eastern South Dakota rancher Marshall Edleman said some auction market operators are organizing special sales featuring feeder cattle tagged with electronic ID devices. They are approaching individual animal ID as an opportunity rather than a challenge, he added.
John Haverhals, a South Dakota cattle feeder, agreed that verification of animal origin, age and production history can be valuable tools for serving certain beef markets. In the near future, he added, such information may be demanded by buyers. Haverhals also cited the need for protection of producers’ proprietary data not linked to the disease surveillance program.

Ronnie Silcox, University of Georgia Extension Educator, said his colleagues hear many animal ID-related questions from producers across the country. Many are wondering who will have ownership of data, and who will or will not have access to it. Perhaps the most common question concerns who will pay for implementation of the system.

While APHIS must have access to information related to disease surveillance, Bright said confidentiality and security of producer information must be maintained by keeping database control in the hands of private industry rather than government. With regard to the cost of a national program, he said there is little doubt that producers will foot the bill.


Geneticist Bob Weaber urged commercial producers to avoid all substitutes and rely on EPDs for seedstock selection. He called EPDs the most quantitative selection tool available.
Discussing tips for seedstock selection, geneticist Bob Weaber said expected progeny difference (EPD) values definitely are the most quantitative selection tools. Recently associated with Cornell University and soon to join the staff of the University of Missouri (MU), Weaber warned producers to abandon popular myths related to genetic selection.

According to Weaber, DNA marker tests are not viable substitutes for EPDs. Nor should actual ultrasound records be used instead of interim EPDs utilizing adjusted ultrasound information. And in spite of the carcass data hype, commercial producers should not apply selection pressure for end-product traits at the cost of more economically important traits such as reproduction and performance.

“Make sure cattle work at the cow-calf level first,” Weaber advised.

– by Troy Smith