 |
 |
The
federal National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is promoted as pro-health,
but actually threatens healthy farming practices.
Under the National Animal ID plan, every farm animal would
have to be registered—every single chicken, cow and goat in the United
States.
If you’ve visited your local feed dealer or veterinarian
recently, or read any of the dozens of livestock or poultry magazines targeted
at small farmers, you probably already know what “NAIS” stands for.
The National Animal Identification System is arguably the most hated federal
program in rural America. The plan, released in draft form in April 2005 by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
proposed sweeping changes in the way animals are managed on small farms and
homesteads. It called for registration of livestock “premises” and
individual animals in national databases, and for tracking animal movements.
The draft
called for all places where even a single livestock animal is held (farm, back
yard, veterinarian office, fairground and slaughterhouse) to be given a unique
seven-digit number and registered in a national database, along with its Global
Positioning System coordinates and the name, phone number and address of the
owner. It further proposed that every livestock animal (including cows, horses,
llamas, pigs, sheep, goats, ducks, geese, turkeys and chickens) be individually
registered and tagged with a 15-digit number — preferably via a Radio
Frequency Identification Device (RFID), often called a chip. An exception would
be made for animals raised as a group for their entire life cycle and never
separated (such as birds or hogs in confinement settings), which could be
assigned a group or lot number. Last, the draft proposed that the movements of
any animal leaving the home place would have to be reported to the national
database within 48 hours.
The 2005
draft plan stated that the program would be mandatory, phased in over several
years. In November 2006, however, the USDA proclaimed that the program would be
“voluntary at the federal level.” This reversal came after an
unprecedented outpouring of opposition from farmers and livestock owners across
the country. Many opponents think the change is a tactical move in favor of
more subtle methods to make everyone comply.
Horse
owners were upset at the thought of having to report every trail ride. Backyard
poultry raisers wondered where in a baby chick is the best place to implant an
ID chip. Small farmers worried about how they could afford the chips, monitors,
software and reporting systems necessary to comply.
The
USDA’s stated goal of their animal ID system is “to be able to
identify all animals and premises that have had contact with a foreign or
domestic animal disease of concern within 48 hours after discovery.” Yet
the program is silent on how that information would be used to prevent or
control disease outbreaks. In previous animal health programs that have
required animal identification — such as brucellosis vaccination for
cattle or culling for scrapie eradication among sheep — the program was
targeted to a specific species of animal and a particular disease. The animal
identification was needed and specifically tailored to indicate which cattle
had been vaccinated or which sheep had been scrapie-free and for how long.
The
animal ID program, however, is a one-size-fits-all program targeting many
species of animals. It’s difficult to see how it can be useful against
any specific disease. Among poultry, avian influenza is the most obvious
disease threat. Yet it spreads so rapidly in confinement chicken facilities
that an entire building — hundreds of thousands of birds — can be infected
quickly, and it requires a much shorter response time than 48 hours. In the
case of a disease with a long incubation period, such as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (aka mad cow disease), animal tracking may identify cows that
shared the same location years ago. But control of the disease requires culling
affected animals, and the only way to determine if an animal is affected is a
lab test of brain tissue after death. It would be far easier and cheaper to
simply test every cow upon slaughter, before releasing the beef into the food
supply.
Mandatory
livestock ID would do nothing to help control food-borne diseases. Cases of E.
coli contamination, for instance, are associated with poor sanitation at
processing plants, after the animal is dead and its identification is moot.
If the
program does not serve the goals of disease prevention or control, then why is
the USDA proposing it? To answer that, critics have looked to where the program
originated, and whom it benefits.
According
to the draft plan, in 2002 the National
Institute of Animal Agriculture (NIAA) initiated meetings that led to
the development of the ID plan. The NIAA, it turns out, is a private
organization whose membership reads like a who’s who of
agribusiness: Cargill, Monsanto, the National Livestock Producers
Association, the National Pork Producers Council,
the National Renderers Association, and
veterinary medicine companies such as Pfizer and Schering Plough.
Manufacturers
of animal ID and tracking systems, such as Cattle-Traq and Digital
Angel, also are members. Their interests in such a program are pretty
clear. No one knows exactly how many animals would be affected by mandatory
animal ID, but starting with the nation’s 63 million hogs, 97 million
cows, 300 million laying hens and 9 billion chickens for meat, the market is
vast.
Other
members of NIAA are meat producers, and their interest in the ID plan is harder
to discern — until you understand their dependence on factory farming and
exports.
Factory
farming. These producers are not farmers in any
normal sense. They are large corporations that raise, kill and process animals
on a massive scale. The term “factory farm” has sometimes been
applied to their operations, but more descriptive is the USDA’s jargon,
“concentrated animal feeding operation,” or CAFO. These are huge
facilities where animals are penned or caged by the thousands. Poultry andhogs
are raised entirely indoors. Beef cattle are confined in feedlots. Feed grown
elsewhere is brought in and distributed to the animals mechanically; manure is
scraped or pumped out and stored in large lagoons or discharged into waterways.
Systems are automatic and computer controlled; animals are identified by
individual or by lot; everything is monitored. Thus to factory farm owners, the
animal ID requirements are not an additional burden — these costs are
already a part of doing business.
Meat
exporting. These producers sell much of their
product into export markets. Before the 2003 case of mad cow in the United
States, Japan imported more than 400,000 tons of U.S. beef annually. This was
high-value beef, too, priced 33 percent per pound higher than beef exported to
other nations. After the mad cow discovery, Japan shut down imports of U.S.
beef for two years. Since 2003, because of this disease concern, U.S. beef
producers have lost more than $5 billion in sales to the Japanese. The big
corporations that dominate U.S. meat production have a vital interest in the
perception in export markets that our meat is disease-free. A program such as
the animal ID plan makes the United States appear serious about preventing
disease, whatever the reality.
So, if
the federal animal ID program is designed in a way that imposes few new costs
on factory farms and bolsters their export market by giving the perception of
safety to foreign meat buyers, how does the program sit with small farmers and
backyard animal raisers? Very badly, as it turns out, for several reasons.
It’s
too expensive. Whereas factory farms can take
advantage of group or lot registration, and already are monitoring and tracking
animals, the federal program would impose serious new costs for most small
livestock operations. The USDA’s draft plan avoided estimating the costs
to producers of implementing the system. But some back-of-the-envelope
calculations, based largely on existing devices for cattle identification, give
us an idea of the potential costs. ID chips sell for between $1.50 and $3 each,
based on quantity. A simple machine to read the tags could cost as little as
$100 to $200, while more sophisticated ones with computers and software attached
could range from $500 to $2,000. Reporting animal movements would probably be
done on the Internet, and would involve costs for Internet access, subscription
fees to access the database, and time to do the work. One study suggests these
might collectively cost $900 to $1,000 per year. So for a small farm with a
herd of 50 cattle, the cost might be $1,500.
One
difficulty with these costs for small farmers is that so much of the expense is
fixed. Whether you have one cow or 20, you will still need a reader, Internet
access and database subscription. Even if you do the monitoring and reporting
yourself, this can easily cost $500. The situation is even worse for someone
raising smaller, less valuable livestock. Amortized over a few goats or a flock
of laying hens, $500 can easily exceed the value of the animals.
It’s
too intrusive. Some small farmers object to the
intrusiveness of the ID program, feeling they should be free to raise animals
much as their ancestors did, unimpeded by government. Others feel it infringes
on their constitutional or property rights. Still others have religious beliefs
that prevent their using electricity, computers, telephones or other aspects of
modern technology that would be needed to implement the program.
It
endangers outdoor production. Another concern,
especially among organic and sustainable growers, is that by imposing costly
new burdens on the small operator, the USDA program favors large confinement
operations and threatens outdoor and pasture-based production. Under organic
regulations, animals must be raised with access to the outdoors. Many customers
also prefer the quality of free-range meat and like to support farmers who use
that practice. But in the mistaken belief that avian flu is transmitted by
migratory birds (it is well established now that it travels with commercial
shipments of birds and manure along rail and truck routes), some localities
have now clamped down on outdoor poultry raising. It has been prohibited in
Quebec, Germany, Nigeria, Slovenia and Hong Kong. The Massachusetts Commissioner of
Agriculture, writing in support of the program, said he envisioned a time
when outdoor raising of poultry would not be tolerated.
Some
analysts think large confinement animal production works to the detriment of
environmental and human health.
It’s
bad for the environment. In 1997, U.S. livestock and
poultry produced 1.1 billion tons of manure — six times the amount
generated by the human population. This manure could be a valuable fertilizer
if produced in small, manageable quantities on small farms throughout the
country. But when produced in concentrated amounts in factory farms, it cannot
be safely applied to local fields and results in contamination of waterways and
groundwater. Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other gases given off by decomposing
manure cause respiratory problems in animals and humans, and can travel for miles.
It’s
bad for medical care. Because of the crowded and
stressful conditions in which confined animals are raised, they are routinely
fed antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease. In the United States, 70
percent of all antibiotics are usedas feed additives for livestock. This
practice, however, leads to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
When these bacteria spread to humans, the antibiotics are ineffective in
medical treatment. Both the American Medical
Association and the World Health Organization have
called for an end to routine feeding of antibiotics.
It
promotes virulent diseases. Large-scale confinement
poultry operations have recently been associated with outbreaks of the highly
pathogenic H5N1 strain of avian flu. Bird flu has been endemic to poultry for
centuries, but only in the past 10 years has the H5 strain mutated into this
particular variant that is highly fatal to humans. The ability of a virus to
mutate into such a deadly strain is greatly enhanced by the conditions in
factory farms.
In a
backyard flock of birds, two things tend to prevent such a mutation. First,
genetic diversity among the birds increases the chance that some birds will
have an immune response that will eliminate the virus. Second, the more
pathogenic a virus, the less likely it is to replicate. To reproduce, a virus
must take over the cellular machinery of its host, insert its own DNA
instructions, and make the hijacked cells churn out copies of the virus and
expel them to infect other hosts via such responses as coughing, sneezing and
diarrhea. A virus that kills its host cannot trigger these responses and cannot
easily spread. Thus the two tendencies — of hosts to develop resistance
and of diseases to sicken but not kill — serve to moderate disease
attacks in a natural setting.
But giant
poultry houses are not natural settings. There, the birds are usually all of
one specific variety, selected for rapid growth and maximum production at the
expense of genetic diversity. Also, the artificial environment allows a virus
to kill one bird and still spread to another. Packing in birds at densities of
two per square foot means the virus must travel only a small distance. Infected
manure remains on the cement floor rather than being degraded by soil
organisms. There is no sunlight to disinfect, and only poor ventilation to
refresh the air. Also, the stress of these conditions weakens disease
resistance in the birds.
As the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology said in a 2005 report tracing
the transition of livestock production from family farms to industrial
confinement: “A major impact of modern intensive production systems is
that they allow the rapid selection and amplification of pathogens.” The
industry-funded group’s report concludes: “Stated simply, because
of the livestock revolution, global risks of disease are increasing.”
Even
though the USDA now is calling their animal ID system “voluntary at the
federal level,” it is funding state and tribal governments to participate
in the program, including states that have mandatory registration laws.
Wisconsin currently requires registration of all places where any livestock are
kept. Indiana mandates registration as well, but excludes equines, camelids
(llamas, etc.) and poultry. Michigan requires all cattle to have an ID chip.
In some
states, the requirement to participate in some aspect of the ID program is more
subtle: One has to sign up to qualify for licenses or to comply with disease
control programs. The USDA has encouraged this backdoor approach to
enforcement, predicting that “the success of the premises registration
component would be achieved through the participation of producers in
long-standing disease management programs and compliance with interstate
movement regulations.” Tennessee, for example, currently requires a farm
to complete premises registration to qualify for various farm assistance
programs.
Opposition
to the ID program is widespread and growing in rural areas across the country.
In at least 11 states, legislation has been introduced to oppose the program,
and in Texas, Kentucky and Vermont, efforts to mandate premises registration
have been defeated by strong, vocal opposition. If you are interested in
fighting the USDA animal ID program, here are some things you can do:
•
Learn more about the program and find ways you can help (see the resources box
below).
•
Strengthen small farming by buying local animal products, raised by farmers you
can talk to.
•
Contact your state and federal representatives and express your concerns about
the program.
Many
groups have voiced their opposition to animal ID regulations. Here's where you
can find more information.
Jack Kittredge and his family raise fruit, vegetables,
pigs and chickens on Many Hands Organic Farm, their 55-acre certified organic
farm in central Massachusetts. He edits The Natural
Farmer, the quarterly newspaper of
the Northeast
Organic Farming Association chapter.
May 23, 2007
Anyone
who eats fruits or vegetables should be worried about what's happening to the
honeybees.
The
devastating disorder that has claimed a quarter of the 2.4 million honeybee
hives nationwide hasn't hit Michigan, but researchers say it will continue to
spread across the country.
At risk: the state's $60-billion agriculture industry.
Modern
food production has come to depend on foraging honeybees. Bobbing and buzzing
between blooms, they pollinate 65 of Michigan's 125 agricultural crops,
including apples, tart cherries, blueberries, peppers, watermelons and
cucumbers.
For this
summer, there are enough of the flying migrant workers to pollinate those
crops. But if the bee crisis hits Michigan, farmers and consumers could feel
the pinch as soon as next summer. For farmers, it could mean increased
competition and higher costs for bees. For consumers, vegetables and fruits
would be more expensive and harder to find.
"You're
looking at a terrible disaster for fruits and vegetables," said farmer
Rodney Winkel of Grandview Orchards near Watervliet, who owns an 850-acre
Berrien County farm with his wife, Jeanette. Like most commercial farmers, they
rent bees, trucking in hives to pollinate their crops. With fewer bees, they
could be forced to pay more than this year's $10,000 fee -- if there are enough
bees to go around.
"If
you want a quality fruit, you need the honeybees," said Mike Hansen, the
state agriculture department's bee expert.
How it works
Every
summer, 85,000 to 100,000 managed honeybee colonies, each with roughly 45,000
bees, are used in Michigan to pollinate crops. About three-quarters of those
hives are owned by Michigan beekeepers.
Working
under contract between beekeepers and farmers, managed colonies of honeybees
are hauled in at night from field to field, moving from south to north as
blossoms open.
Since
mites decimated the feral honeybee population starting in the 1980s, farmers
have turned to hired honeybees for pollination. Their work is critical in
states like Michigan, where agriculture is the second largest industry.
For more
than a century, the honeybee population has had colony collapses and other
troubles, problems caused by weather, contamination or from mites and diseases
for which they are treated with antibiotics and pesticides. In colder areas
like Michigan, many honeybees die over the winter.
But now
something worse is happening. Last fall and winter, commercial beekeepers began
finding nearly empty hives. The bees were vanishing, leaving no corpses or
obvious clues about what went wrong.
Researchers
called the problem colony collapse disorder. It's reported in more than
two-dozen states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, and several countries. In a
study released this month, a national panel said it may have been occurring for
years.
And
although colony collapse disorder has not been found among Michigan's honeybee
colonies, according to Hansen, Michigan is on the list because the disorder
destroyed 5,000 hives from Michigan that were moved to Florida for the winter.
About half the colonies from Michigan are moved to warmer climates during the
winter, where bees stay productive, hives can be split and bees can receive
treatments.
Climbing prices
With
colony collapse disorder losses, growers are concerned about rising prices for
pollination contracts, increases that experts say would eventually be passed to
consumers.
While
Michigan farmers pay $50-$60 per hive for pollination services, California
almond growers already pay $125-$150 per colony and require two hives per acre,
according to Eric Mussen, a state extension bee specialist at the University of
California-Davis.
In
February and March, migratory beekeepers from all over the country bring in
honeybees to work the lucrative almond crop. This year's crop will hit a record
and prices are stable and high. The almond crop is totally bee pollinated.
"Honeybees
are about more than just honey," said May Berenbaum, a University of
Illinois entomology professor who has studied the issue and is one of the
scientists trying to discover the cause.
Brought
to this country centuries ago by European settlers, honeybees pollinate more
than three-quarters of the fruits and vegetables grown in the United States,
she said, with an economic value upwards of $15 billion a year.
In
Michigan, honeybee-pollinated crops are valued at $290 million annually. Other
products like honey and beeswax generate an additional $5.7 million, said
Zachary Huang, a Michigan State University entomologist who studies honeybees
and is among the scientists searching for the cause of colony collapse
disorder.
Other
pollinators, like native insects or the wind, aren't as effective as honeybees.
For example, Huang said, apple growers in Michigan could lose 90% of their crop
if honeybees aren't available for pollination.
"Honeybees
are the one I can put in a box, I can put on a track, I can manage to get from
location to location to get the same pollination services over and over again.
That's what makes them so valuable," said Ken Nye of the Michigan Farm
Bureau.
Some
honeybee deaths, perhaps a quarter a winter, are expected. Last winter, many
Michigan beekeepers lost 60% or more of their hives because bees stayed active
in the unusually mild weather in December and January and then starved.
It was
the latest blow in a long trail of bad news for beekeepers. Terry Klein of St.
Charles, vice-president of the Michigan Beekeepers Association, lost 90% of his
800 bee colonies last winter.
"Starvation,
mites -- it's just having a domino effect, and there's a lot of beekeepers
getting out," Klein said. And though the cost of raising bees -- for
treatments, for transportation -- is increasing, honey prices are flat, Huang
added.
Michelle
Lutz stopped raising honeybees and switched to bumblebees to pollinate crops at
Maple Creek Farm, a certified organic farm in Yale. The bumblebees work in
cooler and rainier conditions than honeybees, she said, and are good
pollinators.
She buys
bumblebees from Koppert Biological Systems in Romulus, which sells beneficial
insects to customers in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
Honeybee
colony collapse is increasing demand for bumblebees, said Melissa Tacolla, the
firm's biological control coordinator. A quad or set of four hives of
bumblebees, with about 1,000 workers, is $225.
Yet while
they offer promise, bumblebees and other insects aren't as easy to manage and
transport, Hansen said.
What's behind the loss?
While
Congress hears testimony and researchers search for funding to study the bee
crisis, others are tossing out theories as to why honeybees are vanishing. Some
claim on the radio and Web -- in scenarios that scientists dismiss -- that cell
phones are disorienting the bees, or they've flown upward in an apian rapture,
or that they're being tainted through exposure to genetically modified crops.
Research
is focused, instead, on the possibilities of a new pathogen, of pesticide
poisoning, or of whether turning honeybees into migrant workers and
transporting them puts them under stress, weakening their immune system and
exposing them to greater health risks.
Huang
estimates there's a better than 50-50 chance that scientists will untangle the
mystery by next winter and come up with a way to manage colony collapse
disorder.
But if
they don't, what would the nation's food system be like without honeybees to
pollinate crops?
Consumers
might have to eat more grains or eat produce grown in other countries.
And there
may be pressure to find a whole new set of pollinators to do the bees' work.
In China,
Huang said, managed honeybees are used to produce honey but apparently not for
pollination.
He has
seen photos of people climbing up into pear trees and, with tiny brushes,
transferring specks of pollen from one open flower to another.
Contact MARTY HAIR
at 313-222-2005 or [log in to unmask].
Vicki Morrone
Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach Specialist
Michigan State University
C.S. Mott Sustainable Food Systems
303 Natural Resources Bldg.
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3542
517-282-3557 (cell)
517-353-3834 (fax)
http://www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu/
http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/
