11. The Truth About the Animal ID Plan

By Jack Kittredge
Mother Earth News
June/July 2007

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: CargillMonsanto, 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.

12.  A STICKY SITUATION: Honeybee deaths could mean higher prices, more competition for Michigan farmers

May 23, 2007


Detroit Free Press Garden Writer

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


517-282-3557 (cell)

517-353-3834 (fax)


If you would like to access a searchable archive of the all the previous Mich-Organic listserv postings copy this URL and paste in your browser address field