Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - [Homestead] NAIS -- NYT Editorial

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: bobf <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Homestead] NAIS -- NYT Editorial
  • Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:36:13 -0700 (PDT)


There is a good editorial in today's NYT concerning why NAIS benefits big ag
and hurts the small farmer. It is written by the farmer who wrote “The
Grassfed Gourmet Cookbook” . While good, the article has not one word about
fourth ammendment or other privacy or gov't intrusive issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------




Tag, We’re It

BY SHANNON HAYES

Published: March 10, 2009
Warnerville, N.Y.

AT first glance, the plan by the federal Department of Agriculture to battle
disease among farm animals is a technological marvel: we farmers tag every
head of livestock in the country with ID chips and the department
electronically tracks the animals’ whereabouts. If disease breaks out, the
department can identify within 48 hours which animals are ill, where they
are, and what other animals have been exposed.

At a time when diseases like mad cow and bird flu have made consumers worried
about food safety, being able to quickly track down the cause of an outbreak
seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, the plan, which is called the National
Animal Identification System and is the subject of a House subcommittee
hearing today, would end up rewarding the factory farms whose practices
encourage disease while crippling small farms and the local food movement.

For factory farms, the costs of following the procedures for the system would
be negligible. These operations already use computer technology, and under
the system, swine and poultry that move through a production chain at the
same time could be given a single number. On small, traditional farms like my
family’s, each animal would require its own number. That means the cost of
tracking 1,000 animals moving together through a factory system would be
roughly equal to the expense that a small farmer would incur for tracking one
animal.

These ID chips are estimated to cost $1.50 to $3 each, depending on the
quantity purchased. A rudimentary machine to read the tags may be $100 to
$200. It is expected that most reporting would have to be done online
(requiring monthly Internet fees), then there would be the fee for the
database subscription; together that would cost about $500 to $1,000
(conservatively) per year per premise. I estimate the combined cost for our
farm at $10,000 annually — that’s 10 percent of our gross receipts.

Imagine the reporting nightmare we would face each May, when 100 ewes give
birth to 200 lambs out on pasture, and then six weeks later, when those
pastures are grazed off and the entire flock must be herded a mile up the
road to a second farm that we rent.

Add to that the arrival every three weeks of 300 chicks, the three 500-pound
sows that will each give birth to about 10 piglets out in the pastures twice
per year (and that will attack anyone who comes near their babies more
fiercely than a junkyard pit bull), then a batch of 100 baby turkeys, and the
free-roaming laying hens. Additional tagging and record-keeping would be
required for the geese and guinea fowl that nest somewhere behind the barn
and in the hedgerows, occasionally visiting the neighbors’ farms, hatching
broods of goslings and keets that run wild all summer long.

Each time one of those animals is sold or dies, or is trucked to a
slaughterhouse, we would have to notify the Agriculture Department. And there
would be penalties if we failed to account for a lamb quietly stolen by a
coyote, and medical bills if we were injured when trying to come between a
protective sow and her piglets so we could tag them.

For my family, the upshot would be more expenses and a lot more time swearing
at the computer. The burden would be even worse for rural families that don’t
farm full-time, but make ends meet by keeping a flock of chickens or a cow
for milk. The cost of participating in the system would make backyard farming
prohibitively expensive.

So who would gain if the identification system eventually becomes mandatory,
as the Agriculture Department has hoped? It would help exporters by soothing
the fears of foreign consumers who have shunned American beef. Other
beneficiaries would include manufacturers of animal tracking systems that
stand to garner hefty profits for tracking the hundreds of millions of this
country’s farm animals. It would also give industrial agriculture a stamp of
approval despite its use of antibiotics, confinement and unnatural feeding
practices that increase the threat of disease.

At the same time, the system would hurt small pasture-based livestock farms
like my family’s, even though our grazing practices and natural farming
methods help thwart the spread of illnesses. And when small farms are full
participants in a local food system, tracking a diseased animal doesn’t
require an exorbitantly expensive national database.

Cheaper and more effective than an identification system would be a
nationwide effort to train farmers and veterinarians about proper management,
bio-security practices and disease recognition. But best of all would be
prevention. To heighten our food security, we should limit industrial
agriculture and stimulate the growth of small farms and backyard food
production around the country.

The burden for a program that would safeguard agribusiness interests would be
disproportionately shouldered by small farmers, rural families and consumers
of locally produced food. Worse yet, that burden would force many rural
Americans to lose our way of life.

Shannon Hayes, a farmer, is the author of “The Grassfed Gourmet Cookbook” and
the forthcoming “Radical Homemakers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/opinion/11hayes.html









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page