The Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture & Natural Resources Law is trying to lie that NAIS is voluntary and not headed for mandatory. They conveniently ignore the court enforced mandatory Premises ID in Wisconsin. Hiding the facts - lies by any other name.
You can go leave comments.
I left comments but the writer of the article left a comment stating that “The Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agricultural & Natural Resources Law invites unsolicited articles and essays focusing on the topics such as NAIS and I encourage you to submit your work on this issue. More information on submissions can be found under the “Submissions” tab on the KJEANRL blog.”
so writers among us go for it–
let them hear the “rest” of the story!
Comment esbee — November 8, 2009 @ 8:51 am
I left a shorter version of this on their site:
USDA Secretary Vilsack has been quoted promoting the concept of using sound science. But what does sound science mean? And what does sound science mean in regards to NAIS?
To me, sound science means analyzing the costs of implementing a program, such as NAIS, versus the benefits that a program would provide in controlling, monitoring, and stopping the spread of disease. If the cost outweighs the benefits, it is a scientifically unsound approach to disease management.
According to the 2009 Benefit Cost Analysis performed by Kansas State University, with the support and assistance of Neil Hammerschmidt (NAIS coordinator) and Dr. Wiemers(NAIS staff) here is the conclusion regarding equines:
“At this time, we cannot definitively conclude from our analysis and available data whether benefits of full NAIS adoption in equine exceed costs of adoption. More research is needed to fully quantify benefits of NAIS adoption that we have omitted in the equine industry.”
It is not surprising that this 2-year study, costing almost half a million dollars, could not conclude that the benefits of NAIS outweigh the cost. This study could not even determine how many horses there are:
“In summary, the equine species in the United States is incredibly difficult to quantify and track. There are anywhere from 5 to 9.5 million head of horses in the United States according to the most recent available studies.”
“The Equine 2005 Part II Booklet states (p. 7), “There is no accurate estimate of the current total number of equids in the United States because the number of equids on nonfarm operations does not exist.” This same source suggests that the on farm estimation may only constitute 50-60% of the total equine population.”
“The USDA APHIS Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability quotes June 2007 equine population estimate as 5.8 million horses in approximately 570,000 locations.”
Of the 570,000 locations this study concluded that less then 10% of them would require RFID readers:
“Using the data we currently have, with approximately 9,975 premises where equids commingle, and 44,460 large equine farms where readers may be desirable for management purposes, we estimate a total number of 54,435 premises requiring readers. Using a requirement of two scanners per premises, to allow
for the need for multiple scanners at one moment in time, we come up with a total requirement of 108,870
readers in the equine industry.”
So, we now have a proposed disease trace back system that has no idea how many equids there are and will not have the capability to locate equids once they leave a premises requiring an RFID reader (or even two readers). Under this scenario there is no explanation on how trace back on equids in virtual locations instead of real locations, would provide any meaningful information - but it sure cuts down the cost
estimate.
This study next went on to present some benefits, but glossed over the actual cost of eradicating EIA:
“Disease eradication could also save the industry a great deal of money – for example, with over 2 million EIA tests performed annually at a cost of over $25/test; EIA testing alone costs over $50 million dollars on an annual basis. If EIA could somehow be eradicated from the US over time, eliminating the need for
testing, the industry could save this money.”
Apparently the thinking is that with NAIS, the USDA can force all horses to be tested for EIA, but what would that cost actually be? Assuming 5.8 million horses, a $25 test per horse would cost the industry $145,000,000 per year until eradicated.
To put EIA in perspective: In 2008 only 113 cases of EIA were detected. Over half the states had no cases. We are currently spending $442,478 per detected case ($50 million/113).
In a time when dairy and hog farms are being forced out of business, the cattle industry is suffering, producers are being hit with increased feed prices, and the unemployment rate is rising, it takes a special kind of scientific study to suggest the use of tax payer money (so far over $140,000,000) for the following NAIS equine benefits:
“At rodeos electronic ID could provide verification that the correct cowboy is riding the correct bucking horses. “
“Show organizations could scan horses entering the gate to verify that the correct horse is entering the show ring, because on rare occasions the wrong horse is shown. The value to major show organizations is at the management level for shows: the ability to increase the speed of check-in, verify that the correct individuals are riding the correct horses, track points on the horses and riders during the show season,
and assist in speeding up the numerous other small tasks that go into organizing major equine events. It may also help shows to prevent disease at their events and track affected horses if an outbreak were to occur. “
“There are numerous examples of where breed registries have stated NAIS would help when USEF has a problem with horses changing hands and being reregistered under a different name by the new owners, allowing horses that were competing at more advanced levels to come back to lower levels under a new name (and therefore, win at those lower levels).”
“USEF would also like to offer their members the service of looking up a horse’s show records via the microchip number in the instance that they are looking to buy the horse to verify that statements the seller makes about the animal are true.”
“For these reasons, the fact that horses change names, owners, and move around a great deal in their
organization, USEF supports NAIS.”
“Having this system could aid the PRCA in verification of ownership and inventory numbers of stock contractors, because they have regulations that require contractors to own a certain number of animals to be recognized by the PRCA.”
“The Jockey Club recently became a microchip distributor of the “840” country-coded chip for Destron-Fearing. The Jockey Club charges $20 per chip to everyone, plus a sales tax in New York and Kentucky, and as of August, 2008 had distributed 120 microchips to mostly Thoroughbred breeding
farms.”
“The study’s cost for microchipping each horse: $75.51 where the microchip costs $14.60,…”
“The United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) has expressed interest in following The Jockey Club’s
lead and becoming a distributor of the equine microchips as well, as a service to their clients.”
NAIS - sound science, folks? Or follow-the-money “science”?
Comment Ann — November 8, 2009 @ 11:26 am