• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CCIA tags

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    First, thanks for taking part in this discussion. I appreciate your input. Some comments: You made the point that this in not government enforced legislation but a proactive and visionary program developed by the cattle industry. I checked with the CCIA office who informed me that when implemented the program will be enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency who will enact new regulations to fulfill the mandatory aspects of the program using federal legislation, fines and penalties yet to be determined. Sounds like government enforced legislation to me. It is true that the CCA is pushing for this program and is fully behind the mandatory aspects of the legislation backed up by more regulations and rules. How does the CCA, which steadfastly maintains its dislike of government involvement in the cattle business, justify going to government in this instance asking for just the opposite? Bottom line, the CCA has no faith that the producers are in agreement with the direction that is being taken and fear that without the governments big stick producers would not be interested in participating. The CCA has no mandate from producers to go to government to force cattle producers to do anything. Look to the United States, the NCBA is promoting a voluntary program based on value adding. Why doesn’t the CCA do the same? If the CCA is indeed proactive and visionary as you say, then they should have no problem developing a voluntary program instead of what is being offered, namely weighing down our industry with more regulation that will cost producers tens of millions of dollars annually. I have no problem with a herd health program. I do have issues with the way this new program is being implemented. It does matter to me if the program is mandatory or voluntary.

    Comment


      #17
      There seems to be a very good discussion in this forum on the topic. It is a little disappointing that there are very few opportunities for a meaningful dialogue on CCIA Tags other than this media. I have a few concerns that I have written the CCIA on, and have presented a resolution at the ACC meetings last fall. My concerns center around firstly, the mandate that was reported to be the reason for the implementation of this progrmme , but in reality the official mandate is yet to come. We can talk all we want now, but in the end it will be the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that will be making the rules. Secondly, my question to the CCIA concerned the ownership of the information that will be collected. It took several letters to find out that the information would likely be owned by the lst person that owned the animal. Which would be the packer, as I see it. It is interesting to note that several U.S. articles have referred to cattle identification as a benefit to the consumer by being able to know where the 'beef counter' meat originated. No mention of health. This may have been an over-sight on the writers part. In the previous message by 'rip', who , as a director of the CCA maybe confirmed the suspicions of many producers, that there will ultimately be more to this whole programme than just health. I am in favour of the identification programme, but here are a lot of concerns that have to be addressed.

      Comment


        #18
        We have heard from some very good postings here that there are concerns to be worked out. Can I suggest that we get those posted, and if our CCA reps can answer them great, if not I will contact the CCIA office and get a response from them and I will post it. This discussion is what Agri-ville and distance communication is all about, let's keep at it everybody. Jeff

        Comment


          #19
          It seems like this topic is as contraversial here as it is everywhere else. I am not on CCIA so I have to get these answers from them as well but here is how I understand them. There is NOT new government legislation coming in to deal with this program but it will fall under the CFIAs current laws. They are there for the policing end when it does become mandatory. As to the NCBAs approach you will find that this program is turning into a wash for them nationally and is probably going to leave them scratching. In the US it is up to the individual state to set up its health check so it is possible to have 50 different systems. That should help them export more beef. The NCBAs approach is not being well received by anyone from the producer to the retailer as I understand it. I personally agree that the program should at least start out as voluntary as some of the big packers have indicated that they would pay 20 to 30 dollars a head more for an IDed animal. If the producer is worried about $0.50 ananimal extra this amount of money should get their attention! I guess if your worried about the millions of dollars I have to ask you what IS it worth to you, to be a good manager of your operation and the health of our beef industry. To address Bills concern on who will own the information, I can understand the concern and to my understanding the information is the CCIAs and no one, not even the packers can get access to it. If an animal is flaged the information is sent to the CCIA and they do the search independantly and the follow-up is done by them and no one else is supposed to be privy to the info. Bill, I found your use of the word 'suspicions' interesting as this was part of the reason, as I understand it, that the CCIA did not want to promote this as anything other than a health trace back. They wanted the program to be recognized internationally as beneficial to the importers of our product and not to make them 'suspicious' of our program as being something else for just our benefit that we threw the traceback on to make them happy. It is there to help instill confedence in our product. After all the years of playing catch-up after the medical proffession blindsided us I hope we all still realize how important it is to let the public know we do have a very healthy product. I think perhaps it would be beneficial to get Julie Stitt on this site to perhaps moderate or at least address some of these concerns directly as she is the one who knows the actual facts and is not translating them as we are and it would perhaps be more accurate information.

          Comment


            #20
            I would like to know if these tags are going to cost 50 cents or 20 cents extra? If it's 50 cents then the CCIA should quit putting out false information! Also if I, as a cow calf producer, am doing all the labour of putting these tags in maybe the rest of the industry can pick up the extra cost for administration. It doesn't seem fair that I do everything while everyone benifits!

            Comment


              #21
              By the looks of it the tags will cost about 50 cents extra. 20 cents of that to go to the CCIA and the remainder to go to the tag companies to cover the extra production costs. Do not forget that other areas of the industry have different costs to bear such as the packing houses having to buy the reading equipment and pay for the extra manpower to do the reading.

              Comment


                #22
                If any are interested, I have a copy of the Business Development Plan for the National Identification System on a MSWord file that I would forward to those that request it. Just click on my username above (in blue)send me a note and I will email it to you. I personally see the tagging and registration of the nations cattle herd as an important strategic turning point for our industry. I believe in years to come we will look back and see the cattle business was different as a result. The Canadian beef industry stands to gain or loose global competiveness depending upon the directions chosen for this initiative. The implications are far reaching. These strategic decisions are being developed by a small, dedicated and well meaning group of individuals (their names are listed in the business plan) who appear to have been so focused on meeting their external customer's needs i.e. Japan that they have neglected to seek input from their internal customers namely the men and women who actually are raising the product. Input from the producers is critical to ensuring that the entire industry is comfortable with and accepts whatever program is eventually implemented. What we need here is effective communication, a two way process which involves listening and responding to what we say. If the CCA does not listen to producers and develops a plan that producers cannot willingly accept, the initiative will fail, mandatory government regulations or not. Thank-you to 'rip' for taking part in our debate. 'Agri-ville' can really work well for discussing issues such as this. I welcome his input and would appreciate very much if other CCA directors could join in the discussion. It is vital that these CCA directors who are representing our industry listen to the producers as they serve as the communication channel between us and the CCA committees actually making these industry decisions on our behalf.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Jeff I think it would be a good idea to get in touch with Julie as it sounds as if there may be a softening by CCIA and an update may be in order.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Thanks RIP my plan was that if I did not know from the info that CCIA has provided me, and I was going to contact the CCIA office and talk to Julie and relay these comments. The CCIA has been very good about keeping their speakers Bureau group in the loop ( I am one of the designated speakers) but they just can't keep up with all that is going on. Julie did host a chat in Agri-ville at the begining of March, and is archived in the Library section of Agri-ville. Stay tuned as things change more information gets out the better we will all be. CCIA, producers, and industry.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      You know, I couldn't even name the directors of the CCA. I do know who our local director of the CWB is. There is something wrong with that. It is fine for Julie to provide us information but how are the CCA guys going to hear what we have to say if they won't listen to us direct.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        You have a very valid point in the fact that it seems that the CCA directors names do not get out there much. They are elected at the annual general meeting of the ACC from the current ACC delegates and a list if them are printed in publications of Grassroots. It would not hurt to visit the CCAs web site at www.cattle.ca and express your concerns and give sugestins as to how we might better keep you posted. As to the CCIA it is a seperate association with its own board of directors and the CCA really does not have juristiction over it other than a voice to try to give them direction. A list of directors here might also be appropriate.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Just to get in my two cents worth... As a producer, I would feel much better about the whole program if we automatically got back carcass results in exchange for our participation.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            I would like to respond to the comments written by 'rip' on two previous dates. I think we are taking too narrow an approach to this Identification business. There is no question in my mind that it will turn out to be a very good stroke of business for the whole livestock industry. I believe it is essential that we do everything we can idividually and collectively to produce and promote a safe product. We do not know what the CCIA's mandate will be in the future. It is being promoted presently as a system that will ensure a safe product. My reference to 'suspicions' referred to your comment of Mar 27th '.....although CCIA is not promoting it, information such as carcass reporting will become available' This suggests to me that the 'Animal Identification' is useful for purposes in addition Health. As a matter of fact we are using the identification numbers now, we are putting them on our calves as I write, but for reasons in addition to the health factor. The mechanism is already in place for uses in addition to the health aspect. My reference to being suspicious is that the CCA obviously discussed the other uses that the identification could be used for, and chose health. I have no problem with that. Under the system that is now presented, the producer will purchase, tag and record the numbers, and that is the last that they will, or hopfully will ever become of the identification. Whether the health information is held in vault or a desk draw is immaterial to me because if there is an out-break involving our cattle, it won't be a secret for long. The important and beneficial information such as yield, grade,and realized credits of the carcass that we produce is where I see the immediate and long term benefit. This is where I see the ownership of the information as being important. Under programmes of the various breed associations, carcass evaluation is available through an agreement, with the exact same identification system that the CCIA are initiating. The packers can easily obtain all the information they need to evaluate the carcass without the CCIA, so what the CCIA does with the information is of minimal importance to the packer other than the health safety of the carcass. If carcass evaluation is part of the 'big picture' it would seem prudent that information ownership be addressed. This will not take anything away from the purpose of Health and Safety aspect of our meat supply, but would enhance as you referenced '....An exceptional management tool'. I believe Julie Stitt is doing an excellent job of heading the CCIA, and I am sure it is not without challenge. Have you noticed that this type of exchange of ideas is absent from the web site of the CCIA, the ACC and the CCA.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              You said to post concerns here. The concern I am having is how do you stop this thing. That is what I would like to have answered. The way I see how to stop it is to refuse to go along with what they are peddling. I won't be using the tags and having my cows registered if the program doesn't change from what it is right now. But why should I have to do stuff like that. Who are the people behind this? Who are they that they think they know what is best for me and that they have the right to tell me what to do? Who made them my boss? Am I working for these people that they can tell me what I should be doing? Why won't they talk direct to us farmers instead of hide behind their manager and those speaker bureau people? Who is behind this program and how do we stop it? These are the real questions. Bet no one will answer them. Or do we just refuse to buy their tags, is that the only way to make ourselves heard?

                              Comment


                                #30
                                The softening 'rip' referred to is a delay of the enforcement portion of the program until July 1, 2002, although the official startup date remains December 31, 2000. Complete details at http://www.cattle.ca Click on search and search for the phrase: Canadian Cattle Identification Program Start-Up Date Announced A note concerning the CCA site, the 'contact us' icon is hidden behind the window. There is a little elevator bar that scrolls the icon into view but it took me a while to find what it did. It might be better if the 'contact us' icon was out where people could see it. I have found some web sites that provide info on what other countries are doing. Australia is going the voluntary route with fully electronic tags, not the bar code tags the CCIA is promoting which need to be manually scanned. Individual states have their own laws and Victoria requires the use of the tag to be mandatory there, however is subsidizing the cost of the program so the tags were initially free but now the government pays 75% of the tag cost. Australia's program is quality based rather than health based and is linked to a very impressive quality improvement program. Carcass feedback was promised to producers and should be happening by now. I am somewhat envious of what Australia is doing, their system is exactly like I would like to see happen here. Bottom line is Australia is the world leader at marketing beef, Canada would do well to learn from them. In the competitive global marketplace it is important that we remain competitive with industry leaders such as Australia and don't loose ground by using a system that is based around what can be done with a $1 tag. Web sites at: http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/farming/nlis/index.htm http://www.vff.org.au/press/10000377.htm Great Britian is using a mandatory program with a passport system. The program will cost 36 million pounds annually with the government picking up the tab until at least 2003. I was impressed that they seem genuinely interested in listening to their producers and provided for easy feedback on their web site. http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/tracing/default.htm If you find other sites on this topic, I would be interested in checking them out. Please post them here for all to see. Visit the associated webpage... http://www.cattle.ca

                                Comment

                                • Reply to this Thread
                                • Return to Topic List
                                Working...
                                X

                                This website uses tracking tools, including cookies. We use these technologies for a variety of reasons, including to recognize new and past website users, to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests.
                                You agree to our and by clicking I agree.