Solution for Age Verification - Straw Poll

[farmers_son]

I was pondering the age verification problem this morning and I thought of a possible solution that I think will work. I will put it up here for comments and if you think it will fly please say so and if not say so too.

It goes like this. The feedlot scans the RFID tags and is able to tell if the calf is age verified but is not provided the birth date of the animal. If the feedlot can find a packer that is willing to pay a $30 premium for age verified then the feedlot sends CCIA $15 for each calf. CCIA sends $15 to the producer who age verified the calves. I could see CCIA keeping 50 cents back from both the feedlot and the cow calf producer for administration, mailing costs and so forth.

What do you think? In this scenario the cow calf producer may not receive compensation for every calf that was age verified and receiving compensation might be more like winning a lottery but the possibility of receiving compensation would be there. The feedlot would only pay the cow calf producer a premium on age verified calves that there was actually a market for. The feedlots have electronic scanners that read these tags as the calves are being processed and it would seem possible to be able to streamline the flow of information back and forth so further handling would not be necessary. Seems like win/win to me. Comments anyone?

[grassfarmer]

Sounds like a nice little scheme but how do you ensure feedlots comply? The temptation would be for them to pocket the $30 and not tell CCIA the calves were age verified.

I may be off track here but I think that limiting the whole discussion to age verification is silly. I like to think more in terms of the possibilities that open up as the result of producers inserting EID tags in their calves ears.

If it was compulsory across the country, Canada could then export beef with the opportunity to attach information and traceability that few world exporters could rival - an advantage we should use given our dependence on exports.
There would also be the opportunity to improve beef quality through passing slaughter data back to feedlots AND ranchers - again benefits the whole industry through improving our product.
Furthermore it could be the basis for a proper tracking system - don't wait until we have a foot and mouth outbreak to find that out what we have now is an unworkable joke.
The infrastructure required to facilitate an enhanced tracking/identification system should be borne by Government with a contribution from packers and retailers rather than by producers, truckers, feedlots or auction marts.
This should not be a hard sell for the Government as investing the cash now might save them hundreds of millions of dollars should an outbreak of foot and mouth spread due to an antiquated tracking system. If we are able to expand exports or get better returns for our beef the Government wouldn't have to pay us subsidies to remain in cattle production I say it's a win win for them.
This was the basis of a resolution I moved at my local ABP fall producer meeting - but I take it went nowhere after that?

[farmers_son]

Just to clarify...the feedlots might know the calves were age verified but the packers require the actual birth date before they will pay the $30 and the feedlot would have to pay CCIA $15 to access that information.

[jensend]

another idea might be to go with the trickle down economics proposed by the feeders and packers except they actually start to pay the premium. when they actually start to pay the premium they would find producers would do the deed. this would be the most cost effective way of ensuring age verification. farmers_son should get out of the mindset that we have to set some sort of program in place to make it happen. if the marketplace is so effective let it do its job but it means the feeders and packers might have to keep their word instead of just passing costs back down with no compensation.

[per]

The idea farmers-son suggested has merit and needs further consideration. The use of top down manditory verification will come if we don't get out of our boxes and make it happen.

[rkaiser]

The ultimate way to get everyone to age verify would be for all of the five round table groups - and all of the other Canadian cattle industry groups to support the beef brokerage proposal put forward by four of the five round table groups so far.

If all producers were to take more responsibility by way of ownership of beef, or at the very least a share in a beef brokerage company, age verification costs would be made back in spades.

I don't mean to run down old batman's plan but please don't tell me this would have to go through ABP farmer_son ---- you and I will be be in our 90's before it could make it through the ABP system.

Personally I don't mind the thought of a mandatory program if the brokerage company idea struggles. In fact as with many other changes needed - I don't think that age verification can wait.

The one thing that I would ask is that a mandatory program gives the producer who does the work and puts in the tag, carcass and grade information. If the feedlot is interested in this info, and the producer is willing, a monetary exchange could ensue.

To much transparency of this information could lead to feeders and packers reverting back to one generic product, while this industry needs diversity in lean, size and other qualities to thrive in the world market.

[grassfarmer]

Remember way back when they were initially talking of age verification and using EIDs it was stated that producers WOULD get carcase information back. Another issue where we have been conned by the packing sector and weak politicians. As for allowing the packers to use dentition to trump age verification - that should have been closed down the first day they tried it on. How hard have ABP advocated on producers behalves on either of these issues?
And why set our sights on a 50% share of $30 per animal? would that huge sum save us all from ruin? If Cargill paid $200 more per fat on half the weekly kill (say around 30,000 head per week)it would only cost them $312 million a year - around 8% of their 2004 profits. Why should global corporations have the right to make huge profits at the expense of their suppliers?

[Bez]

Quote - "Why should global corporations have the right to make huge profits at the expense of their suppliers?" End quote

Because they can. And not one ag group has the ability or balls to prevent it.

Bez