Meat + Poultry - October 2009 - 48

NATIONAL ANIMAL I.D.

Animal identification serves as one
means of verifying the age and source of
cattle for exporters such as Creekstone
Farms. (Photo courtesy of Creekstone Farms)

the tags after animals are slaughtered
and turning them back to the state
of Michigan.

Processor perspectives
Processors also have a stake in animal ID, and to one company's way
of thinking - animal ID gives a great
advantage in its daily business dealings. Ryan Meyer, director of cattle
procurement for Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef in Arkansas City,
Kan., a processor of Black Angus
beef, says animal identification is
important because of age and source
verification of cattle it processes for
Japan. "For us and for other processors who export, animal identification
is very important," he says. "We gain
an advantage by having
this information."
Meyer's company
slaughters, fabricates
and creates value-added
meat products. He thinks
most of the demand for
animal identification is
driven by American proSpeer
ducers' and processors'
interest in increasing their export markets, especially to Japan and Europe,
rather than those who are strictly domestically oriented. He also believes
the government National Animal
Identification System will not succeed
"unless it gets some teeth" - convert-

ing it from a voluntary to mandatory
program. It could be valuable for the
entire industry in cases where there
are export restrictions.
"On the other hand, it would
probably be better for progressive
producers and processors if it remains voluntary. For them, it could
increase the value of cattle $20 to
$40 a head," he says. "That's because some producers would lose
value-added if it becomes mandatory. Producers want to keep the
added value of their cattle, and voluntary animal identification would
help some of them do that. But on
the other hand, a mandatory system would help the entire industry,
there's no doubt."
Meyer said under voluntary NAIS,
premiums remain available for progressive producers and processors.
"But if we go to a mandatory program,
the premiums might not be available
anymore," he points out.
One academic who has studied
the issue of animal identification extensively says the future of NAIS in
the U.S. depends on how far Congress, USDA and ranchers and farmers want to go with it. "The real
question is, 'What are we supposed
to tell producers about animal ID?
What is the take home message to
them?'" asks Dr. Nevil Speer, professor of agriculture and environ-

48 * Meat&Poultry * October 2009 * www.MeatPoultry.com

mental science at Western Kentucky
Univ., Bowling Green, Ky. He says
there is a great deal of opposition to
the concept and use of traceability
among producers.
"I don't like the term 'traceability' because it implies liability going
backwards from the meat product to
the animal. Instead, we should be using animal identification to establish
value going forward, the attributes
of the product manufactured by the
producer and the processor. It would
include the eating quality, the product's story behind what was made,
the animal welfare during production and processing. Also, who raised
it? And organic or natural labels, if
it has either of those."
Speer says it is up to the industry
to tell the story of the animal and the
product coming from it, not leaving
it in the hands of general news media
who don't understand and are not
sympathetic to animal production
and processing. "We're not going to
get our story to the public, to consumers and effectively win against
the people who would like to stop
animal agriculture unless we can
preserve the identity of the animals,
and we can do that through animal
identification," he says.
The animal scientist says turning
NAIS into a big vs. small producer
issue hasn't been helpful to the industry either. "I'm a proponent of
market-driven traceability," he says.
"We have to tell the truth through
our products, which will involve good
animal identification. That's how to
beat Time magazine and PETA and
the Humane Society of the United
States at their game," he says. ■
Bernard Shire is M&P's Washington correspondent based in Lancaster, Pa. He also works as
a food safety consultant for Shire & Associates.
We would like to hear from you - to comment
on this story or to request reprints, contact us
by e-mail at meatpoultry@sosland.com.

http://www.MeatPoultry.com

Meat + Poultry - October 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - October 2009