A monthly column written for Beef Central by US meat and livestock markets commentator Steve Kay, publisher of US cattle Buyers Weekly
THE United States beef industry has struggled for much of the 36 years I have covered the industry to introduce a meaningful national animal traceability system.
Its inability to do so is not only a disgrace, but a real danger as a disease outbreak could bring the industry to its knees financially.
Various efforts to introduce a system began in earnest in the late 1980s, but efforts did not really pick up until before the US confirmed its first case of BSE on December 23, 2001. I was at the time a member of a public relations/media task force, one of five task forces charged with developing what was to be called a National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
All on my task force agreed that to be the most effective at tracing animals in the event of a disease outbreak, NAIS would have to be mandatory.
We also thought that in the aftermath of the BSE case, USDA and the industry would quickly introduce such a system, in part to allow US beef back into its all-important markets in Asia.
How wrong we were. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and industry dragged their feet for a host of reasons, none of them defensible.
Fast forward to today and the US beef industry’s largest trade group, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is making a new plea for action.
NCBA urges all in the US cattle industry to support USDA’s new rule for animal disease traceability, wrote NCBA president Mark Eisele in a recent Op-Ed article. Mr Eisele visited Australia in May as part of the Beef 2024 event, and had plenty of questions for Australian stakeholders around Australia’s National Livestock Identification System.
US NCBA president Mark Eisele addressing a beef industry audience during his Australian visit in May
The future of the US industry hinges on its ability to swiftly respond to disease outbreaks. Yet some groups and individuals continue to fight the tools that could protect producers’ livelihoods, he wrote.
The most recent rule to come under fire is USDA’s animal disease traceability regulation, wrote Mr Eisele:
“Imagine the chaos of a Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak, with markets shuttered and producers frantically searching for nearly illegible metal bright tags in the pouring rain. This is not a future the industry can afford. Some argue that these changes are unnecessary or burdensome. The reality is that clinging to outdated ideas, practices and technology puts the entire industry at risk,” he wrote.
USDA’s new rules call for the use of an electronic identification (EID) tag in breeding cattle 18 months of age and older being transported across state lines, wrote Mr Eisele. This class of cattle has required an ID tag for more than a decade. USDA is simply changing the technology from a metal bright tag to an updated EID tag. Producer privacy is paramount to this effort.
NCBA has long advocated for tag data to be held by private, third-party companies rather than USDA, he wrote.
“Those whose only answer is “no” and those individuals and groups who would allow ‘perfect’ to be the enemy of ‘good’ have created a vacuum that the government is more than happy to fill.”
“It is past time for US cattle producers to create an industry-led and industry-controlled solution to disease traceability. The current system and the ability to rapidly respond to a real disease outbreak is insufficient to protect each producer and their livelihoods. Now is the time for the cattle industry to lead not lag,” he wrote.
The US has not had a BSE case since May last year and it was an atypical case, so there were no trade consequences on that occasion.
By far the bigger disease danger now to the US industry, Mr Eisele wrote, is if a case of FMD is detected. The last known case in the US was back in 1929. One can only hope that another case is not detected.
Uruguay swings its exports from China to the US
Speaking of the beef trade, it is fascinating to see that the US is buying increasing amounts of beef from Uruguay as that country lessens its dependence on the Chinese market for its sales of meat and beef in particular.
China, as with most other Latin American countries, in recent years has become Uruguay’s main trade partner, absorbing non-processed agricultural commodities and minerals while flooding local economies with Chinese industrial goods, says a report on the MercoPress South Atlantic News Agency website.
Uruguay has been no exception and its top quality beef has been exposed to lower prices purchases because of a slowing Chinese economy and probably lower consumption.
Faced with this situation, Uruguayan authorities and the private sector are promoting exports to other markets such as North America, says MercoPress.
The retraction of Chinese demand and prices seems to be similar to what is happening with Brazil, Australia and New Zealand, says MercoPress. According to official data from Uruguay’s National Meat Institute, INAC, between January and August 10 of this year, Uruguay’s beef exports, which accounted for 81pc of the total revenue from all meat exports, reached US$1.223 billion, a 0.1pc increase compared to the same period last year.
In terms of volume, beef exports rose by 7.1pc, reaching 300,000 tonnes. But the average price of Uruguayan beef fell by 11pc compared to the same period in 2023, standing at US$4079/t.
The big news this year is that China is no longer the leading revenue source for Uruguayan beef exporters, according to INAC.
The Asian giant has been overtaken by the North American bloc, with the US playing a major role. As of August 10, the US, Canada and Mexico accounted for 32pc of Uruguay’s total beef export revenue, totaling US$390.8 million for the sale of 97,375t, according to INAC.
Perhaps if you correctly called it hoof and mouth disease I would give you a little more credibility.
You make a good point, Tom, but unfortunately once a disease name like FMD is globally established, it’s very hard to change. It was clearly called foot and mouth disease at the time of Australia’s only outbreak, way back in 1872. Editor
Every producer and consumer wants a safe food supply. But until you convince me that our government is capable of achieving this goal without adding additional costs to the producer and ultimately the consumer you need to run away from this issue.
For twenty years I owned and operated a business in the pharmaceutical distribution insustry. Their attempt to secure the nation’s drug supply has only led to increased costs and lack of competition. Next will cost me scare tactics similar to their claim that 10% of the nation’s drug supply was counterfeit. This was a false claim that allowed more regulations to be handed down by an incompetent government agency.
I do not support mandatory id the government can not keep up with all these records this is another ploy to take out little producers and make the cattle industry go the way of hogs and chickens we have had several disease outbreaks in past and we do an outstanding job keeping them corralled
Thanks
Eric Waters
An interesting article by Steve Kay, but I presume that the following statement about beef production in Uruguay is a typo:-
“In terms of volume, beef exports rose by 7.1pc, reaching 300 million tonnes.”
This may seem pedantic, but people often take stats at face value and start using them to support their distorted views on agriculture.
Good pick-up, Bob – it appears to have been either a typo or a metric/imperial conversion error. The actual figure should have been 300,000t. We have amended the original story. Editor
Im a big fan of Mr kay and in no way am i critical of this article. But……Unfortunately our nlis system whilst in theory might be a fuzzy feel good system. Unfortunately it lacks any real credibility. Like all tech systems it’s only as good as the information going in. Take western australia for example with it brain wave idea to remove the mandatory branding or earmarking requirements. Whilst this old system can be slightly clumsy it gives a point of reference from where that animal started. It actually made the nlis system relevant. With the new system being handled by incompetent layers of government departments. The only outcome is that when we might actually need the system it will let us down. Slightly off subject but slightly relevant for our American counterparts. Take the last federal ag debacle when it was approved for bio hazardous animal products derived from foetal cord blood to be injected into animals in nsw whales which was harvested from south america. How would nlis help us in that situation? Cheers Matthew Della Gola