Governments have a long history of using tracking technology to determine our whereabouts, habits and even preferences. from smartphone and car arrive Snow plows and garbage trucksthe government seems to want to track anything that moves—or Moss.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently finalized rule– Set to take effect in a few months, it will require all cattle and bison crossing state lines to be tagged Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) ear tags. RFID technology uses radio frequency waves to transmit and collect data through electronic tags and scanner systems. The technology is best thought of as an electronic or remote barcode, where a scanner can read an RFID chip anywhere from a few meters away to about 100 meters away. Similar in some respects to short-range GPS systems, RFID can track geographic location and also operate as a data collection and storage system.
For livestock, quickly scan RFID tags Can be pulled up Information such as the cow’s date of birth, weight, vaccination records, ownership history, which farms it has visited and what activities it has performed. USDA is justifying its RFID mandate public health reasonsclaims it can help track and eliminate potential disease outbreaks in livestock, such as mad cow disease or foot-and-mouth disease.
While it may seem reasonable at first glance, it is far from clear that this mission will achieve its intended goals, and Very Make it clear that it will suffer disproportionate harm Small independent ranchers and cattle farmers.
On the one hand, most ranchers already want to be able to identify their cattle and already use Physical metal tag Been doing this for years. Electronic RFID tags are Twice more expensive As with traditional metal tags, there is also an upfront investment in scanners and software, making the switch cost-prohibitive for many small farms. Farmers also complain that electronic tagging is more difficult Visual identification From a distance, this is important during cattle drives and other large, fast-paced livestock movements. Therefore, most farmers using electronic tags It’s still a label Their animals come with traditional physical tags, so a double investment in both types of tags is required.
There is also the issue of label retention. “I’ve talked to a lot of people using these RFID tags who lost 50 percent of their cows after five years,” said Ken Fox, a South Dakota dairy farmer and chair of R-CALF USA’s Animal Identification Committee. Tell wisconsin farmer. “By the ninth or tenth year, only 14 percent of the tags are left; and our beef cattle can be with us for 15 to 20 years, so it’s a serious problem.” Fox also pointed out that RFID scanners are usually required every four Replace every five years.
fox point out Not all livestock farming is created equal. For dairy farmers who house livestock, frequent tag changes are more logistically feasible, although still expensive. But for ranch owners, changing tags may be completely impractical. “That doesn’t work when we’re raising cattle on 10,000 or 30,000 acres of pasture and we process those cattle maybe twice a year,” explain fox. “If they lose these tags, how do we know who these cattle are?” Amish farmers also be opposed to Given their opposition to technology, electronic tagging is based on ethical grounds.
Large cattle producers have the ability to physically and electronically tag their livestock, and in fact many already do so voluntarily – meaning the burden will be heaviest on small and medium-sized farms and ranches. USDA regulations also more directly benefit the large cattle industry, including allow them to use So-called “group identification” is performed on herds of a certain size and continuity.
“The new rules also require large-scale cattle operations to use one ID for each group of animals of a certain size, rather than one ID per animal,” Remington Kesten wrote in a report. . Blog article David’s Pasture, a small cattle ranch in Missouri. “This means that once the order comes into effect, smaller farms will actually incur more per animal costs than larger farmers.”
Worse, this group identification actually undermines the entire disease traceability rationale for USDA-mandated electronic labeling. “This intentional loophole also reduces traceability for large farms and exporters, contradicting the primary reason the USDA mandated the use of RFID ear tags in the first place.” notes chestnut.
The rule itself also failed. Although supporters point to the 2003 mad cow outbreak in Washington state as an example Although electronic tags can more quickly identify the origin of a disease, it’s worth noting that the government was still able to trace the initially sick cattle back to their birthplace, the Canadian farm, within 13 days.
It’s also worth recognizing that livestock disease outbreaks are extremely rare in the United States. one article exist Lancaster AgricultureGenerally inclined to support USDA authorization, noting that foot-and-mouth disease was last detected in the United States in 1929. highlight The United States has successfully fought brucellosis without electronic tags.
If anything, large commercial farms are most responsible for disease outbreaks. “There has been no data in more than a decade indicating that foodborne illness is caused by disease on small farms,” Write Kesten. “All the major disease outbreaks in recent years have occurred on large farms.” In other words, small independent ranchers are bearing the brunt of the new rules in the name of solving problems that have nothing to do with them.
Finally, the USDA regulations raise significant data privacy concerns. RFID tags cannot Distinguish between scanners– Portable and portable – so anyone with a scanner can access the data contained in each tag. Ominously, USDA regulations Choose to use this term electronic identification tag instead of Radio Frequency Identification acronym, although currently RFID tags are the only technology approved by the USDA for livestock tagging.
This flexible language means USDA makes it clear leave the door open More comprehensive tracking technology. This could come in the form of “active” RFID tags (rather than the “passive” tags currently envisaged) that have wider range readable even GPS tracking Observe the condition of dairy cows via satellite.
A small ray of hope for America’s ranchers is that Congress finally appears to be waking up to the USDA’s overreach. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) recently introduce Prohibits the USDA from enforcing any bill mandating the use of electronic tagging technology on cattle and bison.
The USDA is trying to find solutions to problems that current practices have largely solved.
fox say it To put it more vividly: “I was told this story – NASA spent millions of dollars trying to develop a pen that could work in sub-zero temperatures and zero gravity. The Russians only used one pencil.”
