Texas Beef Quality Producers ask
What’s Next?

Still slightly ahead of the curve, TSCRA faces a decision about individual animal identification for cattle from members trained in the Beef Quality Assurance program.

By Ellen Humphries

Individual animal identification is headed toward the U.S. cattle industry at a steady clip. Nobody particularly likes the idea of a mandatory or required individual animal identification program for beef production, but it’s coming. Canada has a national animal ID program. Italy does, too.

In our own country, sheep and many goat breeders must permanently identify their animals. USDA initiated this national sheep and goat ID program at the urging of the American Sheep Industry Association as a tool to eradicate scrapies, a fatal degenerative disease in that species.

Where is the U.S. beef industry on the issue of individual animal identification? Kathy Wood, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) director of member services, tells us in the sidebar to the right.

Where is TSCRA on individual animal identification? It seems ready to revisit the discussion which began three years ago when the board of directors passed a resolution to "Develop a Business Plan in Preparation for Onset of Individual Animal Identification Systems." That March 1999 resolution was followed by a June 1999 resolution saying, "TSCRA supports a voluntary animal identification program that is practical, cost efficient, protects the rancher from undue liability and is managed by TSCRA."

This was followed by the March 2000 resolution to "Establish ID/BQA (Beef Quality Assurance) program for TSCRA members." (Read the full text of these resolutions in the sidebar within this article)

Then-President Mark McLaughlin, San Angelo, Texas, appointed a task force to carry out this third resolution. They established the Texas Beef Quality Producer (TBQP) program and set a list of goals for the BQA training.

Many of those goals have been met. More than 2200 cattle producers have learned basic beef production quality management skills through 22 Level I training sessions. Almost a third of those have come back for Level II training, says Melanie Gayan, TSCRA member services representative, and have earned their TBQP certificate.

TSCRA partnered with the Texas Beef Council and the Texas Cooperative Extension Service to plan, man and host these training sessions. It is interesting to note a large percentage of the 2200 voluntary trainees are not TSCRA members, indicating these sessions are a) providing a service to the greater beef production industry, and b) there are lots of producers out there who should be TSCRA members.

Joe Pat Hemphill, Coleman, Texas, has completed Levels I and II. He looks at the TBQP certificate on his ranch office wall and asks, "Now what?"

We asked that same question of the task force members. Now that producers are doing what was asked of them and using best management practices on their cattle, now what does TSCRA offer them? How do they get compensated for doing what’s right? What is the next step and what is TSCRA’s role in that next step?

The demands of international trade convinced Mark McLaughlin of the need for a TBQP program during his term as president of the association. "Exports have had a profound effect on the U.S. beef industry," he says. "We’re exporting 11 to 15 percent of our total tonnage of beef production to other markets -- Japan, Mexico, North Korea and Canada.

"But, Texas cattle raisers should realize we have a total cattle herd in America, counting dairy cattle and exotic animals, apart from the beef breeding herd, of about 100 million. Brazil has within its boundaries 167 million cattle. That doesn’t talk about anything in Argentina, Chili, Australia, New Zealand. Those beef supplies are in the world market."

U.S. beef fills the high-quality niche in the international market, McLaughlin says. Our higher health and sanitation standards, high-quality feed grain and feeding programs produce a "more palatable, more flavorful, more tender beef product than other nations." Preserving that internationally recognized high quality was one reason McLaughlin and the task force developed a training program to teach producers about quality control along their segment in the chain of production. (See TBQP Control Points, at the end of this article).

Another reason was self-defense. In these days of product recall and headline grabbing executive malfeasance, some of the task force members saw the TBQP program as a way to train producers in standard business practices, which will keep domestic beef above suspicion and criticism.

Dr. Dick Sherron, Beaumont, Texas, chairman of the BQA task force and second vice president of TSCRA, explains, "I consider a rancher the CEO of his cattle operation. The consumers are the stockholders. We need to verify what’s right for the health and well-being of that animal and also the end product, beef, through the process."

"The BQA program benefits that producer and his livestock," Clay Birdwell, task force member, Amarillo, says, "It is a good management practice and it prevents us from having problems down the food chain."

Sherron and Birdwell acknowledge that using BQA principles will not guarantee higher prices for the producer. The consensus from the task force members is BQA guidelines will help participants avoid discounts for injection site blemishes, broken needles or cattle within the withdrawal time period for medications. General wisdom indicates the premium paid for cattle is the full market price with the absence of discounts. As Birdwell indicates, the value of participating in the BQA program is like virtue – its own reward.

However, as the resolutions in 1999 and 2000 indicate, the BQA program was only the first step. The next step was to be an individual animal identification program which would accomplish several things -- verify the animals from a Texas Beef Quality Producer who adheres to BQA standards; help those producers realize monetary value for their virtue; and get an animal ID program in place that is "from producers and for producers," as Birdwell says.

The task force members wanted to get a voluntary animal ID program in place to beat the federal government to the mandatory punch, says Scott Moore, Kingsville, Texas, task force member. He remembers USDA had "sent out someone running around the country saying, ‘This is what WE are going to do.’ So we (TSCRA) were trying to be proactive to get ahead of the curve."

Birdwell concurs, "The USDA had come out and said they felt they would have to make an identification program mandatory in the near future. We felt the association should take the lead and said, ‘Let’s get a beef quality assurance program put together, let’s see if we can come up with a good ID program, also. Then perhaps our program -- from producers and for producers -- would be in place and be acceptable to producers rather than a government-mandated program."

Sherron continues, "We found that doing an ID program without some reason wouldn’t be very well-received, so we developed the alliance relationships with the Extension Service and with the Texas Beef Council to create TBQP. We thought we would create a value-added service for the members and the beef industry. Plus, it’s the right thing to do.

"We’re asking CEOs to certify their finances are correct in the stock market. If you’re the CEO of the ranch, you need to certify you’ve done what’s right for the cattle. We need to be the certifying agency for that," Sherron says. (continued below)

Like Joe Pat Hemphill says, a certificate on a wall doesn’t mean much to a buyer if there’s no obvious way to tell the cattle have been produced under BQA standards. Sherron says, "We have to develop some kind of identification procedure so we can say, ‘These cattle are quality raised cattle.’ Whether that’s electronic ID, or whatever, I don’t know. We have to find something that’s economically feasible and industry-acceptable. There’s a lot of potential for value to come back to the producer, as far as carcass characteristics, feedlot characteristics, rate of gain and cost of gain. There’s an up- and down-stream value for identification, but just ID for the sake of ID I don’t think does you a lot of good."

In this region of the country, TSCRA is recognized as the keeper of the records. TSCRA keeps brand information, notes movement of cattle through the auctions and helps find and identify stolen livestock. The infrastructure exists within TSCRA to support an individual animal identification program to recognize the cattle produced by a member who has been trained in BQA practices.

McLaughlin sought to capitalize on the role of information-keeper that TSCRA has historically held. "My plan was TSCRA would purchase the (electronic) ear tags -- perhaps in the future it might be a chip implant -- provide them for a fee to herd owners. The agreement would be that the owner of those animals would voluntarily supply information such as genetics, vaccination and health program information and ages of the animals to TSCRA. When those cattle are sold, let’s say to a stocker buyer, then that buyer could have access to that information if he, in turn, will provide his information."

McLaughlin never suggested sharing financial information. He envisioned sharing production and performance information up and down the ownership chain. "When the stocker sells to a feeder, the feeder would have access to the herd owner’s performance information and the stocker’s information, if he will provide feeding information -- days on feed, average daily gain and carcass information," McLaughlin explains.

This free flow of information would allow the producer to know how his herd genetics perform in the marketplace. That producer could use positive information to market his calves and use negative information to make changes.

Is the technology there to pass information up and down the supply chain among willing participants? Birdwell says yes. "There are several programs out there trying to get the information back and forth. The problem we have right now is we’re not getting paid for that information and for targeting our product toward the specs the information shows we need to change for. It takes all of the eagerness out it." He admits the step to an individual animal identification program will be the most difficult step, "Because it’s hard to show a return back to the producer for identification."

Sherron agrees, "Without a producer benefit, which is genetic and carcass information, and increased value because the animals have been treated appropriately through Beef Quality Assurance, then I think the cost of the program is so out of line with the benefits." It becomes a federal program in which a government agency receives the benefit of information.

However, Sherron sees an individual animal ID program would be useful in international trade. "We can show we do have an identification system and do have appropriate tracking mechanisms in the U.S. But, without the information flow, the ID system becomes a regulatory issue. It would be a mandatory cost with no value. We have to work diligently to make our services, the government services, a value-added service to cattle people. If we don’t, we’re going to break more and more of us."

Mike Wirtz, Brenham, Texas, task force member and veterinarian, predicts disease control will be a driving reason for a nationwide identification program. In his conversations with USDA personnel in Beltsville, Md., Wirtz has heard, "Either the state will have to come up with an identification plan or the feds will, mainly because of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and foot-and-mouth disease."

Wirtz also asks the basic questions, "what next?" and "how?" After a producer is trained, how will it be verified the producer used the correct practices. "Who’s going to be the verifier? My idea is it has to be somebody like a veterinarian. That’s not an official stance," he is quick to point out.

But to provide a mechanism for verification, the Texas Beef Quality Producer program involves veterinarians in the BQA process. While veterinarians may not be on the ranch every day to witness procedures, they are asked to sign documents which track drug usage on the ranch – such as when the medications were purchased, how and when they were to be administered to the animals, what their withdrawal times are, and an ending inventory to make sure the amounts of drugs used are within reasonable limits.

Too high ending inventory may indicate the proper dosages weren’t given. An ending inventory that is too sparse may indicate the drugs were overused, or worse, may indicate theft. Either way, the veterinarian can work with the producer to verify the BQA practices were applied.

The man who asked the question that started this whole discussion, Joe Pat Hemphill, says, "Anyone who produces their cattle in accordance with the TBQP program, the first positive thing they’re going to see is an improvement in performance to their animals. But the next thing we’re all hoping to realize is an enhanced marketability of our livestock. That’s where the whole program needs to go because, obviously, that’s the major problem we all face.

"There’s an awful lot of us that can do a good job producing cattle. For us to be able to achieve a better price, our program has to have credibility. The buyer has to believe in the (TBQP) program. They have to believe the producer has done the various requirements of the program and they have to believe the cattle are going to perform for them better as a result of having been produced under that program."

Hemphill continues, "We need a form of ID for those animals that have been produced in accordance with our BQA program. TSCRA, in its history, tradition and stature will help to lend some immediate credibility to the program if their name is attached and it’s a source of verification for these livestock. Ultimately, the producers themselves will have to determine if the credibility holds and grows."

Hemphill sees hurdles to overcome. "The number of instances where producers could get information back from packers have been few and far between. If we have an ID program in place that is large-scale, it eliminates the reasons that have been offered for not being able to get information back. This will facilitate the flow of information. It’s not a cure-all, but it will help. It’s the start of putting a mechanism in place."

"It’s time to look at what we’ve done and where do we go from here," Wirtz says. John Dudley, TSCRA president, Comanche, Texas, concurs, "It is important to me for TSCRA to be involved in this whole process as it evolves.

"We have had such a plethora of more immediate problems," he says, listing tuberculosis in Texas, challenges to the national beef check-off, drought assistance as the high points of these past two years. "But, we have not been dissuaded and have not let our BQA initiative fall by the wayside. We have continued to put manpower and dollars into it with our partners at the Extension Service and Texas Beef Council. We have had conversations relative to identification and I hope that begins to get a firmer edge on it. We want to take cautious steps here and not do anything precipitously," Dudley says.

"I want to be on record as saying while this whole identification process evolves I want TSCRA to take a leadership role as we look down the road at a voluntary identification program -- underline voluntary," he emphasizes.

Bob McCan, Victoria, Texas, TSCRA first vice president, seems to agree and will likely have the opportunity to discuss this question in-depth during his time in office. He intends to "continue the BQA program to evolve into a TSCRA-sponsored individual animal ID program, on a voluntary basis. Our intent at TSCRA should be for a voluntary animal ID system that would be value-added for the TSCRA member. Our intention is TSCRA needs to be the lead organization to direct this program within Texas and possibly Oklahoma, to make sure our program will be a voluntary, producer-directed program and not a government-administered program," he explains.

When asked if TSCRA will have an individual animal identification program in place in the next two years, Sherron answers yes. While international trade is important, the international market doesn’t affect every cattle raiser. Sherron wants a program which identifies cattle from TBQP herds by an ear tag or electronic identification; which allows or requires the flow of performance information up and down the chain; and helps participants get paid the most by avoiding discounts the most.

Birdwell says, "It’s difficult to go to members and producers and say, ‘This is something we should do right now because the government’s going to make us do it.’ That in itself is offensive to me. Like the devil they are. But it looks like, with Canada doing their program and Europe has some ID programs, we’re going to be forced to come up with that identification program."

Hemphill agrees with McLaughlin and Birdwell that the export market may well drive an individual animal identification program. "The concern from Japan, Korea and similar export markets about the accountability and ablility to trace back animals to their source for food safety and quality issues is what will ultimately drive a mandatory program," he says.

Scott Moore advocates a proactive stance on individual animal identification. "Eventually Uncle Sam will make us do it. Once again, we should be proactive and have a system in place that says ‘here’s what we propose to do or have been doing and it works.’ I know a lot of people don’t like it because it’s kind of a Big Brother thing. But, wasn’t it ConAgra that just had however many pounds recalled? From what I understand a lot of this recall of E. coli-tainted meat is dairy cattle, but still it’s the beef animal that gets slapped in the face. Consumption of beef goes down no matter if it’s a beef animal or dairy animal. We as citizens want to know about the Firestone tires on Fords. It should go both ways."

McCan agrees it’s better to have a voluntary program in place rather than wait for a mandated program. "If you have a good reliable program in place, then there’s a good chance our program could go right into whatever the mandated program is."

Would the federal government be satisfied with a voluntary program established by TSCRA? Hemphill, speaking from a veterinarian’s point of view, says, "I think it’s a good possibility. Anything of this nature that the federal government mandates, they’ll have to fund. If there’s a program in place that is workable and they don’t have to pay for it, I think there’s a good possibility they’ll leave it alone. They’ll have to see credible evidence that the program is in place and is working."