The Milkweed
Dairy’s best marketing info and insight
P.O. Box 10, Brooklyn, WI 53521 – (608) 455-2400 (c) 2002 – 2008 The Milkweed all rights reserved
by John Bunting
$9,995.00? $9,995.00??? NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED, NINETY FIVE DOLLARS????? On December 28, 2009, critics of USDA’s goofy plans to mandate radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs) in all livestock got just the fodder they need to set livestock country afire in protest: the price tag for this absurd government mandate — the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Forget USDA’s “cost-benefit” analysis claiming that computer-chipped livestock ear tags would cost about $3 to $5 dollars apiece. The cost of those ear tags, even when purchased in minimum lots of 100, is peanuts, compared to the accompanying hardware necessary to use those ear tags.
$9,995.00. That’s the “bundled startup kit” cost offered with a discount of $1,905.36, when compared to the costs of the components in the “startup kit,” if those items were purchased separately.
$9,995.00 out-of-pocket costs so livestock producers may comply with USDA’s intended mandate to require all livestock in the U.S. to be monitored with ear tags containing computer chips? In Missouri, for example, a hotbed of anti-NAIS, the average beef cattle operator has 35 head. In these money-losing times for beef ranchers, how can Uncle Sam demand livestock raisers shell out a minimum of $9,995 for a “startup kit” for this foolishness.
The December 28, 2009 press release said:
“Eriginate™ Corporation announced today the approval of its eTattoo™ tag by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The approval marks the first ultra-high radio frequency identification tag (UHF RFID) and the first non-low frequency tag (LF) to be approved for use with the ‘840’ Animal Identification Number (AIN).”
This private electronic devise is approved by the USDA for use in the controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS) program. USDA has promoted this program as a winning solution for everyone in animal agriculture.
Many persons in animal agriculture have objected for many reasons, including religious objections.
USDA has posted a cost/benefit analysis available at: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/
documents/plans_reports/NAIS_overview_report.pdf
In the overview cost/benefit analysis, USDA explains the “Economic benefits in both the domestic and international marketplace resulting from enhanced traceability may be greater than the cost savings realized during animal disease control and eradication efforts.”
On page 5 of this same document, USDA states, ” Tags and tagging costs vary among cattle producers with 50 head from $3.30 to $5.22 per cow, depending on current identification practices.” Well, that cost/analysis is not exactly correct because the eartags are the only low-cost element in the system. In addition to the tags you need the reader or scanner.
eTattoo™ conveniently has a “starter” kit.
$9,995!!! That “startup kit costs $99.95 per animal!!!
This kit would be the basic requirement for a small family dairy of say 50 milking cows. Replacement tags, and they certainly will be necessary, are a low $395 per hundred.
eTattoo™ claims, “Tags will accommodate handwritten management numbers.” What exactly is missing here? Anyone might think these fancy tags would eliminate the need for “handwritten management numbers.” What will government bureaucrats and their anointed corporate beneficiaries conjure up next?
Get yours while supplies last at: http://www.etattootag.com
Company contact information:
Mailing address:
eriginate Corporation
PO Box 189
LeRoy, MN 55951-0189
Phone: (785) 694-3468
E-mail: Info@eriginate.com
Web site: www.etattootag.com
Harmful to small & medium farmers
Is USDA intentionally trying to destroy the nation’s small and medium livestock producers? USDA ultimately intends to mandate electronic livestock identification. Few small/medium livestock producers will be able to afford $10,000 for such technology. The margins in livestock have generally been negative. USDA has misrepresented costs for the NAIS program.
