Ted Schroeder was part of a team of agricultural economists who conducted a study on the costs and benefits of a national livestock identification system for the United States.
The 440 page study sits in the U.S. Department of Agriculture archives because the system was shelved and responsibility for identification and traceability transferred to the states in February.
“I believe it is still quite relevant,” he told a recent international livestock identification conference.
The study found that full tracing and electronic identification would cost $3.43 per dairy cow per year, $4.22 per beef cow, $1.07 per lamb sold and 2.5 cents per animal sold from a typical farrow-to-wean hog operation.
Read Also
First annual Ag in Motion Junior Cattle Show kicks off with a bang
Ag in Motion 2025 had its first annual junior cattle show on July 15. The show hosted more than 20…
Poultry operations would probably use lot identification systems, resulting in an estimated cost of 0.1 cents per broiler sold and 2 cents per layer.
Schroeder said there are risks in not having a national scheme because some foreign customers may not trust U.S. food products or the country’s ability to contain disease.
For example, an average American feedlot commingles thousands of animals from across North America.
“Are we in a position of risk of bringing something into that state and not knowing how to contain it? I believe we are.”
He said a rapid electronic system is paramount because everything from feedlots to slaughter plants would have to shut down while tracebacks were initiated and disease control implemented. Export markets could also close.
“Close U.S. exports for one day and you have a $9.1 million per day impact,” he said.
The pork industry would lose more than $3 million per day if exports were banned.
Other meat sectors also suffer if beef is shut out of export markets because the beef must remain at home and edges out pork, poultry and fish sales.
“As a result, you lower beef and meat prices,” he said.
Major global beef competitors such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand and Uruguay have electronic identification and premise identification. Major importers are also adopting similar systems while the U.S. remains voluntary.
“To have access to those countries, you have to meet those standards,” Schroeder said.
“If we do nothing, we stand to risk and give up markets.”
Idaho state veterinarian Bill Barton said livestock need to be identified in some way when they cross state or international borders.
“Brands are great and they help a lot, but they don’t do the whole job in a disease outbreak,” he said.
For example, brands are managed on a county basis in Texas, which means duplication is common.
Canada adopted a cattle identification system 10 years ago but traceability can be complicated, said economist Jill Hobbs of the University of Saskatchewan.
Having a traceability system in place does not mean you can do all the verification in the system.”
Consider an apple, she said. Someone has to decide how much detail is wanted about that fruit, bearing in mind that the more information required, the greater the cost.
Canada has not done a detailed economic study on the costs and benefits of a national agri-food traceability system, even though the federal government wants it in place by 2011 for cattle, hogs, sheep and poultry.
The goal of a farm to fork program is to provide timely, accurate and relevant information to enhance emergency management, market access industry competitiveness and consumer confidence.
Government wants to respond quickly to emergencies, food recalls and other food safety issues, but questions remain about the scope and purpose of a mandatory livestock system and whether it is a public or private good.
