Details

Last Updated on Thursday, 27 August 2009 07:24

Written by Jennifer Womack

Gillette — Kaycee ranchers and video auction representatives say a recent Wyoming Livestock Board (WLSB) decision to dismiss the brand inspector in their community has the potential to cost them money.
    Kaycee rancher Mike Lohse said the agency is establishing a history of increasing fees and cutting services. He said if ranchers are waiting on a brand inspector before they can load the trucks and send the cattle on to the scales they’re losing money as their cattle stand and shrink. “I know you’re trying to cut your budget, but you’re cutting my budget,” said Lohse.
    “The people at Kaycee are finding this hard to swallow,” said Superior Livestock Auction Representative Tony Schiffer. “There are five full-time inspectors between Douglas and Casper. Now in Johnson County we have one and in Sheridan County we have one. I don’t know who is going to pick up the slack.” Schiffer said it would have been wiser for the agency to dismiss a newer hire rather than a 26-year veteran of the agency.
    “How are you going to fill the void?” asked Superior Livestock Auction Representative Ray Mader. “The part time guy in that area worked every day the full time guy did last year.” Ranchers also pointed out the part time inspector’s schedule is limited by his second job driving school bus. They questioned the logic in paying mileage for an inspector to travel to the Kaycee area from Casper.
    Wyoming Brand Commissioner Lee Romsa said inspectors would be shifted from other areas. At the meeting’s end he and Wyoming Livestock Board Director Jim Schwartz committed to ensuring an inspector’s presence if producers provide a two-week lead-time in requesting inspectors.
    As it stands, Lohse said two weeks hasn’t historically been enough time to get an inspector on shipping day. He said the brand inspector is one of the first people he calls to avoid having to move his shipping date.
    Romsa said the decision was made based on inspection numbers, form numbers and the presence of part time inspectors in the area. The agency also directed the cuts toward districts that hadn’t made cuts in earlier staffing reductions. In addition to the brand inspector at Kaycee, an inspector in Uinta County was let go.
    The cuts were part of a directive from the Governor’s office to cut state agency budgets by 10 percent. Romsa said the agency’s original proposal, which called for cuts in programs, not people, was rejected by the Governor’s office. “We were told specifically to take $105,000 in cuts in the brand inspection program,” said Romsa. “We really only spend money on salary, benefits and mileage.”
    Asked if they have room to reconsider their decision on the dismissal, Schwartz responded, “The letters have really been delivered. We’ve already submitted the plan to the Governor. I don’t think we have that latitude at this point in time.”
    Lohse said, “The last time there was a plan to eliminate an inspector under this same supervisor, people got mad just like they are now and he was re-hired.”
    Rancher Frank Shepperson said that future inspector reviews need to include a conversation with producers who utilize the inspector’s services.
    The brand inspector discussion took place during the early June Cattle Industry Convention and Trade Show in Gillette. The Wyoming Livestock Board has scheduled a teleconference for June 16 with brand inspection among the topics to be discussed. Jennifer Womack is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Friday, 17 September 2010 15:04

Written by Christy Hemken

Douglas – On Aug. 18 the Wyoming Livestock Board hosted a listening session at the Wyoming State Fairgrounds, with a focus on livestock disease traceability. Speakers shared experiences from states surrounding Wyoming, and an update was given on the new direction for national animal identification.
“Looking back, the need for filling the gaps in our identification programs has been seen for some time,” South Dakota State Veterinarian Dustin Oedekoven of Pierre, S.D. told those in attendance, mentioning that disease eradication programs for brucellosis and scrapie have historically spurred identification programs that have worked very well.
“That led to the rise and fall of NAIS (National Animal Identification System), with the good, the bad and the really ugly, and we’re now back to where we started,” he continued. “We realize we do have some needs for traceability of livestock to limit the impact of highly contagious and economically devastating diseases.”
In response, USDA has formed a working group to compose a new, state-based proposal. The group is composed of seven state animal health officials, five tribal representatives and a number of USDA staff who are writing a draft rule.
“It’s easy to do a necropsy and figure out there were a number of fundamental errors made,” said Colorado State Veterinarian Keith Roehr, a member of the USDA working group, of NAIS. “It was a bold move for USDA to say they wanted to trace back any animal disease in 48 hours. Now the program has been declared officially brain dead.”
Roehr said the new effort aims to create a system only applied to livestock moved between states. He noted that for most producers who already use some form of identification on their cattle, there will be no increased cost.
“There will be a number of options for official identification to move interstate,” he said, adding that brucellosis or production tags are acceptable but the basic identification method is a nine-character alphanumerical silver tag like those traditionally only distributed to vets.
“The backbone of the system would be that all cattle or bison moving interstate must be accompanied by a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI), which is really no different than today,” he said, noting that each CVI would be marked with each animal’s individual identification number.
It would be the producers’ responsibility to keep track of the tag numbers they’ve been issued and to maintain copies of their CVIs.
Both Roehr and John Honstead of USDA APHIS VS Western Region emphasized that the general livestock movement requirements could be exempted with individual, specific agreements between states and their animal health officials.
Of the use of brands in the identification system, Roehr said, “Our slaughter traceback systems operate on individual animal identification, and if there’s an animal of interest on the rail, it’s matched with a collection of eartags. Tracing that cow through brands would not work, as the hides are pulled off along the way and go through a hole in the floor, and storing those hides just doesn’t work with the packing industry.”
On the question of exporting feeder calves from Wyoming to another state, Roehr said they could possibly be identified on arrival, provided the numbers are recorded and matched with their origin, not the state in which they arrived. 
“Wyoming allows a lot of imported cattle to be identified on arrival. I don’t have a problem with that, as long as good records are kept,” said Wyoming State Veterinarian Jim Logan.
The role of USDA in the program would be one of funding, and evaluation, said Honstead. “USDA’s responsibilities would be to maintain the current identification systems and databases for tag distribution,” he said. “We’d also establish standards for defining the official identification on CVIs.”
“We’re committed this not be an unfunded mandate,” continued Honstead. “The commitment is there that we will pay for it, and the new rule will be outcome-based. We’re not going to every state to demand they have a program that fits federal standards. Instead, we’ll evaluate states on their ability to trace tags in a real system.”
Honstead said states could use any identification system they want, as long as it works. A tier of three statuses has been developed, based on states’ ability to accurately run a trace. “If a state’s ability is in the lower status, that doesn’t mean you can’t trade, you’ll just have a few more requirements,” he said, adding that the working group doesn’t yet know what those would be.
Roehr expects the draft rule to be proposed in April 2011, followed by a 12- to 15-month comment period, leading to a final rule around July 2012. “There would be a year for implementation, during which some exemptions would go away, so in 2013 the rule would be in place,” he said.
“Presently, the percentage of cattle identified at slaughter is 28 percent. Using that percentage, it begets an ineffective system. The ability to eradicate is not the legacy of state officials and veterinarians, but of the industry,” said Roehr. “We’re at a pivotal point where we can choose to live with the diseases and allow some reemergence, or we can try to effectively work toward an eradication system.”
“The last few cases of a disease are the hardest and the most expensive to get rid of,” noted Honstead.
“I’m a firm proponent of having some official identification in livestock,” said Logan. “And not because I want any information other that what I need to trace with. There’s no black helicopter I’ve seen from the federal or state side, and I hope as this progresses Wyoming will develop a good program that works for us.”
Christy Hemken is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 August 2011 01:00

Written by Christy Martinez

Douglas – On Aug. 11 the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a 115-page proposed rule to “establish general regulations for improving the traceability of U.S. livestock moving interstate when animal disease events take place.”

“Our proposal strives to meet the diverse needs of the animal agriculture industry and our state and tribal partners, while also helping us all reach our goal of increased animal disease traceability,” said chief veterinary officer for the United States John Clifford upon the rule’s release. “We believe reaching our goals on traceability will help save the industry and American taxpayer’s money in the long term.”

However, members of Wyoming’s ag industry have their doubts, and at the Wyoming Livestock Board’s listening session at the Wyoming State Fair on Aug. 17, Wyoming Assistant State Veterinarian Bob Meyer shared his thoughts on the proposal, which is open for public comment for 90 days until Nov. 9.

“This will impact producers in Wyoming, big time,” said Meyer, noting the rule would will apply to cattle, bison, horses, poultry, sheep, goats, swine and captive cervids. “The next 90 days are critical for the industry to study this thing, get their comments and look at the impacts. Any time there are impacts, you know there’s a cost involved, and you can figure out where that cost will come back to.”

“We’ve been talking about a voluntary program here in Wyoming, and what that would look like, but we’ve yet to define that,” said Meyer. “This rule will help give us some strong guidance, at least if our cattle will leave Wyoming going to other states, on what will have to be on those cattle.”

Meyer said USDA’s plan is to phase in the traceability program, through a Phase I and Phase II. Phase I of the program would require all sexually intact cattle 18 months of age and older to be officially identified, as well as dairy cattle and bison of any age, in addition to cattle used for rodeo, recreational events, shows or exhibitions.

However, he said that, as with any rule, there are exceptions, such as commuter herds. Cattle would also be allowed to cross state lines with a form of identification apart from official ID as agreed upon by the respective state veterinarians.

“Therein lies the brand issue, and right now we have no idea which of our surrounding states will participate with us,” said Meyer. “We have an idea that some will, but we don’t think they all will. If this finally goes into affect, after comments are taken and after USDA looks at the comments for months or years, at that time we’ll talk with the surrounding state vets to see who will accept brands as identification.”

Another exception in Phase I are cattle moving directly to slaughter through an approved sale yard – they can move with a USDA-approved backtag.

Eventually, Meyer said USDA would like to get to the point where every cow has only one official identification device.

“They want only one official ID or method applied, but with certain exceptions. State vets can approve second devices, and if you have cows and calves that are already Bangs vaccinated, but want an RFID tag, you can put it in, as well,” said Meyer. “They eventually see the cows with only one official ID in their ear from birth to death – that’s their vision.”

He added that doesn’t include a producer’s ranch tags.

Naturally, the removal of an official ID device is prohibited, except at slaughter, and producers would be able to replace original tags with new ones.

“If you know what the other tag was, write that down and keep those records for five years,” said Meyer.

Of the reality of the impacts, Meyer said he thinks they will be seen mainly at markets.

“This program requires an ICVI, or Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection, for non-slaughter cattle,” said Meyer. “A copy of the certificate has to be forwarded to the state of origin, then that state has five days to send it to the state of destination. What I see is the biggest impact is the official ID number must be recorded on the ICVI, unless the cattle are less than 18 months of age or are dairy steers, non-rodeo steers and spayed heifers.”

For example, he said if 150 cows are going from Worland to Nebraska for feeding, all 150 cows will have to be put through the chute to have their ID number individually written on the face of the health certificate.

“Auction barn owners will be really interested in the impacts on them,” said Meyer of the time required to write down the individual IDs.

Meyer said the intent of the program is for all steers and feeder heifers to have official identification when shipped interstate, but if they’re less than 18 months of age they don’t have to be individually listed on the health certificate – they just have to have a statement saying they’re individually identified.

“Right now, Phase I only talks about adult breeding cows 18 months and older,” noted Meyer, adding that another problem he sees is what happens with those individual IDs on the ICVIs after they’re read and recorded.

“What good is the paper record?” he asked. “It’s not searchable, but the intent is that these will be state programs, so the IDs will need to be put into a state database. If we do all this work, how will we get the information into a searchable database? The USDA is saying this will be a state program, so it’s up to us to enter the information.”
Wyoming State Veterinarian Jim Logan and Meyer have already been in discussions with APHIS on the proposed traceability rule, and they’ve also been on conference calls with industry groups.

“At our last two listening sessions the Livestock Board has talked about the possibility of developing a voluntary program that fits Wyoming,” said Logan. “At this stage in the game we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle to know what we should shoot for, but we know more now than we did even a few weeks ago, so we need to have discussions in-state on what we can do to help producers be in compliance.”

“Regardless of what happens with the federal rule, the other states will develop identification requirements for cattle, sheep and goats that are being imported into their states. I’d hope there wouldn’t end up being 50 programs we have to satisfy to export our Wyoming cattle,” continued Logan. “It’s imminently important now that our industry and the Livestock Board continue dialogue to put something together for a Wyoming program we can make work for us.”

Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Thursday, 01 July 2010 14:22

Written by Heather Hamilton

While a brand inspection is currently required to haul cattle to the Crawford Livestock Auction in Crawford, Neb., producers in eastern Wyoming feel a G-Form, similar to what’s used to go to South Dakota markets, would be both more convenient and efficient. A meeting on the subject will be held June 1 in Lusk to discuss a transition. 
“The meeting will be informative in nature. The producers want to put the pros and cons forth for consideration. They would like to able to get a G-Form and are still willing to pay fees,” comments Crawford Livestock Auction owner Jack Hunter.
He adds there are times when a producer heads to town with a couple weigh-up cows and a brand inspector is unavailable, and having a G-Form to travel to Crawford would be more convenient and would also reduce time, mileage and expense for the Wyoming Livestock Board (WLSB), as the expenses can outweigh the income under those circumstances.
WLSB Director Jim Schwartz says his agency has received over 200 letters from producers on the issue, most from Niobrara, Weston and Converse counties and most in favor of using a G-Form for Crawford.
“We have concerns in terms of revenue from writing G-Forms and what impact that would have on the brand program,” says Schwartz. “I understand it would be a convenience, but it also cuts brand program revenue in half. A full inspection costs $1.50, while a G-Form only costs 75 cents.”
Schwartz also has concerns about where to draw the line. “If we allow a G-Form to go to Crawford, then what happens when producers want to expand to Gering?” he questions, adding it could lead to interest in using G-Forms for Greeley, Colo., Billings, Mont. or into Idaho.
“I understand the convenience this would provide to producers on the eastern side of the state, but I also have concerns about the impact to the brand board’s revenue. I can’t say where the board is going to go with this issue. If history repeats itself, they will likely be reluctant at this time, but that’s just speculation,” comments Schwartz.
He adds that crossing state lines with a G-Form has worked in the northeast corner of the state for 25 or 30 years with much success, but he’s not sure how much the board wants to expand.
Belle Fourche Livestock Exchange owner Dean Strong comments using a G-Form works very well for both producers in Wyoming and the sale barns in South Dakota, and has for many years.
“The trouble with a full inspection is the number of brand inspectors it would take to cover every rancher’s one to three weigh-up cows they sell this time of year. They would have a quite a time getting them all inspected, unless we put a Wyoming brand inspector in the yards,” comments Strong.
“The G-Form works well. Our inspectors have to look at all the South Dakota and Montana cattle, anyway. With Wyoming cattle, inspectors refer to the G-Form and inspect them just like any other bunch,” he adds.
In the last year Strong estimates 67,000 cattle traveled to Belle Fourche, S.D. or St. Onge, S.D. on a G-Form to be marketed.
“Call any producer from northeast Wyoming, and he has used a G-Form to bring cattle into South Dakota. It works well,” says Strong.
Schwartz says the Lusk meeting is primarily a listening session for the Board. On June 2 a full board meeting will be held in Casper, and Schwartz encourages producers to attend if they want to voice their opinion.
“This is something that’s really needed from a convenience and marketing options stand point. If it’s something producers want, they need to get behind it and give their support,” adds Hunter.
Heather Hamilton is editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .