RFID report card

[kato]

OK, so we are totally diligent with taking twine from bales, not having things hanging around that can grab tags, and we do apply them properly.

So why, when we processed 97 cows today, did we have to re-install 27 tags??? ARGHHHHH.............

That's a 72% retention rate. In a zero tolerance world.

This meant two, count them two trips to town to buy more tags, losing over an hour of processing time. And $160.00 spent because it took more than one pack of 25 tags. Those 23 extra tags will be sitting around for a while as well. It also involved risking life and limb 27 times more than it should have. To say nothing of how long it's going to take to cross reference them.

One of those cows had an ear that looked like a screen door, it had so many holes in it.

Once again... ARGHHHH.....

If the government was paying for these tags, the program would likely be dropped. This must add up to millions of dollars a year.

[forage]

Kato , I have often wondered if some high up government beaucrat doesn't own a significant number of shares in the tagging industry. I am sick and tried of finding button tags that are suppose to best answer since sliced bread laying out in the pasture and cattles ears with tear marks that look like you cut it with a knife.

[SADIE]

recent meeting at Saskatoon Livestock Sales put on by Sask AG & Food had CCIA & CFIA presentations. This was April 26 after the open heifer sale. The crowd at the sale just left--tired of hearing anything more about this system.

I was asked to attend. About 40 producers stayed.

CCIA Rep----Pleaded to producers that retention is a huge problem but cattlemen were not taking time to fill out the 3-4 page sheet on their experience of RFID tag retention.

It was a very vocal crowd. This issue was dropped when I handed the CCIA rep the sheet of paper that was withheld from all producers that operating temp for these tags is 0 C to 50 C.

[grassfarmer]

For someone not in favour of the system Kato - why
do you bother cross referencing the replacement
tags? there has been zero enforcement of this part of
the program to my knowledge.
Taking two trips to town because you needed to buy
two bags of tags is hardly the Governments fault is it?

[burnt]

grassfarmer, is the concept of being conscientious foreign to you?

And further to the cross-referencing issue, perhaps you don't understand that it is a necessity for those of us who use matched CCIA/dangle tags?

Do you have difficulty grasping the general idea that the inherent flaws in the program cause great inconvenience, not to mention hazards?

If you continue to read here you will be amazed how we can contribute to your education!

[forage]

Sadie just a pint of clarafication are you stating that this damn tags are useless at -10,-20 -30 -40 . I have never heard this before. Interesting....

[kato]

I didn't say I was not in favour of the system. What I'm not in favour of is being the one to pay for all these wasted tags. It's one thing to ask us to ID these cattle. But what I don't like is having to ID them over and over and over again. And to have to pay for it over and over and over again.

This traceability is supposed to be intended to be a food safety issue that protects the whole country. Therefore IMHO, the whole country should ante up and put in their share. By making it mandatory, producers have lost any marketing advantage they could have had from traceability anyway.

These tags should cost us zero. We provide the labour, and risk injury with every re-tag. They should at least provide the tag. What we spent yesterday is only a portion of what we paid this week for tags. There's also over three hundred dollars gone on calf tags.

Also, I'm not in favour of a zero tolerance policy when it seems impossible to have a zero loss rate on the tags. There is no need to make a criminal out of a producer when all they have is substandard tags to work with.

[burnt]

kato, your post just made me wonder why we are still bearing the entire cost of the trace-back system. It's a point that deserves further investigation and action.

Why not - the hay isn't quit ready to cut yet . . .

[grassfarmer]

Burnt, I'm conscientious on the stuff that's important
- not on the useless crap, life is too short. I've never
cross referenced a mature animal that had lost it's tag
because there is really no need to as evidenced by the
enforcement. I've never read or recorded the CCIA
numbers on older cows or bought in cows - no need
to so that gets you out of cross referencing as well.
We never back registered any of our older cows with
ccia as there was never a market incentive to.
Younger animals since the OTM rules came in - yes.

We are not paying the "entire cost of the trace back
system" We are only sticking tags on them. How much
do you think it costs to run the CCIA database, wages
etc? How much more does it cost to actually trace
something back if there is a disease issue - bring in
CFIA officials, have them go through manifests, on
farm records etc etc. We are not paying the entire
cost - far from it.

[kato]

I'm suspecting you have pasture at home, so animals don't leave the premises until they are sold? Therefore, you likely don't tag animals until they are sold? Do you tag your calves with ccia tags at birth? If not, then I'm thinking your tag budget and ours are completely different.

Our cattle all ride in trailers to pasture, even our own pastures. That means they all need a tag at all times. Which means we need to keep up with the replacement of the tags. Which means it gets expensive.

As for cross referencing. If you don't cross reference the tags on an age verified animal, it's no longer age verified. Most of our herd is age verified, with the exception of a few bred cows that were bought in.