<%@ Language=VBScript%> 2005 NIAA NAIS Progress Survey
NIAA NAIS Progress Survey
Conducted Oct. 5 to Oct. 10, 2005
among NIAA members and ID/INFO EXPO 2005 attendees.
 

 

Recent History of Animal Identification
 National Food Animal ID Task Force

__________________

Useful Links
 USDA Animal Identification Program
 National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
State/Tribe Cooperative Agreement Summaries
 USDA NAIS Brochure (PDF)
USDA NAIS Brochure: Premises Identification (PDF) 
Western Extension Marketing Committee ID Resources 
 __________________

NIAA Animal ID & Information Systems Committee
 Click here to view committee reports, technical information, and committee participants.
__________________

NIAA Services
 Click here to view services and benefits of membership with NIAA.  Let us know how we may serve you.
__________________

NIAA Membership
Our membership is very diverse and is made up of producers, veterinarians, scientists, government representatives and allied industries.  Click here to visit the directory.
__________________

 

  
Total number of responses: 198
      Percent
1. Which of the following best describes your professional status?
     Producer or Producer/Farm/Commodity Assn. Executive
18.69%
     State Agriculture or Animal Health Official/Employee
23.23%
     Federal Agriculture or Animal Health Official/Employee
3.03%
     Practicing Veterinarian or Vet. Association Executive
6.57%
     Academician/Extension/Researcher/Diagnostician
9.09%
     ID Technology or Information Systems Provider
23.74%
     Market/Processor
4.04%
     Media/Communications
4.04%
     Other Allied Industry Stakeholder
7.58%
 
 		  
2. What is your primary species affiliation/interest?
     Species Non-Specific
36.36%
     Beef Cattle
30.81%
     Bison
0.51%
     Camelids
0.51%
     Cervidae
0%
     Dairy Cattle
8.59%
     Equine
3.54%
     Goat
1.01%
     Poultry
0.51%
     Sheep
4.04%
     Swine
12.63%
     Other
1.52%
 
 		  
3. Which of the following best describes your association with NIAA?
     Full Member (National, State, or Individual)
45.96%
     Affiliate Member
18.18%
     Not an NIAA Member
35.86%
 
 		  
4. Did you attend NIAA's ID/INFO EXPO 2005?
     Yes
75.76%
     No
24.24%
 
 		  
5.
 		 Are you, in your current position, engaged in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), such as through premises registration, pilot projects, species working groups or other means?
     Very Engaged
66.67%
     Somewhat Engaged
25.76%
     Unsure/No Opinion
5.05%
     Somewhat Disengaged
0.51%
     Very Disengaged
2.02%
 
 		  
6. How would you rate your knowledge of the NAIS based on available information?
     1 - Minimal Knowledge
0.51%
     2
3.03%
     3
10.1%
     4
46.97%
     5 - Substantial Knowledge
39.39%
 
 		  
7. Do you agree/disagree that concerns have been heard and are being/will be addressed?
     Strongly Agree
12.12%
     Somewhat Agree
51.01%
     Unsure/No Opinion
10.1%
     Somewhat Disagree
21.72%
     Strongly Disagree
5.05%
 
 		  
8. Are you currently involved in a coordinated identification program (proprietary, association, state or regional)?
     Yes
62.63%
     No
37.37%
 
 		  
9. Is your state participating in a NAIS/USDA-funded cooperative agreement?
     Yes
69.19%
     No
7.58%
     Unsure/Not Applicable
23.23%
 
 		  
10. (If you answered "No" or "Unsure/Not Applicable," please skip to question 11.) Would you agree/disagree that your state's cooperative agreement is progressing in a manner you would consider successful and/or effective? (of 121 responses)
     Strongly Agree
16.53%
     Agree
59.50%
     Unsure/No Opinion
12.40%
     Disagree
9.92%
     Strongly Disagree
1.65%
 
 		  
11. Do you feel USDA's investment into cooperative agreements for pilot projects has been a successful endeavor with state and tribal governments?
     Strongly Agree
13.13%
     Mostly Agree
47.98%
     Unsure/No Opinion
19.7%
     Mostly Disagree
13.64%
     Strongly Disagree
5.56%
 
 		  
12. Which do you support regarding a voluntary or mandatory animal identification program?
     Voluntary
6.57%
     Voluntary during developmental stages, but making the program mandatory by 2009 (as set forth by the Strategic Plan)
27.78%
     Voluntary during developmental stages, but making the program mandatory as soon as possible
33.84%
     Mandatory
28.79%
     Unsure/No Opinion
3.03%
 
 		  
13. Did you submit comments on the Strategic Plan, released by USDA on May 6, 2005?
     Yes
39.39%
     No
60.61%
 
 		  
14. Do you agree/disagree that the comments provided to USDA are being utilized to guide the future direction for NAIS?
     Strongly Agree
3.54%
     Somewhat Agree
40.91%
     Unsure/No Opinion
29.29%
     Somewhat Disagree
20.2%
     Strongly Disagree
6.06%
 
 		  
15. The aggressiveness of the timeline at which USDA is pursuing NAIS implementation is:
     Too Aggressive
6.57%
     Highly Aggressive
5.05%
     Adequately Aggressive
47.98%
     Somewhat Unaggressive
32.32%
     Very Unaggressive
8.08%
 
 		  
16.
 		 USDA recently announced they are charging private industry to develop a consortium to manage a central, privatized animal tracking database. Do you agree this is the appropriate course of action at this time?
     Strongly Agree
8.59%
     Agree
16.67%
     Unsure/No Opinion
18.18%
     Disagree
26.26%
     Strongly Disagree
30.3%
 
 		  
17.
 		 USDA has scheduled a stakeholders meeting for Oct. 12, to allow industry to step into the role of developing a private tracking database. Which approach do you feel will best allow industry stakeholders to move forward in a timely manner?
     Adopt the current consortium concept being proposed by NCBA
12.12%
     Start from scratch on an industry initiative, and rely on all stakeholders to participate in reaching an effective solution
13.64%
     Rely on an approach similar to the 2002 National Animal ID Task Force to coordinate a consortium that will develop an effective solution
39.9%
     Allow each species to pursue a private tracking system
12.63%
     Sit and wait, hoping USDA will resume responsibility for the database
11.62%
     No Opinion/Unsure
10.1%
 
 		  
18.
 		 What sector do you feel should bear the greatest cost of implementation of the entire national animal identification system, including premises registration, AIN management and animal tracking?
     Producers
14.14%
     Consumers
15.66%
     State Government
1.52%
     Federal Government
57.07%
     Unsure/No Opinion
11.62%
 
 		  
19.
 		 The means for protecting confidentiality of data has been highly contentious among various industry sectors, particularly since the announcement of a private tracking database. Do you agree/disagree that legislation is necessary in order to protect data, as animal health officials are expected to have 24/7 access to the data?
     Strongly Agree
48.99%
     Agree
32.83%
     Unsure/No Opinion
7.07%
     Disagree
7.58%
     Strongly Disagree
3.54%
 
 		  
20.
 		 In your opinion, do you agree/disagree that the necessary information and education is being delivered to stakeholders in a timely fashion to help further NAIS?
     Strongly Agree
6.06%
     Agree
43.43%
     Unsure/No Opinion
14.14%
     Disagree
29.29%
     Strongly Disagree
7.07%
 
 		  
21. What is your biggest concern for implementation of NAIS?
     AIN Management System Availability
3.54%
     Data Confidentiality
3.03%
     Data Collection
7.07%
     Establishment of Industry Consensus for a Privately Held Database
21.21%
     Funding
21.72%
     Producer Participation
14.65%
     Federal Infrastructure
5.56%
     State/Local Infrastructure
4.04%
     Voluntary vs. Mandatory
7.07%
     No major Concerns
0%
     Other
12.12%
 
 		  
22. Please rate the overall progress of NAIS implementation, to date.
     1 - Poor
7.58%
     2
27.78%
     3
46.46%
     4
15.66%
     5 - Excellent
2.53%

 

23. Please list the biggest immediate obstacle you see in moving forward with NAIS. [Open ended question, 163 responses]
   *
 		 Adoption by the small producer
   *
 		 Hidden agendas of those opposing animal ID using database issues to cloud and delay progress
   *
 		 Producer cooperation Who pays?
   *
 		 Private database
   *
 		 Politics trumping realistic technical plans
   *
 		 Privately Held Database
   *
 		 Assuming the infrastructure is seamless. One of the largest obstacles we see is in data collection, using RFID eartags. In order to have confidence in the system, data collection and transfer should be 100% and with the current technology this is not possible with out slowing commerce. Do we need to focus on 100% collection, or be satisfied with 94-98%? I would say that for the program to have teeth, 100% collection and reporting should be the goal.
   *
 		 A mandatory id program for the purpose of containing/eradicating animal health and related food safety concerns must be the core function.
   *
 		 Acquiring adequate funding.
   *
 		 Public confidence, particularly in the area of confidentiality.
   *
 		 Industry unharmonization & related funding
   *
 		 Getting producers to participate.
   *
 		 Funding and staffing resources for small livestock states. Producers and auctions funding animal tracking systems that they can't afford. Technology avenues that are not affordable to producers and too much technicality that produces user-unfriendly and difficult cumbersome technology systems. Technology providers need to cut prices and produce afforadable easy-to-use technology friendly equipment and systems. Small producers and small auction barns being pushed out of the market because of out of control technology prices and a difficult, cumbersome procedure for animal identification.
   *
 		 Do we as a livestock industry have the will power to implement a mandatory national program. Lack of direction and leadership and communication by APHIS is an ongoining problem
   *
 		 It's all fine and good to argue over the database, but we should be having a serious debate about funding the infrastructure necessary to collect the data to put into the database!
   *
 		 Outreach and Education to all stakeholders.
   *
 		 Confusion. Mixed signals from USDA-- voluntary or mandatory? who pays? producers cannot afford to pay for this system. Brand states have system in place, use it. Private system, but not confidential. This is my job and I cannot understand what is going on, how am I supposed to communicate it to our members?
   *
 		 tOO "BROAD" APPROACH. pLEASE consentrate on slaughter dairy cows FIRST...
   *
 		 unfunded mandate
   *
 		 Intra-industry cooperation
   *
 		 Money
   *
 		 The high frequency tag issue should not be allowed to muddy the waters!
   *
 		 Somebody needs to be in charge or accountable for getting all species to work together. USDA needs to likely be that entity.
   *
 		 USDA's negative attitude towards a private NAIS, held and managed by a corporation.
   *
 		 Industry must promote and supply benefits to producer to enhance genuine results for consumer who will pay for wholesome healthy product
   *
 		 Cost. If it is privately held, what is it going to cost? The federal government should have to pay for something that they mandate. If the feds don't step up and put some money toward this that will directly benefit producers, I see producer participation being a real problem.
   *
 		 fighting within the industry
   *
 		 The lag in current EID reader technology - poor read rate in high volume or fast pace co-mingling points.
   *
 		 Getting species groups to cooperate.
   *
 		 Getting a fractured industry and species groups to unite in order to make this happen. The advent of the private database initiative only complicated the matter. It was very evident at the ID Expo 2005 show that these groups remain far apart, are consumed with self interest and are not considering the global, positve effect that NAIS will bring to the country and the consumer. The US prides itself on being the best but notice that virtually every other major nation, Japan, Australia, Canada, the EU, have all adopted centrally run, government and industry funded national ID systems, and that should the preferred model here in the US. Too many special interest groups involved, the USDA should lead aggressively in this regard or the effort is destined to languish and never make the needed positive impact.
   *
 		 Producers lack of knowledge that it is a tracking system and therefore producers participation will be limited.
   *
 		 Politics instead of science based solutions. Marketing being placed in front of animal health.
   *
 		 Individual ID
   *
 		 1. Allow Cattle brands to substitute for EID Tags. 2. Get everyone on the same track. The consortium idea from the 02 plan is still best
   *
 		 Producer acceptance
   *
 		 No compelling force (mandate) to require animal registration.
   *
 		 Overwhelmingly, the comment I heard most often as I personaly visited face-to-face with over half of the veterinary clinics and auction markets in my state is, "just tell us what we need to do and when we need to do it". I interpret this to mean, there needs to be proposed federal legislation for the MINIMAL requirements to set the NAIS firmly in motion. Until there is federal legislation to guide the program, states will continue to independently develop requirements that will not be uniform nor consistent. Comment on the survey: many of the questions would have given a better feedback if the respondent could have ranked his/her three most relevant answers.
   *
 		 Currency of data - premises updates Accuracy of data - reporting %age vs. actual movements Participation levels outside of publicly controlled markets Failure to recognize tha ttracking of all movements is not m=necessary in several species and that harvest surveillance with trace-back and movement records held by producer is more effective than tracking.
   *
 		 I am very disappointed at the lack of leadership on the national database and the elimination of all funding from USDA/government on the database. This means the initial producer of each commodity must bear the lion's share of the cost. Very unfair. The technology is so far ahead of the implementation. It is time to move ahead and get on with it before we have a major outbreak of some disease. Katrina or Rita may provide us with the disease!
   *
 		 producer participation
   *
 		 Missing and misinformation about workability and the value added features of the ID system. An acceptable data base as a repository and service providers with customer support for all users.
   *
 		 Establishing an industry consensus for a privately held database will be an issue with many producer organizations philosophically opposed to each other.
   *
 		 Industry must gather and provide information for producer to utilize in enhancement of most healthy and wholesome product which consumer willing pays for.
   *
 		 Achieving industry consensus for a private consortium.
   *
 		 NCBA
   *
 		 The politics of the issue seem to cloud teh science & the direct need for the project..
   *
 		 The development of software to allow the interface of data in all segments of the system. This, not the big database, will be the huge obstacle to all of the stakeholders successfully participating in the system. Private industry will charge an arm and leg for it (because it is a huge undertaking)...and the producer will be the ultimate payee. No government entity that I see has the ability nor apetite to take on the project.
   *
 		 24/7 availabity of necessary trace data for movement/comingling to find a FAD
   *
 		 Linking all species into one database. There only needs to be one database. It could be federal or private, but only database is needed.
   *
 		 Present technology is inadequate for efficient use for cattle.
   *
 		 USDA should hold the required information in their own database. The four pieces of information that would be requested under NAIS is not of concern to me as a producer. If though that database must be privatized, the producer that would "push" data only once, should not be charged the same "levy" when purchasing the tag, as the tag that has multiple "pushes" into the database. ie, producer, backgrounder, feeder all would get free use of the database if all of the"tax" were charged at the time of when the tag was purchased.
   *
 		 Thorough kwoledge of adequate technolgy so as to provide tracking throughout the system at an affordable level for the private sector
   *
 		 Not Being Mandatory
   *
 		 Lack of leadership and lack of Consensus. Some decisions have to be made and soon.
   *
 		 Industry Consensus for a Government or Privately Held Database
   *
 		 Cost
   *
 		 A severe lack of leadership and an understanding of the scope of the problem across all species.
   *
 		 NCBA's approach of saying they are letting the consortium make decisions, yet they have already picked a vendor to develop another system---seems like they would be better off taking part in the current consortuium NIAA/NIAS has built and let data service providers provide data to a USDA database with minimal data needed for animal health.
   *
 		 Lack of urgency and a strong guiding entity. There's too much political correctness and indecision.
   *
 		 producer reluctance
   *
 		 There are several questions that need to be answered before the groups should be made to make decisions. USDA seems to be pushing ahead regardless and is ducking the issues of funding, standards, adequate technology, costs to producers, impact on certain species, and role of the states. The states will be holding information in their databases that can be accessed by USDA as needed. There is no need for a private intermediary to handle this. USDA should cost share with producers to get participation and compliance. NAIS will severely impact states and some livestock segments if implemented in its current form.
   *
 		 Unless written by federal and state legislature in to law ,will merely be a code of practice and thus ineffective.
   *
 		 Lack of federal funding for NAIS infrastructure, inadequacy of current electronic technology.
   *
 		 Settling on the type of individual I.D. technology that will be used (low or high freq) and setting practical standards.
   *
 		 Disenchanted Producers
   *
 		 Lack of US government funding
   *
 		 Infrastructure
   *
 		 use of country code rather than manufacturer code Tags must be marked with premise code and distributed directly to grower or data will not be accurate you need some semi govt body to take control and make some decisions and stick to them addopt australias NLIS and alter what you think needs changing
   *
 		 The government should just bite the bullet and make ID mandatory across the board. The US must now play catch up to the rest of the world.
   *
 		 moving to quickly into the 840 number...there's no real need or value in it!!!!!
   *
 		 no leadership from USDA
   *
 		 USDA is not taking ownership of this project. They are to willing to pass it off to other self interest associations to avoid critical segments of industry.
   *
 		 The biggest immediate obstacle is that USDA is unwilling to make this mandatory and move forward with a basic system. They are wasting precious resources on tag tracking and pilot programs that are proving nothing because they do not allow the marketplace to operate with any freedom of choice. USDA and state coordinators are doing a poor job and the industry is letting them get away with it because they think it will save them a few bucks.
   *
 		 PREMISE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN SLOW. ID SYSTEMS ARE WAITING ON PREMISE ID COMPLIANCE
   *
 		 It will be too costly for the sheep industry to tag every animal and put the information into a data base.
   *
 		 Who's going to pay for what and reporting of movement data
   *
 		 The sytem is not clear yet!
   *
 		 cost Note: some of the questions and available responses are slanted and will bias the outcome
   *
 		 Collecting data and submitting it to the database
   *
 		 Lack of consensus... as one speaker recently put it: "Who is in charge?" I would add then let's get going and implement this program. There is much wariness with our lack of direction in the country.
   *
 		 cost
   *
 		 Voluntary
   *
 		 Industry/USDA/state coooperation
   *
 		 Having the species groups come to collaborative consensus for database.
   *
 		 How to fund a privitized database & gaining a consensus from the multipler specie groups as to how to approach this obstacle.
   *
 		 Forming a working consortium for construction and implementation of the animal tracking DB
   *
 		 The program must become mandatory ASAP, data must remain confidential and the database and related costs must be paid by the federal government.
   *
 		 -money -regualtory agencies: Lack of interaction & respect for confidentiality
   *
 		 We must decide and move on. The tracking database had been decided at USAHA in 04 and now the sec. has reversed. Undermines all other decisions. States now will sit and wait to avoid being left high and dry by USDA again.
   *
 		 The added cost to producers, and the subsequent decrease in willingness to be involved that will result, if this whole thing has to feed into a private database.
   *
 		 Right now, we are at a crossroads. The appearance that one organization is out there "bulldozing" everyone else over, and no one is able to provide input. This is not consensous building, or working cooperatively.
   *
 		 Lack of consensus support by industry and government for NCBA/USDA's proposal for a private consortium holding a "single" database and the concerns over trust and cost by producers at the grassroots level.
   *
 		 Federal intervention in State programs.
   *
 		 The lack of an authoritative governing body to coorditnate decision making. Important decisions need to be made to move the overall plan forward.
   *
 		 Since exhibition poultry is a hobby not an income producing agent, I fear over-regulation will cause may families to terminate their participation and many species of purebred poultry will cease to exist.
   *
 		 Getting all states on the same track. There has got to be a standard set as far as tracking is concerned or this system will never be successful.
   *
 		 Apathy. No immediate threat turns into no need to address the issues that were identified during FMD, END and BSE.
   *
 		 The sudden "about-face" by USDA about who will hold animal movement data signals a possible loss in momentum and focus for the NAIS implementation process. Did the NCBA "stuff the ballot box" with public comments? I have had "hate mail" from beef producers in our state about allowing any venture with NCBA to go forward. NAIS stakeholder education about how the consortium will function has been almost non-existant to date! In response to #17..."NCBA and company" is not the only consortium for consideration! May the best plan advance and EVERYONE work together effectively to implement the NAIS!!!
   *
 		 cattlemen
   *
 		 where the data is to be housed
   *
 		 1. Program must become mandatory. If not, then the issue is dead concerning disease traceback. The only producers who will use a voluntary program are those who can benefit from a value added concept!
   *
 		 Politics continue to have more influence on the development of the NAIS than what has been determined during the 5 years of hard work by industry stakeholdres and govenment.
   *
 		 establishment of consensus for a privately held database
   *
 		 I have two concerns. By going to a private database you cannot make the system mandatory and by going to a private database you are expecting a lot of different people to come to some agreement on who, where, and what that system is and this will be extremely challenging.
   *
 		 NCBA
   *
 		 Not tailoring NAIS to the needs of each species.
   *
 		 equipment and logistics
   *
 		 The National Data Base: who will control it, how much will it cost, producer cost,government access.
   *
 		 Secret negoitations with Congress by NCBA to bypass the initiatives of USAIP task force and USDA to present a fair and balance plan.
   *
 		 Need consistent federal funding !!
   *
 		 I am in favor of private databases with government access for disease surveillance and containment purposes. Forcing the concept that their needs to be a single central industry database, controlled by a single entity, that all industry will feed into, if only for political reasons, will be difficult to attain and may very well prove to delay the implementation of NAIS.
   *
 		 How to handle mis reads of RFID tags. What will the protocol be to account for tags not read at the speed of commerce?
   *
 		 The coalition concept
   *
 		 voluntary vs mandatory, and keeping the focus on data needed by animal health officials.
   *
 		 moving off "neutral" and trying to get states to work together to develop consistent premises ID requirements and movement reporting regulations
   *
 		 Producer Participation and Funding.
   *
 		 Cost to producers
   *
 		 Too diverse of a group that is thinking only of their agenda
   *
 		 consensus on a private database
   *
 		 Moving the tracking data base to the private sector will GREATLY damage and slow down the NAIS implementation - credibility will be damaged, industry "disagreement" will hamper greatly, will lose much time bickering.
   *
 		 The lack of any kind of leadership from the government, industry or even producers. I understand no one wants to lead because they may be held accountable for paying for the system but really this attitude is only hurting the future of America's animal industry
   *
 		 Industry infrastructure (i.e. at packing plants and auction barns) that supports value added applications. Value will increase palatability to producers
   *
 		 There appears to be more spin than solutions at this point; Therefore, while searching for solutions, people are talking past one another. "Common" terms are then easily mis-interpreted.
   *
 		 Some guidance will to be provided to the industries in order to complete the goal of one centralized, multi-species database. We cannot lose sight of the goal of NAIS and definately should not overlook the foundation of NAIS, which is the premises identification.
   *
 		 Too many vested interests and too little serious thought in implementation and consequences of an effective system.I have been an advocate for over 25 years
   *
 		 Variety of attitudes evident across the species, locales and regions.
   *
 		 Producers do not want to be accountable for 1) foodsafety liability and 2) maintaining cow numbers within the permitted numbers.
   *
 		 size and scope of project
   *
 		 Failure of NCBA to bring other industry groupos along toward a common program
   *
 		 Contention regarding ownership of the database. We had been proceeding based on the fact that USDA was managing the database. This change in direction has set back and changed the focus of many stakeholders.
   *
 		 Communication and coordination between participants and potential participants to pull together and share a clarified vision, develop a workable plan and obtain the necessary funding to initiate data collection.
   *
 		 cost of program
   *
 		 Uncertainty of future direction and plan given privatization.
   *
 		 Politics and bureaucracy!
   *
 		 They need to make it mandatory
   *
 		 private vs. centralized tracking database
   *
 		 The current technology is poor to run at the speed of commerceand the technology neutral dtance of usda to further developement of workable systems. Cost of implementation is not being communicated effectively.
   *
 		 Lack of a central unifying body making recommendations on producer-level technology.
   *
 		 Technology not ready. Moving ahead with plans before results of pilot projects are considered.
   *
 		 Educating producers and getting them to participate(especially the small-time ones). They are so scared that this program will drive them out of business. It is so important to figure out a way to include them in this program without making them spend a bunch of money.
   *
 		 Establishment of industry COnsensus for a privately held database.
   *
 		 The controversy and questions about a private consortium controling a private database, the length of time it may take to come to a consensus, and producer concerns about cost.
   *
 		 Trying to coordinate the establishment of multi livestock species ID programs concurrently.
   *
 		 Disagreement on who should own/control the data base
   *
 		 Too many databases that are not integrated for effective animal health reporting for animal health incident situational awareness
   *
 		 The ID Tags
   *
 		 Certain industries' antiquated mentality. Funding (it should be shared, but producers will have to pay some.) If it's not mandatory, it will fail. Confidentiality and the database issues could slow things down dramatically. NAIS is something we must do.
   *
 		 The program must voluntary. Otherwise the only producers who will participate are the few that see a "value added" benefit to their marketing program. A voluntary program will provide NO disease traceback opportunities due to the limited number of participating producers!
   *
 		 NCBA- Because the position they take is not based on reason. They should not be "leading" a coalition, nor should they be picking a tech provider before the formation of any coalition.
   *
 		 NCBA and the decension devised by them to stove pipe much needed animal health programs while exploiting other species WGs for their own agendas.
   *
 		 Smaller producers willingness to participate.
   *
 		 USDA has to take leadership, until we have AIN # we can't ID animals, we can not continue to be tech neutral, as a dairy producers I am ready to implement Fair RFID tags but I need to know that is what USDA is looking for and that those tagfs will work in the system. We need to ramp up the reader technology and USDA has to take the leadership here, 1st step register prems, 2nd step ID animals and track them, down the road we need a central data base, but ultimately the state vet has the responsibility for protecting the state herd.
   *
 		 PRIVATE VS GOVERNMENT
   *
 		 Confusion and arguing over the private vs public database. There is NO proprietary information in the animal tracking database just numbers, ie. ID, dates, premises, movement codes etc. It's time some of the private industry realizes that it's just movement numbers and can't be tied back to producer records etc.. that they feel are in jeopardy. Maybe someone needs to start over and explain the concept again so everyone understands how it was set up to work.
   *
 		 Delay in a mandated system which will be further accentuated by privatization of the system.
   *
 		 Getting plan implemented in a timely fashion.Using correct ID on correct species.Uniformity between states is important.
   *
 		 Database concerns
   *
 		 USDA not knowing who will hold the private database or how many there could be. Who will pay for this? USDA changing their mind in mid-stream of the NAIS, making the states that are promoting the AIS looking like we don't know whats going on. USDA set their goals for the NAIS they should stick their plan, because you can not make everyone happy,when you keep making changes just confuses the industry, producers. That makes them have very little confidence in the USAD running anything.
   *
 		 The Database needs to be govenment
   *
 		 money
   *
 		 Narrow the field of devices used by creating a government standards group to ensure compatablity across all species of animals.
   *
 		 coordination and cooperation within and between industry sectors and government
   *
 		 cooperation

 

  
survey conducted through services of Convene Machine (R).