Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:18:58.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Animal Identification Systems in North America: Achievements and Future Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Ronald D. Knutson
Ronald D. Knutson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Canada has developed an effective animal identification system, and the provinces are progressing toward a system that has full traceback capabilities, the U.S. and Mexico have made little or no progress. Contemporary U.S. proposals for state initiatives will not work. In the meantime, the U.S. livestock industry will continue to lose markets for its products and has little to no basis for complaining about lost sales and the lack of open markets. Also indentified are relevant economic and political principles that both underlie animal identification systems and the failure to make positive steps forward toward establishing a North American animal identification system.

Keywords

animal identification (ID)zoonoseslivestock diseasesNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)F13H41I19
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 571 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

APHIS. Veterinary Services. “Questions and Answers: New Disease Traceability Framework.” Factsheet (February 2010). Internet site: www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability (Accessed February 15, 2010).Google Scholar
Bowers, D.D., Rasmussen, W.D., and Baker, G.L. History of Agricultural Price and Adjustment Programs. Agrie. Inf. Bull. 485, ERS/USDA. December 1984.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Just, D.R., and Peterson, H.H. “Is Expected Utility Applicable: A Revealed Preference Test.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92,5 (2010):16–27.Google Scholar
Knutson, R.D., Penn, J.B., and Flinchbaugh, B.L. Agricultural and Food Policy. 4th ed. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998.Google Scholar
Knutson, R.D., Romain, R., Anderson, D.P., and Richardson, J.W. “Farm-Level Consequences of Canadian and U.S. Dairy Policies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79,5(1997):1563–72.Google Scholar
OIE, World Organization for Animal Health. (2010). Internet site: www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm (Accessed February 18, 2010).Google Scholar
Rasmussen, W.D. “The Impact of Technological Change on American Agriculture, 1862-1962.” The Journal of Economic History 22(1962):578–91.Google Scholar
R-CALF. (2010). Internet site: www.r-calfusa.com/animal_id (Accesses February 18, 2010).Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 36(1954):387–89.Google Scholar
Smith, A. Wealth of Nations. London, UK: Stra-han and T. Cadell, 1776.Google Scholar