The first meeting of the Processing Center Advisory Committee was held at the Comfort Inn in Charlotte, NC.

Jim Boyer, Chairman of the DP Committee, chaired the meeting. The following persons attended as participants:

Following introductions and opening comments, Jim Boyer presented a list of general topics and asked the Committee to discuss each of them to determine a consensus and develop and recommendations. Here is a summary of that discussion:

1. The Committee recommended that compliance with the use of a standards transfer format (STF) should be a part of the certification process.

2. The Committee agreed that there might still be revisions necessary to complete Jerry Steurnagel's work. Each member was asked to review the STF documents, mark items that should be included in QCS checks, and send comments to Michael Rector by September 7th. He was instructed to summarize the results and forward them to Jerry and the processing center managers.

3. The Committee recommended that revisions to the STF be part of the function of QCS and asked that Cathy Dei set aside adequate time for the issue to be discussed at the DRPC Workshop in September.

4. The Committee recommended that the implementation dates for the STF revisions be discussed at with Jerry at the DRPC Workshop in September.

5. The Committee recommended that STF be a requirement and that data be provided to other QCS patrons using these formats.

6. The Committee recommended that someone be contracted or placed on retainer with QCS to govern the STF process and resolve disputes.

7. The Committee recommended that a QCS staff person administer the maintenance of standards and STF program.

8. The Committee recommended that there be a more formal implementation of AIPL procedures, such as a mechanism to change deadlines.

9. The Committee recommended that AIPL report missed deadlines to QCS as a part of the certification criteria.

10. The Committee recommended that each processing center participate in a test herd program as a part of the certification process and that only quantifiable measurements be included in the evaluated criteria.

11. The Committee recommended that on-farm data entry software meet some type of certification criteria but did not feel that this should be part of the DRPC certification.

12. The Committee recommended that the current certification sanctions be continued, providing a reasonable amount of time was allowed for the correction of deficiencies prior to a DRPC or DMS being placed on provisional status or losing certification.

13. The Committee recommended that high cow records continue to be flagged and provided to the PDCA as a requirement for certification. By a 3-2 vote, the Committee recommended to keep the current list of requirements.

14. The Committee that there be one set of standards for records to be produced upon requests by PCDA, CDCB, and other allied industry organizations.

15. The Committee recommended that certain non-software prerequisites such as disaster recovery plans should be a part of the DMS certification requirements. However, there were no particular items recommended during the meeting.

16. The Committee recommended that the certification procedures for centralized processing centers and on-farm dairy management systems (DMS) be different, although no specific items were discussed.

17. The Committee asked Duane Norman if the AIPL was prepared to accept DMS transfers from each on-farm unit. He responded by saying that the DMS data was currently being collected by Texas DHIA at a central location and forwarded as an assembly. However, he added that the AIPL could adapt to a number of input mechanisms if necessary.

18. The Committee recommended the DMS certification guidelines be reviewed and asked Michael Rector to send out the procedures used for the Dairy Stor certification. It was suggested that this documentation be sent via e-mail to each member.

19. The Committee recommended that Jim Boyer divide the DMS certification guidelines into several parts and have each processing center review it and make recommendations for revision.

20. The Committee recommended that standard formulas and calculations used by processing centers be gathered into one source and made available to interested parties. It was suggested the information be placed on a web site for downloads.

21. The Committee recommended that the name of the current STF-4T format be changed to STF-4.

22. The Committee recommended that QCS list only the certification status and date.

23. The Committee recommended that adequate time be given for correction of deficiencies before provisional or non-certified status is announced.

24. The Committee recommended that QCS provide constructive suggestions as a part of certification evaluations.

25. The Committee recommended that a test herd should be started from a real herd and that updates should be from the same herd. It was also recommended that some modifications be added to test unusual circumstances.

26. The Committee recommended that AIPL perform the analysis of the test herd results.

27. The Committee recommended that the test herd be structured so that it is handled at the DRPC level with a minimum of hands-on intervention by processing center personnel.

28. The Committee recommended that Jim Boyer and Michael Rector contact AIPL to discuss the mechanics of running a test herd program and collaborate to write up a proposal.

29. The Committee recommended that the software used to generate the Herd and Cow Profiles be tested to check the Y2K compatibility of the programs and discontinue them if they failed.

Michael Rector was selected to write the minutes of the meeting. Instructions were given to review them with Paul Miller and Jim Boyer and, once completed, distribute them to the participants.

A second meeting was planned in conjunction with the DRPC Workshop in September and the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Rector
National DHIA / QCS

Back To Top