PHOENIX, Ariz. – The American beef industry has been told to accelerate its livestock identification machine, but producers say it could take two more years to launch a program.
“It can’t happen overnight regardless of what our congressional leaders think,” said Gary Wilson of the national identification steering committee.
U.S. secretary of agriculture Ann Veneman has said she wants to fast-track implementation of a practical system.
“We haven’t had the opportunity to sit down and determine what her definition of fast track is,” said Wilson in an interview at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association convention Jan. 30.
Read Also
Why selenium is still an important factor in horse health
Selenium is an essential equine trace mineral that supports antioxidant defense, muscle integrity, immune function, metabolism and thyroid activity.
He said it is good public relations to accelerate the program but he does not expect much to happen for a couple of years.
Wilson is involved with the overall steering committee and standards group developing a nationwide program for all livestock. He joined the initiative as chair of the NCBA animal health committee in 2001. After observing foot-and-mouth disease unfolding in Great Britain, U.S. livestock producers realized they could not track anything in days, much less hours.
“The only standard of identification we had was identification for calfhood vaccination for brucellosis,” he said. As more states eradicated the disease, the program was dropped.
“We now have states where there is no identification at all,” he said.
Livestock is not only anonymous, but movement is generally unknown.
“Cattle are supposed to move under a health certificate. It is my understanding that is a little relaxed to the point where it is practically non-existent,” he said.
The committee is considering the idea of electronic transfer papers to move cattle between states. These could be filled out on the internet and verified by a local veterinarian.
The identification committee wants a methodical approach. It wants time to test systems and get it right the first time, working with federal and state departments of agriculture as well as allied livestock groups.
The first step for the American animal identification plan is a pilot project to test systems on different sized operations in various locations.
By this July the committee hopes to have agreed on the methodology for a program. States should start to issue premise numbers at this time. These contain one letter and six numbers.
For those who own more than one operation, the owner and the state must determine whether one or more premise numbers are required.
Premise numbers are necessary to track movement. It could also mean a farm can avoid quarantine if an animal was not there long enough to catch or spread a disease.
Premise numbers will also be granted to auctions, assembly yards, fairs, processing plants and other places livestock is gathered.
By 2005, the plan is to have a national ID database so unique animal numbers can be issued by mid year. By July 2006, the committee wants to cover tracing animals sold within a state.
State agriculture departments are responsible for the day-to-day recording of movement and the overall database would be maintained by the federal animal and plant health inspection service. A private agency to monitor the databank used in Canada is an option, said Wilson.
A number of states use hot iron brands for identification.
The Montana Stockgrowers Association forwarded a resolution requesting a recognition of branding as part of the national identification program.
Wilson said brands can be useful within a state but the program still insists on unique numbers most likely embedded in electronic radio frequency tags. Brands work well only within a state because it is possible the same brand could be registered to other producers in different states.
Other ID challenges include settling privacy issues, costs, tracking movement, ownership transfers and liability if a problem is diagnosed.
Ideally, identification systems in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico should be compatible.
