As a group of young steers winds through the auction yard chutes, all activity stops because the computer says there are more cattle than identification numbers.
Electronic ear tags are read again and if the radio frequency signal is dead, the offending tag is replaced.
That attention to detail may appear to slow the speed of commerce, but for Australia’s beef industry, 100 percent identification and animal traceback is the new cost of doing business in a competitive, health-conscious world.
When Australia introduced its livestock identification system in 2000, beef producers reacted like many of their Canadian counterparts. They saw it as more costly government intrusion into their lives.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“Our cattle producers here had the same reaction to the Big Brother issue, but it has since gone away. Now they know the way the system can work for them, that is slowly waning,” said Allan Bloxson, identification and traceability manager at Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA).
The identification scheme was fully adopted in 2005.
MLA administers the scheme and an on-farm food safety program to protect the domestic and export market. All information is backed up with a mirror database stored with the country’s largest telecommunication company, Telstra.
Similar to Canada’s electronic identification system that uses passive radio frequency button ear tags, the program is mandatory, but signing the quality assurance declaration is not.
“It is voluntary but it is commercially driven. The processors or the feedlot will not purchase an animal unless it comes with a declaration,” Bloxson said.
The paper or electronic declaration resembles a livestock manifest. It contains on-farm food safety records, animal movement information and livestock descriptions. Every declaration has an individual number and is linked to the national identification and movement database.
The declaration also indicates which lender holds the mortgage on livestock so the proper parties are paid at the time of sale.
The movement records include the herd of origin’s farm premise identification code and whether the cattle travelled to shows, pastures or sale yards. The form indicates where the cattle were born and raised.
“Major processors who are exporting these products want to know who has been in control of the animal husbandry,” Bloxson said.
That information is required for a nation-wide chemical and drug residue testing program. About 20 years ago, pesticide residues were detected in animal fat and a campaign was launched to provide safe meat for domestic and export markets.
Australia had limited traceability linked to a brucellosis and tuberculosis surveillance program in the 1960s. Premise numbers issued at that time were given to the new program.
Based on international standards, the database records a unique 12 digit number, premise identification number and year of tag manufacture because program administrators know producers buy tags in bulk so there are more numbers in the field than have been reported.
To date, more than 46 million numbers have been released to 170,000 premises. About 35.9 million tags are active and 10 million are archived because the animals are dead.
Tags sell for $3 each and some states offer producers a subsidy to defray costs. The producer applies to a state authority that gives approval to buy tags. The numbers are recorded and sent to the national system.
Information access is restricted to animal owners. When the Australian tax office asked for information, access was denied. However, police are allowed access to track missing animals.
Animals must wear their tags until slaughter when numbers are retired. That includes small abattoirs killing a few head per week. If any disease is detected, traceback should take no more than 48 hours.
If cattle show up at an auction without tags, livestock agents put in emergency tags that are referenced back to the main database. Producers are charged for the replacements.
Auctions and feedlots often have panel readers attached to chute walls to capture numbers as the animals move through. The computer records the number only once, although the tag may have been read several times.
Auction staff also use an extra long wand reader to capture the numbers of all animals in a pen and if the tag does not read, it is replaced.
Some people use a rumen bolus identifier, but processors are lobbying to stop such use because of food safety. The bolus could be lodged anywhere in a cow’s second stomach and it must be recovered.
While some producers and auctions have their own reader systems, individuals are starting up portable reader businesses. They are paid to read numbers and then move on to the next venue.
For many producers, the system has evolved into a better management approach. The database offers 120 open fields and producers can enter whatever information they want.
One of Bloxson’s jobs is to develop a better feedback system because there have been computer compatibility problems. Producers are still learning how to get useful performance information on how cattle fared at the feedlot and as a carcass.
“I’m not satisfied our carcass feedback system is as good as it should be because different states have picked it up at different levels, so the feedback is not really usable from a breeder’s perspective,” he said.
