Electronic Identification (EID) for the sheep industry in Australia

Summary

In response to an earlier approach from the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI), MLA contracted Miracle Dog Pty Ltd to arrange and facilitate an industry workshop to critically examine the on-farm application and value of Electronic Identification (EID) for the sheep industry in Australia.

This workshop aimed to ensure that any decisions made at some point in the future are as well-informed by on-farm RD&E as possible so as to maximise the benefit to producers and others along the pipeline. The workshop assumed that in 10 years-time, technology will have developed to the extent that the industry will be looking at using EID in the sheep industry in a range of ways. The primary question then becomes “what do we need from an on-farm RD&E perspective in coming years to optimise industry productivity and profitability from the application of the technology”.

Objectives

1. Review on-farm research development and extension (RD&E) work conducted over the last 10 years, to:
   • understand what/how much work has been done;
   • what enterprise mix and scale has been addressed;
   • what farmer involvement there has been: and
   • what are the institutional contexts.
2. Review economic evaluations for farm-level
3. Assess the need for further on-farm RD&E into the utilisation of EID and associated
4. Where possible, ensure that policy development is informed by the full range of past, current and any future new RD&E.
5. Review on-farm research development and extension (RD&E) work conducted over the last 10 years, to:
   • understand what/how much work has been done;
   • what enterprise mix and scale has been addressed;
   • what farmer involvement there has been: and
   • what are the institutional contexts.
6. Review economic evaluations for farm-level
7. Assess the need for further on-farm RD&E into the utilisation of EID and associated
8. Where possible, ensure that policy development is informed by the full range of past, current and any future new RD&E.

Key findings

Situational analysis

The application of electronic identification (EID) of sheep in Australia has been the subject of much discussion and research over many years. While there is no doubt that EID has a benefit from a biosecurity / animal traceability perspective, the cost and utility of the technology from a producers perspective is far less clear.

There have been numerous trials and reviews undertaken on the technology, including by the Sheep CRC, Animal Health Australia, the Victorian DPI and numerous private operators. Presentations on this research and specific reviews were provided to the workshop.

Sheep ID in Australia

A search of Australian State Department of Agriculture / Primary Industries websites and documents reveals that from a regulatory perspective, there is as yet no requirement for sheep producers to use electronic ID. However, the tagging of sheep is required. In most states, all sheep (and farmed goats) must now be identified with an approved NLIS (Sheep) tag prior to dispatch to a sale-yard, abattoir, or another property with a different Property Identification Code (PIC). NLIS (Sheep) tags must be stamped with the PIC of the property on which they are to be used and the NLIS logo.

Sheep and goat producers are also required to:

• Ensure their properties have a Property Identification Code (PIC).
  Provide a National Vendor Declaration (NVD) when dispatching sheep or farmed goats of any age to a saleyard or abattoir, or to another property with a different PIC.
• There are two types of visual NLIS (Sheep) tags approved for the permanent identification of sheep and farmed goats:

NLIS sheep breeder tags – these tags are colour coded for year of birth. This type of tag can only be used to identify sheep and goats that are still on their property of birth. The colour for year of birth is not mandatory, but strongly recommended.

NLIS sheep Post-breeder Tags – these tags are always pink and are used to identify sheep and goats no longer on the property on which they were born or introduced animals that have lost their original NLIS Sheep Breeder Tag. They can also be used on sheep that are born on the property.

Sheep producers have the opportunity to purchase electronic tags for use as part of the NLIS (Sheep & Goats). The use of electronic sheep tags is voluntary. These tags are approximately $1 in Victoria and $1.10 - $1.20 in other States. To support those wishing to use EID, an NLIS Standard for Sheep RFID was finalised in early 2009.

Since 1 July 2010 all mob-based movements of sheep and goats between properties are required to be uploaded to the NLIS database in most States. In WA this has been on a voluntary basis although it becomes mandatory in 2011.

Uploading of the information contained on the movement document to the NLIS database is required by the person receiving the sheep or goats at that property. This must be done within 7 days of the sheep or goats' arrival.
Mob-based uploads to the NLIS database for sheep and goats have been occurring through sale yards since 1 September 2009. The mob-based upload is done by the owner or person in charge of the sale yard and usually within a day after the sale, depending on whether the sheep and goats are sold for slaughter, are sold to another PIC or are unsold and return to their original property.

Mob-based uploads to the NLIS database from abattoirs, feedlots, goat depots and export depots have occurred since 1 January 2010.

Sheep EID Overseas

European Union

In the EU, rules on the identification of sheep and goats were reviewed and reinforced after the outbreak of Foot- and-Mouth Disease (FMD) in 2001.  The system, which was adopted in December 2003 and entered into force in July 2005, is based on the principle of individual traceability and includes the following elements (Source: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/identification/ovine/index_en.htm).

• double identification before six months of age - two ear-tags or one ear-tag and a tattoo mark on the pastern, or use an electronic identifier;
• maintaining an up-to-date register on each holding;
• a movement document for each movement of groups of animals;
• a central register of all holdings or computer database at a national

Following a Report from the Commission (COM (2007) 711) electronic identification has since become obligatory (http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/identification/ovine/electronic_id_en.htm):

• Electronic tagging for all animals born after the 31st December 2009 is required (Member States with small populations of sheep and goats may make electronic identification optional for animals not involved in intra-Community trade)
• For breeding sheep or any sheep intended to be kept beyond 12 months of age – two identifiers are required, one of which must be electronic and both must have the same
• For sheep intended for slaughter under 12 months of age – only one tag is required which can be electronic or non-electronic, with only the flock number shown
• Recording of individual animal codes during movements (individual tracking)
  • from 1st January 2011 for all animals born after 31st December 2009
  • from 1st January 2012 for all animal

Further details on the system which is operating in the EU (specific to the UK) can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/sheep/documents/eid-quickguide.pdf).

USA

It is of interest that the website of the peak sheep industry council in the US (http://www.sheepusa.org) has had no reference to sheep ID policy since 2005.  It is also of interest that debate in the US about animal ID, including sheep, is controversial as evidenced by a recent Secretary of Agriculture meeting on the issue in 2009.

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/newsroom/documents/Secretary_Vilsack_NAIS_Roundtable_Transcript.pd f)

It would appear that sheep ID has largely being driven by the Scrapie control program. However, more recently, in early 2010, USDA announced a new, flexible framework for animal disease traceability in the United States.  The framework seeks to provide an improved animal disease traceability capability in the United States.  The program involves:

• Only applies to animals moved in interstate commerce;
• Is administered by the States and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility;
• Encourages the use of lower-cost technology; and
• Is implemented transparently through federal regulations and the full rulemaking http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/animal_id/9cfr79.shtml

New Zealand

While market access to Europe is sometimes touted as a reason why Australia needs an individual sheep (and cattle) identification system, New Zealand, a far larger exporter of lamb to Europe, does not have such a system in place.

The National Animal Identification and Traceability (NAIT) project in NZ dates back to August 2004 when industry approached the Government to work together to improve animal tracing in New Zealand. http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/animal-identification-and-tracing.

However, at this stage, it is only for cattle and deer with the voluntary launch set for June 2010 and mandatory ID to start in June 2011.  The system, however, will be designed to allow other livestock sectors to be added when and as appropriate in the future.  The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry considers that if sheep were to be included at some time in the future, it would likely be at a flock or mob level rather than at an individual animal level.  It believes the addition of any other species to NAIT should only be considered once the system is up and running for cattle and deer.

Benefits to industry

The key findings arising from the workshop in relation to the benefits and limitations of sheep electronic identification were:

Benefits

The sector of the sheep industry most likely to obtain benefits is studs.  Commercial lamb and wool producers are likely to benefit less but there are still opportunities in relation to animal selection.  Benefits were identified in the following areas:

• Animal traceability / biosecurity / risk management enhancements (Industry)
• Improved data quality / accuracy (Producers, especially Studs)
• More efficient data collection (Producers, especially Studs)
• Time / labour savings – focus on decision making (Producers, especially Studs)
• Ability to collect more data more efficiently (Especially wool producers)
• Increased information flow along the supply chain (All)
• Information is available at the point of need – optimise the timing of decision making (Producers, especially Studs)
• Ability to compile multiple data sources (All)
• Introduces a culture of measurement (All)
• Multi-year data is possible (Producers, especially Studs)
• Ability to benchmark using a central database (Producers, especially Studs)
• Better livestock - enhance genetic improvement (All)
• Help to support employment contracts (e.g. a risk management tool for managers, especially producers)
• Improved inventory management and could assist follow up in the event of theft (All)
• Improved OH&S (less physical handling of sheep) (Producers)
• Makes the sheep industry a more attractive industry to work / invest in (greater use of technology / less manual labour) (All)
• May assist in value based (niche) marketing (All)
• Ability to develop sheep EID systems as an export industry (All).

Limitations

Limitations of sheep EID were identified in the following areas:

• Cost to producers and other sectors of the industry
• It is not easy for producers to “trial before they buy” – it is all or nothing at the moment
• There is no integrated “end to end” solution – quite disjointed. An increase in infrastructure and service providers is desperately needed
• There is also a need for extra training / skills development
• The tag design could be improved – one piece, drafting visible,
• The benefits for each sector / individual are not clearly defined or perceived to be not well
• Equally “who” should be targeted in marketing / promotion is not well defined – is it the owner, manager, consultant, other?
• It is perceived as a radical change in management so dissuades people from adopting it
• There is a distinct lack of qualified private service providers
• There appears to be a lack of compatibility between various tags and data bases g. NLIS, EID, SG, etc.
• There is no clear sheep industry EID implementation plan – this limits adoption and investment from both producers and service Such a plan needs to be underpinned by national standards.
• The industry does not currently have a widespread measurement culture
• There is a resistance to change across many in the industry – the “why should I” syndrome (especially when benefits are not clear)
• Sheep classers have an important role to play – but engaging them in the area of EID may be difficult
• The sheep industry is a “low – cost” industry (compared to say cropping) so capital investment is approached warily. The focus tends to be on cost (and there are costs involved up front with EID) rather than profit
• The system is complex and not well integrated – hardware, software, data management and use, decision making
• The IT capability of all in the pipeline is probably at the lower end
• Sheep EID is new, different and not “an accepted truth”
• There is a lack of a “critical mass”
• The industry tends to focus on the technical issues in relation to EID and not the “soft” benefits (e.g. more time for family / holidays). Sell the benefits – not the technology.

Future research

The workshop identified a range “on farm” research, development and extension needs.  Some of the following were consistently identified by the majority of participants, while others were more individual ideas.  The perceived level of agreement across the RD&E needs is identified by the term “High Priority”

1. Develop a Sheep Industry EID development and implementation plan and extend to all This plan should be tailored to encourage private as well as public investment. (Research, Development and Extension - High Priority)
2. Undertake market research to better define the market segments and the benefits to each (Research)
3. Review the current EID uses / solutions and have an independent evaluation of where are the key gaps

(Research), then develop specialised solutions to fill each of these gaps. (Development)

1. Define the value proposition for the use of EID in the sheep industry for the various market segments (studs, commercial producers, consultants, agents, processors) and prepare case studies on The value proposition should be on the benefits – not the technology. (Extension - High Priority)
2. Seek to develop an integrated support system / EID network for producers wishing to use the technology – a “one stop shop” – for hardware, software, dBase, analysis, advisory services, etc. (Development / Extension - High Priority)

(Note: This may involve building on the existing TAP alliance; inclusion of other providers (e.g. Gallagher); encouragement of consultants, especially in relation to using data for decision making; linkages into agents (e.g. Landmark); and involvement of sheep classers and pregnancy scanners who are important interfaces with producers)

1. Develop and conduct EID training courses (and potentially have these courses accredited) for:
   • Service providers
   • Producers (users) (Development / Extension - High Priority)
2. Conduct a review of the structure and complementarity of the various databases used by the sheep industry – NLIS, SGA, Processors dBase, (Research), then develop specifications that are mutually beneficial to all and seek standardisation. (Development).
3. Develop an array of enterprise and geographically diverse demonstration farms to highlight the use and benefits of the (Extension - High Priority)
4. Formulate a range of incentives (as yet undescribed) that may encourage greater uptake of (Development)
5. Identify and extend the benefits to the sheep industry from improved “traceability” capacity and delineate where are the critical control points to maximise value (note: this may not be at a farm level). (Development and Extension)
6. Develop completely new tags – g. biodegradable, non-contaminating, cheap, wireless applications, visible, read / write, bio-sensory, etc. (Long Term Research).
7. Keep a watching brief on other industries (e.g. human health) to potentially unearth new technologies that may have ID application for the sheep (Long Term Research)

Subsequent to the workshop, MLA met to determine the key learnings which arose and to develop an approach to move the issue forward.  It is of interest that the RD&E opportunities and priorities identified at the workshop were more directed toward extension activities and the trialing and use of existing technology rather than suggesting research to produce totally new approaches.

The MLA post workshop meeting agreed to the following actions:

1. NLIS compatibility - carefully examine whether there are any “compatibility” issues between either NLIS and Sheep Genetics, or NLIS and If there are no issues then circulate widely via a variety of channels “what happens now” and how producers can work within it. If there are issues that need resolution, implement a program to resolve them.
2. Bring “service providers” together - facilitate a “data managers / service providers” workshop to help ensure that producers wishing to use EID are able to access the services they need from a single (rather than currently multiple) source. The workshop should focus on “where there can be either common standards and / or a joint effort to develop standards and/or tools”. Such a workshop should be a precursor to a closer working relationship between
3. Develop communication products – develop the value proposition for the use of EID in the sheep industry for the various market segments (studs, commercial producers, consultants, agents, processors). Case studies on each, explaining the benefits – not the technology should be To achieve this outcome a meeting of key consultants should be held to:
   • Identify existing relevant desk-top studies and on-farm studies;
   • Identify gaps in case study examples of enterprise type x scale and then develop project proposal to fill such gaps (on a co-investment basis with commercial providers).
   • Case studies (or demonstration trials) need to provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis in each case
4. Communicate to industry – provide an outline of suggested actions to industry, with appropriate timelines, and seek further industry.