Report of the FAO-APHCA/OIE Joint Workshop on Animal Identification and Traceability Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2-4 July 2007

THE SEVENTEEN APHCA MEMBER COUNTRIES

AUSTRALIA MYANMAR

BANGLADESH NEPAL

BHUTAN PAKISTAN

INDIA PAPUA NEW GUINEA

INDONESIA PHILIPPINES

IRAN SAMOA

LAO PDR SRI LANKA

MALAYSIA THAILAND

MONGOLIA

RREEPPOORRTT OOFF TTHHEE

FAO-APHCA/OIE Joint Workshop on Animal Identification and

Traceability

CCoolloommbboo,, SSrrii LLaannkkaa,, 22––44 JJuullyy 22000077

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

REGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Bangkok, 2007

ii Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2–4 July 2007

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) nor the Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (APHCA) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO. All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. © FAO 2007

For a copy of the report and correspondence, please contact:

Senior Animal Production and Health Officer and Secretary of APHCA FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP) 39 Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200, THAILAND E-mail: Hans.Wagner@fao.org

Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2-4 July 2007 iii

APHCA Homepage: http://www.aphca.org

Table of Contents

Page

Part One: Record of the Meeting .......................................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Opening .................................................................................................................................... 1

First Session, Monday 2 July ............................................................................................. 2

Second Session, Tuesday 3 July ....................................................................................... 5

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 8

Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 9

Part Two: Selected Papers .................................................................................................. 11

The Central Database for Identification and Registration of Cattle in Germany (HI-Tier) ............................................................................................................ 11

Livestock Traceability Systems: Policy and Institutional Requirements ...... 18

Livestock Identification for Traceability Systems ................................................. 25

Overview of Successful Traceability Systems .......................................................... 30

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 1: Workshop Programme ........................................................................... 47

Appendix 2: Attendees .................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 3: Pre-workshop Questionnaire.............................................................. 53

Appendix 4: Acronyms..................................................................................................... 58

1

Part One: Record of the Meeting

Introduction The workshop was organized as a joint effort by OIE and FAO-APHCA. It was held at the Taj Samudra Hotel in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Delegates from 17 countries attended, as well as a number of guest speakers. The workshop lasted three days, from 2-4 July, 2007.

Opening

The official opening ceremony began at 09:30 on Monday 2 July with the arrival of the main guests and the lighting of the traditional oil lamp.

Dr A.O. Kodituwakku, Deputy Director-General of Animal Production and Health in the Sri Lankan Ministry of Livestock Development, welcomed all present and proceeded to act as Master of Ceremonies. After briefly commenting on Sri Lanka’s livestock industry, he noted that the workshop had come at an opportune time.

The next speaker was Mr S.J. Pathirana, Secretary of the Ministry of Livestock Development, who highlighted the importance of the livestock sector to Sri Lanka. He noted that the country does not have an acceptable livestock identification system, having abandoned hot branding for welfare reasons. Alternatives are needed. He thanked FAO-APHCA and OIE and wished the workshop success.

Dr P. Chumsri, FAO Representative in Sri Lanka, thanked the staff of FAO-APHCA and OIE for their roles in organizing the workshop. He saw identification and traceability as important for modern livestock development and wished the participants well in their deliberations.

The following speaker was Dr B. Khambounheuang, the chairperson of APHCA. He thanked the Sri Lankan Ministry for their hospitality and acknowledged the support of FAO-APHCA and OIE in their roles as standard-setting organizations. He pointed out that identification and traceability had always been important for stud breeders, but noted that they had now become important for disease control and consumer assurance. APHCA countries needed to identify needs and priorities for traceability and recognizes the need for regional standards for identification and traceability procedures.

Dr Y. Oketani, OIE Deputy Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific thanked the Sri Lankan government as host, and thanked the speakers for their participation. He noted the importance of the OIE in setting animal health and trade standards, of which traceability had now become a part. Diseases such as BSE, FMD, HPAI and dioxin residue had in recent years disrupted trade and demonstrated the need for traceability of animals and their products. The OIE was currently engaged in developing Animal Health Code chapters on traceability. He wished the participants a successful workshop.

2

The Chief Guest, the Honourable C.B. Ratnayake, Minister for Livestock Development, then addressed the meeting. He noted Sri Lanka’s long history of agriculture and livestock production, as well as its history of international co-operation. He expressed the hope that the workshop would play a role in further developing and expanding these relationships. His Ministry was very concerned with the development of livestock – for the first time, livestock had a full cabinet ministry. There was a need to develop the sector to higher levels, with the dairy subsector seen as a priority. He acknowledged the support of organizations such as FAO-APHCA and OIE, and hoped that these organizations and the resource persons would help Sri Lanka achieve its aims. He finally thanked the organisers for their work and wished all participants success in their deliberations.

First Session, Monday 2 July

The Driving Forces for Animal Identification and Traceability (H.G. Wagner, FAO-APHCA)

After giving the participants the opportunity to introduce themselves, Dr Wagner commenced his presentation. He informed the meeting that traceability had been under discussion in APHCA for some time, and that this was the first workshop on the subject. China and Malaysia had committed themselves to the implementation of traceability systems and there was strong interest in Thailand and the Philippines.

In recent years the principal drivers for traceability have been various diseases and concerns for consumer safety. These have been strengthened by various international agreements and legal or technical standards, such as the WTO’s SPS Agreement, the OIE Animal Health Code and the Codex Alimentarius. Other organisations such as FAO and ICAR also played a role. Traceability is not just for disease control: it also forms the basis of performance recording and good farm management.

It is thus necessary to consider what any envisaged system should achieve – disease tracking, marketing, export, movement management – or a combination of these and more.

Many stakeholders have an interest in traceability and traceability systems require many inputs and various potential outputs, requiring an integrated approach.

Many stakeholders have an interest in traceability and traceability systems require many inputs and various potential outputs, requiring an integrated approach.

There are a number of possible drivers for traceability in Asia – disease control, quality demands (the ‘supermarket revolution’), breeding management, dairy production and recording and good farm management. The need to enter export markets is doubtful, as most Asian countries are net importers of livestock products. The role of traceability in illegal movement control is also doubtful.

3

A key issue for debate is who would pay for traceability systems - this would doubtless depend on system aims and outputs.

Regional organisations probably have a role to play, and there is a need to start a regional initiative.

There was some discussion on the need for a training package for traceabilty. This could be included in a regional TCP.

OIE Standards for Animal Identification and Traceability (L.O. Barcos, OIE)

Dr Barcos explained that OIE has been recognised by the WTO as a standard-setting organisation for animal health. Standards are developed by ad hoc groups and/or Working Groups and adopted annually by member countries at the General Session in May each year. These are minimum standards, aimed at promoting trade, harmonising controls, supporting disease surveillance and control, and narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

The OIE has been working on traceability standards for some years, and the first standards were approved in May 2006. Amongst others, these standards created definitions for identification, identification systems and traceability.

Dr Barcos emphasised that animal identification and traceability are tools for addressing animal health and food safety issues, with identification helping to link animals to their products. The objectives of any identification and traceability system should be clearly defined.

According to OIE principles, official traceability systems should fall under the jurisdiction of the Veterinary Authority. There should be a legal framework, clearly defined procedures, identification of establishments and owners, identification of animals, a specified means of identification and recording of animal movements. The design of any system should be defined in terms of its outcomes, with clear performance criteria and scope of operation.

The OIE is compiling information on national traceability systems of member countries, and will make this available on its website.

ICAR: Organisation and Activities, especially in respect of animal identification. (O.K. Hansen, ICAR)

Dr Hansen briefly outlined the history of ICAR, which has its roots in livestock performance recording and genetic improvement of livestock.

ICAR sets technical standards for livestock identification - for RFID devices, readers and plastic tags. It has also developed a series of tests to demonstrate compliance of these devices to the standards. The standards for RFID devices and readers were developed in close collaboration with ISO and are now designated as ISO 11784 and ISO 11785.

4

The ISO coding system was briefly described β a 15-digit numbering system which provides for either (a) a country code where the country is prepared to administer code allocation, or (b) a manufacturer code, where ranges of codes are allocated by manufacturers. A number of countries, including Australia, have adopted ISO/ICAR RFID standards.

The importance of adopting a standard system for identification, particularly if RFID was to be used. The use of ICAR standards had been extensively researched and was commended to the participants.

Livestock Traceability Systems – Policy and Institutional Requirements (R. Paskin, Biosecurity Victoria, Australia)

Dr Paskin outlined the need for a clear government policy on traceability, for legislation to support and enforce it, and for an institutional framework to implement it. Farmers, properties and livestock need to be identified, all with unique codes which must be stored on appropriate databases. Standards are required for identification devices, animal movements must be recorded, and there must be mechanisms for auditing and enforcement.

Taking Namibia and Australia as examples, Dr Paskin showed that in both countries a mixture of private and government institutions hosted databases and managed data input, while overall supervision and certification was provided by the national veterinary services.

Funding was another issue that needed to be tackled; in both countries, a mixture of government and private funding mechanisms sustained the identification and traceability systems.

Identification – a Multitasking Device (O.K. Hansen, ICAR)

Dr Hansen introduced the identification and traceability system used in Denmark and outlined the institutional arrangements required to support such a system.

Identification and traceability serves many purposes – the tracing of animals, their products, farm management, welfare, the recording of medicament usage, and forms the basis for certification.

The Danish system is supported by two main databases – an animal identification database and an animal movement database. Various role-players – farmers, veterinarians, dairies, abattoirs and others are involved with data input and actively support the system. Breeders’ organisations contribute on the side of performance data, the veterinary services are responsible for traceability and consumer protection, the food industry ensures market access for traceable products only, and for product branding.

5

Both properties and animals are uniquely identified. Animals are identified for their lifetimes, analogous to the chassis number of motor vehicles. Identification is a legal requirement.

For such a system to be a success, there needs to be good co-operation between all of the various role-players.

Second Session, Tuesday 3 July

Livestock Identification for Traceability Systems (R. Paskin, Biosecurity Victoria, Australia)

Dr Paskin introduced the subject by saying that there are, very basically, two types of animal identification systems available – those that identify the owner (for proof of ownership) and those that identify the animal (individual identification for traceability purposes. Livestock branding and tattooing fall under the first type – and suffer similar disadvantages (readability problems, inability to identify the animal, etc).

For individual identification, a number of options are possible – external visual identification by means of ear tags is the most common. Tags of a sufficiently high manufacturing standard have a high retention rate and can be marked with alphanumeric codes or datamatrix codes or a combination.

Electronic identification using RFID chips (microchips) is also possible, and these can be embedded in ear tags or in ruminal boli. (Boli have a disadvantage, they are hidden and it is not immediately obvious that animals are identified). Electronic identification is not recommended for developing countries as it requires a sophisticated and expensive electronic infrastructure to make it work.

Moving from identification to traceability requires a system of connected databases and a means of recording movements that have taken place.

The Central Database for Identification and Registration of Cattle in Germany (HI-Tier) (R. Carmanns, Ministry of Agriculture, Germany)

Dr Carmanns noted that the European traceability system for cattle had its roots in the BSE problem which occurred in Europe in the late 1980’s. The system is based on unique identifiers for cattle and for properties with databases for the recording of each. Animals bear two unique plastic ear tags and each has a passport corresponding with the tags.

Each cattle owner is allocated a unique code carrying identifiers for the state, the type and location of the holder’s operation (farm, abattoir etc) and is linked to the owner’s name and address. Animals are allocated unique codes which appear visually on their ear tags and passports; identifications are issued to animals within 7 days of birth.

6

Each movement for each animal is recorded, the seller records the ‘off’ movement and the buyer registers the ‘on’ movement. The registration of movements is usually done via the internet, as the entire system is ‘on line’ and can be accessed via a web site (can also be done by post or telephone). Slaughters and on-farm deaths are also registered.

Dr Carmanns gave a detailed demonstration of the system. Each type of user has limited rights and can only perform actions on the system pertinent to his/her role (farmers can report sales or acquisitions, veterinarians report health data, abattoirs record slaughters, etc). All users have unique password-protected accounts.

The system contains a number of checking mechanisms designed to limit the entry of incorrect data. Apart from recording movement transactions, the system also records performance data, health information and slaughter data for cattle and is used for a number of functions that extend more broadly than simple traceability.

The flexibility and wide applicability of the system and its easy accessibility via the internet has brought about wide acceptance by all stakeholders and helps reduce overall costs. Farmers especially use it as a management tool in running their operations.

Overview of Successful Traceability Systems (R Paskin, Biosecurity Victoria, Australia)

Dr Paskin contrasted two cattle traceability systems: one ‘low tech’ system operating in a developing country (Namibia) and one ‘high tech’ system operating in a developed country (Australia).

The essential elements of the two systems are similar but operate differently. Both have property databases and movement databases. The Namibian system uses plastic ear tags carrying alphanumeric and datamatrix codes while the system operating in the Australian State of Victoria uses RFID tags.

In Namibia, movements on and off properties are recorded by both buyers and sellers and mostly use a paper reporting system (although electronic scanning of datamatrix codes and internet-based data entry are possible). In Australia, movements are usually recorded by direct data upload after cattle tags have been scanned. Most Australian cattle movements are recorded electronically, but for small farmers or remote localities, paper-based movement recording is also possible.

The Namibian system also provides for the recording of sheep movements on the movements database, but this is done on a group basis rather than individually.

The conclusion to be drawn was that whatever system is used, there are always basic requirements that will remain the same – especially property and movement databases and having means of updating these databases in a timely fashion.

7

Livestock Identification and Traceability and Disease Control (C. Benigno, FAO-APHCA)

Dr Benigno reviewed the situation in Southeast Asia with respect to livestock traceability. Although seen as a tool in many areas of livestock husbandry, it is also seen as means of supporting disease control through animal tracking and movement control. Many countries in the region have a paper-based form of identification, linked to import permits.

The means of traceability used was weak (often based on written descriptions of animals on movement certificates) and was used mainly for importation, rather than for in-country movement control. Understanding animal movements was seen as a key to understanding and controlling disease spread.

Many outbreaks of FMD had occurred in Southeast Asia, often related to animal movements. Based on the distribution of disease and an understanding of movements, a form of zoning or regionalization was being proposed to underpin the progressive control of FMD in the region.

Animal identification could be linked to its ownership, disease status and vaccination status and could, on a regional basis, be used to help movement control. Following a regional study, tagging linked to vaccination and certification was seen as a way forward to manage movement control, and was acceptable to most stakeholders in the region.

Country Reports

A number of countries that were implementing, or planning to implement identification and traceability systems reported on their progress.

China: An ambitious animal traceability system to eventually cover the entire country has begun its phase-in period (five years). Enabling legislation is already in place, and the aim of the system is to assist disease control and ensure better food safety. Animals will carry an ear tag bearing a datamatrix code (two-dimensional bar code); at slaughterhouses, carcase ID codes (standard bar codes) will link carcase to animal. The system is already deployed in four provinces and is in the process of being expanded to eight provinces; eventually the whole of China will be involved.

Thailand: Comprehensive traceability systems for all livestock, including poultry, are being designed. Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) have been the main drivers for their implementation. Commercial poultry will be identified by batch, with farms being given property registration numbers which will be reflected on movement permits for the birds. There are also plans for passports for fighting cocks and free range ducks. Cattle and buffalo will wear colour-coded ear tags to denote their zonal origin (FMD-free zone, FMD-infected zone or imported); individual ID numbers will be allocated and recorded in a central database. Animals will also be given identity documents to complement the tags. The project will be phased in over a number of years until 2011, aiming to eventually include not only cattle and buffalo, but also sheep and pigs.

8

Malaysia: The main driver behind Malaysia’s envisaged animal ID system is FMD. Movement permits (recorded on computer) are used to control animal movements from FMD-infected areas in peninsular Malaysia to areas further south that are FMD-free; but the permits refer only to animals or groups of animals that are not identified. Ear tags are already used in parts of the livestock sector, and it is hoped to expand this to cover all sectors especially in areas where FMD control is important. Plans are being made to implement RFID tags (ISO compliant) and advice is being sought from Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) in this respect.

Working Groups

The participants were divided into two working groups with the aim of discussing a number of issues pertinent to animal ID and traceability in order to come up with a set of recommendations. After discussing the issues in groups, the attendees would re-unite in a final plenary session to finalize the workshop outputs. It was decided to split the participants along the lines of countries without legislation for animal ID/traceability and those having such legislation.

The group looking at issues pertinent to countries with no suitable legislation decided that identification and traceability was desirable and that countries should set about formulating policies and legislation to create and enforce ID/traceability. Amongst others, the legislation would have to designate a competent authority to oversee the implementation of identification and traceability systems.

The countries having legislation prioritized traceability scheme objectives with disease control being one of the main objectives. Stakeholders were identified with government playing a central role, but also recognizing farmers’ organizations and parastatals such as meat boards. The government would have to find ways of engaging these stakeholders to ensure the success of their systems. Some of the countries were already engaged in implementing traceability on a small scale (‘pilot schemes’) with the aim of eventually involving the whole country.

Conclusions

1. Taking into consideration the animal disease situation in the region and the movement of animals within and between countries, the delegates recognised the need for the implementation of animal identification and traceability schemes based on the following:

The securing of a favourable animal health status through the facilitation of disease control and eradication

The strengthening of livestock breeding and production, including improved farm management

The necessity for proof of ownership and identification for insurance purposes

9

To meet sanitary requirements in order to facilitate national and international trade

To promote food safety and consumer confidence

2. The competent authority for animal identification and traceability is the national veterinary authority. The maintenance of databases and application of identification devices can be done according to the specific needs and requirements of individual countries.

3. The meeting recognised that in many countries, the legislative framework (laws and regulations) for identification and traceability is lacking or in need of amendment and updating to create a legal environment conducive to the implementation of effective identification and traceability schemes.

4. Animal identification could be individual or by group (cohort and epidemiological unit), or a combination of both, depending on local conditions and the objectives of the traceability system.

Recommendations

1. The meeting encouraged member states to set in motion the necessary activities to initiate the development of national livestock identification and traceability schemes. This includes:

Policy development

Creation of the appropriate legal framework

Identification and engagement of stakeholders

Provision of funds for pilot activities and long-term implementation

Identification of public and private sector organisational and financial responsibilities

Development of national databases of establishments and/or epidemiological units

Adoption of appropriate means of identification and movement recording, based on the relevant OIE standards, and taking into consideration ICAR and ISO technical standards pertaining to animal identification

Development of animal and movement recording databases

Provision for linkage to databases containing performance data for genetic improvement programmes

10

2. The meeting pointed out the need for harmonisation of databases and animal identification wherever possible in order to ensure data exchange between member countries. It is recommended that the ISO standard for animal identification using a 15-digit identification code be used, or that adequate provision be made for its future use, and that where ear tags are used, they meet ICAR manufacturing standards.

3. The meeting was informed of the range of possibilities for animal identification, and felt that RFID technology, at the present moment, may not be feasible in many countries due to:

Costs;

Data reading, recording and handling requirements;

Livestock industry structure with many small farmers

The meeting therefore recommended the use of visual identifiers with the possibility of upgrading to machine readable technologies at a later stage (e.g. RFID or data matrix coding).

4. It was recognised that regional organizations such as ASEAN and SAARC can play a central role in facilitating the development of a legal and technical framework for animal identification and traceability. It was recommended that the issue of animal identification and traceability is included in the programme agendas of SAARC and ASEAN.

5. The countries requested that OIE, FAO/APHCA and other donors provide assistance in the following areas:

Policy development, legal drafting and strategic planning

Stakeholder engagement

Database development and data exchange technologies

Technical support with pilot project implementation

Technical and financial support should be sought through OIE, FAO-TCP and FAO/APHCA.

11

Part Two: Selected Papers

The Central Database for Identification and Registration of Cattle in Germany (HI-Tier)

Richard Carmanns 1 1. Introduction The BSE crises in 1996 had drastic effects on the beef market in the EU. The market nearly collapsed as the consumers substituted from beef to other types of meat. To stabilize the beef market the EU Commission introduced regulation no. 820/97 in 1997 to win back consumer confidence in beef through traceability and transparency on all levels of production and marketing. To achieve traceability on all levels of production an improved identification and registration system (I&R) was introduced. The system is based on an unique identification number for each animal and an unique registration number for each holding. The traceability and transparency on all levels of production is provided through the obligation to register all changes in a holding in a central database. The central database is the key element in ensuring traceability on all levels of production. The other elements:

two unique ear tags for each animal,

cattle passports and

a register for each holding. 2. The I&R System in Germany In Germany the 16 federal states instead of the federal Government are responsible for the implementation of regulation 820/97. In 1998 the federal states asked the Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to set up and run the central database for cattle in Germany on their behalf. The central database was operational in 1999 and is an internet based system. The 3 pillars of the I&R system are an unique ear tag number for each animal, an unique registration number for each holding and the obligation to report all changes in a holding within 7 days.

1 Project Manager of the German Central Database for Cattle, Pigs, Sheep and Goats. Bavarian State

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ludwigstr. 2, 80539 München, Germany. Email: Richard.Carmanns@stmlf.bayern.de

12

2.1 Registration of cattle holders One authority per federal state is responsible for the registration of all cattle holders in this state. A unique 12 digit numeric number is used for registration. The registration number is based on a statistical key. The statistical key allows an area localisation on federal state, county, town/village level. The registration number is linked to the name and address of the owner as well as the type of operation of this holding or institution (farmer, trader, slaughterhouse, veterinary administration e.g.). This information is stored in a local database of the federal state. From this database the information is automatically transferred to the CDB in Munich. 2.2 Registration of animals One authority or mandated agency (Regional Office) per federal state is responsible for the issuing of ear tags and cattle passports. The size of the plastic ear tags as well as the content is according to EU regulation. The ear tag number starts with DE for Germany and is followed by a unique 12 digit numeric number. One ear tag also has a bar code (datamatrix code). Ear tags are only issued to a registered holding on request. The issued ear tag numbers are immediately allocated to the holding number in the CDB. The allocated ear tags can only be used by this holding for the registration of births. Each birth has to be registered within 7 days. The passport is only printed after the registration of the birth in the CDB. The passport contains all necessary information about the animal including barcodes which allows for scanning. Imported animals can only be registered by the Regional Offices. The registration is based on the foreign passport and further documents. 2.2.1 Registration of movements All cattle holders which also include traders, auctions, collecting points and slaughterhouses have to report all movements within 7 days. The seller has to report the off movement, the buyer the on movement. Each mortality (fallen stock) also has to be reported within 7 days as well as slaughter on the farm. In case of export the country of destination has to be declared. Registration of an animal in the CDB is a prerequisite to store a movement. 2.2.2 Registration of slaughter A slaughterhouse has to report each slaughter, which include information on carcass weight and category. 3. General Information on the German System In Germany no electronic device is used so far for the identification of cattle. The introduction of RFID technology is planned from 2008 onwards. Cattle must be marked

13

according to the EU regulation with two plastic ear tags with an identical number. The tagging is done by the holder himself within 7 days after birth. In case an ear tag gets lost or is unreadable, the replacement ear tag must have the identical number. The costs for a pair of ear tags vary between 2.50 – 3.30 €, this includes the printing and postage for the passport. All changes in a holding must be reported within 7 days to the competent authority. There are 3 different ways to report changes to the competent authority:

Postcard (only to the Regional Office)

Telephone via interactive voice response (IVR) direct into the CDB

Internet via Browser or Batch Client or csv-file direct into the CDB There are about 12.9 Mio. cattle and 230 000 holdings in Germany. The average number of reports per day is about 100 000. More than 85 % of all reports are sent via internet. Traders and slaughterhouses with big numbers of reports use the batch client, farmers predominantly use the internet browser. Postcards are only used by elderly farmers which have no access to internet. The use of the IVR system via telephone is marginal. 4. Technical Information on the CDB The German CDB has a Three Tier - Client Server architecture. The database system is DB2 from IBM and runs on a mainframe. The application server processes are developed in Java and are running on midsize servers with Windows 2003 or AIX as operating system. There are different kinds of client implementations

– file based batch client, – web based html user interface for browsers, with Microsoft ASP / ASP.Net

Servers – rich client with gui (graphical user interface) from different independent

software vendors – direct communication with other legacy system in regional administrations

Basis means of communication between the different clients and the application servers is an own developed communication protocol based on TCP/IP-Sockets. The communication with the client is in the form of a request – response dialog. A client can only communicate with the application server and not directly with the database. The application server on the other hand can only communicate with the database via DB2-connect software using JDBC. 4.1 Database access For security reasons a user only gets access to the system after authentication. The authentication is based on the 12 digit registration number in combination with a minimum 6 digit PIN.

14

4.2 User rights in the system The rights a user has in the system derives directly from his role. A holder can only see in the database what is reported under his own registration number. Only under certain conditions he can see the slaughter information like carcass weight. An administration can read all information in their field and area of duty. In addition to different roles of cattle holders such as farmer, trader, slaughterhouse there are a lot more roles defined in the system such as veterinary service, agricultural administration, laboratory, veterinary e.g. 4.3 Reporting restrictions In order to avoid reporting mistakes the role (type of holding) the user has controls which reports he can insert into the system. A farmer for example can only report birth, on and off movement export and death but never slaughter. On the other hand a slaughterhouse can never report a birth. The veterinary service can only enter movement restrictions, veterinary practitioners only vaccination information, laboratories only certain test results, e.g. 4.4 Data quality management in the CDB To ensure a high data quality in the CDB, a two level control system is implemented. 4.4.1 A-priori checks In the first level each report is checked for completeness and correctness in respect to certain information in the CDB before it is stored. For example a birth report is only stored in case all mandatory information is provided and the following cross checks are positive: ear tag is allocated to that farm, dam is registered on the farm on the date of the birth, sex of dam is female, calving interval is greater than 210 days, breed of the calf is not in contradiction to the breed of the dam. If a mandatory information is missing or one cross check against the information in the database is negative the report is rejected by the system and the user is informed why the report is rejected. More than 600 apriori checks help to ensure a high data quality in terms of a correct report. 4.4.2 A-posteriori checks After a report is stored in the CDB the system will check if all reports for this animal (ear tag number) are complete and consistent. For example a slaughterhouse has reported an on movement, but the farmer has not reported the off movement, than the reports for this animals are not complete. As a result the system creates an error operation. Each user is informed about errors concerning own reports when he logs into the system. The error can be handled online or on paper via the Regional Office. 86 different aposteriori checks make sure that all reports to an animal (ear tag number) are complete and consistent.

15

5. On the Spot Controls According EU regulation No. 2630/97 a minimum of 10 % of all holdings must be controlled on the spot every year. Aim of the control is to verify the correctness of the information in the database. Basis for the on the spot control is a register with information to all cattle on that holding, which the inspector retrieves via internet from the CDB before he starts controlling the holding. The results of the on the spot control are again stored in the CDB. In case of non compliance with regulations farm subsidy payments are reduced. 6. Use of Information in CDB for other Purposes The information in the CDB is not only used for the tracing of animals and control of subsidy payments but also for farm management, milk recording, breeding, artificial insemination and health management. The internet based CDB system offers a number of extra services for holders as well as for other organisations. 6. 1 Farm management

LU can be calculated for the day or a specific period on the basis of the registered animals. In connection with area information the stocking rate per ha can be verified. Compliance with stocking rates as part of farm aid schemes is monitored by the agricultural administration.

Analysis of the age and sex structure of the herd.

Lists for birth, on movement, off movement for the day or specific period can be retrieved as well as a list of offspring from a specific cow.

6.2 Monitoring of movements

The veterinary service can retrieve information about the whereabouts of moved animals from their area of duty.

Lists of imported and exported animals including origin and destination can be retrieved.

The responsible veterinary authority is automatically informed by the system in case of a violation of a movement restriction.

6. 3 Animal health information

The veterinary service stores certain health information such as BHV1 and BVD test results in the CDB. Based on that information the CDB enables the veterinary service to query all relevant details for eradication programs such as number of animals infected, number of holdings with infected animals, total number of animals and holdings in an area. The figures for eradicated animals can also be

16

retrieved. This detailed information supports the administration in their decisions.

The information on the health status is also available for the holder. 6. 4 Information about vaccination

Vaccinations against certain diseases like BHV1 or BVD can be inserted on a single animal basis by the veterinary service or the veterinary surgeon. This information is necessary for the laboratory to choose the correct test method.

6.5 Machine readable sample list for laboratories

On the basis of the computed register a machine readable sample list containing specific animals from a holding can be printed out by the farmer himself or the veterinary surgeon. In this list single animal information about disease status and vaccination has been borne in mind.

The laboratory can automatically allocate the test result to an individual animal and store that information in the CDB.

6. 6 Milk recording

The information in the CDB regarding ear tag number (ID number), date of birth, ID number of dam and breed is basis for the identification in milk record programs. As the milk recording uses the already existing information in the CDB it is not necessary to survey this information a second time from the holders.

6. 7 Breeding

Information on artificial insemination (AI) is linked with birth reports from the CDB, that allows to relate a bull to a calf.

Slaughter information such as carcass weight and age, the breeding value for beef performance for a bull can thus be calculated.

6. 8 Beef labeling programs

On the basis of holding related information in the database it can be checked whether an animal is complying with the requirement in a specific program. For example in case beef is marketed under an organic label, it can be checked if the animal was kept throughout life on holdings which follow organic production rules.

6. 9 Monitoring of BSE testing

In Germany all slaughtered cattle over 30 month must be tested for BSE. Animals that dies must be tested from the age of 24 month onwards. In case of a slaughter report the system checks automatically if a BSE test result is stored in the system. On a daily basis the competent veterinary service is informed by the system about a missing test result of a specific animal.

17

6. 10 Statistical purposes

The information in the CDB is used for the official statistics. The holders no longer have to fill in forms providing information about their cattle.

7. Running cost for the CDB In 2005 the total costs for running the CDB were in the vicinity of 0.83 Mio. € . Not included are the cost of the 13 Regional Offices, which are responsible for the distribution of ear tags, printing of passport, error handling and hotline service. Not included are the costs for the registration of holdings by the competent authority. 8. Conclusion The information in the CDB is used for a number of different purposes. This helps to increase the acceptance by the holders and reduces the overall costs. The easy access via internet to the CDB and a wide range of queries offers holders extra value. The high quality of the stored information is the result of the internal quality management system and on the spot controls. Farmers see the CDB as a management tool in respect to disease control and to farm aid schemes. The veterinary service can conduct disease control on an individual animal basis.

18

Livestock Traceability Systems: Policy and Institutional Requirements

Roger Paskin 1. Introduction The need to trace an animal and its products as they progress through the production chain was initially occasioned by the appearance of human health risks derived from livestock – BSE, E. coli “food poisoning”, residues derived from substances administered to animals on the farm, etc. Veterinary Services in various countries have also recognised the need to have a mechanism available that would allow the rapid tracing of possibly infected animals during the outbreak of a livestock epidemic such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, the pressure for traceability rapidly mounted as consumers demanded to know more about the animals from which their food was derived. It became more than a health issue – consumers needed to know more about the circumstances under which animals were raised, how they were transported, how they were slaughtered – in summary, a host of events along the production chain were of interest and had to be traced. Traceability is now no longer purely a health issue, but has in some countries become a marketing tool designed to give the consumer assurance that the product he/she is consuming is both safe to consume and ethically acceptable. Thus arose the need for reliable and easy identification of the animal and a “paper trail” showing clearly where the animal had been and to what practices it had been subjected. Furthermore, the animal had to be linked to its products, meaning, for example, that the carcass and the meat cuts derived from it in an abattoir had to be identified and linked to the live animal from which they originated. Traceability has been given many definitions and traceability techniques have been developed for everything from motorcar parts to vegetable soup. For the purpose of this paper (which concentrates on livestock), traceability will be defined as “the ability to, and the mechanisms designed for, the tracing of an animal product along all steps in the production chain back to the holding of origin of the live animal from which the product was derived.”

Principal Veterinary Officer, Epidemiology. CVO Unit, Department of Primary Industries, 475 Mickleham

Road, Attwood 3049 Victoria, Australia. Email: Roger.Paskin@dpi.vic.gov.au

19

2. Having the Right Foundations Any traceability system must be built within the right policy and institutional framework in order to be successful and sustainable. Its goals must be clear and the organisations and mechanisms driving it must be clearly defined. 3. Policy A traceability policy will typically state the aim of a traceability system, the animal specie(s) to be traced and will give a brief outline of the bodies responsible for such a system. Australia and Canada have both produced clear and succinct policy documents (AHA, 2003; CLIA, 2005). 4. Performance Standards Performance standards describe the verifiable and measurable service level achieved by a traceability system in terms of proportion of animals or categories of animals traced and how rapidly the traces are finalised. The United States’ traceability system aims are brief and to the point: “The main goal of USAIP is to achieve an efficient and effective traceability system that can, within 48 hours of a confirmed outbreak, trace back all animals and premises potentially exposed to the foreign or domestic animal disease and implement an intervention strategy.” (USDA, 2005). The Australian standards are more nuanced and vary to some extent between species (AHA, 2006). The performance standards clearly state what the traceability system aims to achieve; the system should from time to time be tested against these standards to ensure that they are met. Such standards will clearly vary depending on the aims of the system. It may be that all-of-life trace back of individual animals is required in order to pinpoint and eliminate chemical hazards (e.g. toxic residues in meat) from the food chain; or it may be that rapid tracing of groups of animals is required for no more than a few weeks in time in order to assist with managing a contagious disease outbreak. The actual content of any standard will have to be determined through careful discussion based on the aims of the system. 5. Legislation Once the aims and achievement levels of a traceability system have been determined, the next stage of the development process is to enact legislation (or promulgate regulations – whichever is more appropriate within a given legal system) to describe the traceability system and its enforcement.

20

The legal instrument should describe the species/categories of animals to be identified, the means of identification to be used, and the manner in which transfers of identified animals are to be recorded and reported. 6. Institutions Any traceability system requires a number of key components which may full under the jurisdiction of one or more organisations: 6.1 The registration of farmers/operators and holdings where animals are kept Farmers and the properties where they farm livestock must be registered on a central database. 6.2 Database of livestock identification marks/codes The codes used to identify animals must be issued by a central authority. This prevents duplications and sets standards in terms of code structure. This body would issue identification codes to livestock owners upon application. 6.3 Setting of standards for identification devices Whether animals are identified by tags, boluses, subcutaneous microchips or any other means, there has to be national agreement on exactly what is to be used and to what standards it must conform. These must be codified in a national standard, and a national body must be entrusted with enforcing the standard. 6.4 Record of livestock movement transactions Movement of identified livestock between identified holdings must be kept in order to endure traceability. Ideally this should be kept in the form of computerised database under the control of a recognised national authority. 6.5 System audits and enforcement There need to be rules governing the running of a traceability system, and compliance enforcement with these rules and audits to assess compliance levels must be under the jurisdiction of a legally empowered body. While all of the above functions can be vested in a single authority, this is not desirable as it would effectively mean that the same authority responsible for recording identification codes and recording movements would also be auditing itself for compliance with its own rules. There is an obvious clash of interests here, and it is desirable for at least two bodies to be involved; one for keeping records and setting standards, and another for ensuring compliance. The way institutional arrangements are handled in Australia and Namibia are given in the table below:

21

Table 1: Comparison of Institutional Arrangements

Namibia

FAN Meat Scheme/NamLITS

Australia

NLIS/Safemeat

Standard-setting Meat Board of Namibia Safemeat

Issuance of Property Identification codes

Meat Board of Namibia State Departments of Primary Industries

Issuance of animal identification codes and tags

Meat Board of Namibia State Departments of Primary Industries

Livestock movement recording

Directorate of Veterinary Services

Meat and Livestock Australia

Inspection & certification

Directorate of Veterinary Services

State Departments of Primary Industries

Sources: Meat Board, 2003; MLA 2004

In both Australia and Namibia, the legislation and regulatory frameworks for livestock traceability fall under the authority of the ministries of agriculture or their equivalents. In Australia, such legislation is administered by the Departments of Primary Industries of the various States. In Namibia, the legislation is administered by the Directorate of Veterinary Services of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. 7. Funding of Traceability Systems The matter of how to fund traceability systems raises issues relating to their justification, which will not be argued here. Suffice it to say, that some justification must exist (food safety/market access/profits from a niche market) which would make a traceability system desirable. In many countries the purchase of the means of identification (tags, microchips, etc) is paid by the farmer directly and becomes a business cost. There may also be a registration fee attached to the application for property registration. The day-to-day running of the traceability system requires a computer system with appropriate database software, both of which require maintenance. In Namibia and Australia, this is paid for through a levy system whereby a nominal levy is deducted from the selling price of cattle. References AHA, 2003. NLIS Policy Paper.

http://www.animalhealthaustralia.com.au/programs/adsp/nlis/nlis_home.cfm Animal Health Australia, Canberra.

22

AHA, 2006. National Traceability Performance Standards. http://www.animalhealthaustralia.com.au/programs/adsp/nlis/nlis_home.cfm Animal Health Australia, Canberra.

CLIA, 2005. Canadian Livestock Identification Backgrounder. http://www.canadianlivestockid.ca/eng/docs_e.htm Canadian Livestock Identification Agency, Calgary.

Meat Board, 2003. Farm Assured Namibian Meat Scheme Manual. Meat Board of Namibia, 2003.

MLA, 2004. Australia’s system for livestock identification and traceability. Available at: http://www.mla.com.au Meat and Livestock Australia.

USDA, 2005. A Focus on Animal Electronic Identification. http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=61 United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.

Appendix 1 : Australian National Traceability Performance Standards

Applicable to all FMD Susceptible Livestock Species2

1.1 Within 24 hours of the relevant CVO3 being notified4, it must be possible to determine the location(s)5 where a specified animal was resident during the previous 30 days.

1.2 Within 24 hours it must also be possible to determine the location(s)4 where all susceptible animals that resided concurrently and/or subsequently on any of the properties on which a specified animal has resided in the last 30 days.

Applicable to Cattle Only6

2.1 Within 48 hours of the relevant CVO2 being notified3, it must be possible to establish the location(s) 4 where a specified animal has been resident during its life.

2.2 Within 48 hours of the relevant CVO2 being notified3, it must be possible to establish a listing of all cattle that have lived on the same property as the specified animal at any stage during those animals’ lives.

2 For the purposes of the Standards, ‘FMD Susceptible Species’ means cattle, sheep, goats, and

domesticated buffalo, deer, pigs, camels and camelids. 3 ‘The relevant CVO’ means the State or Territory Chief Veterinary Officer, or their delegate, in the

jurisdiction where the specified animal is located or has been traced to. 4 For the purposes of these Standards, the term ‘notified’ means the relevant CVO is aware of an

incident that required tracing. 5 ‘Location’ means any definable parcel of land including (but not limited to): any parcel of land with a

Property Identification Code, travelling stock routes, saleyards, abattoirs, feedlots, live export collection depots, show grounds, Crown land and transport staging depots.

6 Given the risks posed by BSE, it was considered appropriate to establish separate Standards for cattle.

23

2.3 Within 48 hours of the relevant CVO2 being notified3, it must also be possible to determine the current location4 of all cattle that resided on the same property as the specified animal at any time during those animals’ lives.

Applicable to All FMD Susceptible Livestock Species Except Cattle (Lifetime traceability excluding the preceding 30 days – addressed by 1.1 and 1.2, above)

3.1 Within 14 days of the relevant CVO2 being notified3, it must be possible to determine all locations4 where a specified animal has been resident during its life.

3.2 Within 21 days of the relevant CVO2 being notified3, it must also be possible to determine the location4 of all susceptible animals that resided concurrently with a specified animal at any time during the specified animal’s life.

Appendix 2: Traceability Goals and Standards: Namibia 1 National Beef Traceability System

1.4 System standards and procedures are developed by the Directorate of Veterinary Services in conjunction with the Meat Board of Namibia.

1.5 The Directorate of Veterinary Services is responsible for the enforcement of the system.

1.6 The Meat Board of Namibia provides administrative support for the system. 1.7 The objective of the traceability system is to provide for individual tracing of

cattle entering the export food chain from the Namibian FMD-free and Surveillance Zones.

1.8 Traceability shall be effected through the individual identification of cattle before they leave the farm or premises of their birth.

2 Identification Standards

2.1 The means of identification used shall not be capable of contaminating meat or offal in any way, and shall not damage the meat or the hide of animals.

2.2 Once an animal is in a head clamp, identification should take no more than 30 seconds to apply, pose no undue risk to the operator and cause minimal discomfort or danger to the animal.

2.3 The means of identification used should not cause pain or discomfort to the animal once in place.

2.4 The design of the identification must be readily readable from a distance of one to two metres in the case of cattle, and from a distance of 0.5 metre to one metre in the case of smaller livestock (when immobilized). Ideally, it should not take more than a few seconds to read the identification.

24

2.5 The means of identification used shall be of uniform quality and manufacture, and shall be produced by means that reduce the possibility of forgery or unauthorised duplication.

2.6 Ordering and distribution of identification devices must be centrally controlled by an institution mandated to register livestock identification to reduce the possibility of unauthorised or fraudulent use of existing identification codes.

2.7 The means of identification used must be tamper resistant in that it must not be possible to remove an installed identification from an animal without so damaging it as to render it unusable and not able to be transferred to another animal.

2.8 Means of identification shall be durable, have a high retention percentage and be clearly readable for at least seven years after application. Ideally, a retention rate of over 90% is desirable, and any identification system should make provision for the replacement of lost or damaged identification devices.

2.9 Identification codes shall be in alphanumeric form for ease of recording.

25

Livestock Identification for Traceability Systems

Roger Paskin 1. Introduction Effective livestock identification is central to management. Various identification systems are available – these systems fulfil one of two purposes: either they identify the animal, or they identify the owner (Hathaway et al, 2004). Various types of identification will be considered here, and compared with respect to their various characteristics. 2. Establishing Proof of Ownership Since the earliest of times, people have sought means of identifying livestock in order to place their mark of ownership on them. Livestock recovered after theft could be returned to their rightful owner, and the person in whose hands they were wrongfully found could be prosecuted. Branding animals with hot irons has been in use for some 4 000 years. While placing a permanent mark on the animal, branding has several disadvantages:

Size limitation means that the number of symbols that can be put on to the animal’s skin is limited and individual identification cannot be effected – hence the use by the owner of the brand symbols to represent his ownership and not to identify the animal.

Branding damages and devalues the animal’s hide – the more prominent the mark, the greater the damage and the financial loss.

A poor branding technique or the use of ambiguous symbols negatively affects readability of the brand. The use of series of coded symbols as is current in modern practice renders readability difficult.

“Smudging” of brands – a technique of brand superimposition used by stock thieves – easily renders brands unreadable.

Normal growth of the animal distorts brands applied at a young age, so that by the time the animal reaches adulthood, the brand is no longer legible.

Growth of hair, especially the forming of the “winter coat”, can often make brands almost invisible.

Different stock owners may – intentionally or unintentionally – use the same or similar brands, thereby causing confusion.

The position of brands on the animal – usually placed at the lowest possible points on the limbs to minimize damage to the hide – also makes reading them

Principal Veterinary Officer, Epidemiology. CVO Unit, Department of Primary Industries, 475 Mickleham Road, Attwood 3049 Victoria, Australia. Email: Roger.Paskin@dpi.vic.gov.au

26

difficult, especially when animals are standing in pens, and the structure of the pen obscures the view.

The fact that branding is left to the owner of the animal means that brands, even within the same herd, vary greatly in appearance and readability. Brands can be copied illegally and used by others. Lack of central control over the use and application of brands underlies many of the problems experienced with their use.

Welfare questions have also begun to be raised with respect to the use of brands. The fact that branding causes pain and distress can no longer be ignored.

Other forms of owner identification include cold branding and tattooing – these suffer from essentially the same disadvantages as hot branding. While it is true that branding is permanent and cheap, it will never be more than a means of confirming ownership of an animal. 3. A New Concept: Individual Identification for the Purposes of Traceability The need for identification of stock has evolved. In many circumstances, confirming ownership is no longer the central need. More recently, the need has arisen to identify animals for the purposes of traceability. Where a problem is detected in a live animal far along the production chain, or even in meat derived from the animal (e.g. the detection of potentially harmful tissue residues or a disease such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]), it has become necessary to trace backwards along the production chain to establish when and how the problem occurred. Steps can be taken to correct the problem, and give reassurance to consumers that quality control of the production chain is in place. Animals themselves might also need to be identified in order to record their progress in terms of weight gain, fertility, susceptibility to sickness, etc. and thus facilitate breeding selection and management. Identification of animals is also helpful when carrying out diagnostic procedures (e.g. testing for a disease) so that animals that test positive can be treated or culled. Various techniques for placing identifying marks on or within an animal’s body have been developed for effecting identification that meets these management needs. 3.1 External Identification of Livestock Various means of identifying animals using devices called ‘tags’ have been developed – neck tags, hung around animals’ necks rather like pendants, tail tags (strips of laminated adhesive paper taped to their tails) and ear tags have all been tried. The commonest form of external identification currently in use is probably the ear tag. Ear tagging technology has made significant progress over the last decade and a generation of tamper-resistant and easily readable tags has evolved that would remain in place for the life of the animal.

27

3.2 Basic requirements Any device used to identify livestock needs to satisfy three basic criteria: it must be affordable, durable and clearly readable from a reasonable distance. 3.3 Plastic Ear Tags Plastic ear tags are widely used. They are either visual tags (readable to the naked eye), or machine readable, or both. Many tags are manufactured as tamper-resistant double tags: the tag is in two halves which, when attached to an animal’s ear, lock together permanently with one part of the tag on the ‘front’ of the animal’s ear and another on the ‘back’ of the ear. These tags are generally resistant to sun damage and bleaching by ultraviolet light, high temperatures and chemicals. It is possible, using laser-printing techniques, to print visual alphanumeric codes on these tags; provided that the tags are of reasonable size, these codes are visible from a distance of two metres or more. The codes on the tags must be unique; no two animals in the same identified population can have the same identification code printed on the tag. In both Australia and Namibia, the visual coding is similar: the first part of the code identifies the property where the tag was first attached to the animal, and the second part is a serial number. Together, the two parts of the code form a unique identifier. In Europe, the coding system also has two parts: the first part identifies the EU member country concerned, and the second is a serial number. Standards for the construction and testing of plastic ear tags have been elaborated by ICAR (the International Committee for Animal Recording)(ICAR, 2007). They can also be imprinted with standard bar-codes. While these are machine readable, the bar-code reader must be held very close to the tag, be held at the correct angle, and the code must be spotlessly clean in order to be readable. Data matrix coding – a form of two-dimensional “bar” coding represents a great improvement on the standard bar-code. It can be read from a distance of over half a metre by an appropriate scanning device; the angle of reading does not matter greatly, and even if up to half of the code is obscured by dirt, it is still readable. Nevertheless, direct line-of-sight is required for reading; the scanner will not read the tag if it is blocked from view, for example, by another animal. The ultimate in machine readability is provided by the insertion of transponders (Radio Frequency Identification Devices – also known as RFID or microchips) into plastic tags. These can read at distances varying from 0.5 metres to 2 metres, depending on the technology used and the power of the reader’s antenna.

28

The more sophisticated the technology used, the more expensive the system becomes. Bar-coded and RFID-based systems require an electronic infrastructure with readers, computers, and a central database to which data can be uploaded via internet connections. Such systems will fail where the equipment is not readily available or where internet connectivity is absent. In addition, while bar-coded tags are usually in the same price range as visual tags, RFID tags can be three times the price of visual tags. 3.4 Other forms of RFID identification RFIDs can also be inserted into boluses that are dosed intra-ruminally or into tiny glass capsules that are injected subcutaneously. Both forms of identification are expensive and require an appropriate infrastructure. They also have the disadvantage that they leave no external sign that the animal carries any identification; unless a reader is immediately available it is not possible to tell that an animal is identified. Subcutaneous RFIDs are normally implanted in the skin behind the animal’s ear using a syringe-like device, but are notorious for migrating around the animal’s body. They also break if subjected to strong impact, leaving small fragments of glass and other material embedded in the tissues. Other implantation sites (inside horns or hooves) have been considered, but would be difficult to use. It is important to note that specific standards have been developed for animal RFID technology relating to the radio frequency used, the reading devices and the electronic codes. These are ISO standards 11784 and 11785 (ICAR, 2007). 4. From Identification to Traceability An identification system which identifies an animal with ear tags or any other form of identification is a far cry from a traceability system. A traceability system uses the animal’s unique identification in combination with a property-to-property movement record to provide traceability. Turning an identification system into a traceability system requires a means of recording the movements of identified animals from place to place. There are various means of achieving such movement recording, and the method eventually chosen has to fit the needs and abilities of the farming community implementing the system. Also integral to the success of a traceability system is a register of properties/places which may send and receive livestock, and a register of valid livestock identification codes and the users to whom they were issued. The recording of livestock movements between registered holdings has to be made mandatory, and there must be a means of auditing and enforcement of such movement recording. Movement recording must be timely in order to be meaningful.

29

In summary, a traceability system will require:

A property or holdings register.

An agreed means of identification.

A register of identification codes and the initial operators/farmers to whom they were issued.

A method of recording animal movements so that transfer of animals (with their identification codes) to subsequent owners can be followed.

Ideally, all properties, identification codes and movements should be recorded on a computer system for ease of retrieving data when movements need to be tracked.

References Hathaway, S, Paskin, R, Anil, H, Buncic, S, Fisher, A, Small, A, Warriss, P Wotton, S, &

Simela, L, 2004. Good Practices for the Meat Industry. FAO Animal Health and Production Manual. FAO/Carrefour Rome.

ICAR, 2007. ICAR Recording Guidelines. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome.

30

Overview of Successful Traceability Systems

Roger Paskin 1. Introduction This document will examine the mechanisms used in two proven bovine traceability systems, namely, those of Namibia and Australia. The two systems have both evolved along lines compatible with the milieu in which they are used, and reflect the economic and technical capabilities of the countries where they are in operation. A traceability system consists of a series of interlocking elements linked by an auditable “paper trail” and quality-controlled by a series of inspections or audits. Any item moving from one place in the system to another must be identified by an identification code or number, and each movement “into” and “out of” any given place in the system is recorded using the item’s identification number. In the case of animals, each animal must be clearly and unambiguously identified and, as it moves along the production chain, its identification code or number must be recorded at each step as proof that it has passed that way. A trace-back audit must be able to verify not only the path that it has travelled, but also that circumstances at each step in the chain have met certain standards. An animal may move from its holding of birth to an auction, then on to a fattening farm and finally to an abattoir. In this case, the date of entering and leaving each place must be recorded using the animal’s identity code. Additionally, there must be sets of rules governing the management at each of these places (farms, auction pens and abattoirs) whose implementation can be verified by inspection (Hathaway et al, 2004). Animals should be individually identified with devices that are safe, tamper-resistant, fraud-protected, and adhere to certain standards, and are thus uniform in appearance and quality. A successful traceability system requires:

A register or database of properties between which animals may be moved. The database should record the nature of the property (farm, village, sale yard, abattoir) and the owner or operator responsible for it.

A register or database containing the unique identification numbers of all devices (usually ear tags) that have been issued to farmers for the purposes of animal identification and the names or identification codes of the farmers/properties to whom they were first issued.

Principal Veterinary Officer, Epidemiology. CVO Unit, Department of Primary Industries, 475 Mickleham Road, Attwood 3049 Victoria, Australia. Email: Roger.Paskin@dpi.vic.gov.au

31

A register or database containing records of all movement transactions (device numbers moved and dates of transactions).

A set of rules of governing the manner in which properties and device numbers are registered, and the way in which movements are reported to the database (i.e. who is responsible for reporting, how soon after a movement has occurred must it be reported, etc).

2. Traceability in Namibia Namibia is a major exporter of meat to South Africa and the European Union, and is thus literally at the mercy of its customers. Having an effective bovine traceability system is now essential to retain market access in the EU, but it also become obvious that gaining access to the higher end of the South African market would require traceable meat as well. After extended consultations between the various stakeholders involved, it was agreed to base the Namibian cattle traceability system on plastic visual ear tags bearing a two-dimensional bar code (data matrix code) that would also render them machine readable. The system was designed in June 2004 and implemented in October 2005. The Namibian system rests on a number of pillars (Toto, 2007): 2.1 Property registration Property registration is based on Namibia’s old livestock branding system. When a farmer registered a livestock brand in his/her name, an alphanumeric stock brand code (SB code) was allocated to him/her and linked to the farmer’s contact details and properties. (The Namibian SB code is analogous to the Australian PIC – see later). The SB codes and the names/addresses of their owners are stored on a central database run by the Meat Board of Namibia. The SB codes are then linked to individual properties, which are given Stock Inspection Unit (SIU) codes, so that properties are individually distinguished and lines of ownership identified. 2.2 Ear tag ordering and coding When ordering ear tags, the farmer has to supply his/her SB code. The Meat Board’s computer system automatically allocates serial numbers to each tag, each of which has two components: the farmer’s SB code and a consecutive number. Together, these two form a unique identifier for each animal. 2.3 Movement recording The movement recording system is based on something with which Namibian farmers are all intimately familiar – the livestock movement permit system.

32

Under Namibian livestock disease control laws, any person wishing to move a domestic ruminant or pig from one property to another must apply in advance for a permit to do so. Provided that none of the properties involved is under any form of restriction, the veterinary authorities grant the permit, which then has to accompany the animals being moved. It was a requirement that the brand symbols of the animals being moved were entered on the permit by the person moving the stock. Building on this concept, a movement register was devised (called a departure register) on which the ear tag numbers of the animals being moved were endorsed. The movement register is now attached to the permit, and both documents accompany the animals. As a double check, the recipient of the animals completes an arrival register, detailing the animals actually received (which should be the same as the departure register). The documents are then given to the nearest government veterinarian within 14 days of completion of the movement for the data to be computerised. The data are entered on the NamLITS (Namibia Livestock Traceability System) database. Alternatively, on properties where suitable electronic equipment is available, the movement can be recorded by scanning the data matrix codes on the ear tags and uploading the data to the NamLITS database. 3. Technical information on the Namibian System Ear tags are dual plastic tags with tamper-resistant locking mechanisms. Animals born in Namibia are given black-on-yellow tags bearing visual and data matrix codes (imported animals are given black-on-green tags). The data matrix contains the same information as the visual code: the SB code of the property to which the tag was first issued, and a serial number. Tagging at birth is voluntary, but cattle must be tagged before making their first movement off their birth properties. Tags are purchased by farmers at a cost of about USD1.00 each. The use of a manual system (writing of movement registers) enables poor farmers and those with no internet access to use the system very effectively. However, for those with internet access, the following are possible:

Movement permit applications can be made on-line.

Movement registers, detailing ear tag numbers moved, can be created on-line, relieving veterinary staff of the burden of data input.

Where mass movements occur (sale yards and abattoirs), tags can be scanned and movement data uploaded electronically.

Farmers can use NamLITS to trace the movements of their stock and access kill data (carcase weight and grading) from abattoirs. (They do not have access to

33

data from other producers or to overall tracing data; they are restricted to data for their own animals only).

There is a facility within NamLITS where farmers can record performance data of their own livestock (birth dates and weights, weaning weights, diseases and treatments, etc) – in other words, farmers can use NamLITS for their own herd management and recording without having to purchase commercial software.

The NamLITS database uses the Progress database platform and is web-accessible. For the Directorate of Veterinary Services, the government body which polices the system, a number of query and reporting functions are available which allow them to track movements of individual animals or groups of animals; retrieving full life histories of animals is possible. Producers contribute to the maintenance costs of the system through a levy of approximately USD0.35per animal slaughtered. The levy fund is administered by a statutory body, the Meat Board of Namibia. Namibia has two pieces of legislation underpinning its traceability system – one on livestock identification which covers the issuance of SB codes and one on livestock disease control which covers movement control and tracing. 4. Traceability of Small Ruminants in Namibia Sheep and goats are required to be identified by metal ear tags bearing their SB codes. Each new owner adds a new tag without removing any pre-existing tags. The first owner tags the left ear and the next owner the right ear. As most Namibian small ruminants are meat animals and are usually slaughtered before the age of one year, this means in practice that most of them will have only one tag in their lives. When a group of sheep or goats is moved, the SB codes on their tags are recorded on the movement permits; these data are recorded on NamLITS. This means that movements of groups of small ruminants can be traced between properties, but individual animals cannot be tracked. 5. Cattle Traceability in Australia Australia’s cattle traceability system has its origins in the tainting of meat after the feeding of many cattle with insecticide-laced cotton crop by-products in the 1990s. Without an effective traceability system, it was impossible to find the tainted animals and remove them from the food chain. Export markets were severely affected. It was thus decided to implement a national traceability system to be able to deal effectively with such problems in future. With the State of Victoria taking the lead, the NLIS (National Livestock Identification System) was born.

34

Australia’s system was from the outset based on radio frequency identification with RFID ear tags and boluses allowed by the system’s specifications. However, boluses have proven unpopular: dosing boluses is more difficult than applying tags, and without a reading apparatus, it is impossible to determine whether an animal is identified. Australia’s cattle traceability system rests on a number of foundations (Baker, 2005; Schelfhorst 2007): 5.1 Property registration Property databases are held at State level. Property owners who farm with livestock on their properties are required to register a Property Identification Code (PIC) in their names. PIC data are stored on computer and link the contact details of property owners and/or managers to their property addresses and map co-ordinates. The Australian PIC is analogous to the Namibian SB Code, and has its history in what used to be Australia’s cattle branding system (now defunct in some states). 5.2 National livestock identification system (NLIS) database This database is used to record the issuance of identification devices to livestock owners, as well as movement transactions between properties. The NLIS database is held at national level, but contains only device numbers, transaction dates and PIC numbers for origin and destination of each transaction. Details of PIC owners are not contained here; as mentioned above, these details are kept in State databases. Buyers of animals are required to notify the NLIS database of arrival of animals; they must furnish the PIC of origin and the destination PIC. They may do so electronically or in writing. The NLIS database and associated software are hosted by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), an industry-funded livestock marketing body. 5.3 National vendor declaration (NVD) The NVD is a requirement for cattle movements – the vendor/supplier has to certify on the NVD that he/she has complied with certain basic farming requirements (for example, the non-feeding of ruminant protein). The NVD serves as a travel document. NVDs are uniquely numbered, cannot be re-used and are available from MLA to registered PIC holders. Buyers of livestock are required not only to notify the NLIS database of the device numbers of animals they receive, but also the serial number of the NVD on which they travelled. 6. Technical Information on the Australian System Australian cattle producers order their ear tags/boluses either on-line or by post through an authorised government office in the State where they are based.

35

Each State authorises suppliers of identification devices based on national specification guidelines. Devices must comply with the relevant ICAR and ISO standards. Ear tags are plastic, tamper-resistant and non-reusable. Each tag contains a microchip with an embedded unique RFID code; in addition it also bears a visual NLIS identification code (for each tag, the two codes are linked in the NLIS database). The NLIS code has two components: the PIC of the property to which the tag was first issued, and a serial number. Together, the two are a unique identifier for the animal. The visual code is used for movement reporting by producers who do not have access to electronic scanning equipment. Animals are tagged at first movement, although many dairy farmers tag calves at birth. Animals leaving their birth property are tagged with white tags (‘breeder devices’) which they must retain for life. Animals bearing white tags are said to be ‘lifetime traceable.’ Animals which had left their birth properties prior to the implementation of NLIS or have lost their white breeder tags are given orange ear tags (‘post breeder devices’). These animals are not lifetime traceable and their market eligibility is restricted (Baker, 2005a). The cost of NLIS devices varies across Australia. Ear tags are the cheaper option and generally cost in the range of USD 1.35 – 2.00. When a buyer receives livestock and reports the movement to the database, he/she has two options:

The movement can be reported electronically to NLIS (which is available on the internet). RFID numbers stored on scanning devices can be uploaded to the NLIS, together with the relevant NVD numbers, or data entries can be done manually. This is done by many producers, and by saleyards and abattoirs.

The movement can be reported in writing, giving the NLIS visual codes and NVD number. This may be done by mail or fax to the MLA. This method is used by producers who have no internet access.

Movements must be reported within seven days. In practice, saleyards upload the ear tag numbers of the animals that they receive as well as those that they sell. This means that buyers from saleyards are spared the duty of having to report transactions. Transaction reports by saleyards and abattoirs are electronic and usually occur very soon after the transaction occurs – within one to two days.

36

Compliance with NLIS requirements is legislated by the various Australian States and Territories; in Victoria this has been done under the Livestock Disease Control Act and applicable regulations. The NLIS database is available to registered users on the internet. There are different categories of users, who have differing privileges in terms of what they can ‘see’ and ‘do’ on the database. Some have data input access only; farmers can obtain slaughter data on animals they have bred or sold, and authorised government officials may carry out movement tracking. A limited number of text-output queries are available for tracing purposes. The State of Victoria has a mirror of the NLIS database which is updated daily and for which it has developed additional analytical software used to analyse and visually display cattle movements. This system is known as liveTRACE™ and integrates NLIS data, PIC data and animal health data held at State level. 7. Traceability of Small Ruminants in Australia Small ruminants are required to wear plastic ear tags bearing PIC codes; movements are recorded on NVDs only and not computerised. The system is thus entirely paper-based. 8. The Two Systems compared The Australian and Namibian systems are compared side-by-side in the table below.

Component Namibia Australia Comment

Property database

Property owner database managed by Meat Board, property database managed by DVS

Managed by State governments

Namibian SB similar to Australian PIC; both linked to owner and property details

Movement database

NamLITS managed by Directorate of Veterinary Services (Agriculture Ministry)

NLIS managed by MLA

Record properties of origin and destination and identification device numbers

Movement reporting

Both buyer and seller required to record ID devices of animals that move; prior granting of movement permit (travel document) necessary

Only buyer records device numbers; prior permission to move not necessary but owner-completed NVD serves as travel document

37

Component Namibia Australia Comment

Identification devices

Only ear tags with visual and datamatrix codes (RFID tags approved but not yet in use)

RFID boluses or RFID tags (tags also have visual codes)

Boluses do not provide visible external identification; are difficult to administer

Machine readability

Datamatrix codes easily readable but require ‘line of sight’ for scanners

RFID scanners do not require ‘line of sight’

In both Namibia and Australia, manual recording errors may occur with the use of visual codes

Internet access

Scanned codes uploadable; limited farmer access to NamLITS; fully queryable for movement tracking by authorised persons

Scanned codes uploadable; limited farmer access to NLIS; fully queryable for movement tracking by authorised persons

Namibian farmers have herd management utility built into NamLITS to provide added value

Device purchase Purchase and issuing centrally controlled by Meat Board

Purchase and issuing centrally controlled by State government

On-line ordering also available for Australian producers

Small ruminants Computerised; provides only for group traceability

Paper-based; provides only for group traceability

Although the two systems have been designed to meet the needs of two different farming communities – one technically advanced and in a developed country, and one in a developing country, there are some striking similarities. These have come about because of the need to provide the same outcomes: the unambiguous tracing of livestock movements. This also highlights the fact that no matter where a traceability system is established, there are certain core items that must be present for it to succeed. These include a property database, a movement database and a centralised system for the distribution of identification devices to producers. References Baker, F, 2005. NLIS in Victoria – current requirements. Agriculture Notes.

Department of Primary Industries, State of Victoria. Baker, F, 2005a. NLIS- Understanding Lifetime Traceable Status. Agriculture Notes.

Department of Primary Industries, State of Victoria.

38

Hathaway, S, Paskin, R, Anil, H, Buncic, S, Fisher, A, Small, A, Warriss, P Wotton, S, & Simela, L, 2004. Good Practices for the Meat Industry. FAO Animal Health and Production Manual. FAO/Carrefour Rome.

Schelfhorst, E, 2007. Property Identification Codes (PICs) explained. Agriculture Notes. Department of Primary Industries, State of Victoria.

Toto, A, 2007. A guide to Livestock Traceability in Namibia. Directorate of Veterinary Services/Farm Assured Namibian Meat, Windhoek.

Appendix 1 – Permanent Identification Device Standards and Specifications (Cattle) - Australia

Device Characteristics

Breeder and Post-breeder devices may be in the form of an ear tag, or a rumen bolus/ear tag combination. Devices shall contain a half duplex (HDX) transponder complying with the ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 standards, or an alternate machine readable technology approved by the NLIS Standards Committee. The unique number encoded within each transponder must be non-reprogrammable. The permission of the NLIS Standards Committee must be sought prior to the recycling for resale of Breeder and Post-breeder devices or the transponders that they contain. The NLIS Standards Committee will determine in regard to each device or transponder the terms and conditions under which recycling is permitted in consultation with relevant State/Territory authorities. Permanent identification devices to be supplied for use by producers as part of the NLIS are classified as follows:

a) Breeder devices, to be installed while cattle are on their property of birth; and b) Post-breeder devices, to be installed for the permanent identification of cattle

that are no longer on their property of birth that are not already identified with a Breeder or Post-breeder device, including cattle that have lost their Breeder device after leaving their property of birth.

Breeder and Post-breeder devices shall have the following characteristics:

a) other than rumen boluses be coloured as follows:

White for the Breeder devices

Orange for the Post-breeder devices b) be printed with a unique visually readable NLIS number in the following

sequence consisting of:

the State/Territory approved 8 character Property Identification Code (PIC),

2 alphanumeric characters in combination coding for:

39

I. manufacturer as assigned by the NLIS Technical Group; and II. tag type

year of supply (using the Australian Breedplan alpha character for that particular year or a State/Territory approved numeral).

a 4 or 5 character serial number. Each device shall be marked with the NLIS logo and the words ‘Do not remove’. This information shall appear on the component of ear tags designed to be placed on the outside of the ear. Where the Breeder or Post-breeder device is a rumen bolus/ear tag combination, a large non-recyclable permanent ear tag in white (for Breeder devices) or orange (for Post-breeder devices) shall be provided. Each ear tag shall be printed with the unique cattle identification number in visual form as specified in section 2.6 (b). The NLIS logo, ‘Do not remove’, and the letter ‘R’ displayed prominently or the word ‘RUMEN’ shall also be printed on each such ear tag to alert producers, processors and stock agents that a rumen bolus has been installed. It shall be possible to reliably machine read installed devices in cattle moving freely in single file past a reading point with a portal width of 1.2m. It is vitally important that devices be readable with a very low failure rate on-farm and in sale yard and abattoir lairage situations because of the considerable inconvenience associated with the need to run cattle past a fixed reader on more than one occasion. Transponders complying with ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 shall be encoded with the relevant manufacturer’s code granted by the International Committee on Animal Recording (ICAR). The NLIS Standards Committee may assess and endorse devices containing transponders which are not ISO compliant HDX transponders or alternate machine readable technology provided;

a) there is a clearly demonstrated net commercial advantage to the cattle industry associated with the introduction of such technology, and

b) the operation of such technology and associated readers will not impact adversely on the reading of devices containing ISO compliant HDX transponders or the NLIS database.

Device Performance Specifications Devices shall not be capable of causing chemical contamination of meat or edible offal, damage to the hide, or be capable of adversely affecting the health and well-being of cattle following attachment. The likelihood of devices becoming physical contaminants in meat or edible offal must be remote.

40

There should be no apparent physical deterioration (other than colour) in devices due to ultraviolet radiation, rain, heat and cold or other environmental influences within 3 years of installation on cattle in Australian conditions. The transponder within Breeder and Post-breeder devices shall be reliably machine readable for a minimum of 7 years following the installation of devices in typical Australian field conditions. The physical loss of devices from cattle on typical Australian beef, dairy and feedlot properties shall not exceed 3% within 3 years under normal field conditions. Once an animal is in a head bail, installation of devices shall take no more than 30 seconds per animal, pose no undue risk to the operator and cause minimal discomfort or danger to the animal. The installation of devices shall fail due to device breakage or applicator equipment failure on no more than 2% of installation attempts. Printing on devices shall be easy to read at a distance of 0.75 metres. Devices installed on live adult cattle restrained in a race or crush shall be visually readable without undue risk to persons involved in the reading. Devices shall remain visually readable for 7 years. To minimise the opportunity for unauthorised removal and reuse, devices shall be tamper resistant in that for ear tags it must not be possible to remove an installed device from cattle and reuse it without damaging the component of the device containing the transponder. Devices or the transponders they contain, however, may be recyclable. It must be possible to install Breeder and Post-breeder devices on cattle from 6 months of age. To maximise tag retention Breeder and Post breeder device components shall not be interchanged with approved Transaction Tags or management ear tags

41

Appendix 2 – Device Standards and Traceability Procedures - Namibia

Official Identification Devices for Cattle Tracing Ear tags are used as the identification method for tracing individual cattle through the production chain. The underlying principle is that the ear tags must be tamper-resistant and tamper-evident, and must have a high level of retention in cattle under diverse production environments. Find below a summary describing the standard requirements for the official ear tags.

Official Ear Tag Performance Standard a) Single Use The ear tag must be of such a design that it can be used only once and is tamper-evident. It should not be possible to remove and re-apply the ear tags without physical evidence showing that this action has taken place. b) Print Alteration The print on the ear tags denoting the identity number of the animal, herd of origin, logo and other printed characters important for tracing animals must not be easy to alter without showing visual evidence of alteration. c) Readability – Visual Component The print on the ear tag must be easily and readily readable at a minimum distance of 75 cm from the tag. The characters printed on the ear tag should be easy to read in field conditions and be capable of remaining legible during the animal’s lifetime. d) Tag Life Expectancy The ear tag is expected to stay on the animal in a functional and readable condition for the lifetime of the animal. e) Ear Tag Retention If properly placed in the ear in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer, a retention percentage of not less than 99% is expected within a year of applying the ear tags and not less than 95% for the lifetime of the animals under normal Namibian field conditions. f) Toxicity and Injury The ear tag may not cause harm to an animal or affect its health or well-being. The ear tag may not have any physical or chemical effect on the meat or other products from this animal.

42

g) Deterioration There may be no diffusion of colorant from the ear tag. Other than the shade of colours, there must not be any physical deterioration of the tag as a result of UV light, rain, atmospheric heat up to 45°C or other environmental influences such as chemicals, mud, dust, urine, or manual handling for at least five years on the animal. h) Plasticity The ear tag may not crack during normal use under Namibian field conditions. i) Tensile Strength The ear tag coupling/tensile strength must at minimum comply with ISO standards 37 and 527. Coupling/tensile strength evaluation must be based on ICAR testing standards. j) Abrasion Resistance The ear tag shall not show damage or change due to wear. In this regard the ear tag must comply with ISO standard 9352.

Bovine Individual Identification – Visual Tag In addition to the performance requirements stated above, the specifications of each set of official bovine visual ear tags are as follows: a) Description The ear tag set must be a dual (male and female) tag. The female component must be a leaf-type tag and the male component may be a button or leaf-type tag. The ear tag shall be yellow in colour and made of good quality flexible plastic. The leaf-type male part shall be the smaller one with the printed section of the tag approximately 55 mm by 17 mm in size. The printing on the male part shall be on the outside (caudal surface) of the ear. The female part shall be the larger tag with the printed section of the tag being approximately 55 mm by 35 mm in size. The printing shall be on the inside (cranial surface) of the ear. b) Print Description The print on the ear tags denoting the identity number of the animal, herd of origin, logo and other printed characters important for tracing animals must be black laser or laser-ink print.

The male leaf-type component shall bear the traceability system logo, an alphanumeric code identifying owner’s stock brand or herd of origin code with a minimum font size of 10 mm high and the serial code to identify the individual animal with a minimum font size of 8 mm high. All fonts shall be those approved by the CVO from time to time.

43

The female leaf-type component shall bear the traceability system logo, an alphanumeric code identifying owner’s stock brand or herd of origin code with a minimum font size of 10 mm high and the serial code to identify the individual animal must have a minimum font size of 8 mm high. All fonts shall be those approved by the CVO from time to time. In addition the female component shall bear a bar code to facilitate electronic readability of the tag.

The stock brand identification code or herd of origin code shall not exceed 8 characters and the animal identification code shall not exceed 5 characters. The codes used are not limited to the codes used in the stock brands database. c) Tagging Device The locking device on the tags shall be such that it is compatible with the ‘Universal Tag Applicators’ already in use in Namibia.

Bovine Individual Identification – RFID Tag The mandatory bovine individual identification tag is the visual type described above. However, with the availability of the RFID tag and its appeal to those inclined to use automated recording systems, an RFID tag has been approved for those who prefer this route. The RFID device shall be coded with a fully write-protected electronic code that cannot be deleted or altered. The code used shall be the approved code according to ISO standard 11784 code structure. The RFID tag must also be certified for conformance with ISO 11785, the technical communication protocols standard. In addition to the performance requirements stated above, find below RFID-specific performance requirements. The specifications of each set of official bovine visual ear tags are as follows: a) Description The ear tag set must be a dual (male and female) tag. The male component must be a leaf-type tag and the female component must be a button tag. Both tag components shall be yellow in colour and the leaf-type tag must be made of good quality flexible plastic. The printed section of the leaf-type male part shall be approximately 55 mm by 35 mm in size. The printing on the male part shall be on the outside (caudal surface) of the ear. The female part shall have an ISO-compliant RFID transponder encased in the plastic button tag.

44

b) Print Description The print on the ear tags denoting the identity number of the animal, herd of origin, logo and other printed characters important for tracing animals must be black laser or laser-ink print.

The male leaf-type component shall bear the traceability system logo, an alphanumeric code identifying owner’s stock brand or herd of origin code with a minimum font size of 10 mm high and the serial code to identify the individual animal with a minimum font size of 8 mm high. All fonts shall be those approved by the CVO from time to time. In addition the male component shall bear a bar code to facilitate electronic readability of the tag as a back-up to the RFID tag.

The female button-type component shall bear the alphanumeric code the identifying owner’s stock brand or herd of origin code and the serial code to identify the individual animal in circular format around the button tag.

The stock brand identification code or herd of origin code shall not exceed 8 characters and the animal identification code shall not exceed 5 characters. The codes used are not limited to the codes used in the stock brands database. c) Tagging Device The locking device on the tags shall be such that it is compatible with the ‘Universal Tag Applicators’ already in use in Namibia. d) Tag Reader The RFID tag must be read with any ISO compliant universal reader.

RFID-specific Tag Requirements DVS has set the requirements for RFID tags to be used in this traceability system. In addition to the requirements described below, the tag must also meet the performance requirements stated in 6.4.1 above.

ISO Compliant – All transponders must be certified by ICAR who administers the testing procedures to determine compliance with ISO 11784 and 11785.

Read Rates – Transponders must have a read rate greater than 95% under field conditions in cattle moving in a cattle race in single file. In stationary animals the read rate must not be less than 99%.

Read Distance – Using a Universal ISO-compliant reader, cattle should be read from a minimum distance of 60 cm from the device.

Lifespan – The transponder is expected to be reliable, functional and machine-readable for the expected lifetime of the tagged animal.

45

Security – The official ear tag number cross-referenced to the RFID number encoded in the tag must not be alterable. The encased transponder must be impossible to remove without physical evidence of tampering.

Traceability System Procedures

Farmers shall order pre-printed plastic ear tags from an approved manufacturer.

The Directorate of Veterinary Services will devise tag specifications and approve an appropriate manufacturer. Orders will be placed at approved ordering/distribution outlets and channelled to the manufacturer via the Meat Board.

Farmers will affix tags to the left ear of bovines prior to their departure from the farm.

Details of each tagged animal will be recorded in a Departure Register prior to departure.

The farmer will have to keep accurate registers for auditing by the Animal Health Technician.

The original copy of the Departure Register page will be affixed to the veterinary movement permit.

The permit is not valid without the attached register page.

Ear tag numbers of animals arriving on the farm will be entered into an Arrivals Register.

When the animals arrive, their permit will have attached the Departure Register page from the previous owner. This must be reconciled with actual ear tag numbers before the Arrivals register is completed.

During animal health inspections, full account must be given of all ear tags and tagged animals on the farm.

Unused tags, tagged animals and all registers must be available for inspection.

Livestock auctions will be treated as farms and Arrivals and Departure Registers will be maintained by auctioneers/agents. Agents will affix Departure Register pages to the relevant movement permits when animals depart.

A set of registers for each saleyard will be kept at the local State Veterinarians’ office for use at the saleyard. Agents will reconcile actual ear tag numbers with the relevant Register pages.

Abattoirs will be required to keep Arrivals Registers.

Tag numbers will be checked against Departure Register pages and entered in the Arrivals Register before animals are slaughtered.

46

When tags are lost, the loss must be reported to the nearest State Veterinarian without delay and duplicate tags applied for with the approval of the State Veterinarian.

Farmers may wish to make their own ‘backup tags’ or identification marks on animals which will be identified for long periods of time. This will assist in ordering duplicate tags should official tags be lost.

47

Appendices

Appendix 1: Workshop Programme

Monday, 2 July 2007

08.00-09.00 Registration

09.30-10.00 Opening 9.30 - Arrival of the Chief Guest and other invitees 9.35 - Lighting of the traditional oil lamp 9.40 - Welcome address by Dr. SKR Amarasekara, DG/AP&H 9.50 - Address by Mr. SJ Pathirana, Secretary, Ministry of Livestock Development 10.00 - Address by Dr. P Chumsri, FAO Representative for Sri Lanka and Maldives 10.10 - Address by Dr. B Khambounheuang, APHCA Chairperson 10.20 - Address by Representative from OIE 10.30 - Address by the Chief Guest - Hon CB Ratnayake, Minister of Livestock Development

10.40-11.00 Break

11.00-12.00 Session 1 Driving forces for animal identification and traceability – H.G. Wagner Standards for animal identification and traceability

For OIE – L.O. Barcos

For ICAR – O.K. Hansen

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.00 Session 2 Policy requirements and institutional setting – R. Paskin Institutional setting for Animal Identification in livestock improvement programmes – O.K. Hansen

15.00-15.30 Break

15.30-17.00 Session 3 From brand to RFID – Overview over ID options – R. Paskin

19.00-21.00 Welcome dinner hosted by Govt. of Sri Lanka or FAO-APHCA (to be confirmed)

Tuesday, 3 July 2007

09.00-10.30 Session 4 Overview of successful systems

Experiences in Namibia and Australia – R. Paskin

HI–TIER Germany basics – R. Carmanns

10.30-11.00 Break

48

11.00-12.30 Session 4 continued

(Continued from Session 4)

Demonstration HI–TIER – R. Carmanns

Discussion

12.30-14.00 Lunch

14.00-15.30 Session 5 Country reports – tentative (15 min. each)

India

China

Malaysia

Thailand

SAARC

ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Livestock 15.30-16.00 Break

16.00-17.00 Session 6 Working groups – successful planning of ID & T schemes

Wednesday, 4 July 2007

09.00-10.30 Session 8 ID & T in disease control programmes – C. Benigno Working groups – regional harmonization and collaboration

ASEAN countries

SAARC countries

10.30-11.00 Coffee break

11.00-12.30 Session 9 Working groups: – potential for widespread application of innovative technologies for animal identification used to effectively track animals and products

12.30-14.00 Lunch

14.00-15.30 Conclusions and recommendations

Closing

16.00-18.00 APHCA Executive Committee Meeting (restricted)

19.00-21.00 Farewell dinner hosted by OIE

49

Appendix 2: Attendees

List of participants OIE/FAO-APHCA Joint Workshop on Animal Identification and Traceability

Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2-4 July 2007 Dr Roger Paskin Principal Veterinary Officer (Epidemiology) CVO Unit Department of Primary Industries 475 Mickleham Road Attwood, Victoria 3049 Australia Tel: +61-392174174 Mobile: +043-8508015 E-mail: Roger.Paskin@dpi.vic.gov.au Dr Md. Ebrahim Hossain Principal Scientific Officer Department of Livestock Services Farmgate, Dhaka-1215 Bangladesh Tel: + 880-2-8141023 Fax: + 880-2-9110326 E-mail: drebrahimh@yahoo.com Dr Lham Tshering National Livestock Breeding Programme Department of Livestock Thimpu Bhutan Tel: +975-2351284 Mobile: +975-17611981 E-mail: naip@druknet.bt Dr Umi Fathimiah Hj Abd Rahman Brunei Darussalam Tel: E-mail: Dr Sar Chetra Acting Chief of Animal Production Office Department of Animal Health and Production No. 74, Monivong Blvd.

Sangkat Wat Phnom, Khan Daun Penh Phnom Penh Cambodia Tel: +855-16303056 E-mail: chetrass@yahoo.com Mr Wei Wei China Animal Disease Control Center Beijing China 100026 Tel: +8610-64194740 Mobile: +8613-691273759 Fax: +8610-64194742 E-mail：wwei19802006@hotmail.com

Dr M.K. Saha Deputy Animal Husbandry Commissioner Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003 India Tel: +91011-24365491 Fax: +91011-24365258 E-mail: manojkumar.saha@gmail.com Dr Akhmad Junaedi Head of Sub Directorate of Zoonosis and Animal Welfare Directorate General of Livestock Services Jl. Harsono, RM No. 3 Ragunan Jakarta Indonesia Tel: +6621-7827488 Fax: +6221-7827466 E-mail: doodoo@deptan.go.id

50

Dr Hassan Wishteh Iran Veterinary Organization Tehran Iran E-mail: IVOQUARANTINE@ivo.org.ir wishte@hotmail.com Dr Bounkhouang Khambounheuang Director-General Department of Livestock and Fisheries P.O. Box 811, Vientiane Lao PDR Tel: +856-21416932 Mobile: +856-205540026 Fax: + 856-21415674 E-mail: B.Khouang@yahoo.com Mr Chang Kum Wah Department of Veterinary Services Wisma Tani, Podium Block 4G1, Precinct 4 62630 Putrajaya Malaysia Tel: +603-88702218 Mobile: +601-23519798 Fax: +603-88884457 E-mail: chang@jph.gov.my Dr T.S. Purevkhuu Specialist for Laboratories and International Projects Department of Veterinary Services Enkhtaivan Ave. 16A, Government Bldg #9 Ulaanbaatar 210349 Mongolia Tel: +976-11-263422 Fax: +976-11-458933 E-mail: Fuji_bio@yahoo.com Dr Than Htun Deputy Director-General Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department Insein, Yangon Myanmar Tel: +951-640921 +951-642939 (Res) Fax: +951-642927 E-mail: lbvd@mptmail.net.mm

Dr Bajracharya Juddha Prasad Programme Director Directorate of Livestock Market Promotion Department of Livestock Services G.P.O. Box 8975, EPC 783 Hariharbhawan, Lalitpur Kathmandu Nepal Tel.: +9771-5542807, 5524330 Mobile: +9851-005430 Fax: +9771-5542807 E-mail: juddha@gmail.com Dr Sulman Hameed Assistant Animal Husbandry Commissioner Livestock Wing Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Islamabad Pakistan Dr Rubina O. Cresencio Chief, Livestock Development Division Bureau of Animal Industry Visayas Avenue, Diliman Quezon City 1128 Philippines Tel: +632-9268842, 9204227 Fax: +632-9204227 E-mail: rubicres@mozcom.com rubina.cresencio@gmail.com Dr Tan Hock Seng Head, Foreign Establishments Accreditation Branch Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Singapore Tel.: 63257103 Fax: 62206068 E-mail: tan_hock_seng@ava.gov.sg Dr H.M.S.P. Herath Director, Animal Breeding Department of Animal Production and Health Getambe, Peradeniya Sri Lanka Tel: +9481-2388037 E-mail: hmspherath@hotmail.com

51

Dr Chaweewan Leowijuk Deputy Director-General Department of Livestock Development Phya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: +662-6534444 Fax: +662-6534900 E-mail: chaweewl@dld.go.th Dr Nguyen Hoang Tung Animal Quarantine and Inspection Division Department of Animal Health – MARD Phuong Mai – Dong Da, Ha Noi Viet Nam Tel: +844-8687151 Fax: +844-8691311 E-mail: hoangtungnd@yahoo.com SPEAKERS Dr Ole Klejs Hansen Senior Adviser/Chairman of the ICAR Subcommittee on Animal Identification Danish Cattle Federation / Registration and Milk Recording Udkaersvej 15, DK-8200 Aarhus N Denmark Tel: +45 87405295 E-mail: okh@landscentret.dk Dr Richard Carmanns Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Landwirtschaft und Forsten Ludwigstr. 2, 80539 München Germany Tel: +4989-21822304 Fax: +4989-21822712 E-Mail: Richard.Carmanns@stmlf.bayern.de Dr Carolyn C. Benigno Animal Health Officer FAO RAP 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200 Thailand Tel: +662-6974330 E-mail: carolyn.benigno@fao.org

Dr Luis Osvaldo Barcos Regional Representative for Americas Cervino 31012 1425 Buenos Aires Argentina Tel: +5411-48 034877 Fax: +5411-48 022096 E-mail: oieamericas@fibertel.com.ar OBSERVERS Mr A.S. Premasundara Assistant Director (Dairy Development) Department of Animal Production and Health Getambe, Peradeniya Sri Lanka Dr. Nimal Samaranayake Veterinary Surgeon Animal Breeding Division Department of Animal Production and Health Getambe, Peradeniya Sri Lanka Dr P.G. Senawiratne Veterinary Surgeon Animal Breeding Division Department of Animal Production and Health Getambe, Peradeniya Sri Lanka Dr Chantanee Buranathai Senior Veterinary Officer Department of Livestock Development Phya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: +662-6534444 ext 4172-73 E-mail: dcontrol9@dld.go.th chantaneeb@dld.go.th Dr Chaichana Mitrpant RFID Programme Director National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC) 112 Thailand Science Park Phahon Yothin Road, Klong Luang Pathumthani 12120

52

Thailand Tel: +662-5646900 ext 2422 E-mail: chaichana.mitrpant@nectec.or.th Dr Urachada Ketprom RFID Programme Researcher National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC) 112 Thailand Science Park Phahon Yothin Road, Klong Luang Pathumthani 12120 Thailand Tel: +662-5646900 ext 2422 E-mail: urachada.ketprom@nectec.or.th ORGANIZERS Dr K.M.T. Kenadaragama Director, Human Resources Development Department of Animal Production and Health Getambe, Peradeniya Sri Lanka Tel: +9481-2388178 +9437-2233264 (Res) E-mail: thilak52@yahoo.com Dr Yoshiyuki Oketani Deputy Regional Representative OIE Regional Representation for Asia and the Pacific Sanseido Building, 4F, 2-4-10 Kojimachi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0083 Japan Tel: +813-52123191 Fax: +813-52123194 E-mail: oietokyo@tky.3web.ne.jp

Dr Hans-Gerhard Wagner Senior Animal Production and Health Officer FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200 Thailand Tel: +662-6974326 Fax: +662-6974445 E-mail: hans.wagner@fao.org

Dr Vishnu Songkitti Liaison Officer for APHCA FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200 Thailand Tel: +662-6974256 Fax: +662-6974445 E-mail: vishnu.songkitti@fao.org

53

Appendix 3: Pre-workshop Questionnaire

Questionnaire7 on

Identification of cattle, sheep, goats and buffalo

APHCA and OIE are organizing a workshop on animal identification and traceability and

it would be interesting to have an overview on animal identification systems used in

countries in Asia.

Please read carefully !!

Please use one form per species

Should you different identification schemes within one species pleas use

separate forms for each species

Please make as much copies as needed before filling in the first

questionnaire.

Country: State/Province:

Organisation:

Contact person:

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

Species for which this form is filled

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Buffalo

Legislation

No legislation for mandatory scheme for animal identification

Governmental mandatory ID-system at animal level (individual codes), no national

database

7 This questionnaire is a slightly modified version of the one which was sent by ICAR to ICAR member

countries some years ago

54

Governmental mandatory ID-system and database at animal level

Governmental mandatory ID-system at group level (farm/herd/group codes), no

national database

Governmental mandatory ID-system and database at group level

No governmental requirements

Type of Identification system

Mandatory permanent ID-system for all animals, unmistakeable lifetime ID

Mandatory permanent ID-system for herdbook animals, unmistakeable lifetime ID

Mandatory permanent ID-system for disease control programme, unmistakeable

lifetime ID

Mandatory temporary ID-systems (movement tags)

Voluntary ID-systems for herdbook animals, unmistakeable lifetime ID

Voluntary ID-systems for herdbook animals, ID code may change by movement

Voluntary ID-systems for management purposes, unmistakeable lifetime ID

Voluntary ID-systems for management purposes, ID code may change by movement

Age of animal when tagged

Within 7 days from birth

Within 20 days from birth

Within 30 days from birth

Within 60 days from birth

Within 180 days from birth

Before leaving the place of birth

Temporary tagging at each movement

55

Application of tags

Farmer may apply official tags to the animal

Farmer may not apply official tags to the animal

Farmer applies one preliminary tag – official person later applies one official tag

Official person must apply all official tags (inspector, veterinarian etc.)

Distribution of tags

Through official (veterinarian, inspector, animal health worker, recording assistant)

By post

Purchase at official outlets

Others please specify – database notified of tag numbers when distributed

Types of tags

One plastic ear tag per animal

Two plastic ear tags per animal

Metal ear tag

Electronic ID in ear tag

Electronic ID in bolus

Electronic ID in implants

Pre-printed plastic tape

Ear notching

Horn branding

Tattooing

Sketching / Photograph

56

Other, please specify

Animal ID code structure (Country code NOT included)

ID-code is purely numeric

ID-code is purely alphanumeric

ID-code contains both numeric and alphanumeric characters

Number of positions in the ID-code

Check digit included in ID code

ID-code does not contain any information except a serial animal number

ID-code contains information about region

ID-code contains information about farm

ID-code contains information about recording organisation

Replacement tag

Same ID-code as in the lost original tag

New ID-code connected to the lost original tag

New ID-code with no connection to the lost original tag

Traceability

Information on animals and movements for all animals is kept in national databases

Information on animals and movements is kept in sale yards/auction marts databases

Information on herdbook animals is kept in national databases

Information on animals and movements is kept in manual farm registers

Governmental bodies require registration of animals and movements

Governmental bodies do not require registration of animals and movements

57

Information required by recording agency from the farmer for traceability of

animals

Animal ID code

Code for place of origin

Date of birth

Breed

Sex

Mother

Father

For incoming animal: Date of movement to farm

For incoming animal: Code of previous farm

For outgoing animal: Date of movement from farm

For outgoing animal: Code of next farm

Other information (please specify)

No information required from farmer

58

Appendix 4: Acronyms

APHCA Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FMD Foot-and-Mouth Disease

HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

ICAR International Committee for Animal Recording

ID Identification

ISO International Standards Organisation

MLA Meat and Livestock Australia

OIE Office International des Epizooties (the World Organisation for Animal

Health)

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation

SEAFMD Southeast Asia FMD Campaign