What is meant by universal animal identification

In dealing with universal animal identification we sometimes refer to it as an universal numbering system. This may not be recognized the same in all countries, producers of all species and among agencies or organizations that accumulate information about individual animals or regulate the movement or monitor the health of individual animals.

There are those among us that have dreamed of the ultimate goal of identifying an animal with a number and other identifying components that identify each animal from birth to death by all producers, organizations and agencies throughout the world.

If this can be achieved, animals, semen and embryos can be moved internationally without losing or changing the identification of the animal or donor of embryos and semen in the identification of offspring and the accumulation of performance information, regardless of where the animal, the donor or the offspring are located.

The need for this has become increasingly clear in recent years , and the scientists involved in trying to harmonize breeding values of bulls worldwide have identified a need for such universal identification in order to capture all performance information that should be assigned to one animal rather than several identities of the same animal.

One Initial Attempt

In February, 1988, the World Holstein Freisian Federation created a working group to address the task of creating an identification system that would be uniform for the Holstein/Freisian herd books throughout the world. This included harmonizing or standardizing the complete identification or registration process.

Soon thereafter, there developed a schematic through which to approach the question, and the seventh generation was used at the first Livestock Conservation Institute Identification Symposium held in December, 1988.

We in the United States were trying to guard the traditional identification of the state as a part of the primary identification element at that time. Other elements include sex, purebred or degree of grading up, the breed, nation using a 2 letter Western Union code, the issuing organization (identification of database) and species.

At that time, coding of an electronic identifying device had not started and we were either meshing the coding of the electronic device with an identification system or we had not progressed to a point where we could separate the two. Now the coding structure for the electronic identifying device has been completed, as described by Dr. Spahr, so we need to deal separately with an animal identification system.

Exhibit A. Proposed Animal ID

Continued Development

Within a few months, the International Holstein working group had determined that the key elements included country code, sex and a ten digit serial number right justified and zero filled. (USA F 0002134648) We were told that if the United States insisted on including a state code in the primary portion of the identifier, we should put it at the end of the 10 digits, which we did.

Exhibit B. Proposed Animal ID

By the time the twelfth version was produced, the three letter code was to be selected by the country of origin but this was soon changed when the International Standards Organization was discovered to have two letter country codes, three letter country codes and three digit country codes. The Holstein working group settled on the three letter country code assigned by ISO.

Exhibit C. Proposed Animal ID

By September, 1989, a significant portion of the dairy industry considered the plan ready for implementation and held a meeting which included representatives of PDCA, National Association of Animal Breeders, National Dairy Herd Improvement Association and USDA/APHIS. The meeting turned out to be one of reorganizing the scheme with the idea that a two digit state code could be incorporated in the ten spaces followed by a four digit or four letter premise code followed by a four digit management number to be assigned by the breeder, all as the primary identifier.

Exhibit D. Proposed Animal ID

While the merit of such a coding system is easily recognizable, there developed a host of questions that led to what seemed to be management confusion. How many entities could be involved in assigning this identification number, or in establishing the components which, in the case of breed organizations, would be the registration number, unless there was complete national government involvement in managing the system. Given the perplexity of the questions, the concept did not develop further.

At this point, it seems appropriate to shift our attention to Canada. As of January 1, 1990, Holstein Canada implemented an identification or numbering system following the concepts developed by the World Holstein Freisian working group and shown in previous illustrations with the province, region or state code to the left of the primary identifier. This is in the database but not a part of the primary identifier. They started a new numerical series and the equivalent of the identification or registration number that is regularly printed out includes the ISO country code for Canada, the sex and a serial number starting at a point higher than any previously issued registration number. 

Exhibit E. International Numbering Sequence

It is important to recognize that there is one series of numbers that includes both sexes. Holstein Canada has captured the basic identification of all Holsteins enrolled in the Canadian Milk Recording System including those in the non registered segment of the population. The significance and importance of one series of numbers will be recognized in subsequent presentations.

Mr. Glen Cherry, Registrar of the Holstein Association of Canada, is present and may comment during this session.

To refer to United States activity, the National Livestock Electronic Identification Board was reactivated in October of 1989, when electronic identification was becoming a very live issue. At this time or soon thereafter, format #15 had evolved with the idea that the management number might be incorporated in the 10 digits as a part of the primary identification number.

Exhibit F. Proposed Animal ID

This was shown to the National Livestock Electronic Identification Board in April, 1990, which was held in advance of the LCI annual conference in Louisville, Kentucky.

Format 16 was approved by National Livestock Electronic Identification Board in October, 1990, and recommended to the US Animal Health Association Identification Committee that passed a resolution to be submitted to the US Animal Health Association Resolution Committee. This was approved by the US Animal Health Association general session and incorporated in the proceedings of the 1990 meeting.

Resolution No. 19
Source: Committee on Livestock Identification Subject Matter: Universal Identification

Resolution:  RESOLVED that USDA adopt the system outlined on attachment A as the system to which all segments of the livestock industry and regulatory agencies can adapt at such time as deemed appropriate by each respective segment of the livestock industry and/or regulatory agency.

View Resolution No. 19

Since then, the Holstein Association has been conducting field trials on various types of identification including the use of the management number as a part of the primary identification number and found that within our system, it was not manageable. It is recognized that there are systems in Europe that are in a position to manage a database that incorporates the management number assigned by the first owner. Given the experience of our organization, the idea of trying to incorporate the management number into the primary identification number has been abandoned and we have reached format #17.

Exhibit H. Proposed Animal ID

By this time, all segments of the livestock industry in the United States, including breed organizations, had been exposed to this system as it evolved and there were no alternatives offered. But commentary at the previous LCI Identification Symposium was recognized. By the same token, all of the details may not yet be cast in concrete. However, Holstein Canada and perhaps other Canadian breed organizations have settled on and implemented the primary components of country, sex and numerical number. Holstein Association USA, Inc. is programming its system to accept this system.

While we thought this would aim herdbooks, at least Holstein herdbooks, throughout the world to head in this direction, the European Community directive does not explicitly call for this format. The European directive requires that in 14 digits there is included a country code and unique number of each animal. This identification requires the capacity to trace the animal to the farm of origin.

In The Netherlands, an eight digit number is used with a check digit. Digits 5, 6, 7 and 8 are assigned by the herd owner. The premise identification is stored in the computerized National Database with the first four digits assigned by the central database computer all of which will be explained in detail by Mr. Wismans of the Netherlands. The ear tag includes a bar code that reads out the assigned identification when scanned. This is used as the registration number for pedigreed cattle.

In Great Britain, the national identification system uses two alpha characters to identify the country, followed by two alpha characters and four digits to identify the farm of origin, followed by five digits to identify the animal. This becomes effective April 1, 1995 and is expected to become the registration number for pedigreed cattle. (GB XY1234 87654)

Whether or not we can achieve worldwide standardization of identification may be a question but we are finding increasing attention to and progress toward standardized identification within countries or geographical areas with this one identification serving all purposes relating to that animal from birth to death. Whether the United States system is completely identical to that of the European Community may not be as important as establishing complete uniformity with Canada and perhaps the western hemisphere.

At the recent meeting of the US Animal Health Association Identification Committee, it was increasingly apparent that all segments of the livestock industry in the United States are recognizing that a national system is needed and soon.

Again, this is separate from coding the electronic identifier whose code must be cross referenced with this record of identification which is expected to be an electronic record in a managed database. All of the components as shown may not be needed. However, the database may accommodate them and be accessed in addition to the primary identifier as circumstances require.

A pertinent comment by Dr. Lonnie King at the time of the meeting of the dairy industry with APHIS is that USDA is willing to change its national numbering system but it will only change once.