The "Challenge Before Us," the theme of LCI’s National Livestock Identification (ID) Symposium, was meant to be more than a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. The challenge was in planning a symposium built on the exchange of information and consensus building. The challenge also was in moving livestock identification from a technological phenomenon to an integral part of production management systems, regulatory traceback programs and international trade. And, the challenge was in injecting some renewed momentum into the issue of livestock ID.

Were we able to meet all those challenges through the symposium? The resounding answer is yes, but we have a great deal of work yet to do.

In meeting the challenge of exchanging information and developing consensus around national ID issues, we (meaning the Symposium Planning Committee) brought together 30 different speakers on four major livestock ID topics: (1) technical and performance requirements of electronic identification (EID), (2) the Federal regulatory perspective, (3) an international perspective on livestock ID, (4) database management, (5) current applications and experiences in livestock ID, and (6) advancements in electronic ID technology.

With the limited time I have here today, I’d like to hit on just a few of the highlights of what we heard in these 30 some presentations.

* For instance, we heard that standardization of EID technical and performance requirements is equally important to EID users and the product manufacturers. EID standardization is vital in minimizing costs, providing compatibility of equipment from one user to another and removing technical and performance barriers to the widespread use of EID in the livestock industry.

The development of technical standards for EID is under the auspices of the International Standards Organization (ISO), which is currently in various stages of approval for EID equipment standards. Immediately following my presentation, we will hear more about the status of the ISO’s efforts from Mr. Bob Cooper, a member of the ISO working group.

* Another speaker emphasized that an essential element in maintaining and retrieving information on an individually identified animal, for whatever purpose, is the use of a universal numbering system or code. A univeral code schematic has been adopted by the World Holstein Freisian Federation, Holstein USA, Inc., the National Livestock Electronic Identification Board and the U.S. Animal Health Association. While it remains questionable whether a universal numbering system can be achieved worldwide, it is becoming increasingly apparent in the U.S. livestock industry that a national, universal identifier system is needed.

* We learned from the regulatory community that livestock ID as a regulatory tool facilitates the mission of five different federal agencies: the Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Packers and Stockyards Administration (PS&A), the Food and Drug Administrations’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), and the Centers for Disease Control. These agencies are individually responsible for monitoring the on-farm health of the nation’s livestock to prevent the spread of livestock diseases in interstate commerce; inspecting for microbial and chemical contamination at slaughter; assuring proper accounting and payment to livestock sellers; regulating the marketing of animal drugs, food additives, feed ingredients and animal devices; and investigating cases of human illness to identify threats to the public health.

Some of the perspectives on livestock ID heard from the federal regulator were: (1) livestock ID provides important and necessary traceback capability in determining the disease status of the nation’s herd; (2) likewise, ID enhances food safety and quality assurance programs and is an important component in human epidemiological investigations; (3) ID also strengthens financial accountability between the buyers and sellers of livestock; (4) Utilizing traceback ID technology can facilitate the identification of search gaps for production/marketing/transportation control points; (5) for the greatest public health benefit, ID should extend from farm of origin to retail; (6) industry should take the lead, in partnership with the government, in determining the best, most economically viable ID systems that meet the future needs of both regulatory agencies and producers for rapid, accurate livestock identification; (7) the greatest hurdle for ID product manufacturers is insuring that ID devices do not become a component of human food; (8) if EID implantable devices are removed and disposed of at slaughter and do not become incorporated into either human or animal food, they are regulated under the animal device section of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, thus requiring a much lesser standard for approval by FDA. However, because FDA believes that it is unlikely that EID products will be removed at slaughter, they have regulated them as food additives since 1990. As a result of the higher approval standard for food additives, no implantable EID device has been approved by FDA as a food additive to date.

* In other presentation, we learned that the successful use of livestock ID within the international community is as mixed a bag as what we have experienced here in the United States. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, have developed sophisticated mandatory national livestock identification and registration systems. Others, like our Canadian neighbors are struggling as we are in this country to find the right mix of private and government incentives to develop cost effective, workable systems of livestock identification.

The Netherlands as early as the 1980’s began developing a central database integrating their herdbook registrations and their animal health activities. That system, which became operational in 1991, requires all cattle to be uniquely identified and to be registered within three days after birth and all movements recorded within three days as well in a central data base. Advocates of the Netherlands’ central database identification and registration system believe it provides data of high and uniform quality which effectively supports the activities of the farmer’s cattle industry and government with the added benefit of guaranteeing consumers of high quality and safe meat products.

Canada’s livestock ID efforts were dominated in the early 1980’s by the pursuit of electronic ID alternatives. An Electronic ID Committee was formed to bring together the cattle industry, the allied industry and Agriculture Canada (the equivalent to our USDA) to develop national EID standards. However, because the technology at the time was quite expensive at $17 per head, little progress was made toward developing universal use of EID in livestock in Canada.

The 1990’s, however, has seen renewed interest in animal identification in Canada with the creation of a National Advisory Board on animal ID which was later absorbed into the Canadian Animal Health Consultative Committee which is similar to our U.S. Animal Health Association. Under the auspices of this group several pilot projects on livestock ID have been initiated. One project in particular seeks to electronically identify 10-15,000 beef cattle at commercial feedlots and slaughter plants to track growth patterns, feed efficiency and production/quality information.

* We also heard from a speaker who emphasized the importance of database management as a major component of any successful livestock identification system. Swine breeders have been in the forefront of developing automated data collection systems to monitor breeding activity on their farms. A database system developed by the Pig Improvement Company called Pigtales using hand-held computers and EID scanners has been shown to dramatically improve data collection accuracy, save time in recording herd information, promote better field management decisions and eliminate ID errors. We are fortunate to have Dan Montinari with Coleman Meats with us a little bit later to give us more information on "Databases: What they are and are not."

* Looking at current experiences and application of ID technology and systems within the livestock industry provided some valuable insights into what does or doesn’t work when applying ID systems to the various species, industry sectors and/or production systems. It became readily apparent from these presentations, that no one system device or use, fits all. And, as we look at ID systems -- with an emphasis on the plural "s"--on a national scale, they must equally work for the farmer or producer as they do for the feedlot, for the market as they do the packer, and for the regulator as they do the consumer.

A few of the other important messages derived from these tried and tested experiences were:

** To achieve wide applicant of ID -- including electronic ID -- there must be economic incentives.

** Electronic ID tracking systems provide greater assurance to the consumer that the claims you make about your products are true.

** The U.S. Holstein Association’s aggressive ID program incorporates four key elements: (1) the program must incorporate existing herd management practices; (2) it must maintain the integrity and accuracy of the system; (3) participation must be made easy; and (4) it must be a cost-effective system.

** The use of EID transponders in sheep enrolled in the scrapie certification program has been approved by the FDA and FSIS with the provision that the devices would be removed at slaughter.

** The only real limitation on the use of EID technology is resistance to change and a lack of commitment to individually unique permanent identification of animals.

** The APHIS Swine Health Staff is committed to facilitating the promotion of the wide use of on-farm ID systems and is developing pilot projects to test the feasibility and reliability of various methods of producer-applied ID.

** Traditional methods of identifying horses are inadequate in today’s world. EID technology has been shown to provide a practical and effective means of responding to horse thievery, substitution and animal health matters.

** As the ostrich industry flourished in the 1980’s, they turned to the microchip to provide a safe, simple and permanent solution to identifying their birds. The result was the ostrich industry has become the largest user of microchips today.

** The packing industry has been a long-time proponent of livestock ID whether it was individual or lot ID. Their four principal concerns as more emphasis is placed on livestock ID are that: ID devices, particularly implantable devices, not cause a food safety problem; removal of ID devices on the slaughter floor be quick and easy to avoid unacceptable materials entering into rendered by-products; compatibility of ID systems and products is very important; and any additional cost resulting from the use of an ID device must be offset by operating efficiencies derived from the information obtained from their use.

** To describe in any detail some of the advancements in electronic ID technology that we heard about in the meeting would make an already too long report even longer. So, let me simply say that if you are looking for innovative Star Wars technology, you only need look at what is new in the field of electronic ID. There is today everything from portable self-contained DataTags to new electronic ear tags and interrogation systems, ID nose and ankle tags to biological antibody identification and programmable magnetic resonance ID systems to integrated EID management systems. For more information on these exciting new technologies, I urge you to obtain a copy of the symposium proceedings.

Well, that pretty well sums up the information component of the ID symposium. The consensus building component, which I considered to be perhaps the singe most important element of the symposium’s agenda, was constructed around four separate working groups. These groups were asked to discuss issues specific to: (1) the requirements, considerations and differences in applying ID systems to the various specie groups and industry segments; (2) the parameters for a national ID program; (3) unresolved issues pertaining to modern ID technology; and (4) the cost/benefits to users of ID technology.

Some of the major points that came out of those discussion groups were:

* There must be a marketing edge or an economic advantage for the producer in order to get full utilization of ID technology.

* ID products must be user friendly to be readily accepted by the producer.

* Confidentiality of proprietary information contained in or derived from the ID must be maintained.

* More information is needed in determining whether the ISO frequency standards will permit sufficient latitude in the type of interrogation systems for reading the EID transponders under varied uses.

* Regulatory traceback programs will likely continue to rely on current available ID systems and will not soon result in the widespread use of electronic ID.

* Within the various specie groups, you have very different production requirements and different ID objectives. Therefore, when and at what point in the production, marketing and processing chain application occurs, depends on whether it is for regulatory purposes, genetic breeding purposes or production management purposes.

* Working groups should be established by each species group to define a common point of implant for EID transponders.

* The biggest obstacle to making ID systems work, particularly on the beef side, is to provide packers with a manageable system so production and quality information can be fed back to producers.

* ID systems that are national in scope will require ID equipment that follows one universal standard. Thus, livestock groups, ID manufacturers and the regulatory community should agree to adopt the ISO standards to assure compatibility of ID equipment.

* The long term goal of livestock ID should be mandatory identification from birth to death of the animal. However, this is unlikely to occur very quickly and thus, it should be voluntary for the time being with incentives to encourage it happening over time.

* The consensus of Work Group II was that it would be best to have several decentralized databases with linkages from one database to another rather than one national centralized database. Protocols for compatibility among different database systems and restrictions on access to the information contained in those databases should be established to provide the necessary database linkages as well as in securing information contained in them from improper use.

* To assure effective traceback for regulatory purposes, individual animal ID tied to a premise ID would be needed to implement a national ID system.

* The greatest benefit to be derived from ID systems is better control over the production, marketing and processing of livestock. That control will come from the utilization of information obtained from the identification of the individual animal.

* More information is needed on the cost/benefits of current ID systems versus emerging new ID systems in order to better determine the value as well as feasibility of adopting new ID systems to meet our production, processing, manufacturing and regulatory needs.

* It is important to recognize that some of the ID systems currently in use may be adequate or doing a good job in certain segments or areas of livestock production, and that they should not necessarily be thrown out to make room for new and untried technologies. However, we need to clearly identify what is working, what is not and begin from there.

* And finally, some forms of ID which are steeped in tradition, such as branding, will be very hard to give up even though they have been found to be anything but cost beneficial. Only when these practices result in disincentives in the marketplace will producers be convinced to replace antiquated, costly ID systems with something else.

Following the work group reports, a lengthy discussion by the symposium participants ensured in an attempt to reach consensus and an outcome. We were able to reach consensus on the following items:

1. National ID systems should be largely driven by economics.

2. ID systems must be easy to use.

3. Minimum uniform standards must be developed.

4. ID systems must provide the capability for unique animal ID.

5. Current ID systems are not adequate.

6. Minimum uniform standards must meet regulatory needs.

And, we agreed that much more discussion was needed on a variety of issues for which we were unable to reach consensus in the short time we had at this meeting. Some of these were:

1. Whether ID Databases should be centralized or decentralized.

2. Determining the best injection sites for implantable devices.

3. Assuring the worker safety, food safety and environmental concerns are incorporated into ID systems.

4. Providing for flexibility in the development of technology necessary for gathering and disseminating information derived from the ID; but, establishing uniform standards for capturing the ID through a standardized reader, universal identifier ID number, etc.

5. A centralized system for capturing the ID that protects confidentiality while providing for the unique needs of the regulatory and private sectors.

So, as you can see, we accomplished a lot at the ID symposium. Individuals with a more limited parochial view of the subject went away with a more global view. There was increased awareness of the commonality as well as the uniqueness of animal ID issues as they relate to the different species. We know more about where there is consensus and also where there is much more work to be done. And, very importantly, we were able to bring some impetus back into the subject of livestock ID on a national scale.

There is, however, a great deal of work yet to be done. I had always intended when we first proposed to the LCI Board of Directors that we hold a symposium on livestock ID that it should not end there. But, that we should continue on perhaps through smaller working groups, to develop a national consensus on livestock ID issues as well as to provide an ongoing basis for problem solving. Thus, I will propose to the LCI Board of Directors this week that we form three to four small task groups to continue our work on issues such as uniform technical and performance standards, unique species ID, database management systems, and legislative and regulatory ID issues. Assuming the Board agrees to this plan of action and we are able to garner the necessary financial resources, I would hope that those of you with the interest and expertise in this area will come forth and help us continue to move the important issue of livestock identification forward.

Lastly, I wanted to mention that I have committed to my counterparts on USAHA’s ID Committee to work together in developing a plan of action on livestock ID. What we don’t need is to waste valuable time by moving on separate tracks toward the same goals. This also goes for other livedstock organizations with an interest in animal ID issues.