USDA Rep Thinks Market-Driven
Voluntary Animal ID Will Work
By David Bowser
KANSAS CITY — Dr. John Wiemers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service says animal identification is nothing new.
"We've been at this a long time," Wiemers says. "This is not anything new that we're proposing. We've been tagging animals for a heck of a long time. We've been tagging ever since the early stages of the United States, when branding was used for theft prevention and ownership."
It's still being done today, Wiemers told participants in a recent animal ID forum here.
A veterinarian who has been active in the swine industry, Wiemers was the first coordinator on animal identification at USDA, before the National Animal Identification Service was in place.
"What we have today that's different from the past is a mobile animal population that goes across the country," Wiemers said. "The need for identification in interstate movement is certainly key. Also, we have diseases that need to be eradicated."
In the 1890s, the country was involved in the eradication of disease in cattle. That, in fact, was where the USDA first got started as the Bureau of Animal Industry.
"Through the years, we've been involved in a lot of programs," Wiemers said. "In 1998, when I was working with the animal identification program in the USDA, we had a question about where we are with animal ID, so we did a survey with our animal ID coordinators to try to find out what was out there, what was being used in the states as far as animal identification."
They found out that there were tags everywhere, Wiemers said. There were different uses and different-colored tags.
"There wasn't much consistency across the board," Wiemers said. "A blue tag in one state was used for one purpose, and that same color of tag, size and shape was used for a different purpose in another state. We've had yellow tags, orange tags, big tags, green tags, purple tags, silver tags, you name it. We've had different-colored tags."
They all meant different things to different people. There was no consistency.
"We saw animals with multiple tags in their ears," Wiemers said. "Trying to get our slaughter collectors to collect all man-made IDs at slaughter to be assembled with a blood sample or tissue sample was a nightmare for most of us, because there were so many different tags on an animal typically. From a management tag to a test tag to a vaccination tag, there were just so many tags on those animals."
They meant different things, but they meant something to somebody, and they were important pieces of information.
"What we didn't have was a single, meaningful lifetime number for an animal," Wiemers said.
He said they also found out that there was a dramatic reduction in the vaccination and testing programs across the country.
"We were being a victim of our own success," Wiemers said. "Fewer animals were being vaccinated for brucellosis because the disease was being eradicated. It's virtually non-existent in the United States."
Fewer animals are being tested as states are deemed free of the disease, he noted.
"Those identification devices that were typically being put on those animals are no longer there," Wiemers said. "We're left with a population of animals that was once identified that's no longer identified today."
Where cattlemen were typically vaccinating some 15 or 20 million calves a year for brucellosis, they were down to 4.5 million in 1998.
"That number's dropping dramatically," Wiemers added.
That means there is a void in animal identification that was identified back in 1998, he said.
"We saw a need to fill that void."
In 1998, the industry was using metal tags and plastic eartags.
"We were looking at automatic data capturing back then and how it was being used," Wiemers said.
They looked at bar codes and RFID to see if the technology was there to move those animals through the production chain with automatic data capture.
"Even back then," Wiemers said, "we were looking at the idea of having biometric identification with retinal imaging or DNA testing."
That was being done in 1998, and it's being done today, he said.
"There are different kinds of identification methods out there," Wiemers said.
He said they also found out that there are regional differences in how animals are handled in the West versus in the East.
"Those things need to be taken into consideration when you're designing an animal identification system," Wiemers pointed out.
He said species differences also need to be taken into consideration.
In the early stages of the animal identification process, Wiemers said, he remembers talking to a cattleman who said he'd tag his cattle when the government made poultry producers tag their chickens.
"I remember that being said loud and clear," Wiemers recalled. "At that time they were just about as mad at us as some folks are mad at us today, for different reasons."
Wiemers said exposure to the process and education has changed some of that.
"That person is now one of our strongest advocates for animal identification," Wiemers said. "We know there are differences in species. We obviously don't eartag chickens or fish or anything like that, but we do have a need to measure them. If you don't number a population, you can't measure a population. If you can't measure a population, you can't make progress."
After establishing that there was a void in animal identification, Wiemers said they worked with the Livestock Conservation Institute. They put together a National Food Animal Identification Task Force in 2001.
"It really got started in the winter and spring of 2002," Wiemers said.
They gathered some 70 individuals representing 30 or more industry organizations.
"A lot of these individuals were producers themselves," Wiemers said.
They produced what was then called a National Identification Work Plan.
"It was really a framework of what was later developed as a plan," Wiemers said.
That plan was presented at the Animal ID Expo in 2002.
It was later fleshed out, Wiemers said, through various industry committees.
That plan was then presented in the fall of 2002 to the United States Animal Health Association.
"That organization passed a resolution and asked the USDA to assemble a team to take the work plan and build it into a working plan," Wiemers said.
USDA formed a steering committee and five different sub-committees and called it the National Animal Identification Development Team.
"That team had about 100 members representing over 70 different stakeholder organizations," Wiemers said.
Later, working groups were assembled for the different species. More than 300 people had input into the development of what was called the United States Animal Identification Plan.
"That plan was presented at the 2004 ID Expo," Wiemers said, "and was again presented to the U.S. Animal Health Association."
The U.S. Animal Health Association again asked USDA to further develop an implementation plan with input from the working groups.
"The USDA reviewed the plan and adopted a lot of the identification standards," Wiemers said, "and started looking at an implementation plan that we now call the National Animal Identification System. That's the history of where we came from."
He said USDA APHIS, which has been tasked with the identification program, is still working with industry groups to refine and implement the National Animal Identification System.
"We're still working with species working groups and receiving input to what is now the National Animal Identification sub-committee of an advisory committee called the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases," he said.
The species working groups, Wiemers said, will provide input to the Secretary of Agriculture on animal identification.
"That will be one valuable source of information for the Secretary," Wiemers said, "as well as other avenues of input available to us."
Wiemers said the key reason for animal identification is to fill the void left by successful disease eradication programs.
He said it's not to gain control over livestock producers.
"It's to fill the void," Wiemers said. "It's to establish standards. It's to establish a data system through which that information can flow."
Ultimately, he said, it is to provide rapid, accurate and efficient traceback and trace forward of animal disease in the event it's needed.
The standards revolve around premises identification, animal identification numbers and a tracking database system.
Wiemers said the premise identification system is not intrusive.
"It's pretty much what you would find if you did a whitepage.com search on the Internet," Wiemers said. "It's the name, address, phone number, operation type and so forth. It's pretty much just the contact information so in the event that we need to get ahold of the person at the premise, we can."
Many states, Wiemers said, are already notifying people based on what type of operation they have that there might be a disease of interest they need to know about.
"Wisconsin did that earlier this year," Wiemers noted.
As for animal identification numbers, the movement is to a single tag per animal.
"We're looking at a standard format that will eventually have not the myriad of tags that we had back in 1998," Wiemers said, "but a single numbering system that we can all look at and say, 'Yes, that's an official USDA identification device.'"
The numbering format will be standardized with 15 digits, the first three of which will identify the country of origin. The country code for the U.S. is 840, which means that any animal with 840 as the first three numbers of its identification code originated in the U.S.
In the interim, Wiemers said, USDA will recognize various numbering systems and identification systems that are being used, such as brands, during what he calls a transition period.
"There's minimal associated information that goes along with this," Wiemers said. "It's not a real onerous task to identify animals."
The third phase of animal identification is animal tracking.
"We're asking that when animals are moved that four pieces of information be collected for epidemiological reasons: date, premises number of where the event took place, the animal ID number and the event," Wiemers said. "It's very simple information. We're not asking for the genealogy of that animal. We're not asking the price paid or the weight of the animal or the color of the hide, the carcass grade or any of that information. We're just asking for this movement information so we'll know where the animal was at a certain time."
Wiemers said that today, the premise registration system is present in all 50 states, two territories and several tribes.
"Nearly 300,000 premises, or a little over 20 percent of the nation's estimated premises, have been registered as of today," Wiemers said.
He said an animal identification number management system is in place and several identification devices have been approved as official.
"In the tracking sector, we are working with private industry to establish an animal trace process system that will be a way for the private sector to track their animals as they move through commerce and allow animal health officials across the country to access those records as needed," Wiemers said. "We want to have a fully functional system with full participation on a voluntary basis, and we want to have that in place by January 2009."
While opponents of the system question how it can be made to work without having a mandatory system, Wiemers pointed to the credit card industry.
When credit cards were first introduced into the marketplace, he said, a person would go into a store and often as not the storekeeper would say they didn't take that particular credit card. Eventually, stores would have several readers to handle different credit cards. Then, they came up with universal readers that could read almost any credit card.
"We're using them all today," Wiemers said.
Today, almost everyone has a credit card of some type, he noted.
"How do we get virtually 100 percent compliance with a voluntary program?" Wiemers asked.
He said it happened in the credit card industry because there were market incentives to do it.
"We think there will be market incentives for this program that are going to make sense to producers who sell their animals through commerce," Wiemers said of the NAIS. "There are going to be programs that depend on animal identification and movement records that bring dollars to the pockets of producers that will help drive the system."
Wiemers said he sees the day when this is just the way business is done.
"It's like today when I go to rent a car; I have to produce a credit card," Wiemers said.
Voluntary Animal ID Will Work
By David Bowser
KANSAS CITY — Dr. John Wiemers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service says animal identification is nothing new.
"We've been at this a long time," Wiemers says. "This is not anything new that we're proposing. We've been tagging animals for a heck of a long time. We've been tagging ever since the early stages of the United States, when branding was used for theft prevention and ownership."
It's still being done today, Wiemers told participants in a recent animal ID forum here.
A veterinarian who has been active in the swine industry, Wiemers was the first coordinator on animal identification at USDA, before the National Animal Identification Service was in place.
"What we have today that's different from the past is a mobile animal population that goes across the country," Wiemers said. "The need for identification in interstate movement is certainly key. Also, we have diseases that need to be eradicated."
In the 1890s, the country was involved in the eradication of disease in cattle. That, in fact, was where the USDA first got started as the Bureau of Animal Industry.
"Through the years, we've been involved in a lot of programs," Wiemers said. "In 1998, when I was working with the animal identification program in the USDA, we had a question about where we are with animal ID, so we did a survey with our animal ID coordinators to try to find out what was out there, what was being used in the states as far as animal identification."
They found out that there were tags everywhere, Wiemers said. There were different uses and different-colored tags.
"There wasn't much consistency across the board," Wiemers said. "A blue tag in one state was used for one purpose, and that same color of tag, size and shape was used for a different purpose in another state. We've had yellow tags, orange tags, big tags, green tags, purple tags, silver tags, you name it. We've had different-colored tags."
They all meant different things to different people. There was no consistency.
"We saw animals with multiple tags in their ears," Wiemers said. "Trying to get our slaughter collectors to collect all man-made IDs at slaughter to be assembled with a blood sample or tissue sample was a nightmare for most of us, because there were so many different tags on an animal typically. From a management tag to a test tag to a vaccination tag, there were just so many tags on those animals."
They meant different things, but they meant something to somebody, and they were important pieces of information.
"What we didn't have was a single, meaningful lifetime number for an animal," Wiemers said.
He said they also found out that there was a dramatic reduction in the vaccination and testing programs across the country.
"We were being a victim of our own success," Wiemers said. "Fewer animals were being vaccinated for brucellosis because the disease was being eradicated. It's virtually non-existent in the United States."
Fewer animals are being tested as states are deemed free of the disease, he noted.
"Those identification devices that were typically being put on those animals are no longer there," Wiemers said. "We're left with a population of animals that was once identified that's no longer identified today."
Where cattlemen were typically vaccinating some 15 or 20 million calves a year for brucellosis, they were down to 4.5 million in 1998.
"That number's dropping dramatically," Wiemers added.
That means there is a void in animal identification that was identified back in 1998, he said.
"We saw a need to fill that void."
In 1998, the industry was using metal tags and plastic eartags.
"We were looking at automatic data capturing back then and how it was being used," Wiemers said.
They looked at bar codes and RFID to see if the technology was there to move those animals through the production chain with automatic data capture.
"Even back then," Wiemers said, "we were looking at the idea of having biometric identification with retinal imaging or DNA testing."
That was being done in 1998, and it's being done today, he said.
"There are different kinds of identification methods out there," Wiemers said.
He said they also found out that there are regional differences in how animals are handled in the West versus in the East.
"Those things need to be taken into consideration when you're designing an animal identification system," Wiemers pointed out.
He said species differences also need to be taken into consideration.
In the early stages of the animal identification process, Wiemers said, he remembers talking to a cattleman who said he'd tag his cattle when the government made poultry producers tag their chickens.
"I remember that being said loud and clear," Wiemers recalled. "At that time they were just about as mad at us as some folks are mad at us today, for different reasons."
Wiemers said exposure to the process and education has changed some of that.
"That person is now one of our strongest advocates for animal identification," Wiemers said. "We know there are differences in species. We obviously don't eartag chickens or fish or anything like that, but we do have a need to measure them. If you don't number a population, you can't measure a population. If you can't measure a population, you can't make progress."
After establishing that there was a void in animal identification, Wiemers said they worked with the Livestock Conservation Institute. They put together a National Food Animal Identification Task Force in 2001.
"It really got started in the winter and spring of 2002," Wiemers said.
They gathered some 70 individuals representing 30 or more industry organizations.
"A lot of these individuals were producers themselves," Wiemers said.
They produced what was then called a National Identification Work Plan.
"It was really a framework of what was later developed as a plan," Wiemers said.
That plan was presented at the Animal ID Expo in 2002.
It was later fleshed out, Wiemers said, through various industry committees.
That plan was then presented in the fall of 2002 to the United States Animal Health Association.
"That organization passed a resolution and asked the USDA to assemble a team to take the work plan and build it into a working plan," Wiemers said.
USDA formed a steering committee and five different sub-committees and called it the National Animal Identification Development Team.
"That team had about 100 members representing over 70 different stakeholder organizations," Wiemers said.
Later, working groups were assembled for the different species. More than 300 people had input into the development of what was called the United States Animal Identification Plan.
"That plan was presented at the 2004 ID Expo," Wiemers said, "and was again presented to the U.S. Animal Health Association."
The U.S. Animal Health Association again asked USDA to further develop an implementation plan with input from the working groups.
"The USDA reviewed the plan and adopted a lot of the identification standards," Wiemers said, "and started looking at an implementation plan that we now call the National Animal Identification System. That's the history of where we came from."
He said USDA APHIS, which has been tasked with the identification program, is still working with industry groups to refine and implement the National Animal Identification System.
"We're still working with species working groups and receiving input to what is now the National Animal Identification sub-committee of an advisory committee called the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases," he said.
The species working groups, Wiemers said, will provide input to the Secretary of Agriculture on animal identification.
"That will be one valuable source of information for the Secretary," Wiemers said, "as well as other avenues of input available to us."
Wiemers said the key reason for animal identification is to fill the void left by successful disease eradication programs.
He said it's not to gain control over livestock producers.
"It's to fill the void," Wiemers said. "It's to establish standards. It's to establish a data system through which that information can flow."
Ultimately, he said, it is to provide rapid, accurate and efficient traceback and trace forward of animal disease in the event it's needed.
The standards revolve around premises identification, animal identification numbers and a tracking database system.
Wiemers said the premise identification system is not intrusive.
"It's pretty much what you would find if you did a whitepage.com search on the Internet," Wiemers said. "It's the name, address, phone number, operation type and so forth. It's pretty much just the contact information so in the event that we need to get ahold of the person at the premise, we can."
Many states, Wiemers said, are already notifying people based on what type of operation they have that there might be a disease of interest they need to know about.
"Wisconsin did that earlier this year," Wiemers noted.
As for animal identification numbers, the movement is to a single tag per animal.
"We're looking at a standard format that will eventually have not the myriad of tags that we had back in 1998," Wiemers said, "but a single numbering system that we can all look at and say, 'Yes, that's an official USDA identification device.'"
The numbering format will be standardized with 15 digits, the first three of which will identify the country of origin. The country code for the U.S. is 840, which means that any animal with 840 as the first three numbers of its identification code originated in the U.S.
In the interim, Wiemers said, USDA will recognize various numbering systems and identification systems that are being used, such as brands, during what he calls a transition period.
"There's minimal associated information that goes along with this," Wiemers said. "It's not a real onerous task to identify animals."
The third phase of animal identification is animal tracking.
"We're asking that when animals are moved that four pieces of information be collected for epidemiological reasons: date, premises number of where the event took place, the animal ID number and the event," Wiemers said. "It's very simple information. We're not asking for the genealogy of that animal. We're not asking the price paid or the weight of the animal or the color of the hide, the carcass grade or any of that information. We're just asking for this movement information so we'll know where the animal was at a certain time."
Wiemers said that today, the premise registration system is present in all 50 states, two territories and several tribes.
"Nearly 300,000 premises, or a little over 20 percent of the nation's estimated premises, have been registered as of today," Wiemers said.
He said an animal identification number management system is in place and several identification devices have been approved as official.
"In the tracking sector, we are working with private industry to establish an animal trace process system that will be a way for the private sector to track their animals as they move through commerce and allow animal health officials across the country to access those records as needed," Wiemers said. "We want to have a fully functional system with full participation on a voluntary basis, and we want to have that in place by January 2009."
While opponents of the system question how it can be made to work without having a mandatory system, Wiemers pointed to the credit card industry.
When credit cards were first introduced into the marketplace, he said, a person would go into a store and often as not the storekeeper would say they didn't take that particular credit card. Eventually, stores would have several readers to handle different credit cards. Then, they came up with universal readers that could read almost any credit card.
"We're using them all today," Wiemers said.
Today, almost everyone has a credit card of some type, he noted.
"How do we get virtually 100 percent compliance with a voluntary program?" Wiemers asked.
He said it happened in the credit card industry because there were market incentives to do it.
"We think there will be market incentives for this program that are going to make sense to producers who sell their animals through commerce," Wiemers said of the NAIS. "There are going to be programs that depend on animal identification and movement records that bring dollars to the pockets of producers that will help drive the system."
Wiemers said he sees the day when this is just the way business is done.
"It's like today when I go to rent a car; I have to produce a credit card," Wiemers said.
