By David Bowser
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Dr. Sam Holland, the state veterinarian for South Dakota, says there appears to be a lack of common sense when it comes to the National Animal Identification System.
Hall has been involved in animal identification issues for about 20 years, much of that time as South Dakota's top veterinarian.
"We're not the largest cattle producing state," Holland says, "but we're a significant cattle producing state."
He says they have five cows in the state for every man, woman and child.
Holland says cattle are not only a major part of the economy of the state, but also a major part of the culture.
"It is not common sense to believe that we're basing ID programs on the thought that affordable technology exists today that enables us to real-time track movements of 100 percent of animals in captivity," Holland says. "It is not common sense to believe the animal industry from conception on, including producers, processors, regulators and sideline fringe groups, will support efforts for such tracking."
He says neither is it common sense to design, develop or enact a system for identifying and tracking all animals for all stakeholders all at once.
"It is not common sense to deny that each segment of each animal industry will need to make changes, and that this will involve progress and reversals as the global society evolves," Holland says. "At a recent meeting of the livestock dealers in my state, a long-time cattle dealer and rancher pointed out to me that producers in western South Dakota are not opposed to progress, just so long as it doesn't involve any change."
Holland says there are legitimate needs for animal identification today.
"One example," he says, "is BSE sampling, but did we learn anything from a red cow in Alabama?"
He says he's been nervous since they started BSE testing in South Dakota.
"In our state, in one small selection site from January until August, we collected brains from 1500 targeted cows," Holland says.
He says 858 of those 1500 cows had no official ID other than a tag to trace them back to the farmer or feedlot.
"That just doesn't cut it," Holland says.
He says there are a lot of cow feedlots in South Dakota. Many of the culled dairy and beef cows go into those feedlots. He says there needs to be a better system of tracking them.
"Our vaccination tag system is a fairly good system," Holland says. "It was designed for the days when culled cattle went from the farmer or ranch, made it through one market and then went on to slaughter."
But those times have changed. He says there are feedlots in South Dakota that feed 20,000 to 25,000 cull cows at a time.
"They buy them from seven states," Holland says.
Being able to trace a cow back to a feedlot from a packing plant isn't enough. The system has to go beyond that, he says. The system has to be able to trace an animal through all changes of ownership.
"We know we've got significant numbers of Canadian cows in this country," Holland says, "and many of those no longer have IDs. These alien cows that lost their IDs are being mixed in with our cattle and have been included in our random sampling for BSE and targeted animals."
Those cows, he says, came in unbranded and no tracking was required.
"There's a need for ID," Holland says.
Other evidence of the problem, he says, is with the “454 Forms,” the forms used to report testing of animals at slaughter plants, particularly for brucellosis.
"In a recent sampling in our state, and I think you'll find most state are very similar, of 37 animals with titers for brucellosis, seven had absolutely no identification."
That same scenario, he says, can be found in tuberculosis tracebacks.
"Recently, we had a cow with TB, a cultured, positive cow with TB, at a plant in a neighboring state," Holland says. "That cow was traceable to one of three states, most likely."
The only conclusion Holland says he can draw is that there's TB out there someplace.
"Common sense is listening to all, even the fringe groups, even though they will slow progress and sometimes paralyze efforts on ID," Holland says. "They'll paralyze efforts on food safety, animal welfare and a host of other activities. They need to be listened to, but they will not provide means and directions to the industry in the long run."
Common sense, Holland says, means that ID needs for animal health are not necessarily compatible for ID needs for market.
"To think in terms of a single ID system for all purposes for all industries is not common sense," Holland says, "and addressing ID needs for animal health, separate and apart for other issues, is common sense."
In the midst of various implementation projects, he says, the industry has learned at great cost that technology, however good it is, is not as good as many had hoped or thought.
"Reliability, portability, interference, retention, data management, each have remaining hurdles that must be addressed in the future," Holland says.
He says the abandonment of existing identification programs may hurt the industry more than help it, particularly with immediate needs for animal health.
"A three-cent bangs tag still works pretty well on cattle," Holland says, "and we've tended to abandon them."
In the cattle industry, he says, all breeding animals should be immediately identified with a metal ID at each change of ownership in each state of the Union.
"It worked well in the past," Holland says. "It's still working where it's used."
In South Dakota, there is mandatory ID on breeding cattle. Even though there is no testing, the metal tags are still read upon change of ownership and entered into a database.
"The system's cheap, it's foolproof, it's tested, it's experienced, the database already exists," Holland says.
Most important, he says, industry groups already support the system.
"Probably, I think, because it was common sense," Holland says.
He thinks the South Dakota system could be expanded and implemented nationwide.
The infrastructure is in place at the state and federal levels.
"It would have producer support," Holland says. "It would be the start of an ID system that would be nationwide, universal, mandatory and provide excellent tracking for animal health."
It would involve the breeding herd, he says.
"As technology advances," Holland says, "we may well find that electronic technology is feasible and elect to replace the metal tag with electronic devices."
But he says that is not the case today.
He says South Dakota is working with that scenario in a pilot project with cull cows from the ranch to the feedlot in the state.
Holland says it is common sense not to spend regulatory time and resources on parallel systems of ID, one for animal health and one for market.
The steer and heifer segment of the cattle industry all have ID systems to the extent that the market supports them, he says.
"This is excellent," Holland says. "It appears today that maybe less than 10 percent of the steer and heifer industry see the need to include premises information and individual ID on those animals."
That means that 90 percent of the steer and heifer industry does not yet see a need.
"Common sense says let the market develop the system, not the regulatory agencies and not government," Holland says.
Common sense says that for animal health, having a standard premise ID is needed, both for the breeding herd and the grow to finish segments.
"Common sense would say ‘Let's begin now by using premises ID numbers given for brucellosis, TB, for BQA, for FSA, for NRCS, brand programs and others, and linking them into a single ID system. As animals move from these segments, use brand inspections. Marketing record systems where they exist have proven effective.’"
All movements required in brand inspections and health certification, Holland says, would have the premises numbers linked to movements in the records.
Holland says he'd start with the breeding herd because it is something the industry can get their arms around.
"It's where we really need ID today," Holland says.
He also proposes starting with tags, tools and database infrastructure that now exist and producers know will work.
Holland says it should be a state animal health, industry and USDA program and not, as he says every other program is getting to be, strictly USDA run with total disregard for state animal health agencies and their ability to work with industry.
The market should drive market-needed ID, he says.
Holland also says that technology needs to be continually explored to see that it is affordable, workable and acceptable.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Dr. Sam Holland, the state veterinarian for South Dakota, says there appears to be a lack of common sense when it comes to the National Animal Identification System.
Hall has been involved in animal identification issues for about 20 years, much of that time as South Dakota's top veterinarian.
"We're not the largest cattle producing state," Holland says, "but we're a significant cattle producing state."
He says they have five cows in the state for every man, woman and child.
Holland says cattle are not only a major part of the economy of the state, but also a major part of the culture.
"It is not common sense to believe that we're basing ID programs on the thought that affordable technology exists today that enables us to real-time track movements of 100 percent of animals in captivity," Holland says. "It is not common sense to believe the animal industry from conception on, including producers, processors, regulators and sideline fringe groups, will support efforts for such tracking."
He says neither is it common sense to design, develop or enact a system for identifying and tracking all animals for all stakeholders all at once.
"It is not common sense to deny that each segment of each animal industry will need to make changes, and that this will involve progress and reversals as the global society evolves," Holland says. "At a recent meeting of the livestock dealers in my state, a long-time cattle dealer and rancher pointed out to me that producers in western South Dakota are not opposed to progress, just so long as it doesn't involve any change."
Holland says there are legitimate needs for animal identification today.
"One example," he says, "is BSE sampling, but did we learn anything from a red cow in Alabama?"
He says he's been nervous since they started BSE testing in South Dakota.
"In our state, in one small selection site from January until August, we collected brains from 1500 targeted cows," Holland says.
He says 858 of those 1500 cows had no official ID other than a tag to trace them back to the farmer or feedlot.
"That just doesn't cut it," Holland says.
He says there are a lot of cow feedlots in South Dakota. Many of the culled dairy and beef cows go into those feedlots. He says there needs to be a better system of tracking them.
"Our vaccination tag system is a fairly good system," Holland says. "It was designed for the days when culled cattle went from the farmer or ranch, made it through one market and then went on to slaughter."
But those times have changed. He says there are feedlots in South Dakota that feed 20,000 to 25,000 cull cows at a time.
"They buy them from seven states," Holland says.
Being able to trace a cow back to a feedlot from a packing plant isn't enough. The system has to go beyond that, he says. The system has to be able to trace an animal through all changes of ownership.
"We know we've got significant numbers of Canadian cows in this country," Holland says, "and many of those no longer have IDs. These alien cows that lost their IDs are being mixed in with our cattle and have been included in our random sampling for BSE and targeted animals."
Those cows, he says, came in unbranded and no tracking was required.
"There's a need for ID," Holland says.
Other evidence of the problem, he says, is with the “454 Forms,” the forms used to report testing of animals at slaughter plants, particularly for brucellosis.
"In a recent sampling in our state, and I think you'll find most state are very similar, of 37 animals with titers for brucellosis, seven had absolutely no identification."
That same scenario, he says, can be found in tuberculosis tracebacks.
"Recently, we had a cow with TB, a cultured, positive cow with TB, at a plant in a neighboring state," Holland says. "That cow was traceable to one of three states, most likely."
The only conclusion Holland says he can draw is that there's TB out there someplace.
"Common sense is listening to all, even the fringe groups, even though they will slow progress and sometimes paralyze efforts on ID," Holland says. "They'll paralyze efforts on food safety, animal welfare and a host of other activities. They need to be listened to, but they will not provide means and directions to the industry in the long run."
Common sense, Holland says, means that ID needs for animal health are not necessarily compatible for ID needs for market.
"To think in terms of a single ID system for all purposes for all industries is not common sense," Holland says, "and addressing ID needs for animal health, separate and apart for other issues, is common sense."
In the midst of various implementation projects, he says, the industry has learned at great cost that technology, however good it is, is not as good as many had hoped or thought.
"Reliability, portability, interference, retention, data management, each have remaining hurdles that must be addressed in the future," Holland says.
He says the abandonment of existing identification programs may hurt the industry more than help it, particularly with immediate needs for animal health.
"A three-cent bangs tag still works pretty well on cattle," Holland says, "and we've tended to abandon them."
In the cattle industry, he says, all breeding animals should be immediately identified with a metal ID at each change of ownership in each state of the Union.
"It worked well in the past," Holland says. "It's still working where it's used."
In South Dakota, there is mandatory ID on breeding cattle. Even though there is no testing, the metal tags are still read upon change of ownership and entered into a database.
"The system's cheap, it's foolproof, it's tested, it's experienced, the database already exists," Holland says.
Most important, he says, industry groups already support the system.
"Probably, I think, because it was common sense," Holland says.
He thinks the South Dakota system could be expanded and implemented nationwide.
The infrastructure is in place at the state and federal levels.
"It would have producer support," Holland says. "It would be the start of an ID system that would be nationwide, universal, mandatory and provide excellent tracking for animal health."
It would involve the breeding herd, he says.
"As technology advances," Holland says, "we may well find that electronic technology is feasible and elect to replace the metal tag with electronic devices."
But he says that is not the case today.
He says South Dakota is working with that scenario in a pilot project with cull cows from the ranch to the feedlot in the state.
Holland says it is common sense not to spend regulatory time and resources on parallel systems of ID, one for animal health and one for market.
The steer and heifer segment of the cattle industry all have ID systems to the extent that the market supports them, he says.
"This is excellent," Holland says. "It appears today that maybe less than 10 percent of the steer and heifer industry see the need to include premises information and individual ID on those animals."
That means that 90 percent of the steer and heifer industry does not yet see a need.
"Common sense says let the market develop the system, not the regulatory agencies and not government," Holland says.
Common sense says that for animal health, having a standard premise ID is needed, both for the breeding herd and the grow to finish segments.
"Common sense would say ‘Let's begin now by using premises ID numbers given for brucellosis, TB, for BQA, for FSA, for NRCS, brand programs and others, and linking them into a single ID system. As animals move from these segments, use brand inspections. Marketing record systems where they exist have proven effective.’"
All movements required in brand inspections and health certification, Holland says, would have the premises numbers linked to movements in the records.
Holland says he'd start with the breeding herd because it is something the industry can get their arms around.
"It's where we really need ID today," Holland says.
He also proposes starting with tags, tools and database infrastructure that now exist and producers know will work.
Holland says it should be a state animal health, industry and USDA program and not, as he says every other program is getting to be, strictly USDA run with total disregard for state animal health agencies and their ability to work with industry.
The market should drive market-needed ID, he says.
Holland also says that technology needs to be continually explored to see that it is affordable, workable and acceptable.