Age verification?

[gwf]

*Montana researchers find answers to animal ID questions* October 28,
2005 Montana State University Montana researchers have answered some of
the questions raised by the proposed creation of a national livestock
identification program, said John Paterson, director of the Montana Beef
Network and Montana State University Extension beef specialist.
They've found, for example, that it's possible to scan electronic ear
tags while animals are moving and that handheld wand-scanners work
better than other scanners. They have found that metal fences can
interfere with scanners. They tracked cattle, with 90 percent accuracy,
from a ranch in one state to a pasture in another state to a feedlot in
a third.
Researchers with the Montana Beef Network conducted three studies this
year that produced those results, Paterson said. The network, based at
MSU, works in close partnership with the Montana Department of Livestock
and the Montana Stockgrowers Association. One study tracked calves from
a Montana ranch through a Montana auction market. Another tracked cattle
from a Montana ranch to wheat pastures in eastern Oklahoma, through an
auction market in Oklahoma and finally to a feedlot in Nebraska. The
third study, which is in progress, has tracked calves from Montana to
Idaho and back to Montana. It will next follow the calves to a feedlot
in Kansas.
The first study, which involves the auction market in Ramsey, involved
200 calves born in Montana, said Andy Kellom, field representative for
the Montana Beef Network. The researchers divided the calves into four
groups, then tagged three groups at the owner's ranch and one at the
Montana Livestock Company in Ramsey. Each tag contained a unique
15-digit number that is often called an RFID tag or electronic tag. It
stays with the animal until it is harvested.
"Our hypothesis was that this scenario would be one of the hardest
places to follow through," Kellom said, referring to the auction market
where hundreds of calves are sold through the auction ring.
For this study, two types of scanners were used, Kellom said. One was a
portable handheld wand they waved past the calves' ear tags. The other
was more stationary and was built into a portable alley that looked like
a security checkpoint at an airport. As the calves walked through it,
the scanner automatically read their ear tags. Information from both
scanners was transferred into a computer.
The researchers found that metal fences at the auction market interfered
with the stationary alley scanners, Kellom said. As a result, this
scanner read only 60 percent of the ear tags. The handheld portable
wands, on the other hand, read every ear tag, but researchers had to
slow down the calves as they came down the alley.
"We found out it wasn't as easy as we thought," Kellom said, adding that
doorway scanners might work better if they were part of a permanent
structure at the auction house rather than a portable device.
In the second study, Ryan Clark tracked 500 steers from Melvillle,
Mont., to a wheat pasture in Cherokee, Okla., to a feedlot in Ainsworth,
Neb. Clark, another field representative with the Montana Beef Network,
scanned the steers with a wand when they got off the truck in Oklahoma,
and the wand worked every time. The calves were then mixed with other
cattle in a pasture. Six months later, they were taken to a feedlot next
to an Oklahoma auction market and scanned with a wand. This time, the
wand read 96 percent of the ear tags.
From there, approximately 450 steers went to a Nebraska feedlot where
they are now, Clark said. They will be scanned in mid-September before
being harvested in a packing plant. The other 50 steers were sold and
split up and data were lost.
"It's possible to track them from stop to stop to stop, but there will
be issues like lost tags, tags that won't scan and calves sold through
the auction market and split up that will be lost in the system," Clark
said.
In the third project, Kellom traced calves that were born in Idaho,
shipped to Montana, returned to Idaho and then shipped to a feedlot and
packing plant in the Midwest. The calves were tagged in Montana and
scanned when they returned to Idaho. Accuracy this time was 99 percent
for the wands and 83 percent for the portable alley scanners. The alley
scanners performed better in this study because the corrals were wooden
instead of metal, Kellom said.
He noted that the researchers used multiple scanners as the calves came
off the truck, so the radio frequencies interfered with each other. One
solution might be scanners built into plastic panels, Kellom said.
Attached to wooden fences, the panels could read ear tags as the calves
walked by them.
Paterson said the Montana Beef Network has other projects that are
either under way or planned. One longer-term project will compare tags
manufactured by three different companies to determine retention rates
and readability after several years. This study will involve
approximately 3,000 cows.
This article is available on the web at
http://www.montana.edu/commserv/csnews/nwview.php?article=2693.

[cowman]

Well I don't find the Montana study all that reassuring? Hopefully they'll get the technology up to speed in the near future?
I doubt the Japanese are going to go for the 24 month cut off the US wants? Now maybe they will be able to bully them into it but it sure hasn't been working so far? If they hold firm on 20 months then age verification through the RFID tag will be about the only way to go...or maybe signed statements in the case of US ranches?
I realize that you (farmers son) have been pushing the idea of producer owned plants to create a competitive market and I don't disagree with you 100% on that, however creating a safe product that the consumer will accept is a neccessity if any of us want to stay in business? Without a doubt the producer will get stuck with the bill and the work...but what else is new? The RFID tag and age verification fall on the cow/calf sector while everyone else in the food chain will benifit!

[farmers_son]

Interesting comments. Cowman, certainly our industry needs to produce a safe product that the consumer will accept. And I think we are doing that very well right now.

Japans insistence on age verification of 20 or 21 months is not based on science. It is based on protectionism because they are aware of the problems surrounding age verification in animals that young. I suggest that if there was a workable easy method of age verification at 20 months the Japanese would be insisting on 17 months. The science says that 30 months is a safe age, 24 months is a fair compromise. The Japanese claims to have a younger animal test positive for BSE but that test is suspect. I believe that Japan has never allowed that test to be confirmed by any international agency such as Weybridge. Doubt could be raised about the accuracy of the claimed age of the animal too.

Our beef is safe. Period. We need to remember that. The U.S. negotiating team has not announced what protocols will have to be in place that Japan will accept for importation of North American beef. Although Canadian industry people are suggesting that the RFID tags are going to provide Canada with sure fire advantage to ship beef to Japan I am suggesting that it is very, very unlikely that the Americans will negotiate a protocol with Japan that would see Canada gain any kind of competitive advantage. As for exporting live cattle to the U.S. from Canada, producers need to be aware that the protocols that the U.S. has in place for our live cattle are specifically designed to be an impediment to trade. The U.S. is not going to consider allowing Canada to streamline those rules by allowing a quicker and easier method of age verification such as a RFID tag with on farm age verification, at least until trade resumes with Japan. Probably not even then.

I found the research being done in Montana interesting. It should not be assumed that the Americans will just adopt the same tag we are using. Canadians may have to change tags again if that happens. However I see trade with Japan being based on the actual animal and carcass traits, not ear tags. New grading standards, perhaps a combination of dentition to confirm under 24 months and bone and muscle characteristics are more likely. In any case the safety of the beef is achieved through removal of the SRMS.

Kato: Good comments. I noted “The sooner we can make the move to verified actual dates the better, as long as we have to live with the current rules.” Lets face it, just because a producer writes a date on an ear tag that is not proof positive of its accuracy. Especially when you consider the discounts for over age animals. Are producers willing to accept the responsibility for age verification? If the vet looses his/her accreditation for a mistake which may or may not have been their fault what makes producers think they are immune from similar punishments. It is not too far a stretch in imagination to presume that a producer could loose their right to sell cattle if there was a mistake entering a date in an official document. Verification by definition means that controls would be in place to ensure producer compliance. Those rules would not be a simple slap on the wrist or a letter from some agency. They would have to be severe to work. Is that what Canadian producers really want just so the Americans can sell beef to Japan?

[kato]

At the moment, in those cases where a vet loses accreditation, the exporter also loses the right to export.

Another thing I have heard from several vets is that some of them are investigating the possibility of suing a producer who knowingly misleads them for damages caused by the loss of business due to the vet losing accreditation. They won't talk about it, but they are thinking of it. The responsibility will be passed on to the producers eventually, of that we can be sure.

[cowman]

farmers son: I do agree that a lot of the problems we face is nothing more than protectionism...by both the US and Japan.
However the concept of the ID tracing ability should go way beyond BSE? When the CCA first started pushing the idea BSE wasn't much of a concern here?
I well remember the controversy that took place when they first started pushing the idea of a national mandatory ID system. At first I thought it was totally unecessary but after attending an info meeting and talking with the late Carl Block I came to see it as a positive thing! There are still a few things I'm not too keen on? Like the fact that the cow/calf producer carries the ball for everyone? Also the fact that info only flows one way and there is no reward going back down the line? If I could get info back on how that steer cut out and graded it would be well worth the time and money? Help me decide if I was following the proper breeding program?
It definitely isn't the perfect program but it is a start? I do believe it would be helpful if everything that happened to that steer, from the time he left the farm to the day he ends up in the cooler, was recorded? Including hormones, anti-biotics, pesticides etc.
Now without a doubt good faith and honesty are paramount in this system and I like to think most producers are honest and wouldn't try to cheat? Perhaps I am naive?