|
Back to ANIMAL HEALTH Homepage
Lack of progress on farm livestock identification
and tracking
James Irvine
Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire
Filed 8 Dec 03
© www.land-care.org.uk
The National Audit Office (NAO) recently reported
on the examination it carried out into the progress made by DEFRA
in implementing systems for identifying and tracking livestock in
England (1). In this regard what holds for
England is also relevant to Scotland and Wales.
Among the important points mentioned, the Report
rightly stresses that the value of the system is limited by delays
inherent in it. Thus, although all cattle movements should be reported
within three days of them taking place - the shortest period DEFRA
is allowed to stipulate under EU legislation - one-fifth of movements
are registered late with most farmers using the postal system rather
than the electronic methods currently available. This limits the
use that could be made of the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) in outbreaks
of fast moving diseases such as foot and mouth disease, when real
time data are required.
I have to confess that Cultybraggan Farm is now
only just beginning to have another go at getting the electronic
method of communicating with the British Cattle Movement Service
(BCMS) underway after experiencing a number of discouraging setbacks.
One of the main reasons for previous failure was alleged to be that
folk with AOL as their service provider could not cope with the
requirements of BCMS in terms of an unbroken series of digits irrespective
of whether the operator’s computer was an up-to-date PC or
a modern Macintosh.
The current renewed attempt follows the setting
up of an additional internet system that uses btopenworld rather
than AOL. This worked fine, but only to reveal that what was on
BCMS records was rather different from what was on mine. NAO reported
that one in eight of animal movement records were incomplete and
the current location of 2% of animals uncertain. Seeing electronically
what is held for the farm on BCMS records is certainly a strong
stimulus to get any problems - that I was previously blissfully
unaware of - sorted out.
But the frustration with BCMS goes deeper than
that. The NAO report suggests that communicating with the Cattle
Tracing Service should be done by means other than the post, such
as the telephone. But I wonder if the authors of the NAO Report
had practiced what they preach, and did they find the experience
rewarding?
Clearly it would be highly desirable to have
an electronic recording system that was much more comprehensive,
starting with an agreed form of electronic tagging for cattle. To
achieve this the Cattle Tracing Service has to decide what it wants
in terms of the characteristics of the electronic chip to be used.
After years and years it is my understanding that this has yet to
be agreed.
While there are electronic tagging systems in
use, my understanding is that none of them in the UK have formal
government approval. So one could spend substantial capital in setting
up such a system only to be told later that it did not comply with
the required specifications.
Having observed hours and hours of time being
wasted (and at considerable risk of physical injury) trying to read
tags in the ears of muckle beasts as they toss their heads in the
cattle crush, I checked again as to what was now available regarding
electronic tagging and electronic readers that would inform the
farmer as well as BCMS. The farmer needs to know the actual number,
while BCMS is happy with computer gogglegook interpretable by its
electronic system.
Cultybraggan uses the Shearwell FarmWorks programme
for cattle. While their tags seem to stay in the animals’ ears
better than those of some other tag suppliers, it was frustrating
to say the least to be told that they did not make ear tags that
carried electronic chips; and that I would need to use boluses in
addition to the mandatory two ear tags. Not only that, but I would
have to use two types of electronic recorders before my on farm
requirements and those of BCMS were satisfied.
So why not change to another manufacturer of tagging
gear? The thought of re-entering all that data back to the year
2000 for a substantial closed suckler herd is quite enough to put
off even starting - at least before the Government gets around to
deciding what it really wants and sounds like sticking to it.
A rapid and much more accurate system of Cattle
Tracing - so important for the control of fast-spreading diseases
- will not be achieved until the Government officials decide on
what standardisation they require in the electronic chips and where
these chips can be placed on or in the cattle so as not to get lost..
Heaven knows why it is taking them so long to do so
PS Perhaps when devising a better system DEFRA
could forget that guide digit that only contributes to confusion,
adds to transcription errors and mucks up most spreadsheet records
in terms of numerical sorting. Defra's computer buffins should not
try to be too clever - just keep it simple and easy to use but sufficient
to provide the essential information.
© www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. NAO’s Report (2003).
Identifying and tracking livestock in England.
http://www.nao.gov.uk/pn/02-03/02031144.htm
|
