When it comes to electronic identification (EID) and traceability, none of the recent rancor is particularly new. After all, the industry has been at this for well over 20 years — starting with the United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) back in the early 2000s. Sure, there are some fresh faces, but none of the complaints are unique — the industry has heard it all.
My favorite example of that reality dates back to the 2006 ID Info Expo hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). I was serving as NIAA’s interim CEO at the time. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns was the keynote speaker at the event, which entailed some special security provisions because of the protests (see photo below).
How the ADT Rule Fits In
That said, with specific reference to EIDs, there remain a few items that need to be addressed surrounding the forthcoming requirement as part of USDA’s Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule.
Most importantly, ADT has been in effect since March 2013. Most producers are familiar with the current National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) tags — either the orange metal brucellosis and/or “brite” (metal ID) tags. Within that longstanding framework, USDA is simply mandating a transition of current tagging requirements.
AVMA explains it this way: “The 2013 rule instituted visual ID tags for interstate movement. The new final rule switches producers to EID tags.” That is, there’s no substantive change in program requirements, USDA is simply switching to new technology.
That’s an ongoing transition in every facet of life. For instance, I don’t recall anyone squawking about the transition from mechanical scales to load cells and automated scale tickets. Isn’t the principle the same?
4 Points to Remember
The hand-wringing all feels a little like grandstanding given the realities below:
1. The tagging requirement is NOT new; the cattle are already being tagged with NUES tags.
2. EID readers are not mandated — the requirement being the EID tags must also be visually readable (840 + 12-digit number).
3. There is NO feeder cattle mandate. the Livestock Marketing Association explains it this way: “The EID rule does not expand the classes of beef cattle requiring official identification.”
4. Last, producers in the Designated Surveillance Area currently use orange 840 EID tags (which also serves as official identification) in conjunction with calfhood Brucellosis vaccination. (And lest we forget about the heyday of Brucellosis eradication when every heifer calf used to be vaccinated, tagged AND tattooed.)
Undoubtedly, the most ludicrous fear-mongering I’ve heard on the topic involves the government flying drones over your cowherd for inventory purposes. Clearly, those talkers don’t understand the technology.
In short, low-frequency EIDs don’t work that way. The maximum read range is 2 to 3 feet. It’s hard to fathom how a drone would ever get close enough, let alone trying to keep cattle in-place long enough, to get an individual reading of every individual tag. That’s just not going to happen.
It’s hard to avoid the irony of all the hyperbole. After all, the people shouting the loudest about EIDs (i.e. technology) are dependent on technology (phones, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) to voice their opposition.
In the Words of Greg Henderson
To that end, the day before he passed, Greg Henderson shared with me what was to be his upcoming column for a Drovers print edition. He addressed opposition to EIDs this way:
“Yes, there are many squeaky wheels demanding an end to this mandatory EID nonsense. But are they a vocal minority? Are the opponents of modern traceability systems shouting over those who see the value in such a system? Drovers’ readers think so. At least, a solid majority of them believe there is value in animal ID and the number of users is increasing. In our annual survey for Drovers State of the Beef Industry Report, we asked: “To what extent do you agree that an industry-wide traceability system is needed?” The “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” group totaled 65% of respondents. The “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses totaled 15%.”
Greg’s column then concluded with this thought: “And I’ll double down on another not-so-bold prediction from six months ago. You want to voluntarily opt-out of traceability? Fine, the industry’s big players — your customers — can opt out of buying your cattle.”
