MFB Supports Mandatory Tagging

LANSING, Jan. 12, 2006 - In an attempt to better track animal movement, the Michigan Agriculture Commission voted Monday to mandate electronic identification of all Michigan cattle beginning in 2007.

Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB) policy supports "swift implementation of a mandatory identification system for Michigan's livestock industry."

"Mandatory animal identification, if implemented properly and with continued producer input, will be a valuable tool in the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak," said Ernie Birchmeier, MFB Livestock and Dairy Specialist. "Animal identification will also greatly enhance our marketing opportunities if source verification and age requirements are demanded by our national and international sales markets."

Birchmeier said the Commission's plan to role out the mandate to the cattle industry first makes sense given the state's current efforts to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Michigan cattle herds.

"We'll expect to gradually see the inclusion of the entire Michigan livestock industry," he said.

The high-tech ear tags will cost cattle producers about $2 per tag. Beyond that, it's unclear who will bear the burden of purchasing the necessary support technology, such as devices to read the electronic data. MFB policy "supports cost-share where feasible."

The Agriculture Commission has directed the Michigan Department of Agriculture to develop an implementation plan and report back to the Commission within six months. MFB policy encourages producer input in the development and implementation of the system.

"The system will only be as strong as the weakest link, so it is imperative that we work together to implement this critical animal health program," he said.

Mandatory animal identification also has the support of Farm Bureau members from across the nation. This week delegates to the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) 87th Convention and Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tenn., overwhelmingly supported policy supporting the initiative.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering a new approach for a national animal identification system that would allow the department to link to a network of private and state-operated animal tracking databases, but cost remains a concern across livestock commodity sectors.

Commodity representatives such as Scott Stuart, National Livestock Producers Association president and chief executive officer, outlined their concern during the AFBF meeting.

Stuart said expenses range from creating and supporting the necessary technology to labor costs tied to managing data and tagging animals. He pointed out that one farmer selling livestock to a neighboring farmer independent of a livestock sales yard will have to be equipped to not only read the animal's electronic ear tag but also send data recording the transaction to the database network.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) predicts the cattle sector would be the most challenging livestock sector to fold into a national animal tracking database because cattle move through traditional marketing systems where a small number of cattle are sold at a time and the animals change hands several times.

NCBA supports a national system that is customized according to species, geographic region, and marketing practices of individual species. In the meantime, the organization is working on a cattle industry-specific system that will minimize costs and regulatory burdens for producers, said Jay Truitt, NCBA vice president of government affairs.

Truitt said NCBA is testing a system developed in conjunction with Microsoft, Biotrace and Hewlett-Packard. The system, which the federal government will have access to, will eventually be turned over to a private entity.

Kirk Ferrell, vice president of public policy for the National Pork Producers Council, supported adapting an existing federal program for eradicating pseudorabies in swine to meet national animal identification requirements, but stressed that regardless of the approach chosen, it should not result in an additional cost for pork producers.