Just interested in people opinions of EID and if you have implemented it, why and what are the benefits and if not why havent you.

 

Thanks

If we could replace the plethora of tags, passports, etc. with an implanted microchip, I'd be glad to move to it.  Until then it's just another expense for no benefit.

FWIW, we do microchip our ponies and (pedigree) cats and can see the benefit of the approach.  But placing a more expensive tag into the ear of (in our case) a goat that'll promptly lose it is a classic example of the kind of stupidity that only bureaucrats can come up with.

 

EID is mainly a management device that will save alot of time and paperwork, the eartag is alittle more expensive as is the initial set-up, but it can save man hours and paper work so I think its the way forward.

I dont think they will implement EID as law but they are certainly going to bring in the double tagging of sheep, so EID is a solution to that.

Does anyone know of any companies that supply the programmes for it?

I think Hugh Brooms article was very good last week!

 

 

 

I agree like it or not they'll introduce double tagging, but as our goats lose approx 10% of tags over the year, any increase in tagging costs is pure burden with no benefit.  As an identification tool, an implanted microchip is more reliable and thus cheaper over the long term.

 

How much management work can you do with an implanted microchip? Will it allow you to record movements, vet and med treatments, sales etc? I believe Farmplan and Allflex are demonstarting their EID stuff at some shows this year.

That would depend upon the technology put into the chip, which would be much the same as the tag version, just more robust.  Personally, I have no use for electronic records for any other purpose than reliably identifying an animal, which tags fail on due to their propsensity for getting lost.  Obviously the usefulness of EID systems will vary from farm to farm.

 

I agree that it is going to be one of those systems that the more you put into it the more you get out of it.

 

Reference EID. I appreciate the technology and what it will make possible, I also understand some of the practicalities of application and how it could eliminate the current need for ear tags. However, I wonder if we are letting the bureaucrats get away with pursuing a topic that is logical but uneccessary.

Why do sheep need individual identification of the particular animal, given that when there is a reportable problem, defra will then treat on a 'whole flock' basis? It seems to me that defra want individual data because it can be technically obtained, rather than because its use would bring great benefits to public health or welfare.

When you consider the resources bureaucrats put into controlling sheep and cattle, and then compare it with their inertia in more dangerous matters, one is left with the conclusion that either they are ignorant, imcompetent or malevolent. For example, they do nothing to stop human beings with every disease known to man coming into this country without any medical checks whatsoever.

For my animals I need passports, ear tags, licences, farm inspections, EID, trailer inspections, footbaths, certificates for handling and transportation etc, etc, etc.

However, if I had Aids, TB, or any/every other notifiable disease; without any medical check whatsoever, I can legally walk onto a plane which has restricted air circulation, get off and then get into a crowded tube train. From there I can then walk into a warm humid hospital and enter a ward to talk to friends. During that journey hundreds of people will have been exposed to my exhalations and presence.

I want to ask the bureaucrat, "Where do you think the real danger lies and where do you think the money should be spent?"

I am for the use of technology. However, I would like to know what benefits we get for its costs and to know that the bureaucrats are spending my money on the most important issues.

Am I more likely to get BSE from a Gimmer that has no ear tag, or of getting TB from an untested man who has walked off a plane from one of the countries where TB is endemic? 

 

 

Well put Mr Wells. I totally agree.

 

I have EID bolused all my female sheep over the last few years. The system is certainly not fool proof, as I have had a huge number of the bolus EID fail within a short space of time.

Most people do not care which Country their lamb comes from, let alone which farm or animal.

One point about micro chips under the skin is that there is no visible record of the sheep so that without scanning it is impossible to know if the animal is identified or not. Therefore there is a requirement for a secondary tag on the animal and here the night mare begins. Matching two identifiable numbers on two media on a sheep. if you loose 10 % per annum means that on a 1000 ewe hill flock you would have to (a) find and record all the animals with out two means of identification then record that number, then (b) after you ordered the tags/implants play needle in a hay stack and try and play snap to match them up. If we are forced into this then the hills will empty.

Our present derogation works on the batch system which is workable (for those on the ground)and because sheep move in groups in most cases where there is a problem it can be traced back to the holding of birth and through all the farms that it has lived on. This can be done electronically at present ,because in Scotland SAMU would be able to follow their electronic trail back to the farm. If a tag is lost it is very unlikely that there is not another lamb in that group that can at least trace it back to the last farm it came from. From there movement records (and samu) could assess where the lamb might have come from if bought store.

On EID at present the systems are not quite there yet but would ,when ready, be a good way to under pin the batch system when costs and reliability are both workable for producers .

Anyway cow on calving must go

What would you say were a reasonable cost for the tag, tag reader, and software?

FWIW we used to tattoo goats' ears.  Ears go missing less often than tags and if the EID is the 'offical' record then you tattoo in whatever manner suits your own identification requirements.

 

A reader £300 - £1000 depending on what you want it to do

Tags cheapest at present for sheep 75 p cattle £1.25 that I have found tell us if you know better

I also agree fully with Mr Wells.).

Likewise, as we only have a small flock, all our ewes and rams have had EID boluses under the NSP, and the loss rate of boluses has been > 20% per year - admittedly that's mainly the small ones put into lambs, but some adult ones have gone as well.  Short-necked sheep such as our own Texels are supposed to be worse for bolus loss, but, but.............

I understood that implanted chips (as used in dogs, cats etc., for which the loss/failure rate is ~1% p.a.) were not approved for use in food animals, only ear tags & boluses.  OK, chips do migrate occasionally, and finding a silicon chip in a chop could be disconcerting, but it's no more risk than a bit of bone.  (There are things like arsenic, antimony, boron & phosporus in silicon chips, but only at the sort of levels we need as trace elements for our nervous systems to work anyway.)

(The system seems to have decided to insert a number rather than my name ............ oh well, I always did like anonymity)

                                                          

2658336. and previous correspondent. Thank you for the latest two comments. It is reassuring to know that one is not such a 'lone voice in the wilderness', as I sometimes feel. The FWI system has also recently reduced me to a number and so I have signed my name at the bottom of the correspondence. The FWI system at one point would not accept one contribution and, to be honest, I did wonder if defra had hacked into the web site and were manipulating comments they did not want to hear.

This thought is of course silly, but such is defra's stupidity over recent years that, coupled with the government's obvious hatred of country folk, I did wonder if there is underhand work afoot.

 (If they are reading this, my juxtaposition of 'work-in-hand' and 'underfoot' should give defra's grammar checkers some problem.)

Thank you once again.

Peter Wells

Peter, your comments a few posts above are the most sensible I have seen on this subject and deserve the widest possible audience.

Once again Peter Wells has hit the nail on the head, did you write this before you heard about the TB case on the airplane from the US(Air France)?  We are arguing like crazy over mandatory ID over here, it is the hottest topic, other than country of origin labeling.  We have alot of people with good educations and high paying government jobs trying to figure out how to track every single pig, cow, and sheep, yet we have somewhere between 15 and 20 million undocumented illegal aliens.  I am hoping to come to the UK this summer, as I understand it, I don't need a passport to get into your country, but I must have one to get back into my own nation.  The passports are being held up at present, I guess if I don't get one, I will fly back to Mexico instead of Kansas City, then enter through Texas along with everyone else, and maybe apply for benefits and quit farming. 

EID in cattle would allow for individual ID and traceability at lower costs than the current paperbased system have, we would not need passports or paper movemnet documents at farm,market or abattoir level, the Cattle tracing data base would however have to a live system without an overnight delay. I do see benefits in the cattle industry both for beef and dairy prodcution.

Unlike cattle which has a national database there would not be one for the UK sheep flock so compulsory EID for  sheep and goats is unnecessary and has no cost benefits,at a GB level. The EU have costed EID within the European flock based on an average European Flock level, 50% of the enire EU 25 countries national flock is made up of flocks with less than 10 breeding ewes, They have stated that a flock with 1000 ewes would need three reading devices and producers would have to read them at least 10 times a year to make it of benefit that is a total of 10,000 reads per year.

How many reads would be needed for a 10,000 ewe flock ( i used to be a shepherd for one such flock)

The EU have assumed that yearly turnover in EU markets is 10,000 sheep, many UK markets do this everyweek.

 agree that we will be double tagging sooner rather than later but that is indivdual ID, which we already have with one tag, we despartely need to avoid indivdual traceabilty. Flock/batch traceability using a much simpliar system which people understand should be used to prevent any disease whilst keeping costs down.#

The EU are convinced there are benefits along the production chain and food chain and for consumers – what we need is a sensible, risk based, proportionate response to the risks for consumers and this is the crux of the problem. What is the risk to consumers and how does individual identification reduce this risk?  The reality is that the whole reasoning behind the concept of individual ID and tracing of sheep is fundamentally flawed as it is based on the European Commission overreacting to early scares about the potential risks of TSE’s in sheep and their misuse of the 2001 FMD crisis as a reason to pursue their policies.

*cheers* well said mr wells!!!  If onyl someone like you were running DEFRA! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/no2defra/

Nice post and very well put.  One wonders if the consumers are going to be given the tag when they buy their sunday roast?  I don't see how else they'll know who is sitting on their plate, unless the EID is incorporated into the supermarket's barcode.  Hmmm .. maybe best not to suggeste that!!

 

Hi Kansas Farmer

You will need a passport to get to the UK

In the future EID will be used out in the field to weigh lambs  (as they drink)   and send the weights back to the office. It will also draft those lambs and fitted with smell sensors can detect foot-rot and fly -strike.  A heart-rate sensor could tell you when they are understress-dog attack...or if theyve kicked it.

regards Jim

 

Johnston

You've got it dead right.  The trouble with most EU rubbish legislation is that it goes through without anyone insisting on a propper cost/benefit analysis.  In this case there is a marginal benefit in individual traceabilty from the animal health point of view but absolutely no benefit to human health whatsoever - even with the best of intentions, traceability is lost beyond slaughter.

There also needs to be a reality check on how such proposed systems will be used in practice.  For instance, if you are sending a batch of ewes off to market, and one has lost its electronic tag, are you going to just put another in or wait to get one with duplicate data?  Also how many farmers are not going to put electronic tags in at all until the sheep are leaving the farm so that they are not constantly paying to replace lost tags.  Once you get such dodges in the system the whole system is worth even less than it would have been in a perfect world.

Unfortunately we are not in a very strong position to claim that the present system of movement recording is any use.  It is obviously flawed as only the holding destination has to report the movement.  A couple of weeks ago we sold some ewe lambs to someone who came with a neighbouring farmer in his pick up to transport them home.  I filled in the AML1 and gave it to the purchaser, as I was explaining the need to send the top copy to the local Trading Standards, the farmer friend commented that he had never sent one in he just keeps them on file!

The present movement recording system came in after the problems encountered during F&M when the movement books of individual farms had to be examined to trace movements.  Not only were these records found to be deficient, but it all took far too long.  The other problem was that certain 'cowboy' traders were not recording movements at all.  The present single entry system means that the good guys are put to the trouble of form filling, recording, fileing and being prosecuted for minor mistakes or misunderstandings in the paperwork, whilst the bad guys, incompetent or stupid don't bother and run an infinitesmal risk of getting caught out.

Unfortunately this is the thrust of all EU rules, like the new transport regulations.  It will make prosections easier because the authorities will not need to bother proving animal cruelty, they will just prosecute people without the right bits of paper.  With EID, how much do you bet that Assurance schemes and cross compliance will insist on your computer systems providing audit data to prove how often the flock was scanned - and too bad if your scanner failed half way up a mountain in driving rain.    

Good news for EID sceptics - MEPs are calling for the EU to drop plans to introduce a compulsory scheme

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/09/03/111943/meps-join-forces-in-battle-against-eid-plans.html

I bet the commisars are quaking in their jackboots.  Not!  MEPs are amongst the most pointless politicians in the world, as the commission is free to blithely ignore them.

 

And ignore them they probably will!