National Animal Identification
System
Goat Species Working Group Report
August 2006 |
The Goat Working Group is comprised of volunteers representing
the major sectors within the U.S. goat industry and is charged
by USDA with developing a viable plan for permanent identification
for goats and addressing other species-specific components
related to the NAIS. USDA requested direction as to how
NAIS could achieve its goals with the opportunity for the
Working Group to offer suggestions on benchmarks that would
provide incremental progress towards the ultimate 48-hour
traceback objective. With this challenge, the Goat Working
Group has developed the following comments and recommendations.
This document is a work in progress, and additional comments
will be provided in a future report. The committee is continuing
to work on a number of issues and clarifications.
|
BACKGROUND |
While some species do not have uniform identification
methods in place, official identification of most breeding
goats is currently required under the USDA, National Scrapie
Eradication Program (NSEP). We believe the basic ID components
of this existing program should be utilized as a framework
for at least an interim NAIS ID program for goats. Efforts
to achieve full industry compliance with the Scrapie Program
have led to a greater understanding by producers of the
methods used and the infrastructure needed for animal identification,
disease surveillance and traceback. This background experience
will be valuable as a transition to the implementation of
a plan that more completely and uniformly addresses the
goals and methods outlined in the NAIS documents.
|
Initially, a combined Sheep
and Goat Working Group was established. The inherent differences
between sheep and goats (as well as other species) require
different needs for identification, so the two groups split
into individual working groups, but continue to share information
and considerations with the chairs and several other working
group members on both committees. This also allows for more
diverse representation from each industry. |
The goat, as a small ruminant species, shares several
similarities with the sheep. However, the differences between
these animals include, but are not limited to, eating habits
(sheep graze and goats browse, thus tag retention is a serious
concern); animal interaction with fencing of various types;
ear thickness, texture, and range of ear types; and the
broad uses of goats in general. Goats are utilized for a
range of operations, including: dairy, meat, fiber, companion,
packing/hiking, brush control (weed abatement and fire control),
and biotechnology. Also, the large number of goats in very
small herds and the lower value per animal, when compared
to other species, contribute to an economy of scale issue
that would create financial burdens if producers were required
to use only electronic devices.
|
Additionally, age and source verification does not add
value for global trade in the goat industry. This is primarily
because the U.S. does not export any significant amount
of Chevon (goat meat) and thus, in contrast with the beef
industry, it has no financial incentive for goat producers.
|
The number of digits to be placed on tags is also a challenge
for both sheep and goats since the tag would need to be
small and lightweight, and yet to include 15 digits will
make the numbers very small and possibly not legible during
many handling applications, such as movement through market
sales. Therefore, it will be a challenge to establish a
single method of tag identification that can be effective
in all applications while meeting the 15 digit standard
for NAIS.
|
Premises ID |
Goat owners currently are
already assigned premises ID numbers with the mandatory NSEP
(Scrapie) program, although the definition of a NSEP premise
is not consistent with the NAIS premise definition.
Some states have decided to automatically assign a NAIS Premises
ID number to all individuals with an assigned NSEP premises
number. Some producers have received this negatively, and
we believe it has contributed to less participation in NAIS.
Since the definition of "Premises" varies between
the NAIS and the NSEP programs, these discrepancies will need
to be addressed and explained to producers. If the Scrapie
program premises number is linked in the database with the
new NAIS premises number, this should facilitate the transition. |
While understanding that
this is a state-by-state decision, it is our recommendation
that producers be contacted regarding obtaining the new NAIS
number rather than having an automatic assignment. We feel
the assignment of a Premise ID should be only at the express
consent or by request from the premises owner. We ask that
USDA provide this recommendation to the individual states. |
Identification Methods/Devices |
Goat breeders currently utilize
a range of individual ID methods for management and/or registry
purposes. Each has specific advantages and disadvantages. |
Currently, approved metal
ear tags, plastic ear tags, RFID tags, electronic implants
and tattoos are all accepted methods of identification for
the Scrapie (NSEP) program. We recommend these options continue
to be available for goat breeders to utilize for the NAIS
program. Rumen boluses are a possible ID method which is currently
being tested. Freeze branding is being used on some goats
in the brand state areas. |
Ear tags, in general, have
been found to be significantly unreliable, as retention is
a major issue reported by breeders. Infection at the site
of tag placement has also been often reported. Application
methods seem to significantly contribute to retention, and
this needs to be addressed with education for producers. Research
with RFID devices for goats is underway in other countries,
however only limited research is being conducted in the US.
The technology is widely promoted and may prove to be acceptable
as ID programs move forward, but there has been insufficient
testing in goats in a variety of managements as of this date.
Completion of objective trials of RFID devices and readers
for goats must address the wide range of managements and marketing
systems in the U.S. as well as the variety of breeds of goats,
which have a range of coats as well as ear types. We acknowledge
that the move to a more uniform ID program is desirable for
efficiency, however the flexibility of options that can be
utilized to accommodate the uniqueness of goats and the range
of uses and managements needs to be in place. For example,
the LaMancha breed of dairy goats has a very small ear that
makes it extremely difficult to utilize ear tags effectively.
Currently, caudal (tail) tattoos are used for ID purposes
in this breed (ear tattoos are used in other dairy breeds,
and some meat breeds as well). |
When one considers the necessity of shearing fiber goats
such as the Angora and Cashmere breeds, fiber removal in
the head and neck region increases the possibility of shearers
accidentally cutting off ear tags. A combination of design
change; additional ID options, as well as educational efforts
aimed at reducing this potential problem will be critical
to a successful ID program for goats.
|
When one considers the necessity of shearing fiber goats
such as the Angora and Cashmere breeds, fiber removal in
the head and neck region increases the possibility of shearers
accidentally cutting off ear tags. A combination of design
change; additional ID options, as well as educational efforts
aimed at reducing this potential problem will be critical
to a successful ID program for goats.
|
Electronic implants (EIDs) are being used in increasing
numbers by goat breeders, and are accepted by several goat
registries. Breeders typically use caudal (tail), auricular
(ear) and dorsal thoracic (withers) locations for implants.
The advantages include ease of application, retention, and
less "cosmetic" damage to the animal, particularly
those with show breeding stock. The disadvantages include
cost; lack of consistency among manufacturers (thus requiring
different readers); no visual ID component; and lack of
a USDA/FSIS approved site for the implantation. EIDs are
favored by many goat owners, but since there is no USDA
approved site for electronic implants in goats, this area
needs attention to address possible food safety concerns.
The auricular (ear) implant site is approved for sheep.
We recommend the caudal area (distal portion of tail - so
as not to interfere with tattoo placements) for electronic
implants, when used in goats.
|
We acknowledge the need for
visual and electronically readable forms of ID as a longer-range
goal. Electronic tags would facilitate accuracy and speed
of reading and recording information in commercial settings,
but there hasn't been sufficient testing to recommend at this
time. This, coupled with the expense per animal in proportion
to the value of the animal, means that this should not be
the sole method of ID in goats at this time. In a disease
outbreak, it would be also be desirable to be able to identify
necropsied animals if readers aren't readily available. |
We recommend that goat breeders
have the option to use all methods of ID currently approved
for the NSEP program. This includes these optional forms of
identification: any official scrapie tag; or tattoos (legible
individual registry tattoos issued by breed associations may
also be used as official identification when the animal is
accompanied by its registration certificate listing the tattoo);
or electronic ID (if the goat breed registry recognizes electronic
microchips or RFID tags as an authorized form of ID and the
number is recorded on the registration certificate, then electronic
ID is acceptable). Owner must also have registration or identity
certificate (or a copy of it) or a Certificate of Veterinary
Inspection which includes the microchip number that matches
the one on the registration/identification certificate. We
recommend the caudal area (distal portion of tail - so as
not to interfere with tattoo placements) be used for electronic
implants. This addresses the need for a consistent implant
location and also addresses food safety concerns. All tails
could then be condemned at slaughter. |
Further, an animal record
should contain all reported identification methods for that
animal, and the fields of information should be linked so
that an animal can be easily located based on any identification
reported. |
We recommend that USDA Cooperative
Agreements be made available for specific research for goat
identification addressing a variety of breeds and management
methods, as well as market place environments. Further, the
results of any research should be made available to the Goat
Working Group for further consideration. |
We recommend that RFID reader
and scanner manufacturers and suppliers be encouraged to provide
readers and scanners that can read ISO/ANSI 11784/11785 livestock
microchips, and read or at least detect all 125 kHz frequency
companion animal microchips. We recommend that currently used
microchips be accepted for a period of time to be determined
as appropriate. |
Implementation Time Table |
Until electronic identification
(RFID or other method) has been fully tested under the range
of managements and environments; other methods of identification
currently accepted with the Scrapie program should continue
to be acceptable for goat ID. As those trials are completed
and design changes identified, the transition to a uniform
method consistent with NAIS protocol could then move forward.
Sufficient funds to conduct this research and funds to assist
producers in the purchase of the devices should be made available
before the consideration of any required electronic identification
program for goats. |
Additionally, many believe
that the NAIS program should be more developed (with ongoing
opportunities for feedback) before any steps are taken to
have any portions of the program become mandatory. People
are being asked to sign up for a premises ID without knowing
full details and implications of what might actually be implemented
later. Full disclosure of the program and plan should be available
before making any transition from voluntary to mandatory components. |
While we understand the value
of having total participation in NAIS, we recommend that a
voluntary program continue until more consideration can be
given to questions raised by many. The most value in the program
will be realized if producers are provided the opportunity
to continue to offer input and help in identifying potential
areas for change and improvement. |
We recommend continuation
of the current cost-sharing approach as used for the Scrapie
program, as the program develops. |
Group Lot Identification |
Management systems that keep
groups of goats together from birth to slaughter should have
the option of using a Group Lot ID system, when such ID might
be necessary. This arrangement is common particularly in raising
kids for the holiday markets that go directly to slaughter.
Another example would be the pasture-to-pasture movement for
herds used in forest management and weed abatement programs.
In cases such as these, each group lot would have a unique
identification number that would include the premises number,
date assembled and two additional digits. Using the option
when practical would be a cost savings for breeders. |
Individual animals leaving
the group would be required to have individual identification,
if triggered by a required event for ID. |
We recommend the optional
use of a group lot identification program, when applicable,
for goats. |
Movement Reporting |
Significant numbers and a
wide variety of movements occur within goat breeding operations.
These can range from travel to the office of a veterinarian
or a trip to a local school to a large exhibition involving
hundreds of animals being commingled. Requiring movement reporting
of all movements would be overwhelming to the goat industry
in general, and would not be practical to implement. Since
the methods of reporting and even the location of storage
of movement information are still undetermined, at this stage
it seems reasonable to concentrate only on those movements
which would be at highest risk for disease transmission and
those movements which are currently already being documented
through existing regulatory reporting. This would include
a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection or any other inspection
or permit process required in moving goats. |
We acknowledge that identification
information contained in a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection
does not actually indicate that an animal moved. In the event
of a disease outbreak, however, it would provide information
for contacting the premises representative to determine which
animals may have actually been moved. The information in the
CVI is maintained by the involved states, and would have the
necessary information as to the point of origin and destination.
By using this existing system, it would not create any undue
burden on the owner to provide this information to a separate
reporting repository. |
Since the National Scrapie
Eradication Program (NSEP) has specific requirements for identification
of sheep and goats, those requirements would also help to
meet the needs of tracking movements during a disease outbreak.
However, goats in categories/classes not included in the NSEP
program would not be exempted in the NAIS program. |
We recommend utilization of
existing methods of collecting and reporting movement information
such as the Certificate of Veterinary Inspections or when
required for current regulatory programs. Only these movements
would be reported until further assessment of NAIS program
logistics can be conducted, and additional comment then offered
by species working groups. Any mandatory reporting would be
done by the receiving premise, but ideally the owner should
have an option to report movement on a voluntary basis. |
We encourage goat registries
to begin consideration of mechanisms to document movement
of goats at events such as sponsored shows, to assist with
providing this information in the event of a critical disease
outbreak. |
Work To Date |
In an effort to provide information
regarding the work of our group and NAIS in general, we have
developed a website (USAnimalID.com). We have received a large
number of comments from goat breeders over the past three
years. There has been objection to the program in general
and many comments strongly oppose the program. Additionally,
concerns have been raised over confidentiality of producer
records; practicality of the implementation process has been
questioned; concerns raised about program cost; lack of details
about mechanisms and cost of reporting movements; concerns
about privately held databases, and general objections to
any requirement of providing information to a government entity.
With regard to those who have commented to provide opinions
on the type of ID to be accepted for NAIS, there has been
almost unanimous agreement that there needs to be flexibility
to allow the currently used ID methods already accepted in
the Scrapie (NSEP) program. |
Successful Implementation |
1. The implementation of a
successful National Animal Identification System program should
address and include the following components: |
2. A gradual transition to
any new identification protocol by using the existing Scrapie
program-approved ID methods Continued flexibility of ID methods/devices
should be allowed and exploration of new technology as it
becomes available. |
3. Evaluate a system that
would allow existing ID methods to be incorporated into a
uniform National ID System. For example, the unique tattoo
or electronic implant requirement of a dairy goat registry
could be tied to a registration number that conforms to NAIS
standards. |
4. Adequate research and field
trials using a range of goat breeds and management environments. |
5. Cost-sharing approach for
all involved parties. |
6. Recognition that the cost
of ID devices/methods for goats can be significant when compared
to market value per head, and should not hinder the economic
viability of the industry. There is a large number of goats
in small herds, and it is important to protect small farm
operations from unnecessary burden and cost, while identifying
ways to achieve disease surveillance to protect animal agriculture
in general. |
7. Involvement of industry
(including producers, registries, organizations, markets,
veterinarians and others) as the planning process continues,
to assure a realistically designed plan and to help ensure
industry acceptance and participation. |
8. Continued cooperative efforts
between the sheep and goat industries that will identify similarities
between the plans for each species, while also recognizing
the differences that require alternative considerations for
each specie. |
9. Systems that can be incorporated
with existing production/management information would encourage
more producer participation. |
10. Reasonable record keeping
that combines with data electronically obtained and submitted.
Protecting of confidentiality of producer information is a
priority among producers. Any records requirement should not
exceed current program requirements (for example, Scrapie
program requires 5 years). |
11. A comprehensive educational
effort that can offer information and accurate answers for
producers, markets, consumers and veterinarians. Training
and outreach programs should be available for veterinarians,
producers, inspectors, truckers and markets. They need to
learn how to recognize signs of foreign animal diseases and
to know what follow-up steps would be taken in such a disease
outbreak, and more specifics about what the NAIS involves. |
12. We believe it is important
for individual states to also consider the recommendations
of the species working groups should states separately implement
programs prior to full implementation of NAIS on a national
basis. Further, if there is not uniformity among states, there
will continue to be confusion and frustration about animal
identification in general. |
13. Adequate funding to provide
adequate staffing to handle existing regulatory programs and
port inspections should be ensured. Federal incentive programs
for encouraging new veterinarians would help ensure qualified
employees are available. |
We also recommend ongoing
communication with our trading partners in North America while
also communicating with other global partners to address animal
identification in general. |
We also appreciate the clarifications
offered in the NAIS Guide for Small-Scale or Non-Commercial
Producers, which includes the following (in part): The focus
of NAIS is animal health, primarily within the commercial
animal production sector in which animals move from their
birthplace to a subsequent location(s) over the animal's life
cycle. USDA's NAIS efforts will largely focus on commercial
operations and animals at such locations due to their higher
risk of spreading diseases among multiple locations and for
greater distances. |
Animal identification and
tracking: |
If animals never leave the
farm of birth or are only moved for custom slaughter for personal
consumption, owners will not be asked to identify them or
report their movement. |
Animal owners who choose to
participate in the animal identification and tracking components
of the NAIS, are not expected to report all animal movements. |
Reportable movements are those
that involve a high risk of spreading disease, such as moving
livestock from a farm to an event where a large numbers of
animals are brought together from many sources. |
USDA will only request animal
identification data to respond to an animal disease outbreak
or other emerging animal health concern. |
USDA fully recognizes that
NAIS must be practical and affordable for all sectors of agriculture. |
The primary purpose of the
NAIS is to enable rapid animal tracing and disease containment
in the case of an animal disease outbreak or other emerging
animal health concern among U.S. livestock and poultry. USDA
will only request data and combine information from the databases
when animal health officials need information to respond to
such a disease outbreak or emerging animal health concern. |
Definition of Non-Commercial
Producer |
Under the NAIS, the following
criteria describe non-commercial producers: |
1. Individuals whose animals
are not moved to auction barns or from their location to those
of commercial producers. |
2. Individuals whose animal
movements are limited to those moved directly to custom slaughter;
movement within a single producer's premises; local fairs
and local 4-H (and/or other youth organization events). {Note:
The GWG believes there needs to be further clarification with
regard to non-commercial producer definitions and determinations
as well as fairs and other exhibitions}. |
Guidance for Non-Commercial
Animal Identification and Reporting Animal Movements: |
Scenarios that would not call
for animals to be identified and/or movements reported in
the NAIS include: |
? animals that never leave
the farm/location of birth;
? animals moved from their birth premises
directly to custom slaughter for personal use of the animal's
owner;
? livestock moved from pasture-to-pasture
within one's operation;
? participation in local fairs and parades;
? the local trading of birds among private
individuals; and
? animals that "get out" and cross
over into the neighbor's land.
|
Also, animals used for recreational
purposes do not need to be identified if they are permanently
cared for at their birth premises. Comprehensive recommendations
for identifying animals and reporting movements are in development
in cooperation with the species-specific working groups and
State-Federal animal health authorities. |
The Goat Working Group appreciates
the opportunity to contribute to the discussion by operating
as a separate Species Working Group. We encourage solicitation
of continued input via this committee as well as representation
on an Oversight Committee or other body as may be established.
We ask for continued opportunity to provide additional comment
and recommendations as the program evolves. |
Activity
Goats
Registration of Premises
Owner of Premises |
Responsible party for the
identification of the animals.
Owner of animals at current premises (lessee of a leased animal).
|
When is the animal to be officially identified? |
When an event triggers the need for Official
ID such as:
1) when Certificates of Veterinary Inspection or permits
are required for movements.
2) when required by another regulatory program, such as
the National Scrapie Eradication Program.
|
What animals must be identified?
All classes of goats, when moved from the birth premises under
the event triggers as identified herein.
|
Events that "trigger" the requirement
of official identification? |
1) When Certificates of Veterinary Inspection
or permits are required for movements.
2) When required by another program, such as the National
Scrapie Eradication Program.
|
ID Method to be used |
All methods currently accepted for the
National Scrapie Eradication Program.
Report of Movements who is responsible?
Person responsible for the animals at the receiving premises.
Who reports Interstate Movement?
Accredited Veterinarian when Interstate Certificate of Veterinary
Inspection is required.
Receiving premises uses e-permits when no health certificate
is required.
Time frame requirements for reporting movements
As required for any existing regulatory programs.
|
NAIS Goat Working Group Members: |
Linda S. Campbell, Chair
Producer - Dairy/Meat/Fiber
Luray VA
Stan Potratz
Producer/Premier Supplies
Washington IA
Barry Arnett
Producer
Williamsburg, KY
Jeff Ramseyer
Producer
Ohio
Jan Carlson
UC Davis Goat Teaching & Research Facility
Davis, CA
Joe David Ross, DVM
Producer
Sonora TX
Charley Christensen
Producers Livestock Auction Co.
San Angelo, Texas
Joan Dean Rowe, DVM
Producer
Department of Population Health & Reproduction
School of Veterinary Medicine Davis, CA
Bennie Cox
Producers Livestock Auction Co.
San Angelo, Texas
|
Lisa Shepard
Producer
Performance Programs Coordinator, ADGA
Atascadero CA
Bonnie Chandler
Producer
American Goat Society Representative
Harvard MA
Marvin F. Shurley
Producer
President, American Meat Goat Association
Sonora TX
Carolyn Eddy
Packgoat Producer
Estacada Or
Robert Swize
American Boer Goat Association
San Angelo TX
Rene DeLeeuw
Producer
White Plains NY
Cindy Wolf, DVM
Chair, Sheep Working Group
Producer/University of Minnesota
Rushford MN
Ray Hoyt
Producer/National Pygmy Goat Association
Minden, Nevada
Linda Worley
Producer
Wayne OK |
ADVISORS: |
Diane L. Sutton
National Scrapie Program Coordinator
USDA, APHIS, VS
Riverdale, MD
David L. Morris, DVM, PhD
USDA/APHIS/VS/NCAHP/SIP/NAIS
Fort Collins, CO |
