May 31, 2006

 

US cattle farmers split on radio tagging debate

 

 

US cattle farmers are split whether radio tagging for cattle is the way go for the future.

 

On one hand, radio tagging makes it easier to track cattle, thus assuring consumers of the safety and traceability of potential diseases. On the other hand, it adds costs and the fledgling technology may still need some fine-tuning.

 

America's cattle tracing plans require the system to give agriculture inspectors the ability to pinpoint the origins of mad cow and other diseases within 48 hours. Livestock facilities and individual animals will get identifying numbers, which would be used to document their movements in industry databases.

 

The system is expected to be ready in 2009.

 

In the meantime, many producers are automating data gathering with passive radio-frequency chips attached to cattle ears. However, active tags are slowly coming into the picture as companies vie for a slice of this emerging market.

 

John Hassell, owner of ZigBeef Inc, which specialises in the sale of long-range tags, claimed that passive tags are an ill-fit for cattle.

 

Passive tags broadcast identifying numbers for only a short range, Hassell said. He believes only "active" tags, which broadcast identification data for up to 300 feet, would work for the environments that cattle pass through, from pastures to stockyards, feed lots and slaughterhouses.

 

Hassell already has a US$80,000 grant from USDA with another US$300,000 expected soon.

 

While active tags cost more, their readers are cheaper. Furthermore, the active readers' range could be adjusted up or down to register multiple cows.

 

Hassell says his tags' batteries can last five to seven years, well beyond the life of typical beef cattle.

 

Still, ranchers believe passive tags may still dominate the industry as such tags are 5 times cheaper than active ones and do not require batteries.

 

It also had a strong headstart as it is increasingly adopted by cattle farmers.

 

However, there are producers who prefer to have no such technology at all.

 

Many producers prefer the low-tech way of recording movement, such as branding, veterinary papers or visually spotting numbers on plastic ear tags as they fear the added cost of more detailed tracking. Some also fear that new databases would leak private business information to rivals.

 

However, just as many thinks that automation would be the easier way to go, despite increased costs and such technology may become mandatory in the future as there is increased uptake. 

 

Meanwhile, uptake of such radio-tagging technology is unlikely in the pork and poultry producers. 

 

Pigs are unlikely to need such tags because the nation's 60 million hogs generally remain in large, easily identifiable lots, said Bobby Acord, a former USDA administrator who chairs the Swine Identification Implementation Task Force.

 

The same applies for the 9 billion chickens in the US which are too numerous to track individually.