NLIS - Far reaching or far fetched?

By Claire Braund

(Published in Beef Improvement News)

April 2000

As the tender for the establishment of a centralised livestock database closes, a report has emerged which suggests that meeting international food safety requirements and linking a carcase to a supplier does not require individual identification.

The report details the results of a demonstration project to electronically track cattle from the point of slaughter to consumption. It shows that an internationally accepted numbering methodology known as EAN and simple barcoding can link live animals to primal cuts on the supermarket shelves. The validity of this traceback system can be checked by DNA finger printing (see story page XX) and allows processors and meat retailers to identify the product source in the event of a food safety scare.

Commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia, the report is based on trial work with Australian Country Choice and Coles Supermarkets. The report found: "The use of EAN numbering and barcoding provided a stable basis to meet the requirements for machine readability for carcase, carton and primal labelling and tracking. The EDI EANCOM standards provided a means for electronically transferring carton identification data through the supply chain. The use of EAN barcodes for live cattle identification was also tested as a means of quickly and cheaply capturing live ID at slaughter."

Centralised versus decentralised

With the National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS) at the top of the MLA agenda, the report raises several questions about the relevance of a centrally controlled electronic industry database in which live cattle are individually identified.

The report suggests that a decentralised system auditable through the supply chain could be easier to manage and considerably cheaper than the NLIS. Industry sources say that a system similar to the human passport system, in which people are moved on and off databases as they move around the world, could be used to individually identify livestock. Information would be stored in separate databases along the supply chain depending on commercial arrangements. This leaves flexibility for producers and processors to implement a system that suits their needs depending on the market they wish to access.

The EU

The European Union is the only market for Australian beef requiring cattle to be individually identified and to have ownership/possession recorded all along the production process. Under the current system producers register with their state department of agriculture and have their tailtag numbers entered into a database. Radio frequency tags are ordered and manufacturers upload the details of each day's production to the NLIS database.

Australia holds 7,000 tonnes of the 51,000 tonne EU HQB Quota and has access to the offal market and two other Tariff Quotas. John Keir, Managing Director of Australian Meat Holdings, said that primal cuts from approximately 144,000 head of cattle are needed to make up the HQB Quota. AMH is paying a 23cent per kilogram premium for EU cattle (figures from 13/3/00).

Mr Keir says the issue of livestock identification is about market access, rather than food safety. The EU has 375 million people and is predicted to grow by a further 100 million when more countries come on board, Mr Keir said the Australian beef industry needs to be ready to access this market with a credible identification scheme. The Americans and Japanese are also reputed to be considering placing similar conditions on Australian beef exports as the Europeans.

Why use radio frequency technology?

One of the most contentious issues about the NLIS has been the use of radio frequency technology for identification of livestock. The MLA report suggests that EAN numbering could be used to barcode ear tags for use on livestock, enabling them to be read using a simple battery powered transponder rather than expensive readers required for the radio frequency devices preferred by industry leaders. The MLA and peak industry bodies, such as Cattle Council, have adopted radio frequency technology on the grounds that the electronic chips or boluses (rumen) can be read more easily and accurately from a greater distance.

However whether beef producers will have any reason to read livestock outside of the yards has not been determined. One million radio frequency tags were given away by the Victorian Government in a trial in late 1997, but a conclusive set of results has not been released. A key issue for NLIS is that unless producers are inputting data on individual livestock into a farm database there is little reason to read the chips other than at point of sale. A regular ear tag still allows producers to individually track cattle and transfer that information through the supply chain using relatively simple software, while EAN barcoding and DNA testing addresses the food safety issues.

FDX and HDX

There are two modes of radio frequency used in accordance with the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standards for live cattle identification. Full Duplex (FDX) allows for simultaneous transmission of data in two directions, similar to a telephone conversation. Half Duplex (HDX) allows for transmission of data in only one direction at a time, similar to a CB radio. At this point in time only HDX has been approved by the NLIS standards committee, chaired by John Wyld, former Cattle Council Chairman.

The HDX technology has been patented by US firm Texas Instruments, which has the sole rights to the technology. The tender for the Victorian tag give-away was won by Allflex, the only seller of HDX ear tags in Australia. Its HDX devices were approved for NLIS when it won the tender, despite the fact that the NLIS standards committee had not approved a standard for the radio frequency technology. Aleis International also has an NLIS approved device with its rumen pellets.

FDX products have been submitted for NLIS but are still awaiting approval. Companies continue to offer to install some single mode non-ISO readers (reads either FDX or HDX) despite the fact that dual mode (ISO) readers exist that are capable of reading both technologies within the one reader. The Catch 22 according to Gary Edwards from Austock is that manufacturers are unlikely to supply and install a ISO dual mode readers until FDX products have been approved. Mr Edwards said the FDX products are likely to become more competitive and beneficial to the livestock industry as the technology is not patented by a single company. Safemeat Corporation has recently called for an options paper to get industry feedback on whether to approve a Full Duplex mode for operation in Australia.

Producer training

Producer training appears to have been overlooked. Most producers do not individually record livestock of keep individual animal records. Establishing reasons to keep individual records and encouraging producers to acquire the computer skills to record and retrieve information from a central database is an enormous issue according to the MLA's Greg Wall.

There are few incentives to become familiar with the voluntary NLIS and producers are unlikely to respond with their feet to industry run training programs on how to effectively use database technology to track their herd. Outside of the EU market access issue, there is currently little application for a centralised industry database from either a farm management or food safety perspective. When the majority of producers are comfortable with the technology and utilising a database system to enter information on individual livestock as a valuable farm management tool, the prospects for electronic identification may look a little brighter.