Issues_nlis

ISSUE: e-NLIS: Are you for or against it
(e-NLIS: electronic-National Livestick Identification Scheme)

THE POLL: The e-NLIS poll is a simple 'For' or 'Against' argument given the already wide debate about it's circumstances and possible deficiencies. If you have a positive view about e-NLIS given what you know and despite any present shortcomings, vote FOR. If you are unhappy about important aspects of the e-NLIS proposal vote AGAINST. (Poll results updated daily). If you would like to contribute a few words of comment to support your position, we'll publish the best of them below. (No names required, just sign with your profession and town, eg "Cattleman / Bourke".)

As of July 1 2005, all cattle changing ownership must carry a registered RFID ear tag. The only exception being cattle moving directly off the property of birth directly to a meat processing plant. Although debate is over, sentiments still run high amongst those who opposed the scheme for the many reasons expressed below.

However the debate in the USA has just begun to warm up. After four years of investigation into alternate devices and possible implementation programs, the USDA has proposed a voluntary RFID tag system be in place by 2009.

It is likely the very same arguments for and against U.S. animal-ID (called NAIS) will be aired in the forthcoming USA public debate as were run in the Australian lead up to enabling legislation that made it law here.

U.S. producers researching the web about animal-ID have discovered the Cattlefacts site and the wealth of viewpoints about the topic expressed on our 'Issues' page during the debate here. Some have chosen to register their opinions about the U.S. animal-ID proposal with us. Cattlefacts is happy to provide another forum for anyone wishing to express their views about the U.S. animal-ID proposal.

NAIS about big company $$$$
I am an American small goat farmer. Our country is trying to implement the same program. WE know this is a farce. In NO way will NAIS National Animal Id stop mad cow, hoof and mouth or Avian Flu. This is about the power of huge agriculture and tag companies that see $$$$ signs. Be it known we find this unpopular and we hope to hear from more Australians in regards how this program has effected you and your farm. Visit me and my fellow freedom fighters at www.nonais.org Thanks for listening to a yank (Farmer - Georgia)

Small operators the real target:
We are from the US and the farmers and regular producers do not want this. It is for getting rid of the small operators and not to control disease. Our government is even claiming it will control tracebacks for diseases that have long been declared gone. We have 36,000 die of regular flu every year but 200 world wide bird flu cases since 1997 is called a pandemic? Get real. Trace back is still more efficient with brands and normal already in place methods.

In America the USDA is actually in partnership with the companies like Monsanto and others and holds the patents and lic. to the big global companies and then turns around and regulates the competition out of business, that is, the small producers. All our export problems come from laws not enforced by USDA on manufacturers of feeds and processing plants which do not follow regulations and get a free ride from USDA and FDA. NAIS allows for these freeloaders to pass on liability to the small producers if passed or we will be fined out of business. Please fight for your freedom to farm and ranch and make a living...vote against. Nils. We are behind you one hundred percent. (Cattle Producer – Oklahoma)

AUSTRALIAN COMMENTS ABOUT "Australian e-NLIS"
The animal ID debate in Australia is over.
As of July 1 2005, all cattle changing ownership must carry a registered RFID ear tag. The only exception being cattle moving directly off the property of birth directly to a meat processing plant.

NLIS: more costly red tape
We are a small cattle enterprise struggling to keep afloat with all extra government bullshit; veg act, and all other paperwork and now there is NLIS to try and contend with and try to pay for. Just when it looks like we might get up something comes along to knock us down again; drought, veg act, now NLIS and LPA sneaked in with it. Do people understand the legal requirements when they sign this statuary declaration.

i.e. When cattle sent to sale even if they are clean of chemicals and they are put in with some ones which are not, you will then be libel as you declared them to be free and the buck stops with you. Power lines through a property are treated, who is responsible for them. The power company has an easement, so will we have to fence off power lines? I think the Buck stops with us again.

Electronic cattle tagging now - we are next!
there are some of us in FNQ who will not be participating in the mandatory eNLIS beginning July. It is well held by constitutional authorities that if a new 'law' is ignored by a majority of the people (it affects) it is no longer a law. Common law dictates over statute law and we will use this if necessary to defeat the socialist state governments who intend to control our every move. Electronic cattle tagging now - we are next! (Cattle Producer - Far North Queensland)

Industry cost befefit study required
There should be a cost benefit study done over the entire cattle industry, not just a trumped cost study for the breeders. (Grazier - Blackall)

Against But: Debate is over- Move on
I think the debate over whether you are for NLIS or against it has long past. The horse has already bolted. The simple truth is that NLIS is coming and it is here to stay for at least the short term anyway. Focus should be shifted to the best and easiest way to implement this new technology while minimising disruption and efficiency to operation. Points of issue and our efforts should now be directed at:

We are also cynical enough to think MLA's approach is mainly to get producers to tell them how many cattle are out there and who's got what. Questions that they've never had answered, particularly in the case of where their levy comes from, and if it's being paid. Fundamental questions you would imagine but ones they have no idea of. (Cattle producer - Nth Qld)

Track record pathetic
MLA's track record of success with "must have" whiz bang schemes has been pretty pathetic. I fail to see how this one will be any different as the monitoring and processing of EU transactions is already causing such headaches for many producers and agents. Another scheme thought up by a mob of non accountable, number crunchers trying to justify their existence and being paid with an on going supply of compulsory acquired producer money. Put them into private enterprise and see how long they survive. (Cattle producer - Longford)

Quality assured politicians?
We should have quality assured politicians not quality assured cattle then we might have some one who works for the country and not the world money power. (Cattleman - Charters Towers)

Its another con
Millions of $ of producers money has been spent on projects that have been impractical. MSA and robotik slaughtering were 2 examples. Producers have been conned to the outcomes by spin doctors contracted by MLA and paid using producers money. This eNLIS is another one. (Producer - Cooma)

We must lead the world
Queensland exports 80% of it's beef production which means we have the most to lose if/when we get a disease or get shut out of a market because our traceability is not good enough. We must lead the world with individual animal ID instead of floundering around at the back of the race alongside the countries that can afford to come last because they consume most of their product domestically... (Beef producer - Rolleston)

Will cost $35 per beast
No importing country has asked for NLIS. The tag/reader outlay transfers $3-400 million to tag/reader manufacturers from a low cost / marginal profit Beef producer over the first few years. A full e-NLIS traceback system will cost an average of over $35 per beast--this is the reason that it hasn't been done anywhere in the world. No one has done their homework… (Cattle Producer - Crookwell)

Unproven technology & more costs
(e-NLIS) it will force more production costs on producers, without the returns. If we have a major disease outbreak, there will be more problems with feral animals spreading the disease than domestic animals. Only two million dollars has been set aside in this years budget to cope with pests. That won't go very far. Currently, there will be no financial support for NLIS, so more producers will be placed under pressure. As tree-clearing laws devalue properties, NLIS will place more burden on producers. The technology behind NLIS is not yet proven and reliable. More handling and paperwork will result from NLIS… (Beef producer - Dysart)

Needlessly adds costs
Anything that needlessly adds to cost of production should be resisted by all thinking producers. This proposal does just that and many people also can see the many ways the whole system could 'crash' at a sale causing total chaos. I urge producers to get out of Agforce quickly as the only way to make that organisation listen to the voice of its members… (Cattleman - Monto)

Will harm our competitiveness
The technology does not work. The cost will be prohibitive. Not enough other Countries are involved in NLIS. To adopt an expensive and flawed technology would harm our competitiveness in the World Markets not enhance it… (Cattleman - Augathella)

New LPA ,NVD/Waybills
We do not agree with mandatory NLIS. We agree with Graham Acton. It's just not practical.
I am also concerned with the introduction of the New LPA ,NVD/Waybills. The timing of it's release, while everyone is debating NLIS this has been slipped in. No debate, no newspaper reporting. The Livestock Production Assurance, which is not compulsory, but like it or not, you comply, or no NVD's. You must register to received the next lot of NVD's at a cost as well. Every Cattle Industry Organization should print the Rules of the Livestock Production Assurance Scheme for their members to view as soon as possible.
Members need to be made aware of the Rules of Compliance they are to work with in this new scheme. There are 13 pages of Rules. I also ask, "what industry Organizations agreed with these rules of compliance". Please list these also for all to see… (Beef producer )

No NLIS for direct shipment
We are against NLIS for cattle going from property of birth to meatworks or boat. A tail tag or ear tag with the PIC number, combined with a brand and earmark and vendor declaration is all the traceback that is needed. Where cattle move to another property, saleyards, feedlot etc then an RFID tag should apply to assist the more complicated traceback. It is reasonable to seek Government subsidy for this component since readers will be required in all saleyards, meatworks etc… (Cattle company - SA)

Producers to 'Carry the bucket'
The producer is being left to 'carry the bucket' for what is an Industry initiative. The implementation should recognise the time and resources that need to be committed by producers to make NLIS work and leaving them with the cost of buying tags also is a RORT. A levy on all sales of livestock including to supermarkets and consumers would collect the necessaries to fund the purchase of tags!… (Cattle producer)

It's a fraud
The eNLIS proposal as it stands is a fraud, as the system is full of flaws and failures. Current users are aghast that such a shoddy system could be touted by Qld Govt as worthy of Govt endorsement... (Cattleman - CQ)

Just another waste of producer resources
The claims that e-NLIS is insurance for our markets and assurance for our customers are stupid. If Australia gets an outbreak of disease e-NLIS won't do a thing. Our customers will stop buying our product. After talking to producers trying to use this technology over tens of thousands of head it is obvious the tags, scanners and the data base simply do not work. To think we will use this to combat disease outbreaks is stupid also. Never mind the untagged feral animals, sheep and goats. Just another waste of producer resources by the MLA. What does it take to get these people to listen...(Cattleman - Marlborough)

Unnecessary cost
NLIS is an unnecessary cost to cattlemen and has no monetary gain. I would like to see an independent audit of Victoria, to see how it is progressing after two years. If it works in Victoria, why can't EU buyers fill their quota there? If it is so good, why don't meat buyers flock to Victoria?…(Cattleman - Biloela)

Only beneficiary
The only one to benefit from this is "Texas Instruments" . Has anyone looked into the Data collection and the current one staff person running the show !!! (Producer - Richmond)

Producers have their head in the sand
Unfortunately, many cattle producers have their head in the sand. When you market BEEF instead of cattle you find that THE number one concern of international buyers is not chemical residues, feeding regimes or the colour of an animals hide. Their main concern following all of the major beef crisis' around the world is traceback traceback traceback!
Open your eyes, in the absence of any other viable alternative, this is the only way to buy an insurance policy to continue to access these markets into the future. Countries may not be requesting it of Australia yet but I can guarantee that many individual buyers are and numbers will continue to grow.
(Cattle and BEEF Producer - North Midlands & Eastern Gascoyne, WA)

Change for the sake of change
Has it not occurred to anyone that the tags will do no more than tail tags already do, and at a monstrous cost to producers. This is government wanting to feel warm and fuzzy and pretend that they are doing something, but they are knee-jerk re-acting. If the tags were easily useable for herd monitoring, improvement and to give information about your herd, at a considerably less cost then they would be more useful. At present they will just be change for the sake of change. (Producer -Julia Creek)

Does it work in Victoria?
Unless Victoria can show that it is working,and show a profit margin,we don't want it. (Cattleman - Biloela)

Hasn't worked in UK
We vote against nils because it hasn't worked overseas, the paper work is a nightmare not to mention the extras costs and time which the farmer cannot afford when they need to be outside working- not creating employment for bureaucrats.We have just arrived back from the UK and every farmer we spoke to said why are the Australians doing this it is a waste of everyone's time and hasn't worked for them, they all have trouble with ear tags falling out- then what happens?? (DGR Parnership - NSW)

Too Many Vested Interests
I will never support change for the sake of it, by bureaucrats and big companies, who have the government's ear as well as a vested financial interest to change a system which is working, and has worked in the past with chemical residues. In the whole debate there are people making major decisions on behalf of producers, who literally do not know which end of a cow gets up first, and have absolutely no idea of the working of large cattle enterprisers except what they have learnt watching McLeod's Daughters. (Producer - QLD)

Who's kidding who?
The NLIS is totally inappropriate. It cannot work and it will cost too much. Imagine there are only 16 million Australians on the electoral roll. It requires ten story buildings in every Capital City plus thousands of computers and unknown thousands of people to administer a system for elections every three years. Yet MLA will keep track of 28 million cattle, with hundreds of thousands of transactions every week, with one data base and three people. Who's kidding who?.. (Cattleman - Sth Qld)

e-NLIS: More work needed: I feel that NLIS certainly will have a time and place in Australian cattle production however I am certain that the time is not now. Having studied this issue for sometime I agree that a reliable trace back system is required and that in the current world of electronic gizmos and gadgets, it would appear that e-NLIS is the way to go. This would be fine if the following conditions were met:

Unworkable & unviable: Will break industry economically. we already have the best system available out of all of our trading partners. NLIS is unworkable and unviable. (Producer - Nth Qld)

Cumbersome, fallible and foolish: expensive, cumbersome, designed for studs and small cattle producers. Highly fallible, therefore undeliverable on a National Scale. Foolish. Driven by people with a record for imposing costs on their fellow cattleproducers. (Cattle producer - Dunkheld, Vic)

Boundaries Idea: As the situation presently stands I am against e-NLIS; all in favor of working towards a workable identification system BETTER than what it is now. I would love to see another form of protection for our markets in boundaries being created so that the entire country would not be affected in the instance of a single break out in Tasmania / WA/ the Kimberleys/ NT/ The Gulf'/ etc. This is something that should be done with urgency! It would seem to be a much simpler way of providing some protection until the NLIS problems can be sorted out, and complementary to NLIS in any case. (Cattle producers - CQ)

Mandatory NLIS will be a major cost and administrative impost on the cattle industry. Tags alone will cost in the order of $30 million per year. This is only 16% of the $186 million that we estimate the scheme will cost NSW producers annually.

The technology proposed has not been proven to work under extensive conditions anywhere in the world. Australia is moving into a mandatory adoption of a regulatory system that hasn’t even been successfully trialled anywhere in the world.

Despite the huge scale of this undertaking, there has been no comprehensive system analysis, no national cost benefit analysis and consequently no informed industry consultation and debate.

In its current state NLIS is unnecessary, unproven, unenforceable and un-auditable. It is undeliverable by the vast majority of cattle producers.

Advocates of NLIS are mainly technocrats, multi-national tag and reader manufacturers and some enthusiastic and impractical veterinary bureaucrats. Support from processors is a knee jerk reaction to current disease fears, without any research and is conditional on their costs being funded by government or producers. No significant producer organisation is unconditionally supporting mandatory NLIS. They are asking for Government funding as in the other mandatory sites --EU, Botswana and Quebec Province.

NSW is in danger of committing itself and NSW beef producers to a program that has no clear benefits for industry. Japan is now illustrating that trace back is not consumer protection or disease control.

NSW is in danger of committing itself and NSW beef producers to an extremely expensive and technically unproven technology.

ABA estimates NLIS Australia wide will cost $7 billion over a decade. MLA has refused to do a cost benefit analysis. Peak Councils including CCA and AMIC and their state counterparts, particularly VFF, that support mandatory NLIS have opposed a cost benefit analysis. This makes us wonder if pecuniary interests rather than the good of industry, are driving this program.

The requirement to inform the database of any lost tag on property within 7 days of discovery is Big Brother as in UK –without Big Brother paying for it. With a minimum 60% of the NSW 80,000 odd tail tag holders being computer illiterate and rarely mustering their cattle to identify any lost tags (the current tag can only be read by an expensive reader in a suitable set of yards) this is "mission absurd". It is why Victoria is not doing it. Good yards are a missing ingredient on over 50% of the NSW tail tag holdings. One Beef Cattle Officer estimates that only 15% of his area have head bails suitable to safely and accurately insert the RFID tags.

Does NSW intend to replace firebrands, tattoos, and earmarks with RFID tags as a permanent ID?

If so, the project is hopelessly flawed as 50% of tags can be expected to be lost over a ten-year lifespan of a cow. They can also easily be cut out and replaced.

Individual ID is being discussed but it is not a high priority in the US. Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Venneman has stated that they will study various technologies but not move until they are convinced that there are technologies that successfully address the real needs of customers. The US developed Optibrand (retinal imaging for ID) is showing far more practicality for livestock than RFID technology.

Japan and Korea are demanding that the US (and Canada) test all animals for BSE to re-enter their markets. BSE tests cost about US$30 per carcase. One processor has already agreed to provide it.

A few years ago, the Chairman of Cattle Council offered the EU the NLIS system to assure them beef from Australia was HGP free and the EU accepted. Despite a $100 to $150 per head premium for EU cattle, Australia has not filled its 7,000 ton quota (80% last year) for some years. Argentina, plagued with FMD and with no trace back system, now provides over 28,000 tons to Europe.

The cost of NLIS compliance exceeds the cash premium. We have priced ourselves out of the market.

Under the title of "IDEA" the EU began a one million head, four year trial of RFID similar to our NLIS in 1998. The only report we can obtain (the preliminary one) states that their readability of data is running at 82% for electronic tags, 86% for rumen bolus and 62% for injectible transponders. "However, recommendations of a reliable electronic identification system for animal identification must consider other factors such as the tamper proof nature of the system (possibility of identification change between animals) AND USE ON ANIMALS IN EXTENSIVE CONDITIONS, in addition to the retention and recovery efficiency of the electronic tags. Furthermore these conclusions are drawn from only a fraction of the data to be collected over the course of the IDEA project".

This is in the market that Cattle Council continually maintains requires our NLIS!!

No beef importing country, notably the US, Japan and Korea is requesting that Australia have individual ID.

Europe has a Government funded paper passport system which was designed to try and stop fraud in their highly subsidised market. Hundreds of government inspectors are involved. Government pays but it is destroying the UK beef producer. The EU’s million head RFID tag trial summary is above.

Quebec Province, The Canadian Government with encouragement from tag manufacturers has spent over $20 million to tag 1.2 million cattle. The situation is reported to be chaotic.

Canada (apart from Quebec province) has adopted bar code tags. Twenty five percent of tags disappeared from the database in two years and is now moving to RFID tags and a database. It is baulking at the practicality and cost of recording of stock movement. (A system similar to NLIS). The Canadians estimate it would cost about $40 per head to operate.

Victoria, Australia has had compulsory tagging on some classes of cattle for more than two years. Victorian bureaucrats, who run the system, report scanning at saleyards and abattoirs is working well. Independent visitors report a 20% reweighing of cattle pens in saleyards. Victoria is not following any movements from store sales or between properties, which makes the system a Claytons one, as was their first fiasco when they paid for tags for producers to apply but had no readers.

To date, there has not been an independent audit to verify the performance, integrity, or cost of the system. The true position in Victoria is unknown.

USA has no trace back system at all. Since the BSE case they are considering a system. USDA did a cost benefit analysis on individual ID for the pig industry and came up with a cost of $1billion/annum.

Botswana has three million cattle. Government fully funds the use of rumen bolus to try to stop illegal movement of cattle from disease-ridden Zimbabwe.

Japan has had no regulatory trace back system and is now testing each beast slaughtered for BSE. They are working with individual tag introduction in their intensive industry.

The NSW Draft Regulation and Regulatory Impact Statement are frightening in their inaccuracy and impracticality. There are NO BENEFITS for commercial producers.

NSW Agriculture claims benefits of $24.5 million for Enhanced Response, $27.0 million for Enhanced Export Market Access and $3.2 million for Retained access.

These categories are absurd. The US, Japan and Korea have not granted access to Canadian beef despite identification of the offending cow. To claim trace back facilitates access is commercial rubbish – as has been illustrated by our EU position.

The claims are further rendered meaningless in the context of the US BSE event. The US has traced back the BSE positive animal and located herd mates and progeny. Yet North Asia maintains its ban on North American beef. Japan and Korea are demanding the US and Canada test all cattle as a condition of access to their markets. North Asia has not been satisfied with successful trace back or the US undertaking to remove SRM from animals over 30 months of age. There is no reason to assume Japan and Korea would not ask the same of Australia. BSE tests cost about A$35 per head.

NSW Agriculture’s analysis on FMD and Blue Tongue acknowledges that while sheep, wild pigs are not tagged, cattle NLIS will have limited benefits to our customers.

The claimed saving of $3 million on reduced cost of transaction identifiers is not evident as the current NVD and tail tag system is being retained.

The claimed saving of $139,000, as NLIS replaces management tags is ridiculous, as management tags are still required in the paddock and in most producers’ yards because the RFID tags can’t be read by eye beyond a few metres.

The claimed saving of $844,000 in reduced stock theft underrates the intelligence of thieves. Cattle thieving is a highly organised crime. Cutting out and replacing tags is a simple operation.

The claimed savings of $1,354,000 for 'improved herd productivity' has no basis in fact. All additional handling and time delays reduce the weight gain and meat quality of cattle.

Victorian processors are now not required to provide HSCW (originally a core benefit promoted by NLIS advocates). NLIS will not provide or facilitate carcase feedback that is not available already, as processors are refusing to provide it unless it is paid for.

NSW Agriculture’s estimates of costs add up to only 7% of our estimates - based on a practical assessment and discussions with UK and Canadian officials.

NSW Agriculture document stated that it will cost $268,000 (presumably 2 officer equivalents) to police what will amount to be an estimated 14,000 NLIS transactions a day. Research into RFID systems in general commerce shows a minimum 3-5% error rate (520 errors/day) plus a minimal tag loss of 2% giving 800 errors per day.

On UK figures, at least 50 officer equivalents will be required to police NLIS in NSW.

Most Producers will not voluntarily buy readers nor will they pay to transport stock to saleyards or pay associated scanning charges. The recording of movements from property to property will require enforcement. (Victoria isn’t even trying).

Fifty officer equivalents will cost $7 million per year, at least. RLPB’s will not deliver this as unpaid extra work.

Agents in Victoria are charging buyers an average $2 per head to read tags at store sales to cover scanning and administrative costs. This is reasonable charging for additional labour and time but producers must also put a value on additional labour and time required by the scheme.

Forgone weight gains and actual weight losses (shrink) through additional handlings on farm, between farms and in saleyards (av. 3% - 12 kgs liveweight @ $1.70) $20.00

Government enforcement and administration- $1.40
Agent store sale reading charges- $2.00
Additional farm labour for tagging, recording surveillance- $4.00
Tag and tag replacement cost 1.5 x $4/tag- $6.00
Management tags for paddock and yard surveillance- $1.22
MLA database cost $2.5 million/pa: $0.16

Readers: estimate 20,000 needed @ $2,000 plus yard adaption
@ average of $1000 each -$60 million.
Depreciated over 5 years = $12 million:$2.50

                                  Cost   Benefit   Difference
NSW Agriculture       14.5      61        + 46.5
ABA                          186         0          - 186

We believe that there is no financial benefit to producers and a $186 million recurring annual cost. USDA individual ID pig cost benefit figures and Canadian estimates supports us.

This program could sink the Australian beef industry in its battle with cheap South American production and chicken. In the event of a disease or residue problem, it could leave the industry unable to cover the cost of testing, as is being demanded by Japan and Korea.

This is a commercial and political time bomb set to explode in NSW after 2005 when the proposed system is planned to start. It will also have major repercussions for government and bureaucrats.

Queensland has already moved their start back to a 2005 and their Implementation Committee Chairman has publicly stated that there will only be some use of individual ID in Queensland due to practicalities. This is commonsense but destroys the "national" part of NLIS.