Benefits and Cost Associated With An Animal
Identificaiton System for Cattle in the United States
Second in a series on a National Animal Identification System

By DeeVon Bailey, Ph. D. Department of Economics and Cooperative Extension Service Utah State University Logan, Utah dbailey@econ.usu.edu

Overview
The announcement on Dec. 23, 2003 that a dairy cow in the state of Washington had been diagnosed with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad-Cow Disease) was a watershed event for U.S. livestock markets. Although U.S. consumer demand for beef remained strong following this event, the U.S. beef industry and U.S. government recognized the need to move rapidly forward with plans to implement some type of traceability within U.S. livestock systems. Secretary Ann Veneman (USDA) announced in early January 2004 the USDA planned to begin implementing a “verifiable” animal identification (ID) system in the United States.
  There are different reasons for initiating an ID system capable of tracking cattle as they move through the food chain – some directly related to BSE and some indirectly related. The purpose of this fact sheet is to discuss some of the potential reasons for implementing an animal ID system in the United States and some of the possible benefits and costs associated with animal ID systems.

Evolution of Animal Identification Programs in the United States
  The National Identification Work Plan (NIWP) was the first official, public effort in the United States to examine the possible implementation of a U.S. animal ID system. The NIWP was developed by a task force formed in April 2002 consisting of over 30 livestock organizations and coordinated through the National Institute for Animal Agriculture. The U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA) accepted the NIWP in October 2002 and requested that USDA, APHIS develop a team consisting of representatives from federal and state governments and that the USAHA and industry develop an implementation plan for animal ID systems in the United States.
  The working plan for the implementation of the animal ID system as suggested by the NIWP was called the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). The USAIP was approved by the USAHA in October 2003, calling for the establishment of individual premises ID by the summer of 2004, individual animal identification by 2005 and full implementation and compliance (all covered species and their movements – both interstate and intrastate) by July of 2006. The USAIP also established a uniform and nationally recognized numbering system for individual animals and for groups or lots of animals. The stated goal of the USAIP is to facilitate traceback within 48 hours, where traceback is defined as the ability to trace an animal’s whereabouts from birth to the date the traceback was originated. The announcement in December 2003 regarding the Washington state BSE case has placed animal ID in a prominent position in the U.S. food policy debate. Since December 2003, the USAIP has evolved into what is now called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Most of the essential elements of the USAIP remain the same in the NAIS. Most importantly, the USAIP blueprint relating to standards for data and data flows within the animal ID system remain the same. This includes the numbering system developed by the USAIP.

Animal Disease Control and Eradication
  The ability to track animals for animal disease control and eradication was the principal reason for the development of the animal ID plans and programs in the U.S. The NIWP, USAIP and NAIS have focused on issues of animal health as an impetus for implementing animal ID. For example, all three plans indicate that, “Maintaining the health of the U.S. herd is the most urgent issue of the industry and animal health officials to address, and therefore, is the most significant focus of the National Identification Plan.”
  A national animal ID database would allow animal health officials to more easily trace the previous locations of infected animals, which would allow for the identification of other animals that may have come into contact with an infected animal. The need for such a system was illustrated following the December 23rd announcement of a U.S. BSE case. The “index” animal was part of a shipment of 74 animals that had been imported from Canada on Sept. 4, 2001. The USDA was also able to determine an additional eight animals from the same herd in Canada had entered the United States in different shipments. Although U.S. government officials rendered a huge effort to find all of the other animals associated with the index animal, over 50 of the animals were never located.
  Diseases other than BSE, including Brucellosis and Foot-and-Mouth Disease, may actually be of equal or even more concern. The ability to track animal movements and associations will provide a critical tool for animal health professionals in controlling and potentially eradicating these diseases.
  Because the emphasis of the NAIS and its predecessors has been on animal health, the implementation of the NAIS depends heavily upon the cooperation of state departments of agriculture and specifically state veterinarians. This is necessary because the NAIS specifies that individual states will be responsible for defining premises. State departments of agriculture will probably be involved in issuing identification numbers for premises and animals.
  A survey of state veterinarians conducted by Utah State University indicated strong support exists among the state veterinarians responding to the survey for implementing a national animal ID system. The same survey found state veterinarians responding to the survey supported animal ID principally as a means to control animal disease (including BSE) and for the purposes of bio- ecurity.

Food Safety and Bio-Security
  Traditional food safety systems were designed assuming the highest risk of food-borne illness from beef came from bacterial contaminations such as E. coli O157:H7 or listeria, not BSE. Because the greatest risk for bacterial contamination has typically been in the processing
and preparation of meat for human consumption, government food inspections have traditionally concentrated on identifying bacterial contamination in food processing plants and at the food preparation level such as in restaurants.
  BSE is a fundamentally different problem than bacterial contamination. Because BSE is believed to originate with contaminated feed produced from the by-products (spinal cord and brain material) of infected cattle, it is a problem originating at the farm level. The current U.S. system was not designed to routinely track individual or groups of animals once they leave their farm or ranch of birth. Cattle are typically commingled from different locations to facilitate grazing and feedlot fattening for slaughter.
  Due to the long incubation periods for BSE, symptoms of the disease typically do not express themselves until the animal is at least 30 months of age. At this age, the animal has likely changed ownership a number of times. For example, cattle usually have five to six different owners between the time of birth and slaughter. Once an animal with BSE has been identified, the ability to track the animal backward through the system becomes critical because companion animals may also be infected. Additionally, feed sources throughout the animal’s lifetime must be identified.
  Large food recalls occur frequently in the United States. Traceability systems, including animal ID, may help to make food recalls more efficient. This would continue to help ensure a safe food supply while limiting any potential damage to the image of beef as a general product or to specific brand names for beef products.
  There is a clear role for both the public and private sectors to ensure food safety, including unintentional contamination and intentional contamination (bio-terrorism). Animal identification and other traceability mechanisms may or may not act as a deterrent to bio-terrorism. Most importantly, traceability systems would allow food contaminations to be tracked to their source more quickly and easily than is now possible. This may be critical in stopping the spread of contaminated food products so as to limit the impact on human health and limit the economic damage resulting from such an event.
  The third part in this series will be published in the October 2005 issue.