While still many farmers do not like it, they need to accept that the NAIT is coming and will be imposed on farmers this year.
Our trading markets are insisting that all livestock eventually be involved in this scheme to give accountability to quality assurances on animal health.
Farmers need to use this imposition to look for ways individual identification can help with management and genetic choices.
The difference between sires is huge and the potential to recognise genetic merit earlier, and to increase production is an opportunity. They must use this technology to their own advantage.
Farmers need to accept a national animal identification scheme will be operating from later this year and start preparing, say those charged with its implementation reports The ODT. The chief executive of the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme (Nait), Russell Burnard, said the organisation was this year shifting from planning and talking about the scheme, to implementation.
Part of that growing acceptance by farmers was the belief Nait would enhance a response to a biosecurity breach. Mr Burnard said the Government had introduced the necessary legislation to Parliament and Nait and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry were in discussion with the Australian National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) about the Australians delivering a similar traceability system in New Zealand to that which has operated across the Tasman since 2005. NZ has an excellent opportunity to benefit from the lessons learned from the experiences of NLIS in Australia," Mr Burnard said.
Agreement has been reached so Nait-approved radio frequency identification (RFID) tags will eventually replace existing primary tags used now in livestock. During the year, further testing of the system will take place, through meat works and other centres through which animals will pass.
Nait has warned the costs of doing nothing were huge, citing a European Union ban of Brazilian beef imports in February 2008 due to deficiencies in Brazil's tracing systems. Within weeks, the cost of the export ban on Brazil was $NZ430 million.
9 Comments
Janette, it is not just a lie but one of those big lies that if repeated often enough becomes accepted.
Some background: The genesis of this current scheme goes back to at least 2002 when MAF produced a paper setting out proposals for a national animal indentification scheme. The reasons stated were much the same as today but then it was clearer that the main justification was response to a foot and mouth outbreak.
MAF has remained on the 2002 theme ever since – initially calling submissions and forming working parties but increasingly moving the process internally and away from public scrutiny. At one point the system was designed and I believe being delivered.
But now, nine years from 2002, we are going to borrow from a working but far from ideal Autralian system. Our trading markets are supposedly insisting all livestock belong to this scheme – nothing else is acceptable. MAFs prior scheme, and their one prior to that wouldn't have been acceptable?
I recall attending a presentation at Waikato University in 2004 organised by a government department (MFAT/MED?) where an Italian engineering professor was offering NZ an animal traceabilty system that he had developed, was already working and which met EU compliance needs. He was effectively laughed out of the meeting – what could an Italian engineering professor possibly offer to NZ agriculture?
The system the Italian engineering professor had developed was commercially motivated (i.e. driven by farmers), compliant with EU traceability requirements and worked with both RF ID and standard animal identifiers. It was already in operation. It had been developed at no cost to government or farmers – funding had been provided by companies wishing to ensure integration of peripheral equipment such as scales.
The misplaced arrogance of NZ agriculture and bureaucracy! Seven years and millions (hundreds of millions?) of dollars later NZ is now expecting to buy/borrow an Australian compliance driven system, and no-one appears to be being held accountable for the waste in between.
While I am a fan of traceability systems from my time researching the subject, one conclusion was that the drivers behind such systems are important. Traceability systems developed for commercial purposes generally provide high benefits – sometimes spectacular - and will nearly always satisfy all requirements for compliance with traceability. Traceability systems developed for compliance purposes (designed by bureaucrats for bureacrats) have high costs and few benefits beyond compliance – in fact they likely have negative effects by crowding out many of the other benefits of traceability.
Why is the statement “Our trading markets are insisting that all livestock eventually be involved in this scheme to give accountability to quality assurances on animal health.” a lie?
1.Any number of systems are capable of meeting the requirements of trading partners and such system(s):
a) Don't need to be a single centrally controlled systems
b) Don't need to be driven by bureaucrats and compliance, and would provide much greater benefits if driven by commercial entities than bureaucrats
c) In part already exist
2.The system we are getting is a poor choice, has the wrong drivers, but fits MAF's other agendas.
3.This system or any other do not of themselves guarantee accountability to quality assurances on animal health.
There are issues other then big lie - the system we are getting is built dependent on a technology that may have been superceded in 15 years time.
The effectiveness of the LIC herd ID was shown in the September snow storm in Southland. A dairy farmer 'lost' one of his cows and it was presumed to have gone in to a drain though it couldn't be located in the drain on the farm. Some 4months later the owner of hte animal receives a bill of $500 from Environment Southland for removal of said cow from the drain. It had been found dead in the drain some kms away. How did they trace the owner? Through the unique herd ID tag in it's ear.
Dairy farmers already have an ID system in place - why do we need another one? Belle is right in her post of 25 Jan 8.16pm
Tony,
Nobody has disagreed with the use of animal IDs, but neither has anyone supported your unquestioning acceptance of the NAIT system. Doesn't that make it time for you to ask some hard questions? Perhaps also of the Minister and Director General of Agriculture.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.