NAIS: An Update on the Political History, Thinking and Controversies - March 11, 2006

by Teri Baird

Many camelid owners are just now starting to become aware of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a plan which has been in the works for several years. (See LLII No. 75, Autumn 2005, Alert; LLII No. 74, Summer 2005, USDA to Issue Animal ID Numbers; LLII No. 70, Summer 2004, Industry Group Tackles Camelid ID Plan, report by Sheila Fugina and Julie Ann Jarvinen for the Camelid Working Group.) The initial idea for the plan came about as a result of the 2001 United Kingdom foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, and concentrated on what the United States could do to avoid a repeat of that horrendous spring in the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak here.

For those who missed the event, a quick re-cap: Swine sent for slaughter were suspected of infection with FMD. FMD is an A-list, reportable, highly contagious disease. In many countries, vaccination is used be-cause the disease is endemic to their regions. It is not endemic to Western Europe or the North American continent, therefore we do not vaccinate against it. Typically, slaughter to kill the disease has been the method of control for FMD. It is politically unpopular now to follow that course of action and therefore animal health officials would like to find another way to deal with it should it occur here.

When swine were positively diagnosed with FMD, the outbreak was in full swing. There were few records of animal movement around the UK and it turned out there was very little control. Trucks carrying animals exposed to the infection went freely throughout the countryside for days before an order was issued to quarantine farms. Many thousands of animals were killed, usually in front of other animals and owners, to try and keep the disease from spreading. Carcasses were burned and the countryside was effectively out of business for months.

The USDA and state animal health officials began to meet to come up with a plan to deal with a highly contagious foreign animal disease. The lack of movement tracking in the UK was a starting point for the group as something that could be prevented by implementation of a tracking system.

Over the past four years, that system has taken some twists and turns, but is now called the NAIS. The NAIS is comprised of three components, all of which are necessary for the system to work: premises identification, individual animal identification and animal movement tracking.

What Constitutes "Premises?"

Premises Identification. In order to track animal movement, you need to know where the animals are. Each farm or premises raising or keeping livestock or poultry must be identified to state officials. Additionally, each auction house, feedlot, slaughter facility, or packing plant must be identified because animals pass through them. Fairgrounds, with the large number of livestock moving through, are also identified as premises.

Several states are making mandatory the identification of all premises where animals are kept. Wisconsin has been at the forefront of this effort and many states are looking at that plan to see how it might be implemented locally for their state.

Which Animals Must be Identified?

Individual Animal Identification. This part of the plan tries to identify which animals move from place to place. Without proper and non-removable identification, it is impossible to know with certainty which animal is moving to each location. The Camelid ID Working Group (CWG) was given the task of finding out from the industry what the preferred method of identification was and what was recommended. On the old web site for the NAIS, then called the U.S. Animal Identification Plan, a comments section was added for all owners to file comments and have those comments transmitted to the applicable chair of the species working group involved.

The only animals needing permanent identification are the animals whose move-ment is subject to tracking. Those animals are defined as those who co-mingle with other animals. For instance, it is a disease risk for llamas or alpacas to share a common dung pile, but we do it at every show. It would be better biosecurity if we did not, but this has been a long-accepted industry practice and owners like to encourage animals to use the pile before entering the show ring. In the camelid industry, the shows are expected to be our primary movement events. Food animals are quite a different story as they are by far the vast majority of animals who move from premises to premises; however, their movement patterns are linear (one way), whereas ours tend to be circular (they return home).

Who Gets to Say How the Animals will be Tracked?

Animal Movement Tracking. This has become the most controversial part of the identification plan. In large part, the cattle industry has had a lot of input because their animals are the largest species group to be tracked. It is important, from a food safety and animal disease perspective, to be able to know when a particular animal moved to a specific feedlot or grass pasture, and what other animals were at each of those premises. Remember how long it took to track the BSE-positive ("mad cow disease") cow from Washington State? Other cows from the same herd have not all been found, although most were eventually able to be tracked.

The original idea of the plan was that all the information would never be housed together; it wasn't to be Big Brother. The states would keep the premises information, animal identification managers (private) would keep the individual identification records, and the federal government would record individual numbers and how and when the numbers moved. This would keep the government from having too much information subject to a freedom of information request. (Some industries very carefully guard certain information about numbers of animals owned or sold, and prices. The camelid industry, thankfully, is not so large that we have to worry about those sorts of issues.) The plan was that if there was a disease outbreak reported to the state or federal government, the USDA could query the different databases and put together the information they needed, but not information they didn't need. The USDA would query the tracking database for movement which could have been affected, report those ID numbers to the animal ID managers, and the managers would then go to the states to identify premises which could have been exposed.

It started out as a fairly simple plan. It became a bit more complicated once the political waters were navigated. There are legitimate differences of opinion on methods of identification as well as on tracking. This is not limited to the camelid industry but crosses all industries.

The CWG heard, loud and clear, from the camelid industry that microchips were the preferred method of identification. There are those who do not want to microchip animals, for a variety of reasons ranging from the cost (about $10 for a microchip vs. a $5 radio-frequency ear tag) to not wanting to inflict pain on the animals.

Doing nothing, in this case, is not an option. When animal health concerns are raised, we don't get to write the rules. The CWG has attempted at every turn to point out the differences between a show llama and a cow bound for the dinner plate. A cow traditionally moves a maximum of four times in its life. A llama could move four times in two weeks in the busiest part of the show season. We believe we have started a good educational dialogue with the people we need to reach, but there is still more work to be done.

The Inevitability of Permanent IDs on Lamas

Will we be mandated to identify our animals? That is certainly the direction in which the USDA is moving. As always, things can change, but it is a good idea to plan for the eventuality and if it takes longer for them to get to us, then at least we will have a plan in place.

Will you have to microchip every animal? No. Only animals going to shows or sales will need to be identified. Private sales are expected to be included as well. If you have animals who never leave your farm, it is up to you to decide if you want to identify them. Most camelid owners do not have difficulty distinguishing between two similar animals, but in some cases you may wish to ID all of them; it depends on your situation and your perception of risk. If they are identified, you can prove that they haven't been out and about during an outbreak because they will not have been subject to the tracking that will probably eventually be mandated.

The current microchip frequencies are not compatible with the numbering system envisioned by the plan. The plan calls for a 15-digit number beginning with the country code 840, which identifies an animal born in the United States. These chips are a frequency of 134.2 kHz as opposed to the Destron/Avid chips at 125 kHz. Currently, the readers for the 125 chips will not read the 134.2 chips. We must ensure the reader base is robust prior to a migration to the higher frequency. New readers are under development and hopefully will not be far in the future.

Owners needing to microchip for state regulations (Missouri and Montana, Wisconsin to follow at some point) or show circuit regulations, should use the 125 chips until the new ones become available, which may be sometime in 2006. It is expected that the older chips will be grandfathered in for the life of the animal, and we will not have to re-insert a new microchip.

At the present time, the USDA has indicated that they will make the tracking database private and administered by the National Cattleman's Beef Association, NCBA. This decision is not even popular with much of the cattle industry as it is a big concentration of power. In this case, the information is the power. NCBA does not appear to have a realistic idea of the amount of work this will be for them, nor how expensive it will be to track companion animals such as llamas or horses.

There is a bill pending in Congress to set up a private organization with this power, and it would track movement of the major species groups. Interestingly, this bill would keep the plan from becoming mandatory for minor species. It would remain voluntary.

It is important to point out that this bill was introduced months ago and has not yet moved at all, so it may go nowhere. But the internecine warfare among industry groups over this will go on for some time, so it is important to stay aware of developments. Check the CWG's web site frequently for updates. It can be found at www.camelidid.org and will give you information as well as allow you to contact the principals in the working group.

Still Time for Input

Finally, no matter where this goes or when things start to happen, the CWG needs your help. We welcome your suggestions and concerns. We do meet fairly regularly with animal health officials, both state and federal. Please know that we are working for the overall good of our animals and our industry. All of us welcome your input and ideas.

-Teri Nilson Baird has owned llamas since 1997. She is a member of the U.S. Animal Health Association and serves on three com-mittees: Livestock Identification, Animal Welfare, and Infectious Diseases of Cattle, Bison, and Camelids. She is co-chair of the Camelid ID Working Group for the NAIS and is active in both the Camelid Alliance and ALSA. She also currently serves as secretary on the board of the Rocky Mountain Llama and Alpaca Association.

Originally published in Llama Life II, Issue No. 76, Winter 2005-06 under the title: “How the Government is Preparing to Keep an Eye on Your Lamas”.