Background on permanent identification in S. American Camelids and Camels - Feb. 6, 2006.

At the request of USDA/APHIS in the fall of 2003, camelid owners who are also members of the US Animal Health Association asked to form a Camelid ID Working Group (CWG) to address permanent identification of camelids in the US. Teri Nilson Baird and Dr. Julie Ann Jarvinen were selected as working group co-chairs. Following an organizational teleconference, a group of 24 llama and alpaca owners representing various segments of the camelid community drafted a Status Report for USDA in September of 2004.

USDA has asked the CWG to recommend ONE SINGLE method of permanent identification and ONE location on the camelid's body for the ID method selected. In response to this USDA request, the Camelid ID Working Group will be conducting a short online survey from (Feb 6 through March 6, 2006) to determine the wishes of camelid owners regarding permanent ID. This document contains a brief background about the NAIS and outlines the 3 methods of permanent ID that have been successfully used in camelids with a short review of the pros and cons of each method. It also provides a brief update on the movement tracking database. Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with this information before you take the survey. This background article can also be found on the Camelidid.org web site: www.camelidid.org/background.html

What is the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)?
A national system to identify animals and track them as they come into contact with, or commingle with, animals other than herdmates from their premises of origin.

The goal of the NAIS is the ability to identify all premises and animals having direct contact with a foreign animal or domestic disease of concern within 48 hours of discovery.

NAIS data will be accessed ONLY when needed for traceback/trace forward purposes. Confidentiality legislation is still pending at the federal level; some states have implemented such legislation already, keeping NAIS data out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests.

ID is permanent – it cannot be changed or tampered with by law. Violation of this law is a federal felony. Replacement of lost ID will be permitted, but a new AIN will have to be assigned and linked to the former AIN.

Benefits of Permanent ID:
* Facilitate tracing in event of a disease outbreak:
   —Quarantine to prevent disease spread
   —Halt animal movement to protect unexposed animals
* Assure a healthy exhibition environment
* Return animals in event of theft, escape or natural disaster
* Facilitate import/export
* Assure the identity of animals purchased sight-unseen
* Facilitate interstate movement
* Help show associations track points to the right animal; reduce data entry errors
* Uphold camelid owners as responsible members of the national livestock community

When Will a Camelid Need Permanent ID?
* When a camelid leaves its premises of origin
* When attending an event where commingling takes place
* When being intermixed with animals other than herdmates from its home premises
* If animal never leaves home, it does NOT need ID
* Permanent ID is not yet mandatory by USDA for camelids, but a camelid plan needs to be in place.
* Individual states may require ID before USDA mandates it

Possible Methods of Permanent ID:
The following methods have been or are being used to identify camelids (in alphabetical order):

a. Implanted Microchip
b. RFID or Conventional Ear Tags
c. Tattoos

Conventional ear tags are bangle or clip style which are inserted through the ear using a special tool. RFID means a 2-part system: the device itself which is "passive", has no batteries, but contains a microchip which contains the identification number, and the scanner or reader which generates an electrical impulse that activates the chip, causing the chip to broadcast its number back to the scanner, which then displays the number. Microchips are an example of RFID; ear tags authorized for use by the USDA will now also contain a microchip as well as having the ID number printed on the tag itself.

Review of each method of ID:

Implanted Microchips – Pro:
* Unobtrusive – microchips are not a visual form of ID
* Tampering very difficult
* May be able to read without close confinement - Animals that are handled often or travel frequently will likely become accustomed to being scanned; may not need to be put in a restraint chute for scanning.
* More permanent than an ear tag
* New chips have a special coating to reduce migration and enhance tissue growth within days
* Some chips offer "extras" – for example, a biothermal readout
* Recognized by ARI and ILR
* Internationally accepted form of ID
* Already in widespread use in camelids

Implanted Microchips – Con:
* May need reader specific to the chip being used - at least initially, owners may have to provide scanners specific to encrypted or non-standard frequency chips. their brand/type of microchip. If using an encrypted chip, then that specific reader may be necessary. Check with the maker of the chip you are using for more details on reader options.
* State regulations may require a veterinarian to do the implant - added expense. (Check with your state animal health agency or veterinary medical association to determine if chip implantation is considered a veterinary procedure in your state.)
* Costlier device than ear tags
* Can be lost if not implanted properly; can be damaged after insertion (animals fighting, blunt trauma)
* Post-implant procedure is more time-consuming than an ear tagging procedure (it is recommended that the chip be scanned after implant to be sure it is there; scan again daily for 7 days until connective tissue forms).

RFID or Conventional Ear Tags – Pro:
* Easy visual ID - can spot at a distance without catching the animal if using conventional tags.
* Less expensive than implanted microchips
* Easy to tell if ID has been lost
* Owners may feel more confident applying an ear tag than inserting a microchip.
* Helpful for farm employees/farm sitters
* Management tool in large herds - Allow farm help to differentiate among animals; help avoid errors in medications, special diets or breeding. Note that ear clips/tags may still be used as on-farm ID, then a microchip can be implanted when the animal is sold or moves off the farm of origin for any reason.

RFID Ear Tags – Con:
* Aesthetics – tags are ugly; buyers don’t like them
* Camelid ears are sensitive
* Disfigurement of the ear – possible infection/tearing
* Tags can be torn out of the ear, hence a chance of infection; animal *can* lose an ear (frostbite).
* Are not permanent – can be lost due to fighting, in brushy pastures, fencing, etc.
* Could be tampered with - Removal of an ear tag is much easier than removing a microchip.
* Number wears off over time becoming unreadable
* Can identify an animal to the judge in the show ring - Ear tags would need to be removed or covered before animal could enter the show ring, however removal would be illegal IF the ear tag is the animal’s AIN.
* Reader specific to the chip used in the tag would be necessary.

Lip or Ear Tattoos – Pro:
* Permanent ID (unless the ear is removed)
* Less expensive than chips or ear tags
* Accepted by both ARI and ILR

Lip or Ear Tattoos - Con:
* Very difficult to apply
* Animal welfare considerations
* Difficult to read over time – numbers are obscured as the animal grows
* Difficult to find readable place to tattoo due to skin pigment and fiber growth

Movement Tracking Database:
While most aspects of the National Animal Identification System remain as originally planned, a significant change in how the NAIS will track animal movement was announced by Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns on August 30, 2005, and by Dr. John Clifford on January 25, 2006, when USDA revealed their plan to turn the NAIS movement tracking database over to a private entity/entities rather than having the federal government administer and fund this database.

USDA only needs to track four data elements in the movement database:
* the date on which animal movement took place,
* the premises ID of the site where the animal arrived,
* the animal's ID number and
* the appropriate "event code"for the situation or place where the animal was sighted.

Many small and mid-sized cattle operations, however, also want to utilize the NAIS movement tracking database to trace herd management information, but they do not want to share their management data with the government. When a bill exempting any information collected for the NAIS from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) stalled in the House of Representatives, cattle industry leaders pressured the Secretary of Agriculture to privatize the movement tracking database. In turn, non-cattle species groups and the Livestock Marketing Association have voiced strong opposition to Secretary Johanns' decision to privatize the database, arguing the decision has made the NAIS into an unfunded federal mandate that would place the total cost of the NAIS on producers.

USDA has proposed that it have a "portal" leading to multiple movement tracking databases administered and funded either by species groups, e.g., breed registries or associations, or by commercial database providers. Individual states with existing laws that prohibit movement tracking data from being held privately could also apply to the USDA to track movement for livestock in their jurisdiction. The USDA portal would be used by animal health officials to access a movement database only when necessary. Any state or private database tracking animal movement must be able to meet USDA’s requirement that animal movements be traceable within 48 hours of discovery of a "disease of concern." Certain state animal health officials and species group representatives have concerns regarding the timeliness, integrity and confidentiality of movement data held by the private sector and the potential costs to producers for reporting movements to a private database. They prefer the original plan in which USDA would administer and fund this NAIS function. The cost to producers for reporting movements to a private tracking database are unknown at present.

In Conclusion
The recommendations from the coming survey will be used by the Camelid ID Working Group as the WG works to draft a final plan for permanent ID in our animals. The camelid community will have ample opportunity to comment on a draft plan; anticipated timeline for a draft is after mid-2006.