animalagriculture.org
|
animalagriculture.org |
|
| | HOME | NEWS | MEMBERSHIP | ABOUT NIAA | ISSUES | PUBLICATIONS | MEETINGS & EVENTS | EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES |
|
|
Equine
ID Subcommittee Report |
Number of Attendees:
47
Presentations*
Welcome / Intro / Committee Background
J Amelita Facchiano (Chair) & Billy Smith (Co-Chair)
NAIS Equine Species Working Group Committee Report
Amy Mann
John
Wade, DVM
Niels
Fogt, Digital Angel
The Crystal Import Corporation
Monica
Emmenegger, Director
DNA: Whatman, Inc.
Daniel Klis, Animal ID Specialist
Florida Equine Passport Program
Gregory
S Christy, DVM
Colorado Equine ID program
Carl
C Heckendorf, DVM
Open Panel of presenters for Q/A
Participation by all presenters
* All presentations are
submitted via CD.
Questions from the floor to
the open panel of presenters:
What is the cost and read
range of the Crystal Tag product?
Cost depends on product type and volume.
See presentation materials.
Why 134 vs. 125?
In the initial stages of product intro into the US, 125 was pioneered and
certain markets were started. This
has undergone an evolution to the more universally accepted 134.
What is the official ISO animal ID standard?
It is only 11784/85 and no other.
Will CO smart cards co-ordinate w/US & Canada?
It is anticipated but not yet determined,
Is the smart card another
money maker for vets?
No
Possibly between $5 and $30 – to be determined.
35 town-hall meetings have been held and vets have been in attendance.
Plans will include presentations to the VMA as well.
If one reader does not read then try another or establish support of ISO.
The needs to be determined thru the ESWG and establish standards.
Comment of support from MS state vet:
We elected to follow LA in that vets would do the procedure.
Why does FL have 2 different cards in their equine program?
One is for EIA and the other for extended 6 month travel.
3rd party info collection and the FOIA issue – has CO undergone a
legal review?
Yes
Statements of support from Heckendorf:
We are getting tied up in confidentiality and other privacy issues when
we need to move forward and learn form our mistakes.
Let it be stated for the record that CO will only use ISO complaint to
NAIS 134 RFID.
Who’s going to do the implanting?
If producers do so they then they will also need to take the
responsibility (especially if an abscess occurs).
This is
why the practitioner doing implanting provide credibility where movement is
concerned.
What method of ID is the EU using for horses?
ISO 11784/85
Statement from the floor:
The US horse industry needs to support ISO.
How are microchips distributed in the EU?
In the Netherlands and other countries, sales are direct to the horse
owners thru breed registries.
What about defective tags in horses?
If there is confusion or inability to read, it may be broken so you would
implant another.
What if the smart card is lost?
It can be replaced for a fee.
What about backyard owners?
They will be required to comply with CO rules if they travel beyond
stated areas.
In the EU, what is the type or size chip used?
12mm
DNA – how do we know the hair is from the tight
horse?
That’s what the industry has been doing as it is non invasive.
As presented, other samples may be more effective and easily obtained.
What is the cost of DNA?
Genotyping runs between $50 and $75.
One of the FTA cards in bulk; about $1.25.
It seems like DNA and the smart card are a
great combination for the industry to consider – why not?
Its not real time.
How long does it take it get DNA info?
Between 24 – 48 hours.
Comments from the floor:
In last years CO fire situation, horses skater and owners want them back.
It seems we need something more readily readable.
In MS, huge numbers of owner were against animal ID until you spend some
one-on-one time with them and then they understand.
It’s a tough decision but we need to make a stand and move forward.
RFID myth – its not GIS
compatible.
Slaughter issue and use of
scanners –
Not routinely done but may be upon request from investigators or brand
inspectors. The industry should not sell RFID based on the misconception
that scanning is routinely done.
WI Prem ID – why regulate
when they don’t move?
This has more to do with a
state specific regulation.
Ranch horse and movement
issue:
The ESWG is working on this topic and has thus far outlined reference
points for what horses will be required to be ID’ed; those that will need a
health certificate or EIA or those at greater disease risk.
Business Meeting
The business session discussion was around
topics where the industry needs to focus direction which includes:
Standards
What type methods of ID we recommend
Movement
Application – how will the recommended method(s) of ID be applied by
veterinarians, producers, owners and/or others in the industry?
As a first step, the subcommittee submits
the following recommendation for consideration:
Background
The equine industry has
historically used varied methods of identification for a variety of reasons;
while adequate for their purposes, not all current identification methods
provide a unique method of permanent identification of the horse. By
establishing a uniformly accepted method of identification, like RFID
technology, these conditions are met:
Resolution
The National Institute for
Animal Agriculture Equine Identification Subcommittee has determined that the
use of ISO/ANSI compatible RFID chips (11784/85, 134 kHz) should be the required
form of equine identification to comply with the United States National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) for the purpose of disease trace back.
This resolution should be forwarded to the NAIS Equine Species Working
Group through the American Horse Council with a request for response within six
months of the adoption of this resolution. Additionally, this resolution should
be forwarded to the NAIS subcommittee.
The committee appreciates all
the presenters for their contributions and extends special thanks to the Horse
magazine for sending a staff writer to cover the equine issues during the
conference
Respectfully Submitted by:
J Amelita Facchiano, Chair
Billy Smith, Co-Chair