Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - A Glance Back - Lessons Learned That May Support Future Traceability Decisions

Neil Hammerschmidt
A Glance Back – lessons learned that may support
future traceability decisions

PIN
NAIS
NIWP
840 AIN
ADT
ATD
AHER
USAIP
AIMS
NUES
LID
LF RFID
NIDT
ATPS
We’ve covered a lot
of ground!
SPRS
CPRS
Group/Lot ID
EID
UHF
NPN
TPM
eICVI
OSS

3NIAA –Traceability & the Real World Interactive Workshop
National ID / Traceability Initiatives
Multiple efforts
Producers support need for traceability
• Most recognize void in traceability as disease programs wind down
Traceability objectives have been consistent
• More timely & more complete

Concerns have been relatively consistent
• Cost
• Confidentiality
• Liability
• Speed of
commerce

Differences of opinions:
• To what degree
• How to get there

April 2002:

April 2002: Food Animal Identification Task Force
• Organized by NIAA
• 30 participating organizations
• Prepared “National Identification Work Plan”
July 2002: Draft presented at NIAA’s ID Info/Expo
October 2002: Work plan presented at USAHA
• Request for USDA to use workplan as a guide to
establish a national program
• Accepted through a unanimous resolution

Spring 2003:
• State, Federal, and industry group established to
advance work plan
• USDA organized/supported
• 11 member subcommittee of Secretary’s Advisory
Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases
• 100 individuals / 70 organizations

National Identification
Development Team
• 5 subgroups:
Communications,
Governance, Information
Technology, Standards and
Transition
• Species groups:
Cattle, bison, swine, sheep,
goats, cervids, equine,
poultry, aquaculture,
camelids, ratites

United States Animal
Identification Plan
(USAIP)
“A Work In Progress”
Version 4.1
December 23, 2003
Developed by:
National Identification Development Team
“A cooperative effort of industry and government”
ww.usaip.info

United States Animal
Identification Plan
(USAIP)
Goal: To achieve a traceback
system that can identify all
animals and premises
potentially exposed to an
animal with a Foreign
Animal Disease (FAD) within
48 hours after discovery.
“A Work In Progress”
Version 4.1
December 23, 2003
Developed by:
National Identification Development Team
“A cooperative effort of industry and government”
ww.usaip.info

USAIP
Standards: data standards (animal ID #’s,
group/lot ID, premises ID, event codes, etc.) ID
devices
Phase-in approach
• Premises
• Official ID
• Movement tracking

USAIP
All livestock ID’d (cattle - EID left ear)
ID triggers:
• Change of ownership
• Commingling
• Interstate movement
Animal Movements
• Single reporting: “in-movements”

December 25, 2003: USDA confirms 1st
BSE case
December 30, 2003: Secretary of
Agriculture announced:
• USDA would expedite the implementation of a
national identification program.
Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE)

 April 27, 2004: Secretary
Veneman announced
implementation of the
National Animal
Identification System
(“NAIS”)
 Ultimate goal of NAIS was to
be able to trace all livestock
and poultry within 48 hours
of a certain event such as a
disease outbreak.
National Animal
Identification System
(NAIS)
A State-Federal-Industry Cooperative Effort
DRAFT
Strategic Plan
2005 to 2009
April 25, 2005
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service

NAIS
• Adapted USAIP standards and most processes
• Revision on ID Devices --- Technology Neutral
– While acknowledging the “technology-neutral” position of USDA,
the Subcommittee recommends that technology standards be
established by industry through species working groups.
• The technology standards must:
– Support the 48-hour traceback goal
– Be cost effective for each species
– Automate the collection of animal identification and movement
data in a way that does not impede the flow of livestock through
marketing channels.

NAIS
• Timelines for phase-in

NAIS – Animal Tracking Databases (ATD)
• Private or State
databases will house and
maintain information
regarding animal
movements.
• Federal and State animal
health officials will
request access to this
information only if a
disease event occurs

NAIS – Animal Tracking Databases (ATD)
• Access enabled through the Animal Trace
Processing System (ATPS)
– Foreign animal disease
– Disease emergency
– Program disease
– Surveillance
ATPSAnimal
Health
Officials
ATD
ATD
ATD
ATD
ATD
Animal Health Officials
AHER

NAIS
• Many “twist & turns” – hard to follow
– Mandatory ID after voluntary period
– Changed to permanently voluntary
• Legitimate concerns
• Misinformation
– Premises ID – relinquishes
property rights
– Microchip all chickens
• NAIS not well received in
some sectors of the livestock
industry and general public
• 2009: Listening sessions

Animal Disease Traceability (ADT)
February 2010: Secretary Vilsack announced that
USDA was ending the NAIS program.
New approach referred to as the ADT framework.
Key principles of the 2010 framework include:
• Interstate animal movement
• Administration by the States and Tribal Nations to
increase flexibility
• Encouraging the use of lower cost technology
• Transparency through the full Federal rulemaking process

ADT
• August, 2012: USDA published proposed rule
• January, 2013: Final rule published
• March, 2013: Rule became effective
Have ICVI or other documentation
Livestock moved interstate, unless exempt, must:
Be officially identified

ADT
• Traceability Performance Measures (TPM)
– Timely retrieval of complete & accurate information

ADT
 ADT Assessment Report
• Framework objectives
successfully achieved
• Issues/gaps;
– Many animals not covered
– Lack of ID to birth premises
– EID necessary
– Collection/termination of ID
at slaughter

NIWP USAIP  NAIS  ADT 
Significant adjustments along the way:
 All livestock  interstate movements only
 ID at birth premises  point of tagging
 EID left ear (cattle)  technology neutral  low cost
 Central “national” database  distributed databases
 Single PIN option  PIN
or LID
 Single individual animal
numbering system 
multiple animal numbers

Lessons learned – ongoing challenges
 All encompassing/ideal solution may not be practical
• Too big too fast can be a “game loser”
• Industry too vast for a
“one size fits all” solution
 Accommodating every
concern/preference likely
to create traceability gaps
 Flexibility increases
confusions – yet options
are necessary

Lessons learned – ongoing challenges
 Extensive livestock movements across USA necessitates
standardization among States
 Minimize data collected – what’s essential for traceability
 Utilize existing records, i.e., ICVI
 Direct tag shipments
from mfr. provides
effective and efficient
records
 eICVI only part of the
electronic equation

Looking ahead!
Advance traceability
• Continue to build on ADT framework
• Fix current traceability gaps
• Address major concerns
• Speed of commerce
– Objective measurable performance standards

Information/tools/resources

ADT Assessment

ADT Assessment
Feedback 2017 public
meetings

ADT Assessment
meetings
“14-point” proposal report
Animal Disease Traceability - USDA APHIS
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/

ADT Assessment
meetings
NCBA Feasibility Study

ADT Assessment
meetings
NCBA Feasibility Study!
Cattle Traceability Working Group… ACTION!

Everyone needs to get on the
bus…

Everyone needs to get on the
bus……but, industry must drive the bus!

Neil Hammerschmidt
ThankYou!
Retired Grandpa Hammer

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - A Glance Back - Lessons Learned That May Support Future Traceability Decisions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - A Glance Back - Lessons Learned That May Support Future Traceability Decisions

Similar to Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - A Glance Back - Lessons Learned That May Support Future Traceability Decisions (20)

More from John Blue

More from John Blue (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - A Glance Back - Lessons Learned That May Support Future Traceability Decisions

Editor's Notes