|
Old McDonald had a farm, and on that farm, he had . . . a computer
tracking system?
While some large farms may already be using personal
computers for herd management purposes, a federal plan to implement
a mandatory tracking system by 2009 to help limit outbreaks of contagious
livestock diseases could make it necessary for farms of all sizes
to become more technologically advanced.
Our School of Agriculture plans to be ready to
help small local farmers make that transition when the time comes.
Already, the ears of TTU’s cattle are being
tagged with individually numbered electronic identifications that
can be scanned in the field with a wand that uses wireless Bluetooth
technology to transmit specific information about each animal to
a personal computer, where that information can be read and updated.
“Right now, many farmers don’t individually
identify their livestock at all,” says Bruce Greene, associate
professor of agriculture at TTU.
Tennessee alone, however, has a cattle population
of about 2 million, and those cattle move in and out of the state
rapidly, to and from various locations across the country.
“Because a calf can move through as many
as six or seven different locations before it goes to slaughter,
it makes sense — for a number of reasons — to have a
federal tracking system in place,” Greene says.
“Anywhere along the way, an animal can be
exposed to a contagious disease like foot and mouth, which is little
harm to people but which can decimate an industry,” he continues.
“Being able to trace an individual animal’s movements
would help to significantly limit the effects of such a contagion.”
An even greater advantage than health implications
of such a system could be simply an increase in consumer confidence,
both nationally and internationally, Greene said.
For instance, out of approximately 700,000 head
of high risk cattle tested in the United States since the implementation
of the present testing program in 2003, only three animals have
tested positive for mad cow disease, which affects the central nervous
system and can be deadly to both animals and people who eat infected
meat.
“That’s a very low percentage, and
they’ve all been older animals who likely wouldn’t have
made their way into our food chain, anyway,” Greene explains.
“About 80 percent of our beef comes from cattle younger than
3 years old.”
The fear of mad cow disease, though, is disproportionate
to the threat. Since 2002, for example, the percentage of U.S. beef
exported to Japan, which was then our main international beef consumer,
has decreased drastically from 34 percent to only 3 percent in 2005.
The percentage exported to South Korea, our third
main international beef consumer in 2002, fell from 27 percent that
year to only .2 percent in 2005.
“Within that same timeframe, our total beef
exports have decreased from 2,238 million pounds to only 580 million
pounds — about a quarter of what it was only a few years ago,”
Greene says.
Other advantages of a federal livestock tracking
system include possible early detection of bio-terrorism and an
immediate outlet for farmers to enter and retrieve individual animal
records.
A number of tracking options are being considered,
including an internal tracking chip or tracking tags such as the
ones used on TTU’s cattle.
“For livestock like poultry and hogs that
are more likely to be bought and sold in groups, a group identification
number is likely to be the best option,” Greene says.
Farmers who are already accustomed to tagging
their cattle’s ears for sales, though, might better respond
to the kind of system already being used at TTU. “Why not
combine a national tracking system with a management program to
help the producer?” Greene suggests.
Regardless of how the tracking system is implemented,
however, it will assign a 15-digit number to each animal. That number
will be made up of 3-digit sections that identify the animal in
descending order from least specific information, such as country
and state of origin, to most specific information, such as the exact
farm from which it originated.
|