abou27.com

[72uoba]

I don’t think that anyone can argue that electronic tagging of sheep is fundamentally a good idea. In these times when people are ever more willing to descend into hysteria at the mere mention of any disease, whether it can cause any harm to them or not, full traceability of any animal moving around the country seems like an eminently sensible proposition. However, it is somewhat perplexing that those animals intended for slaughter within 12 months do not require one. The vast majority of farmers are extremely vigilant and take the health of their flocks very seriously and thus should have no qualms about beasts ultimately being traced back to themselves and, whilst tracking animal movement is of utmost importance in the event of disease outbreak, surely this would be a welcome opportunity to offer consumers reassurance about the traceability of animals within the food chain too. Concerns that those obsessed with maximising profits might skimp on treatment or turn a blind eye to problems within their flocks overlook the simple truth that sick animals are surely always likely to lead to lower returns.

Having agreed that an electronic tracing system is a natural and far more robust evolution of manual/paper record keeping, it’s the implementation of this system that demands our attention. The inclusion of the electronic tag within an ear-tag seems, to this observer at least, a bizarre direction in which to head. I don’t think that any farmer can fail to have experienced a previously tagged sheep present itself minus said tag and with a gaping tear in its ear demonstrating how the tag was lost. That this is a regular occurrence is clear to all. Therefore, surely the whole system is rendered as utterly useless at this point by the degree of fallibility that this displays. There is simply no point in an electronic tagging system if one can’t have a fairly significant degree of confidence that once placed/inserted, the tag remains attached to the sheep for the entirety of its life thereafter.

The manner in which this could be achieved seems to stare us in the face. I’m referring to under the skin electronic identification of dogs and cats that is routinely carried out by vets across the country. I’m led to believe, though am prepared to stand corrected, that these devices are pretty effective in resisting tampering and are simple to insert and unlikely to be lost in a fence somewhere. I don’t envision that there would be any greater problem in ‘reading’ this form of tag either. Additionally, this form of tag may prove easy enough to attach/insert, that it could be done very soon after birth. That would then be it – no one should then have any reason to entertain any doubts regarding the identity of that animal at all.

So, I would urge all fellow farmers not to argue the toss about whether to have electronic tagging or not, accept that it is inevitable and will help give the consumer greater confidence in our products, and instead focus energy on persuading those in charge to implement a more robust, easier to operate and potentially less expensive method.


Guests are welcome to vote in the poll but must register to post a reply.
_________________
It's the end of the world as we know it...
...and I feel fine.
Work yourself towards a free Wii!

[jeffthethird]

These things are always a bit of a farce! And any opportunity will be taken to add more farcical layers on top off any farcical idea!