FOLLOW THE MONEY.... WHY DO COMPANIES LIKE DIGITAL ANGEL PUSH FOR THE NAIS? FOR THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SALES THEY WILL HAVE WHEN THE NAIS IS MANDATORY! IT'S NOT ABOUT DISEASE, IT'S ABOUT MONEY!
Smart-tek Completes Research and Development On AIMS Software Targeted to Meet the USDA and NAIS Specification for Livestock Age Source Verification
RENO, Nev., Nov. 12, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Smart-tek Solutions, Inc. (OTCBB:STTK) announced today that it has completed the research and development on Animal Identification Management System (AIMS) to meet the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Animal Identification System (NAIS) specification for livestock age source verification.
Perry Law, President of Smart-tek Solutions, commented, "The USDA has implemented a program called the National Animal Identification System. Our studies at animal producing facilities have enabled us to design the Animal Identification Management System (AIMS), a software program that will read Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags and take the error out of recording and handling the data. It will aid the tracking, recording and monitoring of livestock."
Law added, "AIMS will determine the age and source of individual animals by their unique code utilizing unique animal ID numbers. This will allow livestock producers to manage inventory, track individual vaccinations, weight, manifesting and movements between their own producing facilities. AIMS database can be downloaded to government or private monitoring organizations for the purpose of tracing the animal movement and history."
About Smart-tek Solutions Inc.
Smart-tek Solutions Inc. (SSI) is the parent technology holding company and radio-frequency identification (RFID) software/hardware development company providing turnkey state of the art RFID systems.
Smart-tek Communications Inc. (SCI) is the Company's initial acquisition in this sector and is appropriately positioned to pursue additional acquisitions in order to restore and enhance shareholder value.
Smart-tek Communications (SCI) is a market leader in providing integrated security, voice and data communication systems. Located in Richmond, British Columbia, SCI specializes in the design, sale, installation and service of the latest in security technology with proven electronic hardware and software products. SCI has positioned itself as a security systems leader in the Greater Vancouver area. Valued customers include major developers, general and electrical contractors, hospitals, Crown Corporations, law enforcement agencies and retail facilities. Projects range from high-end residential and commercial developments to system upgrades and monitoring contracts. SCI's continued growth and success is a direct result of providing a consistently superior product at competitive pricing to both new and existing clients. SCI's stellar client retention is in itself a testimonial to the overall excellence of the product designed and installed.
Digital Angel Snaps Up Livestock Order Tuesday, October 2 2007 Minnesota's Digital Angel Corp., which makes identification, location-tracking and condition-monitoring technology, announced today that it has received an order for 630,000 compliant RFID tags valued at more than $600,000 from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The cattle ear tags are for the USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) initiative.
Digital Angel Corporation Receives Over $600,000 Order From the USDA for National Animal Identification System Preliminary Implementation of NAIS Underway SO. ST. PAUL, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Digital Angel Corporation (the “Companyâ€) (AMEX:DOC), an advanced technology company in the field of rapid and accurate identification, location tracking and condition monitoring of high-value assets, announced today that it has received an order for 630,000 compliant radio frequency identification (RFID) ear tags valued at more than $600,000 from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The cattle ear tags will be used for USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Veterinary Services State-Federal Cooperative Disease control and eradication efforts in targeted, increased-risk geographic locations.
Barry M. Edelstein, interim President and CEO of Digital Angel, said, “This prestigious order from the USDA exemplifies our expertise in providing high-quality products at competitive prices. We were the first animal tag manufacturer to be designated as an Animal Identification (AIN) tag manufacturer by the USDA, which signifies that our tagging system is capable of identifying livestock with the unique, lifetime animal identification number that is being established as a national standard through the NAIS. We are proud that we continue to be a provider of choice for the USDA.â€
Since 1948 Digital Angel’s livestock tags have been utilized by ranchers across the world not only to protect their property from theft or loss, but more recently to control the spread of disease and improve herd management. Following the December 2003 incident of Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in the state of Washington, the USDA initiated the development of a national animal identification program for cattle, with a target completion date of 2008-2009. The NAIS, a cooperative program between state and federal governments and the livestock industry to help trace, manage and eradicate animal diseases like Mad Cow Disease, Foot and Mouth Disease, Pseudo-Rabies Disease and Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome in pigs, is being run by APHIS. APHIS launched the voluntary NAIS in 2004 with the premises registration system and is now continuing its advancement by implementing the animal identification component.
Under the NAIS, electronic ID (EID) devices must be approved by USDA. Digital Angel has approval on its EID and transponder devices for livestock. The Company will be submitting its new sheep and goat EID device for approval shortly. Currently the USDA is entering into cooperative agreements to promote premise registrations among producers. To-date approximately 410,000 producer premises are registered. Although it is not mandatory for producers to ID their livestock, USDA is utilizing premise ID and electronic identification for their numerous disease control programs (brucellosis, tuberculosis, psuedorabies, chronic wasting disease, etc.). The first use, which is the subject of the award for the 630,000 EID tags, will be to control and trace brucellosis among cattle.
About Digital Angel Corporation
Digital Angel Corporation (www.DigitalAngelCorp.com) develops and deploys sensor and communications technologies that enable rapid and accurate identification, location tracking, and condition monitoring of high-value assets. Applications for the Company’s products include identification and monitoring of humans, pets, fish, poultry and livestock through its patented implantable microchips; location tracking and message monitoring of vehicles and aircraft in remote locations through systems that integrate GPS and geosynchronous satellite communications; and monitoring of asset conditions such as temperature and movement, through advanced miniature sensors. Digital Angel Corporation is majority-owned by Applied Digital Inc. (NASDAQ:ADSX), which also owns a majority position in VeriChip Corporation (NASDAQ:CHIP).
Invisible RFID Ink Safe For Cattle And People, Company Says
The process developed by Somark involves a geometric array of micro-needles and an ink capsule, which is used to ‘tattoo’ an animal. The ink can be detected from 4 feet away.
A startup company developing chipless RFID ink has tested its product on cattle and laboratory rats.
Somark Innovations announced this week that it successfully tested biocompatible RFID ink, which can be read through animal hairs. The passive RFID technology could be used to identify and track cows to reduce financial losses from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease) scares. Somark, which formed in 2005, is located at the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis. The company is raising Series A equity financing and plans to license the technology to secondary markets, which could include laboratory animals, dogs, cats, prime cuts of meat, and military personnel.
Chief scientist Ramos Mays said the tests provide a true proof-of-principle and mitigate most of the technological risks in terms of the product’s performance. “This proves the ability to create a synthetic biometric or fake fingerprint with biocompatible, chipless RFID ink and read it through hair,” he said.
Co-founder Mark Pydynowski said during an interview Wednesday that the ink doesn’t contain any metals and can be either invisible or colored. He declined to say what is in the ink, but said he’s certain that it is 100% biocompatible and chemically inert. He also said it is safe for people and animals.
The process developed by Somark involves a geometric array of micro-needles and a reusable applicator with a one-time-use ink capsule. Pydynowski said it takes five to 10 seconds to “stamp or tattoo” an animal, and there is no need to remove the fur. The ink remains in the dermal layer, and a reader can detect it from 4 feet away.
“Conceptually, you can think of it in the same way that visible light is reflected by mirrors,” he said, adding that the actual process is slightly different and proprietary.
The amount of information contained in the ink depends on the surface area available, he said. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calls for a 15-digit number to track cattle. The first three digits are “840″ for the U.S. country code. The remaining digits are unique identifiers. The numbers would link to a database containing more information.
“It can say where it has been, who it has talked to, who it has eaten with, and who else it has been in contact with,” Pydynowski said.
Ranchers and others in the agricultural industry can choose a covert stamping system, which would make it impossible for cattle thieves to tell which animals have been marked and easy for those checking for stolen cattle to determine a cow’s source. Pydynowski said the technology is an improvement over ear tags, which can be detached from cows and other products.
The technology could verify that cuts of meat originated in a hormone-free environment, Pydynowski said, adding that consumers would destroy the system by breaking down the ink when chewing the meat. In other words, Big Brother wouldn’t know whether someone ate a Big Mac or a filet mignon, according to Pydynowski’s explanation. However, the government and agricultural producers and retailers could track e-coli outbreaks in spinach, he said.
The ink also could be used to track and rescue soldiers, Pydynowski said.
“It could help identify friends or foes, prevent friendly fire, and help save soldiers’ lives,” he said. “It’s a very scary proposition when you’re dealing with humans, but with military personnel, we’re talking about saving soldiers’ lives and it may be something worthwhile.”
Seems to me I vaguely recall a recent war where the government put a tattoo on the arms of people.
Radio sensing stations to track traffic and cargo up and down the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway corridor are being installed by Communist China, operating through a port operator subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, in conjunction with Lockheed Martin and the North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc.
The idea is that RFID chips placed in containers where manufactured goods are shipped from China will be able to be tracked to the Mexican ports on the Pacific where the containers are unloaded onto Mexican trucks and trains for transportation on the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway to destinations within the United States.
NASCO, a trade association based in Dallas, Texas, has teamed with Lockheed Martin to use RFID tracking technology Lockheed Martin developed for the U.S. Department of Defense's projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at U.S. military stations throughout the world.
China has a central position in applying the RFID technology on I-35, given Hutchinson Port Holdings' 49 percent ownership of Savi Networks, the Lockheed Martin subsidiary that will get the job of placing the sensors all up and down the NAFTA Superhighway.
Among these documents released by Hansen is a Letter of Intent between NASCO and Savi Networks which details how NASCO and Lockheed Martin intend to implement NAFTRACS.
The letter calls for Savi Networks to establish RFID sensors along the I-35 NAFTA trade corridor, with tracking designed to begin at Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas, and include "inland points of data capture" positioned at Laredo, San Antonio, Dallas, Kansas City, the Ambassador Bridge, and Winnipeg.
Data captured by the RFID sensors would be sent to a data collection center that NASCO has named "The Center of Excellence."
The Center of Excellence data collection center will be integrated into Lockheed Martin's militarized Global Transport Network Command and Control Center that is installed and operating at the Lockheed Martin Center for Innovation or "Lighthouse" facility in Suffolk, Virginia.
In releasing to the public the NASCO internal documents, Hansen characterized NASCO's Total Domain Awareness as "an Orwellian nightmare," commenting that, "At least Orwell's tyrants had the dignity to be creative with the names of their various maniacal bureaucracies."
NASCO documents describe Total Domain Awareness as the ability to "automatically gather, correlate, and interpret fragments of multi-source data," including data received from radar, Automatic Identification System shipboard radar, Global Positioning System, open source data including weather reports, military intelligence data, law enforcement data, bioterrorism data, plus video surveillance and security cameras.
A contract signed with NASCO authorizes Savi Networks to place a system of RFID sensors along the entire length of I-35 to track RFID equipped containers which travel the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway, including those Chinese containers that enter the continent through the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas.
Hutchison Ports Holding operates the ports at Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.
Savi Technology spokesmen refused to return WND calls after messages were left at the company for three consecutive days.
Animal Tags for People?
Two cousin companies bet the fast-expanding market for animal RFID chips will extend to humans before long
by David E. Gumpert
Under the federally supported National Animal Identification System (NAIS), digital tags are expected to be affixed to the U.S.'s 40 million farm animals to enable regulators to track and respond quickly to disease, bioterrorism, and other calamities. Opponents have many fears about this plan, among them that it could be the forerunner of a similar system for humans. The theory, circulated in blogs, goes like this: You test it on the animals first, demonstrating the viability of the radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) to monitor each and every animal's movements and health history from birth to death, and then move on to people.
Well, all you conspiracy buffs, let me introduce you to Kevin McGrath and Scott Silverman.
McGrath heads a small, growing company that makes RFID chips for animals and people.
Silverman heads a second company that sells the rice-size people chips, which are the only ones with Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval, for implantation in an individual's right biceps. They carry an identity marker that would be linked to medical records. His goal is to create "the first RFID company for people."
Human-Chip Company Plans IPO
While the NAIS remains voluntary on a federal level, and there is no formal people identification system as yet, both executives are moving aggressively to position their companies for the day when chips in animals and people are the norm rather than the exception. Mary Zanoni, a lawyer and critic of NAIS who has written extensively about the system, says that "the microchipping of livestock and pet animals is intended to make tagging more acceptable in helping these companies market their devices for people."
McGrath's company, Digital Angel (DOC), does nearly $60 million in annual sales and has sold several million chips for attachment to livestock, mostly in the U.S. and Canada.
Silverman's company, VeriChip Corp., is preparing for widespread marketing of its people chips with an initial public offering that it expects to complete within the next 60 days. It has begun building what he refers to as "the infrastructure" by signing up more than 400 hospitals to adopt system scanners and databases and about 1,200 physicians to make chips available to patients likeliest to benefit from them, such as diabetics.
While McGrath and Silverman aren't related, their companies are. Digital Angel and VeriChip have the same majority owner. Applied Digital Solutions (ADSX), the parent of seven smaller companies, owns 55% of Digital Angel and all of VeriChip.
Larger Farms Join the RFID Program
Digital Angel has a big head start in marketing, thanks in part to the Agriculture Dept.-sponsored NAIS program, which, while it is billed as voluntary, is expected by various opponents of NAIS, including Zanoni as well as blogs such as nonais.org, to be imposed on farmers by growing numbers of states. Michigan begins requiring RFID tags for cattle on Mar. 1 in the first such effort (see BusinessWeek.com, 12/19/06, "Farmers Say No to Animal Tags").
Farmers running midsize and large operations are signing up for NAIS in growing numbers. The USDA says343,186 farms have registered, which translates into millions of animals, driven by what McGrath says are significant economic incentives.
One is inventory control. He points to a pig farm as an example. The farmer can use RFID tags "to monitor the amount fed to the sows, the medications they receive, when they get pregnant, the length of pregnancies, the number born to each sow, and the number of days to weaning."
As another example, he cites a farm with about 5,000 pigs that had an outbreak of disease, where some of the pigs got fever and several died.
By being able to spot health problems earlier via scanning of RFID chips compared to "managing by clipboard," says McGrath, the cost of the disease in lost animals and treatment was about $75,000, vs. an expected $250,000 without chips.
McGrath acknowledges that Digital Angel's chips are more appropriate for factory farms than for smaller farms focused on selling locally. "If you're a farmer who sells to a neighbor, who cares" about RFID chips? "But if you are a farmer who sells to Japan, the Japanese say they want you to categorically state [the animal] is this age and has not had these diseases. If you cannot show this, the Japanese won't buy it." For those farmers who can pass the test, $25-per-head premiums await, he says.
People Tags Are More Profitable McGrath, for now, is content to focus Digital Angel on the factory farm market, having seen sales of the animal chip rise from 200,000 in 2003 to about 3 million last year. "We believe we will continue to grow at that rate," he says. In addition, Digital Angel continues selling tags to track lost pets and to monitor fish like salmon for environmental purposes.
Silverman is taking a similar tack with VeriChip by expanding existing markets the two primary ones are tags for the bracelets and anklets worn by newborn babies and their parents to prevent kidnappings, and those for elderly nursing home patients with Alzheimer's disease to recover "wanderers." Its 2005 revenues were $24 million.
But the big attraction for both companies, and the reason for the upcoming VeriChip public offering, is the lure of implanting the chips into people. McGrath points out that while the RFID chips attached to animals sell for about $1.50 each, and will likely decline to under $1 within a few years because of competitive pressures, the chips for people sell for $25, based on special design to allow implanting. "To the extent they [VeriChip] would need 1 million [chips], it would be huge for us," McGrath says.
For now, VeriChip has only "a couple hundred patients" who have had the RFID chips surgically implanted in their arms. The company is focusing its attention on building databases of patient medical information to attract hospitals to adopt the company's chips. The chips are being targeted at an estimated 45 million "high-risk patients"diabetics and heart patients, for example, who could be brought into hospitals unconscious or semiconscious and thus not be able to identify themselves.
Business May Compel Chip Wearing Of course, no discussion of these cousin companies would be complete without addressing the privacy concerns many people have about being tagged. Both McGrath and Silverman say their companies protect privacy by limiting data stored on the chips for both farm animals and people to identification numbers only, which are extracted via special scanners and then matched to records in databases.
McGrath also says he appreciates the concerns many small farmers have about the potential infringement on their privacy that NAIS represents. "You're dealing with people who are intensely independent," he says. "They don't like people looking over their shoulders."
Silverman says: "We are leaders in the RFID industry in facing privacy issues head on." The chip for people "should always be a voluntary product, with opt-in and opt-out capability."
As comforting as such statements appear, it's important to remember that adoption of the RFID chips doesn't necessarily need to be legislated to become nearly universal. If enough hospitals and insurance companies begin requiring them, or treating patients wearing them more expeditiously than nonusers, or providing discounts for usage of the chips, they well could become the norm. Then, not wearing a chip might be akin to not having a bank ATM card or, increasingly in Eastern states with toll roads and turnpikes, not having a transponder to pay tolls in your car (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/9/06, "Radio-Shipment Tracking: A Revolution Delayed").
Animal Farms Put Us on Notice It's also important to keep in mind that the real prize for VeriChip is in assembling the databases of patient health information. The more patients in the database, the more leverage it has in the health-care marketplace. In that sense, it's in competition with retailers like Walgreens (WAG) that are collecting data via their walk-in clinics (see BusinessWeek.com, 7/17/06, "Drugstore Clinics Are Bursting with Health").
The most important opinion may be rendered by the financial marketplace, and so far, investors haven't fallen over themselves for either company. Digital Angel's stock over the past two years has declined from about $7.50 a share to the current $2.60. VeriChip's IPO has been put off several times by "market conditions," says Silverman, since it first filed in December of last year. Since then, it has filed five amended offering statements, the most recent on Jan. 9.
It may be a while before we all begin wearing medical information chips in our arms, but the farm animals are telling us it's closer than we may have imagined.
Gumpert covers business/health issues for BusinessWeek.com's SmallBiz channel and also writes the weekly What Entrepreneurs Need to Know column. He is the author or co-author of seven books on small business and entrepreneurship. His Web site is http://www.davidgumpert.com and his blog is http://www.thecompletepatient.com.
We have been told that USDA is not satellite tracking animals at all period, but it seems they are doing just that and here is the proof under Cooperative Agreements paid for by taxpayers.
Figure 1. In 2004, more than 8.8 million head of cattle passed through Kansas as part of the beef-production cycle.
Within 24 hours of shipment, animals from either United States coast can pass through the state of Kansas as part of the beef-production cycle. In 2004 alone, more than 8.8 million animals passed through that state's beef-industry crossroads (see Figure 1).
In an effort to protect the country's food supply from such cattle-borne diseases as mad cow and tuberculosis during these cross-country treks, the Kansas Animal Health Department (KAHD) has started a pilot project that involves tracking cattle in near–real time using wireless, Internet-based mobile communications, radio-frequency identification (RFID), GPS, and GIS technologies. The primary objective of this United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)–funded effort is to conduct geospatial traceback of any animal all the way to its birth — all within 48 hours.
When a Bovine Disease Becomes a Human Threat
The discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease) in the United States in December, 2003 has added urgency to the creation of a national animal identification and traceback system that can be used to elicit quick response in the event of an animal health crisis (see "When a Bovine Disease Becomes a Human Threat" sidebar). Only 87 cattle and 15 calves were raised under conditions similar to the BSE-positive cow or were offspring of those animals during the 2003 outbreak, yet more than 400 animals were destroyed due to lack of such a system.
Figure 2. Tracking a calfs complex journey through feed lots and auction houses requires a reliable traceback system.
The current traceback initiative taking place in Kansas is innovative in that it is transportation-based; in fact, the first in the world to use the truck-based capability, according to George Teagarden, KAHD livestock commissioner. The project uses both spatial and temporal dimensions to trace animals' whereabouts through every producer, sale barn, feed yard, and processing facility at which they may have come into contact with one another or shared a common feed source (see Figure 2).
Cooperating Partners
In a nutshell, the pilot solution deploys wireless, Internet-based mobile communications, RFID, GPS, and GIS in commercial multideck livestock transport vehicles. At full function, the commercial transports that carry these technologies will read RFID tags during loading at the origin of a shipment and off-loading at its destination, link the RFID data with GPS-based date/time/location stamps, and wirelessly transmit the data, in near–real time, to a third-party information management system. The software from AgInfoLink captures lat/long data and stores this in a standard (nonspatial) database format, showing all transaction information. Lat/long then can be brought into a spatial database and/or GIS system. Kansas State University is developing protocols to test the RFID equipment destined for the livestock transportation industry. The entire program represents a collaborative partnership (see "Cooperative Partners" sidebar) led by Kansas State's Animal Identification Knowledge Laboratory.
Existing truck-tracking systems have GPS capabilities, but a typical GPS setup on a truck on the highway reads only once an hour. This may not work for cattle transactions, which could require a continuous read. To solve this problem, Kansas State University is also working with a prototype of a truck GPS receiver-to-recorder that uses Personal Area Network protocol (Bluetooth).
Once the data are captured by the readers and linked with GPS stamps, they are routed to a central registry and shared with animal-health authorities in the states of origin and destination. In future installations, GPS coordinates may be collected by existing truck systems. In the case of this pilot project, GPS tracking systems were installed. The hardware, provided by Digital Angel, is all prototype material.
Figure 3. The livestock transport network combines wireless, Internet-based mobile communications with GPS and RFID.
A total of 20,000 animals are expected to be tracked during the lifespan of this pilot project, with 2,000 to 5,000 moving from cattle-feeding operations to packing premises and the remainder moving from operations of origin through the supply chain to livestock markets, grazing or backgrounder operations, and feeding operations (see Figure 3).
BSE, Premise Registration, and Emergency GIS
The template for creating a system for animal identification, tracking, and documentation is the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which identifies all agricultural animals and enables tracking of livestock as they come into contact with, or are intermixed with, animals other than herdmates from their premises of origin. Critical for protecting U.S. animal agriculture from foreign and domestic disease threats, NAIS will allow for rapid tracing of animals in the event of an outbreak and help to limit the scope and expense of the outbreak by minimizing the impact on domestic and foreign markets.
A truck mount for the RFID reader makes the system accessible but doesn't interfere with animal handling.
Currently, 43 states and tribes are in the process of developing systems for registering livestock premises. Premise registration serves as the cornerstone for an identification system; it is possible to begin with premise registration while animal tracking systems and supporting infrastructure are being developed. According to KAHD, all feedlots, livestock markets, and livestock dealers are already registered premises in Kansas. Recordings of livestock movement are made at any change of ownership, change of premises where commingling of separate herds occurs, interstate movement, and slaughter.
In order to be registered, a premise must provide location information in the form of latitude/longitude, section/range/township, or 911 address to NAIS. The location information is then loaded into the Kansas Department of Emergency Management GIS, which provides geocoding capabilities for the address information. The Emergency Management GIS enables users to perform spatial queries to locate all premises within an area of question or to determine quarantine areas based on infected premises. The premise identification system will provide key data for animal-health epidemiological studies.
The orientation of the ear-mounted RFID device to the reader affects read range; pinch points, such as this chute, force cattle closer to the readers.
Teagarden reports that implementing premises registration was an easy undertaking in Kansas. USDA came to KAHD's office, installed the Web-based program on its computers, and trained personnel on application entry. If all of the answers are correct on the application, a premise can be registered in the NAIS — with an identification number provided back to the owner — in five minutes. The program is voluntary, so KAHD has not registered a large number of premises at this time. USDA is currently taking applications for grants to enhance the premise-registration program. If Kansas is successful in obtaining additional grant funding, Teagarden's office will be able to initiate a program to register all premises in the state.
The Web-based premise-registration program also allows registrants controlled access to their information if they need to make changes. Polygon premise boundaries are not defined in the registration process, but boundaries can be determined from legal descriptions and pasture names for spatial analysis. Latitude/longitude coordinates determined from GPS readings will provide point locations at ranch headquarters or pasture entrance gates. But the key to traceback, of course, is tracking transport.
Why Track the Trucks?
Drs. Dale Blasi and Mark Spire of Kansas State's Animal Identification Knowledge Laboratory have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the best way to design animal-tracking programs. According to both, numbers are the key to designing both a workable tracking system as well as a comprehensive educational initiative.
"It just seemed easier to design a program to educate 500 truckers than to build a program to train 60,000 cattle producers in Kansas," Spire said. To disseminate an idea through producers takes a long time: eight years until 50 percent of the producers start adopting the technological advances. Focusing on trucking is not only faster, he explained, it also takes the animal identification pressure off the producers and the 69 primarily mom-and-pop sale barns in Kansas.
What's more, there exist several pinch points in the collection of animal identification information at which data need to be collected rapidly. These points are located primarily at livestock markets and processing facilities. With more than 25 million head of cattle processed each year, the allowable time for an animal to pass by a reader and provide a data read is only 12 to 14 seconds. Given these factors, it makes sense to collect data during transportation to markets and processing plants and transmit directly to the national database, thus avoiding environmental and physical constraints on the readers.
Down the road, it may also be possible to tie sensors in with cattle movement. Upon the receipt of cattle, it might be feasible to read what kind of conditions they experienced. This would provide a form of risk management not available today. The technology would enable a more proactive approach to the animal business.
Technology Meets Tradition
In general, technology is not the primary impediment to a truck-based animal tracking system. It has been demonstrated that the data can be transmitted from the trucks. The satellite and cellular capabilities also work. It is possible to build an occasionally connected client system that doesn't have to keep reloading when communications are interrupted. And going via the Internet to the NAIS database is not a problem.
Challenges present themselves when technology coincides with tradition. Truckers don't want to change how they load cattle, but technology-driven demands will undoubtedly alter the way they operate in and around their vehicles. Imagine a seamlessly implemented RFID system for a truck: It reads tags efficiently and uses auto-tuning to protect itself from environments with high electromagnetic interference. Now consider the possibility of two RFID trucks parked side-by-side and causing interference, given that a 12-foot by 53-foot metal frame creates a giant antenna. Will truckers be required to limit their proximity to one another? Will the design of the reader impact how they load cattle?
A number of challenges associated with RFID truck installations and function have yet to be addressed. Truckers need their hands free to load cattle, so the system has to be quick to set up and must function without constant monitoring by a driver. The average time to load or unload cattle is six minutes, so a 20-minute setup and breakdown for RFID readers won't do. The system must be accessible and not interfere with animal handling, and it is unreasonable to undertake a major remodel on livestock facilities or introduce safety hazards for drivers or animals.
Read range for transponders is another concern. With low-frequency systems (134.2 kHz) developed for the pet industry and zoos, read distance is measured in inches. To enable a low-frequency system to work most efficiently, it's necessary to create pinch points to force cattle close to the readers. Several technologies (such as shields) are being tested to provide reflectance and improve read range. With cattle, orientation of the RFID device to the reader has a huge effect on read range, as cows' ears tend to flop around. Researchers are currently mounting cameras in trucks and chutes to evaluate why tags work — or don't.
Dr. Blasi's Beef Stocker Unit is in the business of providing practical answers to the beef industry's technology problems and is finding a mix of solutions for the RFID challenges unique to this project. To provide ease of access in loading cattle up and down truck ramps, Kansas State researchers worked with many designs for antenna placement to minimize loading impediments while maximizing RFID signals. To make truckers more receptive to what could be perceived as radical new technology, the researchers worked to make the RFID system as simple as possible. They also worked to educate the truckers in the benefits of the technology and the value it adds to their profession.
This is a pilot project, however, and being on the cutting edge means that ultimately, some efforts won't pan out. Wireless read range from the truck antennas to the cabs has not provided adequate signal for data transmission, resulting in a low-tech solution of running a direct line from the antenna into the truck. But project researchers are finding new technology issues every day, as well as new potential uses.
Expanding to Epidemiology
Is a truck-mounted system expandable? The proposed NAIS program and USDA pilot projects provide a variety of interesting ideas for expanding animal-health monitoring in the future.
For example, biosensor systems could be set up at points where truckers stop. Air monitoring could detect aerosolized pathogens like foot-and-mouth disease virus and other airborne disease agents. Biosensing technology could aid in cattle-management programs, and by knowing the common pathogens that exist in an animal's environment during transport, respiratory disease–vaccination programs could be tailored to the specific pathogens (instead of blank vaccination protocols). Such a database could also be tied into GIS analysis with weather-pattern data and population-density overlays.
Spire and Blasi have also conducted extensive research using handheld technology. They have worked with Sandia Labs to develop RSVP-A, Rapid Syndromic Validation Project — Animals. This project uses cell phone and personal digital assistant technology to allow practicing veterinarians who make routine herd calls to monitor for 15 zoonotic (transmittable to humans) agents. If they observe one of six syndromes, they can enter that syndrome into the handheld device along with GPS-based location and size of herd. The data then automatically uploads to a central database that is monitored by state animal health departments and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service personnel.
More than 1.6 million head of cattle could be monitored as part of routine veterinarian activities using this technology. The RSVP-A system provides real-time data to geospatially enabled databases, substantially increasing the value of the information contained and thus the spatial analyses performed. The system is currently being deployed in New Mexico.
The possibilities for such animal-tracking projects are boundless, but they all hinge on an accurate understanding of animal population dynamics and movement information. The animal identification system is providing the foundation for all of these animal health-monitoring ideas. In the future, building from the experiences gained from this project, RFID technologies can become as common in the cattle industry as the saddle and the horse are today.
Manufacturers
The technology partners in the NAIS Pilot Project are Digital Angel (RFID hardware and software), SymbolTechnologies (handhelds), and AgInfoLink (information management system). The Kansas Division of Emergency Management GIS is ESRI-based, using ArcSDE and ArcIMS with an Oracle database. It also uses a plug-in called Web EOC, a virtual emergency operations center, which is an ESi product.
Mary Ann Stewart is a senior technical advisor with www.Ummelgroup.com, an IT management consulting firm. She has a utility engineering background, is co-chair of the Geospatial Information Technology Association's 2006 annual conference (www.gita.org), and is president of Mary Ann Stewart Engineering, LLC.
The technology partners in the NAIS Pilot Project are Digital Angel (RFID hardware and software), SymbolTechnologies (handhelds), and AgInfoLink (information management system). The Kansas Division of Emergency Management GIS is ESRI-based, using ArcSDE and ArcIMS with an Oracle database. It also uses a plug-in called Web EOC, a virtual emergency operations center, which is an ESi product.
Everyone's so paranoid about the RFID chips that are already in place in so many parts of our lives, so here's an item (via Engadget and Pink Tentacle) about Hitachi's new powder-sized RFID chips to make us even more scared of Big Brother (or little-Brother-ID thief). RFID chips are tiny microchips that use radio waves to do everything from conduct credit card transactions (as on those little key-fob-Paypass MasterCard thingies) and pay for tolls (EZ Pass and its ilk) to keeping track of your devices and travel (U.S. passports).
Hitachi plans to start marketing these new chips—seriously no bigger than a speck of dust at 0.05 x 0.05 mm—in two to three years. The company says this super-tiny chip can be used in paper, currency, gift certificates, and the like, but as some sites have pointed out, today's chips are already small enough for those uses. So, as Engadget cracked, does this mean we should be watching what we eat in case of some James-Bond-style pepper-shaker swap?
Maybe, but is the terror around RFID over-hyped? According to most proponents of the technology, and my own experiences paying with PayPass at my local drug store, you really need to physically tap the RFID chip to something for the transaction to go through. And yet, when I go through a toll booth, my RFID-enabled EZ Pass box is only about ten feet away from the sensor. So maybe it is time to watch what you eat, lest Big Brother starts to track you wirelessly (or you spill some RFID powder from which evil ID thieves can extract your vital stats!)
What do you think? Is RFID worth the convenience or is it setting up some dangerous privacy-invasion precedents?
NAIS and REAL ID are about legislation that will allow for tracking but that is just half the game. In addition to the passive and active RFID (750′ reading range), they’ve got technology to advance our ability to know where everything is, everywhere, all the time, 24/7:
Tracking your money…
the Defense Department cautioned its American contractors over what it described as a new espionage threat: Canadian coins with tiny radio frequency transmitters hidden inside. … Intelligence and technology experts said such transmitters, if they exist, could be used to surreptitiously track the movements of people carrying the spy coins. -APNews
The ink you write with… (tattoos too!)
Somark Innovations said in a release that the test proved the effectiveness of injecting and reading a biocompatible chipless RFID (radio frequency identification) ink “tattoo” within the skin of animals. RFID “tags” can be used to identify an object or being using radio waves. -Somark Innovations Press Release Hat tip to the Hen
The paper you print on…
Several printer companies quietly encode the serial number and the manufacturing code of their color laser printers and color copiers on every document those machines produce. Governments, including the United States, already use the hidden markings. -Electronic Freedom Foundation
and everything else…
HP today announced that its researchers have developed a miniature wireless data chip that could provide broad access to digital content in the physical world. With no equal in terms of its combination of size, memory capacity and data access speed, the tiny chip (Memory Spot) could be stuck on or embedded in almost any object and make available information and content now found mostly on electronic devices or the Internet. -HP Press Release
Back slapping fun! (Put a Memory Spot on your hand, slap someone, and presto, their tagged “Kick Me!“)
As with most things, the technology in and of itself is not evil, but the ways our governments want to use it certainly may be. What price for privacy - most of all from the government?
MARCH 23, 2007 | Be careful of who walks up to your building and swipes an ID card: New proof-of-concept code will soon be released that lets attackers hack RFID readers and walk right in as if they work there.
The attack uses SQL injection to fake the back-end RFID reader into admitting the cardholder into the building, says Joshua Perrymon, hacking director for PacketFocus Security Solutions and the researcher who wrote the POC. Perrymon -- who's taking a cue from the recent Black Hat RFID flap and won't name RFID vendor names -- says he's tested it on a few RFID vendors' systems, but the exploit will work on most any of them. (See HID Lists RFID Security Steps, HID, IOActive Butt Heads Again, and Black Hat Cancels RFID Demo.)
The RFID databases don't validate the input they receive from the swiped cards, he says, which leaves them wide open for hacks. "I was noticing the back-end database is the same across all products -- I haven't seen any using input validation" to confirm the data they've swiped is legitimate, he says. "It doesn't really matter who the vendor is... In any building you go to with this, bang, you gain access."
Perrymon was able to fake out the readers by injecting SQL characters that appear to be legit into various brands of 1356 Mhz RFID cards. The SQL injection code looks legit when an intruder swipes his card, so he gains entry into the building. "In the user-data section, it uses numeric characters, but we're using brackets and SQL statements... That's standard with a SQL injection in an application."
Conventional attack methods on RFID such as SQL injection haven't been studied much so far, Perrymon says. Most of the attention has been on cracking RFID cryptography and RFID cloning, such as IOActive's research, which was yanked from the Black Hat DC briefing agenda after threats of a patent lawsuit by RFID vendor HID.
Perrymon used an RFID writer to copy a SQL injection statement to the card. Unlike cloning, which copies the user's ID and facility code, this attack uses SQL injection code. "The beauty of this is I'm using off-the-shelf stuff, and there's no reverse-engineering."
Perrymon says adding input validation to these products would be simple for RFID vendors, and he's hoping his work will pressure the vendors to fix the problem. "I want vendors to put in input validation in the reader or database," he says. "Preferably the reader."
But this attack is not for any script kiddie. "You have to be pretty skilled in RFID to understand all the components," says Perrymon, whose company does penetration testing and social engineering exploits. He plans to release the POC soon.
— Kelly Jackson Higgins, Senior Editor, Dark Reading
RFID TAGS ARE TO BE USED ON ALL CATTLE, SWINE, SHEEP, ETC. UNTOLD MILLIONS OF THEM WILL HAVE THEM IF THE NAIS IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED. WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT THE TAGS ARE "SAFE" AND HAVE NO PROBLEMS WHILE WE ARE ALSO BEING TOLD THAT *WE* GET TO PAY FOR THEM. SEE THE STORY BELOW...THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY *NOT* WITHOUT PROBLEMS, AND MORE PROBLEMS ARE SURFACING ON A REGULAR BASIS AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE ARTICLES ABOVE.
London's Royal Academy of Engineering suggests that someday a terrorist will be able to read personal details from a distance and set a bomb to go off when a particular person gets within range.
As if RFID chips in driver's licenses and passports weren't scary enough already, London's Royal Academy of Engineering is suggesting that someday a terrorist will be able to read personal details from a distance and, given
the right antennas and amplification, set a bomb to go off when a particular person gets within range.
It's already widely acknowledged that unencrypted data stored on an RFID chip in a passport can be read covertly by anybody with a pass-by reader.
As the ACLU pointed out at Black Hat earlier in March, you can buy parts on the Internet to make a reader for as little as $20.
With a reader, you can pick up whatever the RFID chip is sending out: passport number; name; where an individual was at, at what time; name; address; Social Security number, etc.
The ability of RFID to be subverted in far more dangerous ways was only one example of how advancing technology can be exploited in the future, according to the Royal Academy.
The Academy on March 26 released a report titled "Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance: Challenges of Technological Change," by Nigel Gilbert, chairman of the Academy's group on Privacy and Surveillance.
Here are some other technology shocks that have already occurred or that may come to pass, according to Gilbert: Unencrypted data can be forged. The United Kingdom, for one, introduced biometric passports in March 2006.
The e-Passport, as it's called, uses facial recognition to link an individual with a paper passport, with iris and fingerprint data used as backup, and other countries have expressed interest in using biometrics as well.
Because the data will be read at places such as passport control to verify the identity of the holder, the data have to be quickly and reliably transmitted - hence, use of RFID chips have been proposed.
A forged passport could include a passport carrier's biometric information but with forged personal details, including name, date of birth and citizenship.
Of course, passports could be checked against a central database to ensure that the data on a given passport matches the master set. But then, it's unnecessary to store the data on a passport, since it can be retrieved from the central database.
"Encrypting the data on the e-Passports can help to avoid these problems," Gilbert writes, "but even then there is potential for failure. Firstly, if the encryption codes can be broken, then the two vulnerabilities reappear. Secondly, a problem with current plans for e-Passports in the U.K. is that the key for the data on the chip is stored on the passport itself - so the encryption does not in fact lock out eavesdroppers."
The only way to keep RFID passport information truly safe, Gilbert says, is to encrypt with extremely tough algorithms and to disable the access to encrypted data on the passport by using a key stored on the passport itself. "Otherwise, efforts should be focused on an altogether different way of designing e-Passports," he said.
Plans for more dangerous data leaks than ever are in the works.
It's a pedophile's dream come true: children's data stored in a national database.
The U.K. is reportedly planning to take fingerprints as well as names and addresses from children as young as 11 and store it all in a government database.
The children's data, as a subset of the U.K.'s biometric passport scheme, will be transferred to the country's new national identity database when the children turn 16.
The consequences of data breaches or leaks on such a database could be "extremely serious," Gilbert says. "This information could be used by pedophiles to target those children for abuse," he writes.
Other serious data leaks that have happened or could still happen, Gilbert points out: leaks of credit-card data used to embarrass public figures; leaks of the addresses of staff who work at sensitive sites, such as abortion clinics or research centers that practice animal experimentation; leaks of health records that could doom the employment prospects of patients or even expose them to risk of violence, including HIV status or a record showing that a woman had had a pregnancy terminated (if this was unknown to her partner or parent), or data (such as DNA or blood group) showing that the paternity of a child could not be the presumed father.
The report details other worst-case scenarios, including identity fraud assisted by the Semantic Web and its extensive publicly accessible personal details of individuals as well as the use of fingerprint images to fool a pay-by-touch system.
The future of technology misuse may look dire, but Gilbert offers ways to secure even the scariest technology.
For example, A biometric pay-by-touch system that requires two forms of identification - a PIN and a fingerprint - would be "much more successful" in preventing fraud than one that relies only on a fingerprint, he said.
Regarding RFID-enabled passports and the possibility that they could be linked to bombs or other, less dramatic abuses, one workaround is to forgo RFID chips for a technology such as that now being developed by Ingenia Technology called "Laser Surface Authentication."
LSA technology takes into account the unique surface qualities of a given document. Paper documents and credit card plastics have unique microscopic surface qualities attributable to how paper fibers are arranged or how the plastic has been set.
"These qualities cannot be controlled and cannot be copied, and they are unique in every case - rather like human fingerprints," Gilbert writes.
"Ingenia have devised a way of scanning documents to reveal these surface properties, which they refer to as the 'LSA fingerprint.' The system they have created is 'read-only', the document is passive, it is simply scanned and a record of its surface features is recorded." ***********************************************************************************************
National Animal Identification System: How Will it Affect Cattlemen? by Heather Smith Thomas
Part Three: Shortcomings of the RFID System Being Used
If the NAIS were to become mandatory, as many people in the USDA, NIAA AND SEVERAL OTHER VESTED INTERESTS WANT, every farm animal must have individual ID, a 15 digit number provided by USDA (the first 3 digits being a country code). For cattle it's supposed to be an ear tag with an RFID chip that can be scanned. For horses, the Equine Species Working Group recommends a micro-chip implanted by your vet, with the 15 digit number. THE NAIS STIPULATES USE OF THE ISO (INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION) 134.2 kilohertz (kHz) frequency chips - the type used in many European countries.
There are several kinds of microchips, however. Some horse owners (and pet owners) already use chips for ID – to help prevent theft and locate missing animals. More than 800,000 horses in the U.S. (including 90 percent of horses in Louisiana, in conjunction with their Coggins tests) and many more dogs and cats are already implanted with 125 kHz chips, with a reliable private tracking system that's been in place for 15 years. After hurricane Katrina, for instance, 364 horses were gathered and all but one were returned to owners because they had microchips. A PRIVATE DATABASE NETWORK gives horse owners IMMEDIATE assistance when an animal is missing. THE ISO SCANNERS, HOWEVER, CAN'T READ THESE CHIPS. The USDA is hurrying to put their ISO type scanners into the field but it will take awhile to get enough out there, and unles the new scanners are dual readers, any 125 kHz chips already in horses or other animals won't be detected.
The 125 kHz system is an American system that's been in use for more than 15 years. MANY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE U.S. AND MOST OF SOUTH AMERICA, HAVE NEVER USED THE ISO SYSTEM THAT THE NAIS WANTS US TO USE, BECAUSE THE LATTER IS AN OPEN SYSTEM AND EASILY COMPROMISED. It was originally developed in Russia to identify tractor parts and commodities for an international European market. A scanner in Germany or France, for instance, could "read" a chip on an Italian part and know what it was. The 134.2 kHz chip has a 15 digit number, the first 3 digits being a country code.
Editor’s Note: This is part three in a series of four articles on the National Animal Identification System.
Because the ISO system is open (in the public domain) there is no legal way to stop production of unsanctioned chips. The problem with using this type of chip for disease trace-back, bio-security or unique ID for ownership recovery or theft prevention is there is no guarantee of uniqueness of ID codes. There are several ways the ID codes can be easily counterfeited in any open standard like this one. Chips can be ordered factory programmed with desired numbers and some manufacturers are selling reprogrammable chips that are indistinguishable from factory programmed chips. Some chips can be reprogrammed as many times as you want, even after they're in an animal or an ear tag. An implanted chip's number can be "read" by an inexpensive small hand-held device that can then be used to put that number on another chip, in a different animal.
This opens the way for all kinds of misuse for fraud, if the "open system" ISO 134.2 kHz chips take the place of the more secure 125 kHz system being used for dependable ID in valuable animals. And it's easy for anyone to change chip numbers. There are ads in various European publications and web sites stating they can supply reprogrammable microchips and low cost programmers, offering confidential provision for duplication of ID numbers.
Duplicate numbers weren't a problem in the original setting for which the ISO system was developed (machinery parts and commodities, to make sure certain types of paper products made by different companies would fit your printer, for instance), or for individual ID in a dairy herd (to be able to feed a certain cow a certain ration at a certain stage of her lactation). Because ear tags in cattle are often lost, however, the ISO group in 2001 decided to allow for retagging animals with a new tag carrying the same chip ID number as the lost one, and since a farmer can't wait 6 months to get a "duplicate" tag from the manufacturer (who can't stop production to make just a few chips with duplicate numbers) ISO allowed for OTP (one time programmable) "blank" chips that could be programmed with the number of the lost tag.
Then reprogrammable tags were also allowed. In a May 31, 2001 ISO document describing their recommendations for replacing lost animal microchips, they stated that it would be disastrous if these blank chips fall into the wrong hands: "They should be transported in a secure way to issuing stations, and must be safely kept. It is each nation's responsibility that the procedure is followed properly." INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM, THEY ESSENTIALLY SAID, "YOU CAN DUPLICATE AND REPROGRAM THESE TAGS, BUT WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE."
THEREFORE THIS OPEN SYSTEM WON'T WORK FOR A NATIONAL DATABASE FOR DISEASE CONTROL OR FOR VALUABLE ANIMALS THAT NEED A UNIQUE ID TO PREVENT THEFT OR ANIMAL-SWITCHING. A look-alike could be made to pose for a more valuable animal. And an animal from another country could appear to be one from the U.S. or vice versa. USDA is not being realistic in thinking we can use this system for dependable animal trace-back to farm of origin in case of disease outbreak, or to thwart bioterrorism. The problem with using a published open standard like these ISO 11784/11785 microchips for something that's supposed to provide unique or secure ID is that it won't work. According to the U.S. member of the ISO board, "It would be like our government publishing the standard for dollar bills, telling people exactly what paper to use, what color ink, etc. so anyone could do it."
People pushing for the ISO 134.2 kHz chips required by NAIS tell us this is an international standard and we must comply. But they're not telling us this standard is hanging on by a thread; THIS SYSTEM IS THE RESULT OF POLITICAL COMPROMISE and has many flaws regarding performance and technical feasibility. More than 60 countries besides the U.S. have not adopted the 134.2 kHz system and some of the countries that use it are not happy with it.
Many countries are dissatisfied with it and some have asked that this standard be repealed. There were so many complaints that the matter was recently put to a vote, and 50 percent of the voting nations in the ISO group voted to have the standard repealed or revised. THUS IT IS NOT THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED TECHNOLOGY SOME PEOPLE CLAIM IT TO BE, AND DEFINATELY NOT A GOOD SYSTEM UPON WHICH TO BASE A NATIONAL ANIMAL ID PROGRAM. THERE ARE SUSPICIONS THAT THIS SYSTEM WAS CHOSEN MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE MARKET ADVANTAGE IT WILL GIVE CERTAIN PLAYERS WHO HELPED CONSTRUCT THE NAIS.
People who are aware of the problems with the ISO system wonder why the USDA is dictating the use of this particular chip. Barbara Masin, who sits on the ISO board, says this chip is not suitable. "When this was being discussed for livestock, our ISO board approached the USDA and attempted to communicate with everyone from Anne Venneman (Secretary of USDA at that time) on down, and they did not return our calls. I went to the USDA listening sessions and offered to show them the problem with duplication possibilities, but they didn't want to see it. The situation is very political. THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE INVOLVED WITHIN THE USDA WHO HAVE VERY CLOSE TIES TO CERTAIN MANUFACTURERS. THERE IS AN UNDERLYING AGENDA, unfortunately," says Masin.
The flaws in this system have been well documented as far back as 1995, she says. "It's very unfortunate that when the discussion at USDA was happening for the livestock standard, it wasn't an open discussion." Listening sessions were "closed" with crowd control supervision. "USDA did not want to see any information against the system, and did not respond to efforts to show them what was actually going on in other countries," says Masin. There are still many people who are not aware that this is a poor system.
USDA continued to push on with their agenda, telling cattlemen to use these tags. But the cattle tags using this technology don't work as well as planned. The ISO standard RFID being used (more appropriate for inventory checking of commodities in stores than for cattle ID) don't have enough "read range" to be practical for cattle; the scanners must practically be at touching distance. Cattle must be confined in a chute to get close enough for accurate scanning. In field tests, a high percentage of tags don't "read" well with scanners (with lots of "no reads") when cattle are checked as they come off a truck or go through a sale ring. Environmental factors – everything from weather, lighting in a sale barn, to the type of fencing in the sale yard – can influence read rates and influence the tracking equipment.
The scanners being installed in sale barns can't pick up these low-frequency tag chips, especially if cattle bunch up (if the chute is too wide or someone is unloading them quickly). One sale yard reported "read rates" as low as 47 percent for feeder pigs and 66 percent for sheep. Rates for cattle varied, from 50 to 80 percent. Some sale barn owners are worried that the complications of the ID system will lead more stockmen to sell directly to feed-lots or packers, rather than go through a sale barn.
The cattle industry is currently working to address some of these issues, trying to find ways around shortcomings. They want independent studies to test the chips and scanners. An appendix to the Cattle Industry Working Group Report recommended that an independent authority be established to serve as a national testing laboratory to which RFID equipment makers would submit their chips and scanners. The cattle group listed criteria needed and pointed out that the guidelines of the International Committee on Animal Recording (ICAR) fall short regarding recommended standards for read rate (percent of accurate readings of chips) and distances.
Many things interfere with read accuracy even at close range. Motors, such as those used in auction environments, interfere with scanning and reading the tags. Studies are underway to find out which environmental factors interfere with performance of the 134.2 frequency RFID tags and scanners compliant with that standard. A study at Kansas State University, for instance, is looking into this problem and also trying to calculate how much money sale yards and other facilities would have to invest to address environmental concerns and assure that their RFID systems function efficiently. KSU students are analyzing 15 sale yard markets in Kansas to determine the amount of electromagnetic interference, and will also study differences in successful read rates relating to position of tags in the ears. They'll also be reading tags at meat processing plants operated by CARGILL, NATIONAL BEEF AND TYSON FOODS.
Livestock producers using electronic tags in their cattle are getting premium prices, but technology in these tags is not working in sale yards that put 1,000 or more cattle an hour through the ring. A few sale yards, including some of the biggest ones, have tested the tags with mixed success. For instance, Equity Livestock (an operation with 13 sale barns in Iowa and Wisconsin) moves more than a million animals through their yards each year. They spent $70,000 for scanners, software and extra labor to test electronic ID at one of the yards, but feel this cost would be hard to justify in smaller operations.
HERE ARE THE FIRST TWO PARTS TO THE ARTICLE ABOVE:
National Animal Identification System: How Will it Affect Cattlemen? by Heather Smith Thomas
Part One: What is the NAIS Plan and How Did it Start?
Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series of four articles on the National Animal Identification System.
There's a lot of talk about the NAIS. For the past couple of years some people (especially in federal and state agencies, land grant university programs and a few cattle industry groups) have been pushing for all cattle owners to voluntarily register premises and animals before the government makes it mandatory. Other people (especially small farmers, family farms and ranches, and horse owners) are skeptical or concerned about the plan and don't want to become involved. If it does become mandatory, they worry about the impact it will have on how they manage their animals, and the extra work, cost and red tape it will involve.
What is the NAIS? The NAIS plan and the USDA's strategies for implementing it can be found on several government websites such as www.aphis.usda.gov and www.usda.gov/nais. They will tell you the USDA initiated the plan as part of ongoing efforts to safeguard U.S. animal health. NAIS is a cooperative State-Federal- industry program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The stated objective is an information system that will enable animal health officials to respond to emergencies such as outbreaks of foreign animal diseases or emerging domestic diseases – with animal traceback to farm of origin within 48 hours, and a log of wherever that animal has been.
Components of the plan include premises ID (registration of every facility, farm, ranch, stockyard or home where target animals are kept, managed or handled – including sale-yards, fairgrounds, veterinary clinics, etc.), individual animal ID and animal tracking. All cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, captive deer and elk, equines (horses, donkeys, mules), poultry, llamas and alpacas must be identified.
Touted as a voluntary program, USDA and individual states are pushing for animal owners to sign up, offering incentives like free or inexpensive registration of premises if we do it now. There are cost sharing pilot programs to ID our animals; they tell us that if we wait til later it will cost us more. As of March 2006, 235,000 premises (10 percent of the national total) had been registered and USDA predicts 475,000 of the 2 million premises will be registered by the end of 2006. USDA says much of the NAIS is now operational and remaining elements soon will be. USDA Secretary Johanns says the NAIS has been a high priority "and we've made significant strides toward achieving a comprehensive U.S. system. We recognize that this represents one of the largest systematic changes ever faced by the livestock industry and we have welcomed suggestions from stakeholders to ensure that we continue to gain momentum."
Goals were set early on. BY JUNE 2004, USDA HAD ESTABLISHED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH ALL STATES AND TRIBES, AND GRANT MONEY WAS GIVEN TO THEM TO GET ALL PREMISES UNDER THEIR JURISDICTIONS REGISTERED. Some states are imposing fines on animal owners who do not register. Animal ID began in March 2006 and the AIN (Animal Individual Number) Management System became operational; USDA began allocating AINs to tag manufacturers to be distributed to livestock producers. Cattle must have eartags with radio frequency ID; other animals may have implants. BY JUNE THE USDA WAS MAKING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE AND STATE ANIMAL TRACKING DATABASES.
The plan is to have all databases operating by early 2007. In the timetable for getting every premises and animal registered and identified, USDA hopes for 25 percent of premises by January 2007, 70 percent of premises and 40 percent of the nation's 9 billion target animals by January 2008, and 100 PERCENT OF EACH BY JANUARY 2009 – along with complete movement data on 60 percent of all animals older than a year of age. After 2009, the USDA has a contingency plan to make compliance mandatory "if participation rates are not adequate.”
How did this evolve? THIS AMBITOUS PROJECT WAS SPAWNED BY THE NIAA (NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE), A SELF-APPOINTED QUASI-GOVERNMENT GROUP MADE UP OF MANY ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN ANIMAL INDUSTRIES, INCLUDING SOME OF THE LARGEST CORPORATIONS IN AGRICULTURE (SUCH AS MONSANTO, CARGILL MEAT, THE NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS, ETC.) AND MANY MANUFACTURERS AND MARKETERS OF HIGH-TECH ANIMAL ID EQUIPMENT (ALLFLEX, DIGITAL ANGEL, GLOBAL VET LINK, MICRO BEEF TECHNOLOGIES, ETC.). SOME OF THEM HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN A NATIONAL ANIMAL ID PROGRAM, EITHER BECAUSE IT WILL ENSURE MORE MARKETS FOR THEIR MEAT OR FOR THEIR ID EQUIPMENT.
The NIAA was created some years back to assess issues important in animal agriculture, and brings together interested parties from government and private industry to discuss these. The NIAA often creates action plans for whatever it deems necessary. Neil Hammerschmidt, now Coordinator for the NAIS at USDA/APHIS, helped develop an international program before taking charge of the U.S. ID program. During 1998-2003 (just prior to his present position), he chaired the ID and Information system of the NIAA.
At first glance it looks like the NAIS plan began in 2002 in the wake of the terrorist attack on 9/11 when the NIAA met with various industry groups to present information on current means of ID including microchips, retinal scans, etc. The plan was spurred into reality after the BSE scare in late 2003, but the idea for the plan actually began much earlier. SOME PEOPLE HAVE WORKED ON A NATIONAL ID SCHEME FOR 20 YEARS. The idea took root more strongly in the late 1990's, partly as an alternative action (suggested by some of the big meat packers who utilize cheap foreign beef) to country-of-origin labeling for meat products in the U.S.
Since their foreign beef is sold in grocery stores, they did not want American consumers to have the choice of selecting home grown beef instead. The growing market for natural and organic beef would also be swallowed up by the "big guys," especially if the costs and inconvenience of having to comply with the NAIS drive many small producers and family farms out of business.(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "DISEASE"!! IT'S ABOUT *TRADE*!!!)
Some of the big players in the live-stock/ meat packing industry want a strong foreign market for our beef and a lion's share of the domestic market. CARGILL AND WAL-MART are some of the big guns who helped design the NAIS. After the BSE scare, NIAA began lobbying USDA for a national registration and tracking system. A National Identification Development Team had been formed, which included more than 100 animal and livestock industry professionals, representing more than 70 groups and government agencies.
In late 2003 the first draft of a National Animal ID plan was presented to the USAHA (U.S. Animal Health Association), a group that had been emphasizing the need for modernization of animal ID to make it more effective in case of a national emergency such as Foot and Mouth Disease. The draft plan was accepted and USDA was asked to make the standards official, which they did; their Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards were released on April 25, 2005. According to this plan, any animal classified as agriculture must be identified-- including chickens, llamas and horses. Groups of hogs and poultry that stayed together from beginning to slaughter could be identified with a lot number; larger animals would need individual identification.
The National Identification Development Team had already decided they needed working groups within each species to tell USDA what is unique about identification in their species, to figure out the best way to have each type of animal fit into the NAIS. The Cattle Industry Working Group submitted recommendations on July 15, 2004, with additions submitted in April 2006.
(OUR NOTE: GRASSROOTS INDEPENDENT ANIMAL OWNERS HAD NO IDEA THAT ANYTHING LIKE THIS WAS BEING DONE UNTIL JANUARY 2006!! WHY WERE THEY KEPT *IN THE DARK* FOR SO LONG UNTIL IT WAS ALMOST TOO LATE?!)
Part Two: The NAIS Doesn't Need to Be Mandatory
Editor’s Note: This is part two in a series of four articles on the National Animal Identification System.
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKET IS PARTLY WHAT'S DRIVING THE NAIS PLAN. The international trade market is partly what's driving the NAIS plan. In 2003 our beef exports brought $7.5 billion. This market crashed after the first cow with BSE was discovered in the U.S. (a cow that came originally from a Canadian herd); in 2005, beef exports were down to $1.22 billion because some countries, like Japan, refused to take our beef. So packers and their trade associates (and many beef producers who hope that a better export market will strengthen the price they get for their animals) want something that will help restore and enhance the export market.
Most feedlots and packers want traceability of animals (since many foreign markets demand it) and some are paying stockmen higher prices for source and age verified cattle. The people pushing for compliance with NAIS are telling producers they'll get more money, and it's starting to happen. USDA hopes for market-driven upsurge in compliance. Some of the largest domestic markets for beef are also demanding traceability. MCDONALD'S claims traceability for 10 percent of their meat and wants 100 percent; WAL-MART DEMANDS 100 PERCENT. These demands put pressure on meat processors who then want feeders and producers to provide traceable products.
But as more electronically-identifiable cattle enter the system, added value for these cattle may shrink; if nearly everyone is doing it, buyers won't need to offer more money to get cattle with ID traceability. Most of the tagging being done right now is by producers participating in value-added programs; some are getting an extra $5 a hundredweight or more for their cattle, making it worth the effort to tag. But many feel they may lose that price edge if everyone is required to tag. In the meantime, non-verified cattle may bring lower prices – a hardship on small farmers or ranchers who don't want to comply with NAIS.
Some of the livestock industry is pushing ahead, trying to take advantage of possible market premiums and to not be "left behind" with low prices. For instance, stockmen in George County, Mississippi are selling cattle through the sale barn of Lucedale Livestock Producers, Inc. – an 800 member cooperative that volunteered to have the first ID feeder cattle sale in Mississippi in September 2005. This first sale was requested as a "test" BY CARGILL (THE GIANT INTERNATIONAL FOOD AND AG PRODUCTS COMPANY THAT HELPED FORGE THE ORIGINAL NAIS PLAN) . Many large feedlots are already telling producers that within two years they won't be buying any unidentified calves. This may be a handicap to some producers, including small farmers and ranchers who do not want the extra inconvenience and cost of participating in the program.
What will it cost America? Identifying and monitoring movement of every cow, sheep, chicken, horse, etc. will create a huge new government bureaucracy at taxpayer expense. No one knows what those costs will be to the government. USDA already spent $18.8 million on developing the identification system, and requested an additional $33 million last year. According to a public affairs specialist with USDA/APHIS, the USDA will have spent close to $85 million by the end of 2006 for this system.
Concerned about the amount of money already spent on the NAIS, Congress has not even come close to fully funding it. In June 2006 a FARM BUREAU SPOKEPERSON SAID THE PRICE TAG FOR THE NAIS COULD RUN AS HIGH AS $100 MILLION EACH YEAR, yet if the government wants and expects producers to participate voluntarily, adequate funding is a must. But is this something taxpayers are willing to finance?
Ultimately, there will be billions of dollars spent on things that do little to actually protect us from diseases or add value to food. The NAIS will merely add to our food cost, partly because A MONOPOLY IN FOOD PRODUCTION WILL EVOLVE. Big players will push small ones out of the marketplace. What will the cost be to our country if thousands of small family operations cease growing livestock and if their supply infrastructure (feed stores and other local businesses) go broke after losing their clientele? As one cattle breeder in Mississippi observed, many older farmers have said that when they are forced to comply, they will sell out. This means he'll lose part of his market – since he sells purebred seedstock to these farmers. Many people don't want the additional work and record keeping that will be involved to own animals.
No one knows how much the program will ultimately cost individuals who must comply. The original plan was for livestock owners and government to share costs. The USDA would fund infrastructure costs and animal owners would pay for premises registration fees, animal ID and the costs of reporting movement. The states have various programs on fees for premises registration. For instance, Texas was registering them for free until July 1, 2006 and after that it would be mandatory, with a fee of $20 every two years for renewal. Texas planned to impose a $1,000 fine on anyone who did not register. But livestock owners protested so loudly that the Texas Animal Health Commission postponed their date for mandatory premises registration.
All states have begun registration programs, which vary from state to state. The USDA granted money directly to state agencies to fund premises registrations (circumventing state legislatures where the program might have been voted down). For instance, the Texas Animal Health Commission received $1 million to implement the program in Texas. Premises ID has been required in Wisconsin and North Carolina (Wisconsin has completed the sign-up) and becomes mandatory in Indiana in September 2006. At this point it's still voluntary in most states, with various fees (no fees in Kansas).
When all phases of the program are in place, animal owners will be responsible for the cost of identity devices and will be required to provide the necessary records to databases. This means they must purchase RFID (radio frequency identification) reading devices and computer software to report information. You'll have to own a computer and pay for internet access to own an animal.
RFID ear tags cost $2 to $5, but if we're required to put them in at birth, an animal may lose its tag several times before it goes to market (many cattlemen would prefer to install tags just before the animal is sold, and therefore only have to do it once). Implanting chips into animals (such as horses) is not cheap. The chip itself may cost only $3 to $5, but it will cost $20 to $50 to have a veterinarian put it into the animal.
Why not keep it voluntary? The systems already in place for tracking animal diseases and animal movements in this country have been working. Brand laws, health certificates, control programs for brucellosis, TB, etc. have done a good job. We haven't had a case of Foot and Mouth Disease in the U.S. since 1929. BSE is a noncontagious disease that takes years to develop and is caused by cattle eating feed containing body parts of cattle with BSE. The sale of feed supplements containing rendered animal parts was banned in the U.S in 1997. The only way our country can ever get it is byimporting cattle from other countries. The best defense against foreign animal diseases is monitoring of imported animals, and meat, not making every U.S. animal owner ID their livestock.
If some people want the export market's premiums, they could voluntarily use animal and premises ID – just as some producers already participate in voluntary added- value programs like preconditioning calves before selling them to feedlots that are willing to pay extra for those calves. Participation in a national ID system should be voluntary or limited to animals most likely to be included in international commerce. Why not let an innovative market create a voluntary system that brings a premium for cattle enrolled in an ID program, without government imposing an intrusive system on every premise that has a farm animal?
There may be some hope that USDA will soften the push and allow the program to remain voluntary. On July 26, 2006, the Senate Ag Committee held a hearing on the nomination of several top officials, including Bruce Knight (who is currently Chief of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) who has been nominated for USDA Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, which include APHIS. This would put him in charge of the NAIS. His conformation for this office is expected. Speaking at the hearing, Knight said he thought the national ID program should be voluntary, and simplified to make it more attractive for livestock producers. Keeping it voluntary would make life a lot easier for many of us. Time will tell whether the drive toward a mandatory program will be put on hold temporarily or permanently.
ink, which can be read through animal hairs. The passive RFID technology could be used to identify and track cows to reduce financial losses from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease) scares. Somark, which formed in 2005, is located at the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis. The company is raising Series A equity financing and plans to license the technology to secondary markets, which could include laboratory animals, dogs, cats, prime cuts of meat, and military personnel. 
If the NAIS were to become mandatory, as many people in the USDA, NIAA AND SEVERAL OTHER VESTED INTERESTS WANT, every farm animal must have individual ID, a 15 digit number provided by USDA (the first 3 digits being a country code). For cattle it's supposed to be an ear tag with an RFID chip that can be scanned. For horses, the Equine Species Working Group recommends a micro-chip implanted by your vet, with the 15 digit number. THE NAIS STIPULATES USE OF THE ISO (INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION) 134.2 kilohertz (kHz) frequency chips - the type used in many European countries.
