Yep, John Royle is involved. Do you think he has final say? You're brighter than that JPReally? I thought they were stakeholders in RT and in driving this forward?
Best advise Mr Royle to stop pushing it then:
Blog: Could bovine EID drive efficiency in the supply chain?
First published in Meat Trades Journal, NFU chief livestock adviser John Royle writes that Bovine electronic identification (EID) has the potential to drive huge efficiency gains throughout the supply chain.
As a member of the Defra Traceability Design Board we’ve been looking at how the industry could mandate the introduction of EID tagging alongside the introduction of a new replacement database to record animal movement history.
We believe that moving to digital reporting, recording and EID for cattle has the potential to drive the single biggest efficiency gain for both Defra and the supply chain. Existing paper-based systems, although functional, are now seen as a little clunky, time-consuming and can be prone to transcription errors. EID would allow almost real-time digital recording of data.
The benefits are significant: reduced handling to read tags improving health and safety on farms and at processing sites and markets reducing costs and errors.
However, the potential of linking real-time movement history to management information is where the big wins will come – this might include assurance status, lifetime medicine history, health status and feedback from processors on inspection and classification data to finishers and rearers that could really drive productivity gains.
How we introduce EID is of course the challenge. A phased approach will no doubt be necessary whereby calves registered from a point in time would be EID identified. This would remove the need for a cattle passport as the tag would ‘talk’ in real time to the database. This database would hold all the animals’ movement history alongside the date of birth, breed, sex, dam ID and holding of birth.
Further phases could see a date in time where animals that move off the holding would need to be EID identified and then so do those animals that remain on farm.
The aim would be to keep the transitional period relatively short so the benefits of EID is realised by all in the supply chain, as soon as possible.
Cattle tagging regulation change?
- Thread starter Pan mixer
- Start date
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
@mo!
I don't mind paying for new super EiD tags (I'm a small farmer after all so it won't hurt me like the big boys
)
I don't mind working with a new online movement system - after all I do my VAT online and use CTS online as much as possible anyway
I'm worried that my perfectly adequate systems for intra holding movements and between my own holdings and my vet meds records will now get caught up in a whole host of electronic registration that I don't need or want. Nor do any buyers in the real world. Come to Colchester Market with me or to the stakeholder partners I sell beef through on a JV basis. The former has buyers who are interested in FA as far as a little Acoura sticker go, the latter is a whole ongoing conversation about provenance. The Lib Dems will still bang on about farmers liberally using Antibiotics even though my cows use none and the pig industry is making great strides to record and prove their active reduction campaigns etc
What I do worry about is the reported inability to manually read an animals tag like we can do currently with non EID cattle and EID sheep tags. How can that be right?
I don't mind paying for new super EiD tags (I'm a small farmer after all so it won't hurt me like the big boys
)I don't mind working with a new online movement system - after all I do my VAT online and use CTS online as much as possible anyway
I'm worried that my perfectly adequate systems for intra holding movements and between my own holdings and my vet meds records will now get caught up in a whole host of electronic registration that I don't need or want. Nor do any buyers in the real world. Come to Colchester Market with me or to the stakeholder partners I sell beef through on a JV basis. The former has buyers who are interested in FA as far as a little Acoura sticker go, the latter is a whole ongoing conversation about provenance. The Lib Dems will still bang on about farmers liberally using Antibiotics even though my cows use none and the pig industry is making great strides to record and prove their active reduction campaigns etc
What I do worry about is the reported inability to manually read an animals tag like we can do currently with non EID cattle and EID sheep tags. How can that be right?
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Be an interesting conversation walking round Colchester Market and getting feedback. I would imagine many of the consignors would be NFU members
Has anyone said that double tagging is ending? Are we double tagging with EID? What is the other tag for if it isn't going to have a number on it that you can read visually?@mo!
I don't mind paying for new super EiD tags (I'm a small farmer after all so it won't hurt me like the big boys
I don't mind working with a new online movement system - after all I do my VAT online and use CTS online as much as possible anyway
I'm worried that my perfectly adequate systems for intra holding movements and between my own holdings and my vet meds records will now get caught up in a whole host of electronic registration that I don't need or want. Nor do any buyers in the real world. Come to Colchester Market with me or to the stakeholder partners I sell beef through on a JV basis. The former has buyers who are interested in FA as far as a little Acoura sticker go, the latter is a whole ongoing conversation about provenance. The Lib Dems will still bang on about farmers liberally using Antibiotics even though my cows use none and the pig industry is making great strides to record and prove their active reduction campaigns etc
What I do worry about is the reported inability to manually read an animals tag like we can do currently with non EID cattle and EID sheep tags. How can that be right?
Don't believe the hype.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
I would hope so.
Of course he doesn't but from memory at the famed meet at the Royal Cornwall, he has been involved in many of the practical implications of this, has he not? I would imagine he is the prime mover advisor that advises Minette who in turn does the high power stuff behind closed doors on behalf of your members as Guy has alluded to in the past
This isn't actually a dig at NFU as being to blame. They are very much at the centre of the discussions though are they not.
I watch some of these musical chairs from AHDB to RT or vice versa with staffers (or NPA for that matter) and I often come away (with my peasant cow keeper hat on keeping the sun off my head and the few brain cells I have in) wondering who actually works on my side?
2YardOfLard
Member
- Location
- One of the smaller Hebrides
Reminds me of our "smart" electric meters. Several of my neighbours have them. How it works is they put you a new meter in then a bloke phones you on the landline every 3 months to ask you what it says.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Not hype, I think you need to re-read some of the threads from last year
To be fair in John Royle's blog I posted he did say this will need careful and staged implementation. But that does not remove what was said in the past.
Time will tell won't it
I presume when the announcement comes "It has been decided........." doubtless still blaming / citing some EU Directive (what will happen in the future here with no more scapegoats), there will be no public minutes of who said / advised / lobbied for what so we know the truth about who baked the cake
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
But you can't have it both ways, either NFU is actively consulting it's 47000 members and lobbying on their behalf about this or they are invited to development group and should be disseminating the implications of what is coming down the line
Which is it?
You said CTS is falling over, EVERYONE I speak to on here and in the real World respectfully disagrees
I may be a simple peasant cow keeper but some of this just doesn't add up
And if you're in any doubt, I'd prefer to keep the Cumbrians in charge of the movement system .................
How would any of us peasants really know what is happening behind the scenes at CTS? Maybe we're all being fed a lie? I would ask why? Are all of those 22 groups on backhanders from a tech company? Or are they trying to do the best for the people they represent.
As for rereading some of the old threads I'll pass. There was lots of nonsense talked then and I don't relish the thought of reading myself being insulted and misquoted by some members.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
At the sharp end, you can ring and speak with their Customer Service and things get resolved. They are pragmatic enough, so if it's a more difficult issue / involves policy, you can actually speak with folks in their Operations Team. I've done this after my holding had to split in to two lots of cattle (tags, herd numbers etc) following the implementation of the Mc Donald Review (he was an NFUer wasn't he?). That issue was solved well by the BCMS ad involved overcoming some RPA shortcomings.
In passing, if you remember, the McDonald review involved me breaking my high health status closed herd up and doubling the admin, always keeping two herd number tags handy for where something is born) yet allowing any non health status sheep keeper freedom to move anything within a 10 mile radius?
Sharp end experience 2; exporting cattle to Germany, the export licensing team are also based at Rosemount, Carlisle. Similarly my user experience at a practical level was very favourable
I doubt i'll get the chance, my time is jam packed in the next few weeks - and I can see that allowing it to be so is a symptom of some form of mental illness, but hey ho.
I'll ping you if I get the chance.
You know I've every respect for you Guy, and think you acquit yourself exceptionally well in the public eye.
But on this one, the NFU are light years away from where I'm at, or where I want to go.
I was at a commoners meeting last night, sat twixt 2 men.
One is a long time NFU man, and former serious office holder. He's well versed in whats planned, and despairs of the business.
The other still checks his cattle on the hill on his oss, and I'd be astonished if he's aware of the pending detail.
I'd be even more astonished, to the point of speechlessness, if he wants EID for cattle.
(and I should say, he is a cattle farmer of the highest, and I mean highest calibre.)
Sat in the gallery was an academic with desperate designs on rewilding.
instead of dickering over this bollix, perhaps we should see if we head off a concerted attempt to rid whole landscapes of our entire community.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Farming Review - Call for evidence
Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, has announced ambitious reviews into burdensome red tape in five key industry sectors, including agriculture.
The reviews are the first step to working with British businesses to axe unnecessary regulation and its poor implementation by a further £10 billion over the course of this Parliament. The Government is appealing to businesses to come forward and flag areas for change through the new Cutting Red Tape initiative, in order to reduce bureaucratic barriers to growth and productivity.
One of the five reviews is ‘Agriculture Information Requirements’. This review is seeking evidence of unnecessary burdens when reporting information to national and local government in the agricultural sector. Research suggests that reporting on animal health and farming currently takes 1.7m people hours per year at a cost of £77m. A call for evidence has been launched by Government with a closing date of 14 September.
The review will build on Defra’s existing programme of work to reduce burdens on farmers by seeking examples and evidence on any information requirements in England by Government, national regulators and local authorities which affects the reporting burden on the farming sector. The review is particularly interested in evidence of:
- The effect on, and costs incurred by, small companies on information reporting requirements
- The effect and proportionality of information reporting requests which impact upon the activities of business
- The impact of information reporting derived from health and safety issues
- The impact and usefulness of information requirements, particularly in areas where there appears to be regulatory overlap
- Any aspects of information reporting that could be made simpler or more efficient
- Areas of good practice that could be replicated elsewhere
Minette Batters, NFU Deputy President said: “Although progress is being made by Government in cutting red tape, it must act with more urgency so that farmers can see the benefits on the ground.
"For example, we need to see an implementation of all the Macdonald review recommendations on reducing red-tape, as highlighted by the Independent Farming Regulation Task Force in 2014, including a reduction in the inspection burden through risk based approaches, earned recognition for Red Tractor assured farm businesses and a better co-ordination between regulatory agencies.
"We want to be in a position where farmers and growers can focus on the business of producing British food rather than being professional form-fillers. It is for this reason that the NFU welcomes the launch today of the Government’s Cutting Red Tape Review of the agricultural sector.”
The NFU will be responding to the call for evidence. We are keen to hear from members on information requirements that impact on their business. We are particularly keen to hear about where information requirements could be made simpler or more efficient and what impact and costs businesses are faced with from information reporting requirements. Views can be sent to Lee Osborne.
Businesses can also feed back their thoughts to the Cutting Red Tape initiative by posting comments on the Agriculture Cutting Red Tape website or through Twitter:@cutredtapeUK using the hashtag #cutredtape; or via email to [email protected]
More...
We created two holdings in the aftermath of a positive tb case. The process was very difficult, though that may have been due to AHVLA being involved.
Often with new government systems it's all the same people with a new T shirt. Why would LIPS not have good support?
I get the point about the quango to lobbyist merry go round, but then, don't we want some of the poachers to turn gamekeepers and vice versa? Surely someone with inside knowledge of a government department would be useful on our side? Or a passionate lobbyist who grew up on the family farm and still works weekends during lambing getting a job in DEFRA/AHDB/where ever?
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
This was the section of Richard McDonald's Review Executive Summary from 2011 to Jim Paice MP and archived in 2013:
24. In considering Farmed Animals (CHAPTER 8) our major effort has been on the related issues of
animal identification and movement control. The present arrangements, including the six‐day movement
restriction, are intended to minimise disease spread. It is important that these controls are easily
understood and complied with, so that they protect the livestock industry. Unfortunately, the current rules
are criticised as complex and obstructive to livestock production, and this has led to relatively high levels of
non‐compliance.
25. This system must be replaced by a new package of measures that balances the relative risk of
disease spread and the need of businesses for a simpler system that takes account of the seasonal nature
of livestock production. The key elements of this new approach should comprise: rapid adoption of
electronic reporting of animal movements , introduction of a single, distance‐limited CPH designation
(replacing Sole Occupancy Authorities and Cattle Tracing Scheme Links) that will allow farm‐to‐farm
movement of animals without record keeping, and free movement of animals between individual farms
without triggering a six‐day standstill. Approved separation facilities within a CPH to hold bought‐in animals
without a standstill on the rest of the holding should also be allowed, thereby allowing producers to make
maximum use of limited market opportunities.
- Location
- East Sussex
Those that want to use it will primarily be further up the chain than the poor bugger that has to buy and put the tag in. Those that want these tags won’t be paying anymore money for the animal.
They Who want it can pay for it imo.
Perhaps a £5 a head slaughter charge that is used to fund the EID tags? That way the person that has had the most use of the technology pays for it.
Are you going to get breeders to put them in properly for my fiver, get the dates right, get the sex right? That would be money well spent.
- Location
- Bedfordshire
With respect Guy, you didn't answer my first post on this thread. Did you ever hear my concerns raised or anyone else's about retention rates? If not, then your nfu representatives are not relaying the right information.
I have still not had an answer to the problem with retention rates.
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Forever Fendt
Member
- Location
- Derbyshire
I have probably 20 sets of tags still clipped together correctly and cattle with intact ears not damaged, The tags have simply worked there way out some found at feed fence admittedly and lots in field free to replace but a load of hassle