NAIS

...now browsing by category

 

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010
Editorial note: Although thousands of people have traveled the nation to express opposition and concerns about Animal ID enforcements, it appears none were heard by USDA and now a new round of talks are starting. One wonders what part of the USDA ID programs offered in the past the government did not understand or hear. Now it starts all over again with Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) sessions. The next one is in Denver as per the article below. Surely every rancher will drop his harvesting and fly to Denver to protect the family from intrusive and persistent new government enforcements. Perhaps like the infamous Listening Sessions of -09 each concerned livestock producer will be allowed a 3 minute rant session before the federal officials.
The attendance for one more meeting is encouraged for an “open flow of ideas” and to “develop sensible solutions.” Although everyone is invited by the United States Animal Health Assn and the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, co-hosts, the cost is hotel, travel and a full $250 each for enrollment if you are not a NIAA or USAHA member. If you want to join and be a member in good standing it is only $1000 for one year.
As over a thousand ranches bite the bullet and leave the business per month, costs of government enforcements and cheery little meetings increase. DD

Drovers

Talking traceability

Drovers news source
Tuesday, July 06, 2010

During February 2010, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that his agency would be redirecting its efforts surrounding animal identification in the nation to the development of a framework for animal disease traceability. The new framework places USDA in the role of determining rules for interstate movement of animals, and places the responsibility of traceability on States and Tribal Nations within their own boundaries. Given the details involved with this change in direction, there have been many questions raised by animal producers and marketers, as well as State and Tribal animal health officials.

Through a series of public meetings beginning in May, USDA has been gathering feedback on the new framework; however the public sessions have not provided the opportunity for all animal health officials and industry participants to meet jointly to discuss the many issues and develop sensible solutions for developing an animal disease traceability system that will best serve both groups.

As a result, it has been announced by the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) and the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) that they will co-host a Joint Strategy Forum on Animal Disease Traceability, to be held August 30-31, 2010 in Denver, Colorado. The Forum is being designed to facilitate much-needed interaction between State and Tribal animal health officials, animal producers, livestock marketers and handlers, and meat processors that yields valuable input on preliminary standards which are being developed by USDA’s Traceability Regulatory Working Group, expected to be released in mid-August.

“This Forum will allow for the open flow of ideas and concerns among those producing animals; State and Tribal officials responsible for protecting the health of animals in their areas; and USDA,” said Dr. Richard Breitmeyer, State Veterinarian for California and current president of USAHA. “Unless we have a discussion including all parties, the development of a viable animal disease traceability framework will be much more difficult.”

The Forum is open to everyone interested in the development of an effective and efficient system of identifying animals that move across State and Tribal lines in the U.S. Interactive sessions will be held covering all species of animals for which interstate movement requires compliance with animal health regulations.

“It has been announced by USDA that they intend to publish new rules on disease traceability by this winter, which makes this Forum crucial in conveying input before the rule is complete,” stated Dr. Michael Coe, co-chair of the Forum Planning Committee. “Given that timeline, industry and the States and Tribes need to make their positions known to decision-makers.”

The Joint Strategy Forum on Animal Disease Traceability will take place at the Renaissance Denver Hotel in Denver, Co. Hotel reservation and Forum registration information is available at www.animalagriculture.org or www.usaha.org.

Australian NLIS has 34% or more failure rate

Friday, June 25th, 2010

“So when you are told by the Meat and Livestock Association that our NLIS system is wonderful, or there is full traceability, they are not telling the truth.”

“We have alerted the Government to the situation but they argue the system is still being bedded down. In actual fact the percentage loss of traceability of Australian cattle herds is increasing over time.”


ABA has a beef with tags

Peter Weekes | 26th June 2010

MORE THAN a quarter of the cattle monitored by identification tags  are lost within the complex tracking system that costs $37 a head, a  summit heard yesterday.

At summit: At the Casino conference are Bill Bullard (left), CEO of R-Calf USA Ranches and Cattlemen Association, Australian Beef Association chairman Brad Bellinger, and ABA vice-chairwoman Linda Hewitt.

Doug Eton

MORE THAN a quarter of the cattle monitored by identification tags are lost within the complex tracking system that costs $37 a head, an Australian Beef Association summit heard yesterday.

The ABA’s chairman Brad Bellinger told a Casino meeting, which drew about 70 farmers from as far afield as Perth and Tasmania, the National Livestock Identification System that was foisted on cattle producers was ineffective and ‘potentially dangerous’.

The ABA recently commissioned an audit of 57,000 tags – the largest ever – to find out if the system allowed cattle to be traced back to the farm.

“The audit found 34.5 per cent did not have lifetime traceability,” Mr Bellinger said.

“So when you are told by the Meat and Livestock Association that our NLIS system is wonderful, or there is full traceability, they are not telling the truth.”

“We have alerted the Government to the situation but they argue the system is still being bedded down. In actual fact the percentage loss of traceability of Australian cattle herds is increasing over time.”

Mr Bellinger said the system’s failure was because of producer processes, not transferring cattle on the data base, tags failing out of the animals ears and being replaced by other and faulty reading equipment.

The National Livestock Identification System is Australia’s system for identification and traceability of live-stock. It was introduced in 1999 to meet European Union requirements for exports.

However, Mr Bellinger said the world’s largest beef exporter, Brazil, did not use any identification system.

He said the audit authors of Australia’s system found achieving lifetime traceability was unlikely to be ever achieved.

“To rely on NLIS for credible information to contain a highly contagious disease outbreak would be illusionary and potentially dangerous to the industry,” he said.

Mr Bellinger said the previous system of wrapping the animals’ tail around a tag and the accompanying paper trail was “more than adequate and a lot less costly”.

He also took aim at the industry’s body, the Meat and Livestock Association which has come under growing criticism since it supported the Federal Government’s recent attempts to allow imports of beef from mad-cow affected countries.

Only days before the nation’s boarders were to be opened, Federal Primary Industry Minister Tony Bourke did a back flip and, succumbing to cattle farmers’ demand for a full import risk analysis, effectively placed a two-year moratorium on lifting the import ban.

“After 13 years of an undemocratic meat industry structure, that has been shamelessly supported by both sides of politics, Australian cattle producers have had enough of trying to run enterprises with cattle prices unchanged in the last 20 years,” Mr Bellinger said.

NAIS, Codex Alimentarius, Bill S510 and Other Bedtime Stories to Guarantee Nightmares

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

By Tamrah Jo Ortiz

Thanks to my good friends on Facebook, I was alerted that the ugly head of the government is once again poking its’ large and obnoxious nose into places it doesn’t belong. Yes, I realize this is a inflammatory statement, hence, my writing here, instead of posting this as a comment at the www.opencongress.org website. (which, if you’d like, you can visit and look at the hoopla going on over various bills.)

So, let’s take a look at each of these and try to make sense of them.

NAIS – The National Animal Identification System. In brief, this idea is supposedly born of the desire to quickly identify and destroy animals that pose a threat to both food supply and our existence. (mad cow disease, avian bird flu, anyone?)

What is not so clear is how anyone thinks any of this will really work. Number 1, the folks that want to implement this currently employ thousands to audit tax returns and apparently have not been successful in creating a database or secure electronic means of verifying taxes or conducting a paperless census (which, by the way, we filled out, returned and apparently was ‘lost’ as a census person showed up at my house saying they didn’t get ours. On the flip side, my mom got 2 censuses to fill out and a friend never received any….)

Now, if these folks have not centralized, streamlined and made efficient the operations they have been in charge of for decades, how in the world are we to believe they can implement this kind of system and let us know about diseased food within 20 years of our consumption of it?

Number 2 – current figures show that given the ‘requirements’ of the system, most of the costs will fall on the small farmers and ranchers – courtesy of Wikipedia is the following:

“The costs of becoming NAIS compliant for a U.S. beef producer were found to be a minimum of $2.08 a head for large producers and as much as $17.56 a head for smaller operations, with an estimated average cost to cow/calf producers of $6.26 per animal, according to research by Christopher Raphael Crosby of Kansan State University’s Department of Agricultural Economics published in 2008.”

Does anyone hear “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”?

Number 3 – Historically, outbreaks of disease occur in close population, improperly nourished animals. Farmer John who has 15 head of cattle and 160 acres of pasture does not face the same challenges as Mr. Beef, who has crammed 5,000 cows into a feedlot the size of a Wal-mart parking lot, where calves play on hills of cow patties and drink milk produced from the ingestion of soybean and corn meal (when cows have evolved to do just fine, thank you very much, on grass.)

Plus, Farmer John really depends on his herd for his food, to feed his family and perhaps a neighbor or two and to bring in some extra cash to pay the ever-increasing cost of living expenses. So he has a HUGE investment in making sure his herd is healthy and well-nourished. The loss of even one cow can make or break him.

Mr. Beef can depend on tax breaks, an adjustment of market prices, government bailouts, etc, if he somehow manages to lose his herd to disease. So who do you think takes better care of their herd?

On to the next – Codex Alimentarius – Proponents will tell you it’s an international effort to ensure the safety of food for all – as well as to keep me from accidently killing myself from taking too much Vitamin C.

Again, these efforts are brought to you by folks who can’t even balance their own budgets and settle disputes among themselves in a peaceful manner. Do you really think they know how much Vitamin C I can handle and furthermore, if I were receiving nutritious food, would I even need a supplement? If they are so invested in “Nutritious, Safe Food to further the health and well-being of the populace” then why did they ignore the published findings of biochemist Dr. Mary Enig in the 70’s, who warned of the dangers of trans-fats and hydrogenated fats to the human body? Um, no, took about 40 years before they figured that one out (if they even have yet……………)

I also find it interesting that many countries within the World Effort of this measure are ARDENTLY opposed to GMO foods and have been very insistent on pushing for foods containing those types of ingredients to be Labeled. Those who have a vested interest in controlling both seed and food supplies, by getting ‘patents’ on their genetically modified seeds and plants have kept up the pressure and keep taking a run at getting that ‘pesky little nuisance’ of required labeling for GMO foods buried under the rug.

All in all, I cannot see the reasoning for extending all this effort on the Codex other than for countries who take their food and health seriously to put up a ‘fence’ to keep those exports out from countries that do not. (meaning, US)

So with the history of these two long-running dramas, I now come to the most recent – Senate Bill S510.

Innocuously titled, “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act”, it lists high-sounding ideals and includes some of the following:

food facility re-inspection (um…I worked as a waitress for 12 years, I can tell you, restaurants get inspected every year……)
food recalls (aren’t they already allowed to do that?)
a voluntary qualified importer program (have these people never heard of eating locally?)
So those violently opposed to this bill read it and see how easily seed and food control could be placed in the hands of those who have no business telling us what we can grow or eat, share with our neighbors or sell at the local farmer’s market. And I agree with them to a point; while the bill does not specifically state any of these intents, the large generalized points of it are open to all kinds of interpretations.

History tells me the interpreters will translate it for the benefit of themselves, their agency budget and their large campaign contributors (corporations) before they will for my health and well being.

Again, if you look to history, deaths and illness related to the consumption of contaminated, diseased foods, has been linked to large corporate mono-culture farms, not the small local producers. Why? Well, because the small local producer not only feeds you, but their own family. They don’t have the time or the energy (or the insanity) to grow one garden with ‘good stuff’ for their family and another with ‘questionable stuff’ to sell at the local market.

In addition, if I get ‘bad food’ at the local farmer’s market, I know exactly who to go to with my accusations. When large farms put out questionable produce, it has also traveled through one or more broker warehouses, a packaging plant or two, the transportation gamut….on and on and its’ so easy to pass the buck on who exactly is to blame.

I’m also curious as to why Homeland Security is one of the committees listed on the bill’s information page. What, are they afraid terrorists are going to send us toxic bananas? Newsflash, if everyone ate organic and locally, this fear would be laughable. And I can tell you, any terrorist shows up at our local farmers market with evil intent on his mind, I can guarantee there are enough ‘rednecks’ around here that are just waiting for an opportunity to show the world what real Homeland Security looks like.

I also wonder just where they are going to get the money to implement all this when they are already crying about ‘deficits’ and ‘budget cuts’. To my mind, this has less to do with feeding the nation safely and more to do with feeding the oversized monster we call our government, as well as nudging out any competition to the large centralized food companies.

Implementation, testing and compliance enforcement take money – and that money will come from those who want to ‘buy into the market’ (meaning smaller operations won’t be able to afford to be in the market) – but most of the money will come from you and me, the consumer. What? You don’t think so? Just who do you think is paying for the Tobacco Company Settlements? It isn’t the companies or the government, its’ the consumers. But I’ll leave that debate for another time.

The legislation listed above can only make sense in a climate of fear. They can only pass when we blindly believe the government is really trying to protect us. When we believe that death is more heinous than liberty. (Oh where is Patrick Henry when you need him?)

Quit looking to the government to save you from harm. Know those who grow your food. Have a relationship. Trust me, they are much more invested in your health and well being than the FDA is. Because without you, they don’t have a livelihood. The FDA and government don’t either, but they have forgotten.

Remind them.

NAIS and Hot Iron Brands vs USDA

Friday, June 4th, 2010

An electronic animal ID system has been the passion of USDA for over 18 years. Recently, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that hot iron branding was an acceptable form of future animal ID.

History completely agrees with the secretary’s findings.

Branding History

The western cowboy did not invent hot iron branding. The documented history of branding goes back for thousands of years. Scenes of oxen being branded on hieroglyphics are depicted on Egyptian tombs as early as 2,700 BC.

Hot Iron BrandingHot iron branding animal ID, for proof of title, has not changed for over 5,000 years. The book of Zechariah records this process in chapter 3 verse 2, “a brand plucked out of the fire.”

On a darker side of history, the use of a hot iron as proof of ownership went beyond cattle to an area people today prefer not to think about, the ID branding of human beings. From days of the ancient Greeks, Arabians, Romans and Egyptians, slaves were often marked as property with a small brand by their owner. The practice has continued in slave owning countries around the world. More recently branding has been used on prisoners and self branding which is termed “art branding” or “scarification.”

Hernando Cortez is credited with bringing the first branding irons to the Americas in 1541. His personal holding brand was three crosses.

Branding became common in the US after the Civil War. Eventually, in Canada, the second session of the Northwest Territories government on August 1, 1878 established a law requiring all livestock to be branded.

Brands of every shape and design were visible on every Longhorn that came out of Texas during the great trail drives. Spanish brands are often artistically designed with cursive, complicated circular characters. The western American ranchers chose simpler block and open shapes, which proved harder to alter and easier to read.

Designing a Personal Brand

Designs and names of brands are as colorful as the people who use them. The traditions and pride of ownership attached to brands is a volume in itself.

Selecting a brand can be a simple thing or as detailed and historically meaningful as the owner desires. Most brands are based on the owner’s or the ranch’s initials. They may be a symbol, letter, number, character or combinations of connected or separate figures. A brand symbol, for example, may be a hat, fish, pitch fork, shovel, hook, bell, spur, staple, horse shoe, or wine glass. The list goes on.

Brands are read like books from top to bottom and from left to right. Without a doubt, it is a historical, respected, language all it’s own.

A branding iron should be of quarter-inch clean iron made to the desired shape. Small cattle should be branded with irons about 3″ tall and larger adult stock can be about 4.”

A horse iron can be as small as 2″.

The handle should be about thirty inches long with an end grip holding device. When applied to stock, separate letters should be at least one inch apart so as not to appear attached.

Notches or “breaks” are necessary on all irons where the bars join or intersect, about 1/4″ to 3/8″ wide. This prevents blotching in the corners. Letters like the top point of an A are particularly prone to blotch and always should be left open. Letters like L, C, U, I, J, S and open shapes yield themselves to clean readable brands.

Holding Brand Registration

No ownership holding brand should be applied until legally registered. Registration is done in most states through the Dept. of Agriculture. A brand design is submitted for approval and recorded for a set fee, and only the recorded owner of that design can legally use it on their livestock.

No two brands will be registered that are, or appear to be, the same design. In the eastern U.S. many states only have a few hundred registered brands, so it is easy to acquire a simple, clean brand.

Colorado, on the other hand, has registered over 60,000 brands making it difficult to get a new brand with less than 4 letters. Texas, not to be outdone, claims over 230,000 registered brands on the books.

Code Brand Records

Simple brand codes may reveal to the owner information like pedigrees, year of birth, or ranch division where born. In order to keep the brand process simple and requiring minimal time to apply, fewer letters are always better.

A single number indicating the year of birth is quite often used. The current year 2010 would be “0″. At a glance the owner can easily know the year of birth. The year code can be part of the regular numbering system, over, under, in front of, or beyond the animal ID brand number. Brands are simple and can be recorded on a paper tablet providing a permanent record that lives well beyond the life of the animal. The numbering process is practiced by most ranches providing a non duplicate ID for every animal traceable through the records of USDA through the state brand registration system.

Confinement

Successfully applying a clear distinct ID brand requires the recipient to be still. In the open range, cattle were roped and laid on the ground for branding. Some of the best clear brands are done this way.

The same process can be used in a small herd where the critter is physically laid down, not on the open range, but in a back yard corral. This is recommended for young calves, and not adults.

When adult cattle are branded, a metal squeeze chute is safe and efficient. The side squeeze chutes eliminate the head catch and restrain the critter better from head swinging. This provides safer name tagging, vapor tagging, and OCV tattoos. Plus, the side swing confinements are always the safest for releasing an animal from either side. A general purpose chute sells for $1250 to $2500.

Animal Safety/Care

All processes in cattle care should be bloodless. Although tags and pins are numerous, each tag entry can puncture arteries, hide, muscles and pierce major ear cartilage, which always bleeds. With bleeding can come infection, insect attraction, irritation, or partial loss of hearing and ear function.

The searing process of branding should never draw blood and is self sealing. It becomes a permanent ID in seconds and no medication should be needed in the future.

State Brand Laws

Secretary Vilsack has wisely acknowledged the State Brand Inspection Systems (SBIS) are good animal ID. From the Mississippi west every state has brand laws and inspection procedures, with some dating well over a hundred years old — well tested by time. Branding is economical and a system currently in use by nearly every major cattle raiser. It doesn’t require more fees, expanded USDA staff, computer education, high tech equipment purchases (not proven to perform under range conditions) or pernicious enforcement fines. The old brand laws work for all the right reasons. Last year SBIS visually inspected and documented 27,000,000 cattle according to James Clement, DVM. (See Animal ID, Another View)

Heating the Irons

More irons have been heated with wood than any other way. A hot wood fire serves the purpose well. Today most people are in a hurry and use either electric irons or heat with propane. A small propane bottle will heat a lot of irons and may be transported easily without the limitations of an electric cord.

The iron, when heated properly, should appear a light ash color. An iron heated in a flame will first accumulate carbon and appear very black. A black iron is too cold. It may be hot enough to burn or singe the hair, but not hot enough to penetrate the roots of the hair follicles, essential for a permanent mark.

Red hot, yellow, or white irons should be cooled before use. A red hot iron may brand too fast. The beauty of clear clean brands comes with experience.

Applying the Brand

It is impossible to make a rule for the length of time the iron should be held to the hide, because the condition of the hair and the temperature vary.

To apply the brand, move the handle in a slow, rocking motion which will vary the pressure. A critter is not a flat surface so a flat iron may not clearly mark at all corners. It is better to remove the iron after a couple of seconds, check the mark and reapply the iron to the parts not adequately branded. Always error on the light side rather than over doing the time and pressure.

With the first brand effort, test the result. Hand rub the brand and briskly remove the charred hair. If the animal has been properly branded, a clear outline mark of the complete brand will have a saddle leather light rust color to it.

On the other hand, if the iron was not hot enough, only the hair will be burned and short partially branded hair will be in the brand design. Re-heat and place the iron exactly on the same spot and allow additional time.

When branding is complete, a generous rub with bacon grease using a paint mitten will promptly soothe and lubricate the hide.

An adult steer has hide 10 times thicker than a human. A good brand only enters about one tenth into the total thickness of the hide. Penetration of the skin’s epidermis outer layer is the goal of a correct brand. Correct placement is below the hair and above the dermis tissue.

In Europe numerous ear tag computer methods are used. Year by year more electronic ear devices become mandatory, attached at birth. (calf already has 4 tags - required by law)

In Europe numerous ear tag computer methods are used. Year by year more electronic ear devices become mandatory, attached at birth. (calf already has 4 tags - required by law)

What is the Real Reason?

Proof of title is the historic reason for a brand. It has worked for over 5,000 years. It is the best permanent ID for an owner’s records. Permanent fire brand ID not only works on a live animal, but continues to be a valid ID on the hide after processing. Unfortunately, there are always unscrupulous people who want to steal or “rustle” livestock. In the fifth century BC, I Chronicles 7-21 records that the whole family of Ephraim was killed for “trying” to rustle cattle.

Modern cattle rustlers, which are numerous, truly love the current highly promoted electronic ID. Any cattle rustler can easily remove, replace, change tags and electronic pins. To speed up the process rustlers order a Tag-Sav-R Ear Tag Remover from Nasco for $25.75. Nasco Tag-Sav_RThis jiffy Safety Tag Knifetool was developed to back-out the pin arrow and allow a person to replace it into another animal. It only takes a couple seconds on most pins. If $25.75 cost too much, Nasco has a more affordable Safety Tag Knife for $3.95, cut those unsightly tags out and throw them away.

To think the 840 pins are legal ID or even correct source verification is absurd.

When a rustler is in a hurry to haul-out, it only takes a second to cut the whole ear tip off. That is not a permanent animal ID — ask any successful cattle rustler.

Special TSCRA Ranger Scott Williamson, who is working on several rustling cases in Texas says, “It is a great deal easier in court when stolen animals are fire branded. Prosecutors prefer to try cases where the animals have been branded. If you can prove to the prosecutor that he’s going to be able to absolutely identify an animal in court, he knows he’s not sticking his neck out to take the case.”

No type of animal ear ID has ever held up in court for a conviction, except a hide fire brand.

Every major cattle producing nation on earth uses fire brands. The permanence and stability of a fire brand is superior to all other ID methods including the old “brite” USDA tags that are being newly promoted for AIS.

So, after the smoke and the dust are settled, and all the government listening NAIS sessions are over, trust your neighbors — but fire brand your cattle!

Electronic ID discovers home on the range

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Editorial comment: Private livestock ID is a must for every producer of large numbers, for all types of data needed to be professional. A system that allows the owner private access to all data is totally different than the ill-fated NAIS program where the government held private access to all producer’s data. Although there is widespread support for voluntary owner high tech data there is minimal support for forced government data control and enforcement by governments for non compliance to their demands. All NAIS data was and is non accessible by livestock owners. Please note there is a major difference. DD

Electronic ID discovers home on the range
John Seelmeyer, 5/31/2010

Tom Filbin needs to keep careful track of more than 3,000 head of sheep at the Rafter 7 Sheep Ranch along the East Walker River near Yerington. Breed-research programs jointly sponsored by the University of Nevada, Reno, College of Agriculture and the ranch owner, the Edwin L. Wiegand Trust, look to develop more profitable sheep for wool producers in the Western states.

And that requires careful accounting of the genetics and history of every animal.

Filbin’s staff at Rafter 7 has turned to technology — radio frequency identification tags — to provide efficient and accurate information about individual animals.

The tags, similar to those used by technologically savvy distribution centers to track merchandise as it moves through a warehouse, allow ranch staff to use an electronic scanner to identify individual animals.

And although the high hopes of makers of electronic tags were set back by the federal government this winter, the high-tech tags continue to find a niche.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, faced with strong resistance from ranchers and farmers nationwide, decided in February to scrap its proposed National Animal Identification System.

That system, intended to provide quick tracking of livestock in case of an outbreak of animal disease, was expected to drive widespread adoption of electronic systems.

The market cratered when the USDA pulled back from the proposed standard.

“It’s a depressed market,” says Jay McCown, founder of Ranger ID Technologies, a Mountain Home, Idaho, company that develops and markets electronic identification systems for livestock. But market hasn’t disappeared.

“What we’re left with is niches all over the place,” says McCown. One niche, he says, is found in operations such as Rafter 7 Sheep Ranch, where accurate records are the cornerstone of breed-improvement initiatives.

Says Rafter 7’s Filbin: “It’s the best technology as far as accuracy. The more you can have on a computer, the better job you can do.” The cost — about $2 a head, plus software and hardware — isn’t inexpensive, but Filbin says the operational convenience and accurate records make the system co-effective.

When Rafter 7 began using the tags, some staff wondered if the electronic devices would be lost as sheep grazed in open range and encountered fences and corrals.

David Thain, Nevada’s state extension veterinarian in the department of animal biotechnology at UNR, says some of livestock operations in the state have moved to electronic identification as a means of maintaining records — and to help track the source of animals after they’re sold.