In addition to the historic visit by President Bush, there were several important issues addressed at the recent 2002 Cattle Industry Convention in Denver. One topic that garnered significant interest was individual animal identification and the recommendations on minimum voluntary standards for improvement and consistency of information flow. The formal acceptance of these standards by the NCBA board of directors has provided a "road map for sharing information" for livestock producers, alliances and commercial companies that utilize visual and electronic identification (eID) for production and marketing efforts.

Increasing industry focus on consumer demands has underscored the importance of standardized record keeping systems. These systems must be capable of transferring information between the various production segments in an electronic format. The information must be error free and transmitted in a timely manner. These efforts should improve production quality, prices and, ultimately, profitability while addressing potential consumer concerns regarding a variety of issues before the demand for beef can potentially be damaged. This article will briefly address the content of ISO 11784, one of the two ISO standards that comprise the framework for the recently adopted standards and recommendations for cattle identification by the NCBA cattle identification standards sub-committee.

What does ISO stand for? The International Organization for Standardization represents a non-governmental federation of approximately 140 countries worldwide that was established in 1947. Its mission is to promote the development of standardization and related activities in the world with a charge of facilitating the international exchange of goods and services.

Accepted by ISO in 1993, standard 11784 details the bit code pattern of data placed on transponders (electronic ear tags) for animal use. The numeric structure is arranged on 64 bits that is divided into three primary fields. There are 15 digits reserved in order to assign a 12 digit individual animal ID number and a three digit manufacturer/country code. Moreover, it was recommended by the sub-committee that each animal ID should also contain premise information (producer name, physical and mailing address, phone number, and single or multiple producer defined locations) when transferring the animal's information from one location to the next throughout its lifespan.

Under ideal situations, the process of individually identifying animals begins with the application of an ISO-approved transponder in the animal's left ear prior to leaving its herd of origin. Electronic ID tag costs can be quite variable because of the broad range in data services and/or products that are offered by commercial companies or alliances. Should a producer elect not to use an eID tag at the herd of origin, a visual ID tag based upon a nationally accepted standard such as an American ID number, breed association registry number or USDA/government number may alternatively be used.

Designed for one time use only, an electronic ear tag or button must be tamperproof/tamper evident in design. Moreover, the entire ISO number must be printed on the electronic ID tag. The visual number is quite small on button-type tags and does not lend itself for practical use under management situations where the animal is not restrained in a chute. Consequently, button-type tags require an additional panel tag (at an added cost) to facilitate visual identification under pen and pasture conditions. Under remote circumstances where an electronic ID tag may cease to work, another unique ISO electronic tag may be used and cross-referenced to the original tag (if possible) in the primary database.

Ownership of data collected from individually identified animals was another issue addressed. For example, simply applying a tag to an animal at any stage of production does not entitle an individual to any collected information once the animal is out of the producer's control. The subcommittee determined that it is the responsibility of both buyers and sellers to develop agreements and terms of trade regarding aspects of sharing data. In order to provide security and maintain confidentiality, the sub-committee indicated that databases should have lock-down features in addition to time/date and source stamps coupled to all data entry activities. At the present time, there are several data management and software companies who offer services and software products to warehouse data (minimum of 20 years from the initiation of the individual animal record), provide data security and translate data into useable information. ©