Scottish Government

Consultation on Implementation Proposals for EU Requirements Regarding Electronic Identification ( EID) of Sheep and Individual Recording of Sheep and Goats

EC 21/2004 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals.

Summary

The objective of the Regulation is to improve the effectiveness of the identification and tracing system for sheep and goats by introducing individual traceability. The Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001 identified inadequacies in the EU sheep and goat identification and tracing arrangements laid down in Council Directive 92/102/ EEC so in 2003 new rules were agreed to phase in improvements to EU identification and traceability arrangements.

The first phase required double tagging from 2005. In Scotland those rules were deferred until 18 January 2008 following an initial derogation that maintained batch recording. The second phase is to move to individual animal traceability. This requires the introduction of individual animal recording through electronic identification and the date when this must be introduced is 01 January 2010 as set by the EU Council of Ministers.

The Regulation applies equally to all 27 Member States in that all are required to introduce individual recording. Some countries can opt not to use electronic identifiers, but given the UK has the largest sheep population in Europe, Scottish Ministers are legally obliged to implement individual recording and EID.

What is being consulted on?

There are a number of significant decisions to be made regarding implementation including:

• The slaughter derogation - the Regulation allows lambs to be identified with a single (non electronic) identifier if they are intended for UK slaughter before reaching 12 months of age.
• Replacement tagging - the Regulation provides flexibility in how Member States allow lost or illegible identifiers to be replaced. It is a Scottish decision to adopt rules that suits the industry and maintains traceability.
• Critical Control Points ( CCP's) - the Regulations allows the use of third parties to record individual animal identities on behalf of keepers. It is a Scottish decision to make use of this provision.
• Database - the Regulations allow the non use of 'on' farm registers and movement documents if the central database contains all the information required in these documents. It is a Scottish decision to make use of these provisions.

What is not being consulted on?

• EID only after leaving the holding of birth - Scotland and the rest of the UK sent proposals to the EU Commission that sought to allow breeding ewes that stay on the holding of birth to be exempt from compulsory electronic identification until they move off the holding. Unfortunately the EU Commission and the Council of Minsters were not able consider this option and therefore all animals must be identified within 6 months in intensive conditions and 9 months in extensive conditions.

A summary of current systems can be found at Annex A.

Options for implementation in Scotland

The final phase of the new EU rules governing the identification of sheep and goats will be implemented in Scotland on 01 January 2010 through a combination of the Regulation itself and new domestic legislation (provisionally entitled - The Sheep and Goat (Records, Identification and Movement)(Scotland) Order 2010).

The provisions of the Regulation are directly applicable in UK law but domestic legislation is required to define offences, penalties and any options (derogations) available in the Regulation that we propose to apply, plus some additional provisions needed for implementation.

An analysis of the costs is included in the accompanying regulatory impact assessment setting out our estimates of the costs of implementation.

The paragraphs below describe how the changes to the existing rules might be implemented; these will take effect from 01 January 2010. The specific questions (which follow) are those on which we welcome your views. References to the Regulation have been included. Your responses will help Scottish Ministers shape the Scottish legislation.

New Provisions

Identification of sheep

All lambs born after 01 January 2010 must be identified with two identifiers, one of which must be electronic ¹

The Regulation has not changed the timescale of when sheep must first be identified, it remains either within 6 months of birth - if intensively farmed; within 9 months of birth - if extensively farmed; or before any movement off the holding of birth occurs whichever is the sooner.

A single non-electronic slaughter batch tag ("a slaughter tag") might be applied instead of two identifiers to animals that will be slaughtered before reaching 12 months of age ². This is commonly described as the slaughter derogation, the options for which are discussed in detail below.

The Regulation provides for all identification identifiers to be approved but extends the range of those currently available for use by the keeper ³. It provides for the use of eartags, tattoos, pastern tags, electronic eartags, electronic boluses, electronic pastern tags and injectable transponders. The use of electronic pastern tags and injectable transponders is optional when animals are not involved in intra-community trade.

We are proposing to authorise the use of all methods of identification provided for with the exception of injectable transponders. We propose not to authorise the use of injectable transponders because there are public health concerns surrounding their use, particularly associated with the risk of migration from the injection site. We will review the use of injectable transponders and their potential application, as more information becomes available.

We are also proposing that where a tattoo is used to identify an animal it should not be used in conjunction with a bolus. This is because it would not be possible to include a visual identifier on a tattoo to indicate that a bolus had been applied.

Question 1. Do you agree with the Scottish Government options on the types of identification to be used?

If not, please explain why.

Slaughter Derogation

The Regulations allow for the provision of a slaughter tag in place of two means of identification for animals that are intended to be slaughtered within 12 months of age. The minimum requirement for the slaughter tag is that it contains the flock/herd mark of the holding of birth.

There are various options surrounding the 'slaughter' derogation. These are:

NO SLAUGHTER DEROGATION - requires that all lambs born on or after 01 January 2010, with no exceptions, would require two means of identification (one of which is electronic) and would need to be individually recorded (100% of all lambs).

A RESTRICTED SLAUGHTER DEROGATION - requires finished lambs moving direct to slaughter or via a market to slaughter to be identified with a single slaughter tag (approx 35% of all lambs). Under this option, finished lambs would continue to be recorded in movement documents and in holding registers on a batch basis. All other lambs would require two means of identification (one of which is electronic) and would need to be individually recorded.

A FULL SLAUGHTER DEROGATION - requires only those lambs that are to be kept beyond the age of 12 months to be identified with two means of identification (one of which is electronic). Breeding sheep and hoggets over 12 months of age would have to be individually recorded on a movement document and in the holding register. All lambs that are intended for slaughter within 12 months of age could be identified with a single slaughter tag and be recorded on a batch basis (approx 70% of all lambs).

AN 'ELECTRONIC' SLAUGHTER TAG DEROGATION - this would allow for the 'slaughter tag' to be a single electronic tag and applied to all animals to be slaughtered before the age of 12 months. By doing so this would alleviate the problem of recording 'batch within a batch' where mixed animals are moved (see below in points to consider). There are two options within this electronic slaughter tag derogation -

1. The slaughter tag may contain only batch information - the six digit flock/herd mark. Or

2. The slaughter tag may contain a full unique 12 digit identity code - the six digit flock/herd mark plus a unique 6 digit identity.

The difference of a batch or individual number on an electronic slaughter tag affects the recording requirements and whether or not the animal can be upgraded breeding status if it reaches for 12 months of age.

The Commission have stated that in order for animals to be upgraded to breeding animal/older than 12 months animals have to be completely traceable and in order to satisfy this requirement animals must be individually recorded when them move between holdings.

As both the batch and an individual numbered electronic slaughter tag will contain a unique number in the electronic chip, an animal can be recorded individually regardless on what is printed on the outside of the tag (batch or full unique number).

If the electronic slaughter tag contained a full 12 digit unique number of the outside of the tag then they need to be individually recorded in holding registers and movement documents and therefore the animals could be upgraded at any point, regardless of the holding they are on when they reach 12 months of age.

If the electronic slaughter tag contained only the batch details on the outside then these animals can be upgraded off their holding of birth without the need to individually record if they move direct to another holding. If the animal moves through a market then the animal can still be upgraded on a subsequent holding as long as the animals are individually recorded prior to departure from the HoB or through critical control point ( CCP's) (see section on movement documents for more information on CCP's).

Points to consider

On the face of it, a full derogation appears the obvious choice because it would be the least costly cash option for producers (see cost analysis within the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment). It also reduces the individual recording burden for many keepers.

However, as farmers, auctioneers and abattoir staff will have to record lambs in holding registers and on movement documents by the numbers from each original flock (batch within batch) this would be almost impossible without EID.

The Regulation requires the sender of the lambs to record how many lambs within the batch have the same holding of birth identity. The issue becomes more complicated when batches of sheep originate from more than one holding of birth. These 'mixed batches' are typically found in movements between store-lamb finishers and markets and from markets to slaughter. For those businesses affected, having to record the numbers of lambs with the same holding of birth identity would significantly increase costs due to handling and recording burdens.

Further Ewe lambs originally intended for slaughter with a single tag could not be upgraded to full EID and be retained for breeding unless the change to electronic identification is made on their holding of birth.

A restricted derogation attempts to resolve the same practical record keeping issues but by limiting the sale of single identified finished lambs direct to an abattoir or through a dedicated slaughter section of market. The aim is to ensure that finished lambs on a single batch tag are only presented for immediate slaughter and that mixed batches of store lambs have full EID. This will avoid the record keeping difficulties associated with mixed batches of store lambs for sheep keepers, livestock markets and abattoirs.

Not having a Slaughter Derogation would remove all the complications of running two distinct systems and would therefore be the most straightforward system to operate. .It would also provide for all animals to be individually receded which would therefore provide for the option of full individual tracing for Food Chain Information ( FCI) - see accompanying RIA for flock management benefits). It would, however, be the most expensive option as a result of electronically identifying all animals as well as increasing the recording burdens on Industry as a result of recording individual animal details.

An Electronic Slaughter Tag Derogation would look to remove most of the complications are as it would enable holding of birth details to be read electronically, instead of manually. It would, however, increase costs to producers who choose to apply these non-official electronic tags because they are more expensive than conventional tags used in finished lambs. There is also the extra complication surrounding the upgrading of these animals if they reach 12 months of age.

Scottish Ministers do not have a preferred option. We do, however, recognise that a balance has to be reached between traceability requirements and the ease of use throughout the production chain and cost to industry. We are therefore minded to provide for all of the slaughter tag options and allow Industry to determine the best option for them based on their operations/practices.

Question 2. Do you agree that the Scottish Government should provide for all the slaughter tag options?

Question 3. Do you have a preferred slaughter tag derogation option?

Question 4. If you favour an electronic slaughter tag, do you prefer a batch or individual numbered eartag?

Reserved colours for Electronic Identification

It has been suggested that reserving colours for electronic identifiers (and specific match up tags) would be beneficial for manufacturers, farmers and enforcement bodies alike. This would ensure consistency across the sector, allow animals to be easily and quickly identified, and further reduce the time taken to process sheep, particularly in high throughput premises (markets/abattoirs).

The Scottish Government, in line with requirements of the other GB administrations, therefore propose that the colour yellow is reserved solely for the use of electronic eartags (either full eartags or the slaughter EID tag). The match up eartag can be any other colour apart from red or black (see below).

Because a bolus cannot be seen by the eye, there is a risk that a receiving keeper of an animal fitted with a bolus might assume that a visual identifier has been lost and attempt to apply a new set of identifiers. This would cause problems, particularly where the result is that an animal has two electronic identifiers (tag and bolus) bearing different numbers.

The Scottish Government therefore suggest that where a bolus is used for electronic identification purposes the match up identifier should be black with distinguishable letters and numbers.

Finally the Scottish Government propose that any replacement eartags should be red in colour, in line with current practise.

Question 5. Do you agree that the Scottish Government should reserve the colours to be used for electronic identifiers and match up tags?

Identification of goats

The rules for the identification of goats will not change. Goats will continue to be required to be identified with two non-electronic identifiers, but keepers may fit electronic identifiers if they wish. The slaughter derogation is currently used for goats and we do not propose to alter the existing requirements (an individual number can be included). Very few goats are sold via markets and therefore the practical record keeping issues that exist for sheep do not apply to goats.

Question 6. Do you agree that Scottish Government maintains the current rules for goats and the use of the slaughter derogation remains unaltered for goats?

Replacement Rules for Identification (sheep and goats)

Where a means of identification becomes lost or illegible, the Regulation provides for either an identical numbered replacement or different numbered replacements to be fitted, provided traceability is not compromised ⁴.

The current system of replacements is considered overly complex for keepers, particularly because different replacement rules apply to different age groups of animals. The complexity has resulted in lower levels of compliance than we would have hoped for and has led to unwelcome financial penalties for some keepers.

We therefore propose to simplify the replacement rules and allow keepers the choice of

• Using identical numbered replacements; or
• Different numbered replacements, with cross referencing; or
• Keepers to choose if they wish to EID older sheep, those born before 31st December 2009

Identical numbered replacements are being catered for to allow breeders to retain an animal's unique lifetime identity; there will be no cross reference required for these types of replacements.

EID is being allowed for older sheep because some keepers may find it easier to manage the individual recording requirements from December 2011.

The main method of replacement is expected to be the application of different numbered identifiers, cross-referenced to the original number because this will reduce the costs compared to like for like replacements.

The system proposed for the application of different numbered replacements would require the keeper to remove the surviving tag, to apply two new identifiers and to cross-reference in the replacement section of the holding register.

When different numbered replacement identifiers are applied they must be red in colour.

Like for like replacements if metal tag, bolus or tattoo originally used

The provision to remove a surviving plastic tag to facilitate the application of a new set of replacement identifiers will be permitted. Concerns have been raised about the removal of metal tags, Veterinary advice is that this would cause pain to the animal. We are therefore proposing that metal tags cannot be removed from an animal unless there are welfare reasons for doing so. Where a surviving tag is a metal tag, keepers will need to apply an identically numbered replacement.

Similarly where a bolus or a tattoo has been used to identify an animal, it would be impractical to cut out the surviving identifier. It will be necessary therefore to apply identical replacements in these circumstances.

Question 7. Do you agree Scottish Government should implement the simplified replacement rules?

If not please explain why and what you would propose instead.

Authorised and approved EID equipment

Guidelines and procedures for the implementation of electronic identification have been adopted (Article 9 and Commission Decision 968/2006). These set out minimum standards but also provide for additional tests in accordance with the Technical Guidelines of the Joint Research Centre. In Scotland we propose to require all electronic identifiers and electronic reading equipment to conform to both the minimum standards and to the additional tests provided for in the Technical Guidelines.

Question 8. Do you agree that we should only authorise the use of electronic identifiers and reading equipment, which conform to both the minimum requirements and to the Technical Guidelines?

Holding Registers

There is no change to the register recording requirements for animals born before 01 January 2010.

For animals born after 01 January 2010 and which are not subject to the slaughter derogation, the following additional information must be recorded ⁵:

• The individual number of the animal;
• The year of birth and the date the animal was identified;
• The month and year of death;
• The breed and (if known) genotype.

Animals born after 01 January 2010, which are identified in accordance with slaughter derogation, would continue to be recorded on a batch basis. In these situations, however, the holding register must record the number of animals with the same holding of birth identity within the batch - 'batch within a batch'.

The Scottish Government propose to continue with the 36 hr period for recording details in the holding registers, with the holding registers being either paper or computer based.

The Regulations provide that where a competent authority central database exists and contains all the information required of a holding register, then there is no need to maintain on farm registers.

If the Scottish Government was to make use of this provision then as well as notifying all movements to sheep and goats to the database ( SAMU), all births, deaths and details of replacement identifiers would have to be notified to the database, within set timescales.

The current Scottish legislation requires records to be retained for 3 years. This provision does not entirely reflect the requirement of the Regulation ⁶. We therefore have to amend the implementing provisions to reflect the EU Regulations and require the register to be retained for 3 years from the day when an animal referred to in the register dies or leaves the holding.

Question 9. Do you think that the Scottish Government should make use of the provision to use a central database for the purposes of the holding registers, thus removing the need to have on farm registers?

Question 10. If a centralised individual database is to be established, what do you think is appropriate timescales for reporting births, deaths and details of replacement identifiers?

Movement Documents

The additional information that will be required on the movement document is the individual identification number of each anima ¹. This requirement applies to all animals regardless of when they were born but will be phased in as follows:

• For lambs/kids born after 01 January 2010, the provisions will apply from 1 January 2011; and
• For sheep and goats born before 01 January 2010, the provisions will apply from 31 December 2011, except that animals moving direct or via market to slaughter will never need their individual numbers recorded.

Sheep and goats movements are currently required to be notified to the central database within 3 days. There are no proposals to change this deadline.

Following representation of the Scottish and UK Governments the Commission have amended the Regulations to permit the use of Critical Control Points ( CCP's) to act as third parties. This means that CCP's can record the individual identities of animals on behalf of the receiver/consigner, therefore removing recording burdens for sheep farmers. CCP's are permitted subject to the following conditions -

• Animals are not transported in the same means of transport, unless the batches of animals are physically separated from each other,
• The individual identification code of each animal is recorded within the relevant herd registers within 48 hrs; and
• The information relating to the movement is provided to the competent authority database within 48 hours
• All CCP's are approved by the Competent Authority

Question 11. Do you agree that the Scottish Government should make use of the provisions to allow Critical Control Points ( CCP's)?

The Regulations also provide that where a competent authority central database exists and contains all the information required on a movement document (apart from the keepers signature) then there is no need to have paper based movement documents travelling with animals.

Question 12. Do you think that the Scottish Government should make use of this provision and therefore look to remove paper based movement documents?

Central Database

The Regulation provides for a batch-recording database and this has been in place in Scotland since 2001, through the Scottish Animal Movement System ( SAMS). There is no requirement for the database to be enhanced to record individual information however as mentioned above there are derogations available regarding the need to maintain a holding register or to complete movement documents if a database exists which records individual information. Responses to questions 8 and 11 will determine whether or not the Scottish Government should pursue a centralised individual animal database.

Contingency arrangements (subject to ongoing EC discussions)

There will be occasions i.e. power or equipment failure, when it is not possible for high volume premises including markets and abattoirs to read and record individual animal details. These situations will be exceptional but when they occur could disrupt trade. The volumes and throughput of stock would mean that individual recording would not be a viable option to meet the regulatory requirements given the available labour resource.

In these exceptional circumstances, for markets and abattoirs only, we are proposing that they will not be required to individually record animals. Local Authorities have enforcement responsibility in markets and abattoirs and we are proposing that markets and abattoirs agree with their local authority and Animal Health a contingency plan that could be invoked.

Scottish Government will be working closely with Local Authorities, Animal Health and industry to draw up guidelines for contingency plans, which will include obligations to carry spare reading equipment, equipment maintenance contracts to ensure minimum downtime, recording requirements and follow up action required etc.

Question 13. Do you agree that contingency arrangements should be put in place at markets and abattoirs to ensure that normal trading practices are not disrupted in the event of power or equipment failure?

Penalties

A person committing an offence under the proposed regulations will be subject to prosecution, which would result in imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

The domestic rules are cross compliant and breaches of the rules could be subject to Single Farm Payment penalties.

Enforcement

It is proposed that the Local Authorities will continue in their current enforcement role. The Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspection Directorate ( SGRPID) will continue to carry out statutory on farm inspections to confirm compliance with the rules.

Training

The Regulation requires that training is made available ⁸. The Scottish Government proposes to make any training considered necessary available, building upon information and evidence gained from the Scottish research pilot.

Please add any further comments you may have on the implementation options of the EU regulations.

Animal Health - Disease Prevention
Rural Directorate
Scottish Government