COLUMBUS, Ohio – The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to amend animal disease traceability regulations and require electronic identification (EID) for interstate movement of certain cattle and bison.

The EID tags contain an embedded microchip that attaches to a regular cattle ear tag. The EID has a unique 15-digit number that is read by a scanner, and the visual ear tag has a large readable series of numbers matching the EID number.

The proposal applies to cattle that cross state lines and fall into any of the following classifications: sexually intact and 18 months of age or older; all female dairy cattle of any age and male dairy animals born after March 11, 2023; cattle or bison of any age used for rodeo or recreational events; and cattle or bison of any age used for shows or exhibitions.

According to the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), “about 89 percent of the national herd of approximately 100 million cattle and bison WILL NOT be impacted by the changes in this proposal.”

The Animal Disease Traceability rule took effect in March 2013 and enhanced federal and state health officials’ ability to track down the origins of animal disease outbreaks and minimize losses. The insistence on visible EIDs reflects the USDA’s eagerness to keep up with technological advancements.

The USDA contends one of the most significant benefits of the proposed rule would be the enhanced ability of the United States to regionalize and compartmentalize animal disease outbreaks more quickly. Having an EID system in place would, therefore, minimize not only the spread of disease but also the trade impacts an outbreak may have.

The proposal raises questions on the mandatory implementation of the new technology, who will bear the cost, and how data privacy will be maintained.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and USCA share similar concerns with the proposed changes.

NCBA president-elect Todd Wilkinson issued the following statement reflecting the organization’s position: “It is critical that any program ultimately adopted by USDA allows for maximum flexibility and privacy. At the same time, USDA must also minimize the costs for producers and any business disruptions to the industry.”

USCA underscored its position: “USCA members understand the importance of building an animal disease traceability system that doesn’t burden producers, is effective for disease tracebacks and maintains the confidentiality of individuals.”

On a state level, executive vice president of the Indiana Beef Cattle Association (IBCA), Joe Moore, and Ohio Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) vice president Bill Tom offered their perspectives.

“IBCA strongly supports a national traceability system in the U.S. that is built on private sector animal identification and verification programs backed by the USDA and provides both financial compensation to the marketing system and ensures marketing system confidentiality and privacy,” Moore said.

Tom sees no pause or concern for producers. “Traceability will ensure to the best of the nation’s and industry’s ability that they maintain a market for their product,” Tom said. “Without it, the beef industry (including all beef – dairy, dairy crosses, natural, organic, etc.) is at great risk of losing tremendous value in our product if we were to have a disease break in this country. Beef demand domestically and internationally is at or near an all-time high and it is our goal to keep that the case.”

The OCA vice president believes the cost of being compliant is minimal compared to the risk of loss of market industry disruption. “The Ohio Cattlemen’s Association and NCBA, are steadfast to ensure that no requirement for traceability creates an impediment to the speed of commerce,” Tom said.

APHIS’s cost-benefit analysis suggests that approximately 11 million cattle are currently tagged with official non-EID ear tags per year. The proposed rule would not change the number of cattle tagged, but it would increase the costs associated with tagging. The estimated total average annual cost of purchasing approximately 11 million EID tags, instead of the non-EID tags, is approximately $26.1 million dollars per year.

Industry representatives focused on protecting producers’ thin profit margins, seek clarification on the costs and timeline associated with implementing the visual EIDs.

State agency control of producer data is expected with assurances that private information will be shared for disease traceability only. Questions remain on who will be responsible for the distribution of the new tags and how that information will remain secure in either state or federal databases.

In an interview on AgriTalk, Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, was careful to endorse the need for a national animal disease tracing system to protect the industry from a worst-case scenario. Data security, however, was a concern. “We’ve got to do it in a way that really pays attention to the privacy of the producer,” Lane said.

Input from NCBA and USCA members will be submitted as part of the public comment period, which ends March 22, 2023. “We’ll be spending a lot of time working with the USDA, commenting on the rule to ensure that it meets our industry’s expectations for data privacy and data security,” Lane said on Agri Talk.