MEMORANDUM

To:       AHC Organizations

From:   American Horse Council

Re:       National Livestock Identification System

Date:    May 13, 2004

Attached is a summary of the presentation on Equine Identification at the AHC’s National Issues Forum in Washington, DC.

This is an important issue to the horse industry and one that will have broad implications and affect all sectors.  It is important that our individual members and member organizations understand the issues and implications of setting up such a national identification system.

We hope that the attached will be helpful to that understanding.

American Horse Council Hosts Forum on Equine Identification

Members of the U.S. horse industry gathered for a day-long forum at the American Horse Council’s annual convention in Washington, DC to hear an update on the national standardized identification system for horses. 

Neil Hammerschmidt, the Animal Identification Coordinator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Veterinary Services, launched the program with an in-depth review of the U. S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP).  “This is a plan that was developed by the livestock industry for the livestock industry and has been submitted to USDA only as a recommendation,” said Mr. Hammerschmidt.

“Maintaining the health of the U.S. herd is the most urgent issue for the industry and animal health officials to address, and, therefore, is the most significant focus of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan,” he said.  The goal is to establish a system by which a diseased animal can be quickly traced back to the source of its infection, aiding in the ability to contain, control and eradicate a disease.  “USDA’s involvement in the USAIP is strictly from an animal health perspective.  The sooner we can identify the source of a disease outbreak and locate sick and exposed animals, the sooner we can stop the disease in its tracks and the sooner every one can get back into business,” said Mr. Hammerschmidt.

“While the USDA supports the establishment of a national system of livestock identification, it does not seek to make such a program mandatory at this time,” Mr. Hammerschmidt continued, suggesting that unless the industry buys into a program, it won’t be successful. 

Mr. Hammerschmidt acknowledged some areas need more focus, particularly the development and implementation of the premises identification component of the plan.  Premises identification is essential because trace back of diseased animals cannot work unless it can be determined where an animal has been.  The information needed is the premises identification number, the location of the animal and the date/time stamp (when was the animal sighted or when it moved on or off a property).

Mr. Hammerschmidt also acknowledged that database security and privacy is critical if any plan is to be successful.  USDA considers this a priority and is working to ensure that any information stored in databases will be exempt from Freedom of Information Act requirements (FOIA).  This a concern at the state level also because each state has open records requirements as well.

Col. John Hoffman, Program Manager, Food & Agriculture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, described the new Agency and how border inspection and other activities of USDA now fit within it.  The Plant Protection and Quarantine Service (PPQ),  a former agency of the USDA that was responsible for checking passengers entering the U.S. for illegal agricultural products, has been moved to the new Department.

Colonel Hoffman agreed that a national identification and tracking system is important in the management of disease outbreaks.  “An identification and tracking system is needed,” he said, “and the horse industry is essential to this.  When this meeting is over all of you in this room will disperse to your various places in the country and few of you will go to the same place.  That’s the way the horse industry is.  Horses gather for a show, or a race, and then disperse.  Every horse goes to a different place.  This makes the need for a good tracking system for the horse industry important,” he said.

Col. Hoffman also addressed what he called the “common misconception” that horse diseases are unimportant and do not affect human health.  “Until the 1980’s, the Soviet Union continued to produce in its bio-weapons program a disease agent taken from horses but lethal to humans too.” 

Col. Hoffman also addressed the privacy issue, agreeing that access to database information by “nonessential parties” would be barred. As a designated “critical infrastructure,” any agriculture information related to the activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be exempt from FOIA requirements, he suggested.

Dr. Peter Timoney, Director of the Gluck Equine Research Center and Chairman of the Veterinary Sciences Department at the University of Kentucky, followed Col. Hoffman’s presentation with an excellent review of equine diseases.  He explained that West Nile Fever, Easter and Western Equine Encephalomyelitis, and Venezuelan Equine Encephalomyelitis that present not only a public health concern but also affect a multitude of species. 

Dr. Timoney highlighted the many equine diseases that can affect other livestock.  Vesicular Stomatitis, Samonellosis, and Leptospirosis are a few examples.  “As a responsible member of the livestock community we would be remiss if we didn’t recognize the importance of participating in a program that would help determine the source of a disease, contain it and control it,” Dr. Timoney said, referring to the horse industry’s participation in a plan to standardize livestock identification and establish a system for disease trace back.

Dr. Maxwell “Mack” Lea, Louisiana State Veterinarian, presented the view of the states regarding the implementation of a national livestock identification plan.  He described how Louisiana and other states currently handle livestock and premises identification, pointing out that Louisiana is the first state in the U.S. to have a mandatory identification program for horses. 

The Louisiana program is linked to the state’s Equine Infectious Anemia program and requires that all horses be tested for EIA each year and be permanently identified, either through brand, freeze brand, tattoo or microchip, he said.  The state provides the chips at cost plus fifty cents.  

“Identification programs in livestock for disease-related reasons is common in most livestock except in the equine industry,” said Dr. Lea.  “But there are lots of reasons to require identification when addressing a disease concern.  The biggest problem is that diagrammatic identification is usually inadequate and lacks consistency.  Brands, although not always individual, help greatly in finding the correct animal.”

Louisiana’s mandatory identification program aids in the legal pursuit of those who try to circumvent the state’s regulations regarding EIA testing.  “Not all horses are being tested as they are suppose to be but its getting easy to track down those who haven’t tested, “ said Dr. Lea.  “Its even help law enforcement officials track down horses in cases of theft.”

Dr. Mary Giddens of the Dutch Warmblood Stud Book in North America described the international approach to equine identification, providing an excellent assessment of where many other countries are in identifying their horses.  Dr. Gidden’s presentation was provided through Dr. Teresa Dohms of the German Equestrian Federation.

“Many countries are moving toward mandatory identification but not all are there yet.  However, the move in European Countries is to adopt the Unique Equine Lifetime Number,” said Dr. Giddens.  “Similar to the U.S. Animal Identification number in that it is a 15 digit ISO-compliant number, with the first three digits representing the country of birth, but with the UELN, the next three digits indicate the breed and the remaining nine numbers can be used as the pedigree registration number.”

According to Dr. Giddens, most countries appear to be moving toward microchipping, although not all countries require it at this time.  “Some countries such as the Netherlands, have outlawed hot iron branding so other forms of identification are needed and microchipping is the most logical,” said Dr. Giddens.  “Breed registries, such as the Friesan Horse Registry, require chipping, because its not easy to tell Friesan horses apart from each other:  they are all black and without markings.”

Vel Evens, consultant to Equine Canada, gave the convention attendees an update on Equine Canada’s plan to identify Canadian horses, which will become mandatory for Canadian horses in 2006.  “Our industry is in a similar place as yours is,” said Ms. Evans.  “We’ve made some decisions, such as the decision to go forward with use of the UELN, but many other things still need to be worked out.” 

The day wrapped up with a report from Dan Fick of The Jockey Club and Chairman of the AHC’s National Equine Identification Task Force, who announced that the task force has now been designated as the Species Working Group for Equine, under the USAIP.  Mr. Fick reviewed the numerous questions still facing the horse industry about a standardized identification plan. 

“We have a lot of work to do yet, but we’ve done a lot also.  The consensus is that there are benefits to a national identification plans for horses and that as a member of the U.S. livestock industry we have a responsibility to participate in the livestock identification program,” said Mr. Fick.  “There are lots of questions to be answered but the one we’ve been able to answer is that there are important benefits for the horse industry in participating.”