PRIME lamb producers may eventually be forced to adopt electronic tagging of their animals, according to a leading southern Victorian grazier.
Both the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) and NSW Farmers have spoken out against a recommendation the Victorian government finalises plans to implement a new electronic traceability system.
The Victorian Auditor General said the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources (DEDJTR) should introduce mandatory electronic identification of sheep and goats.
“Electronic identification of sheep and goats is far too expensive to warrant forcing farmers down the path of having to e-tag all their mobs,” VFF Livestock President Ian Feldtmann said.
And NSW Farmers President Derek Schoen warned Victorians not to spend money on a system which could spell chaos for cross border sheep trade.
The association said that the Victorian Government appeared to make an ‘announcement-by-stealth’ last week that would force sheep farmers to electronically tag their animals,” Mr Schoen said.
But Southern Prime Lamb Group president Leigh Harry said most of the groups members had either already adopted the system, or were considering it.
“From what I understand, most of the export processors are putting facilities in their supply chains to accommodate reading electronic identification in carcasses, pre-empting an eventual demand from overseas customers who will be wanting traceback,” Mr Harry said.
“At some point in the future, they will be demanding full traceback – they expect it will be a requirement of their customers and that will be passed on to us, the lamb producer.”
He said graziers had to supply what the customer wanted.
“Regardless of what we want, eventually it is going to be imposed on us, if you want to produce export lambs, they will insist on it,” he said.
Electronic identification offered obvious management advantages to the grazier.
“The more progressive producers in the industry are realising that,” Mr Harry said.
Tagging was seen by some as an impost, in the same way as was scanning 20 years ago.
“It was hard work to encourage them, now it’s a matter of course,” he said.
VFF livestock president Ian Feldtmann said his organisation was not opposed to electronic tagging, but concerned about the cost.
“If the State Government is serious about this issue, then they should be working with their interstate counterparts to deliver a national scheme, based on a low-cost electronic tag that’s delivered via a national tender,” Mr Feldtmann said.
“The strength of any electronic ID system is dependent on it being national, given the interstate trade in sheep.
“The point is with a national tender we should be able to get tags at a price that’s comparable to visual tags,”
Mr Leigh said he could understand the VFF’s position, as if more people used the tags, the price would come down dramatically.
Mr Schoen said a go-it-alone Victorian system could spell chaos for Victoria, as it had in Europe when it was implemented there.
“Cross-border trade would be affected and Victoria may well find it experiences market shortages,” he said.
Mr Schoen said that while Victoria did have serious gaps in its system, a mandatory electronic radio-frequency identification (eRFID) program was not the answer.
“The Victorian Government should be addressing the real issues such as fully implementing the existing system and ensuring that farmers understand how to fill in their National Vendor Declarations (NVDs),” Mr Schoen said.
“An electronic tag does not guarantee a more robust biosecurity system – as every IT geek will tell you: if you don’t put the correct information in, you are not likely to get the correct information out.
“Garbage in, garbage out.”
