NIAA ID Expo August 22, 2006 Linda S. Campbell Luray VA Chair, Goat Species Working Group

1. NIAA ID ExpoAugust 22, 2006Linda S. Campbell Luray VA Chair, Goat Species Working Group

2. Background Diversity of Goat Usage Issues Facing Industry ID Recommendations Movement Reporting Work to Date Successful Implementation Committee Structure

3. Background Initially, a combined Sheep and Goat Working Group was created. To facilitate more diverse representation from each industry, and to address differences between species, separate groups were developed and began work.

4. Diversity of Uses • Dairy • Meat • Fiber • Pets • Hiking/Packing/Driving • Weed Abatement/Forest Management • Biotechnology

5. Issues Facing Industry • Multi uses for goats under variety of environments and managements • ID for Scrapie Eradication (NSEP) program already in place • Cost of program versus value per head – economic viability • Tag retention due to thinness of ear, nature of browsing habits, curiosity of goats, infections • One breed with very tiny ears that does not allow traditional ear tag usage • 15 digits on a small ear tag difficult to read

6. Goat “Products” Milk, Cheese, Meat, Fiber, Seed Stock, Ability to Browse, Companionship

7. Concerns Being Voiced • Batch uploading of existing Scrapie Premise ID to convert to NAIS ID without first asking Premise Owner • Practicality of program implementation • Cost of program versus value per head – economic viability • Lack of details about program available when Premises IDs being signed up • Questions of constitutionality of program • Any mandatory requirement

8. Goat ID Recommendations • Continue with current approved ID being used for Scrapie program • Conduct US field trials to fully test with different breeds and managements • Request that USDA/FSIS approve site for electronic implants, with preference for tail • Provide approved devices to producers • Allow Group Lot ID when applicable

9. Goat ID Methods (In place with NSEP) • Unique Registration tattoos *When accompanied by official Registration/Certificate of Identity • Scrapie Program Plastic and Metal Ear tags • Electronic Implants/RFID tags *When accompanied by official Registration/Certificate of Identity

10. Problems with Ear Tags While ear tags could most efficiently provide both visual and electronic identification, the problems with retention, infections and the issue with the LaMancha breed, currently make it not acceptable as the only method of identification.

11. GWG Work to date • Recommendations for ID and movement reporting • Compiling information and developing communications with goat breeders in US and internationally • Discussing/defining high risk and low risk events • Developing Working Group information website: www.USAnimalID.com • Providing articles for media • Developing survey for industry feedback • Developed email discussion list for industry feedback

12. Movement Reporting • Utilize existing methods of collecting and reporting movement information for initial phase: • Certificate of Veterinary Inspection • Existing regulatory program (such as Scrapie)

13. Successful Implementation Requires… • Allowing flexibility with ID methods beyond phase-in period • Continued involvement with industry representatives as as plan develops • Working with organizations to integrate with existing systems • Adequate research and field trials using range of goat breeds and managements • Incorporating existing production/management information and current industry practices • Implementing reasonable record keeping requirements • Protecting producer confidentiality of records

14. Successful Implementation Requires… • Comprehensive educational effort offering information and accurate answers for producers, markets, consumers, inspectors, veterinarians and others • Working with organizations to integrate with existing systems • Important for individual states to consider recommendations of species working groups if they separately implement programs prior to full NAIS implementation • Adequate funding to provide staffing to handle existing regulatory programs and port inspections should be ensured.

15. Goat Working Group Members The goal of the Goat Working Group has been to seek input from individuals that represent owners and partners involved with all components of goat breeding, usage and handling. James RamseyerJoe David RossJoan Dean Rowe, DVMLisa ShepardMarvin ShurleyDiane Sutton, DVMRobert SwizeCindy Wolf, DVMLinda Worley Linda Campbell, ChairBarry ArnettJan CarlsonBonnie ChandlerCharles ChristensenBennie CoxRene DeLeeuwCarolyn EddyRay HoytDavid Morris, DVMStan Potratz

16. MembersAffiliation Mr. John Adams National Milk Producer's Federation Ms. Linda Campbell American Dairy Goat Association Dr. Mark Engle National Pork Board Dr. Robert Fourdraine Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium Dr. Bob Hillman Texas Animal Health Commission, State Veterinarian Ms. Amy Mann American Horse Council Ms. Marcine Moldenhauer Excel Corporation Mr. Jim Niewold Swine Producer Dr. Clarence Siroky Idaho Department of Agriculture, State Veterinarian Mr. Scott Stuart National Livestock Producers Association Mr. Gary Wilson Cattle Producer, Ohio Department of Agriculture Dr. Cindy Wolf University of Minnesota, CVM Dr. Taylor Woods Missouri Department of Agriculture, State Veterinarian USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Resources Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - NAIS Program Staff Dr. John Wiemers - NAIS Program Staff NAIS SubCommittee Members

17. At the end of the day… …we hope that whatever is developed will provide a uniform system that meets the goals of protecting U.S. animal agriculture, while preserving the economic viability of the producers; large and small; protecting confidentiality of information; and providing an effective and accurate means of identifying our animals at the least cost and least disruption to our operations and lives.

18. Questions?

19. The End!