J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:82-85
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
National Poultry Extension Workshop |
National Animal Identification System: Fancier Perspective
P. Malone1
American Poultry Association, Arlington, TX 76017
Correspondence: 1 Corresponding author: patmalone{at}pleasantridgechurch.org
 |
SUMMARY
|
|---|
With respect to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), poultry science professors are key players in resolving the concerns of fanciers in every state, because they have been and will be involved in developing the plans to implement the NAIS in their state. Highly restrictive, financially prohibitive regulations that ignore the needs of standard-bred exhibition poultry will cripple and then destroy an important part of our nation’s poultry industry. This applies not only to NAIS but also to other regulations that affect the testing and movement of poultry. For example, poultry from other states entered in any fair or club poultry show in Texas must have been tested for avian influenza within 30 d of the entry date. This has eliminated entries from outside Texas, because there are very few veterinarians in Texas and other states that are qualified to test and retest the birds and provide the necessary health papers. We cannot host an American Poultry Association (APA) district meet in our 5-state district number 7 much less be considered for an APA national show. We recommend that any flock participating in the National Poultry Improvement Plan program should be considered adequately monitored and should be allowed into any state that is not under quarantine. Even if the recommendation stated above is adopted, it will not help producers in a state such as Texas, which does not allow fanciers to become part of the National Poultry Improvement Plan. Texas fanciers go to Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico for exhibitions, but exhibitors from those states have been effectively eliminated from Texas shows. Anything that poultry science specialists can do to help prevent or change regulations detrimental to exhibition poultry is greatly needed and appreciated. The leadership of the APA and the American Bantam Association agrees with the NAIS and are actively involved in defining a plan that accomplishes program goals but does not cripple or end their contribution to the poultry industry. Furthermore, we urge our members to comply with the laws and regulations affecting poultry. There is no reason that commercial poultry and standard-bred exhibition poultry cannot exist side by side if both groups, in conjunction with the proper authorities, work together for their mutual benefit. These organizations are committed to that goal!
Key Words: National Animal Identification System • fancier poultry • National Poultry Improvement Plan • American Poultry Association • American Bantam Association
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
The Malone family story with poultry began in the late 1960s with backyard flock owners. For several years before becoming fanciers interested in breeding and exhibiting standard-bred poultry, we were in the poultry business. The term "business" is used because at age 5, our daughter began selling our excess eggs to family friends at church, and she could have sold many more fresh eggs if they had been available. During this period, we also swapped as well as bought and sold birds with other backyard flock owners and, yes, at feed stores and flea markets as well. This information is provided to make an important point.
In this present discussion, 2 groups of people connected with poultry are represented, namely commercial interest groups and fanciers. There is a third and very large group, composed of thousands of families and individuals that are backyard or small flock owners, but the nature of their operation (birds sometimes leave their premise of origin) causes them to be subject to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Who speaks for or represents them? It is important to acknowledge their existence and recognize that they have rights that cannot be ignored. Enlisting their cooperation and participation in the NAIS is as important as the cooperation and participation of poultry fanciers. But at this point, many of these people, at least in Texas, don’t even know there is such a thing as the NAIS. There are approximately 200,000 such premises in Texas, with only a small percentage registered. Some of these folks are waiting for registration to become mandatory before they get on board, but many are simply not aware of the NAIS. The original plan in Texas was for premise identification to become mandatory July 1, 2006. Because of a storm of protest from people owning not just poultry, but all kinds of livestock, proposed regulations for mandatory identification were tabled until at least 2007. People owning large and small livestock are slowly hearing about NAIS and raising a variety of concerns.
|
FANCIER CONCERNS WITH EACH NAIS COMPONENT
|
|---|
The 2 national poultry organizations with which fanciers are associated are the American Poultry Association (APA), the oldest continuous livestock organization on the North American continent, founded in 1873, and the American Bantam Association (ABA), founded in 1914. Before sharing what the APA and ABA have accomplished to date regarding avian health and biosecurity, the position of the 2 national associations on NAIS and the proactive plans of the APA and ABA regarding NAIS concerns of fanciers from throughout the United States will be mentioned.
The first component of NAIS is premise or site registration, which involves obtaining a 7-character alphanumeric identifier for the farm, ranch, veterinary clinic, or other site where livestock or fowl are handled, housed, managed, or processed. Regarding this, the concern heard most often is "Why is ‘big brother’ getting involved in another area of my life?" People are concerned about their personal property rights and that unreasonable regulations will be imposed on them. What if the "powers that be" decide to ban outdoor poultry? To what extent will authorities go to protect the "national herd?" People are concerned about how this premise identification number will be used and how their privacy will be protected. Older people in the United States remember when Social Security began and what they were told about how that number they were given would and would not be used.
The second biggest concern begins with the first component and continues on through the second and third components of NAIS, and that is "Who is going to pay for all of this?" They know that the answer is "I will." It seems obvious to them that the system does not favor the backyard flock owner or the poultry fancier but rather the big corporations with huge budgets. They suspect that part of the agenda of agribusiness is to use the regulations and the costs involved as a means to put the little guy out of business. It seems to me that most will cooperate with premise identification, albeit reluctantly, if these 2 concerns are adequately addressed. Because many of these folks are a very independent breed, some will not cooperate with premise identification as a matter of principle. How many are in this group depends on how NAIS is communicated and implemented. Poultry cannot be easily concealed like firearms, making it harder for people not to comply. But a strong backlash is possible if individual fanciers believe that big government and agribusiness are crying wolf when there is no real wolf in sight.
The second component of NAIS is animal identification. The big concern here is that poultry owners, whether fanciers or backyard flock owners, will be forced to accept an identification method that is financially prohibitive. Though NAIS plans do not presently include microchipping poultry, this issue is still undecided. Sealed wing bands and sealed leg bands are currently in use by fanciers who are accustomed to banding at least the birds they enter in all poultry shows for identification and ownership purposes.
The third component of NAIS is animal tracking. The same financial concerns exist here. If fairs and poultry shows are forced to adopt a tracking system that is financially prohibitive, the exhibition poultry shows that have existed in the United States since 1849 will be forced to cease. We believe that our current system of exhibitor lists and show reports can accomplish the goal of 48-h traceback. This too is still undecided and is being negotiated. If the first and second components can be agreed upon, but the third component cannot, then poultry fanciers and exhibition poultry shows have no chance for survival.
|
AVIAN HEALTH AND BIOSECURITY
|
|---|
At the APA National Convention and Show held in Syracuse, New York, October 22 to 23, 2004, the board of directors spent a significant amount of time and energy focusing on biosecurity guidelines and recommendations to protect exhibition birds not only on the farm but also before, during, and after poultry shows. The APA leaders knew that to be taken seriously and to have credibility when they approached government officials about poultry health regulations, that as a national poultry organization, the leadership must first formulate and then formally adopt appropriate health measures for the farm and the showroom that would prove the exhibition poultry community is deadly serious about poultry health.
Work began immediately at the board of directors meeting held in conjunction with the 2005 APA Semi-Annual Convention and Show, April 1 to 3, 2005, in Delmarva, Delaware. The board voted unanimously to adopt the biosecurity guidelines and recommendations that had been developed over the previous 5 mo. An electronic copy of these guidelines and recommendations can be obtained under the heading "Avian Health and Biosecurity" at www.srobertpowell.com.
|
APA AND NAIS – A PROACTIVE APPROACH
|
|---|
An important first step was taken by the APA to establish a working relationship with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) when representatives of the exhibition poultry community attended and participated in a day-long symposium hosted by APHIS in Riverdale, Maryland, on September 27, 2004. In addition to the APHIS staff, representatives of the NAIS Bird Identification Working Group (BIDWG) also participated. Group members present were United Egg Producers, National Turkey Federation, National Chicken Council, Primary Breeders, Duckling Council, APA, North American Gamebird Association, American Emu Association, National Goose Council, and the Society for the Preservation of Poultry Antiquities. Also present was Andrew Rhorer, senior coordinator for NPIP. At the request of the exhibition poultry representatives, the ABA and the International Waterfowl Breeders Association were identified as necessary additions to the USDA list of member groups of BIDWG.
The purpose of this day-long symposium was to advance NAIS for poultry through a plan for transition, implementation, and continuity of bird identification, consistent with the current national standards. To begin to accomplish those objectives and to increase the knowledge and understanding of each member group of the concerns and objectives of member groups, a representative of each member group was given time to state the position of their group on bird identification. As a result of this highly successful conference, all members of the working group obtained an increased understanding and awareness of the concerns, objectives, and priorities of the other members of the group. At the same time, all members of the working group agreed to work together to accomplish the long-term goals of BIDWG. Those goals are as follows: 1) to come to a consensus regarding bird identification standards for poultry, 2) to produce the poultry identification subchapter of NAIS, and 3) to implement bird identification when applicable to fulfill NAIS. After the day, the group elected Michael Rybolt from the National Turkey Federation as its chairman.
The APA had a choice concerning NAIS. We could sit back, complain, and gripe about what was happening, or we could get involved and help shape the outcome. The APA had decided early on to take a proactive approach if at all possible, and we were delighted when that opportunity presented itself. Both the APA and the ABA are now "at the table" and are regarded not only by the USDA but also by a broad range of commercial and noncommercial poultry and avian groups as important participants in the discussions and meetings that will ultimately result in the poultry subchapter of NAIS. Therefore, for almost 2 yr now, the voice of fanciers has been and is being heard, for which members of these organizations are very thankful.
|
APA-ABA JOINT COMMITTEE ON POULTRY IDENTIFICATION
|
|---|
On April 1, 2005, at Delmarva, Delaware, the APA-ABA Joint Committee on Poultry Identification was established. The first accomplishment of this committee was a paper entitled "Exhibition, 4-H, Youth, and Backyard Poultry and the NAIS," which was sent to the USDA on April 15, 2005, in compliance with a request that was made during the March 7, 2005, meeting of the BIDWG.
This committee continues to function effectively, and on February 6, 2006, the USDA was sent "Proposal to USDA Part II – Proposal Concerning 48 Hour Trace Back For Poultry Movement To And From Poultry Shows." A summary of what was recommended in the proposal is as follows: "Since there is a low relative financial benefit for small producers and since many exhibition poultry breeders may not be computer knowledgeable, we recommend a system for the 48-h traceback that does not require the use of electronic instruments. In our Species Working Group proposal we cited:
- Poultry shows would maintain documentation for 5 yr.
- APA/ABA forms would be initiated to enhance this documentation.
- Federal and State health requirements for poultry also create documentation.
- NPIP is currently maintaining sales records of all NPIP members (must be filed within 10 d of the sale).
- NPIP members are required to maintain records of sales, pullorum testing, and coop inspections.
- States are initiating programs to create and maintain sales records of breeders that are not NPIP members (Wisconsin).
- The bands that we have recommended utilizing premises ID, year, and number will aid the 48-h traceback.
These layers of information should aid in any case of an emergency in which a 48-h trace-back is crucial. It is recommended that any flock participating in the NPIP program should be considered adequately monitored and should be allowed transit into any state that is not under quarantine" (p. 2).
|
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
|
|---|
- The APA and ABA have taken a proactive and cooperative approach to addressing the on-site registration, animal identification, and animal tracking components of NAIS. They are active in the BIDWIG and NPIP processes.
- The APA and ABA recommend that any flock participating in the NPIP should be considered adequately monitored and should be allowed transit into any state that is not under quarantine.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
I acknowledge the assistance of Richard Reynnells, USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, for the final revisions that facilitated publication of this paper.
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
