Keeping track of problems

A research flock at the US Sheep Experiment Station near Dubois, Idaho, USA. Unlike their USA counterparts, the EU member states still disagree over the implementation of sheep and goat tags Photo: USDA

Nobody asked for electricity when it was invented. Thanks to marketing and powerful lobbying, electricity is now something both businesses and consumers can’t do without.

Not all technological innovations have been that lucky, though.

Radio-frequency identification, or RFID, has been trying to make an inroad into animal health for quite some time.

While it has succeeded in penetrating the retail sector, via supermarkets and to a certain extent, pharmaceuticals, it still has to justify its existence to agricultural groups and packaging sectors that are still comfortable with low-tech identification (ID) techniques, such as barcode labelling.

Digital Angel’s announcement to restructure its Destron Fearing animal ID business shortly after receiving approval from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its swine livestock identification tag system does not come as a shock, given the current financial climate in the US and the various issues plaguing animal ID and RFID in general.

As you would know, the European Union (EU) requires all sheep and goats across the European Union to be electronically tagged by the end of 2010 (Regulation 21/2004). Tagging the animals will not stop the disease. What it can do is to help the relevant authorities to monitor the movement of livestock through the supply chain, and hopefully identifies the source of an outbreak when the proverbial hits the fan.

The sheep industry leads the resistance to "double-tagging" in the UK, it is alleged Photo: DirectGovKids

The proverbial finally hit the fan this month. A small bluetongue outbreak occured in the southeast of Germany. A few days after this incident, which took place in the Ortenaukreis district, near the French border, the disease was identified in Portugal. Spain is monitoring the situation closely.

In January this year, Spain and Italy made their unhappiness clear when the mandatory tagging of livestock was postponed from the end of 2009 to the end of 2010 (EU extends electronic ID deadline for sheep and goats to January 2010, 8th January 2008). Despite the technical and financial obstacles, Spain and Italy committed a significant amount of resources at national level to prepare for the 2009 deadline.

They found the excuses put forward by other member states who ‘failed’ to meet the deadline simply “unacceptable”.

The UK, egged on by the sheep industry, welcomed the postponement.

I suppose the Southern Europeans have a valid reason in supporting an automated animal monitoring process. The geography makes the spread of the unwanted – and I am not just talking about animal diseases – a tad easier in the region than in an isolated island like the British Isle. Meat products are a major revenue earner for Spain and Italy, so they can’t afford to mess up.

The story, however, is slightly different in the UK, where living and operating costs are ridiculously high. An animal tagging system integrator told me that the resistance against the 21/2004 regulation “is being led by the sheep industry in its fight against double-tagging”.

Bluetongue up close: Hyperaenia of the oral cavity and oedema of the mucous membranes Photo: Crown Copyright/DEFRA

“Double-tagging” is a peculiar issue, and it doesn’t help the RFID cause one bit. The 21/2004 directive requires all sheep to be double-tagged in any event when leaving holding of birth. From January 2008, one of the tags must be an electronic device. Individual recording of livestock will also be compulsory.

Again, if you have hundreds of sheep, you have little choice but to do this electronically. Setting up a new electronic record-keeping system costs money. To muddle matters further, the 21/2004 directive gives a further derogation that “lambs” (yes, baby sheep) leaving their holding of birth do not require an electronic device.

Before you come to the conclusion that lamb-tagging is daft, I'll have you know that the UK's Institute of Animal Health (IAH) thinks bluetongue virus can be passed by pregnant ruminants to the foetuses they carry. IAH reckons that's how it survives the winter (Bluetongue virus might survive the winter within foetuses, 5th March 2008).

The same chap told me that the beef industry, very much spooked by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), supports electronic tagging. It’s the sheep farmers that are throwing the spanners in the works.

So how much does an average tagging system cost then, I asked.

“A handheld reader starts from £60. A slaughter line is from about £2500, and a livestock market system with multireaders, £10,000. Tags are priced from £0.16 to £0.85 per piece.”

(No) thanks to global warming, midges can survive the Northern European winter and spread the disease all year round. Isn't it time the animal health industry stops compensating for other industries' greenhouse activities, and do something to reduce carbon emission in agriculture? Photo: Institute of Animal Health

If it’s true that the basic cost of the EU scheme to the UK farmer would be between £13,000 and £16,000 – according to DEFRA – and if it’s true that the average UK farmer is earning below £15,000 a year, then both the sheep industry and the animal tagging industry can kiss each other goodbye. With about 67 million sheep movements a year, how could the sheep farmers cope with the costs? And let’s not forget the rising feed costs.

Animal tagging is a novel idea, one that I support wholeheartedly. But like many types of technology, it needs to be supported by a justifiable business strategy. The much-touted Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) has been around for more than 10 years, but hey, if you can organise a knees-up with good old text messaging, why need WAP? Similarly, if you can get by with good old head-counting and low-tech ID methods, why bother upgrading?

But if we have a reliable tracking and tracing system in place, it will be a lot easier to know where to look first when the diseases strike again.

Pilled up pets

All of the behavioural issues that we have created in ourselves, we are now creating in our pets Photo: Litter Kwitter, Cleverlad Pet Products

Several months ago, James Vlahos asked us if he could use our report, Companion Animal Behavioural Products, to get some ideas for his feature on the same subject for The New York Times.

We said yes.

“Pill Popping Pets” was published last week, and it makes a very intriguing read.

There were many funny bits in the feature (at last, a life science feature that is actually funny), but the one that I love the best is about Booboo the crazy cat who attacks her owner randomly. Growing up, I had one or two crazy cats like that. Drugging your pets is not necessarily the answer for behaviour modification, but I wish we had Prozac to pill them up. We would have had them longer.

Echoing the opinions of our report author, Dr Uwe Gerecke, some of the people interviewed by Vlahos said that what owners perceive as inappropriate behaviour for their pets could very well be their normal behaviour as a dog or a cat, but one that is undesirable in a human set-up.

Vlahos wrote: "Although most animal-behaviour problems are believed to have genetic roots, their expressions are typically triggered by the unnatural lives that people force their pets to lead.'A dog that lived on a farm and ran around chasing rabbits all day would be more prone to being stable than a dog living in an apartment in Manhattan,' [Dr Nicholas] Dodman says.

Vlahos: "Although most animal-behaviour problems are believed to have genetic roots, their expressions are typically triggered by the unnatural lives that people force their pets to lead." Photo: Janet Goulden

"Undomesticated canids, neither confined nor excessively attached to people, don’t suffer from separation anxiety. Some captive horses endlessly circle their stalls or corrals — a compulsive behaviour similar to Max’s tail chasing — but such purposeless repetitions have never been observed in the wild."

If your lock your pet up in a city flat for eight hours a day, or let it loose in an area full of other pets - all competing for space - while you’re away at work, of course it’s going to turn loopy and develop some habits. Some humans go nuts doing things that are not naturally human. Like spending eight to 12 hours behind the desk, and another two hours commuting back and forth on public transport every day.

What I find interesting is the length pet owners go to make their animals fit into their lifestyle. Vlahos observed that "people’s willingness to employ behaviour-modifying medications stems in part from a growing desire for more convenient, obedient household animals".

"The studies of Reconcile (the fluoxetine hydrochloride product by Eli Lilly used to treat dog's separation anxiety) show why behavioural pharmacologists prefer not to rely on the medicine bottle — or for that matter, retraining — alone. Dr Steve Connell, a veterinarian at Eli Lilly, told me that 'behaviour modification by itself works. There’s not any question about that. But if you use behaviour modification in conjunction with Reconcile, it works quicker and it works better.'"

No pooping allowed. But is the dog in the wrong? Photo: Edwin PP

A pharmaceutical company executive told Vlahos that “all of the behavioural issues that we have created in ourselves, we are now creating in our pets because they live in the same unhealthy environments that we do.”

I asked Dominic, our web programmer who recently acquired two kittens, if he uses ‘aids’ to modify his kittens’ toilet behaviour. He is currently training them to do the business in the designated area, i.e. the bathroom.

“No,” he said. “I just moved the litter tray to the bathroom. As long as they know where it is, and they don’t get yelled at, there is no problem”.

Vlahos's feature got me thinking about the real motivation behind pet ownership. No doubt some people love animals. But for some, it isn’t really about the pets. Making the pets fit into their lives like some toys or on-demand entertainment devices speak volumes of their need for love and reassurance.

You can read the full article by James Vlahos on http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/magazine/13pets-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.

You can get the full copy of Companion Animal Behavioural Products for free if you subscribe to Animal Pharm.

Not a matter of taste

Organic or battery? Photo: Yoichiro Nishimura

What I admire about the tabloids is their reporters’ ability to sniff out sensational news, even in the most mundane piece of literature. Like a science journal.

I am not a Daily Mail reader, but sometimes I wish my favourite leftwing broadsheet has the same tenacity and imagination to bring R&D materials to life.

On Sunday, the Daily Mail reported on a Bristol University study which concludes that ‘organic chickens have less flavour’. The research, originally published in the British Poultry Science journal, “involved a panel of ten tasters blind tasting samples from 120 chickens which had been reared in various ways”.

Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at the university’s school of veterinary science, told the Mail that “in general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system.”

Although it sounds like a press release from the pro-antibacterial camps, this is an interesting piece of news.

Actually, you can find a lot of extremely interesting stuff if you have the time to browse through PubMed, that very useful online service ran by the US National Library of Medicine. Never mind the Daily Mail. If you want to be entertained/horrified/incensed/intrigued, go to PubMed.

I did a story on the possibility of tumour caused by RFID chips in dogs and cats based on the leads found on PubMed. Typically, it’s the kind of news that won’t be taken up by the mainstream papers (because it’s about dead pets, not dead humans), and the type that veterinary associations and their sponsors would keep at an arm’s length.

One thing you have to remember about R&D news is that just because it’s based on some fancy studies, has plenty of numbers, Latin words and incredible job titles (Prof, Dr and so on), it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the news with a pinch of salt.

They're not free-range, so they're not fashionable Photo: Stephen Ausmus/USDA

When I can afford it, I buy organic. Editing a website on animal health, which talks about maximum residue limits (MRLs), pharmacokinetics of drugs and so on, makes me very weary of what goes into the animal. I don’t care how bland the chicken tastes. I don't want to get cancer. I want to live long.

But I won’t knock battery chickens as well. I grew up on them; I still buy what Tesco calls “Caged Eggs” (does that mean the eggs are caged?) and I understand it is impossible for chicken producers to generate a large amount of supply in a short time and make profits without relying on antibacterials (Feeding the 300 million, April 2008).

What I am curious to know, as a consumer, is what organic means under the current EU regulations. Different countries have different definitions. The EU and the US have comprehensive organic legislation. In Australia, there are no organic standards for produce at domestic level. Australia only bothers when it comes to food export.

In my previous life as a technology reporter, when I was researching a piece about International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for wireless devices, a PR person told me: “You know that some ISOs are not given out by government bodies, but by private companies sub-contracted by the government?” Similarly, in some countries, the organic certification is given out by private companies sub-contracted by the governments.

I am not saying that government agencies are not immune to corruption. I am just saying that private agencies are driven by bottomline.

Labelling is also another issue. According to the Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007: “The aim (of the proposed regulation) is to have the lowest possible presence of GMOs in organic products. The existing labelling thresholds represent ceilings which are exclusively linked to the adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs.”

So do I care if organic chickens have less flavour or not? Maybe you do. I don’t. What goes into my curry will always taste like curry. What I want to know is: how truly organic is our organic chicken?