Cattle identification and traceability: consultation analysis

1. About the Consultation

This consultation sought views on changes to cattle identification and traceability in Scotland, including how new rules can be best introduced and if they should be made mandatory. The following proposals were put forward:

• to require that all new-born cattle are identified with electronic ear tags, and
• a transition of the ‘historical herd’ to electronic identification (EID) (the historical herd are cattle that have already been tagged under existing identification rules).

Views were also sought on a number of wider proposals in relation to the cattle identification regime. These are in relation to the following:

• the use of a fully online holding register for all cattle births, deaths, and movements (a partial online holding register currently exists for within business movements),
• reporting and recording timescales, and
• the removal of paper cattle passports for EID identified animals.

The Scottish Government provided a webpage with information about the consultation, with links to:

• the consultation document, questionnaire, respondent information form for download; and
• an on-line version of the consultation questionnaire (including respondent information form).

The Scottish Government promoted the public consultation online, with most of the survey responses submitted through the Citizen Space online portal. The remainder were submitted directly by email or post to the Scottish Government’s Animal Health and Welfare Division. Where this was the case, the Scottish Government uploaded these responses to citizen space for analysis.

The introduction of bovine EID has been a longstanding industry request. EID is seen by many in the farming sector as an opportunity to modernise and improve on efficiencies whilst supporting competitiveness within the supply chain. Furthermore, EID could potentially be used to improve on-farm management practices and on-farm automation. The technology allows for keeper activities to be carried out at a greater distance from livestock, reducing the health and safety risks.

Our priority is to ensure effective traceability of cattle is maintained to protect both animal and public health. The ScotEID multi-species relational database system is technology neutral and looks to capture data in an accurate and timely manner regardless of the systems or technology used.

As set out in the Vision for Agriculture, Scottish Ministers recognise that the development and the introduction of new technologies will play an important role as we look to modernise the farming sector for a more sustainable future. Therefore, we have, to date, supported and funded an industry-led bovine EID pilot focusing on the potential use of ultra-high frequency (UHF) technology across Scotland. Use of low frequency (LF) EID for identification of sheep is already required.

This work will contribute to three of the Scottish Government’s four key priorities outlined in the Programme for Government (PfG):

• Growing the economy
• Tackling the climate emergency
• Improving public services

In particular, this work will promote vital investment into our future health, equality, and prosperity, improving public services, and moving towards a more sustainable future by tackling the climate emergency. Introducing electronic identification for cattle will contribute to the Scottish Government’s key priorities by improving traceability and management of cattle in Scotland, leading to a more efficient, healthy and productive national herd.

1.1 Aim of this report

This report presents an analysis of responses received to the consultation on cattle identification and traceability in Scotland which ran from 4 April 2024 to 27 June 2024. The consultation had 11 questions with space provided for comments. There were 218 responses to the consultation, 49 of which were from organisations and 169 from individual respondents. The structure of the report follows that of the consultation paper and considers the response to each consultation question in turn.

1.2 Analysis

The analysis aimed to identify the most common themes and issues and to understand the range of views expressed within the responses. The views submitted to this consultation should not be considered as representative of the views of the wider public. Anyone can submit their views to a consultation.

The report does not address every topic raised in the consultation responses. All responses, where the respondent gave permission for their comments to be published, are available on the Citizen Space website.

Comments made in response to each question were analysed qualitatively by identifying common themes and interpreting them to assign a rough number to each theme. Where respondents answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a question but did not provide further clarification for their answer, common themes for these responses could not be identified and were therefore not included. Where a question was open with a text box for comments rather than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, common themes were drawn from the responses and analysed where possible. This report quotes and paraphrases some of the comments received in order to illustrate key points and themes.

1.3 Executive Summary

The majority of respondents answered ‘yes’ to use of electronic ear tags as an official means of identification in cattle, with 90% supporting the proposal in question 1 (Do you support use of electronic ear tags as an official means of identification in cattle?). Respondents were in favour of using technology to encourage a more streamlined and innovative approach to farming and many can see the potential benefits that this would bring to their businesses.

Question 2 asked respondents which type of technology (UHF or LF) should be used in electronic ear tags. 73% of respondents were in favour of using UHF technology. Many respondents cited increased health and safety improvements as their reason for supporting the use of UHF technology when handling cattle due to the longer reading range supported by UHF. 12% opted for LF technology, and the remaining respondents either did not have an opinion or indicated they were keen to align with the rest of the UK in terms of technology.

Question 4 (do you agree that there should be a legal requirement for new-born cattle to be identified with electronic ear tags?) was the second most popular proposal with 88% of respondents in favour. The majority of these respondents were in support of identifying newborns with electronic tags in order to see the benefits of electronic identification as soon as possible, with many respondents noting they were keen to get started.

Question 3 (do you support the use of any other forms of electronic identification as official means of identification (either as primary or secondary identification)?) reported that while 45% of respondents were in favour of alternative forms of electronic identification (anything other than ear tags), the majority of respondents to this question (55%) did not support other forms of electronic identification.

A more detailed analysis of the responses follows.