Central Database Management of Sheep in the UK Farming Industry - Essay Example

The implementation of electronic identification and central database management of sheep in the UK farming industry Introduction The increase of economic activities around the world has led to the need for the implementation of advanced information systems that can process a high volume of data within a short period of time compared to the existing information systems – the latter are often characterized by severe failures in the storage, process or transmission of data. However, information systems are not independent from the environment on which they are going to be implemented and used. The reference is made to a specific type of environment, the economic environment, i.e. the various aspects of the economy – referring to the national economy or the economy of a greater region, like the European Union – that create the framework in which a series of activities – mostly the financial ones – is developed. For states that are members to the European Union all economic activities – as most of their activities – need to be evaluated in the context of the relevant European rules, ethics and practices, in other words, European economic environment is also likely to affect the economic activities and initiatives developed in the members of the Union – apart from the national economic environment. Current paper focuses on the examination of the advantages and problems of existing system of identification and tracking of sheep in UK. At the same time reference is made to the benefits and problems of the system that is going to be replaced the existing one by the end of December 2009. The effects of both these systems on the British and the European economic environment are also identifying and analysed – at the level that they can offer explanations on the reasons that led to the initial use of information systems for the particular economic activity but also the reasons that led to the need for the replacement of these systems at the specific point of time. 2. Current methods of identification and tracking of sheep in UK 2.1 Advantages of the current system of identification The rules that are currently used for the identification of sheep in UK were introduced on the 11th of January 2008; farmers across the country were appropriately informed in order to take the measures required (DEFRA, 2009). Existing system offers a series of advantages – compared to the systems of sheep identification used in the past. These advantages could be summarized as follows: a) In the existing system, different provisions have been introduced regarding the animals with different characteristics in a way that the existing system of identification can be applied on all sheep and goats across UK. As an example, a differentiation is made between the animals born after 11 January 2008 and those born before that date. In accordance with the current rules of identification the system of double tagging should be applied; more specifically, it is noted that ‘Animals, born on or after 11 January 2008, must have two identifiers if it is intended they will live to 12 months of age or more or will be exported; Animals, which have already been officially tagged with an individual animal number before 11 January 2008, do not require any further tags’ (DEFRA, 2009, Keepers’ guidance). An exception is set for the animals that are intended for slaughter and which are less of 12 months of age; for the latter – if they are single tagged – the previous rules of tagging, i.e. the single tagging, can be used – as valid (DEFRA, 2009). b) The movement of animals – always referring to sheep and goats – from one region of Britain to another is monitored. More specifically, under current rules of identification, the farmer is obliged to send a document to the local council informing the authorities for any movement of the animals – under his possession or supervision – from one region to another (DEFRA, 2009). In this way, the position of all animals across the country can be easily identified and monitored. c) Through the existing system, the ancestors of an animal can be traced. Existing system is based on the use of ear tags for the identification of sheep. These ear tags have two different numbers: the flock number and the individual number. In this way, it is possible for any disease to be controlled at its early stages avoiding its expansion across the country. d) The current system of sheep – and goats – identification states that since the movement of animals to another place 6 days have to pass before the animals are moved to a third place – a measure taken in order to further support the control of a potential disease. 2.2 Problems of the current system of identification Two can be considered as the most important problems of current system of sheep/ goats’ identification: a) As noted above, current system of sheep identification requires that two numbers be written on the ear tag: the flock number and the individual number. However, there is no a central database for the storage of these numbers. In this way, their value is being decreased; there is no ability to process these numbers and use them for the control of disease – as analysed in the previous sections. In this context, the individual number of each animal is proved to be rather useless; the flock number would be sufficient in order to trace the owner and the ancestors of animals. b) The fact that the movement of animals is reported does not help particularly in the prevention of a disease outbreak since on the relevant document only the two regions – this of origin and this of destination – are reported – also the number of animals; there is no reference to the health of these animals – the spread of a disease could follow the movement of animals from one place to another. 3. New system of identification that will start by December 31 3.1 Advantages of the new system of identification that will start by December 31 In accordance with the new system of identification, animals – sheep and goats – across UK will be identified electronically. This will be a significant change from the current system, which is based on the use of common tags – ear tags – for the identification of animals in Britain. The new system of identification will start by December 31, 2009 and it has been already criticized – both positively and negatively. The advantages of the new system can be described as follows: a) The new system would offer the chance to keep a record of all animals – sheep and goats – on which electronic ear tagging will be applied. With the existing system, this target cannot be achieved – since there is no a central database for entering the relevant data. The database that will be developed in the context of the new system will be valuable for the control of diseases in animals across UK. b) The potential errors in the identification of sheep could be minimized – the data will be stored in a central database and it will not be possible to be changed or lost – since appropriate measures will ensure their safety. c) The state will be able to monitor the performance of the specific sector – through checking the data held in the central database; this fact could help to the introduction of appropriate policies for the further development of the particular sector. 3.2 Problems of the new system of identification that will start by December 31 The application of the new system of identification could face a series of obstacles, like the following ones: a) The technology used in most electronic devices in the British market is not compatible – at least not easily – with the technology used in the devices related with the new system. b) Currently, there is no provision for the production of software and hardware – used in the context of this system – by a particular firm; this means that many companies in UK – also across Europe – could proceed to the production of the mechanical parts but also of the software required for the new system of sheep identification; such a prospect could put under risk the viability and the success of the specific scheme. c) Farmers across Britain would need to be trained on the new system; the success of the relevant training programs cannot be guaranteed – at least not fully – especially for the initial period of the system’s application – a period that is quite crucial. d) Issues of performance of the electrical devices used in the context of the new system could also appear. More specifically, these devices would have to operate under adverse weather conditions - cold and rain – a fact that is not yet tested. e) Issues of health and safety of the farmers could also appear – especially if taking into consideration that the various aspects of the new system’s health risks have not been fully explored. 3.3 Implementation of the new system of identification – issues for consideration In accordance with Wolf (1998, 96) information systems are particular valuable in farming since they offer to the farmers the chance to generate a variety of data on their farms. This means that the new system could have many chances to lead to the improvement of farming in Britain – in the similar context with the system CALM used in Australia (Galliers et al., 2003, 359 – but its implementation should be based on specific criteria – priorities: a) a detailed cost analysis –estimation of the cost – even at an average level – of the new system, b) identification of the most appropriate methods of implementation and c) the issue of training of the farmers needs also to be addressed. 3.3.1 Cost analysis Currently, in Britain there are approximately 33 million sheep (National Farmers’ Union, 2009); this means that the application of any measure related with the sheep identification would require a significant amount of money – especially if referring to the placement of electronic ear tag to all sheep – an idea included in the rules of the new system of identification which is going to start on December 31. The specific amount of money would negatively affect the economic environment in Britain – imposing heavy financial obligations to all farmers in order for the new plan to be realized. The application of the new system would result to the obligation of farmers to pay a significant amount of money following the new system’s rules. In the context of the European Union, the payment of this amount of money could be interpreted in two different views: a) through a first approach, there will be a transfer of money from the farmers to the firms that sell the relevant devices – in the context of EU this transfer would not severely affect the economy of EU – it will be a transfer of capital always within the borders of the EU, b) from another point of view, a significant part of the British population – 90,000 sheep producers (NFU, 2009) plus their families – would have to suffer a reduction of their income in order to respond to the demands of the new system. This would result to the limitation of the buying ability of these people – the need for the financial support of farmers by the state – or the European Union – would be an issue for consideration for the British government but also the European Authorities. Further explanations on the effects of both systems on the British and European economic environment would be necessary. The cost of the program in figures would be of particular importance in order to understand the reasons for which the introduction of this program would result to severe problems for the British political and economic life. In the context of this system, each farmer have to purchase the IT system with the technical characteristics defined by the system’s provider; the cost of this IS unit – and relevant equipment for each farmer has been estimated to be up to the 40% of the income of each farmer (BBC News, 28 January 2009). On the other hand, a comparative cost analysis of the existing and the new system has been developed in the context of Scottish Statutory Instruments, 2007. This cost analysis would be used – appropriately interpreted – to make assumptions on the expected cost of the new system in all its aspects. Measure Total Cost of UK national Single Tagging System (Option 1) Total Cost of Option 2 Cost of Option 2 compared to UK national system Identification: Cost of identifying slaughter animals Cost of identifying breeding Animals Cost of replacement tags Cost of applying Movement tags Cost of export tags £580,000 £390,000 £44,300 £457,200 £61,000 £580,000 £690,000 £53,800 £nil £15,200 £nil +£300,000 +£9,500 -£457,200 -£45,800 £1.53m £1.34m -£190,000 £91,000 £45,500 -£45,500 £178,000 £167,000 -£11,000 £1.80m £1.55m -£0.25m Figure 1 – Cost analysis of existing and new tagging system, Scotland Source: (Regulatory impact assessment for Scotland on the implementation of double tagging for ovine and caprine animals under Council Regulation (EC) 21/2004 The above cost analysis refers to Scotland. It is noted that ‘for the industry as a whole, the savings from the abolition of movement tags (£457,200 per year) outweighs the increased cost of double tagging (£300,000)’ (Scottish Statutory Instruments 2007 No. 559 The Sheep and Goats (Identification and Traceability) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007). In accordance with the above report in Scotland there are about 20,600 livestock holdings; aligning the above figures with the data referring to the Britain’s overall livestock holdings – the farms in Britain have been estimated to 300,000 in 2008 (UK Agriculture, 2008) – the following assumption can be made: the cost of the new system could be limited at low levels – compared to the expenses related with the existing system of identification – however, appropriate measures should be taken by the state in advance. 3.3.2 Suggested methods for implementation The new system would require the implementation of a new – advanced IT system – the parts of which will be divided as follows: a) its central unit – including the system’s central depository unit - need to be in the relevant governmental authority while b) sub-units would exist in local councils. The above system needs to have specific technical characteristics and be able to meet particular targets. The choice of the system will be based on specific technical criteria – but also on relevant theories. The latter would be chosen in accordance with their potential relevance with the issue under examination. An indicative example would be the SWOT analysis – under this theory the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the New System would be examined - its implementation would be decided in accordance with the issues revealed after examining the above issues – a model already developed above in sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2 sections. Another option would be the business assessment model of McKinsey – the business unit that is most expected to perform well is supported – this theory could be applied – appropriately changed – by British government in relation with the implementation of the new system. Figure 2 – The GE / McKinsey Matrix (source: valuebasedmanagement net) The availability of funds required for the completion of the project is also expected to influence the implementation method chosen. In this case, appropriate IS theories will be applied – as indicatively presented below – in order to choose the new system. The relationship between the IS and the economic environment is highlighted in a series of studies. An indicative one is that of Kowalski (1997, 224) where the importance of cost-benefits analysis prior to the implementation of an IS is highlighted. In the study of Schnieder (1994) the financial aspects of various IS systems – referring especially to the agriculture – are analyzed. On the other hand, Fontenot (1995, 59) makes clear that the success of IS systems is highly depended on the amount of money available for the funding of their database on a permanent basis. Towards a similar direction, Jumarie (1986) states that the design of a ‘large-scale project would have similarities with the design of the world economy’ (Jumarie, 1986, 74). In the study of Mae Kaplan et al. (2004, 129) is noted that the economic conditions in which an IS will be implemented should be carefully examined in advance – i.e. prior to the implementation of the system in a specific economic or social sector. From a similar point of view, information economy is related ‘both with the information and the associated technology’ (Harindranath et al., 2002, 77), a view that emphasizes on the role of IS as a device for the storage and process of knowledge – in the form of data. In the above study, again, the technology is related with the economy. It is for this reason that the development of effective information systems becomes achievable only in conditions of dynamic economy (Turner et al., 1987, 267) 3.3.2 Training In accordance with the study of Collinson (2000, 98) ‘farmers managing similar farming systems use similar technologies and will often adopt the same improvements’. In Britain, the use of the existing system of identification by the farmers means that they all have similar experience on the use of the system – the technology used by the farmers is also expected to be similar – a fact that increase the potential effectiveness of the system – in the case of the system’s failure it would be easier for the situation to be handled successfully without a major damage. However, farmers are Britain are familiar with existing system of identification; the implementation of a new system would require appropriately customized training programs that would help farmers to get familiar with the various functions and the steps of the particular system – these programs could be developed locally – i.e. under the supervision of the local council; the participation of the farmers should be obligatory – in order to avoid major failures in the system’s operation. The cost of the training would be estimated as follows: Currently in Britain exist about 90,000 sheep producers (NFA, 2009); if each program would consist from 3 sessions of 2 hours each, i.e. 6 hours of training for each farmer, and taking as a basis a cost of training of £20 per hour, the cost would be estimated as follows: a) cost of training for each farmer: 6 X 20 = 120 £ b) cost of the whole program: 120 X 90,000 = 10,800,000 £ - a really huge sum On the other hand, the training part of the program could not be avoided; this means that if the government insists on its plans a significant sum should be accumulated for the needs of the particular program – if taking into consideration the additional expenses of the program as presented analytically in the cost analysis developed above. 4. Conclusion The potential use of advanced technology for the identification of sheep could be evaluated by referring to the main aspects of information systems – as part of a specific scientific and social framework. In accordance with Vasilecas (2005, 8) the development of information systems is depended on two factors: the demand – by customers – and the supply – by the firms that deal with the construction of mechanical components of IS and the development of the relevant software but also by the firms that provide the necessary services – usually in form of the customer support. It should be also noted that the applicability of the new system is an issue that has caused strong concerns to the European Authorities. In fact, the European Parliament asked the Ministers of Agriculture of the member states to review the rules related with the specific system ‘due to the difficulty in implementation, high costs and unproven benefits; asks that each Member state be allowed the discretion of introducing this system on a voluntary basis’ (National Farmers’ Union, 2009). British authorities also seem to be skeptical regarding the effectiveness of the new system – its cost – see the cost analysis developed above – and its further requirements – introduction of training scheme and application of complex strategic plans – as indicatively presented above – prove that the introduction of the new identification system should be delayed up to the development of the appropriate conditions for its implementation – the characteristics of these conditions can be derived from the issues highlighted above regarding the cost and the additional requirements and potential risks of the specific system. References Collinson, M. (2000) A history of farming systems research. Food & Agriculture Organization Fontenot, J. (1995) Building a North American feed information system. National Academies Galliers, R., Leidner, D. (2003) Strategic information management: challenges and strategies in managing information systems. Butterworth-Heinemann Harindranath, G., Wojtkowski, W. (2002) New perspectives on information systems development: theory, methods, and practice. Springer Hart, D. (2007) Information systems foundations: theory, representation and reality. ANU E Press Howcroft, D., Trauth, E. (2005) Handbook of critical information systems research: theory and application. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005 Jumarie, G. (1986) Subjectivity, information, systems: an introduction to a theory of relativistic cybernetics. Taylor & Francis Kaplan, B., Truex, D. (2004) Information systems research: relevant theory and informed practice. Springer, 2004 Kowalski, G. (1997) Information retrieval systems: theory and implementation. Springer Moreno-Diaz, R., Buchberger, B. (2001) Computer aided systems theory - EUROCAST 2001: a selection of papers from the 8th International Workshop on Computer Aided Systems Theory. Springer National Academy of Sciences (2008) Changes in the Sheep Industry in the United States: Making the Transition from Tradition. National Academies Press Schnieder, K. (1994) Alternative Farming Systems - Economic Aspects. DIANE Publishing Turner, B., Brush, S. (1987) Comparative farming systems. Guilford Press Vasilecas, O. (2005) Information systems development: advances in theory, practice, and education. Springer Wolf, S. (1998) Privatization of information and agricultural industrialization. CRC Press Online Sources 1. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Impact Assessment for the introduction of sheep and goat electronic identification (EID) under EC Regulation 21/2004 – Born or identified after 31 December 2009, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/eid/impact-assessment1.pdf 2. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Impact Assessment for older animals (Born before 31 December 2009) following the introduction of electronic identification (EID) and individual recording for sheep and goats, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/eid/impact-assessment2.pdf 3. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Double Tagging Rules, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/sheep/tagging.htm 4. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Electronic Identification of Sheep, Instructions, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/sheep/nextsteps.htm 5. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Guidance for keepers in England, Rules for identifying sheep and goats, available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/goats/documents/keepers_guidance.pdf 6. National Farmers’ Union, NFU, September 24, 2009, available at http://www.nfuonline.com/x42076.xml 7. House of Commons, UK, Select Committee on Agriculture Seventh Report, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmagric/150/15007.htm 8. Comptroller and Auditor General, 12 November 2003, Identifying and Tracking Livestock in England, available at http://collection.europarchive.org/tna/20070109010906/http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/02-03/02031144es.pdf Read More