“The problem with NAIT is it is only as good as its weakest link, and to be honest, at present that is dairy farmers. They are not recording stock movements on and off run-offs or grazing blocks, or recording arrival of stock once purchased from sale yards.
“You will find thousands of cattle still registered under a sale yards NAIT number well after the sale is over. We are told to move the stock off into a holding account until they are recorded as received, but farmers are not notifying NAIT they have received the stock.”
The problem is failure in farmer compliance – NAIT has acknowledged this as a key area to tighten up on this year.
OSPRI group manager for programme design and farm systems, Dr Stu Hutchings, acknowledges the issue around pending movements – ie: the hundreds of livestock scanned out of sale yards but are not receipted and scanned in by farmer buyers once unloaded at home.
“Those that do movements on behalf of farmers, namely yards and processors, are well engaged with the process. But we now have our call centre calling farmers to ensure they do receipt stock in.”
Despite claims some yards in Waikato are particularly problematic for data jams, Hutchings said there had been no evidence that particular regions were worse than others.
“It could be it’s just that those yards are particularly busy with higher numbers of stock going through them.”
Hutchings said overall tagging rates were tracking very well within NAIT – at around 98% only 18 months into the system’s existence – with a 100% target by 2015.
Taupo livestock agent Shane Scott puts part of the problem of pending movements down to the web-based interface between farmer and NAIT.
“It needs to be made easier than it is for farmers to notify NAIT they have received stock. At present we get dozens of emails from NAIT but farmers don’t want to have to open an email then log on to the NAIT site – it should be a case of just clicking a box within the email to acknowledge you have the stock.”
Doug Lineham, of Rezare, agrees with Scott’s take on the internet interface.
“Farmers tell me the website is not intuitive and is easy to get lost on, and as a result they do not enter the data on livestock, and it suggests there is a lot of data that is not being loaded in. If there was a biosecurity crisis now, I daresay it would be found wanting.”
OSPRI’s Dr Stu Hutchings said NAIT has responded to farmer feedback on the website and is well underway upgrading the interface to make it more farmer-friendly. The revamped site is due to kick off in April, and will include email notifications with a link embedded to simply click on to confirm stock receipt and dispatch.
“They will also have the chance to specify what level of detail they want sent to them each time.”
Another issue raised by some agents was yard situations where scanners were not 100% accurate in dealing with heaving, moving livestock. This sometimes required whole lines to be rescanned. One agent described how a failed scan on a line of four cattle saw them transported hundreds of kilometres away, to be mixed in with another line of cattle and falling off the grid completely.
Scott is adamant the system has added “big time” to hours spent trying to identify stock, and untangle identification problems, something others in the industry have confirmed. He resents what the system has cost agents in terms of time, costs not recouped, and the expectation agents like transport operators, are expected to act as defacto NAIT officers.
However, he also appreciates the potential the system brings, not only as a national tracking system but for improved onfarm monitoring.
“For anyone half-pie serious about farming it is a great tool.”
He uses it himself for scanning cattle and monitoring weight gains.
After a dictatorial stance from NAIT officers when it kicked off, he also says the body is more accepting of feedback and Hutchings, as its group manager, brings a more understanding view to problems experienced.
His one hope for the year is that greater pressure is brought to bear on dairy farmers in particular to step up to the system.
“I believe 80% of sheep and beef farmers are very conscientious and quite diligent about it. With dairy we struggle.”
Hutchings said no particular farmer sector was proving to be more problematic than any other, and he was surprised at the observation about dairy farmers, given their familiarity with electronic ID.
But one of NAIT’s goals this year is to reinforce the need for recording farm-to-farm movement, for example when heifers are moved to grazing.
A moving issue
Issues over NAIT are also shared in the sector coming before stock agents – transport operators.
The sector’s position on NAIT has long been one of challenging the system. Allan Kempthorne, owner of Kempthorne Transport in Waikato, has long questioned the system’s validity, and continues to do so.
“Trying to scan livestock into a truck, animals like weaner calves – and you have to put all your scanner down to move – and then try and recall which have been NAIT-scanned, it’s not practical. The time I have used a NAIT scanner it took 15 minutes for half a dozen heifers.”
Kempthorne said early promises of being able to scan stock and transmit via cell phone have proven impossible in areas where cell phone coverage is patchy. He has participated in stakeholder workshops held in Waikato, and was less than impressed with how reality of dealing with dangerous stock clashed with the theory behind the scheme.
“What happens when you run one bull with another from another property? I was told to unload and start again – I took a NAIT agent with me once, they could not get within 10 feet to scan – people will get hurt doing this.”
He disputed the practicalities of having scanners built on to cattle trucks.
“We struggle to keep all the tail lights going at present, let alone a scanner.”
Drivers being left responsible for NAIT scanning are stressed, and he knows one operator whose driver, after being told he needed to scan 83 calves, nearly walked off the job.
But Hutchings said some transport operators had taken up the scanning option, and it was a value add service they were prepared to offer clients. He doubted NAIT legislation would have to be used to pull transport operators along.
“We would rather the operators come to see the use of scanners as a value add part of their service.”
