National Livestock Identification System Alpaca and Llama ...

National Livestock Identification System
Alpaca and Llama
Database Options Review
Rick Beasley
Food Safety Operations (Qld) Pty Ltd
Suite 4, 14 King Street
Caboolture QLD 4510
PO BOX 754,
Caboolture QLD 4510
Ph: +61 7 54993388 Fax: +61 7 54990888
E-mail: admin@fsoq.com
Web. : www.fsoq.com
ABN: 67 085 364 352 ACN: 085 364 352

Contents
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 5
DEVELOPMENT OF TRACEABILITY IN THE AUSTRALIAN CATTLE INDUSTRY .......... 5
NLIS IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 6
NLIS IMPLEMENTATION BY SPECIES ............................................................................ 7
Cattle ............................................................................................................................. 7
Sheep and Goats ........................................................................................................... 8
Pigs ................................................................................................................................ 9
IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY IN ALPACAS AND LLAMAS ................................ 10
THE ALPACA AND LLAMA INDUSTRY ORGANISATION .............................................. 12
Alpacas ........................................................................................................................ 12
Llamas ......................................................................................................................... 13
INTERFACES WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 14
Movement Recording ................................................................................................... 14
Accreditation and Health Statuses ............................................................................... 14
Registration Databases ................................................................................................ 14
On–Farm Systems ....................................................................................................... 15
Abattoir and Saleyard Systems .................................................................................... 15
DATABASE SELECTION .................................................................................................... 16
EXISTING SYSTEMS AND OPTIONS ............................................................................ 16
DATABASE OPTIONS .................................................................................................... 17
NATIONAL LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM DATABASE .............................. 17
LIVESTOCK TAG AND TRACE (LTAT) ....................................................................... 19
COMPARISON OF DATABASE OPTIONS ..................................................................... 20
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 20
ACCEPTANCE BY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES ..................................................... 24
ACCEPTANCE BY INDUSTRY .................................................................................... 25
DATABASE INTERFACES .......................................................................................... 26
HELPDESK AND USER DOCUMENTATION .............................................................. 27
DATABASE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS .................................................................... 29
Cost Estimate from NLIS ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Cost Estimate from LTAT ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Cost Comparison ......................................................................................................... 30
Page 2

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
ELECTRONIC IDENTIFICATION OPTIONS ....................................................................... 31
DEVICE TYPES .............................................................................................................. 31
Ear Tags ...................................................................................................................... 31
Rumen Bolus ............................................................................................................... 31
Subcutaneous Implants ................................................................................................ 32
Impact on the Database ............................................................................................... 32
CHOICE OF RFID TECHNOLOGIES AND FREQUENCIES ............................................... 33
DEVICE ACCREDITATION AND LICENCING .................................................................... 34
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 35
Database Comparisons ................................................................................................ 35
Database Cost Comparisons and Selection ................................................................. 36
Identification Options ................................................................................................... 36
Page 3

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The alpaca and llama industries have begun investigating options for the storage
and retrieval of data collected in compliance with the National Livestock Identification
System.
The proposed system is principally required as a regulatory database to store and
retrieve data relating the animal identification, current location, previous locations
and associated animals, death or slaughter and statuses. The criteria required for a
successful database to store this information and make it available in suitable
formats are listed and discussed.
The system adopted has to be acceptable to the alpaca and llama industries but also
to governments and the broader livestock industries in Australia. It must provide as
many options as possible to allow the recording of data to ensure the maximum
industry participation.
Within the context of existing systems in place in Australia, the options available
have been canvassed. Of the four systems potentially available, it has been
concluded that the only viable systems were the National Livestock Identification
System (NLIS) database under the Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) umbrella or
the Livestock Tag and Trace (LTAT). Construction of a new database would not be a
viable option.
On all major areas of comparison, the NLIS database appears to be a better option
than the LTAT alternative. There appears to be no reason for the alpaca and llama
industries to choose other than the established national traceability database.
When initial indicative costs are compared, the NLIS database option will provide
greater functionality at considerably cheaper costs.
With regard to technology, it is essential the RFID technology used must be the
same as has been adopted by other species. Ear tags are possibly the best
alternative for alpacas. Accreditation of tags by other industries may provide the
basis for alpaca accredited tags. Boluses are more secure but there is some doubt
as to their effectiveness in camelids. Subcutaneous implants are possible for llamas
but with strict limitations.
Page 4

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
BACKGROUND
There is a growing requirement throughout the world to require all foodstuffs to be
able to be traced back to the place or places of production and to be able to locate
other product from the same origin where problems are detected. This practice has
changed from a marketing ploy to a requirement as consumers place much greater
focus on product integrity and food safety. Increasingly, identification and traceability
are becoming a nonnegotiable requirement in all food service areas.
In livestock, the requirements vary, depending on the production process and
livestock movements. Requirements will be less onerous for intensively raised
species such as pigs and poultry which are typically raised in batches and there is
little movement of stock except on a batch basis. Traceability to source and location
of cohorts create minimal challenges.
DEVELOPMENT OF TRACEABILITY IN THE AUSTRALIAN
CATTLE INDUSTRY
Australia commenced official traceability systems in the 1960’s when the program to
eradicate tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis in cattle commenced. This program was
instituted in response to Australia’s trading partners indicating that they would
eradicate these diseases and freedom may become a prerequisite to trade. This
program ran until the early 2000’s when both diseases were officially eradicated.
This program could only have been successful if cattle could be accurately traced to
the last property of residence.
There were two important components of the program. The first was to identify all
properties running cattle with a Property Identification Code (PIC) and to tie this code
to a specific land area. The second component was the use of a tail tag to link an
animal with the PIC of consignment.
Australia’s cattle industry was responsible for the push for greater traceability and
more rigorous systems. The Australian cattle industry exports around 70% of total
production and maintaining credibility and buyer confidence is paramount to the
future viability of the industry. In this regard, the rapid diagnosis and eradication of
an exotic disease outbreak is essential to an industry so heavily dependent on
exports.
The initial impetus for a national traceability system in Australia came from industry
rather than government on the basis that such a system could serve industry
interests for disease management and commercial market requirements. This type of
system best works on a mandatory basis, especially given its large reliance on
exports.
After the successful eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis in the 1990’s, there
was consensus between the cattle industry and governments, State and Federal,
that the industry needed to further refine and develop systems of traceback. While
Page 5

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
the PIC based tail tag system had provided the basis for TB and brucellosis
eradication, these programs had highlighted the deficiencies in such a system,
particularly with long term diseases such as TB. There was a need to identify cattle
individually from property of birth right throughout their life.
This led to research on individual identification technologies through the 1990’s to try
to find technology which could operate effectively in the Australian livestock
industries at a cost that would be acceptable to the industry. The initial impetus for
identification followed a series of residue incidents through the 1980’s and 1990’s,
culminating in the “Helix” incident in the mid 1990’s.
Helix was the propriety name of a chemical (Chlorfluazuron) used to control insects
in cotton. During the drought of 1994/1995, cattle were fed cotton trash as a source
of roughage. This trash contained traces of chlorflauzuron which was absorbed by
cattle and stored in the fatty tissue. Unfortunately, the chemical was almost totally
resistant to breakdown in the body and remained in the animal for very long periods.
After the breaking of the drought, cattle were dispersed widely and it was impossible
to know which animals were affected. This led to huge industry costs for testing and
loss of confidence by importing countries.
This process was hastened when the European Union decided in 1999 that the
system used by Australia for identification and traceability did not meet the
requirements of the EU, particularly with regard to the control of use of Hormonal
Growth Promotants (HGP’s). A more rigorous system had to be deployed to avoid
having to exit the market.
A partnership was established between the cattle industry, Federal and State
governments, and MLA to set up the system, fund it and decide on the operational
arrangements. The State governments have the legal responsibility for disease
management and are responsible for the development and maintaince of the PIC
register and the ordering of devices. The federal government has provided some
funding for the system, particularly the development of the NLIS database which has
been developed by Meat and Livestock Australia on behalf of the industry. This
funding was in the form of matching R&D funding and special grants.
There was agreement by the cattle industry and governments that the system had to
be able to identify the animal for its lifetime, record its location and movements,
record companion animals, record death or slaughter and record statuses against
the animal. This was required as the basis of a system which ensured biosecurity,
food safety and market access.
NLIS IMPLEMENTATION
An essential part of the development and roll out of the NLIS program was the
development of the national traceability performance standards. These standards
define the base requirements of the Australian identification and traceability systems.
The standards require that the system can trace back 30 days and then trace
forward all companion and contact animals for this period within 24 hours. It also
requires that an animal can be traced back to its property of birth and identify the
Page 6

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
present whereabouts of all cohorts within 48 hours. This sets the parameters which
must be delivered by the system.
This led to an expression of interest in 1999 for identification devices which were
machine readable and could identify the animal for life. At the conclusion of this
process, it was decided that the basis of the system would be Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) at the internationally agreed animal identification frequency of
134.2 KHz. This was subsequently reviewed and restricted to Half Duplex (HDX)
only.
The Standard for Permanent Identification Devices was developed to ensure that the
technology was effective in meeting the requirements of industry. This Standard
defined the performance characteristics such as read range, retention rates, printing
requirements, NLIS number format, production integrity, etc.
Each State government then passed complimentary legislation ensuring that the
basis of the program was the same in all states. This legislation made it an offence
to move cattle without NLIS identification or to remove an NLIS device and required
all sectors of industry to comply with the reporting requirements and record
movements to the database.
The NLIS database has been under constant development and enhancement since it
was initially developed in 1999. While there will always be a need to add functionality
or new developments, the database now has all the basic functionality required to
operate as the national traceability system. It operates under a nationally agreed
Terms of Use which specifies the stakeholder groups and the access to data and the
ability to add or modify data for each of these groups. These Terms of Use are
agreed on by SAFEMEAT which represents all sectors of the industry and
government.
NLIS IMPLEMENTATION BY SPECIES
Cattle
NLIS was rolled out by the various states starting with Victoria in 1998. Each state
has had slightly different implementation timetables and strategies. This resulted in a
difficult situation around Australia with a lack of conformity between states. However,
the program became fully mandatory in all states from July 2005 and this has meant
that the requirements across Australia are now reasonably consistent.
The program for cattle is that an approved RFID device must be attached to cattle
before they leave their property of birth and all movements (property to property or to
saleyards or abattoirs) must be recorded along with reference to the number of the
National Vendor Declaration (NVD) associated with the move.
Identification can be by an ear tag or a rumen bolus and ear tag combination. The
device must be accredited under the Standard and carry the NLIS logo which is
licensed by NLIS.
Page 7

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
All movements from one PIC to another must be recorded and this information can
be sent to the database in a variety of ways but well over 99.5% of the data is
recorded electronically on the database.
There are now close to 195,000 PICs recorded in the system and a PIC is allocated
to every place where livestock are held. However, the vast majority of property
owners do not need to have readers, recording equipment or even a database
account. It is only when cattle move directly from property to property that the
numbers need to be read and transferred to the database.
The database now handles about 2.5 million cattle movements a month,
representing around 30 million cattle movements a year. This is a surprisingly high
figure with regard to the total herd numbers which are estimated at around 28 million
head. A total of almost 80 million devices have been recorded in the database since
the inception of the program. Most transactions and queries are handled by the
database in well under a minute, making it a real time system.
Cattle also have statuses associated with the device number or the PIC. These
statuses may refer to animal health or chemical residue issues or may be related to
market eligibility or to identify lost or stolen cattle, financial interest or completeness
of traceability.
Sheep and Goats
The sheep and goat industry have not yet had the pressure applied by export
markets to provide a full traceability system. Although a high proportion of lamb and
mutton is exported, the majority does not go to sensitive markets. This is beginning
to change, however, and systems are now being developed to meet market
requirements.
The system for traceability in sheep and goats is quite different to that used for
cattle. The program requires a visual tag identifying the property of birth and a paper
based recording, typically a National Vender Declaration (NVD). The vendor is
required to list all the PICs of birth on the travel document or, alternatively, retag the
sheep with a transaction tag showing the PIC of the consignor. Recently, a mob
based database has been set up to record the movement of mobs of sheep through
saleyards and, ultimately, all movements.
While this system does provide some level of traceability, it does have some
problems, in particular the ability to trace saleyard purchased sheep back to the
consigning property and the ability to trace sheep reliably back to property of birth
and located companion animals from this property.
The future of sheep identification and traceability is currently being intensely
discussed and a number of enhancements have been suggested to improve the
current system. Some in the industry believe that these changes will provide the
industry with a system with sufficient integrity while others believe that this can only
be achieved by moving to a system similar to cattle with individual electronic
identification and a central database to record movements.
Page 8

Pigs
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
The pig industry has recently started developing identification and traceability
systems. The vast majority of pigs in Australia either do not move location or move
as groups through a set movement process. These movements can be recorded with
identification through tattoos. There are a small number of pigs that are traded either
property to property or through saleyards and a system has yet to be developed to
trace these pigs in a reliable way.
Page 9

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY IN
ALPACAS AND LLAMAS
There are a number of drivers that will ultimately require the alpaca and llama
industries in Australia to develop a system of identification and traceability. These
include disease management, residue control, market eligibility, assurance programs
and animal management systems.
In the short term, it will be biosecurity concerns which will drive the implementation of
identification and traceability systems. While the value of the alpaca and llama
industries may not be great when compared to other livestock industries in Australia,
there are implications and threats posed to the major industries by relatively smaller
species groups. To this extent, all livestock industries will progressively be required
to implement systems to protect their own industries and also reduce the risk to other
industries. The impact of a disease outbreak in a non-food producing industry was
vividly demonstrated by the recent outbreak of Equine Influenza (EI) which caused
incredible disruption to the equine world and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
As with all of these types of programs, the industry is rarely given a prescriptive
system design but is generally required to meet specific outcomes. In the case of
FMD susceptible species, the outcomes required are tabulated in the Performance
Standards for Identification and Traceability below. These Standards have been
endorsed by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) and, as such, carry
the endorsement of the Commonwealth and all States and Territory Governments.
Alpacas and llamas, being ruminants, are considered likely to be susceptible to FMD
or at least possible spreaders of the disease. To this extent, the species are
included in the FMD AUSVETPLAN and would be dealt with as susceptible under
the plan.
Page 10

TABLE 1
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
NATIONAL TRACEABILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Applicable to all FMD Susceptible Livestock Species 1
1.1 Within 24 hours of the relevant CVO 2 being notified 3 , it must be possible to determine the location(s) 4
where a specified animal was resident during the previous 30 days.
1.2 Within 24 hours it must also be possible to determine the location(s) 4 where all susceptible animals
that resided concurrently and/or subsequently on any of the properties on which a specified animal has
resided in the last 30 days.
Applicable to Cattle Only 5
2.1 Within 48 hours of the relevant CVO 2 being notified 3 , it must be possible to establish the location(s) 4
where a specified animal has been resident during its life.
2.2 Within 48 hours of the relevant CVO 2 being notified 3 , it must be possible to establish a listing of all
cattle that have lived on the same property as the specified animal at any stage during those animals’
lives.
2.3 Within 48 hours of the relevant CVO 2 being notified 3 , it must also be possible to determine the current
location 4 of all cattle that resided on the same property as the specified animal at any time during those
animals’ lives.
Applicable to All FMD Susceptible Livestock Species Except Cattle
(Lifetime traceability excluding the preceding 30 days – addressed by 1.1 and 1.2, above)
3.1 Within 14 days of the relevant CVO 2 being notified 3 , it must be possible to determine all locations 4
where a specified animal has been resident during its life.
3.2 Within 21 days of the relevant CVO 2 being notified 3 , it must also be possible to determine the location 4
of all susceptible animals that resided concurrently with a specified animal at any time during the
specified animal’s life.
1
For the purposes of the Standards, ‘FMD Susceptible Species’ means cattle, sheep, goats, and
domesticated buffalo, deer, pigs, camels and camelids.
2
‘The relevant CVO’ means the State or Territory Chief Veterinary Officer, or their delegate, in the
jurisdiction where the specified animal is located or has been traced to.
3
For the purposes of these Standards, the term ‘notified’ means the relevant CVO is aware of an
incident that required tracing.
4
‘Location’ means any definable parcel of land including (but not limited to): any parcel of land with
a Property Identification Code, travelling stock routes, saleyards, abattoirs, feedlots, live export
collection depots, show grounds, Crown land and transport staging depots.
5
Given the risks posed by BSE, it was considered appropriate to establish separate Standards for
cattle.
Page 11

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
There is no requirement in these Standards for the use of individual electronic
identification or the storage of data in the national database. However, it is difficult to
see how these requirements can be met without using these techniques.
The NLIS Alpacas and Llamas National Consultative Committee made a farsighted
decision in February 2009 to implement a NLIS Alpacas and Llamas using Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) and combining the essentials of individual
identification, movement recording and slaughter or death recording.
THE ALPACA AND LLAMA INDUSTRY ORGANISATION
Information provided on the alpaca and llama industries show that both are relatively
small industries compared to other livestock industries in Australia. However, both
species have viable numbers and overall numbers are increasing since importation
began twenty years ago.
One of the difficulties with both species is that the relevant associations are focused
on pedigree and breeding information and only contain information regarding
registered animals. There is little known regarding the non-registered animals with
regard to numbers or ownership.
For this reason, it is difficult to accurately assess the number of animals in Australia
and the number of properties where they are run. The numbers of registered animals
are known but the numbers of both species which are not registered are estimates.
Alpacas
There are two herd registries in operation in Australia.
International Alpaca Registry (IAR)
This is an database run by the Agricultural Business Research Institute (ABRI) on
behalf of the Australian Alpaca Association (AAA). This is a database of animal
pedigree, births and deaths, ownership and changes in ownership. This is the larger
breed registry and runs on the ILR2 software and has the capability to record animal
movements and provide a central registry for both registered and unregistered
alpacas.
Australasian Alpaca Register (AAR)
This is an alternate alpaca register run on the Optimate software. It also has the
potential to record animal movements and provide a central registry.
Information indicates that there are over 80,000 registered alpacas and 1,000
registered llamas in Australia residing on about 5,000 farms. In addition, the estimate
is that there are a further 45,000 unregistered alpacas and 9,000 unregistered llamas
Page 12

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
on a further 4,000 farms. This would give a total estimated number of alpacas and
llamas in Australia of around 160,000 head being run on approximately 9,000 farms.
This data would suggest that the average flock size is in the order of 15 head.
The numbers of registered animals would indicate the largest concentration of
animals is in NSW and Victoria, each with about a third of the Australian total.
Llamas
Registrations of Australian llamas are held in the Australasian Llama Register. This
database is similar to the IAR and records pedigree and ownership information.
The proportion of llamas registered appears to be considerably lower than the
alpacas. This makes estimates of numbers more difficult as possibly only 10% of
animals and owners are registered. While the number of members is around 100, the
total of properties which run llamas is much higher. The estimated numbers in
Australia are around 10,000 head.
The average flock size is smaller than the alpaca industry, possibly an average flock
size of 5 – 10 animals.
Page 13

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
INTERFACES WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS
Movement Recording
Logically, there would appear to be some synergies in recording movement
information in the breed registers and the NLIS movement register at the same time
ie recording the data in one system automatically transfers the required data to the
other system.
However, on closer analysis, there does not appear to be any advantage in this
approach for the following reasons:
1. There are three possible registries which can store the data and this would
have to be specified
2. Many movements will be of non-registered animals which will not be recorded
in any registry
3. The data set is very different and the differing data will cause confusion
4. Not all movements will be as a result of a change of ownership and not all
changes in ownership will result in change of location
5. The significant cost in developing the integrated system.
Accreditation and Health Statuses
It is essential the NLIS database has the ability to record statuses against individual
properties and individual device numbers and that the property statuses can set
device statuses.
This functionality will allow a much more rigorous quality assurance and animal
health programs to be run and monitored within herds. For example, programs like
Q-Alpaca can be attached to farms and animals on these farms. These statuses can
be changed or updated as animals move from farm to farm.
Similar arrangements can be established for programs such as Alpaca Market
Assurance Program or other health, welfare or environmental programs established
in the future.
The advantages of storing these statuses against the farm and, more particularly,
against the animal are that these statuses can be automatically updated and can be
made available to the current location of the animal (farm, saleyard, abattoir etc).
Registration Databases
When NLIS identification devices are issued, they are immediately added to the
NLIS database account of the PIC of the farm that ordered the devices. These
devices will typically be held by the farm until required for use in an animal.
When the device is applied to an animal which is to be registered with the relevant
registry, the device number will be sent with the other registration details. Typically,
Page 14

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
this will be the visual (NLIS) number and not the electronic (RFID) number. It is
essential that both numbers are recorded in the breed registry.
This is best achieved by the breed registry electronically contacting the NLIS
database with the visual number and receiving back the matched electronic number.
This facility currently exists between the NLIS database and ABRI for cattle
registrations.
In addition, information regarding replaced lost tags needs to be provided to both the
regulatory database and the breed register. The information required by the
regulatory database includes the old number (either visual or electronic) and the
replacement tag number.
Similarly, when an animal dies or is slaughtered, the animal should be removed from
both databases.
The information regarding both replacement tags and deaths can be automated in
that the data can be transferred automatically from one database to the other (in
either direction). However, the cost of implementing these changes will need to be
examined.
On–Farm Systems
Where electronic on-farm record keeping systems are in use, information from these
systems can be used to update the regulatory database. For example, when progeny
are added to the on-farm system, the information can be automatically sent to the
central database to update these records. Similarly, when animals are transferred in
or out of the herd, transfer reports can be generated to record the movement in the
central system.
It is not envisaged that on-farm computer systems will have widespread use in the
alpaca and llama industries while herd numbers are low. However, interfaces should
be available to allow the required information to be uploaded if producers wish to do
so.
Abattoir and Saleyard Systems
Once again, it is not likely that there will be a great use of data transfers from
saleyards and abattoirs in the short term. However, as the industries grow, the
numbers traded through these sectors are likely to increase and these sectors will
require interface specifications to automatically update the central database.
Saleyards and abattoirs both require the ability to query the statuses associated with
an animal and then be able to update the database with movement data and, in the
case of abattoirs, slaughter data and possibly carcass feedback.
Page 15

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
DATABASE SELECTION
The selection of the most suitable database to hold the regulatory information for the
alpaca and llama industries requires that the alternatives are assessed on a number
of aspects. The database must obviously be technically capable of providing the
required functions to the satisfaction of the relevant industries but also to the other
stakeholders, in particular the relevant state regulatory authorities. As the industry
grows, there will be a need for interaction with other sectors such as saleyards,
abattoirs, etc.
In any discussion on suitable databases (or the development of a new purpose built
system), it should be remembered that the purpose of this database is basically
biosecurity, food safety and market access. To this extent, the choice of the best
option for a database and the functionality required will have to satisfy the various
state and federal jurisdictions as the first requirement. The role of the industry
organizations in the development of NLIS is to ensure that the system is practical
and suits the operation of the industry and provides the maximum additional
advantage to the industries.
The six major criteria used to assess the database supply options are as follows:
1. Technical considerations
2. Acceptance by regulatory authorities
3. Acceptance by industry
4. Database interfaces
5. Helpdesk and user documentation
6. Cost
EXISTING SYSTEMS AND OPTIONS
There are a number of existing databases which could potentially be used to record
the essential information required by the alpaca and llama industries. Those
identified are:
• National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) database
• Livestock Tag and Trace (LTAT)
• International Alpaca Registry (IAR)
• Australasian Alpaca Register (AAR)
The only two viable options identified amongst established databases appear to be
the NLIS database operated by National Livestock Identification System Ltd under
the umbrella of Meat and Livestock Australia and the Livestock Tag and Trace
(LTAT) operated by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.
Page 16

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
Both these systems are purpose built to provide a dedicated identification and
traceability database. They were not developed for another purpose and modified to
provide biosecurity services.
The two breed registries (IAR & AAR) do have the potential to record the information
and in fact both systems have the ability to record identity and track movements.
However, neither registry has been specifically designed as a regulatory database
and would need considerable enhancement to be able to meet the requirements of a
central database. These requirements are further discussed later in the report.
Bearing in mind the relatively small size of the industries and limited financial
resources, it would not seem prudent to spend additional resources in further
developing these systems to meet the full requirements when there are fully
developed systems currently available.
These systems will also have difficulty in providing the perceived level of
independence required by stakeholders.
The option of building a new database to provide the required system has been
considered but not fully scoped. Depending on the rigor of the system developed,
this option is likely to cost somewhere in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to
produce. The design and operation of such as system would be very similar to the
two viable options identified. It would not be possible to justify investment of this
order to produce a new standalone system.
It is also worth noting that the major funding body, Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) has a strong preference that all animal traceability
data reside in the same national database to ensure the maximum efficiency in
storing the data and the minimal response time, across all species, in the case of
disease incursion.
DATABASE OPTIONS
It would appear that there are only two viable options that would be suitable for the
alpaca and llama breeds to use as a traceability database. These are the NLIS
database and the Victorian government LTAT system. This is not surprising as both
these databases have been specifically developed as traceability databases and
require little or no modification or increased functionality to provide the alpaca and
llama requirements.
NATIONAL LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM DATABASE
The first use of the NLIS program in Australia commenced with the cattle industry.
The industry, in consultation with State and Federal governments and other industry
stakeholders, decided to move from a mob based system to individual identification.
This was accelerated by the 1998 decision of the Victorian government to provide
industry with one million tags at no cost and also the audit by the European Union in
Page 17

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
1999 which concluded that the traceability arrangements for the Australian cattle
industry did not meet the EU requirements.
As a result of a potential ban on exports to the EU, the cattle industry and
government hastily agreed to implement the NLIS on a limited basis to supply
product to the EU from a “closed” system. This required the establishment of a
database to record device issue, movements and eligibility. The interim database
was commenced in the middle of 1999 and was operational by November of that
year. Development was carried out by external developers under management by
MLA.
Once the basic functionality of the system had been established, MLA decided to
request expressions of interest from organizations interested in developing the full
system. After a full evaluation of responses, it was decided that MLA would continue
to manage the ongoing development using the initial company Catjes Pty Ltd. This
arrangement continued until 2006 when the development team was employed
directly by MLA and development was brought in-house.
The database has evolved over the last 10 years with increasing complexity and
functionality. While the system has a lot of functions that will not be required by the
alpaca and llama industries at present, it is far more economical to turn off these
functions rather than having to build them at some future date. An example of this is
the carcass feedback section which allows for carcass data to be uploaded by the
abattoir and made available to the breeder and consignor.
The database operates under an industry agreed Terms of Use (ToU) which
determine who can view data, who can add data, who can change data, etc. This is
of critical importance since the data held is from a variety of sources including
producers, saleyards, abattoirs and government. The discussion is not about who
owns the data but who has access to it.
The database has been operating now for 10 years. The range of functions and
interactions has progressively been increased over this period. All the functionality
has been fully tested, both before release and then in operation, for a considerable
period of time.
Funding for the development of the database has come from levies collected from
the red meat industries (cattle sheep and goats) and funding from the federal
government. This funding has been from federal R&D matching funding or special
funding through DAFF.
In early 2009, the NLIS portion of MLA was transferred to an autonomous company,
still within the overall umbrella of MLA. The new body is called National Livestock
Identification System Ltd. It now operates under its own board although this board is
MLA nominated. This should not result in large changes to the operation of the
system but will give the new organization greater autonomy, particularly with those
groups outside of the cattle and sheep industries which pay levies to MLA.
Page 18

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
LIVESTOCK TAG AND TRACE (LTAT)
The Livestock Tag and Trace (LTAT) database is a relatively new database,
developed and operated by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.
The Victorian DPI began encouraging the use of RFID devices in sheep in 2007. The
use was promoted as a flock management aid rather than as a regulatory tag to take
the place of the currently approved visual NLIS tags. The sheep industry was deeply
suspicious that this was the “thin end of the wedge” and would lead to mandatory
electronic tagging. The industry was deeply opposed to this on the basis of the cost
relative to the average value of the animals. The industry consequently put pressure
on MLA to not allow the entry of sheep RFID data into the NLIS database.
It is essential to have a database to underpin the use of RFID tags. At a minimum,
the database must record the issue of the devices and the movements from one
property to another. Given the industry block on using the existing database, the
Victorian DPI had little choice but to build their own database system to support their
policy initiative.
Subsequently, the Victorian DPI has amended their legislation to allow sheep to
move without having to record the movement on a group basis or have a transaction
tag applied if they had NLIS RFID tags applied and they were correctly recorded on
the database.
The Victorian DPI decided to build more than the basic database required and
designed almost a replica of the NLIS database in terms of the functionality.
The team that designed and built this system were largely members of the same
team as were involved in building the NLIS database. Consequently, there are
similarities between the two systems. With a few minor differences, the two systems
are designed to provide almost identical functions.
The Victorian system does have the advantage of having been designed and built
nearly 10 years later than the NLIS database. Although it does reflect some changes
to technology over this period and does incorporate some design enhancements, it is
surprisingly similar to the older system.
Funding for the LTAT system has been from the Victorian government without
assistance from industry funds or federal funding.
Page 19

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
COMPARISON OF DATABASE OPTIONS
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is not intended to give a detailed technical discussion of existing or, potentially, a
purpose built system at this point. However, it is important that the system has the
technical capability to be able to operate effectively and that data can be stored and
recovered efficiently. The system also needs to be secure and an adequate data
backup and redundancy arrangements are in place.
The major technical considerations are as follows:
o Operating system
o Operating database
o Web server
o Coding language
o Hardware
o Hosting
o Change and development control
o Modularity of code and ease of change
o Level of documentation
o Technical support
o System performance and scalability
o User documentation
The basic technical specifications and considerations of the two systems are shown
below in Tables 2 and 3.
Page 20

TABLE 2
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
Technical Description of the NLIS System
Area NLIS
Operating System Windows Server 2003
Operating Database SQL Server 2005
Database Upgrade Planned upgrade in 2011
Web Server IIS6
Coding Language C++/ASP.Net/C#
Web Service Support Currently supports SOAP messages over http POST.
Web service implementation planned in 2010.
Suitable Hardware • High availability clustered infrastructure to maximize performance
and minimize downtime.
• Separate development, QA, pre-production and production
environments.
Hosting Centre Externally hosted in a managed data centre.
Disaster Recovery Centre Externally hosted in a managed data centre.
Change Control Process ISO9001 certified change control process engaging industry
stakeholders.
Development Control ISO9001 certified process based on an agile methodology.
Modularity of Code High level of modularity in a three-tier architecture.
Ease of Extension of New
Functions
System modularity provides easy addition of new functions.
Implementation of new functions is achieved through configuration
changes or custom development, depending on requirements.
Rapid development environment and modular website design allows
Ease of Change of Web
Site
for easy change to the website.
Ease of Change of Easy modifications supported through an extensive suite of automated
Database
regression tests.
Number of Releases Fortnightly releases are performed in accordance with change control
processes. Releases are undertaken during defined maintenance
windows to maximize availability.
Testing Processes In accordance with ISO9001 certified development process, carried
out by dedicated internal QA resources
Planned Development 2009/2010 development program in place for major enhancements.
Changes
Minor enhancements released in accordance with change control
process.
Level of Documentation Extensive – business, functional, technical and user documentation
available.
External Party
Extensive. External documentation in use by numerous third party
Documentation
software integrators.
Developer Team Size Development team of eight, plus business analysis and QA resources.
Technical Support The NLIS contract with the external hosting provider includes
(Hardware)
hardware, operating system software and network infrastructure
technical support to defined service levels.
Technical Support NLIS development team provides technical support for the NLIS
(Software)
application. NLIS Technical Support Officer provides third level
support and is an escalation point for Helpdesk and third party
integrators.
After Hours Support 24 hour monitoring and Helpdesk for infrastructure and system
availability. Escalation processes are in place to engage the NLIS
team in the event of an alert.
User Helpdesk available 8am – 6pm Monday to Friday.
Page 21

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
Area NLIS
System Performance 99.95% of transactions are processed in under 30 minutes. Carcase
Feedback is batched and processed every 2 hours.
Scalability Designed on highly scalable architecture. Scalability testing is
undertaken to ensure system performance meets forecast usage.
System Uptime
99.95%
Expectations
Range of Functionality • Livestock traceability
• Residue and disease management
• Market eligibility statuses
• Carcase feedback
• Compliance monitoring
• Management reporting
• Account management
• System administration
• User privacy, governed by Terms of Use
• System management alerts and extensive logging and audit
Training Material and User
Documentation
trail
Extensive user documentation targeted for specific types of user.
Page 22

TABLE 3
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
Technical Description of the LTAT System
Area LTAT
Operating System MS Windows Server 2008
Operating Database MS SQL Server 2005
Database Upgrade MS SLQ Server 2008 in 2010
Web Server MS IIS 6.0
Coding Language C#
Web Service Support All major interfaces
Suitable Hardware Purchased in 2008
Hosting Center Contracted DPI Controlled
Disaster Recovery Center DPI Internal
Change Control Process Project Team
Development Control DPI Vic Controlled
Modularity of Code Each transaction is modularly implemented
Ease of Extension of New
Functions
Very Easy
Ease of Change of Web
Site
Modular Design
Ease of Change of
Database
Improved entity relationships
Number of Releases New release every 6 weeks average
Testing Processes Developer Supplied
Planned Development
Changes
18 month development plan
Level of Documentation Good – Standardized documentation formats
External Party
Documentation
Good – Smaller volume
Developer Team Size 6
Technical Support
(Hardware)
Internal DPI
Technical Support Internal DPI
(Software)
After Hours Support Available
System Performance Processing targets of 20 mins per transaction
Scalability Designed for in excess of 400 Million animals
System Uptime
Expectations
99.9%
Range of Functionality Moderate – expecting to increase
Training Material and User
Documentation
Under development
While the tables above are designed to highlight the differences between the two
systems, the differences that would be noticed by a system user would be minimal.
Generally, the differences will be most noticeable if changes to the base system to
incorporate new system user requirements were to be required. The newer, more
modular design of LTAT should make major modifications easier and cheaper
although recent changes to the NLIS system have improved this area. However,
Page 23

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
given that there would not appear to be any major changes required to either system
to incorporate the needs of the alpaca and llama industries, this difference would
seem to be theoretical.
One substantial advantage that the NLIS database has is the fact that it has been
operated for a much longer period of time and this therefore fully “battle hardened”.
No amount of desk testing will ever find all the potential problems and conflicts that
will arise with the public release of a new system. Virtually all of the NLIS database
has been used for many years and is now fully field tested and stable.
ACCEPTANCE BY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
The proposed regulatory database will, by definition, be used extensively by the
various regulatory authorities, both State and Federal. A very important aspect of the
selection of a suitable database will be the acceptance by these authorities of the
system used.
Ultimately, a high proportion of the data held in the system will be provided by the
regulatory authorities or will be subject to regulatory control. The State and Federal
jurisdictions are going to have to be satisfied that any system used provides the
following characteristics:
• The system is secure and the data is safely stored
• The system has sufficient redundancy and the data is securely backed up and
can be restored fully and quickly if required
• The business rules agreed on by industry and government are reflected in the
code and operation of the system
• The required data can be accessed quickly in time of emergency and the data
is in a format which allows rapid interrogation, understanding, dissemination
and transfer into other associated systems
• Ideally, all species should be kept in a single database to avoid duplication of
enquiries and to ensure the most efficient tracking in the event of an
emergency disease event
• The system interfaces with other existing systems such as the individual State
PIC registers
• There is no cost placed on the regulatory authorities in terms of usage costs
or modifications to their existing systems
• There must be the maximum amount of flexibility, simplicity and user support
built in to the system to allow stakeholders to meet their regulatory
requirements
• Reports required to ensure compliance must be able to be generated in a
format that allows adequate monitoring
• The ability to automatically export data on a regular basis to mirrored
databases set up in a number of states and federally
Unless the system proposed by the alpaca and llama industries meets these
requirements, it is unlikely that the system will receive the endorsement of the
regulatory authorities.
Page 24

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
As previously noted, the program is basically being looked at in terms of biosecurity
and, as such, must be acceptable to Federal and State governments as “fit for
purpose”.
In this regard, the NLIS database should meet all expectations of the regulatory
authorities, having been developed with input and consultation from government and
industry since the start of the system. The system currently meets all the
requirements for the NLIS cattle program and should therefore be able to meet any
regulatory requirements for the alpaca and llama industries that may negotiated with
government.
In addition, the NLIS has a very large number of reports able to be run by regulatory
authorities. These reports have been specifically built to satisfy the government
requirements to check and monitor both an industry and an individual stakeholder
level. These reports will be able to be run for other species.
The NLIS database has been set up to automatically update state “mirrored”
databases on a daily basis. This allows the data to be stored and accessed in a
number of locations and allows states to integrate this data into their own systems.
The Victorian LTAT system, by comparison, is difficult to judge as it is still under
construction. It would be reasonable to assume that, being constructed by a state
department, the system will suit the requirements of the state regulators. However,
there are a number of areas which are not currently constructed including the
regulatory reports and connection to mirrored systems.
As LTAT has been developed in isolation from all regulatory bodies except the
Victorian department, there is no guarantee that it will satisfy other states and there
is no existing mechanism to allow other jurisdictions to have input or influence over
development or enhancement.
Another factor is the willingness of other states to accept a database run by one
state to be the national database for a species. It is likely that some states would be
looking to a more independent national system.
The States and the Federal government will also be looking for a single database to
hold all animal identification and traceability data. This will build further pressure for
the NLIS database to become the national repository.
ACCEPTANCE BY INDUSTRY
A regulatory database must be configured and delivered in such a way that the
industries covered by the program are happy that the system provides the industries
with a service which is effective. The model being developed in Australia involves
each industry group having a degree of autonomy over the type of system that is
developed and some control of the business rules governing their system.
Page 25

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
In some countries around the world, the traceability database is run by the
government. This generally removes the cost of developing and running the
database from industry resources but the final system will be set up to satisfy the
government requirements which are often much narrower than what may be required
by industry.
To be acceptable to the relevant industries, the system must be robust and secure
and the performance must be adequate to meet the needs of the industry. Issues of
data ownership (or more importantly, access) must be resolved. Most industries are
not comfortable with a commercially owned database holding a great deal of
commercially sensitive data.
In this regard, an industry owned private company such as Meat and Livestock
Australia is ideally placed to develop and run this type of database on behalf of
industry. MLA is seen as an independent body separate from government but
without having commercial pressures.
It is reasonable to assume that industry would object to any NLIS type system being
totally run and controlled by government let alone one state government. It would
require a lot of negotiation with regard to access, functionality and funding for this to
become a national system.
In this regard, it is unlikely that the LTAT system will continue to operate in the longer
term. It is likely that the data currently being collected for sheep and goat
identification will ultimately be transferred to the NLIS database.
Any use of LTAT is then likely to be short term. Industries such as the alpacas and
llamas will need to be mindful of the possible additional costs if they were to choose
the LTAT option and LTAT was to be subsequently folded into the NLIS system.
DATABASE INTERFACES
It is important that any system used or developed has the maximum flexibility in
terms of adding data or querying data.
Data uploads will typically come from producers, third parties, device manufacturers,
regulatory authorities and potentially from saleyards and abattoirs. Each sector will
have specific database access requirements but the important interfaces which
should be available are:
• Web based access, allowing data to be entered on screen through a web
browser. This should be further enhanced to include a downloaded data set
with the ability to be able to add or alter data from this listing
• CSV and XML file formats to allow uploads from spreadsheets of other
software systems
• Paper based transfer information is going to have to be accepted but may be
subject to commercial charges
• Access by mobile phone
Page 26

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
In addition to data uploads, stakeholders need to be able to query the database to
the extent allowed by the business rules. It is essential that these queries are
available by a variety of methods, including all those listed above with the exception
of paper based.
The NLIS database has developed these interfaces in consultation with industry over
the last 10 years. Electronic systems used in saleyards and abattoirs have
developed automatic systems to query and upload to the database.
Recording of transfer information by paper based systems is highly inaccurate and
expensive compared to electronic lodgment. However, in order to allow all producers
a method of being able to send data to the system, it is essential to have the option
available. The NLIS database has continued to offer the service but now charges a
commercial fee of $10.00 per sheet (up to 20 entries) plus a $4.00 order fee. While
this has reduced the volume being received, there are still a significant number of
these forms being used. This service does not have to be attached to the database
and could be provided by a commercial service.
The NLIS Express system has been developed to allow most stakeholder groups to
both query the database and upload data by use of nothing more than a mobile
phone, either with or without a tag reader.
By contrast, LTAT only has the options of entering material into the web pages or
using web services. This means that any files that are constructed in a spreadsheet
or in a CSV or XML format would have to cut and pasted into the web page or set up
for web services upload. Web services is only an option for larger, commercial
software systems and will not suit most property transfers. This will cause some
difficulties and will preclude the use of the current mobile phone query and update
service.
HELPDESK AND USER DOCUMENTATION
As with any new system, there will be a need for help desk resources to be available
at a high level initially and at a reduced level on an ongoing basis. It is essential that
the help desk is manned for at least office hours on week days.
The help desk operators will need an intimate knowledge of the operation of the
NLIS program, differences between states and the operation of the underlying
database. Most queries will be routine and involve talking new users through the
particular process they are attempting such as setting up accounts or recording
transfers. However, advice will have to be provided on the whole range of issues
surrounding the implementation of a new program including:
• Legislative requirements
• Identification methods, options and techniques
• Account creation
• Database access options
• Recording movements
• Recording deaths
Page 27

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
• Recording replacement tags
• Correcting errors
• Downloading data from the database
• Running reports
• Reconciliation of property records with the database account
• Defining user problems with new code releases
• Recommending database enhancements
While basic helpdesk operators can be trained within a few weeks, most operators
will require many months to become fully proficient.
While there are obvious advantages in having the helpdesk in close contact with the
database development team, there is no reason why they have to be situated in the
same physical location or even work for the same organization.
One option to consider would be for the industry organizations to provide help desk
services rather than relying on the database provider.
The provision of detailed and well constructed user guides will reduce the
dependence on the help desk. These guides should be sent to every new account
holder when new accounts are opened. While these guides are relatively expensive
to develop and print, they will be a more economical option than increased help desk
staff.
The NLIS database has a well established helpdesk of about 10 operators. These
operators have developed considerable skills over the years and there are a number
of specialist operators who deal with specific areas such as account creation,
saleyards, abattoirs, tag manufacturers etc. The help desk offers a service from 7am
to 6pm (AEST) weekdays. Emergency support is available after hours for larger
operations such as abattoirs.
There would be very little retraining of the current helpdesk required as the system
would operate in almost exactly the same way for other species as it does for cattle.
NLIS have developed very good user manuals and other user documentation. While
this has been specific to the cattle industry, it will be relatively easy to modify this
material for other species.
At this stage, LTAT does not have a dedicated helpdesk with account creation and
user queries being supported by the database development team. Any establishment
of a dedicated helpdesk will depend on decisions regarding the long term future of
the system. Any marked increase in usage would result in the need to employ
specialist help desk staff.
LTAT also does not have any user documentation developed. Any user manuals
would have to be developed from scratch and this would take considerable time and
resources.
Page 28

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
It would be possible to separate the development of user manuals and the helpdesk
from the database. While this is not the preferred option, it may be worth exploring in
some circumstances.
DATABASE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
A major consideration will be the cost of implementing a regulatory database to
satisfy the needs of the alpaca and llama industries.
The costs should be looked at in three areas:
1. Upfront costs. These costs will include any “once only” costs associated with
the development or modification of the system to accommodate the
requirements of the new industry participants
2. Hosting costs. This will include the ongoing costs to store the data and
provide the ongoing system requirements
3. Help desk and user documentation. The costs of providing user support both
in user documentation and support helpdesk for phone and email support
An estimation of costs was provided by the two database service providers based on
the following base assumptions:
• There will be no need to add any additional functionality to the system to
accommodate the alpaca and llama industries. There may be changes
needed to add another species but the functionality required will be the basic
requirements of device issue, transfer, statuses and death (and ultimately
slaughter)
• Statuses will be different to those applied to cattle but will use the same
functionality as is currently available (device based and PIC based)
• While actual numbers are difficult to predict, the best estimate is:
o Alpacas 100,000 head on just over 6,000 PIC’s
o Llamas 10,000 head on around 1,000 PIC’s
• It is estimated that 70% of PIC’s will also run cattle or sheep
• At this stage there is no official slaughter at abattoirs but this may develop
over the next few years
• There are not a lot of movements between PIC’s in terms of total numbers but
the average transfer number will be very small.
• Helpdesk will require proportionally less callers than cattle if user
documentation is well prepared and easy to follow, and computer literacy is
higher.
Some or all of these assumptions may be shown to be wrong as the system
develops but they will allow a basis for comparison between the two systems.
Page 29

Cost Comparison
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
Some of the costing information provided for comparison purposes was given on a
confidential basis. Therefore, the details of the costings have not been included in
this report. However, it is worth noting the NLIS Ltd indicative proposal was
significantly less than that presented by LTAT, both in terms of upfront and ongoing
costs.
Page 30

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
ELECTRONIC IDENTIFICATION OPTIONS
DEVICE TYPES
There are a number of ways that the electronic transponder can be attached to an
animal. Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The commonly
available options are as follows:
Ear Tags
This is the most commonly used method of identification of farm animals. The
transponder is normally integrated into the female portion of a two piece tag. This is
then applied with tagging pliers to the ear with the transponder on the inside of the
ear. There are variations of these tags with one piece tags or tags with the
transponder in the male pin.
To meet integrity requirements of mandatory systems, ear tags must be constructed
in a way that makes them tamper evident ie they cannot be removed from one
animal and applied to another with evidence of tampering.
The advantages of ear tags are that they are generally the cheapest option and they
are relatively easy to apply. The disadvantages are that some tag loss is inevitable,
tags can be removed and replaced and the visual impact that the tag may have,
particularly on show animals.
Rumen Bolus
The rumen bolus consists of the transponder (in a glass encapsulated form) being
fitted into a ceramic block. The bolus is applied down the throat of the animal with a
specific applicator. The bolus moves from the rumen into the reticulum where it
lodges for the life of the animal. The size of the ceramic block can be varied to
ensure that the size and specific gravity is suitable for the species.
For regulatory and practical purposes, there does need to be a visual indicator that
the animal carries a bolus and a visual number that can be read without a reader.
The advantages of the bolus are the permanency once identified and almost
complete resistance to tampering. The disadvantages are that the application
requires more sophisticated restraint and equipment and a little more skill in
application. Because a tag is also required, the cost tends to be a little higher than
an electronic ear tag. A good quality reader is required to be able to read boluses.
Page 31

Subcutaneous Implants
NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
These are widely used for companion animals and horses where there is no chance
of the transponders entering the food chain. Field experience has shown that glass
encapsulated implanted transponders can move around the body and pose a threat
to product contamination in edible species.
The advantages are that costs can be lower if they do not have to be applied with
veterinary assistance and relative tamper resistance. Disadvantages include the
need for an ear tag and the skill needed to implant, the risk of infection and rejection
of the implant and the risk of the transponder breaking.
Impact on the Database
The choice of identification options will have no impact on the database as long as
the visual number is in the standardized 16 character form and the electronic number
is also in the 16 character ISO format. Once the number has been read in a
standardized format, it makes no difference as to whether the number is the visual
number or an electronic number and whether this is read from an ear tag, bolus or
subcutaneous implant.
Page 32

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
CHOICE OF RFID TECHNOLOGIES AND
FREQUENCIES
There is a range of frequencies at which radio frequency devices can operate.
Generally, they can be broken down into low frequency (125 KHz, 134.2KHz) high
frequency (13.56 MHz) and ultra high (~1000 MHz). It is important to note that each
frequency has advantages and disadvantages. Individual technology proponents are
prone to list the advantages without necessarily mentioning the downside.
Internationally, there is a group within the ISO organization which looks after the
area of animal identification. This group has decided that the best all round
frequency is the low frequency 134.2 KHz frequency. They have produced standards
(ISO 11784 and 11785) for this frequency which ensure compatibility between
equipment from various manufacturers.
This standard contains provision for both Full Duplex (FDX-B) and Half Duplex
(HDX). In Australia, only HDX is used for NLIS purposes but FDX-B is widely used
for companion animals.
Every country which has set standards for RFID in livestock have used the low
frequency 134.2 KHz standard. It is important that this is used in alpacas and llamas
as this will ensure that current reading equipment on cattle and sheep farms can also
be used for these species.
This is also the only frequency where animal tags and boluses are commercially
available. It is also the only frequency where readers suitable for livestock use are
available.
Page 33

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
DEVICE ACCREDITATION AND LICENCING
It is essential that devices used within the NLIS program meet certain standards and
are produced in a way that ensures the integrity of the system.
To ensure that this is the case, the NLIS has a Technical Working Group (TWG)
comprised of members with expertise in device manufacture and use. This group
assesses the devices and the results of field testing to ensure that the performance
of devices is adequate and meets the industry standards.
The TWG reports to the Standards Committee of NLIS which reviews the technical
input from the TWG and also looks at the wider issues of industry expectations and
requirements. The Standards Committee then makes recommendations to NLIS with
regard to the licencing of the device and the use of the NLIS logo.
The Standards Committee is also responsible for the development and maintaince of
the various Standards and protocols in use for devices used in the various species.
These Standards define the technology, device characteristics, performance,
longevity and auditing of production systems.
NLIS is responsible to ensure that devices continue to meet their requirements with
regard to the Standards. It is also responsible to ensure that the production system
operates under ISO accreditation and that data integrity is maintained.
When a new device is presented to NLIS for accreditation, it goes firstly to the TWG
for review of the physical characteristics. Once the TWG are satisfied with the
design, transponder, print quality, tamper evidence etc., the device can go into field
testing. This is carried out using a trial protocol which requires the devices to be
tested for three years with provisional accreditation available at six months with
satisfactory results.
It will be difficult and expensive for the alpaca and llama industries to run field trials
to accredit devices specifically for their industries. It is possible that using existing
accreditations for other species such as sheep may be a viable option.
Page 34

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are provided for the consideration
by the alpaca and llama industries.
Database Comparisons
1. The choice of databases is effectively between the NLIS system and the
Victorian LTAT system
2. In terms of the technical considerations, there are differences but these are
unlikely to be noticed by the user or markedly affect the implementation of an
alpaca and llama system
3. The NLIS system has been in operation longer and has a credible history of
availability and performance.
4. It is essential that the system is acceptable to regulatory authorities. In this
regard, it is more likely that the NLIS system will be preferred.
5. It is likely that the industry will find the NLIS database a more acceptable
option with regard to the neutrality of industry ownership.
6. In terms of interfaces with existing systems, the NLIS system has more
established interfaces with more industry sectors and published interface
specifications.
7. The addition of alpacas and llamas will not greatly impact the existing
helpdesk at NLIS while LTAT would have to provide dedicated resources or
the helpdesk would have to outsourced.
8. There is a compelling case for one national animal traceability database.
There is doubt as to the long term future of the LTAT system. Any investment
in this system may be at least partially wasted if the system has to ultimately
change to the NLIS database.
Recommendation
The NLIS database is a proven system and has all the required functionality
available. It is the accepted national traceability database. In virtually every
aspect, the NLIS database offers the best option for the alpaca and llama
industries.
Page 35

NLIS ALPACA AND LLAMA DATABASE OPTIONS REVIEW
Database Cost Comparisons and Selection
1. Cost estimates are indicative only and require detailed analysis to define the
cost more accurately.
2. Taking into account all the component cost estimates, the NLIS option will be
considerably cheaper than the LTAT option.
3. Based on the indicative number of animals and the operating costs, it is likely
that the ongoing cost of NLIS will be in the order of $0.50 per head per year.
Recommendation
The NLIS database offers considerably lower costs and has the full functionality
and interfaces available. The NLIS database offers by far the best option to
support NLIS (Alpaca and Llamas)
Identification Options
1. The technology selected must be the same as other species in Australia to
ensure compatibility with existing equipment.
2. The use of NLIS accredited ear tags seems to be the best option for the
alpaca industry. The industry will need to look at whether it needs to trial tags
for the species or use accreditations from other industries such as sheep.
3. The use of subcutaneous implants by the llama industry could be acceptable
but the technology needs to the same as other species (HDX and ISO
11785/11786). This would preclude any use of llamas for human
consumption.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the alpaca and llama industries adopt the same
technology base as that adopted by the cattle, sheep and goat industries. The
best option for accreditation of ear tags will be to use the tags already accredited
for cattle or sheep.
Page 36