Traceability is not a trend or a buzzword and it is not going away - it is an evolving beast that is here to stay.
This became evident to Beth Green, who was working as the Department of Primary Industries & Regional Development (DPIRD) livestock identification and traceability manager, when the move to electronic identification (eID) for sheep and goats became a realistic, sooner-rather-than-later, expectation in 2019.
Ms Green worked with the implementation of eID in cattle since it became mandatory in 2005, and contributed to the development of livestock traceability on a State and national level from 2014.
Considering the anticipated move to electronic tagging in sheep and goats, she knew success rested on having the same focused effort and support provided to the cattle industry and wondered how other systems in the world had progressed in the interim.
This thinking prompted her to apply for a Churchill Fellowship, which took her to Scotland, Canada, Uruguay and the United States to research the differences in identification, movement recording, central database use, regulation, penalties and government support.
The objective was to determine how to achieve the greatest industry participation in a livestock traceability system for a faster emergency response.
Ms Green said the system should allow for a faster response, provide an economic and social benefit to everyone and minimise the effect on livestock population
"I wanted to know how to design and change a system to be most practical for those who have to use it," Ms Green said.
"If it's going to be mandatory, where we are making people do something, it has to work for them."
Ms Green said being able to watch Victoria implement its system had given the rest of the country the advantage of hindsight and seeing the hard work making it functional in Australian conditions.
She said evaluating the system while in transition allowed WA to see if there would be any differences.
"Things don't always go to plan and mistakes can be made in the rush and noise of stock movement, and we all know sheep jump fences," Ms Green said.
"I could see when stock were not where they were supposed to be or when they got separated from their paperwork.
"It was visible because the traceability reports showed it.
"This visibility allows us to correct and improve data integrity.
"It just proved that this could happen on any day, but we don't know when, we just count the similar looking heads."
Up to then, Ms Green said her position was WA's mandatory transaction tag system was superior to the visual system in the east.
The evaluation results gave her the confidence to stand up and say 'it is time for eID'.
She became involved in the preparation for mandatory eID, combining her Churchill Fellowship learnings with the Australian environment.
The first step was to tell WA industry it was coming and highlighting the fact it was not an if - but when.
Ms Green said accurate assessments of infrastructure and sheep numbers were needed to know exactly where WA was heading and to ensure realistic and accountable funding requests.
Other considerations included the budget for adequate technical support and training to help with the transition, as well as for ongoing monitoring and compliance, which had to be put into the system from the beginning.
When introducing a new mandatory system, she said the government was responsible for funding and regulation and industry for implementation and compliance.
"Canada introduced mandatory tagging without the legislation for movement recording, which meant farmers were paying for tags that were not being scanned,'' she said.
"Scotland's initial system was designed in another country that did not take into account the local production and handling environment.
"Both countries have had to overcome these hurdles and it has taken years.
"A change of this magnitude needs the collaboration and co-operation of industry and government for success, and I think WA has done a fantastic job of achieving that so far."
Ms Green said research had been done, government had provided the funding, legislation for eIDs was in place, the Tag Incentive Payment scheme was in phase two and infrastructure grants, such as at Muchea Livestock Centre, were on the ground.
She said the move to eID was the industry's biggest change in the past century.
"It's not going to be efficient at the beginning," she said.
"We need to expect that and not use it as a reason to hold back.
"We all learnt to drive cars and use mobile phones and smart TVs - we will get better over time.
"And if you don't want to get better at it, it is perfectly reasonable to find someone who will do it for you.
"We need to play the long game and be cognisant of the reasons we're going through it, and know where to go for the help when you need it."
Ms Green said DPIRD had a project team dedicated to implementing the system and assisting producers and the supply chain to prepare.
She said the peak industry councils, Sheep Producers Australia and the Goat Industry Council of Australia, were engaging with State and Territory governments in the Sheep and Goat Traceability Taskforce to provide support on a national level.
"Manufacturers and suppliers are working to ensure supply is available when it's needed and to provide technical help, and the Integrity Systems Company is generating resources to step producers through the necessary changes," she said.
In the US, Ms Green said a producer-driven initiative created a national traceability system for disease control in cattle.
She was interested in the driving force that motivated this group of producers to push for change without the government having made it law.
The US CattleTrace system evolved from discussions among six people and now has the 11 State cattlemen's associations participating.
"I travelled across Kansas to meet one of the founders to ask what the trigger was for him to proactively establish this system," Ms Green said.
"He ran beef feedlots and had tens of thousands of cattle under his care at any time and it was the realisation of the enormity of having to destroy those livestock in a disease outbreak that pushed him to do something.
"The threat of destroying livestock was more of a traumatic thought to him than economic loss, although both would be immediate and both would be devastating.
"There would be knock-on effects, but he was on the front line - that is what made him want to protect his stock, his business, himself and his industry."
Ms Green acknowledged other businesses with immediate proximity to the market, including processors and exporters, bear the immediate responsibility of supplying the food chain and rejected or condemned product.
She said they take final responsibility for consumer supply and needed to make it clear to their clients what they need - identified traceable livestock arriving for the final step before being supplied to market.
"It has to be a wholesale demand from all participants in each sector that all steps along the supply line make the effort to meet the regulations, or someone is letting everyone else down," Ms Green said.
"What one person does affects the operating efficiency and product integrity of the next.
"You can't lose your clients if everyone is operating under the same rules."
Ms Green said deciding on a priority was often based on considering what had the more immediate consequence and the size of that consequence.
As traceability continues to sit higher on the agenda, she said it had to be built into business as usual - it can't be seen as an optional add-on.
"We need a combined effort from industry and government to up the detection of errors, reduce the time to consequence and put processes in place to minimise the occurrence," she said.
"Investing in equipment to make meeting regulations easier, minimising changes necessary and providing assistance to make the change will go a long way to reaching the potential of what I consider to be the most robust traceability system in the world for disease management."
