Grrr, a NAIT related rant!

More
4 years 1 week ago #550786 by Anakei
Replied by Anakei on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
Wouldn't it be easier to have microchips rather than eartags? Surely they are cheap enough now and could be implanted by farmers themselves.......

Urban mini farmer and guerilla gardener
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mudlerk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550788 by Ruth
Replied by Ruth on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
It could be but that's not the system. A vet told me that there's only one species in which microchips stay where you put them under the skin. In all other animals they wander around and end up in other strange places. Birds might have been the ones to stay put but I can't quite remember. You have to be able to find the thing to scan it. If it's in the ear, by tag, you know where it is. Or isn't. Or can't be read. It's a crappy system.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550815 by Stikkibeek
In goats they are put under the skin on the tail, but I have no idea if they migrate of not.

Did you know, that what you thought I said, was not what I meant :S

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550819 by Mudlerk
Replied by Mudlerk on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
If microchips wander, and that causes them to be ineffective, wouldn't they have stopped putting them in dogs, cats and goats?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550821 by Kalmara
Replied by Kalmara on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
the chips can & do move, it doesn't mean they become ineffective.
If they do stop working (& many from a bad batch, did a few years ago) Another chip will be implanted.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550822 by Ruth
Replied by Ruth on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!

Mudlerk wrote: If microchips wander, and that causes them to be ineffective, wouldn't they have stopped putting them in dogs, cats and goats?


You could find a wandered one reasonably easily in a small cat or dog body but it would be an impracticality in cattle.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550833 by LongRidge
Exactly, which is why the tag must be put in the right ear.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550835 by Muz1
Replied by Muz1 on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
Early chips migrated in all animals but better technology has mostly overcome the problem.I did not know goats are being chipped. I understood no micro chipping could be used on any animals likely to be slaughtered for human consumption.
RE the NAIT reading, a scanned file of animals sent for slaughter can be used if there are missed reads at the works and in turn have no-tag fees reversed. Deer lose tags in transit because close confinement allows tags to be bitten out. Cattle do not have this problem and I doubt many tags are lost as claimed in transportation.

Everything Must be Somewhere

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550838 by Stikkibeek

Muz1 wrote: I did not know goats are being chipped..

Let me clarify that. Goats that are micro chipped are mostly pedigree ones or in the milk industry as a means of identifying if the milk is being tested. The chip is put in under the bare skin on underside of the tail. An easy place to scan given goats are mostly milked from behind.

Did you know, that what you thought I said, was not what I meant :S

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550842 by Anakei
Replied by Anakei on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!

Muz1 wrote: Early chips migrated in all animals but better technology has mostly overcome the problem.I did not know goats are being chipped. I understood no micro chipping could be used on any animals likely to be slaughtered for human consumption.
...................


Actually that makes sense. You don't want to bite into a chip with your steak :lol:

I was merely wondering out loud why more up to date technology wasn't being used, given the problem with ear tags. It's all become clear now!

Urban mini farmer and guerilla gardener

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550845 by Stikkibeek
[quote="Anakei" post=550842

Actually that makes sense. You don't want to bite into a chip with your steak :lol: [/quote]
Don't you like steak and chips! :evil:

Did you know, that what you thought I said, was not what I meant :S

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550846 by Sue
Replied by Sue on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
So now I have the printout from the works.!
Yes 5 animals paid for, 4 tags read and two deductions for, No tag charge, $13 and NAIT no tag charge of $25, total $38.00 from the same animal..


Looking at the weights the bull went 424.4kgs cw and paid $4.65/kg and graded TM which is fat depth greater than 3mm and muscling 2 (good)
The 20 month heifer weighed 280.6 cw and paid $4.80/kg and graded P2 which is light to medium fat (3-10mm) and good muscling. Pity we missed out when the going rate for young stock was $6.00/kg!

The two recorded tagged cows also graded P2 and weighed in at 295kgs for a 3 yr old just weaned her second calf, and a 12 year old just weaned her 11th calf and was 312.2kgs carcase weight. cows paid $3.35/kg

So by a process of deduction the missing cow weighed 420.8kgs, She also graded P2, I would have though she might have gone F, which is excessive fat over 17mm, or at least T =trimmer) 11-16mm fat.

It's the principal of the exercise that makes me angry!
Why should we be deducted for no tag when clearly the animal was tagged when it left the farm?
Once on the truck it is the works responsibility and they could clearly see she had 2 tags, even if the reader didn't pick up the NAIT tag. If it had been pulled out there would be a hole or a bleeding ear. They have inspectors at the plant- they deduct enough for inspections and levys! The deductions on these 5 amounted to $197.75, they should just take more care before adding on another charge.

Ah well the exercise has kept me busy during lockdown! The agent is on the case and going to get the deductions reversed if he can!

Sue
Labrador lover for yonks, breeder of pedigree Murray Grey cattle for almost as long, and passionate poultry person for more years than I care to count.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550848 by Ruth
Replied by Ruth on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
Provide them with the RFID number of her tag and they should easily reverse the penalties and, possibly, pay you more for the cow if she then becomes a lifetime traceable animal.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550852 by linrae
Replied by linrae on topic Grrr, a NAIT related rant!
Sue
Be interesting if you put a claim against them for Goods Damaged in Transit
Wonder what reply would be.

Good to see that it reached a happy ending apart from the $197. agent should sort it out if hes any good

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 years 1 week ago #550866 by LongRidge
Sue, I had a long chat to a cattle truckie and asked about lost tags. He has not found or heard of a truckie finding a tag when cleaning the trucks. He has found them on mesh gates in farmers cattle yards. He sometimes gets queries from farmers about tags lost in transit, but thinks that it is far more likely that the cow has had it's head down when it has gone past the scanners at the works. He thinks that any that miss being scanned cannot be detoured around to go through the scanners again.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.148 seconds