Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRACKING AND MANAGING
ANIMAL HEALTH AND FOOD QUALITY
Field
The present disclosure concerns embodiments of a system and method,
particularly a
computerized data management system and method, for securely storing and
providing
information concerning food animals, including but not limited to, animal feed
information,
animal location histories, drug treatment histories, and/or information
concerning food
products made from such animals.
Background
1. Livestock Industry
Currently, the beef industry is the largest sector of the agriculture economy
of the
United States. The industry is comprised of nearly one million cattle
producers. Many people
envision the beef industry comprising expansive ranches and large cattle
herds. In reality, the
herd size of the average beef producer is less than 35 animals. Because of the
sheer number
of producers and their varying herd sizes, beef producers typically operate
their production
and marketing practices independently of one another and are rarely aligned
with a common
downstream specification. Cattle specifications are market descriptors of
carcasses and live
cattle that establish parameters such as the size, weight, age, sex, and type
of feed provided to
the animals. Specification details vary widely throughout the industry. As
such, the beef
supply chain has traditionally operated in an adversarial and segmented
marketplace,
rendering information sharing difficult.
Nevertheless, approximately 80% of all U.S. beef eventually pass through one
of 400
large commercial feedyards, which prepare cattle to be harvested and made into
beef products
by major packing companies. Notably, these large feedyards generally have the
capacity to
handle 8,000 or more head of cattle at any given time. Other forms of
livestock raised for
meat also generally spend time in commercial feedyards in preparation for
slaughter.
1
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
A. Consumer Reaction
Despite advancements in vaccines and other medicines to treat livestock,
animals at
feedyards may be exposed to and/or spread diseases that are harmful to people.
In December
2003, the first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or "Mad Cow"
disease was
reported in the U.S. Mad cow disease is a brain infection that kills cows.
This disease can be
transmitted to people who eat meat from infected cattle.
Concern over this and other animal diseases that may affect people,
particularly those
labeled "foreign animal diseases" (FADs), have caused consumers to demand
additional food
safety and traceability assurances. These demands have served as a catalyst
among food
retailers to encourage and in some cases mandate that suppliers provide
detailed information
on the source of their products. For example, major retailers such as
McDonalds0, Wal-
Mart and others have recently announced goals to require their beef supply
to be fully
traceable to the herd of origin. Doing so protects individuals from disease
and allows
potentially infected cattle to be treated in a manner appropriate to the
situation, such as treated
with suitable drugs, quarantined where advisable, and when necessary
slaughtered to prevent
the disease from spreading further.
B. Cost to Livestock Industry
The lack of a fully traceable system has cost the beef industry billions of
dollars.
Other livestock industries also have suffered when a diseased animal is
discovered. When a
FAD is discovered there is no way to properly determine problematic animals
that have been
so intimately associated when commingled with the diseased animal as to
require appropriate
treatment. Thus, every animal is suspected of being infected with the disease
and is treated in
a like manner. Ultimately, this affects entire livestock industries.
For example, as a result of the reported U.S. Mad Cow case U.S. beef exports
were
ceased. This caused the beef industry to lose approximately $4.5 billion in
export revenues.
While the U.S. produces the safest beef supply in the world, international
trade policy and
consumer fears demand that every precaution be in place to ensure that the
transmission of
animal diseases is mitigated. Thus, a fully traceable system would help
identify the animals
and herds that have commingled with a diseased animal. Then, only those
animals that have
2
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
been in contact with the infected animal need be quarantined. Other animals
would still be
available to be bought, sold, shipped, etc.
Hence, there is a need for an animal tracking system that takes advantage of
current
commercial systems, is cost-effective, and adds value to the process.
There also is a need for methods and systems for tracking animal movement in
the
normal stream of commerce while protecting the confidentially of collected
traceback data
and insuring the accuracy of the collected data.
There also is a need to implement these techniques and tools at a reasonable
cost.
Summary
The systems and methods described herein incorporate computerized data
management systems to timely track the location of livestock. The embodiments
described
herein address the deficiencies of proposed systems, such as the National
Animal
Identification System (NAIS), discussed in this application. Claimed
embodiments of the
present invention are directed to at least one improvement over the NAIS, and
certain
embodiments are directed to various combinations of such improvements. For
example,
disclosed embodiments provide real-time, official record capability while
protecting
confidentiality of data without interfering with typical animal merchandising.
Certain
embodiments allow use of multiple animal identifiers, as opposed to the single
RFID
proposed by the NAIS. For example, the physical identifier device, method or
system may be
an RFID tag, RFID implant, RFID bolus, retinal scan, DNA profile, visual
device, bar code
device, brand, other useful identifiers now known or hereafter discovered, and
combinations
of such identifiers. Certain embodiments also allow distinguishing between
animals that may
have occupied a particular location but were not so intimately associated so
as to require the
same treatment as prescribed for a particular diseased animal. The NAIS system
does not
allow for positive identification of only those animals that need to be
quarantined or
slaughtered.
The United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) NAIS requires
implementing a
completely new, governmentally controlled system. It fails to make efficient
use of
infrastructure currently in place, whereas disclosed embodiments of the
present method and
3
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
system utilize known infrastructure in various new combinations, and in
combinations with
new methods and systems, to efficiently develop a useful system that will be
adopted by
producers, and that can be adopted without undue expense.
The disclosed embodiments provide accurate and real time identification and
recording of healthy animals and potentially problematic animals. This helps
preclude a
complete shut down of the food animal industry supply chain.
According to a first aspect, embodiments of the system and method described
herein
allow health officials to implement a suitable strategy concerning animals
that have
commingled with diseased animals in a manner sufficient to potentially
transfer the disease,
thereby reducing the chance that consumers will consume unhealthy or unsafe
animal
products. For example, suppose a cow is diagnosed with a zoonotic disease. To
protect
consumers, using the tools and techniques of the AIF, it is possible to trace
back and ascertain
an animal location history. Based on that information, other animals that have
commingled
with or occupied a common location with the diseased animal can be examined or
quarantined
for the same disease.
According to a second aspect, embodiments of the system and method described
herein collect and organize data in a secure framework that makes it possible
to share
commercial and officially required data among the diverse and segmented
portions of the
livestock industries. Moreover, these tools and techniques make it possible
for public and
government entities to access non-private data by serving as a buffer between
commercial
animal information systems and government sponsored systems. For example, a
tool screens
confidential commercial data before releasing it to a public or government
entity.
According to a third aspect, embodiments of the system and method collect,
organize,
and store information regarding the movement of animals. These techniques and
tools
dramatically improve animal producers' abilities to trace an animal's
movements while
maintaining the data private. Tools and techniques screen the collected data
from public and
government entities. Upon request from a public or government entity, certain
portions of the
private data may be released in order to allow health officials to identify
and treat animals that
have commingled with diseased animals in a manner appropriate for a particular
disease. For
example, when an animal is discovered with an animal disease, such as a
foreign animal
4
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
disease, health officials within the government request access to the location
history of the
animal. Using private location identifiers, tools and techniques described
herein generate a
report listing animals that have commingled with the diseased animal. With
that information,
government and health officials implement a strategy for minimizing the
effects of the
diseased animal on human health and commerce.
To implement the USAIP and the variations described herein, new and old
technology
can be combined to form the foundation of an NAIS. For example, information
concerning
methods and apparatuses for providing feed and feed additives to animals are
described in
U.S. Patent No. 4,733,971, entitled "Programmable Weight Sensitive
Microingredient Feed
Additive Delivery System and Method" and U.S. Patent No. 4,815,042 entitled
"Programmable Apparatus and Method for Delivering Microingredient Feed
Additives to
Animals by Weight. One disclosed embodiment concerns an apparatus that stores
additive
concentrates separately until just prior to use, then on demand dispenses the
additive and
concentrates separately and sequentially into a weigh hopper for sequential,
cumulative
weighing therein. In another disclosed form, a disclosed embodiment of the
apparatus
dispenses some additive concentrates by weight and others by volume into a
mixing vessel.
U.S. Patent No. 4,910,024 is entitled "Method and Apparatus for Administering
Live
Bacteria as Feed Additives to Livestock and Poultry." The `024 patent
describes
embodiments of a method and apparatus for preparing, typically but not
necessarily, at a
livestock feedlot a concentrated suspension of anaerobic bacteria at a known,
accurate
concentration and for storing the prepared suspension, potentially for
prolonged periods, in a
ready-to-use condition without significant loss of viability. This allows
operators to
conveniently administer such bacterial supplements to livestock as a probiotic
on a regular
basis in accurate dosages.
U.S. Patent No. 5,008,821 is entitled "Computerized Process and System for
Assigning and Delivering Feed to Animals in a Feedlot". The `821 patent
describes
embodiments of a system that includes a portable computer for recording
assignment data for
each cattle pen and a host computer that stores information, such as feed
consumption data,
for each of the plurality of cattle pens in the feedlot.
5
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
U.S. Patent No, 5,315,505 is entitled "Method and System for Providing Animal
Health Histories and Tracking Inventory of Drugs". The `505 patent discloses
embodiments
of a method and system for providing improved drug treatment to selected
animals in a
retained group using a computer system.
Data concerning food animals can be obtained by various devices and methods,
including the embodiments disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,573,002, entitled
"Method and
Apparatus for Measuring Internal Tissue Characteristics in Feed Animals," and
U.S. Patent
No. 5,836,880, entitled "Automated System for Measuring Internal Tissue
Characteristics in
Feed Animals". The `002 and `880 patents disclose apparatuses and systems for
evaluating
internal tissue characteristics in livestock.
U.S. Patent No. 5,673,647, entitled "Cattle Management Method and System,"
filed
on October 31, 1994 ('647) describes an NAIS-like system, which generally
covers the
proposed USAIP, and facilitates traceback of animals by government and
industry personnel.
The `647 patent makes available a highly automated method and system for
identifying
individual animals (e.g., using electronic identification) and specification
measurements at a
low cost.
U.S. Patent No. 5,803,906, entitled "Method and System for Providing Animal
Health
Histories and Tracking Inventory of Related Drug usage," filed on April 11,
1994 generally
describes tools for tracking animal histories. The `906 patent describes a
computer-based
system for providing up-to-date health histories of animals, for example, in a
feedlot. The
system includes indicia elements associated with each animal for identifying
the animal and a
data entry device coupled to a computer for reading the indicia elements to
identify the animal
to the computer.
U.S. Patent No. 6,000,361, entitled "Cattle Management Method and System"
filed on
April 10, 1997 ('361), is a continuation of the `647 patent and it generally
describes
techniques for collecting and storing animal related data.
Prior U.S. patents also discuss use of livestock identification tags. For
example, U.S.
Patent No. 6,135,744, entitled "System and Method for Recycling Identification
Tags,"
describes recyclable tags that can be used with embodiments of the invention
disclosed in the
present application.
6
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
U.S. Patent No. 6,135,055, entitled "Cattle Management Method and System"
filed on
January 7, 1999 ('055), is a continuation patent of the `647 patent and the
`361 patent. It
generally describes techniques for collecting and storing animal related data.
U.S. Patent No. 6,200,210 is entitled "Ruminant Tissue Analysis at Packing
Plants for
Electronic Cattle Management and Grading Meat". Embodiments of a method for
measuring
tissue characteristics of a ruminant using a tissue imaging and analysis
device prior to
processing the ruminant to a carcass are described. The method can be used to,
amongst other
things, measure backfat and rib eye dimensions, obtain an ultrasound image,
and determine
rib eye area and marbling using the measured tissue characteristics. This data
can then be
used to perform grading calculations, such as to determine quality and/or
yield grades.
U.S. Patent No. 6,318,289, entitled "Cattle Management Method and System"
filed on
October 25, 1999 ('289), is a continuation patent of the `647 patent and the
`361 patent. It
generally describes techniques for collecting and storing animal related data.
U.S. Patent No. 6,516,746, entitled "Cattle Management Method and System"
filed on
September 27, 2001 ('746), is a continuation patent of the `647 patent, the
`361, the `055, and
the `289 patents. It generally describes techniques for collecting and storing
animal related
data.
U.S. Patent No. 6,805,075, entitled "Cattle Management Method and System"
filed on
December 18, 2002, is a continuation patent of the `647 patent, the `361, the
`055, the `289,
and `746 patents.
7
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
Collectively these patents will be referenced herein as the MicroBeef patents
or MBPs.
Certain embodiments of the Microbeef patents concern methods and systems
implemented at
feed lots or packing plants, for example. A person of ordinary skill in the
art will recognize
that the methods and systems can be implemented at other locations and
integrated with the
disclosed embodiments of the present invention.
Additional features and advantages of the invention will be made apparent from
the
following detailed description of implementations that proceeds with reference
to the
accompanying drawings.
Brief Description of the Drawings
Fig. I is a block diagram of a national animal identification system.
Fig. 2 is a block diagram of an infrastructure for assigning premise
identifiers.
Fig. 3 is a block diagram of infrastructure for assigning animals universal
identifiers.
Fig. 4 is a block diagram of an AIF for tracing animal location histories.
Fig. 5 is a block diagram of a data service provider for receiving, storing,
and
reporting animal information.
Figs. 6A-D are sample lists illustrating the type of data sent in a traceback
report.
Fig. 7 is a block diagram of a data trustee for screening confidential
information from
received animal information.
Fig. 8 is a flowchart illustrating a technique filtering confidential data.
Fig. 9 is a table illustrating a traceback report.
Fig. 10 is a flowchart illustrating a technique for tracing an animal's
location history.
Fig. 11 is a flowchart illustrating a technique identifying diseased animals.
Description
Protecting animal agriculture by safeguarding animal health is vital to the
well-being
of people everywhere. In fact, protecting animal agriculture promotes human
health, provides
wholesome, reliable, and secure food resources, mitigates national economic
threats, and
enhances a sustainable environment. An element of this goal to safeguard
animal health in an
effective AIF that allows users to quickly and efficiently trace information
concerning an
8
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
animal, including without limitation, an animal's location history, treatment
history, such as
drug or feed additive administration, food products made from such animal, and
any
combination of such information. By doing so, diseased animals, those
potentially diseased,
and/or those animals that have commingled with the diseased animals may be
identified and
dealt with, e.g., treated, quarantined, or destroyed when necessary.
The following provides definitions of certain terms used herein. These
definitions are
provided to aid the reader, and should not be construed to be narrower than
would be
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
"Animal," "animals" or "livestock" generally refer to any number of
domesticated
and/or wild animals such as swine, cattle, horses, bison, goats, sheep, deer,
elk, alpaca, llama,
poultry animals, fish, etc. The following description is directed to
techniques and tools for
implementing such an AIF.
A "cohort" or "cohorts" refers to an animal or animals that occupied a same
general
location, such as might be identified by a premise identifier, at some time as
some other
animal or animals, but not necessarily at the same time. Cohorts can refer to
a group of
animals occupying a same location, and if one or more of these animals is
moved to a second
location, then the moved animal now is, or animals are, associated with a
second cohort
group.
"Commingled" is a subset of the term cohort and generally refers to animals
that
occupy the same general location at a common time. For example, a first group
of animals
might be owned by the same owner and pastured separately from a second group.
Both the
first group and the second group may be referred to as cohorts, particularly
if the first and
second pasture are identified by the same premise identifier, but are not
commingled.
Animals in the first group are commingled, and animals in the second group are
commingled,
but animals of the first group are not commingled with animals of the second
group.
Commingled also can be considered to occur when animals have unrestrained
access to each
other. Under a program, such as the USAIP, a single premise identifier may be
used to
identify cohorts, but cohorts may not be sufficiently intimately associated so
as to warrant
treating all animals in the group in the same manner, such as in case of a
detected disease. By
9
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
providing additional animal identifiers as disclosed in the present
application cohorts in this
and other examples can be treated differently.
"Intimately associated" typically refers to animals that are in sufficiently
close contact
that, for example, transmission of a disease might be inferred. Simply because
animals are
commingled does not necessarily mean that they are intimately associated.
Again by way of
example, animals located in a large pasture area may be considered commingled,
but may not
ever be intimately associated.
"Participants" include, without limitation, producers, grazers, auctioneers,
feedlots,
packers, data service providers, data trustees, and others.
1. USAIP
Over the last several years, more than 100 animal industry professionals,
academics,
and state and federal government representatives have debated the feasibility
of implementing
a single, nationwide computerized system that utilizes an individual food
animal identification
tracking and management system. As a result of those debates, the United
States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) endorsed most of the USAIP that defines the standards
and a
framework for implementing and maintaining a phased-in, NAIS. Basically, the
USAIP
would be one method enabling not only the beef industry but all livestock
industries and
government officials to conduct lifetime tracebacks of all animals and perform
disease
surveillance on cattle, swine, sheep, and other animals. Tracing back animals
would allow
government officials, animal producers, animal purchasers, and others to
determine where an
animal has been and what other animals have been in contact with the "traced"
animal.
For example, if a cow is diagnosed with Mad Cow disease, an NAIS would allow
govermnent health officials to traceback where an animal has been over its
entire lifetime and
investigate and control the disease by quarantine or other method animals that
have
commingled with the diseased animal. The USAIP requires that a complete
traceback report
be obtainable within 48 hours of the initiation of an investigation following
the diagnosis of a
sick animal.
The basics of the USAIP are illustrated in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 shows animal
producer 110
collecting data 111 about his animals and storing that data in a database 120.
The type of data
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
collected by animal producer 110 varies among animal industries; however, the
data typically
includes many of the same types of data that are found in a cattle
specification. Under the
USAIP, that data is supplemented by an official ID tag and may include a
couple of additional
identifiers to help trace a specific animal. For example, in order to trace an
animal's location
history, the USAIP includes a premise identifier (PID) and a universal animal
identifier
(UAID) among the collected data 121. Whenever an animal is moved to a new
location, the
new location's PID is linked to the animal's UAID. By doing so, these
identifiers help
pinpoint where a cow has been during its lifetime.
Data collection usually begins at the animal producer's location. As an animal
moves
in the stream of commerce and passes through data collection points,
additional records or
information are collected and uploaded to a national animal information
database 130.
According to the USAIP, the national animal information database 130 is
accessible to the
USDA and other health officials. Thus, when an animal is discovered with an
animal disease,
such as an FAD, the USDA determines the assigned UAID of the diseased animal
and
reviews the animal's records in the NAIS information database. Based on
recorded PIDs it is
possible to trace where a diseased animal has been. At that point, appropriate
measures can
be put into effect to prevent those animals that have commingled with the
diseased animal as
identified solely by a premise identifier from entering the marketplace. The
USAIP's goal is
to protect people from buying tainted meats and other animal products and to
prevent the
disease from spreading to other animals.
To put an NAIS in place, the USAIP proposes implementing the following
systems: a
national premises identification system, an individual animal identification
system, and a
group/lot identification system.
A. National Premise Identification System
The national premises identification system assigns a unique number to each
premise
involved in animal agriculture. Generally, a premise is an identifiable
physical location that,
in the judgment of animal health officials, area veterinarians, or other
designated group, and
when appropriate in consultation with the affected producer, represents a
unique and
describable geographic entity (e.g., where activity affecting the health
and/or traceability of
11
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
animals may occur) or represents the producer contact location when extensive
grazing
operations exist. By assigning a unique identifier to premises, the location
history of animals
is more easily tracked. The USAIP-proposed premise identifier is a 7-charater
alphanumerical value, e.g., A123B45.
Fig. 2 illustrates a simple block diagram of the USAIP's proposed
infrastructure for
assigning PIDs. Basically, a premise 210 is required to file a request for a
PID with a local
government premise system 220. The state premise system 220 contacts a
national premise
allocator 230 for a PID 211. The national premise allocator 230 assigns a PID
to the premise
and sends it back to the state premise system 220. The state premise system
220 forwards it
to the requesting premise 210 and to a National Premises repository 240. The
USDA has
access to all PIDs through the national premises repository 240. Using the
PIDs, the USDA
can determine where animals have been when doing tracebacks. According to the
USAIP, the
PID 211 uniquely identifies a premise.
The USAIP's national premise identification system requires states and local
governments to identify and validate "premises".
B. Individual Animal Identification System
In conjunction with a premise identifier, the USAIP proposes using an
individual
animal identification system to assign universal identification numbers (UAID)
to animals.
Fig. 3 illustrates a simple block diagram of the entities involved in
assigning an animal a
UAID. Typically, requests for a UAID come from animal producers. As
illustrated, an
animal producer at premise 310 requests and receives a UAID 311 from an animal
identification number allocator 320. As before, a copy of the UAID 311 is
forwarded to the
requesting animal producer 310, as well as to a national animal identifier
repository 330.
Typically, the UAIDs adhere to the ISO code structure standard for Radio
Frequency
Identification (RFID). In other words, animals will be assigned a number that
is imprinted
and encoded on an electronic RFID tag. The tag is attached to an animal and
throughout the
lifetime of the animal the RFID electronic tag is used to trace animal
movements. An
exemplary animal ID number, according to the USAIP, the ISO code contains 15
numbers, for
example, "840 123456789012".
12
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
C. Group/Lot Identification System
The USAIP also proposes a group/lot identification system, which assigns
different
values to specific lots or groups within a much larger premise. For example, a
large feedlot
may have dozens of separate feeding areas. Each area or lot may receive its
own unique
number to further distinguish where an animal has been. Another reason for
using a group/lot
identification system is that animals often are transferred in groups to a
premise. Each
shipment of animals that comes in or moves out may be considered a group. A
group/lot
identifier (GID) distinguishes between groups within a premise. The GID is
typically based
on a date. For example, in some cases, the USAIP adds a six-digit number to
the premise ID
to reflect the date a group of animals moved in. This means that an animal
shipped to a
premise on October 3, 2003, has the combined group lot number "A234L69100303,"
where
the final six digits represent the date of arrival. The GID provides a way to
further distinguish
groups of animals of that have not been commingled.
D. USAIP Infrastructure
Based on the above-identified systems, the USAIP proposes an infrastructure
that
includes a national premises allocator, a national premises database,
individual animal ID
database, and "Reader" technology in order to trace animal location histories.
The reader
technology, as mentioned above, includes electronic RFID tags and RFID readers
placed at
various collection points. For example, the reader technology would be most
likely
implemented at markets, expositions, slaughter facilities, feedlots, etc. By
recording the PID
and UAID of animals, an accurate history of their movement through the streams
of
commerce can be recorded and traced.
Notably, within the USAIP, the identification devices used to identify animals
may
vary across species groups. A USDA official device may be required.
13
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
II. USAIP Deficiencies
Major opposition from the livestock industry has delayed implementation of the
USAIP. One of the main drawbacks to implementing the USAIP's NAIS relates to
the ability
to protect the confidentiality of collected data. For example, many livestock
producers are
concerned that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would require the
government to
release all collected traceback data. Releasing such information could cause
irrevocable harm
to the livestock industry just as it did when the first Mad Cow case was
discovered in the U.S.
Moreover, releasing confidential business information could also damage
reputations and
cause producers to lose money.
For example, inaccurate tracking results may result in treating animals, such
as by a
quarantine, that were healthy and did not require segregation. This would
cause a producer to
lose money since quarantine interferes with the movement and management of
animals in
normal commerce. Moreover, because of an inappropriate quarantine, a livestock
producer
and its herds generally may be perceived as being "bad," which hurts the
reputation of the
producer and its other herds. Furthermore, livestock producers and marketers
are concerned
that they may incur consumer liability (or at least legal costs) despite
inaccurate tracking
results.
Protecting records also is important to prevent unfair speculation and
manipulation of
pricing at sourcing and markets. For example, if the government obtains and
releases industry
proprietary information, buyers or sellers of livestock can artificially
inflate or deflate prices
based on the released data. Ultimately, collected traceback data should be
safeguarded.
Hence, there is a need for a NAIS that ensures the confidentiality of that
data.
The USAIP's NAIS is difficult and costly to implement. The USAIP creates a
separate NAIS dedicated exclusively to animal traceback. This means livestock
producers
that already use commercial systems to track their animals would have to
finance their current
tracking systems as well as the NAIS. Hence, the cost may become prohibitive
for small herd
owners. Moreover, the USAIP experts failed to recognize the need to utilize
commercial
tracking and management information systems that actually would add enough
value to the
process to cover the cost of the official government requirements.
Furthermore, the USAIP
failed to recognize the inherent resistance to additional government mandated
identification,
14
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
reporting and costs to industry when more then 99 percent of animals are
healthy, disease
free, non-quarantined animals. These additional costs would be implemented in
order to
identify the less than 1 percent of livestock requiring FAD management.
The proposed NAIS restricts animal movement in commerce and provides no method
for a real time confirmation of the official records. Real time confirmation
could be an
important feature for buyers and sellers of animals. Again by way of example,
a buyer would
like to know, virtually immediately upon inspection, whether the animal has an
appropriate
movement record, and further that such record can be accessed as desired. If a
move-in or
move-out event occurs reasonably close in time to a buyer wanting to purchase
an animal,
then these recent events would be important information that should be
available to the
purchaser. The proposed NAIS does not allow for real time reconciliation of
such events,
whereas the embodiments disclosed herein do allow real time reconciliation.
The USAIP's NAIS also rely solely on RFID identifiers to identify an animal. A
producer may lose an assigned RFID, or the RFID may fail to operate correctly.
As a result,
the animal's identification cannot be properly recorded, or if initially
recorded correctly,
cannot be verified upon a move-in or move-out event. RFIDs also would have to
be requested
by a producer, provided by a government agency, associated with an individual
animal, and
then such information reported to the agency. This scenario requires time and
compliance
with the requirements by each producer. Embodiments of the disclosed method
and system
allow for other animal identifiers to be used, which increases appropriate
identification of
problematic animals and compliance by participants.
The components and systems of an AIF (AIF) accomplish what the USAIP proposes,
while overcoming its limitations. The animal identification framework
incorporates
computerized data management system tools and techniques to timely process
information
regarding the movement of livestock from one location to another. The
framework helps
maintain the normal speed of commerce in buy/sell transactions, helps provide
records
making the animals more valuable to the buyer and seller, improves the
accuracy of
movement and animal sales transactions, protects the animal owners from
liability due to
inaccuracies, protects the confidentiality of producer data, and lowers the
cost of tracking
animals.
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
In commercial and private settings, the information collected through this
framework
is beneficial in a variety of ways. For example, when an animal change of
possession occurs,
the new owners or custodians may be easily provided with the historical animal
records and
current records necessary to move the animal. Suppose, for example, a
purchaser buys an
animal without first obtaining a traceback history of the animal. Owning
animals purchased
without records violates regulatory rules and purchasing animals without
historical records
incurs a risk of being unable to resell the animal.
Additionally, this framework may protect purchasers against liability in case
of a
disease outbreak. Moreover, because information is collected in an organized
and strong
framework, it is possible to share commercial data among the diverse and
segmented
livestock industries, thereby adding value to the overall system, and helping
offset the costs
associated with the implementation of the AIF. There are other private
benefits and uses for
the AIF.
In a public sense, the framework is beneficial because it allows health
officials to
identify and quarantine animals that have commingled with diseased animals.
Thus, it
reduces the chance that a consumer will purchase infected meats or tainted
animal products.
For example, suppose a cow is diagnosed with Mad Cow disease. To protect
consumers from
purchasing tainted meat, health officials or industry members, using the
embodiments of the
disclosed system and methods of the AIF, may traceback and ascertain where an
animal has
been. Based on that information, other animals that have commingled with the
diseased
animal can be examined or quarantined for the same disease.
To trace animals, within the framework, animal information is recorded as
animals
pass through data collection points. At minimum, the recorded information
includes location
history information (e.g., a PID) and an animal identifier (e.g., a UAID).
However, in many
situations, animal information includes other information, including
commercial and
confidential information. For example, it may include the height, weight,
size, age, sex, color,
type of feed, drug treatment history, actual animal location, such as by GPS,
name of owner,
and other relevant animal information. Conducting a computerized trace of an
animal
involves ascertaining the animal identifier and searching the recorded animal
infonnation to
find previous locations where the identified animal occupied.
16
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
Within the framework are various tools and techniques for collecting animal
information. The MBPs describe various tools and techniques for collecting and
tracking
animal histories. For example, some of the tools and techniques described in
the `647 patent,
such as the electronic ID tag, which is encoded with an animal identifier, may
be used to
uniquely and universally identify an animal. Using those identifiers, tools in
the MBPs may
collect and store animal information. For example, as the animal passes
through data
collection points, such as those described in the MBPs, animal information is
collected.
Typically, the data collection points use sensors, scanners, or other reader
technology to
record animal information as it passes through a gate or chute. Additional
information may
be collected when an animal is examined, weighed, measured, or otherwise
analyzed. With
that information, authorized health officials and others may trace an animal's
location history.
In some implementations, the AIF includes an integrated database system that
shares
non-confidential animal information among industry members and authorized
health officials.
The database system may be located at a single location, at multiple
locations, with identical,
redundant information, or multiple, networked locations sharing different
information. The
database system also may be in different countries to integrate information
collected by
multiple countries. Filtering tools and techniques are used by a data trustee
to screen
confidential information from the shared access database. The shared
information includes
enough data for the USDA and health officials to accomplish their traceback
objectives, yet
still protects animal producers' interests.
For example, the AIF includes the official database specifically containing
all
reported animals records and administered and regulated by a data trustee. The
data trustee
screens sensitive information from the government and other third-parties by
removing any
information regarded as confidential. The data trustee official database only
forwards to a
government-accessible database the information necessary to use for requesting
animal trace
information from the official database to identify an animal. When a diseased
animal is
discovered, the USDA looks up the animal in its database and requests a
traceback history
from the data trustee database for the animal to be entered into the
government database. By
implementing a data trustee in the AIF, animal producers maintain control and
access to
17
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
confidential information, and avoid many of the problems associated with
inaccurate or
leaked information.
The tools and techniques associated with the AIF use or adopt proven existing
technologies wherever possible. For example, implementations utilize state-of-
the-art
national and international animal identification standards with the best
available and practical
technologies to create a plan that is dynamic and flexible, and that
incorporates new and
proven technologies as they become available.
The techniques and tools described herein can be implemented in various ways,
and
may be used in combination or separately.
III. AIF Overview
An AIF ("AIF") is an extensible framework designed to facilitate the
collection and
traceback of animal data, including their location histories. Within this
framework are
included both hardware and software components that identify animals, that
transmit data
about the animals, that collect the transmitted data, that filter out
confidential information
from the collected data, and that release the confidential data when
necessary. Fig. 4 shows
an exemplary AIF 400 in which various techniques described herein may be
implemented.
Basically, the AIF 400 has tools that collect and store (or work with hardware
and software
that collect and store) animal identification data, including the animal's
location history. The
AIF 400 filters confidential information and releases the information upon
proper request.
AIF 400 is a cross-system framework that can be used with multiple database
systems,
hardware devices, and applications in many configurations. It provides a
strong foundation
upon which animal traceback tools and techniques can be implemented. The AIF
400 may
use tools and techniques described in the MBPs, but this is not a requirement
of the
framework 400.
Fig. 4 shows various components of the AIF 400. Among those components are a
data service provider 420 for receiving and storing transmitted data 411, a
data trustee 430 for
screening the confidential parts of the received data 421, and an official
database, or
potentially multiple databases, 440 for storing non-confidential data 431.
18
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
The AIF 400 collects data from an animal or animal producer 410 and provides a
traceback history report 441 for government and health officials 450. A
variety of tools and
techniques may be used for transmitting animal information 411 to the
framework 400. Some
of these tools and techniques are hardware-based and others are software-
based. For example,
an electronic identification device ("EID") may be attached to the animal 410.
As the animal
410 passes through an AIF data collection point, the EID transmits pre-encoded
animal
information 411 to the AIF 400. The data service provider 420 detects the
transmission of
data 411, receives the data 411, and stores the data.
Data service providers 420 as illustrated in Fig. 4 include commercial data
system
organizations that have the necessary personnel, computer management
expertise, and data
gathering capabilities to detect, receive, store, and report animal
information. Alternatively,
or in conjunction with a commercial data system, a data service provider 420
includes,
without limitation, animal producers, marketers, and purchasers that own and
operate the
necessary reader and data storage technology to receive, store, and report
animal information.
Within the context of an NAIS, there may be a multitude, e.g. hundreds of data
service providers 420 to collect animal information. These data service
providers 420 are
ratified by industry members.
The information 411 received by the data service provider 420 typically
includes a
mix of commercial and official data 411. Official data includes the data
necessary for the
USDA to traceback an animal. The data service provider 420 forwards the
official data 421 to
data trustee 430. Or, the data service provider 420 forwards both the
commercial and official
data 421 to data trustee 430.
Within the AIF 400, a data trustee 430 serves as a buffer between commercial
animal
identification systems and any government system. The functions of a data
trustee 430 are to
receive forwarded data 421 from data service provider 420, screen and filter
the forwarded
data 421 to maintain the official database 440, which may be a multiple
database system, and
generate reports.
As a component within the AIF, a data trustee 430 includes those individuals,
groups,
organizations, and tools designated by industry members, perhaps approved by
government,
to screen the forwarded animal information 421 before it is sent to the
official government-
19
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
accessible database 450. The actual number of data trustees may vary based on
cost to
implement, size and growth of the cattle industry, improving network and
database
technologies, and other such factors.
After receiving forwarded data 421, the data trustee 430 screens and filters
the data to
remove confidential information. The data trustee then forwards the filtered
data to the
official database 440. Typically, the filtered data includes the necessary
information for the
USDA database 450 to start tracing an animal's location history. For example,
the data
trustee 430 filters all the forwarded information except for an animal
identifier and a data
record address to a record in the data trustee database. Knowing the animal
identifier is
sufficient to retrieve the other animal information from the data trustee 430.
In other
implementations, the data trustee 430 may filter more or less data. The amount
and type of
data forwarded to the official database 440 may change as government and
industry needs
change.
The official database 440 contains official data. It is the repository of data
trustee
filtered data 431. In the AIF 400, a data trustee 430 is the administrator and
arbiter of all the
data that is stored in the official database. In some implementations, the
official database is
the only database the government 450 has access to. In other implementations,
the data
trustee is the only entity to have access to the official database 440. More
than one official
database may be maintained in order to provide quicker access to data and to
provide
redundancy and fail-safes in case a connection or system goes down. Data in
multiple
databases is synchronized periodically to ensure consistency throughout the
databases.
In some implementations, multiple databases are maintained to further protect
confidential animal information. For example, the data trustee 430 maintains
the official
database 440, and the government 450 maintains a separate database. The other
database
under control of the data trustees contains official, yet confidential
information, e.g. sensitive
data, that the government can request when needed, but that will not be
subject to standard
government FOIA rules unless requested by the government. This allows industry
members
to keep data confidential until requested by the government. For example, a
rancher wants to
keep his ranch premise identifier confidential. The government does not
actually need access
to the premise identifier until an animal health or safety issue arises. Thus,
the data trustee
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
filters the premise ID from being forwarded to a government controlled
database. When the
need arises, the government may submit a request to the official database
administrator trustee
for that information based upon an identified animal. After a proper request,
the data trustee
sends the requested information to the government. The number of filtered
fields in the
official database may vary depending on implementation, government
regulations, logistical
concerns, ease of implementation, and other such factors. Using data requested
from the
official database 440, government and health officials 450 have access to
sufficient data to
traceback an animal within the currently mandated 48-hour time period. In
other
implementations, tracing an animal may take more or less time to complete, and
much faster
traceback results likely can be achieved with the present method and system,
such as within
minutes.
The AIF 400 provides a variety of traceback reports 412, 422, 432, 442 to
confirm
events as they occur. For example, when a cow is shipped to a feedlot, a
confirmation report
412 is sent to the animal producer 410 confirming animal arrival. Similarly,
when animal
information 421 is forwarded to the data trustee, a traceback report 422 is
sent confirming
receipt of the data. The report 422 also may include a reconciliation of
premise and animal
information. After data has been filtered and forwarded to the official
database, another
report 432 is generated and sent to the data service provider 420 confirming
receipt of the
information. The report may reconcile information from the report against data
stored in
national identifier repositories. The format and delivery methods of these
reports may vary.
For example, some reports are sent via text email. Other reports are accessed
over a webpage.
Some are sent as text files, PDFs, or other standardized format.
Alternatively, the reports are
text messages, paper copies, or some other readable format.
In some other implementations, animal producers 410 are allowed to request a
report
from the data trustee 430 in order to view their current inventory as recorded
in the official
database 440. This function allows producers 410, data service providers 420,
and data
trustees 430 to correct any potential database errors by reconciling
information.
For example, upon request, a rancher files a move out report with a service
provider and
receives a move in report from the service provider. The rancher checks the
record reporting
move-out/move-in information against each other. If there are any errors, the
rancher submits
21
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
a request to correct the information. By generating confirmation reports as
data passes from
one component of the AIF 400 to another, errors and inconsistencies in the
data are identified
throughout the process, avoiding major discrepancies or errors in the future.
They also
provide an automated chain of custody to ensure the database information is
synchronized
with actual animal movements. To not implement a chain of custody and
reconciliation
process compromises the integrity of the NAIS and increases producer liability
concerns.
Alternatively, the data trustee 430 and the official database 440 allow animal
producers 410 or other users to perform the essential functions of reading,
updating, and
deleting records. To do so, an interface, such as a web-based interface, a
database interface,
or customized software application, is provided so animal producers 410 or
others may
securely connect to the database to read and/or update records. In some
implementations,
error correction is done directly by the animal producer 410, e.g. they log
onto a secure
system and manually correct errors. Preferably, an animal producer submits a
request to
correct erroneous data to the data trustee 430. The data trustee verifies the
submitted data and
makes appropriate updates. Other techniques for updating and correcting
information also
may be available.
Finally, within the AIF 400, government and health officials 450 trace animal
location
histories. To do so, the USDA 450 accesses data in the USDA database 450 and
then submit
a formal request for a complete trace of an animal to the official database
440. Upon receipt
of a request, the official data base 440 generates a location history report
441. The location
history report includes a list of every premise the animal has occupied during
its traceable
lifetime. The location history report also includes other information, such as
the date, time,
and group number associated with an animal when it lived at a premise.
Using the information from the location history report, the government
officials 450,
alternatively, contact the listed premises for more information or request
further information
from the official base 440. In some implementations, the initial history
location report 441
includes all animal identifiers that have ever commingled with the traced
animal.
Notably, when officials 450 make a direct request to official database 440 for
information, all official data is granted within the guidelines set forth by
government and
22
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
industry regulatory bodies. Other confidential information is released at the
data trustee's
discretion.
The AIF 400 includes elements of software and/or hardware. The relationships
shown
between components in Fig. 4 indicate the main flow of information; other
relationships are
not shown for the sake of simplicity. Depending on implementation, components
can be
added, omitted, split into multiple components, combined with other
components, and/or
replaced with like components or systems. Alternatively, a framework with
different
components and/or other configurations perform one or more of the AIF
techniques described
herein.
Various implementations of the components in the AIF 400 are described below.
A. Data Service Provider
Data service providers provide the necessary data collection tools, reporting
systems and
services, customer support and education to enable the transfer of data from
animal producers
to data trustees. Fig. 5 illustrates a simple block diagram of a data service
provider 500 such
as data service provider 420 discussed in connection with Fig. 4. The data
service provider
500 collects and stores animal information in a single or multiple databases
550, generates
reports 555 confirming receipt of the information, and then forwards official
data 560 to a
data trustee. As illustrated in Fig. 5, the data service provider 500 includes
elements of
software and/or hardware. The relationships shown between the components in
Fig. 5
indicate the main flow of information; other relationships are not shown for
the sake of
simplicity. Depending on implementation, components can be added, omitted,
split into
multiple components, combined with other components, and/or replaced with like
components or systems. Alternatively, a data service provider with different
components
and/or other configurations perform one or more of the techniques described
herein.
1. Animal Information Sources
The data service provider 500 receives data from multiple sources. Some of
those
sources include an EID 510 and other commercial data entry tools 520. Also,
the data service
provider may add premise identifying information 530.
23
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
a. Electronic Identiflcation Device
An electronic identification device (EID) 510 provides animal information to
the data
service provider 500. The EID includes elements of software and/or hardware.
Various
implementations of EIDs are discussed in the MBPs. For example, in the `647
patent an
electronic identification tag that uses radio frequency technology (RFID) to
transmit signals to
an RF reader is disclosed. An RF reader collects and stores the information
sent by the RFID
tag. In other implementations, the EID may use other wireless and microwave
technologies,
such as Wi-Fi, WiMax, etc. to transmit animal information to the data service
provider 500.
Moreover, in yet other implementations, the EID is a transponder, a chipcard,
a biometric
device, a magnetic device, scan code, bar code, a visual cue such as a cattle
brand, or any
other state-of-the-art and/or cost effective technology. Alternatively, the
EID 510 is
implemented as a combination of these technologies. The EID tag also can be
used to provide
specific location information for each individual animal, such as by using
GPS, as opposed to
just general location information.
For example, under the USAIP, a specific type and design of radio frequency
identification (RFID) official tags are used as the official identification
device to identify
animals. However, any RFID tags following ISO standards create numbers that
can
universally identify animals without needing any additional setup. Therefore,
the AIF RFID
numbering system provides producers the flexibility to utilize readily
available ISO compliant
identification devices from a source of their choice. For example, there are
nonofficial RFID
ISO compliant tags that may be used one time or multiple times to reduce the
cost. Moreover,
by using non-official, ISO compliant tags the industry is not burdened with
sourcing
restrictions and managing official tags inventory for the USDA. Different
species of animals
may use different types of tags.
In some implementations, the EID is programmable, e.g., animal producers or
others
can encode information onto the EID. At the very least, the EID 510 includes
an animal
identifier 515 as described below that uniquely identifies an animal in the
NAIS. However,
other information, including but not limited to, age, sex, weight, breed,
owner, drug history,
feed history, etc. also may be encoded into the EID.
24
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
i. Universal Animal Identifier
An animal identifier 515 is a value recorded in the official database, which
also may
be encoded onto animal tracking devices 510. The animal identifier is a unique
value
assigned to individual animals to which all of its collected information
including the physical
animal identifier is linked in the various databases described herein. For
example, when the
data service provider collects animal information, the universal database
animal identifier 515
(UAID) serves as the value that distinguishes one animal's record from
others'.
As discussed above in connection with Fig. 3, the animal identifier is an
assigned
UAID. Alternatively, the animal identifier is a different value. A UAID
establishes
permanent, tamperproof database identification for each animal to which all
identification
devices like RFID, visual identification or other identification methods can
be linked. UAIDs
are official 15-digit-ISO identification numbers allocated by the USDA. These
UAID
numbers may be encoded on the RFIDs or an alternate ISO or other numbers may
be used.
However, in some cases, at the producer's option, those official numbers are
not required to
be on the animal and an alternate physical identifier is used. For example, in
a small herd of
animals, the animal producer keeps a list of his animals' UAIDs. When an
animal
identified by an ID device, method or system 510 is moved or sold, animal
information,
including tracking information, may be scanned from the producer's records
(e.g., scanning
20 bar codes from paper), entered manually, or input in some other way.
To maintain consistency throughout the database, if an EID is lost or becomes
unreadable, the animal identifier encoded into the first EID is re-encoded
into the new EID, or
alternatively the EID is replaced by a new EID. Thus, the universal animal
identifier UAID
515 tracks the animal over its lifetime by linking all ID devices, methods or
systems 510 to
the same UAID 515.
Assigned UAIDs are placed in an animal identifier repository. The reason for
the
repository is to ensure the uniqueness and universality of the identifier and
ensure animal data
is available for access when needed. Moreover, in some implementations, an
animal
identifier allocator assigns UAIDs to animals upon request. For example, under
a nationwide
animal identification system as described herein (NAIS), as new animals are
born, a rancher
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
requests animal identifiers for each newborn animal. The UAID allocator, in
response, sends
the identifier values to the rancher, which is encoded in EIDs for the calves
or, for example,
the rancher uses the UAID to link with the EID as reported to the official
database. Animals
other than food animals also can be tracked by the system, as they also may
come into
sufficiently close contact with a food animal to transmit disease. For
example, pets and wild
animals that are tracked by pet owners or wildlife officials also can be
tracked using disclosed
embodiments of the method and system.
As an animal identification system, either a nationwide (NAIS) or worldwide
system,
is implemented, there may be difficulties in assimilating and converting
current tracking
systems. To reduce costs, to allow producers and data service providers to
maintain their
current system while the transition occurs, and to allow time to install
approved EIDs on
animals, animal information may be linked to other values until a permanent
system is in
place. For example, the name of a company and its proprietary animal
identifier may
uniquely identify an animal. Thus, during the transition phase, an additional
field in the
various databases lists that temporary identifier value, until a new
conforming identifier is in
place. Animal information is updated and linked to the new animal identifier
as it becomes
available.
In some implementations, the animal identifier is associated with meat
shipments
during processing and even after the animal has been slaughtered. For example,
packaging
containing processed food products can be tracked, and the food products
correlated with the
animal history from which such products were produced.
b. Commercial Data Sources
Referring again to Fig. 5, data service provider 500 also receives and stores
commercial data from commercial data sources 520. Commercial data includes
commercially
valuable data, e.g., the type of data used by animal producers in the course
of business. For
example, commercially valuable information includes, but may not be limited
to, an animal's
owner, breed, size, weight, age, sex, feed type, vaccination or other
treatment reports, pricing
terms, veterinarian reports, and any other data that is commercially useful.
The amount and
type of commercial information collected by the commercial data sources 520
may vary based
26
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
on individual producer needs. Commercial information sent by commercial data
sources are
collected by the data reader 540.
In some implementations, commercial data sources are the tools and techniques
described in the MBPs. For example, one aspect of the `647 patent tracks the
historical and
projected weights of animals using external measurement tools at feedyards.
That
information may be valuable for commercial purposes. Using such tools and
techniques
described in the `647 patent information is collected so that it can be
transferred to data
service provider 500. The actual transfer involves transmitting information
from the animal
producer's computer systems to the data service provider 500. The data reader
540 receives
the commercial data about an animal and adds it to the animal's complete data
record 545.
c. Premise Identifier
A premise identifier 530 identifies a premise, which is an identifiable
physical location
that conducts animal agriculture. In Fig. 4, premises include both animal
producers 410 and
some, if not all, data service providers 420. Referring again to Fig. 5, the
premise identifier
530 is submitted by the participant and automatically added to animal data
records by the data
trustee whenever an animal is moved from one premise to another. For example,
a cattle
rancher auctions an animal locally. When the cow moves from the ranch to the
auction house,
the animal's data records are updated to reflect this move. When the cow
arrives at the
auction house a new data entry, including the auction house's premise
identifier, is added to
the cow's records showing the cow's arrival and submitted to a service
provider. Thus, an
animal's location history can be tracked using the UAID to obtain the premise
identifiers. In
some implementations, the premise identifier is the PID described in
connection with the
USAIP described above. Alternatively, it is a different value. It also may be
possible to track
movements of cattle according to shipping method. For example, animals
commingled on a
single transport, such as a truck or train, also might be identified by
assigning particular
identifiers to the transport method used.
As suggested by the USAIP, in some implementations a national or worldwide
premise allocator assigns PIDs upon request. Referring back to Fig. 2,
however, there are
other implementations for allocating premise identifiers not described by the
USAIP. For
27
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
example, an animal producer 210 fills out on electronic request form and
submits it to the
premise allocator via the Internet. In response, the premise allocator assigns
and sends a
premise identifier to the requesting animal producer 210. Notably, in this
implementation, the
premise allocator assigns the identifier without prior screening by state
officials. In other
implementations, the premise allocator files a request with the state for
verification
information before assigning the identifier. Alternatively, the premise
allocator verifies some
minimal pieces of data, such as name, address, and phone number, before
allocating the
identifier.
Another implementation for assigning premise identifiers involves a data
trustee. A
data trustee is given a range of premise identifiers that are allocated to
when an animal
producer or premise reports animal information for the first time. For
example, a non-
registered premise sends animal information to a data service provider. Since
there was no
valid premise identifier, the information is immediately forwarded to a data
trustee. The data
trustee obtains and allocates a premise identifier for the non-registered
premise and notifies
the premise of the new value. Moreover, a copy of the premise identifier with
accompanying
premise identification information is deposited in a national premise
identification repository.
As before, the data trustee may ask for verification information from the
requesting premise
before allocating a premise identifier.
In some cases, the premise allocator or data trustee assigns a temporary
identifier to a
premise until the premise can be certified by either the allocator, government
agency, or the
data trustee. Under these circumstances, the temporary identifier may be only
allocated for a
short period of time after which the premise needs to be authenticated by an
appropriate
entity.
If a temporary identifier is used, after a premise is authenticated the
temporary
identifier is made permanent. Alternatively, a new permanent identifier is
assigned and all
records with the temporary identifier are updated with or linked to the new
identifier. Again
in the altetnative, records received from a premise with a temporary
identifier are maintained
in a separate database until the premise has been authenticated. At that
point, all of its records
are moved to a valid premise database. Temporary identifiers may be
distinguished from
28
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
permanent ones based on their format, based on a table listing temporary
identifiers, or in
some other way.
The actual format of the premise identifier may vary. According to the USAIP,
a PID
is a 7 character alphanumeric value. In other implementations, the premise
identifier may
have more or less characters. Moreover, a premise identifier 530 may be
randomly generated
according to a defined format, it may be assigned from a master list or
database of values, it
may be derived from animal producer information (e.g., a hash of the premise's
name or other
proprietary information), it may incorporate letters or numbers from a premise
company name
or brand, or it may be derived in some other way.
In some implementations, a value such as a NULL, zero, or other random non-
conforming value may be inserted into a data record until a proper premise
identifier is
received.
Animal producers and premises 210 are notified of their new premise identifier
via a
receipt web page, an email, mail, telephone call, or some other mechanism. In
every case, the
newly-generated PID is sent to a national or worldwide premise repository,
such as the
repository 230 described in connection with Fig. 2.
Referring again to Fig. 5, once a premise identifier 520 has been assigned and
sent to
the proper premise, the premise should include the premise identifier 520
anytime it sends
data to a data service provider 500 or to a data trustee.
It is worth noting that, although the premise allocator is described herein as
a single
entity, implementations may include more than one allocator, each designated
by government
and industry members.
i. Group/Lot Identifiers
Related to premise identifiers are group identifiers (GIDs), which distinguish
groups
of animals from each others as they move through a premise as noted in
connection with the
USAIP. According to the USAIP, a GID is a six-digit identifier representing a
premise arrival
date and in some cases is combined with the premise ID. Thus, unlike the
premise identifiers,
GIDs are generated by the participant or data service provider 500, and they
may not
necessarily be unique. For example, all the cattle that arrive at a feedlot on
a specific date
29
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
may be assigned the same GID. Alternatively, a GID may represent other
information, for
example, the building where an animal was housed. The GID may be combined with
the PID
to form a new identifier, or alternatively it may be a separate value in the
mixed data database
550.
2. Data Reader
Fig. 5 shows data reader 540, which collects animal information for the data
service
provider 500. The data reader includes elements of software and/or hardware.
Various
implementations of data readers are discussed in the MBPs. For example, the
`647 patent
describes computer systems that record, measure, sort, and track individual
animals. The data
reader 540 described herein performs the same and additional functions.
In some implementations, the data reader 540 collects wireless and microwave
technology transmissions (e.g., RFID transmissions) from devices directly
attached to
animals. Moreover, the data reader 540 may collect signals and data from
transponder
devices, chipcards, biometric devices, magnetic devices, and other devices
attached to or
implanted into an animal. Alternatively, the data reader 540 receives data
transmissions from
computing devices, such as computers, PDAs, scanners, cell phones, flash
memory cards, and
other similar electronic devices containing data, such as commercial data. In
yet other
implementations, the data reader uses video imaging and ultrasound technology
to gather
data. In other implementations, light or laser technology to scan bar codes or
other visual
cues (e.g., a cattle brand or mark) is used. In some case, animal information
is read manually
(e.g., visually) and input manually (e.g., through data entry or voice
recognition means).
Alternatively, other state-of-the-art andlor cost effective data reader
technology is used.
Data readers 540 are installed at designated reader locations. For example,
since
participants include producers, grazers, auctioneers, feedlots, packers, and
other animal
marketers, data readers are installed at their premises b themselves or a data
service provider.
When an animal is sent to a participant that serves as a data service
provider, an animal
typically passes through an entrance gate or chute. Hence, an exemplary data
reader is
installed at the entrance gate or chute of data service provider 500.
Alternatively, the data
reader is installed in animal barns, pens, stalls, or other similar locations.
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
As an animal passes through the data reader 540, it collects animal
information. At
minimum, this includes an animal identifier. Other commercial and official
data also may be
collected at this time. Alternatively, the other data is transmitted
separately, e.g., via a
computer disk, paper copy, an email, a computer file, etc., and the data is
later correlated to
the animal identifier in the data service provider database 550.
3. Data Service Provider Database
After the data reader 540 collects information from the animal information
sources
510, 520, AID, the data is added to the data service provider's database 560
as a mixed data
record 545. A mixed data record 545 combines confidential/commercial data with
non-
confidential/official data, typically in a single entry, in the data service
provider database or
databases 550. Other animal information such as a premise identifier may be
added
automatically by the data service provider 500. In some implementations, the
database is
indexed by the animal identifier.
The database 550 is built from commercially available database services. For
example, the database 550 is an SQL database with various fields, such as
breed, weight, date
and time of arrival, animal identifier, premise identifier, etc., defined for
the types of
information received from the data reader. Alternatively, a different database
builder is used,
e.g., an XML database, an Access database, a web-enabled database, or any
other well-known
database management system (DBMS). In other implementations, a custom database
is
developed.
For ease of administration, the database 550 may be spread over multiple
computer
systems. For example, a feed lot serves as a data service provider that
receives data for
thousands of animals every day. Due to the volume of the information being
collected,
multiple instances of the database are distributed across many different
computer systems and
perhaps even multiple computer networks in order to handle the information. To
maintain
consistency throughout the instances of the database and to keep the
information current, the
databases are synchronized periodically.
Defined fields are filled as animal information is collected into a record
545. Not
every field needs to be filled to be complete a record. A complete animal
record may include
31
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
a subset of the information in the database, such as the animal identifier,
premise identifier,
event type and date and time of arrival.
At least some of the data stored in database 550 is forwarded to a data
trustee.
4. Reports
Data service provider 500 provides reports 555 to producers and data trustees
confirming data has been received, recorded, meets NAIS standards, etc. These
reports 555
provide information regarding the status of an animal event and also provide a
chain of
custody that shows where an animal has been. Exemplary animal events include
having an
EID applied, moving from one location to another, branding, sightings,
shipment to a
slaughterhouse, processing into food products, shipping as food products, etc.
When a move-out transaction from one premise to another has been initiated
then a
corresponding move-in (receipt) transaction needs to acknowledge that the
animals, or food
products made therefrom, arrived at a valid premise within a specified time
period. For
example, a rancher sends an animal to a commercial feedlot (in this case
serving as a data
service provider) before sending it to be slaughtered. Moving the animal from
one location to
another is recorded by data readers. A data reader at the ranch records when
the cow leaves
and, in addition to other information, a data reader at the feedlot records
when the animal
arrives. Upon arrival at the feedlot, a confirmation report is generated
notifying the rancher
that the animal arrived. This report typically includes the animal identifier,
premise
identification, and event being confirmed. Alternatively, it includes a
complete report of all
recorded animal information, or any combination of sortable recorded
information.
The reports 555 also are used to verify that data has been accurately recorded
and to
reconcile data with other databases. In the example above, a rancher may
determine from the
confirmation report that the animal EID listed is incorrect. To correct the
error, the rancher
contacts the data service provider and provides it with the correct data. Now,
suppose in the
above example, the commercial feedlot, as part of a normal verification
process, checks with
the repository or data service provider to validate the rancher's premise
identifier. If an error
is detected a report detailing this inconsistency is generated and sent to the
commercial
32
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
feedlot and to the rancher. Again the rancher corrects the error, even if it
means requesting a
valid premise identifier.
The number and type of reports generated by the data service provider may
vary,
depending on, for example, government and industry regulations, animal
producer and data
service provider wants and needs, and other such factors. Exemplary reports
include a move-
out report, a ship and traceback report, a move-in and reconcile report, and a
termination
report.
Figs. 6A-6D show sample reports generated by a data service provider. For
example,
Fig. 6A shows a move-out confirmation report. The report confirms that 38
animals were
shipped from a premise with PID S200971 and all the cows arrived at the
destination premise
(premise F201565).
Fig. 6B shows a move-in report. This report notifies the animal producer that
seven of
his animals are unaccounted for. The animal producer can then follow-up with
the data
service provider to reconcile this discrepancy. Reasons for this type of error
include the fact
that the cows may never have arrived at the destination premise, the premise
identifiers may
be unknown or unregistered, the animal identifiers may be invalid, or there
was a hardware or
software failure. Whatever the reason, the animal producer should know that he
needs to
check on his animals.
Fig. 6C illustrates a tag-applied confirmation report. Fig. 6D illustrates a
slaughtered
or termination report for an animal. Notably, Figs. 6A-6D illustrate a
technique for outputting
confirmation reports. In other implementations, the report may be made via
email, a web
confirmation page, printed report, electronic text, or some other technique.
Throughout its entire process, data service provider 500 uses secure network,
database, and computing technologies. At least some of the data collected by
data service
provider 500 is forwarded to a data trustee.
B. Data Trustee
Data trustees establish a private sector infrastructure to insure that
confidential animal
information is not released to the public sector. A number of data trustees,
approved by the
livestock industry as well as the government, serve as a buffer between
commercial animal
33
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
information systems and any government sponsored systems. They are certified
with
standardized criteria and consent to be audited by industry associations and
other oversight
groups. Once certified, data trustees contribute data to the official database
and provide
government officials with animal traceback reports. Data trustees provide
tools to receive,
store and report data to the USDA for various purposes, including disease
surveillance and
health management purposes.
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the data service provider 700 includes elements of
software
and/or hardware. The relationships shown between the components in Fig. 7
indicate the
main flow of information; other relationships are not shown for the sake of
simplicity.
Depending on implementation, components can be added, omitted, split into
multiple
components, combined with other components, and/or replaced with like
components or
systems. Alternatively, a data trustee with different components and/or other
configurations
perform one or more of the techniques described herein.
Fig. 7 illustrates a block diagram of a data trustee 720. In some
implementations the
data trustee is data trustee 430 described in connection with Fig. 4. A data
trustee 720
receives official data 710 from a data service provider. The official data 710
is stored in the
official database 710 to ensure that the integrity, security, confidentiality,
liability, normal
commerce, performance and efficiency goals of the NAIS are met. The official
data is then
screened by a filter 725 to remove confidential information. Screened, non-
confidential
information is forwarded to the government database 740. Using data from the
government
database, health officials may request a traceback report on a given animal.
The data trustee
720 generates the traceback report 730 upon request. Preferably, the report is
returned within
a specified, agree-upon time period, such as within 48-hours of request or
less.
1. Official Data
A data service provider sends the data trustee 720 official data 710. Official
data 710
includes the data necessary to traceback an animal. For example, the official
data may
include an animal identifier, a premise identifier, group/lot identifiers, the
date and time an
animal was at a premise, etc. The official data 710 also may include other non-
official data.
In fact, in some implementations, the data forwarded by the data service
provider 700
34
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
includes all of the animal information collected by the data service provider.
The reasons for
doing this include centralizing animal data records and providing wider data
access to
industry members.
Alternatively, the government may impose requirements on what constitutes
official
data. For example, currently the government requires access upon request to
information
describing specific animal events such as when a tag is allocated, when a tag
is applied, when
an animal is moved-in to a premise, moved out of a premise, when a tag is
lost, when a tag is
replaced, when an animal is imported or exported, sightings of animals, when
an animal is
slaughtered or dies, when a tag is retired, when an animal is missing,
veterinarian inspections,
drug information, and other such data. Some of this data is confidential, some
of it is not.
Government and health officials are only granted access to the data after
making a
formal request to the official database. Alternatively, access is granted only
at the discretion
of the official database according to specific business and industry
guidelines. This protects
confidential information from being released to the public at large.
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
2. Official Database
After the data trustee 710 receives official data from a data service
provider, the
official data 710 is added to the official database 710 by the data trustee
720. Preferably, the
official database operates and is supported 24 hours per day, seven days a
week, and 365 days
per year.
The official database 710 is built from commercially available database
services and
includes the underlying data, hardware, and software application required to
manage, view,
access, add to, delete from, modify, etc., the database. An exemplary official
database 710 is
an SQL database with application software built to access the underlying data.
Within the
database are various tables and fields, such as animal identifier, premise
identifier, move-in
date, move-out date, etc., defined to receive and store information from a
data service
provider. Alternatively, a different database builder is used, e.g., an XML
database, an
Access database, a web-enabled database, or any other well-known database
management
system (DBMS). In other implementations, a custom database built from the
ground up is
used.
For ease of administration, the official database 710 may be spread over
multiple
computer systems. For example, a data trustee receives data for thousands of
animals every
day. Due to the volume of the information being collected, multiple instances
of the database
may be distributed across many different computer systems, perhaps at
different locations,
and perhaps even multiple computer networks, in order to handle the load. To
maintain
consistency throughout the instances of the database and to keep the
information current, the
databases typically are synchronized periodically.
In addition, to protect the integrity of the official database 710, data
trustee 700 uses
advanced and state-of the art security measures to protect the database's
underlying hardware,
software, and data. For example, during transmission to or from the data
trustee, the official
data 710 may be encrypted using strong encryption algorithms (e.g., those
algorithms
provided in the Data Encryption Standard (DES), the International Data
Encryption
Algorithm (IDEA), the RSA algorithm, and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)).
Alternatively, or in conjunction with the strong data encryption algorithms,
secure protocols
36
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
are used to transmit the official data 710 over a data network. For example,
the data may be
sent to a secure website, using the secure hypertext transfer protocol
(HTTPS). Pretty good
privacy (PGP) and secure sockets may also be used to protect the data during
transmission.
These and other security measures are designed to prevent non-authorized
parties from
reading or changing the official data 710.
Furthermore, once the data is stored in the official database other security
measures
may be used to protect the data. In some implementations, the data trustees
are required to
implement strict procedures, such as requiring data trustee employees to
display security
badges, performing background checks on key personnel, securing computers in
restricted-
access facilities, requiring users to log on using a registered IP address or
network-interface
car, and implementing strong authentication requirements for accessing data,
to control access
to the official database 710.
Moreover, additional security measures may be applied to the database 710.
Exemplary measures include encrypting the data within the database, adding
security policies
to the database that attach privileges and roles to people with access to
confidential
information, monitoring and logging a user's activities on the database to
detect misuse or
serve as an intrusion detection system, labeling certain types of data as
confidential and
creating strict rules for accessing the data, and auditing connections.
To provide redundancy and back-up in the event of disaster or failure, backup
copies
of the official database 710 may be located in at least two secure and private
locations. As a
matter of procedure, occasional system checks are run to verify the
consistency of the data in
the official database 710.
Other security measures, such as firewalls and other hardware and software
measures,
may be used to maintain the integrity of the system.
After the official data is secured, typically at least a portion of it is
screened, filtered,
and transmitted to the government database 740.
3. Filter
A filter 725 screens the official data 710 to ensure confidential information
is removed
from official data being forwarded to a government-accessible database 740. In
some
37
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
implementations, the data is filtered automatically. For example, as animal
information is
received from a data service provider, specific database rules are created to
automatically
forward designated fields of data, e.g., the animal identifier, to the
government database 740.
Alternatively, data trustee personnel filter the data manually, e.g. they
visually review data
records and remove confidential information. Or, they copy the non-
confidential information
into a new data record. Then the new data record is forwarded to the
government database
740. Preferably, a combination of both automatic and manual filtering is used.
For example, a filter is programmed into the official database that
automatically
removes all data except for the animal identifier. When a new record arrives,
the filter is
automatically applied. Then the filtered data record is sent to a separate
repository until it can
be reviewed manually to determine if there is any remaining confidential
information. This
process provides an additional security measure and allows the data to be
checked for
accuracy before being forwarded to the government database 740.
In some cases, there is no government database, only the data trustee's
official
database 720. Under these circumstances, the filter 725 may be applied after
receiving an
official request for information from a government official. In other words, a
government
official has to request even non-confidential information before it is
released to the
government. In this situation, the filter 725 is applied just before sending
the requested data.
Alternatively, the government official may be granted limited access to the
official database,
e.g., the rights of the government official would be limited to non-
confidential information
In some implementations, received data is checked for accuracy before being
filtered.
For example, the data trustee, before filtering the data 710, verifies the
accuracy of some of
the received data by checking a national premise identification repository to
see if a received
premise identifier is correct. Additionally, the data trustee may verify the
accuracy of any
received animal identifiers by checking an official database to see if the
received numbers are
valid. If invalid data is received, the data trustee likely will report the
error to a data service
provider or the animal producer, so that appropriate corrections are made.
Alternatively, the
identifier checks are performed after filtering.
The amount of data being filtered is based on predetermined government and
business
guidelines. In some implementations, all the animal information is filtered
except for the
38
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
animal identifier. The animal identifier is forwarded to the government
database 740 along
with the data record address that corresponds to the animal's information in
the official
database 710. Alternatively more or less data may be forwarded to the
government database.
This filter 740 allows the system to effectively address the concerns and the
requirements of industry and health officials, protecting producer interests
and enabling
animal traceback within a short period of time without impeding the normal
movement and
commerce of animals.
a. Technique for Filtering Data
Fig. 8 shows a technique 800 for screening official data in an AIF. A tool
such as the
data trustee 720 shown in Fig. 7 performs the technique 800. Alternatively,
another system,
component, group, tool, and/or application perform the technique 800.
A data trustee tool receives (810) data records from a data service provider.
The
received data records include official data that allows government officials
to traceback
animals. For example, the received data records include an animal identifier,
a premise
identifier, and other official data. Alternatively, the received data contains
both commercial
and official data.
Upon receipt of data records from a service provider, the data trustee tool
screens
(820) the data for confidential and/or non-official content. If any
confidential information is
found, the tool filters that data out before forwarding the data record. In
some
implementations, any data not specifically required by the USDA is filtered.
The filter
process is subject to modification based on government and industry
regulations.
After filtering confidential infonnation from the received data, the data
trustee tool
passes (830) the screened data to a government database. The government
database provides
government officials with access to information that allows the government to
begin tracing
an animal's location history. For example, an animal is diagnosed with a Mad
Cow disease.
Out of concern for public health and safety, a government official uses the
animal's identifier
to look up traceback data in the government database. The traceback data
stored in the
database allows the government to request a trace history report of the
diseased animal.
Using the reports, other animals that have been in sufficiently intimate
contact with the
39
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
diseased animal, such as being commingled with the diseased animal, are
investigated and
treated in an appropriate manner, such as by being quarantined.
Alternatively, various stages of the technique 800 are separately or in
various
combinations performed in conjunction with other stages.
4. Government Database
Referring back to Fig. 7, the data trustee 720 uses a filter 725 to remove
confidential
information from received official data. The filtered data is forwarded to a
government
database.
The government database 740, like the official database, is built from
commercially
available database services. Included within the term government database are
the underlying
data, hardware, and software application required to manage, view, access, add
to, delete
from, modify, etc., the database. An exemplary government database 720 is an
SQL database
with application software included to access the underlying data.
Alternatively, a different
database builder is used, e.g., an XML database, an Access database, a web-
enabled database,
or any other well-known database management system (DBMS). In other
implementations, a
custom database is developed. The application which accesses the government
database is
preferably web-based, although alternative interfaces may be used. Within the
database are
various tables and fields, such as animal identifier, data trustee data
record, etc., defined to
receive and store information received from the data trustee.
For ease of administration, the database 710 may be spread over multiple
computer
systems. For example, due to the volume of the information being forwarded
from a data
trustee, multiple instances of the database may be distributed across many
different computer
systems and perhaps even multiple computer networks in order to handle the
load. To
maintain consistency throughout the instances of the database and to keep the
information
current, the databases are synchronized periodically.
The government database 740 stores only animal identification information.
When a
health related investigation is initiated the database 740 receives additional
information. In
some implementations, for every animal record, the database stores an animal
identifier and a
data record address that points to a location in the official database 710
from which additional
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
animal information is retrieved. For this reason, the government database 740
may not
implement all of the security measures used to protect the official database
710, but could if
desired. However, to communicate with the official database 710, the
government database
740 makes use of some of the same security measures. For example, the
government database
may employ the tools necessary to decrypt encoded data transfers and data
packets from a
data trustee 720. Moreover, in some implementations, other security measures,
such as
adding security policies to the database, monitoring and logging user activity
on the database,
and auditing connections, are used to prevent non-authorized parties from
reading or changing
the official data 710.
To provide redundancy and a fail-safe in the event of a disaster or system
failure, the
government database 740 is backed up on a periodic basis. This may be done by
maintaining
duplicate instances of the database on separate computer systems. If one
system fails, the
secondary system begins operating. Moreover, storing a duplicate copy of the
database at an
off-site location, backing up the data using a back-up system such as a tape
drive, and other
similar mechanisms, all insure the consistency of the government database 740.
Occasional
system checks may be run to verify the consistency of the data in the
government database
740.
As with the official database 710, other security measures such as firewalls
and other
hardware and software measures may be used to maintain the integrity of the
system.
5. Traceback Reports
Data trustee 720 provides various reports 730 to producers, data service
providers, and
government officials. Similar to the reports generated by the data service
provider, some of
the reports confirm data has been received, recorded, meets NAIS standards,
etc. These
reports 730, like those 555 described in connection with Fig. 5, provide
information regarding
the status of an animal and also provide a chain of custody that shows where
an animal has
been. The data trustee 720 also provides animal traceback reports 730, which
unlike the
confirmation reports created by the data trustee, are generated in response to
a request from
government officials and show a complete animal history.
41
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
a. Confirmation Reports
The confirmation reports 730 are made in response to animal move events. The
confirmation reports disclose the factual information regarding the shipping
and receiving
premises without necessarily disclosing the premise identification numbers of
previous
premise locations. They allow data service providers and animal producers to
verify that data
has been accurately recorded and that data has been properly reconciled within
the database.
For example, an animal is moved from a ranch to a commercial feedlot. This
triggers
at least two events: an animal move-out event from the ranch and an animal
move-in event at
the commercial feedlot. The data service provider records these events and
forwards official
data such as the new premise identifier to the data trustee. Upon receipt of
the forwarded
information, in some implementations, the data trustee generates in real-time
a confirmation
report to the animal producer. In other implementations, the data trustee
reconciles the
received data against its own records and those records stored at the national
premise
identifier repository and the official database. If no errors are found, a
confirmation report is
sent to the data service provider and/or the animal producer. Similarly, when
an error is
found, the report notifies the data service provider andlor the animal
producer of the error.
In order to protect industry privacy interests, some premises receive a
lifetime premise
identifier. In the confirmation reports 730, this information is not
disclosed. On the
commerce reports the premise identifier is reported as "confirmed."
The number and type of reports generated by the data service provider varies
based on
government and industry regulation, animal producer and data service provider
wants and
needs, and other such factors.
b. Traceback Reports
Related to a confirmation report is a traceback report 730. Traceback reports
730
include a location history for a given animal. For example, whenever an animal
is moved,
that animal identifier, the new premise identifier, date, time, etc. are all
recorded in the
official database 710. In response to a request from a government official,
the official
database 710 provides data to the government to generate a report tracing an
animal's location
history.
42
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
In some implementations, generating the report involves searching in the
official
database for every location an animal has been and reporting the information
on that animal
alone. Alternatively, when government officials request data for an animal
traceback, the
official database provides the data to generate a comprehensive list of
animals that have at one
time or another commingled, or have been more intimately in contact, with the
"traced"
animal. This search involves determining every premise where an animal has
stayed. Then
the search continues by identifying every animal that has stayed at the same
premise. Such a
search likely would be computing resource intensive (and may end up listing
every cow in the
country). Thus, to narrow the search, the data trustee 720 adds additional
search terms to its
queries, such as the date an animal was at a premise, a GID, or other piece of
data. By
focusing the search, the data trustee can provide a reasonably accurate report
of all animals
that have commingled with the traced animal. Generally, this is done to
identify diseased
animals.
This type of investigation generally returns only a small percentage of the
national
herd. Thus, only a small percentage of animals need to be treated as deemed
appropriate.
Moreover, the privacy and security concerns of animal producers are protected.
Fig. 9 shows a report similar to what a traceback report 730 for a single
animal looks
like. As listed, an animal with an animal identifier of 840 123456789012 lives
at three
different premises during its lifetime. The animal is tagged at premise
AB12345. On March
15, 2005, the animal is sighted on the same premise. Later, the animal is
moved to a second
premise GHI90JK, where the animal stays for about 5 months. On December 20,
2005, the
animal is moved to a slaughter house where it waits to be slaughtered.
After a traceback report 730 is generated, if necessary, government and health
officials
develop a strategy 750 to keep diseased animals out of the stream of commerce.
For
example, animals may be quarantined, treated, or slaughtered as the need
arises.
Alternatively, the animals are dealt with in any other suitable manner.
c. Tracing Back Technique
Fig. 10 illustrates a technique 1000 for tracing an animal. Tracing back
generally
includes identifying an animal 1030 (usually a diseased one), requesting a
traceback report for
43
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
the animal 1030, identifying other potentially infected animals 1040, and
finally developing a
strategy 1050 to protect people from being infected by tainted meat and to
reduce the other
effects a diseased animal has on commerce. Tools, components, and systems such
as those
illustrated in Fig. 4 perform the technique 1100. Alternatively, another tool
and/or system
perform the technique 1000.
In a first stage, an animal is discovered to have an infectious disease such
as Mad Cow
disease (1010). To prevent spread of the disease, health officials attempt to
determine what
animals have commingled with the diseased animal. This can be done in one of
at least two
ways. First the health officials using the diseased animal's identifier look
up (1030) the data
record address for the diseased animal in the official database and submit
(1040) a formal
request for a traceback report on the diseased animal. The formal request may
be submitted
electronically, e.g. through a web page, through a link in a government
database application,
or by some other means.
An official database system then processes the request, searching through
relevant
records to find where the animal has been (1050). Confidential premise
identifiers, such as
the PIDs listed in conjunction with Fig. 2, identify more specifically premise
locations the
animal has stayed. An initial traceback search finds the premise identifiers
of locations where
the diseased animal has lived and commingled with other animals.
Subsequent recursive searches (1060) using additional search terms, such as
the time
and date of move-in, a group number, narrow the search scope and limit the
number of
animals that need to be quarantined. This process is repeated until a complete
list of animals
that have commingled with the diseased animal is generated. Then the health
officials can
take the necessary precautions and intervening steps to quarantine, treat, or
slaughter
potentially infected animals.
Alternatively, various stages of the technique (1000) are separately or in
various
combinations performed in conjunction with other stages.
44
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
IV. Technique for Implementing an AIF
Fig. 12 shows a technique 1100 for implementing a national animal
identification
system. The framework shown in Fig. 4 performs the technique 1200.
Alternatively, another
framework performs the technique 1100.
Systems such as those described in connection with the input data sources 510,
520 of
Fig. 5 transmit (I 110) animal information. In some implementations, the data
is transmitted
to data collection tools such as those described in connection with the data
service provider
500. The transmitted data is received (1120) by the data collection system and
stored in a
repository. The transmitted data includes animal information, such as an
animal identifier, a
premise identifier, and other data that is typically associated with
commercial animal data
collection services.
For example, an owner may have a small herd and each animal has been tagged
with
an identification device properly encoded with universal animal identifiers.
To prepare the
animals for processing, the owner moves his small herd to a commercial
feedlot, which acts as
a designated data service provider, so the animals will fatten up before sale.
The animals'
movements are tracked. When the animals are sent to the commercial feedlot,
the animal
identifier and other information encoded on the identification devices are
transmitted to a
service provider, which stores the information and reports to the owner that
the animals
arrived.
The data collector system then forwards all or part of the collected data to a
data
trustee system such as the data trustee 700 discussed in connection with Fig.
7.
The data trustee system confirms receipt of the information, stores the
forwarded
information, and removes and/or hides confidential portions of the information
(1130).
For example, in the scenario described above, the collected data from the
small animal
herd is forwarded to the data trustee system. The data trustee verifies the
owner's premise
identifier and the animals' identifiers. A report is sent to the owner either
confirming entry of
the data in the database or detailing errors found in the data. In either
case, the cattle owner
has the opportunity to reconcile the data against his own records and correct
any errors.
A portion of the screened data may be sent (1140) to a government-accessible
database system, such as the government database 730 described in connection
with Fig. 7.
CA 02660859 2009-04-03
For example, in the above scenario, the data trustee filters confidential
information
from the data it received and only forwards non-confidential information, such
as the animal
identifier, to the government-accessible database system.
Now suppose one of the cattle owner's animals is diagnosed with an infectious
disease, such as Mad Cow disease. Using the animal identifier as a starting
point, government
and health officials request a traceback report on the sick animal (1150). Per
the technique
(1000) described in connection with Fig. 10, a traceback history is generated
by the data
trustee system. The traceback history provides enough data for government and
health
officials to impose proper quarantines and other measures to protect the
health and well-being
of animals, as well as human beings. For example, the diagnosed cow is
slaughtered and
burned to avoid spreading the disease to other animals. Those animals that had
contact with
the diseased animal may be quarantined for a period of time to be treated and
to see if they
manifest any symptoms of the disease.
Many of the tools and techniques herein can be described in the general
context of
computer-executable instructions, such as those included in program modules,
being executed
in a computing environment on a target real or virtual processor. Generally,
program modules
include routines, programs, libraries, objects, classes, components, data
structures, etc. that
perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The
functionality of the
program modules may be combined or split between program modules as desired in
various
embodiments. Computer-executable instructions for program modules may be
executed
within a local or distributed computing environment.
For the sake of presentation, the detailed description uses terms like
"determine,"
"generate," "adjust," and "apply" to describe computer operations in a
computing
environment. These terms are high-level abstractions for operations performed
by a computer
and, in less the context indicates otherwise, should not be confused with acts
performed by a
human being. The actual computer operations corresponding to these terms vary
depending
on implementation.
In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of my
invention
may be applied, I claim as my invention all such embodiments as may come
within the scope
and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.
46
