Having been in touch with the information centre, I have been asked to put the following comments on the forum.

1. Watching lambs pass through the reader at the mart I notice that the number of sheep in the ring frequently does not accord with the figure read by the electronic reader. Many batches over twenty seem usually to contain two or so tags which have not been read. I query, therefore, the efficacy of this whole project. If the purpose of the tagging process is to record the details of every animal which leaves a holding, the present system clearly does not work.

If its purpose is to record the numbers of animals leaving a holding, it also fails in that regard. The total number of individual animals that are in the lot are entered into the system by the Auction Market. It would appear to me that attaching electronic batch tags serves no meaningful purpose (identification of the flock number would serve the same purpose).

Moreover, I have also noticed in my holding register that there have been recent unsuccessful reads at the abattoir. There were only very few animals involved and they were tagged here on leaving before travelling only a couple of miles. Nevertheless they showed a read-rate of only 80%. I could see the tag numbers of those recorded and it would have been easy for me to update the register with the missing numbers if I knew them - and if they had been applied in sequence.
There is sound logic for the individual numbers of the individual sheep should be shown on the outside of the slaughter tag - as well as the flock number. Sequential tagging of slaughter lambs would then be easy.
If the purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate that it is impossible to achieve a 100% read-rate, then it appears to have achieved its purpose. I realise that you may not wish to proceed along this path, but if the government is serious about creating a reliable system to record tag numbers or flock numbers, it would be helpful for the farmer to know the batch numbers being applied. I have since noticed that the electronic numbers on my batch tags are shown on the stem to which the tags are attached (they do not show which is which, however, so one cannot follow a sequence). The holding registers – if you wish them accurately to record movements – could easily be updated to record the missing numbers if the tags had been applied as a batch in sequence. This would be particularly apposite if the farmer were ever to be held responsible for any failure to achieve a 100% read-rate. Since the electronic numbers for the batch tags are already being stamped by the manufacturers no extra costs would be involved.

2. I would also like to add my voice to those who query the application of red tags. They involve extra cost, confuse the record keeper and appear to serve no useful purpose. The fact that an animal once upon a time was born on another holding surely has no relevance; the farmer must know that it came from another holding or the existing flock number tags would be applied. Since we have to apply replacement tags to all those which are missing and must record all the numbers involved ie. the original tag number and its replacement, what purpose a red tag?