CA2660859A1 - Method and system for tracking and managing animal health and food quality - Google Patents

Abstract

Embodiments of a method and system are described for tracing, for example, an animal's location history. These embodiments collect information such as a universal identifier, which uniquely identifies an animal and premise identifiers, which indicate a location or locations occupied by an animal. This collected data is transmitted to a secure data trustee that protects and screens the data so that confidential information is not released publicly. For example, when a public health issue arises, such as mad cow disease, the data trustee generates a traceback report indicating which animals have commingled with the infected animal. Based on the traceback report, other sick or potentially sick animals can be treated, quarantined, or slaughtered. As another example, the disclosed embodiments of the method and system facilitate commercial transactions by providing trace information that validates, for example, the animal health and food quality.

Description

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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".

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.

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, 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.

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.

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 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.

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-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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Claims (2)

1. A system for tracking an animal, comprising:
a computer system at a measurement location remote from a feed pen, the computer system comprising one or more various computers, the computer system operable for storing characteristic information concerning an individual animal, including at least weight, and utilizing the characteristic information to project for the individual animal a limit or condition and an estimated time or date for the individual animal to achieve the projected limit or condition;
a physical identifier to transmit animal data, wherein at least a portion of the animal data comprises an animal identifier;
a data reader to read transmitted animal data from the physical identifier;
a GPS device for transmitting location data for an identified animal;
a data service provider to store received data from the data reader, wherein the data service provider adds to the animal data a premises identifier that corresponds to a location, wherein the data service provider correlates the animal data according to an animal identification value; and a data trustee to receive at least a portion of the animal data from the data service provider and to filter confidential information from received animal data, wherein the data trustee generates a trace report based on the received animal data and wherein the data trustee applies a filter to the received animal data to screen the confidential information.

2. A method for tracking animals, comprising:
receiving a group of animals;
entering information relating to the group of animals into a computer system;
directing animals from the group to a processing location and through a one-way chute which has gates for separating one animal at a time;

entering into the computer system an identification of each animal from a physical identifier for the animal enabling the computer system to identify each animal and distinguish it from every other animal in a group;

entering into the computer system data relating to individual animals and correlating the data with an identification of the individual animals in the computer system;
entering into the computer system location data for identified individual animals for a location or locations occupied by the identified individual animals;
correlating in the computer system the location data for each identified individual animal with its identification; and allowing a user to review a record for an identified animal that includes a location identifier for the a present location of the identified animal and that the identified animal occupied a previous location without disclosing a previous location identifier.