Patents and agriculture - foot and mouth

Can the patent record offer farmers any hope for the future?
by Sally Wilkes, Derwent Information
April 2001

Science, it seems, has done nothing but point the finger at unsuspecting animals during the current Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) epidemic.

The laboratory plays the courtroom, whilst farmers can only wait for the verdict from the 'men in white coats'. The Institute of Animal Health (IAH) describes FMD as 'probably the most infectious disease in the world and the most important economically'. It also says that the disease 'causes much suffering, can impair food quality, ruin the farmer, threaten local and national economies and hinder international trade.' We are all aware of the heartbreaking images of animals being slaughtered in Britain; so how can future outbreaks be prevented?

Legislation such as banning pigswill will go some way towards helping; but since only about 1% of the pig population is currently fed in this way, it's not the sole solution.

Vaccination is a possibility, but current vaccines don't stop the spread of infection from vaccinated animals until after two years. The next generation of vaccines looks hopeful, but Britain is rightly keen to regain disease-free status, which vaccination would prevent.

And so we turn to technology. One possible measure, which seems to have escaped the attention of the media, is Electronic Animal Tagging or Electronic Identification (EID). Since 1996 every cow has a passport - a legacy of BSE. The merits of EID have been debated for many years, and were recently reassessed in light of BSE cases in the UK. A study was carried out in Scotland, where an EID system is planned to commence this year.

A survey of patent records in this area gives records dating back to 1985, showing a well-established technology with several major players in the field. 326 EID patents were filed out of the total of 799 animal identification patents.

There are currently three methods available for EID in livestock: Ear tags, subcutaneous implants, and capsule transmitters (bolus) placed in the stomach. The technology surrounding these methods isn't new, and ISO standards are established for its use.

A typical example is an electronic ear tag (US5768813, Allflex Ltd.), with a transponder containing a unique electronic number integrated into a plastic housing. The Button Tag, which contains the transponder, is approved by MAFF as a secondary tag for cattle (all cattle must have two tags), and have a visible identification number. The transponder can be read by a hand-held scanner from a distance, and events in the cattle's life e.g. birth, movements, and critically, health details can be recorded against the number. This data can then be downloaded onto a computer for official records. When an animal is sold, its data goes with it, allowing complete traceability. This tag is one of the devices involved in the EC Identification Electronique des Animaux (IDEA) project evaluating the feasibility of EID in livestock. The tags may also contain an electronic circuit for storing limited data.

A subcutaneous implant such as US5211129 (Destron IDI Inc./Hughes Aircraft Co.) is implanted by a vet using a syringe, and contains a transponder with its own power supply and microchip. Other similar devices include the Destron Fearing BioBond‚ implant, which has a porous polymer sheath with a Radio frequency ID transponder. This implant has undergone extensive trials to prove its lack of migration into other areas of the body, and is one of the devices involved in the EC IDEA project evaluating the feasibility of EID in livestock.

Ingestible capsules include WO9305648 (Kilroy/Stafford) and GB2165723 (Nixon), which is a glass capsule containing an electronic transmitter giving an ID number and temperature data in response to electromagnetic interrogation, which can give an indication of the animal's health.

The most significant recent advances in this area relate to ear tag security. Security seals can take fluid (EP1060660) and mechanical (EP1060662) forms (both Pragmatic Network Creations), which indicate tampering and render electronic data stored on the transponder void - thus an animal cannot be misrepresented.

A robotic vehicle (WO200070941, Lely Res Holding AG) published last year can identify animals based on their electronic tags, and monitor their health using an infared camera and radar system. The robot can tell if an animal has been lying down for longer than would be expected, and alert the farmer. Fast detection of diseases such as FMD is crucial, but it is difficult to monitor individual animals in large herds.

The main problem with this technology is the cost. Electronic ear tags cost £2.50 compared with £1.85 for a plastic tag, and scanners and PCs are also needed. Mass usage would bring the cost down, and a Scottish feasibility study showed that farmers would be keen to use the system if benefits outweighed the costs; the costs being spread between farmers, abattoirs and retailers. The cost of disease in farm animals is about 17% of turnover in the developed world (£1.7 billion in the UK, or £54 per second) (IAH), with sharp increases during epidemics, not counting knock-on effects to industries such as tourism.

Farmers face ever increasing mounds of paperwork, and EID provides the front end of a system which allows fast and easy tracking of animals, and accurate storage of data. With diseases as infectious as FMD and the deepening crisis in the UK farming industry, the cost seems a small price to pay. The technology involved in EID has already been well tested - the largest animal tag manufacturer Allflex already sells 400,000 electronic tags per year in the UK alone and four million in Australia. Fast uptake of the system could be crucial.