Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 2 June 2025

Executive summary

The current traceability regime for cattle, bison, and buffalo was established in the 1990s in response to disease outbreaks, including the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic. The regime includes official ID ear tags which uniquely identify each animal, cattle passports, on-farm records, and a central database, the cattle tracing system (CTS). This provides a high level of identification and traceability assurance but there is opportunity for improvement. CTS is not able to accommodate further development, and so we propose to introduce a new replacement for CTS, which would be part of a future multi-species platform.

With input from representatives of the cattle industry, we have been working on proposals to improve the accuracy of traceability data and the speed at which it becomes available. This will improve our ability to identify and tackle disease more quickly. We propose to make things easier for keepers by:

• simplifying regulation and deadlines

• reducing duplication of administration

• taking a more proportionate approach to enforcement

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has sought the public’s views on these proposals: a public consultation titled ‘Changes to bovine Identification, registration and movement in England’ was launched on the 21 September 2023. The consultation ran for 8 weeks and ended on the 15 November 2023. 

1,146 responses were received in total to this consultation, of which, 1,109 were received on Citizen Space, our online consultation tool. The remaining responses were received by email, of which 33 were from individuals and 4 from specific organisations. 

Overall, responses were more supportive of proposals than opposed. However, the level of support varied. The following provides a summary of the responses received on Citizen Space. Responses received by email are discussed in a separate section.

Views on the current system

The current cattle traceability system was described positively. The legal requirements and processes are well understood and considered effective by the majority of respondents: 

• 51% of responses describe the current system positively

• 27% of responses describe the current system as satisfactory

• 6% of responses describe the current system negatively

• the remaining 16% did not offer a clear response

Proposals with clear support

The introduction of a 3-step enforcement process. This would give keepers 2 chances to correct most minor issues identified by an official before the case is referred for consideration of prosecution. From the responses: 

• 73% supported the proposal 

• 2% opposed the proposal

• 25% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To make digital or online reporting the primary method for reporting births, movements, and deaths of cattle. From the responses:

• 70% supported the proposal

• 9% were opposed

• 21% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To allow late registration of calves at the cost of an administrative fee, dependent on the beast’s identity and traceability being assured. From the responses: 

• 69% supported the proposal

• 11% opposed the proposal

• 20% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To streamline and simplify regulations: 

• 63% supported the proposal

• 5% opposed the proposal

• 32% were neutral or gave no clear indication

Proposals with moderate support

To remove paper passports for cattle fitted with Bovine Electronic Identification (BeID): 

• 51% supported the proposal

• 21% opposed the proposal

• 28% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To introduce BeID for newborn calves: 

• 50% supported the proposal

• 6% were opposed

• 44% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To use a future database as the record of cattle on a holding would remove the legal requirement to keep a separate holding register. This database would replace the existing cattle tracing service (CTS). From the responses: 

• 49% supported the proposal 

• 14% opposed the proposal 

• 37% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To introduce whole-move reporting. This would require keepers to provide both holding of origin and destination when reporting movements. From the responses:

• 48% supported the proposal 

• 11% opposed the proposal

• 41% were neutral or gave no clear indication

On the use of a digital record on a future multi-species database. From the responses:

• 44% supported the proposal

• 14% opposed the proposal

• 42% were neutral or gave no clear indication

Proposals with least support

To give keepers the option to provide haulier details when reporting cattle movements. This would be voluntary and would require a record to be made of the haulier’s name and the registration number of the vehicle. From the responses: 

• 43% supported the proposal

• 20% opposed the proposal

• 37% were neutral or gave no clear indication

To give keepers the option to report cattle movements in advance if they want to do so, with the report confirmed, amended, or cancelled when the physical movement takes place. From the responses:

• 38% supported the proposal

• 31% opposed the proposal

• 31% were neutral or gave no clear indication

Key themes and issues raised

In addition to indicating their level of support for each proposal, the consultation gave those who responded the opportunity to tell us other relevant thoughts, ideas, and concerns. At some point during their consultation response:

• 57% of respondents told us they were concerned about the costs involved in the proposals, often highlighting that finances are already tight

• 31% of respondents told us they were concerned about poor or unreliable internet coverage affecting people’s ability to engage with digital systems or gain benefits from the proposals

• 30% of respondents told us they were concerned about the reliability of IT and equipment – for example, the future database, bovine electronic ID tags, ID readers, computers, and such like

• 25% of respondents told us they were concerned about ear tag retention rates

• 21% of respondents told us they were concerned about the impact on keepers with limited IT skills or who did not know how to use a computer

• 18% of respondents told us that communication, support, and training will be important when changes are introduced

• 15% of respondents mentioned government subsidies or funding for keepers to obtain equipment, such as bovine electronic ID readers

• 10% of respondents told us there should be a slow transition or that proposals should be proven effective before existing records and process are phased out

• 8% of respondents told us the new system needs to have an app for use on mobile devices

Views via email and from specific organisations

33 separate email responses have been received most of which were short in nature. These email responses echoed many of the concerns and thoughts raised by respondents on Citizen Space. Of these 33 email responses, there were individual responses from 4 organisations. We look forward to continuing to work with these industry organisations on cattle ID and traceability going forward.

Introduction

The cattle industry in England is diverse and complex. There are around 200 breeds and cross-breeds of cattle, making up a cattle population in England of nearly 5.1 million (Livestock populations in England at 1 June 2024). Each beast must be correctly identified and individually traceable throughout its life. Markets and abattoirs across the country process thousands of cattle every day. Herds range from a few head of cattle to over a thousand. Cattle may be kept for dairy or beef production, a combination of both, or kept for non-commercial purposes. 

We recognise the importance in carefully considering the views of people whose livelihoods are linked to, or who otherwise have an interest in, cattle. We know that the cattle traceability regime must work for everyone. 

The consultation was conducted predominantly using Citizen Space, our online consultation tool, where all the consultation documents could be accessed. 

To give people the opportunity to tell us anything they felt relevant, the consultation asked open questions wherever possible so that respondents had the freedom and space to answer in as much detail as they chose. 

Our aim was to understand the complexity of people’s views on the proposed changes. This would offer valuable insight that will inform policy development and implementation planning. All responses were read and analysed by policy professionals who work on livestock identification and traceability.

Stakeholder engagement

After conversations, workshops, and joint working over an extended period with representatives of the cattle industry, Defra held a series of stakeholder workshops in August and September 2023. Attendees of these workshops included representatives of:

• beef, dairy, and rare breed cattle keepers

• abattoirs and meat processing

• livestock markets

• agricultural shows

• local authorities 

The consultation was publicised to media organisations and on social media. A banner was also placed on the front screen of CTS online to highlight the consultation. Direct correspondence was sent to numerous cattle industry trade associations and organisations immediately prior to the launch of the consultation, including:

• cattle pedigree societies

• show associations

• livestock markets

• ear tag manufacturers

• other trade associations

How we analysed responses

The consultation included both open and closed questions. Closed questions were used to gather information about respondents and their holdings, businesses, or organisations. Open questions were used to give respondents opportunity to tell us any thoughts they had on the remaining questions. All responses have been read and analysed by policy officials who work in the livestock identification and traceability area. The figures reported in this document represent the number of responses that offered a particular view or raised a specific issue. We have also reported on instances where a respondent did not express clear support or opposition in response to a question.

The analysis presented in the ‘summary of responses’ is based on the formal responses to the consultation which we received through Citizen Space and by email. There were no responses received by post. We counted all responses received within the consultation deadline in the response rates and we included their views in the analysis.

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond and share their experience, views, and suggestions. 

Summary of responses

We received a total of 1,146 responses. Of these:

• 1,109 were submitted online via the survey on Citizen Space

• 33 were submitted by email

• 4 responses were received from specific organisations out with Citizen Space

• no responses were received by post

Many responses that were submitted by email did not answer the individual questions from the consultation. Instead, respondents described their opinions, ideas, and concerns in whatever form they felt most appropriate. For this reason, we have considered and responded to these separately.

All percentages given have been rounded to the nearest whole number unless less than one percent. Please note that this may impact on aggregate totals in the graphs below.

Responses on Citizen Space

Data gathered about respondents and their business, holding, or organisation

Before responding to the proposals outlined in the consultation, we asked people to provide some information about themselves and their business or holding. This helps us understand the views from various parts of industry.

Questions 1 to 3: Confidentiality preference, name, and organisation

Question 1 asked whether the respondent would like their response to be confidential.

Question 2 asked the respondent’s name.

Question 3 asked what the respondent’s organisation is.

Question 4: Which of the following best describes you, your holding, or your organisation?

Type :	No. of responses:	Responses as a %:
Beef suckler herd	524	47.2%
Beef rearer or finisher	227	20.5%
Dairy herd	183	16.5%
Mixed herd	63	5.7%
Non-commercial herd	41	3.7%
Other	33	3.0%
Market	12	1.1%
Abattoir	8	0.7%
Ear tag supplier	5	0.5%
Fallen stock	0	0.0%
Trade association	1	0.1%
Commercial haulier	0	0.0%
Not answered	12	1.1%

Of those who gave their response via Citizen Space: 

• 47% of respondents identified as beef suckler herd operators

• 0% as beef rearers or finishers

• 17% as dairy herd operators

• 6% operate a mixed herd of both dairy and beef cattle

• 4% keep cattle non-commercially

There were also: 

• 12 responses from operators of livestock markets

• 8 responses from abattoirs

• 5 responses from ear tag manufacturers

33 responses identified themselves as being from other types of businesses or organisations. These included: 

• individuals and organisations such as Local Authority Trading Standards departments

• livestock shows

• breed and cattle societies

• a school

• an urban farm

• an agricultural association

• a hobby smallholding

• an agent

• vets

• a commoner’s council 

Responses from the following organisations were received on Citizen Space and labelled as ‘other’: 

• National Animal Health and Welfare Panel

• Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board

• Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations

• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

• Rare Breeds Survival Trust

• Badger Trust 

Question 5: Keepers:  How many cattle do you usually have on your holding at any given time?

Cattle numbers :	No. of responses :	Responses as a %
0	25	2%
1 to 20	169	15%
21 to 100	334	30%
101 to 300	335	30%
301 to 500	112	10%
501 to 1000	70	6%
over 1000	39	4%
Did not answer	25	2%

Question 6: Markets, abattoirs, hauliers, collection centres, and fallen stock operators: What is your throughput in a month?

436 responses to this question were received, of which 409 reported throughputs of cattle. Given that no hauliers, collection centres, and fallen stock operators identified themselves as such, and only 12 markets and 8 abattoirs responded to the consultation, it would appear some respondents may have misread the question.

For the 12 market operators, the average cattle throughput per month ranged from 500 to 10,000 beasts. For the 8 abattoir operators, the average cattle throughput per month ranged from 24 beasts to 14,000 beasts. These figures suggest that the consultation received responses from a relatively wide cross section of the livestock market and abattoir sectors.

Question 7: What other livestock species are you involved with?

Species type	No. of responses	Responses as a %
sheep	535	48%
pigs	112	10%
goats	50	5%
equine	59	5%
poultry	115	10%
other	14	1%
none	496	45%

This question asked respondents to select any appropriate options, with the option to select 2 or more.

Other species included alpacas and llamas, deer and game, fish, bees, cats, and dogs. 14% of respondents keep 3 or more different types of animals. Respondents from show organisations also mentioned pigeons, rabbits, exotics, and performing camels. 

Question 8: How would you describe your internet connectivity around your holding/place of business?

Internet connectivity	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Reliable across the site	245	22%
Reliable in the office or farmhouse	573	52%
Unreliable coverage across the site	347	31%
Unreliable in the office or farmhouse	109	10%
No coverage across site	35	3%

This question asked respondents to select any appropriate options, with the option to select 2 or more.

Question 9: How do you report most cattle movements on and off your holding to the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS)?

How do you report moves?	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Digitally or online	1019	92%
Telephone	51	5%
Post	3	0.3%
Not applicable	25	2%
Not answered	11	1%

Question 10: What do you think about the current system for identifying cattle, including how you record and report births, movements, and deaths?

Comment	Thoughts on the current system	Responses as a %
Good	513	46%
OK	268	24%
Bad	61	6%
No clear view	267	24%

Responses were classified into one of 4 categories depending on which best represented the overall view expressed: good, satisfactory, bad or no clear view.

There were some key positive themes identified from responses to this question:

• 12% of respondents told us the current system is easy to use
• 7% of respondents told us that the current system works
• 3% of respondents highlighted how helpful BCMS staff are when there are problems
• 8% of respondents told us they manage recording and reporting with farm management software

There were several negative themes identified from responses to this question:

• 12% of respondents told us that there are aspects of the current system that are overly time consuming or inconvenient
• 8% of respondents told us there is too much paperwork
• 5% of respondents referred to double handling of information, especially when reporting and recording changes

In addition:

• 8% of respondents told us the system needs updating
• 3% of respondents suggested that electronic identification would be an improvement
• 2% of respondents said that there needs to be an app
• 3% of respondents mentioned that reporting deadlines are tight
• 3% of respondents told us that cattle losing their ear tags remains a common problem
• 4% of respondents told us that poor internet connectivity impacts their ability to access online services

Responses to proposals

Questions 11 to 23 asked respondents for their views on the proposals outlined in the consultation document. For each question we identified how many respondents were generally supportive of the proposal, how many were opposed, and how many were unsure or had no clear overall opinion. We also identified other key thoughts and ideas that respondents told us about. 

Question 11: What do you think about proposals to streamline and simplify regulations and deadlines?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	702	63%
Opposed	69	6%
Neutral	86	8%
No clear view	253	23%

Numerous other issues were identified from responses to this question. The most common of these being concerns about costs, which was mentioned by 16% of respondents. Many of these concerns related to the costs of bovine electronic identification (BeID), reading equipment, and other items, rather than to costs associated with proposed changes to the cattle regulations.

In addition:

• 7% of respondents told us about poor internet coverage on farms
• 6% stated that IT skills are limited within the farming community
• 2% told us they are concerned the new system will be more complicated
• 4% told us that clear communication, support, or training will be important to help people adapt to proposed changes
• 6% of respondents highlighted that new technology for cattle identification and traceability must be reliable
• 5% expressed concerns about the potential impact on business processes if the technology, hardware, or digital service fails
• 3% were concerned about how often cattle lose or damage ear tags
• 6% of respondents told us the current system works
• 4% told us that the proposal to streamline regulations and deadlines is fairer or more flexible

Question 12: What do you think about proposals that will offer keepers two opportunities to correct most issues that have been identified before further enforcement is considered?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	810	73%
Neutral	83	7%
Opposed	31	3%
No clear view	185	17%

In answer to this question, 10% of respondents added that the proposed 3-step process shows an understanding that most keepers try to do everything correctly but are busy and will occasionally make genuine mistakes. Additionally: 

• 6% of respondents told us communication, support, or training will be important

• 1% told us that the proposals need clarification

• 2% told us that the proposals will require realistic deadlines to be effective

Question 13: What are your views on introducing bovine EID for new-born calves?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	558	50%
Neutral	74	7%
Opposed	72	6%
No clear view	405	37%

50% of respondents supported the introduction of BeID for newborn calves. 6% were opposed. 7% had neutral or balanced views and 36% did not express a clear view.

In answering this question: 

• 32% of respondents expressed concerns about the potential costs related to BeID, for example increased cost of ear tags, obtaining electronic tag readers, and the like

• 15% told us they were concerned about tag retention rates

• 6% suggested the government should help with these costs through subsidies, grants, or provision of equipment

• 5% of respondents told us BeID tags must display official identification numbers as clearly as they do now

• 4% of respondents told us they already use eID management tags or are ready to introduce BeID immediately

• 4% told us they would require plenty of notice before being ready to adopt BeID

• 3% told us they had concerns about the reliability of BeID technology

• 3% of respondents mentioned unused visual only non-eID tags that have already been purchased, or asked what would be done with them

• 3% stated that this should not be done, and older cattle should live out their lives with current visual only ear tags

• 2% told us official BeID must be compatible with electronic tag technology already in use

• 2% mentioned poor internet coverage across many farms

• 2% of respondents expressed concerns for animal welfare related to BeID

• 2% of respondents stated that they would see no benefit from the introduction of electronic tags.

• 1% told us the whole national herd should be re-tagged with BeID

Issues raised by fewer respondents included suggestions that there should remain options for those who do not use computers and that there needs to be an app. Other issues included the suggestion that BeID should be combined with tissue sampling tags, and dissatisfaction with the existing LIS-sheep system.

Question 14: How long will you need to prepare for the introduction of bovine eID for new-born calves?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Already in use	43	4%
Right away	63	6%
1 month	86	8%
3 months	59	5%
6 months	111	10%
1 year	157	14%
18 months	18	2%
over 2 years	61	6%
As long as possible	24	2%
Unknown	60	5%
Depends on various factors	129	12%
Use up tags already purchased	112	10%
Depends on tag or equipment availability	95	9%
Depends on calving season(s)	43	4%
Not applicable	158	14%

Respondents’ required preparation time varied a great deal. Some gave an estimated time while others explained that it would depend on relevant conditions, whilst others said both. The most common relevant conditions were the availability of tags and equipment, implementation date in relation to calving period, and the wish to use up current visual only ear tags that had already been purchased. In addition: 

• 10% of respondents told us they would want to use up current visual only ear tags they had already purchased, with several explaining that they buy these in bulk to save on costs

• 9% told us that their preparation will, at least in part, depend on the availability of BeID tags and other necessary equipment

• 4% told us that the required preparation time might vary depending on where the implementation date lies relative to calving on their holding

• 12% of keepers explained that preparation is dependent on multiple factors

• 2% stated they would not use BeID

• 3% expressed concern about the costs associated with BeID

• 2% told us that effective communication, support and training would be required

Question 15: Is there anything else you want us to be aware of when planning the transition to bovine EID?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Concern about costs	280	25%
Subsidy, incentive and provision	109	10%
Communication, support and training	114	10%
Concern about tag retention	87	8%
Concern about IT reliability	74	7%
Poor internet	63	6%
Concern about software integration	47	4%
Limited IT skills	35	3%
Transition slowly to prove effectiveness first	33	3%
Compatibility	23	2%
Concern about availability of BeID kit	22	2%
Considerations for retro tagging	22	2%
There should be no retro tagging	21	2%
There should be no BeID	21	2%
Use same tech as sheep	20	2%
Concern about fraud or data security	16	1%
Needs an app	15	1%
Include tissue tags	10	1%
National herd should be retro tagged	9	1%
Thoughts on using or exchanging conventional tags	9	1%
A waste of public money	8	1%

Issues raised by fewer than 1% of respondents included concerns about fraud and data security, the need for an app for mobile devices to access the system, and the suggestion that BeID tags should also be available as tissue sample tags.

Question 16: What are your views on using the new database as your record of cattle on your holding?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	543	49%
Opposed	155	14%
Neutral	102	9%
No clear view	309	28%

In addition:

• 17% of respondents told us they would continue to maintain separate, on farm records even after the digital record comes into effect

• 11% expressed concerns about the reliability of the new IT

• 7% mentioned poor internet connectivity

• 6% stated that their holding register includes additional, non-statutory data that is used in farm management. Many of these asked whether the new system would accommodate this

• 5% were concerned about fraud or data security

• 9% of respondents told us that the digital record must link to third-party farm management software to facilitate record keeping

• 9% highlighted that the new digital record must be accessible and easy to use

• 4% mentioned the limited IT skills of some in the farming industry

• 6% of respondents told us that this would reduce the amount of administrative work required of them

• 2% said they were concerned about the accuracy of data held on the digital record and 2% said that they must be able to amend the data as appropriate

• 2% told us they want to be able to print records from the digital record

• 2% stated that the digital record should be phased in slowly or evaluated to prove its effectiveness before implementation is completed

Issues raised by fewer respondents included:

• concerns about costs

• the need for an app for mobile devices to access the system

• the importance of communication, support, and training when the new system is launched

Question 17: What are your views on removing cattle passports for beasts fitted with BeID?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	567	51%
Opposed	230	21%
Neutral	87	8%
No clear view	225	20%

In addition:

• 11% of respondents expressed concerns about the reliability of new IT and technology

• 4% mentioned poor internet connectivity and 3% mentioned limited IT skills among some of the farming community

• 7% of respondents told us they would like to print cattle records

• 6% told us that paper passports are used in a variety of business processes and 3% said they viewed them as useful as proof of ownership

• 6% of respondents expressed concern about ear tag retention

• 2% were concerned about costs

• 4% of respondents told us the removal of paper passports would reduce the administrative work required

• 1% said paper passports should be removed entirely and 3% told us that paper passports should be kept during any BeID transition period

• 2% said having some cattle with passports and some without would be problematic for business processes

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents include the fact that some cattle live for a long time, and that removal of physical passports is an effective way to control movements of cattle when necessary. The need for an app for mobile devices to access the system was mentioned, as was the importance of clear communication, support, and training.

Question 18: What are your views on using a digital record on the multi-species database?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	486	44%
Opposed	153	14%
Neutral	135	12%
No clear view	335	30%

In addition:

• 9% of respondents told us the database must be easy to use

• 2% mentioned the limited IT skills among some of the farming community

• 2% highlighted the importance of clear communication, support, and training on the new database

• 8% of respondents expressed concern about the reliability of the new IT system

• 4% mentioned poor internet connectivity

• 2% told us there should be an option to print records from the new database

• 5% of respondents told us databases for different species should be kept separate

• 3% told us the system must work for all species, considering the different requirements involved

• 2% expressed dissatisfaction with the sheep database

• 2% of respondents told us that multi-species database should be phased in slowly or evaluated to prove its effectiveness before implementation is completed

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents include concerns about fraud and data security, data accuracy on the database, and a need to accommodate additional, non-statutory data. The need for compatibility with third party farm management software was mentioned, as was the opinion that the existing paper-based system is already effective. Other issues mentioned were the impact of change on the mental health of keepers, and concern about costs.

Question 19: What are your views on whole movement reporting for cattle?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	534	48%
No clear view	355	32%
Opposed	123	11%
Neutral	97	9%

48% of respondents supported the proposed introduction of whole movement reporting. 11% were opposed. 9% had neutral or balanced views and 32% did not express a clear view.

In addition:

• 10% told us that they will often not know the destination details for cattle moving off their holding or expressed concerns they might select the wrong holding

• 8% were concerned about how multi-step moves, and moves via markets, sales, and shows might be reported

• 2% expressed concerns that there could be issues for the receiving keeper, for example if they delay reporting or refuse delivery

• 2% expressed concerns that there could be issues for the sending keeper, for example reporting the wrong destination

• 5% were concerned about how errors and disputes might be resolved

• 2% said the current method of one keeper reporting the ‘off’ movement, and one keeper reporting the ‘on’ movement should be maintained

• 7% of respondents were concerned that this would involve additional work for keepers when moving cattle was already very time consuming

• 3% said reporting must be quick and easy to do

• 2% said reporting deadlines should be flexible

• 3% of respondents mentioned poor internet coverage on many farms

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents include concerns about the reliability of BeID reading equipment and the potential for abuse of this system by a minority of keepers.

Some respondents told us the proposal was overly complicated while others said it would improve traceability data. Some respondents told us integration with farm management software is required and others said they would continue to keep paper records.

Question 20: What are your views on voluntary pre-notification of movements?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	428	39%
Opposed	341	31%
Neutral	88	8%
No clear view	252	23%

In addition:

• 18% of respondents highlighted the fact that movement details frequently change, often at the last minute

• 10% said movement reports must be amendable to allow for changes or cancellations

• 9% expressed concerns that pre-movement reporting would increase the likelihood of inaccuracy in movement reports

• 6% told us that pre-movement reporting would be double handling of administrative work and result in extra work

• 4% said it was overly complicated

• 5% of respondents told us they were concerned it would be introduced on a voluntary basis but made compulsory later

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents include concerns about how death or illness of cattle in transit would be managed, and how pre-movement reporting would work for markets, sales, and shows. 

Question 21: What are your views on providing a haulier name and the registration number of the vehicle cattle were transported in?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	473	43%
No clear view	350	32%
Opposed	220	20%
Neutral	66	6%

In addition:

• 12% of respondents told us that this would be extra work to be completed at an already very busy time

• 4% told us the proposal assumes the sending keeper will be present when the cattle are collected, which they often are not

• 6% of respondents told us haulier details are already included in unofficial paper records and 1% said the function is available on some third-party farm management software

• 3% told us this would bring cattle movement reporting in line with sheep

• 2% told us they will know the name of the haulier but not the registration number of the vehicle or trailer

• 3% explained that this proposal would not affect them as they transport their cattle in their own vehicles

• 3% told us the inclusion of haulier details must be voluntary, with some being concerned that it might become compulsory at a later date

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents included there being no incentive to report haulier details and the fact that transportation details can change, often at the last minute. Some suggested reporting the haulier’s name only. Some suggested that a haulier register would help.

Question 22: What are your views on making digital reporting the primary method for reporting births, movements, and deaths of cattle?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	769	69%
No clear view	181	16%
Opposed	101	9%
Neutral	58	5%

In addition: 

• 15% of respondents confirmed they already do all their reporting digitally

• 3% told us that the new database must be easy to use

• 2% highlighted the importance of compatibility with third-party farm management software

• 14% told us about poor internet connectivity on many farms

• 9% mentioned limited IT skills of many in the farming community

• 3% highlighted the importance of clear communication, support, and training

• 10% of respondents told us that alternatives to digital reporting should continue to be supported

• 4% expressed concerns about the reliability of a new IT service

• 3% said they would continue to maintain paper records as a backup

• 2% of respondents told us the new system should be phased in slowly or evaluated to prove its effectiveness before implementation is completed

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents included the need for an app for mobile devices and dissatisfaction with the new sheep database. There was also concern about costs and mention of how these changes might impact on the mental health of farmers. 

Question 23: What are your views on allowing a keeper who has failed to register a calf within deadlines to register it late provided its identity and traceability are assured, subject to an administrative fee?

Comment	No. of responses	Responses as a %
Supportive	764	69%
No clear view	150	14%
Opposed	117	11%
Neutral	78	7%

In addition: 

• 19% of respondents said that the proposal was fairer and took genuine mistakes and mitigating circumstances into account

• 5% told us it would prevent perfectly healthy animals from being wasted by not allowing them to enter the food chain

• 2% said the proposal would reduce fraud and improve the accuracy of birth reporting

• 2% said the deadline should simply be extended, without an administrative fee

• 10% of respondents told us that the existing process already provides enough time to report births

• 7% said that robust checks would be needed

• 6% said that the proposed process would be open to abuse

• 3% suggested that too many late reports of births should function as a prompt for inspection or further sanctions

• 9% expressed concern over the costs involved in late reporting, with some suggesting that too high a fee would encourage dishonest practices

• however, 5% stated the administrative fee must function as a deterrent

Issues raised by smaller numbers of respondents included queries about what sort of evidence and checks would be required and stating that there should be a time limit for late registration. The impact of changes on the mental health of farmers was also mentioned by a small number of respondents.

Responses received via email

33 separate email responses have been received most of which were short in nature. 

• 14 respondents were opposed to the proposed changes

• 4 respondents were broadly supportive

• 13 respondents like the current system and do not want it to change

• 2 respondents said the current system was hard to use and wanted to see it simplified

• 1 respondent liked the current system but was neutral about change

• 3 respondents expressed concern for older farmers and those with limited IT skills 3 other respondents were concerned about poor internet coverage on farms

• 3 respondents raised concerns that the proposed changes would increase costs for farmers

• 3 respondents said that the consultation was either too long or not clear enough

• 2 respondents proposed alternative systems - one respondent wanted to see cattle traceability based on the pig reporting system and one respondent wanted ScotEID, which provides the traceability service for Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government, extended to all UK nations to ensure compatibility

• 2 respondents wanted to see tagging deadlines extended, and one of these specifically favouring a one-month deadline

The following themes were each mentioned in a single response:

• the new system should link with farm management software

• the new system should record TB and vaccination information

• concern about ear tag retention

• opposition to pre-notification of movements because movement details can change

• paper passports should be discontinued

• there should be an app for mobile devices to access movement reporting

Responses received via email from specific organisations

Four organisations chose to respond to the consultation by email rather than by completing the online questionnaire on Citizen Space. These organisations were the: 

• Approved Livestock Manufacturers’ Association (ALIDMA)

• National Beef Association (NBA)

• National Farmers’ Union (NFU)

• National Farmers’ Union of Scotland (NFUS)

All 4 organisations provided detailed responses and can be summarised as follows: 

All 4 organisations would welcome the introduction of bovine electronic identification for newborn calves. There was variance of view both in relation to ‘retro’ tagging the existing herd if BeID is introduced for newborn calves, and the type of technology to be used for BeID, with the NFU and its equivalent in Scotland wanting to see ultra-high frequency (UHF) electronic tags adopted, while ALIDMA suggested low frequency (LF), as this technology is used across Europe and conforms to globally recognised standards. 

All 4 organisations supported the introduction of a new, modern traceability database and the movement towards a digitally focussed service. Removal of paper passports and holding registers was supported, although the option to print cattle records was suggested. Proposals to streamline and simplify legislation and reporting deadlines, and the proposal about late registration of calves, were agreed in principle; the NBA and the NFU are keen that any changes should not jeopardise trade relationships, especially with the European Union. Whole movement reporting and pre-movement reporting were deemed acceptable, as was the inclusion of haulier details in movement reports but this should remain voluntary.

We will continue to consider the responses from these industry organisations in detail and look forward to continuing to work with them and other stakeholders on cattle identification and traceability going forward.

Overall summary of responses

Among those who responded to the consultation there was more support for the proposals than opposition.

There was clear support for the proposed simplification of regulations and reporting deadlines, as well as the proposals about a 3-step enforcement process, and more proportionality in relation to late registration of calves as long as the animal’s identity is assured. The proposal to make digital reporting the primary method for reporting births, movements and deaths also had strong support. Few respondents were strongly opposed to these proposals, although there were significant minorities who were uncertain. 

There was support for the proposed introduction of bovine electronic identification (BeID) for newborn calves, with very few respondents being strongly opposed. Proposals that might see paper passports and holding registers replaced by digital records held on a new central database (replacement of CTS) also saw significantly more support than opposition. However, there was a higher proportion of respondents who opposed these proposals and significant numbers who did not express a strong preference. 

There was also support for the introduction of whole move reporting, which would require keepers to provide holding of origin and destination in movement reports. The 2 proposals with least support related to the voluntary inclusion of haulier details when reporting movements, and an option to report movements in advance, also on a voluntary basis.

Cross cutting themes

In addition to indicating their level of support for each proposal, the consultation gave those who responded the opportunity to tell us other relevant thoughts, ideas, and concerns.

At some point during their consultation response 57% of responses told us they were concerned about the costs involved in the proposals, often highlighting that finances were already tight. The majority of these concerns relate to BeID ear tags being more expensive than existing tags or to the cost of obtaining BeID reading equipment. Concern over costs for keepers and industry was a key concern for respondents. 

For example, in relation to BeID, one respondent stated:

‘Probably not viable for very small herds to invest in tag reading equipment. The government should offer reduced price equipment to encourage uptake of the new technology.’

Whilst another respondent stated:

‘While I understand this would increase efficiency and sounds positive on the face of it…my only concerns would be whether there would be much higher costs related to this new form of ear tagging? Extra cost that smaller/medium cattle enterprises such as ourselves may not be comfortable with.’

31% of responses told us they were concerned about poor or unreliable internet coverage affecting people’s ability to engage with digital systems or gain benefits from the proposals. 

For example, one respondent stated:

‘…rural internet connectivity is very poor, and infrastructure needs to be in place which will cost the farmer more which is not an attractive option. Rural internet connectivity needs to improve significantly.’

30% of responses told us they were concerned about the reliability of IT and equipment. 

For example, one respondent stated:

‘In theory this is great, but if everything is stored electronically and the worst happens i.e. power cuts, equipment faults, data hacking and lost tags, then how can one proceed?’

21% of responses told us they were concerned about the impact on keepers with limited IT skills or who did not know how to use a computer. This is another key concern of respondents. 

25% of respondents told us they were concerned about ear tag retention rates. Ear tag retention is another key concern for respondents. This causes additional cost to cattle keepers as any missing official ID ear tags must be replaced to ensure the identity and traceability of the beast concerned. 

18% of responses told us that clear communication, support, and training will be important when changes are introduced. This is closely linked to concerns for keepers with more limited IT skills and to the reliability of IT and equipment. 

15% of responses mentioned the government subsidising or funding keepers to obtain equipment, such as bovine electronic ID readers. 

10% of responses told us there should be a slow transition or that proposals should be proven effective before existing records and process are phased out.

8% of responses told us the new system needs to have an app for use on mobile devices. 

Government response

We are grateful to everyone who gave their time to respond to this consultation. The insight we have gained is extremely valuable, and along with continued engagement with stakeholders, has helped inform decision making on how to proceed. 

We listened to concerns in your consultation feedback about internet connectivity. We recognise that the cattle traceability system must be able to work for all cattle keepers, including at places where internet connectivity is poor. 

We listened to concerns about the reliability of technology. The new database being built to replace the cattle tracing system (CTS) will be rigorously checked to ensure that it performs to a standard required by government for traceability and provides a reliable service to cattle keepers. The customer enquiries service currently provided by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) will continue. 

Reliability of BeID can be maximised by using ear tags and reading equipment that have been built to globally recognised standards. This maximises the read rates of ear tags and readers and ensures technology made by different manufacturers will work together. Third party on-farm software continues to evolve and improve. 

Cattle must always be identified and traced on an individual basis, whether through scanning or where a keeper does not have an electronic ID reader, then through reading ear tags by eye. BeID ear tags will be subject to the equivalent construction standards as visual only official ID ear tags are now. The BCMS routinely monitor official ID ear tag retention performance. If keepers are experiencing poor ear tag retention, then concerns about a specific ear tag can be reported directly to the Rural Payments Agency - Give feedback on ear tags. 

Record keeping and administration in all areas of business has become increasingly digitised over the past 25 years. Some have adapted to this change more quickly than others and we recognise that people will have concerns about these changes. Digitising cattle traceability will mean that when a disease outbreak takes place, more accurate traceability data will be available more quickly. This, in turn, will allow actions to be identified and taken more quickly to stem a disease outbreak. 

We recognise that clear communication, guidance, and training will be extremely important to make sure everyone understands what may be required should any changes take place. We recognise that there will be those who require additional support and alternatives to digital processes. 

As we explained in the consultation document, our ambition is to achieve a world-leading livestock information service that will allow disease to be identified and controlled more effectively and help safeguard national public health and food safety. This will also strengthen the UK position in international markets. Our proposals were designed to achieve this by introducing new technology, a modern database, and changes to legislation that will reduce the administrative burden on keepers. We also want to make changes to inspections and late registration of calves, so that processes are more supportive and more proportionate. 

We welcome the broad support received for all proposals outlined in the consultation. We recognise concerns raised about potential costs, adopting new technology, and the pace of change. We also note that the proposals least well-supported were voluntary provision of haulier details, and voluntary pre-movement reporting. We recognise that these proposals may not work for everyone, which is why we proposed they would both be optional - allowing keepers to decide what works best for them. 

Having considered the views expressed in the consultation and weighing these against the costs and benefits of the proposals, the government intends to: 

Streamline and simplify the regulations 

We will bring the Cattle Identification Regulations 2007 and 11 pieces of retained EU legislation together into a new, single set of regulations. 

The new regulations will be clear and concise, helping everyone involved in the cattle industry to understand what they must do, and when. 

We will reduce the number of offences and harmonise deadlines for some actions to be completed. We will put processes in place to support keepers in the first instance to correct any mistakes or errors identified. We will ensure guidance is updated to clearly reflect what is required from the industry and any changes made. 

Introduce a fairer and more proportionate system 

We know that people in the cattle industry work long hours and are extremely busy, and we have also listened to feedback that inspections can be stressful. We will introduce a more supportive system for inspections and enforcement of legal requirements. 

Keepers will be supported and encouraged to provide better traceability data, which can then be used to better tackle disease outbreaks. Keepers will not be penalised for making genuine mistakes if they are corrected. For most issues, 2 chances to take corrective action is fair, especially as we are committed to explaining any required action and deadlines clearly. We recognise that this graduated process will not always be suitable, and the most serious offences (for example, clear cases of fraudulent identification) need to be resolved with immediate, robust action. 

Introduce bovine electronic identification (BeID) for newborn calves 

We will introduce BeID for newborn calves from a set date, allowing a gradual transition away from non-electronic tags over time. Defra have carefully considered all available evidence, including a pilot conducted by Harper Adams University, internationally recognised (ISO) standards, and input from stakeholders. We have determined that official BeID will use low frequency technology. This will align England with international partners and along with the recent UK-EU announcements help to boost trade.

We will work with stakeholders to determine the most appropriate date for introduction, ensuring sufficient lead in time is provided to industry.

An electronic ID ear tag is slightly more expensive than a visual only (non-electronic) ear tag, so concerns about increased costs are valid, especially for those who calve or keep suckler herds. We will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure electronic ID delivers improvements to traceability while minimising any adverse effects. 

We listened to concerns about the need to purchase BeID reading equipment, in addition to the EID tag itself. We will consider whether the need for the readers can be negated by retaining the existing system of ‘what you see is what you get’ ID numbers on the tag itself. This would give keepers the choice to read tags by eye or to purchase an electronic reader. 

Use the new database as a record of cattle on holding 

From a set date, we will remove the legal requirement for cattle keepers to maintain a register of births, movements, deaths, and other information about cattle on their holding. This information will instead be held on the future central database. 

At present, much of the data recorded in holding registers must also be reported to BCMS, who maintain the CTS database currently in use. For many keepers this means duplication of administrative work, which can be very time-consuming and can occasionally result in errors where the information doesn’t match. The new database will make such data mismatches a thing of the past. 

Phase out passports for bovines fitted with BeID 

As we move to an online reporting system which holds all data currently held on a physical passport, we will move to stop issuing passports for newborn calves. Removing passports will reduce duplication of administrative work for industry and government.

We have heard that people use physical passports to help with business processes as well as record keeping. We are, therefore, looking into making cattle records on the future database printable. The printed information will not be used for any official processes, but will be available for keepers to use if they choose. We will work with stakeholders on the appropriate date for discontinuing paper passports, including how this fits with the roll-out of BeID.

Whole move reporting 

By the sending keeper providing information as to where their cattle have been sent, it will improve the traceability picture at a time of disease or a food safety incident and enable appropriate measures to be taken more quickly, reducing the harm caused. We will introduce a requirement to include point of departure and destination in all movements reported to the future database. We have heard concerns about adding to administrative burden, and we will work to make it quick and easy to do. 

Introduce an option to report moves in advance 

Pre-notification provides a keeper with greater flexibility to populate the ‘off’ movement report of animals at their convenience. The keeper will always be required to subsequently confirm the ‘off’ movement when the animals physically leave the holding (within the 3-day deadline). 

Voluntary pre-notification of movements assists authorities to determine what animals may be moving when a disease outbreak first comes to light. It also supports knowledge-based trading by enabling the receiving keeper to view the animal identities and any movement restrictions earlier.

We emphasise that this is a voluntary option, so if a keeper didn’t want to do it, they would not have to. 

Introduce an option to provide transportation details in movement reports 

Transport details are not currently captured for cattle within movement notifications. The voluntary provision by keepers of the name of haulier (or self-haul), their contact details, and registration number of the vehicle transporting the animals would assist authorities to trace animals during a disease outbreak and thus help contain disease more swiftly. 

Introduce more proportionality for the late registration of calves 

Late calf registrations are seen as disproportionately onerous for keepers. Currently, if the registration deadline of 27 days is missed, a cattle passport may not be issued and a Notice of Registration (CPP35). CPP35 cattle cannot leave the holding unless for disposal and they cannot go into the food chain. 

Late registration of a calf will be dealt with more proportionately. If the traceability data for the calf is assured, but the registration of birth is late (within specified limits), then the animal can receive a passport. This will be subject to an administrative fee, similar to that paid for replacement passports, to cover the additional administration and checks. 

Next steps

We will now work to develop the legislation necessary to introduce these changes and will develop guidance and an implementation plan in consultation with industry and stakeholders. 

If it is decided that any of these proposals are implemented, we will consider relevant World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade agreement (FTA) obligations. 

Domestic traceability for livestock, including cattle, is devolved. The territorial extent of the proposed changes is limited to England. We recognise that trade and disease control should be seamless across the UK, and we will continue to routinely work with the devolved administrations. We will keep listening to the cattle industry and those tasked with delivering effective disease control for the national herd.