‘BEWARE of Greeks bearing gifts’ is a famous phrase which aptly describes the introduction of the latest bureaucratic burden to be forced on Scottish beef farmers. 
In an article in last week’s issue, the chief vet in Scotland wrote an interesting piece about this under the heading ‘Protecting the value of Scotland’s livestock’. The article was about the impending changes that are being made to the use of ‘linked holdings’ in Scotland for the traceability of cattle from January 1, 2017.
The apparent reason for this change, as well as the old chestnut that ‘the EU doesn’t like it and it may be illegal under EU law’, is that somehow setting up yet another database will improve disease control in Scotland in the event of an exotic disease outbreak like foot-and-mouth.  
The argument being used is that half a million cattle will take longer to trace if they are on linked holdings. 
No reasons or evidence to support this opinion have been offered.  
Nor is it clear how it would take longer to eradicate FMD for example, with linked holdings still in place.  
The key to controlling the spread of FMD is to immediately impose a movement ban on all susceptible livestock until the source of the outbreak is confirmed. Then a detailed analysis of any contacts to this source needs to be undertaken.  
Whether linked holdings are in place or not is totally irrelevant. I accept the tracing exercise may take longer but so what.  
It is in the interests of the industry to co-operate (as was the case previously) with this exercise and protect their livestock whether at home or on a linked holding.  
Once the tracing exercise is complete then movement restrictions can be unwound when it is safe to do so – linked holdings are a total red herring in this.
Nor is it clear, at least to me, how this, and I quote: “poses a real risk to the value and reputation of our livestock”? 
Has anyone noticed in QMS surveys consumers of Scotch beef asking for this and have any of you heard of any abattoir offering to pay more for cattle with their passports recorded on yet another database because they haven’t been on a linked holding – of course you haven’t. It is absolute rubbish!
The article then descends into a patronising lecture. I quote again: “change is not the easiest thing for people but cattle keepers across Scotland must be aware of the disease risks to their own stock from both exotic and endemic diseases and be prepared to take responsibility for animal health, disease prevention and control for themselves and for all of Scotland’s livestock”.
So, there we have it, no other part of the UK is doing this but somehow this change is going to improve disease control, and the inference is anyone with a linked holding doesn’t care about disease control right now.  
Many Scottish beef farmers will take great exception to statement.
Of course, the ‘Trojan Horse’ in all of this is, don’t worry guys if you get it wrong in year one you won’t get penalised just a warning letter.  But after that … well I’ll leave you to guess for yourselves!
So, next year, inspectors will wander onto farms with two lists of cattle. One from Scot Moves and one from BCMS, so you can imagine the confusion that will come with the resultant opportunity for even more compliance failures in future with the disproportionate penalties that will go with them.
More than most, I understand the impact of diseases like FMD and I totally get the need for cattle traceability, but let’s stand back from this for a minute. 
Why can’t we figure out a system that might actually improve traceability and disease control without adding to the total confusion and added costs associated with government-run IT projects and the consequent inspection regimes that follow.  
And let’s look at solutions along with the current standstill periods that are in place in Scotland which need to be considered alongside traceability.
I can understand the potential issues associated with linked holdings long distances from the main centre of a farm business.  
I can also understand the issues where multiple owners may have links to a single holding to over winter cattle for example.  
These however could easily be sorted out.  Stop  bed and breakfasting cattle from multiple owners in the same place, or certainly in the same air space. That would certainly reduce disease risk and actually is just good practice anyway.
And why not do what the English are doing and put in place something like a 10 mile rule from the main holding allowing links within that. 
In this system any land you use in England within a 10 mile radius of the business centre can be merged and registered under a single holding number meaning movements within this CPH will not need to be recorded.  
Scotland could introduce its own version of this if it wanted along with the consideration of the standstill rules.
The different treatment of linked holdings, traceability, and standstill rules in England (and Wales and Northern Ireland) only serves to underline another major weakness in this proposal; actually the issue of cross border cattle movements where linked holdings still exist.  The present proposals are both confusing and penal against the Scottish industry despite the rhetoric.
Of the course, the clever answer to cattle traceability for the good of the country as a whole, and individual beef farmers, should be the real prize here, and that is electronic identification of all cattle.
The Scottish Government should postpone these proposals to change linked holding rules, until cattle EID is introduced.  Or at the very least retain the ability to have linked holdings in the vicinity of the main business centre as is the case in England.  
Whether that is 10 mile radius or some variation of this should be based on evidence, not someone’s view of how the world works or they may want it to work!!
Introducing EID would mean that those that want to use EID to manage their herds (as we do) can get all the benefits which EID brings.  Those that don’t can still work with paper-based records but can be inspected using electronic tag information.  
Imagine inspections of cattle taking place in a few hours not days or weeks where cattle could be scanned in their normal accommodation, not forced through handling systems to read double tags.  
And imagine being able to download information on births, deaths, movements of cattle without having to dig out hundreds of worthless pieces of paper. Surely this has to be the way forward.
If we could get some kind of transition agreement from Scottish Government to deliver EID without having to introduce yet another database then maybe for the first time we will be part of a government IT project that actually works and adds value to its users, not cost!!