Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T07:01:24.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mexican Animal Identification System: Current Situation, Problems, and Potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Carlos Ortega  and
Derrell S. Peel
Carlos Ortega
Affiliation:
Facultad de Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
Derrell S. Peel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Get access

Abstract

Mexico initiated a federal animal identification (ID) system (SINIIGA) in 2003. The program is administered by an agency of the federal Department of Agriculture (SAGARPA) and has been used primarily to support a federal subsidy program for livestock producers. The program is conceptually well designed, but implementation thus far falls short of the potential and needs, most importantly in animal disease management. Although substantial numbers of animals have been tagged, relatively little progress has been made in developing a usable animal ID information system. Animal health officials currently are not actively involved in the development and use of the system.

Keywords

Mexican animal ID systemlivestockMexicoQ13Q18
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 551 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Sistema Nacional de Identificación Individual de Ganado (SINIIGA). Evaluación Externa, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, 2005.Google Scholar
Department of Homeland Security. “Agriculture and Food: Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Sector-Specific Plan.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, May 2007. Internet site: www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nipp-ssp-ag-food (Accessed January 5, 2009).Google Scholar
Elbakidze, L., and McCarl, B.A. “Ex Ante Preparedness vs. Ex Post Response to Animal Disease Introductions: Better Safe than Sorry?” Presented at AAEA annual meeting, Providence, RI, July 2005.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, PL., Seitzinger, A.H., Lee, J.G., and Mathews, K.H. Jr. “Economic Impacts of Foreign Animal Disease.” Economic Research Report Number 57, Economic Research Service, USDA, May 2008.Google Scholar
Peel, D.S. “The 2007 Census of Agriculture: An Overview of the Mexican Cattle Industry and Summary of Mexican Crop and Livestock Production.” Analysis and Comments, Letter #23, Livestock Marketing Information Center, June 2009.Google Scholar
PROGAN. Reglas de Operación del Programa de Estímulos a la Productividad Ganadera (PROGAN). Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2003. Internet site: www.sagarpa.gob.mx/vl/ganaderia/progan/reglas_progan.pdf (Accessed March 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Schroeder, TC, and Pendell, D.L. “Value of Animal Traceability Systems in Managing Contagious Animal Diseases.” Final Report to the Program of Research on the Economics of Invasive Species Management. October 2007. Internet site: www.naiber.org (Accessed March 6, 2008).Google Scholar
Sistema Nacional de Identificación Individual de Ganado (SINIIGA). Internet site: www.siniiga.org.mx (Accessed March 5, 2009).Google Scholar
Zhao, Z., Wahl, T.I., and Marsh, TL. “Invasive Species Management: Foot an Mouth Disease in the U.S. Beef Industry.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35,1(2006):98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar