WASHINGTON, D.C. — The USDA has extended until Dec. 9 its public comment period for the mandatory animal traceability rule, which as currently drafted requires that interstate transportation of livestock be accompanied by official documentation being filed.

The comment period extension comes after 49 organizations petitioned the USDA for one.

The rule is designed to make animal origins traceable for the purpose of containing outbreaks of contagious disease, according to USDA spokesman Neil Hammerschmidt. It applies to cattle, bison, horses, asses, poultry and captive cervids (deer and elk).

Because of existing interstate livestock traffic regulations, though, the new rule will not regulate goats, sheep or swine, except by reiterating these animals must be handled in accordance with USDA rules already in effect. “It’s basically for when animals are sold, moved, exhibited (in) another state,” Hammerschmidt said.

He noted certain animals are exempt from the traceability requirements, such as those which are hauled directly to a slaughterhouse in another state and have no chance of being resold or returned to pasture.

As for equine transport regulations, which have been criticized as the most impractical part of the proposed rule, Hammerschmidt said the rural public has in some cases misunderstood the official language used. He explained the finer details of equine transportation regulations are allowed to be modified by the animal health department of the receiving state, and the rule would not ban the riding of horses across state lines (as in state-border areas).

He also indicated the new USDA policy would not create a national herdbook or livestock registry, as is maintained by the Canadian Federal Department of Agriculture for Canadian bovines. Many farm advocates have opposed the creation of such a system in the United States, as has been suggested several times.

“The issue is to support animal disease control program,” he said. “Sometimes, the way it’s worded, (people) misunderstand it.”

Misunderstanding or not, Larry Brewer, president of the Small Farms Conservancy, thinks the recently proposed rule is undesirable and, in some ways, infuriating.

“We’re especially angry because they’re “talking about making the high-density (confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs) exempt, but making the small private farmers go through the paperwork,” Brewer said, pointing to large, high-density operations as the source of almost all cases of tainted meat in the United States. “It’s one more step toward (National Animal Identification System); it cannot lead to anything favorable for small independent farmers.”

He claimed 90 percent of the human health hazards in meats come from large feeding operations, where disease is often spread easily. As to the argument that the new rules might actually “help” small farmers compete for local markets, Brewer dismissed this idea, pointing out in some areas “local” markets may be right across a state line.

“I think they just don’t want to put up with the political pressure,” Brewer said, in regards to why the USDA would not enforce the same strictness standards on large CAFOs and processors as on other producers.

Other groups are also commenting on the issue. The New England Farmers’ Union and National Farmers Union (NFU) have indicated they will be forthcoming with policy statements on the issue; however, the NFU animal policy specialist was unable to be reached for details regarding their position. Since the New England chapter is most closely involved, the statement will likely oppose the currently proposed language.

New England farm interests tend to oppose strict interstate traffic regulations, since the small physical size of states makes farmers in New England feel disproportionately impacted by such rules, in comparison to farmers in Western, Midwest and Southern states, which are geographically larger.

State livestock producers groups are also studying the issue, with many of them coming out with new position statements as the comment period continues. Most tend to be displeased with the proposed rule change.

The USDA asks that comments be submitted on or before Dec. 9 online to www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091-0001

To view the rule as published in the Federal Register, log on to www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10

-07/pdf/2011-26056.pdf