The controversy over a mandatory national animal identification plan has ended. In a complete reversal of its strong stance on animal and premises identification, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the plan would become voluntary, not mandatory, as had been previously stated. With no fanfare, the information was released Nov. 22, the day before Thanksgiving.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) had been in the eye of the storm since early 2005, and as late as April 2006, as USDA Secretary Mike Johanns was still aggressively pushing the idea, and maintained the January 2007 deadline for implementation and the 2009 deadline for 100 percent national participation was workable. However, last month several high-ranking USDA officials began backing away from the program.

According to Beef Stocker Trends, an online newsletter for cattle producers, USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight said last month in Kansas City, “We’re making it crystal clear that NAIS is voluntary — no ifs, ands or buts,” Knight said. “Farmers can choose to register their premises. They can choose to participate in individual animal or group identification. And they can opt to be a part of tracking. Or not.”

In the 65-page document titled “NAIS User Guide,” which replaced all other NAIS documents, the USDA repeatedly referred to the program as “voluntary,” saying data systems currently in place are sufficient to insure traceability of animals in case of a disease outbreak. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), more commonly known as mad cow disease, is the disease responsible for the animal tracking initiative. Officials believe in the case of an outbreak, an ID system would make it possible to find other suspect animals in 48 hours or less and head off a potentially catastrophic epidemic. The document can be seen in its entirety at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/instructions_guidelines/NAIS-UserGuide.pdf.

Local rancher Brent Duren sees the move from mandatory to voluntary as good.

“I’m personally glad it isn’t happening now. I think it would be a headache,” Duren said. “I didn’t see where it was going to do any good.”

Ken Cook, owner of Corsicana Livestock Market, shares Duren’s relief.

“I was dreading it. We get a lot of big consignments of cattle through here that have never been handled,” Cook said. “We would have had to ID them in the barn, and that would have been a whole lot of trouble.”

Problems with NAIS were wide-ranging, from negative perception to technical issues to misunderstood information. Some small livestock producers had said it would be simpler to get out of the animal production business than comply with the vaguely worded directive. Many like Cook, who deal with large volumes of cattle on a regular basis, were concerned about the implementation, increased labor cost, and the mediocre performance of the electronic tracking devices attached to the animals. Still other producers saw it as another sign of government forcing its will on the livestock producers and farm owners.

The USDA was also touting NAIS as a way to bolster sagging meat exports to other parts of the world. Countries such as Japan have demanded higher standards of traceability as a condition of buying American food products.

“(USDA officials) are worried about export markets,” Duren said. “We ought to be able to make our own laws.”

Knight wasn’t backing away from the plan, or the timetable, in a Nov. 22 interview with the Dow-Jones Newswire, though. He said livestock sector concerns have only slowed down progress and the USDA is in a hurry to meet self-imposed deadlines, but also said the goal to be able to track a diseased animal back to its source in 48 hours or less is still on track.

The USDA hopes to have 70 percent of premises and 40 percent of livestock registered by January 2008, and by January 2009, the agency wants 100 percent of all premises registered, 100 percent of all newborn animals identified and 60 percent of all animals less than one year of age documented.

The 100 percent goal might not be attainable, Knight said, due to the decision to keep the program voluntary, but he stressed that will not hamper the government’s ultimate goal.

“We’re going to make this successful as a voluntary program,” Knight said.

Cook and Duren, along with many industry insiders, disagree.

Both cite economics as the only reason for producers to voluntarily comply, and say until it pays the farmer more than it costs, there is no incentive to participate.

Both also agree the main thing is food safety, which seems to be all but forgotten by the USDA plan — a plan whose costs could easily have run into the billions of dollars.

“Our food supply is the safest in the world,” Cook said.

Duren echoed the sentiments of many of America’s ranchers.

“If I thought we had a mad cow problem,” Duren said, “I’d be the first to participate.”