The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent announcement that the National Animal Identification System was no more has many animal health officials still wondering exactly what may lie ahead.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the plan Feb. 5 to do away with NAIS in favor of a “new flexible framework for animal disease traceability.”

The move comes in the wake of a 15-city public listening tour held by USDA at various locations across the nation. Although support for animal ID was expressed at each of the meetings, many more comments were highly critical of NAIS.

“There were a lot of concerns expressed about cost, confidentiality and producer liability,” said John Clifford, deputy administrator with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. “So we came up with a new focus — a state-based approach to animal traceability that will work locally with producers while still protecting livestock populations.”

Only animals crossing state lines in commerce will now need identification, Clifford said. USDA will also encourage use of lower-cost identification technologies, such as simple ear tags, brands or brucellosis numbers.

Individual states will ultimately decide which methods suit them best, according to the USDA. Storage and use of that information also becomes state-owned and maintained.

“This is a grassroots system from the ground up,” Clifford said. “It will not be an unfunded mandate nor will it completely walk away from any systems already established and in place.”

How a system with potentially 50 or more sets of rules will work as one remains to be seen.

In fact, Texas Animal Health Commission officials said it could be several months before any official guidelines become available. Steering committees will form in coming months to help guide the process.

Several issues need to be cleared up before any traceability plans can be enacted, TAHC program coordinator Kenny Edgar said.

“We will still need to decide if we’re adopting a simple bookend approach to traceability — from farm to slaughter — or if we will track the animal as it moves through the process,” Edgar said. “It could be several more years before we actually have a workable plan in place.”

Still, Texas is far from lacking protections should livestock disease outbreaks occur in the meantime. More than 33,000 ranches have been registered in Texas with the TAHC premises registration process during the last few years, Edgar said.

Using some of the elements from the existing NAIS system is crucial, USDA reported in its question-and-answer compilation about the new traceability program:

“Considering the significant investment of taxpayer money, it would be irresponsible to completely disregard all elements of NAIS.”

So the established premise database will likely continue in Texas.

“In my opinion, you can hardly have a traceability program of any kind without being able to tell where that animal came from,” Edgar said. “We can already do that with much of the livestock in our state.”

The most difficult part in the equation will be coming up with a plan that can blend each state’s individual system into a workable national plan.

To learn more about the new traceability program, see the questions and answers at www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability.

Bobby Horecka lives in China Spring with his wife and three children. He writes for the Texas Farm Bureau’s print publications, online news service and video projects.