National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 205

[Document Number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06PR]

RIN 0581-AD44

National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices

AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend the organic livestock and poultry production requirements by: adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living conditions; and expanding and clarifying existing requirements covering livestock health care practices and mammalian living conditions.

DATES:

Comments must be received by June 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties may submit written comments on this proposed rule using one of the following methods:

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•

Mail:

Paul Lewis Ph.D., Director Standards Division, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-NOP, Room 2646-So., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0268.

Instructions:

All submissions received must include the docket number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06PR, and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0581-AD44 for this rulemaking. Commenters should identify the topic and section of the proposed rule to which their comment refers. All commenters should refer to the GENERAL INFORMATION section for more information on preparing your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Docket:

For access to the docket, including background documents and comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will also be available for viewing in person at USDA-AMS, National Organic Program, Room 2646-South Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (except official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA South Building to view comments received in response to this proposed rule are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202) 720-3252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director of Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 205-7808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would create greater consistency in organic livestock practices. AMS has determined that the current USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205) covering livestock health care practices and living conditions need additional specificity and clarity to better ensure consistent compliance by certified organic operations and to provide for more effective administration of the National Organic Program (NOP) by AMS. One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) is to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent and uniform standard (7 U.S.C. 6501). By facilitating improved compliance and enforcement of the USDA organic regulations, the proposed regulations would better satisfy consumer expectations that organic livestock meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard.

Specifically, this proposed action would:

1. Clarify how producers and handlers must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their health and wellbeing.

2. Clarify when and how certain physical alterations may be performed on organic livestock and poultry in order to minimize stress. Additionally, some forms of physical alterations would be prohibited.

3. Set maximum indoor and outdoor stocking density for avian species, which would vary depending on the type of production and stage of life.

4. Define outdoor access to exclude the use of structures with solid roofing for outdoor access and require livestock and poultry to have contact with soil.

5. Add new requirements for transporting livestock and poultry to sale or slaughter.

6. Clarify the application of USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) requirements regarding the handling of livestock and poultry in connection with slaughter to certified organic livestock and poultry establishments and provide for the enforcement of USDA organic regulations based on FSIS inspection findings.

B. Summary of Provisions

This proposed rule would provide specificity on livestock health care practices, such as which physical alteration procedures are prohibited or restricted for use on organic livestock. The proposed livestock health care practice standards include requirements for euthanasia to reduce suffering of any sick or disabled livestock. To improve upon the current standards, this proposed rule would set separate standards for mammalian and avian livestock living conditions to better reflect the needs and behaviors of the different species, as well as related consumer expectations. The proposed mammalian livestock standards would cover both ruminants and swine. The proposed avian living standards would set maximum indoor and outdoor stocking densities to ensure the birds have sufficient space to engage in natural behaviors. This proposed rule would add new requirements on the transport of organic livestock to sale or slaughter. This proposed rule would also add a new section to clarify how organic slaughter facility practices and FSIS regulations work together to support animal welfare.

C. Costs and Benefits

AMS estimates the following costs and benefits of this proposed rule.

Costs

Benefits

Production: $9.5-24.1 million per year (annualized over 13 years)

Paperwork burden: $3.6 million annually.

Qualitative:

Establishes a clear standard protecting the value of the USDA organic seal to consumers.

Facilitates level enforcement of organic livestock and poultry standards.

Quantitative:

$14.7-62.6 million per year (annualized over 13 years).

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for AMS?

II. Background

A. Current Organic Livestock Standards

B. NOSB Recommendations

C. AMS Policy

D. Related Issues

III. Overview of Proposed Amendments

A. Livestock Health Care Practice Standard

B. Mammalian Living Conditions

C. Avian Living Conditions

D. Transport to Sale and Slaughter

E. Slaughter Requirements

F. Other Amendments Considered

IV. Related Documents

V. Statutory and Regulatory Authority

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

i. Need for the Rule

ii. Baseline

iii. Alternatives Considered

iv. Costs of Proposed Rule

v. Benefits of Proposed Rule

vi. Conclusions

B. Executive Order 12988

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Executive Order 13175

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Civil Rights Impact Analysis

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are engaged in the meat, egg, poultry, dairy, or animal fiber industries. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Individuals or business entities that are considering organic certification for a new or existing livestock farm or slaughter facility.

• Existing livestock farms and slaughter facilities that are currently certified organic under the USDA organic regulations.

• Certifying agents accredited by USDA to certify organic livestock operations and organic livestock handling operations.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but identifies key entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities could also be affected. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the proposed regulatory text. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for AMS?

Your comments should clearly indicate whether or not they support the proposed action for any or all of the items in this proposed rule. You should clearly indicate the reason(s) for the stated position. Your comments should also offer any recommended language changes that would be appropriate for your position. Please include relevant information and data to further support your position (

e.g.

scientific, environmental, industry impact information, etc.).

Specifically, AMS is requesting comments on the following topics:

1. The clarity of the proposed requirements: Can farmers, handlers, and certifying agents readily determine how to comply with the proposed regulations?

2. The accuracy of the assumptions and estimates in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis pertaining to organic poultry and egg production. In addition, the accuracy of AMS' assertion that the proposed requirements pertaining to mammalian livestock codify current practices among these organic producers

3. The implementation approach and timeframe. AMS is proposing that all provisions of this rule must be implemented within one year of the publication date of the final rule except for the outdoor space requirements for avian species. AMS is proposing two distinct implementation timeframes for the outdoor space requirements for poultry: (1) Three years after the publication of the final rule any non-certified facility would need to comply in order to obtain certification; (2) all facilities certified prior to that three-year mark would need to comply within five years of the publication of the final rule.

II. Background

This proposed rule addresses health care, transport, slaughter and living conditions for organic livestock. However, the provisions for outdoor access for poultry have a long history of agency and NOSB actions and are a focal issue. Outdoor access practices, particularly for organic layers, vary; some operations provide large, open-air outdoor areas, while others provide minimal outdoor space or use screened, covered enclosures commonly called “porches” to provide outdoor space. An audit in 2010 conducted by the USDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in certification practices regarding the use of porches as outdoor space. To address that finding, AMS issued draft guidance. However, after public comment, AMS determined that rulemaking was necessary to resolve the divergent outdoor access practices for organic poultry and did not finalize the guidance. To assist with the rulemaking, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) developed a series of recommendations to clarify organic livestock healthcare, transport, slaughter, and living conditions, including outdoor access for poultry. The NOSB deliberation process revealed broad support within the organic community and consumer expectations for specific guidelines for animal care, including meaningful outdoor access for poultry.

A. Current Organic Livestock Standards

OFPA authorizes the establishment of national standards for the marketing of organically produced agricultural products. AMS administers the National Organic Program (NOP), which oversees the development and implementation of the national standards for the production, handling and marketing of organically produced agricultural products. Section 6509 of OFPA authorizes the USDA to implement regulations regarding standards for organic livestock products. Furthermore, OFPA authorizes the creation of the NOSB to advise USDA about the implementation of standards and practices for organic production (7 U.S.C. 6518). The NOSB is a 15-member Federal Advisory Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture which meets in public twice annually. OFPA specifies the composition of the NOSB and reserves four NOSB seats for producers/growers, two seats for handlers/processors. The NOSB solicits public comment on topics related to the USDA organic regulations to inform its public deliberations and decision making at the open meetings. Any NOSB recommendations to amend the USDA organic regulations must be implemented through the notice and comment rulemaking process.

The current USDA organic regulations have broad and general requirements for

ensuring the welfare of certified organic livestock and poultry. These regulations accommodate various livestock production situations. For all livestock, the regulations require: an environment that allows animals to express natural behaviors; preventive health care to reduce the likelihood of illness; and protection from conditions that jeopardize an animal's well-being, such as predators and adverse weather.

The management of domesticated animals requires that they be contained in some manner, either to prevent them from running away or to protect them from harm. In organic management systems, securing animal access areas is important to ensure animals do not come into contact with prohibited substances or eat nonorganic feed. However, the degree to which animals are restrained or contained in pens, cages, paddocks, or other enclosures, may affect their ability to exercise their natural behaviors.

Consistent with organic farming principles, the USDA organic regulations require housing and living conditions that allow animals to freely exercise their natural behaviors. Natural behaviors are species-specific. Therefore, for example, the USDA organic regulations require that ruminants graze at least 120 days per year and receive 30 percent of dry matter intake from grazing. The regulations also describe situations that warrant denying ruminant animals access to pasture or the outdoors,

e.g.,

for newborn dairy cattle up to six months. This level of specificity, however, is not currently provided for avian species and some mammalian, non-ruminant livestock.

Further, certifying agents inspect each organic operation and decide whether or not to certify the operation. Certifying agents must consider site-specific conditions, including prevalent pests and diseases, weather, and natural resources of the operation when determining the acceptability of a particular management practice. This flexibility, combined with numerous combinations of environmental, cultural, and economic factors, results in variation in the manner in which the regulations are applied. For example, in organic poultry production, outdoor access ranges from extensive pasture to roofed enclosures,

i.e.,

porches with no access to soil or vegetation. This disparity in amounts of outdoor access has economic implications for producers and lessens consumer confidence in the organic label.

B. NOSB Recommendations

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB made nine recommendations regarding livestock health and welfare in organic production. Between 1997 and 2000, AMS issued two proposed rules and a final rule regarding national standards for the production and handling of organic products, including livestock and their products. The NOSB as well as members of the public commented on these rulemakings with regard to the health and welfare of livestock. Key actions from that period, which led to the development of the existing standards on organic livestock, are summarized below.

(1) In June 1994, the NOSB recommended a series of provisions to address the care and handling of livestock on organic farms. Within this recommendation, the NOSB developed much of the framework for organic care and welfare of animals, including health care standards, living conditions and transportation of livestock practices.

(2) In April and October 1995, the NOSB made a series of recommendations as addendums to the June 1994 recommendations. These recommendations further addressed various health care practices, a requirement for outside access, and the use of vaccines.

(3) On December 16, 1997, AMS responded to the 1994 and 1995 NOSB recommendations in a proposed rule to establish the NOP (62 FR 65850). Consistent with the NOSB's recommendation, the proposed language would have required that organic livestock producers develop a preventive health care plan and use synthetic drugs only if preventive measures failed. The 1997 proposed rule also included standards for livestock living conditions, including when animals would be permitted to be confined. This proposed rule was not finalized.

(4) In March 1998, the NOSB reaffirmed its earlier recommendations on animal health care and living conditions. The 1998 NOSB recommendation also stressed the importance of treating sick livestock by recommending that any organic producer who did not take specified actions to provide care for a diseased animal would lose certification. This recommendation also included provisions to clarify when livestock could be confined indoors and defined “outdoors” as having direct access to sunshine.

(5) On March 13, 2000, AMS published a second proposed rule to establish the National Organic Program (65 FR 13512). AMS responded to the NOSB's March 1998 recommendation on animal health care and living conditions in this proposed rule. AMS proposed that organic producers must use disease prevention practices first, then approved synthetic medications only if preventive measures failed. However, a producer would need to use all appropriate measures to save the animal even if the animal lost organic status. In addition, AMS proposed that the living conditions for organic livestock must maintain the health of the animals and allow for natural behaviors, including access to the outdoors.

(6) On December 21, 2000, AMS published a final rule establishing the USDA organic regulations (65 FR 80548). Through this action, AMS finalized the standards for health care practices and livestock living conditions. That rule became effective on February 20, 2001, and was fully implemented on October 21, 2002.

(7) In May 2002, the NOSB again addressed outdoor access, stating this should include open air and direct access to sunshine.

1

In addition, the May 2002 recommendation stated that bare surfaces other than soil do not meet the intent of outdoor access for poultry. This recommendation also included clarifications as to when livestock could be temporarily confined.

1

NOSB, 2002. Recommendation Access to Outdoors for Poultry. Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

(8) In March 2005, the NOSB recommended that the temporary confinement provision for “stage of production” be changed to “stage of life.”

2

The NOSB reasoned that “stage of life” would more appropriately allow livestock to be temporarily confined even if they were not producing milk or eggs at the time of confinement.

2

NOSB, 2005. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP. NOSB recommendation for Rule change—“Stage of Production” to “Stage of Life.” Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

(9) On October 24, 2008, AMS published a proposed rule on access to pasture for ruminant livestock (73 FR 63584). AMS published the final rule, Access to Pasture (Livestock) (75 FR 7154), on February 17, 2010 (75 FR 7154). This rule was based on several NOSB recommendations regarding ruminant livestock feed and living conditions. This rule set a requirement that ruminants obtain a minimum of 30 percent dry matter intake from grazing during the grazing season.

(10) Between 2009 and 2011, the NOSB issued a series of

recommendations on animal welfare. These were intended to incorporate prior NOSB recommendations that AMS had not addressed. The November 2009 recommendation suggested revisions and additions to the livestock health care practice standards and living conditions standards.

3

The NOSB recommended banning or restricting certain physical alterations and requiring organic producers to keep records on animals which were lame and/or sick and how they were treated. This recommendation proposed to separate mammalian living conditions from avian living conditions sections of the USDA organic regulations so that the provisions could be more directly tailored to various livestock species. In the mammalian section, the NOSB proposed mandatory group housing of swine and a requirement for rooting materials for swine. In the avian section, the NOSB proposed a variety of provisions, including maximum ammonia levels, perch space requirements and outdoor access clarifications.

3

NOSB, 2009. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP, Animal Welfare. Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

(11) In October 2010, the NOSB passed a recommendation on the use of drugs for pain relief.

4

The NOSB recommended changing the health care practice standards to allow the administration of drugs in the absence of illness to prevent disease or alleviate pain. The NOSB stated that such a change would improve the welfare of organic livestock.

4

NOSB, 2010. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP, Clarification of 205.238(c)(2). Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

(12) In December 2011, the NOSB passed an additional animal welfare recommendation.

5

The 2011 recommendation added definitions for terms related to livestock production and provisions for health care standard and living conditions. The NOSB also revised its prior recommendation on physical alterations to provide a more inclusive list of banned procedures. In the mammalian living conditions section, the NOSB recommended that outdoor access for swine include a minimum of 25 percent vegetative cover at all times. For avian species, the NOSB recommended specific indoor and outdoor space requirements,

e.g.,

stocking densities, among other provisions for living conditions specific to poultry. For layers, the NOSB recommended a minimum of 2.0 ft

2

per bird indoors and outdoors.

5

NOSB, 2011. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP, Animal Welfare and Stocking Rates. Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

(13) In December 2011, the NOSB passed a separate recommendation to add standards for transportation of livestock to slaughter facilities and the slaughter process.

6

The NOSB's recommendation for transport included provisions for veal calves and the trailers/trucks used to transport animals to ensure continuous organic management. The NOSB recommended that slaughter facilities must meet certain performance-based standards assessed via observations of animal handling and any slips, falls or vocalizations before and during slaughter.

6

NOSB, 2011. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP, Animal Handling and Transport to Slaughter. Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

C. AMS Policy

On October 29, 2002, AMS issued a memorandum to clarify outdoor access and temporary confinement requirements for livestock under the USDA organic regulations.

7

The memorandum stated that producers are required to balance accommodations for an animal's health and natural behavior with measures to ensure an animal's safety and well-being. The memorandum further explained that the USDA organic regulations do not specify an outdoor space allowance or stocking rate, nor do they require that all animals in the herd or flock have access to the outdoors at the same time. This memorandum explained how producers could provide evidence of compliance to support temporary confinement. This memorandum was incorporated into the NOP Handbook on January 31, 2011, and is retained as current policy.

7

National Organic Program, 2002. Access to the Outdoors for Livestock. Retained as Policy Memo 11-5. Available in the NOP Handbook:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook.

On February 17, 2010, AMS published a final rule on Access to Pasture (Livestock). The final rule was in response to the 2005 NOSB recommendation and extensive public input requesting clear outdoor access requirements for ruminant livestock. The final rule established that ruminants obtain at least 30 percent dry matter intake from grazing during the grazing season. The rule provided clarity to correct inconsistent application and enforcement of the outdoor access provisions for ruminant livestock.

In March 2010, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report concerning, in part, AMS guidance on outdoor access for organic livestock.

8

The OIG found inconsistent certification practices regarding outdoor access for poultry. The OIG recommended that AMS issue guidance on outdoor access for livestock and poultry.

8

USDA, Office of the Inspector General. March 2010. Audit Report 01601-03-Hy, Oversight of the National Organic Program. Available at:

http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsams.htm.

On October 13, 2010, AMS published draft guidance, Outdoor Access for Organic Poultry, for public comment.

9

The draft guidance advised certifying agents to use the 2002 and 2009 NOSB recommendations as the basis for certification decisions regarding outdoor access for poultry.

10

The draft guidance informed certifying agents and producers that maintaining poultry on soil or outdoor runs would demonstrate compliance with the outdoor access requirement in § 205.239.

9

On October 13, 2010, AMS also published a Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance and Request for Comments in the

Federal Register

(75 FR 62693).

10

The 2002 and 2009 NOSB recommendations included daily outdoor access from an early age and access to direct sunlight, open air and soil.

AMS received 69 comments on the draft guidance. Comments varied widely. Some supported more specific and stringent stocking densities and soil-based outdoor access, citing animal health and environmental benefits. Other comments favored maintaining an allowance for porches as acceptable outdoor access, citing biosecurity and animal health concerns.

Commenters stated that the draft guidance was unenforceable and would not ensure year-round outside access for poultry. These commenters suggested a minimum stocking rate of 1.75 square feet per bird in henhouses that also provide access to perches, with an additional 5 square feet per bird available in vegetated outdoor runs, which should be accessible to all birds at the same time. A number of commenters, including poultry producers, supported outdoor access on soil, pasture or other vegetation, and described health benefits and protection of the environment that a pasture or other vegetated outdoor access area would afford.

One trade association, some organic egg producers, and consultants described the use of production systems that limit outdoor access via the use of enclosed porches so that poultry are not in contact with soil or pasture. These commenters described the benefits of these systems: Protection from predation, pathogens that cause food safety problems, exposure to parasites,

and contact with wild birds that could carry diseases. The commenters asserted that these systems are consistent with the 2002 NOSB recommendation. They noted that organic egg producers have made substantial investments in facilities with porches. Some also expressed concerns that placing birds on soil would affect their ability to comply with the Food and Drug Administration's salmonella prevention food safety regulations (21 CFR part 118). Several producers expressed concern with the 2009 NOSB recommendation that pullets be given outdoor access at 6 weeks of age, because pullets are not fully immunized (including for protection against salmonella) until 16 weeks of age, and should not be exposed to uncontrolled environments until that time.

Given the comments and the request for rulemaking, AMS determined to pursue rulemaking to clarify outdoor access for poultry and did not finalize the draft guidance. Because the current regulations permit a range of practices for providing outdoor access for livestock, AMS could not enforce a narrower interpretation through guidance or additional training for certifying agents. Instructing certifiers to compel compliance with requirements that are more specific than the regulations could only be resolved through rulemaking.

D. Related Issues

Some organic poultry operations provide outdoor access through porches. These porch systems proliferated after a 2002 AMS administrative appeal decision ordering the certification of an operation that provided porches exclusively for outdoor access. If finalized, this rule would supersede the 2002 appeal decision.

On July 15, 2002, an operation applied for organic certification of its egg laying operation with a USDA accredited certifying agent. As part of the application, the operation's Organic System Plan (OSP) stated that outdoor access would be provided through covered and screened porches. The certifying agent denied certification for failure to provide hens with access to the outdoors. The certifying agent stated that a porch did not provide outdoor access as required by the USDA organic regulations. The operation appealed the Denial of Certification to the AMS Administrator on October 22, 2002. The Administrator determined that poultry porches could be allowed because the regulations do not specify outdoor space requirements. The appeal was sustained on October 25, 2002, and the certifying agent was directed to grant organic certification to the operation retroactively to October 21, 2002.

The certifying agent objected to the Administrator's decision and appealed to the USDA Office of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On November 4, 2003, the USDA ALJ dismissed the appeal. On December 11, 2003, the certifying agent appealed to the USDA Judicial Officer. On April 21, 2004, the USDA Judicial Officer dismissed the appeal. On September 27, 2005, the certifying agent filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. On March 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing (

Massachusetts Independent Certification, Inc

v.

Johanns

. 486 F.Supp.2d 105).

III. Overview of Proposed Amendments

A. Definitions in § 205.2

Section title

Current

wording

Type of action

Proposed action

205.2

Terms Defined

205.2

N/A

New term

Beak trimming. The removal of the curved tip of the beak.

205.2

N/A

New term

Caponization. Castration of chickens, turkeys, pheasants and other avian species.

205.2

N/A

New term

Cattle wattling. The surgical separation of two layers of the skin from the connective tissue along a 2 to 4 inch path on the dewlap, neck or shoulders used for ownership identification.

205.2

N/A

New term

De-beaking. The removal of more than the beak tip.

205.2

N/A

New term

De-snooding. The removal of the turkey snood (a fleshy protuberance on the forehead of male turkeys).

205.2

N/A

New term

Dubbing. The removal of poultry combs and wattles.

205.2

N/A

New term

Indoors. The flat space or platform area which is under a solid roof. On each level the animals have access to food and water and can be confined if necessary. Indoor space for avian species includes, but is not limited to:

Pasture housing. A mobile structure for avian species with 70 percent perforated flooring.

Aviary housing. A fixed structure for avian species which has multiple tiers/levels with feed and water on each level.

Slatted/mesh floor housing. A fixed structure for avian species which has both: (1) A slatted floor where perches, feed and water are provided over a pit or belt for manure collection; and (2) litter covering the remaining solid floor.

Floor litter housing. A fixed structure for avian species which has absorbent litter covering the entire floor.

205.2

N/A

New term

Mulesing. The removal of skin from the buttocks of sheep, approximately 2 to 4 inches wide and running away from the anus to the hock to prevent fly strike.

205.2

N/A

New term

Outdoors. Any area in the open air with at least 50 percent soil, outside a building or shelter where there are no solid walls or solid roof attached to the indoor living space structure. Fencing or netting that does not block sunlight or rain may be used as necessary.

205.2

N/A

New term

Perch. A rod or branch type structure that serves as a roost and allows birds to utilize vertical space in the house.

205.2

N/A

New Term

Pullet. A female chicken or other avian species being raised for egg production that has not yet started to lay eggs.

205.2

N/A

New term

Roost. A flat structure over a manure pit that allows birds to grip with their toes as they would on a perch.

205.2

N/A

New term

Soil. The outermost layer of the earth comprised of minerals, water, air, organic matter, fungi and bacteria in which plants may grow roots.

205.2

N/A

New term

Stocking density. The weight of animals on a given unit of land at any one time.

205.2

N/A

New term

Toe clipping. The removal of the nail and distal joint of the back two toes of a male bird.

AMS is proposing to add fifteen new terms to § 205.2: Beak trimming, caponization, cattle wattling, de-beaking, de-snooding, dubbing, indoors, mulesing, outdoors, perch, pullet, roost, soil, stocking density and toe clipping.

AMS is proposing to prohibit several physical alterations on organic livestock. AMS is proposing to define eight terms, below, related to these physical alterations so that certifying agents and producers may ensure that they do not inadvertently perform a prohibited physical alteration which may be known by a different name locally.

Beak trimming

would be defined as the removal of the curved tip of the beak.

Caponization

would be defined as the castration of chickens, turkeys, pheasants and other avian species.

Cattle wattling

would be defined as the surgical separation of two layers of the skin from the connective tissue along a 2 to 4 inch path on the dewlap, neck, or shoulders used for ownership identification.

De-beaking

would be defined as the removal of more than the beak tip.

De-snooding

would be defined as the removal of the turkey snood (a fleshy protuberance on the forehead of male turkeys).

Dubbing

would be defined as the removal of poultry combs and wattles.

Mulesing

would be defined as the removal of skin from the buttocks of sheep, approximately 2 to 4 inches wide and running away from the anus to the hock to prevent fly strike.

Toe clipping

would be defined as the removal of the nail and distal joint of the back two toes of a male bird.

AMS is proposing to define “outdoors” to add more specificity to the existing requirement in the livestock living conditions section (7 CFR 205.239(a)(1)) that livestock have access to the outdoors. “Outdoors” would be defined as any area in the open air with at least 50 percent soil, outside a building or shelter where there are no solid walls or solid roof attached to the indoor living space structure. Fencing or netting that does not block sunlight or rain may be used as necessary. Consistent with the NOSB recommendation, this definition would exclude porches and other structures attached to the indoor living space as outdoor areas. For biosafety and animal welfare purposes, fencing or overhead netting that does not block sunlight or rain would be permitted to prevent predators and other wild birds from entering the outdoor area.

Structures for shade are permitted in the outdoor space. The area within a standalone, roofed, shade structure could be included as outdoor space area, provided it is not attached to the indoor space structure. Roofed areas attached to the building are not considered outdoor areas. This is consistent with the 2011 NOSB recommendation that stated that covered porches should not be considered outdoor access. This is also consistent with FDA's draft guidance on outdoor access under the FDA Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs regulations

11

which states that covered porches are part of the poultry house. Many producers use portable or permanent shade structures throughout their pastures. The area under these shade structures, as long as it is not attached to the structure used for indoor access, could be an allowed area under the outdoor access space requirement. The area under the eaves or under structures attached to the indoor space structure is not to be calculated as outdoor space area to ensure that porches and similar structures are not construed as outdoor space.

11

Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation (Layers with Outdoor Access)

http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/eggs/ucm360028.htm.

The proposed definition of “outdoors” would specify that outdoor areas for all livestock have access to the soil. This supports natural behaviors across species. For example, soil-based outdoor access will encourage rooting and wallowing among swine and dust bathing and foraging among poultry.

AMS is proposing to define “soil” as the outermost layer of the earth comprised of minerals, water, air, organic matter, fungi, and bacteria, in which plants may grow roots. Livestock producers must include contact with soil when providing outdoor access to livestock in a manner that maintains and improves natural resources.

AMS is proposing to define “stocking density” as the maximum weight of animals on a given unit of land at any one time. Specifically, the minimum outdoor space requirements for poultry are based on stocking density as measured by the maximum pounds of bird on a square foot of land at a given time. AMS also considered basing the stocking density requirements on the minimum area per bird (

i.e.,

square feet per animal). AMS proposes to measure stocking density using weight to compensate for different-sized avian species (chickens, turkeys) and varieties (

e.g.,

different breeds of layers). Stocking density would be calculated on the given size of the outdoor land to which the birds are provided access. As an example, if one acre of land is divided into two half acre parcels and the birds are rotated between the two parcels, then the stocking density would be calculated using the one-half acre to which the birds have access.

AMS is proposing to define “indoors” as the flat space or platform area under a solid roof where the animals have access to both food and water and can be confined if necessary. Indoor space would be calculated by adding the square footage of the following roofed areas: (1) Ground level, which may have perches embedded or placed on the ground; (2) multi-level platforms, which provide water and feed on each elevation from which the birds can freely access the outdoors; (3) porches, which are accessible to the birds at all times. Space in porches may not be included in the calculation for indoor space if the doors are closed due to inclement weather or threat of diseases.

AMS is further clarifying the indoor living space requirements by defining several elements that will need to be included in that area. This proposal would define a “perch” as a rod- or branch-type structure that serves as a roost and allows birds to utilize vertical space in the house. This proposal would define a “roost” as a flat structure over a manure pit that allows birds to grip with their toes as they would on a perch.

AMS is proposing to define “pullet” as a female chicken or other avian species being raised for egg production that has not yet started to lay eggs. While pullet is sometimes used to describe young broilers which are used for meat production, AMS is using the

term pullet to describe females of avian species which are being raised to produce eggs in the future but have not yet reached sexual maturity and have not begun producing eggs. Once avian females begin laying eggs, AMS refers to them as layers. AMS modified the definition of pullet, which is used by the AMS Livestock, Poultry and Seed Program, to include species other than chickens.

B. Livestock Health Care Practice Standard

Section title

Current wording

Proposed action

Proposed wording

205.238

Livestock Health Care Practice Standard

No Change.

205.238(a)

(a) The producer must establish and maintain preventive livestock health care practices, including:

No change

205.238(a)(1)

(1) Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to suitability for site-specific conditions and resistance to prevalent diseases and parasites;

No change

205.238(a)(2)

(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional requirements, including vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants);

Revision

(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional requirements, including vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants), resulting in appropriate body condition.

205.238(a)(3)

(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and sanitation practices to minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites;

No change

205.238(a)(4)

(4) Provision of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and reduction of stress appropriate to the species;

No change

205.238(a)(5)

(5) Performance of physical alterations as needed to promote the animal's welfare and in a manner that minimizes pain and stress; and

Revision

(5) Physical alterations may be performed to benefit the welfare or hygiene of the animals, or for identification purposes or safety. Physical alterations must be performed on livestock at a reasonably young age, with minimal stress and pain and by a competent person.

205.238(a)(5)(i)

New

(i) The following practices may not be routinely used and must be used only with documentation that alternatives methods to prevent harm failed: needle teeth trimming (no more than top 1/3rd of the tooth) in pigs and tail docking in pigs.

205.238(a)(5)(ii)

New

(ii) The following practices must not be performed on a certified operation: de-beaking, de-snooding, caponization, dubbing, toe trimming of chickens, toe trimming of turkeys unless with infra-red at hatchery, beak trimming after 10 days of age, tail docking of cattle, wattling of cattle, face branding of cattle, tail docking of sheep shorter than the distal end of the caudal fold, and mulesing of sheep.

205.238(a)(6)

(6) Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics

No change

205.238(a)(7)

New

(7) All surgical procedures necessary to treat an illness shall be undertaken in a manner that employs best management practices in order to minimize pain, stress, and suffering, with the use of appropriate and allowed anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives.

205.238(a)(8)

New

(8) Monitoring of lameness and keeping records of the percent of the herd or flock suffering from lameness and the causes.

205.238(a)(9)

New

(9) Ammonia levels in poultry houses must be less than 25 parts per million indoors. When ammonia levels in poultry houses exceed 10 parts per million, an operation must implement additional practices to reduce the ammonia levels below 10 parts per million.

205.238(b)

(b) When preventive practices and veterinary biologics are inadequate to prevent sickness, a producer may administer synthetic medications: Provided, that, such medications are allowed under § 205.603. Parasiticides allowed under § 205.603 may be used on:

No change

205.238(b)(1)

(1) Breeder stock, when used prior to the last third of gestation but not during lactation for progeny that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced; and

No change

205.238(b)(2)

(2) Dairy stock, when used a minimum of 90 days prior to the production of milk or milk products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic

No change

205.238(b)(3)

New

(3) Synthetic medications may be administered in the presence of illness or to alleviate pain and suffering: Provided, that such medications are allowed under § 205.603.

205.238(c)

(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must not:

No change

205.238(c)(1)

(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under § 205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in § 205.604

Revision

(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under § 205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in § 205.604. Milk from animals undergoing treatment with synthetic substances allowed under § 205.603 having withholding time, cannot be sold as organic but may be fed to their own offspring. Milk from animals undergoing treatment with prohibited substances cannot be sold as organic or fed to organic livestock.

205.238(c)(2)

(2) Administer any animal drug, other than vaccinations, in the absence of illness;

Revision

(2) Administer any animal drug in the absence of illness or to alleviate pain or suffering, with the exception of vaccinations and other veterinary biologics.

205.238(c)(3)

(3) Administer hormones for growth promotion;

Revision

(3) Administer hormones for growth promotion, production or reproduction.

205.238(c)(4)

(4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis;

No change

205.238(c)(5)

(5) Administer synthetic parasiticides to slaughter stock;

No change

205.238(c)(6)

(6) Administer animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or

No change

205.238(c)(7)

(7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced

No change

205.238(c)(8)

New

(8) Withhold individual treatment designed to minimize pain and suffering for injured, diseased, or sick animals, which may include forms of euthanasia as recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

205.238(c)(9)

New

(9) Neglect to identify and record treatment of sick and injured animals in animal health records.

205.238(c)(10)

New

(10) Practice forced molting or withdrawal of feed to induce molting.

205.238(d)

New

(d) Organic livestock operations must have comprehensive plans to minimize internal parasite problems in livestock. The plan will include preventive measures such as pasture management, fecal monitoring, and emergency measures in the event of a parasite outbreak. Parasite control plans shall be approved by the certifying agent.

205.238(e)

New

(e) Euthanasia.

205.238(e)(1)

New

(1) Organic livestock producers must have written plans for prompt, humane euthanasia for sick or injured livestock.

205.238(e)(2)

New

(2) The following methods of euthanasia are not permitted: suffocation; blow to the head by blunt instrument; and the use of equipment that crushes the neck, including killing pliers or burdizzo clamps.

205.238(e)(3)

New

(3) Following a euthanasia procedure, livestock must be carefully examined to ensure that they are dead.

AMS is proposing to amend current provisions in and add new provisions to the health care practice standards. The proposed amendment to § 205.238(a)(2) would specify that the sufficiency of the feed ration would be demonstrated by appropriate body condition of the livestock. Livestock producers would need to monitor their animals to ensure body condition is being maintained. In addition, certifying agents would need to verify the nutritional adequacy of the animals' diet by assessing the body condition of organic livestock during inspection. Suitable body condition varies between species, between breeds, and between production types. A suitable condition for dairy cattle may be considered too thin in beef cattle. Producers who routinely monitor body condition of their livestock will be more likely to discover a health or feed issue early, before the animal suffers. AMS plans to provide further information about body condition assessment through published guidance to assist certifiers, inspectors, and producers assess body condition in different species.

AMS proposes to revise § 205.238(a)(5) to clarify the conditions under which physical alterations may be performed on livestock. Physical alterations may be performed for only certain reasons, including an animal's welfare, hygiene, identification, or safety. Alterations must be done at a reasonably young age with minimal pain or stress to the animal, and only by a person who is competent to perform the procedure. Competency may be demonstrated by training or experience of the person performing the alterations or may be demonstrated by the training or experience of the person training the person performing the alterations.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.238(a)(5)(i) to list the physical alterations that are not allowed on a routine basis, but may be performed on an as-needed basis. Needle teeth trimming and tail docking in pigs may only be performed in response to documented animal welfare reasons when alternative steps to prevent harm fail. Teeth clipping, if performed, would be limited to the top third of the each needle tooth. For example, an organic swine producer who clipped needle teeth or performed tail docking would need to document excessive needle teeth scarring on the underline of the sow or piglets or document tail biting on piglets in the litter. Swine producers would also need to document that alternative methods failed. Such alternative methods may include, but are not limited to, cross-fostering prior to teat fidelity across litters to minimize weight variation, providing sufficient enrichment materials, and providing vegetation for rooting.

In the 2009 recommendation, the NOSB recommended that needle teeth clipping and piglet tail docking be allowed, but retracted that in its 2011 recommendation. In consideration of NOSB preferences and producer needs, AMS is proposing to restrict the use of these procedures to situations when alternative methods of preventing injury fail and the producer documents the harm to animals prior to performing either physical alteration.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) to list the physical alterations that are prohibited in an organic operation. The following physical alterations would be prohibited under this proposal: De-beaking, de-snooding, caponization, dubbing, toe trimming of chickens, toe trimming of turkeys unless with infra-red at hatchery, beak trimming after 10 days of age, tail docking of cattle, wattling of cattle, face branding of cattle, tail docking of sheep shorter than the distal end of the caudal fold, and mulesing of sheep.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.238(a)(7) which would specify that surgical procedures on livestock to

treat an illness must be done in a manner which minimizes pain, stress, and suffering. The NOSB recommended that all surgical procedures for livestock be done with the use of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives. AMS is proposing that all surgical procedures for treatment of disease shall be undertaken in a manner that employs best management practices in order to minimize pain, stress, and suffering, and only with the use of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives listed in § 205.603.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.238(a)(8) to require organic producers to actively monitor lameness within the herd or flock and to document the cases of lameness. Lameness can be an issue in various livestock species including broilers, sheep, and dairy cattle. The requirement for producers to create a plan for monitoring and recording instances of lameness in the Organic System Plan will enable organic livestock producers to identify and address a problem before it becomes widespread among the animals. In addition, the records will provide an auditable trail for certifying agents to verify that livestock producers are monitoring this potential cause of animal suffering.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.238(b)(3) to state that synthetic medications may be administered in the presence of an illness to reduce pain and suffering, as long as those medications are allowed under § 205.603. OFPA limits the use of synthetic medications in the absence of illness. AMS is proposing to follow the NOSB recommendation to allow the use of synthetic substances to alleviate pain and suffering for animals if the substances appear on the National List. AMS is proposing to take a broad view of illness to encompass not just instances of disease or injury, but also cases of inflammation due to physical alterations. By providing pain relief prior to performing a physical alteration, animal welfare is improved. In addition, by providing pain relief, the animal undergoing the physical alteration is less likely to make a sudden movement. Such movements can cause infection or a more severe injury. Again, the use of pain relief prior to the physical alteration can reduce serious complications. Physical alterations such as dehorning result in trauma to the target tissue. This trauma causes localized bleeding and inflammation, resulting in an illness state.

AMS is proposing to amend § 205.238(c)(1) to clarify that milk from an animal treated with an allowed substance in § 205.603, which has a withholding time, may not be sold, labeled, or represented as organic during that holding time. However, milk from an organic animal or breeder stock may continue to provide milk for its own offspring during the withholding time. As an example, if an organic beef cow was nursing her organic offspring, was injured and then stitched by a veterinarian using lidocaine to minimize pain and stress, her calf could continue to nurse the dam even during the 7-day withholding period for lidocaine (§ 205.603(b)(4)), without loss of the calf's organic status. This means that the calf would still be eligible to be organic slaughter stock. This is consistent with the April 2010 NOSB recommendation that a calf nursing a dam treated topically with lidocaine, or other approved synthetic with a withdrawal time would not lose organic status.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.238(c)(2) to clarify that other veterinary biologics, in addition to vaccines, are exempt from the prohibition on administering animal drugs in the absence of illness. The Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) regulates vaccines and all other veterinary biologics. While vaccines are commonly used to describe many of these products, CVB has additional categories such as bacterins and toxoids. In addition, this change reflects the definition for biologicals in § 205.2. This supports § 205.238(a)(6), which identifies the use of vaccines and other veterinary biologics as a required practice to improve animal health. This section again asserts that pain relief may be administered in the absence of illness prior to physical alterations.

AMS is proposing to amend § 205.238(c)(3) to clarify that organic livestock producers are prohibited from administering synthetic or nonsynthetic hormones to promote growth or for production and reproductive purposes. Hormones listed in § 205.603 (

e.g.,

oxytocin) may continue to be used to treat illnesses. Stakeholders have noted that the USDA organic regulations are silent on the use of hormones to stimulate production or for reproductive purposes. This addition would clarify that all hormones, unless used to treat an illness, are prohibited in organic production.

AMS is proposing to add a new provision in § 205.238(c)(8) to prohibit organic livestock producers from withholding treatment designed to minimize pain and suffering for injured, diseased, or sick animals. Injured, diseased, or sick animals may be treated with any allowed natural substance or synthetic medication which appears on the National List. However, if no appropriate medication is allowed for organic production, organic livestock producers would be required to administer treatments, even if the animals would lose their organic status. Furthermore, euthanasia could be an acceptable practice for minimizing pain and suffering.

AMS is proposing to add new § 205.238(c)(9) to require livestock producers to identify and record treatment of sick and injured animals in animal health records. These records can enable producers and certifying agents to quickly identify a particular disease or ailment in an animal. Early identification can lead to more effective prevention or treatment, which will enhance the overall health of the livestock on that farm.

AMS is proposing to add a new provision in § 205.238(c)(10) to explicitly prohibit the practice of forced molting or withdrawal of feed to induce molting in poultry. Forced molting, in which feed is severely restricted for a period of time in order to rejuvenate egg production, is prohibited under § 205.238(a)(2), which requires a nutritionally sufficient feed ration. However, forced molting was never explicitly prohibited under the USDA organic regulations. This change is consistent with the NOSB recommendation and a number of other third-party animal welfare certification programs.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.238(e) to address euthanasia. In certain cases, livestock may be suffering from an illness from which recovery is unlikely. For these situations, organic livestock producers must maintain written plans for euthanizing sick or injured livestock (§ 205.238(e)(1)). In new a § 205.238(e)(2), AMS is proposing to prohibit certain methods of euthanasia, including: Suffocation, blow(s) to the head by blunt instrument, and use of equipment that crushes the neck, (

e.g.,

killing pliers or burdizo clamps). In the event of an emergency situation where a local, state or federal government agency requires the use of non-organically approved method of euthanasia, organic livestock operations will not lose organic certification or face other penalties for the use of non-organically approved methods of euthanasia.

AMS is further proposing, in § 205.238(e)(3), that after the euthanasia procedure, producers must carefully examine the body to ensure death. The NOSB recommended listing the allowable methods of euthanasia. However, given that new humane euthanasia methods may emerge, AMS

would not intend to discourage producer adoption of these techniques. Therefore, AMS is proposing to allow organic livestock producers to use any method of euthanasia, except for those prohibited in § 205.238(e)(2). The list of prohibited methods could be amended to include other techniques, if needed, through future rulemaking.

C. Mammalian Living Conditions

205.239

Livestock Living Conditions

Revision

Mammalian Livestock Living Conditions.

205.239(a)

(a) The producer of an organic livestock operation must establish and maintain year-round livestock living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior of animals, including:

No change

205.239(a)(1)

(1) Year-round access for all animals to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight, suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate, and the environment: Except, that, animals may be temporarily denied access to the outdoors in accordance with §§ 205.239(b) and (c). Yards, feeding pads, and feedlots may be used to provide ruminants with access to the outdoors during the non-grazing season and supplemental feeding during the grazing season. Yards, feeding pads, and feedlots shall be large enough to allow all ruminant livestock occupying the yard, feeding pad, or feedlot to feed simultaneously without crowding and without competition for food. Continuous total confinement of any animal indoors is prohibited. Continuous total confinement of ruminants in yards, feeding pads, and feedlots is prohibited

Revision

(1) Year-round access for all animals to the outdoors, soil, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight, suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate, and the environment: Except, that, animals may be temporarily denied access to the outdoors in accordance with §§ 205.239(b) and (c). Yards, feeding pads, and feedlots may be used to provide ruminants with access to the outdoors during the non-grazing season and supplemental feeding during the grazing season. Yards, feeding pads, and feedlots shall be large enough to allow all ruminant livestock occupying the yard, feeding pad, or feedlot to feed without competition for food in a manner that maintains all animals in a good body condition. Continuous total confinement of any animal indoors is prohibited. Continuous total confinement of ruminants in yards, feeding pads, and feedlots is prohibited.

205.239(a)(2)

(2) For all ruminants, management on pasture and daily grazing throughout the grazing season(s) to meet the requirements of § 205.237, except as provided for in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section

No change

205.239(a)(3)

(3) Appropriate clean, dry bedding. When roughages are used as bedding, they shall have been organically produced in accordance with this part by an operation certified under this part, except as provided in § 205.236(a)(2)(i), and, if applicable, organically handled by operations certified to the NOP

Revision

(3) Animals must be kept clean during all stages of life with the use of appropriate, clean, dry bedding, as appropriate for the species. When roughages are used as bedding, they must be organically produced and handled in accordance with this part by an operation certified under this part, except as provided in § 205.236(a)(2)(i), and, if applicable, organically handled by operations certified to the NOP.

205.239(a)(4)

(4) Shelter designed to allow for:

No change

205.239(a)(4)(i)

(i) Natural maintenance, comfort behaviors, and opportunity to exercise;

Revision

(i) Sufficient space and freedom to lie down in full lateral recumbence, turn around, stand up, fully stretch their limbs without touching other animals or the sides of the enclosure, and express normal patterns of behavior;

205.239(a)(4)(ii)

(ii) Temperature level, ventilation, and air circulation suitable to the species;

No change

205.239(a)(4)(iii)

(iii) Reduction of potential for livestock injury

No change

205.239(a)(4)(iv)

New

(iv) Areas for bedding and resting that are sufficiently large, solidly built, and comfortable so that animals are kept clean, dry, and free of lesions.

205.239(a)(5)

The use of yards, feeding pads, feedlots and laneways that shall be well-drained, kept in good condition (including frequent removal of wastes), and managed to prevent runoff of wastes and contaminated waters to adjoining or nearby surface water and across property boundaries

No change

205.239(a)(6)

New

(6) Housing, pens, runs, equipment, and utensils shall be properly cleaned and disinfected as needed to prevent cross infection and build-up of disease-carrying organisms.

205.239(a)(7)

New

(7) Dairy young stock may be housed in individual pens under the following conditions:

205.239(a)(7)(i)

New

(i) Until weaning, providing that they have enough room to turn around, lie down, stretch out when lying down, get up, rest, and groom themselves; individual animal pens shall be designed and located so that each animal can see, smell, and hear other calves.

205.239(a)(7)(ii)

New

(ii) Dairy young stock shall be group-housed after weaning.

205.239(a)(7)(iii)

New

(iii) Dairy young stock over six months of age shall have access to the outdoors at all times, including access to pasture during the grazing season, except as allowed under 205.239(c).

205.239(a)(8)

New

(8) Swine must be housed in a group, except:

205.239(a)(8)(i)

New

(i) Sows may be housed individually at farrowing and during the suckling period;

205.239(a)(8)(ii)

New

(ii) Boars.

205.239(a)(8)(iii)

New

(iii) Swine with documented instances of aggression or recovery from an illness.

205.239(a)(9)

New

(10) Piglets shall not be kept on flat decks or in piglet cages.

205.239(a)(10)

New

(11) Exercise areas for swine, whether indoors or outdoors, must permit rooting, including during temporary confinement events.

205.239(a)(11)

New

(12) In confined housing with stalls, at least one stall must be provided for each animal in the facility at any given time. A cage must not be called a stall. For group-housed swine, the number of individual feeding stalls may be less than the number of animals, as long as all animals are fed routinely over a 24-hour period.

205.239(a)(12)

New

(13) At least 50 percent of outdoor access space must be soil, except for temporary conditions which would threaten the soil or water quality when outdoor access must be provided without contact to the soil.

205.239(b)

(b) The producer of an organic livestock operation may provide temporary confinement or shelter for an animal because of:

No change

205.239(b)(1)

(1) Inclement weather;

No change

205.239(b)(2)

(2) The animal's stage of life: Except, that lactation is not a stage of life that would exempt ruminants from any of the mandates set forth in this regulation

No change

205.239(b)(3)

(3) Conditions under which the health, safety, or well-being of the animal could be jeopardized

No change

205.239(b)(4)

(4) Risk to soil or water quality;

No change

205.239(b)(5)

(5) Preventive healthcare procedures or for the treatment of illness or injury (neither the various life stages nor lactation is an illness or injury);

No change

205.239(b)(6)

(6) Sorting or shipping animals and livestock sales: Provided, that, the animals shall be maintained under continuous organic management, including organic feed, throughout the extent of their allowed confinement;

No change

205.239(b)(7)

(7) Breeding: Except, that, bred animals shall not be denied access to the outdoors and, once bred, ruminants shall not be denied access to pasture during the grazing season;

Revision

(7) Breeding: Except, that, animals shall not be confined any longer than necessary to perform the natural or artificial insemination. Animals may not be confined to observe estrus; and

205.239(b)(8)

(8) 4-H, Future Farmers of America and other youth projects, for no more than one week prior to a fair or other demonstration, through the event and up to 24 hours after the animals have arrived home at the conclusion of the event. These animals must have been maintained under continuous organic management, including organic feed, during the extent of their allowed confinement for the event

Revision

(8) 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth projects, for no more than one week prior to a fair or other demonstration, through the event, and up to 24 hours after the animals have arrived home at the conclusion of the event. These animals must have been maintained under continuous organic management, including organic feed, during the extent of their allowed confinement for the event. Notwithstanding the requirements in § 205.239 (b)(6), facilities where 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth events are held are not required to be certified organic for the participating animals to be sold as organic, provided all other organic management practices are followed.

205.239(c)

(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation may, in addition to the times permitted under § 205.239(b), temporarily deny a ruminant animal pasture or outdoor access under the following conditions:

No change

205.239(c)(1)

(1) One week at the end of a lactation for dry off (for denial of access to pasture only), three weeks prior to parturition (birthing), parturition, and up to one week after parturition;

No change

205.239(c)(2)

(2) In the case of newborn dairy cattle for up to six months, after which they must be on pasture during the grazing season and may no longer be individually housed: Provided, That, an animal shall not be confined or tethered in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, and moving about freely;

No change

205.239(c)(3)

(3) In the case of fiber bearing animals, for short periods for shearing; and

No change

205.239(c)(4)

(4) In the case of dairy animals, for short periods daily for milking. Milking must be scheduled in a manner to ensure sufficient grazing time to provide each animal with an average of at least 30 percent DMI from grazing throughout the grazing season. Milking frequencies or duration practices cannot be used to deny dairy animals pasture

No change

205.239(d)

(d) Ruminant slaughter stock, typically grain finished, shall be maintained on pasture for each day that the finishing period corresponds with the grazing season for the geographical location: Except, that, yards, feeding pads, or feedlots may be used to provide finish feeding rations. During the finishing period, ruminant slaughter stock shall be exempt from the minimum 30 percent DMI requirement from grazing. Yards, feeding pads, or feedlots used to provide finish feeding rations shall be large enough to allow all ruminant slaughter stock occupying the yard, feeding pad, or feed lot to feed simultaneously without crowding and without competition for food. The finishing period shall not exceed one-fifth (

1/5

) of the animal's total life or 120 days, whichever is shorter

Revision

(d) Ruminant slaughter stock, typically grain finished, shall be maintained on pasture for each day that the finishing period corresponds with the grazing season for the geographical location: Except, that, yards, feeding pads, or feedlots may be used to provide finish feeding rations. During the finishing period, ruminant slaughter stock shall be exempt from the minimum 30 percent DMI requirement from grazing. Yards, feeding pads, or feedlots used to provide finish feeding rations shall be large enough to allow all ruminant slaughter stock occupying the yard, feeding pad, or feedlot to feed without competition for food. The finishing period shall not exceed one-fifth (

1/5

) of the animal's total life or 120 days, whichever is shorter.

205.239(e)

(e) The producer of an organic livestock operation must manage manure in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms and optimizes recycling of nutrients and must manage pastures and other outdoor access areas in a manner that does not put soil or water quality at risk

No change

AMS is proposing to separate mammalian living conditions from avian living conditions, due to the different physiology and husbandry practices for birds and mammals. Under this proposal, AMS would revise the title of § 205.239 from “Livestock living conditions” to “Mammalian Livestock Living Conditions”. Avian living conditions would be addressed in new § 205.241. By creating clear requirements for mammalian livestock and avian livestock, animal health and wellbeing can be enhanced and consumers can be assured of the integrity of the USDA organic seal.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.239(a)(1) to require that food is provided in a manner that maintains all animals in good body condition while removing the requirement that all ruminant livestock must be able to feed simultaneously. This would support animal welfare by ensuring that feed rations are available to all animals so that they maintain good body condition. One method of feeding livestock, including ruminants, is the use of a self-feeder or a creep-feeder. With creep-feeding and self-feeding, feed is accessible to all animals at all times though they may not feed at the exact same time. Self-feeding and creep-feeding provides organic ruminant producers with more flexibility and options to manage their farm and livestock in farm-specific methods.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.239(a)(3) to clarify that livestock producers must keep animals clean during all stages of life with the use of appropriate, clean, dry bedding. Ensuring animals are clean is a disease prevention practice. Clean animals are less likely to develop lesions, transmit diseases, or become cold due to matted hair coats. The requirement for clean animals is relative to the species. Swine would be allowed to exhibit natural behavior and wallow in mud, and ruminants grazing on lush spring grass would be expected to have some

manure on their hind quarters due to the natural behavior of grazing.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.239(a)(4)(i) to specify that shelter must be designed to accommodate natural behaviors. Shelter must have sufficient space for the animals to lie down, stand up, and fully stretch their limbs without touching other animals or the sides of the shelter. Shelter must be designed to allow livestock to express their normal patterns of behavior.

AMS is proposing to add § 205.239(a)(4)(iv) to require a sheltered area for bedding and resting, which is sufficiently large and comfortable to keep the animals clean, dry, and free of lesions. This supports the proposed revision in § 205.239(a)(3), which would require producers to keep livestock clean. Not all shelters would need to be designed to hold bedding. As an example, a shelter designed to provide shade may be portable, and thus incompatible with holding bedding.

AMS is proposing to add new requirements in § 205.239(a)(7) concerning the individual housing of dairy young stock. Section 205.239(a)(7)(i) would allow for the individual housing of animals until weaning, as long as the animals had sufficient room to turn around, lie down, stretch out while lying down, get up, rest, and groom themselves. In addition, the individual housing of young stock would need to be designed so that animals could see, smell, and hear other animals. Furthermore, new § 205.239(a)(7)(ii) would require that dairy young stock are group-housed after weaning, and new § 205.239(a)(7)(iii) would require that animals over six months of age must have access to the outdoors at all times, including access to pasture during the grazing season, except as allowed under § 205.239 (b) and (c). Weaning is the time at which the young are taken off of milk or milk replacers.

AMS is proposing to add three new provisions in § 205.239(a)(8) to require the group housing of swine, with several listed exceptions. Section 205.239(a)(8)(i) would allow for sows to be individually housed at farrowing and during the suckling period. Section 205.239(a)(8)(ii) would allow for boars to be individually housed to reduce the likelihood of fights and injuries. Section 205.239(a)(8)(iii) would allow for swine to be individually housed after documented multiple instances of aggression or to allow an individual pig to recover from a documented illness.

AMS is proposing to add two new provisions in § 205.239(a)(9) and (10) concerning swine housing. Section 205.239(a)(9) would prohibit the use of flat decks or piglet cages. This provision would prohibit the stacking of piglets in flat decks in multiple layers. In addition, § 205.239(a)(10) would require that both indoor and outdoor areas for swine would have some space which would permit rooting. Rooting is a natural behavior which must be accommodated by organic swine producers and could be done in soil, deep packed straw, or other materials. Organic swine producers must also demonstrate how swine will be allowed to root during temporary confinement events.

AMS is proposing to add a new provision in § 205.239(a)(11) to further define barns or other structures with stalls. If indoor shelter is provided by a structure with stalls, then one stall must be provided for each animal at any given time. This allows for all animals to rest or lie down at the same time and provides a space for less dominant animals to escape from aggressive animals. In no case may a cage be considered a stall. One exception is provided for this provision. In group-housed swine, more animals than feeding stalls may be allowed, as long as all animals are able to consume sufficient quantities of feed to maintain good body condition. AMS is aware of some enhanced swine welfare systems, in which animals are robotically fed once they enter an individual feeding stall. Once finished, the animal may leave the stall and another animal enter the stall for its specific quantity of feed. AMS did not intend to prohibit such systems, which enhance the health and wellbeing of organic animals.

AMS is proposing to add a new requirement for outdoor access in § 205.239(a)(12). Organic livestock are required to have unencumbered access to the outdoors at all times, unless temporary confinement is justified under a specific reason described in the regulations (

e.g.,

nighttime confinement for protection from predators). As part of the definition of the outdoors, livestock must have access to the soil in a manner that maintains or improves the natural resources of the farm, and does not degrade soil or water quality. To make access to soil meaningful, at least 50 percent of all the outdoor access area must be comprised of soil. This will benefit mammals, as surfaces such as concrete may lead to more joint problems and resulting lameness. Soil also provides an opportunity for swine to root and engage in other natural behaviors.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.239(b)(7) to clarify the exemption for temporary confinement for the purpose of breeding livestock. Livestock may only be confined for the time that a natural or artificial breeding procedure requires. A group of livestock may be confined while the various individuals are bred, then the group would be returned to living spaces that allow outdoor access. Livestock may not be confined indoors to observe estrus. Section 205.239(c)(1) describes the time when ruminants may be denied access to pasture, but not access to the outdoors, before and after a breeding attempt.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.239(b)(8) to clarify the temporary confinement exception for youth livestock projects. Many youth livestock projects include the sale of market animals. Organic animals that were under continuous organic management may be sold as organic animals at youth fairs, even if the sales facility is not certified organic. This revised provision includes an exemption to the § 205.239(b)(6) requirement that a livestock sales facility be certified as an organic operation. As an example, if a youth exhibition and sale is held at a livestock sales facility which is not certified organic, the youth may sell the organic animal as an organic animal, provided all other requirements for the organic management of livestock are met. Otherwise, non-certified sales facilities, such as auction barns or fair grounds, may not sell or represent livestock as organic. AMS is proposing to provide this exception to encourage the next generation of organic farmers.

AMS is proposing to revise § 205.239(d) to reflect the similar proposed changes in § 205.239(a)(1). AMS would remove the phrase requiring that all ruminants be able to feed simultaneously. This would allow the use of self-feeding and creep-feeding so that the ruminants would have access to feed continuously over a 24-hour period.

D. Avian Living Conditions

205.241

New

Avian Living Conditions.

205.241(a)

New

(a) The producer of an organic poultry operation must establish and maintain year-round poultry living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior of poultry, including: year-round access to outdoors; shade; shelter; exercise areas; fresh air; direct sunlight; clean water for drinking; materials for dust bathing; and adequate outdoor space to escape from predators and aggressive behaviors suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate and environment. Poultry may be temporarily denied access to the outdoors in accordance with § 205.241(d).

205.241(b)

New

Indoor space requirements.

205.241(b)(1)

New

(1) All birds must be able to move freely, and engage in natural behaviors.

205.241(b)(2)

New

(2) Ventilation must be adequate to prevent buildup of ammonia. Ammonia levels must not exceed 25 ppm. Producers must monitor ammonia levels on a monthly basis. When ammonia levels exceed 10 ppm, producers must implement additional practices to reduce ammonia levels below 10 ppm.

205.241(b)(3)

New

(3) For layers and mature birds, artificial light may be used to prolong the day length up to 16 hours. Artificial light intensity must be lowered gradually to encourage hens to move to perches or settle for the night. Natural light must be sufficient indoors on sunny days so that an inspector can read and write when all lights are turned off.

205.241(b)(4)

New

(4)The following types of flooring may be used in shelter provided for avian species:

205.241(b)(4)(i)

New

(i) Mesh or slatted flooring under drinking areas to provide drainage;

205.241(b)(4)(ii)

New

(ii) Houses, excluding pasture housing, with slatted/mesh floors must have 30 percent minimum of solid floor area available with sufficient litter available for dust baths so that birds may freely dust bathe without crowding.

205.241(b)(4)(iii)

New

(iii) Litter must be provided and maintained in a dry condition.

205.241(b)(5)

New

(5) Poultry houses must have sufficient exit areas, appropriately distributed around the building, to ensure that all birds have ready access to the outdoors.

205.241(b)(6)

New

(6) Flat roosts areas must allow birds to grip with their feet. Six inches of perch space must be provided per bird. Perch space may include the alighting rail in front of the nest boxes. All birds must be able to perch at the same time except for multi-tiered facilities, in which 55 percent of birds must be able to perch at the same time. Facilities for species which do not perch do not need to be contain perch and roost space.

205.241(b)(7)

New

(7) For layers, no more than 2.25 pounds of hen per square foot of indoor space is allowed at any time, except;

205.241(b)(7)(i)

New

Pasture housing: no more than 4.5 pounds of hen per square foot of indoor space;

205.241(b)(7)(ii)

New

Aviary housing: no more than 4.5 pounds of hen per square foot of indoor space;

205.241(b)(7)(iii)

New

Slatted/mesh floor housing: no more than 3.75 pounds of hen per square foot of indoor space; and

205.241(b)(7)(iv)

New

Floor litter housing: no more than 3.0 pounds of hen per square foot of indoor space.

205.241(b)(8)

New

(8) For pullets, no more than 3.0 pounds of pullet per square foot of indoor space may be allowed at any time.

205.241(b)(9)

New

(9) For turkeys, broilers, and other meat type species, no more than 5.0 pounds of birds per square foot of indoor space is allowed at any time.

205.241(b)(10)

New

(10) All birds must have access to scratch areas in the house.

205.241(b)(11)

New

(11) Poultry housing must be sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stretch their wings, stand normally, and engage in natural behaviors.

205.241(c)

New

Outdoor Space Requirements.

205.241(c)(1)

New

(1) Outside access and door spacing must be designed to promote and encourage outside access for all birds on a daily basis. Producers must provide access to the outdoors at an early age to encourage (train) birds to go outdoors. Outdoor areas must have suitable enrichment to entice birds to go outside. Birds may be temporarily denied access to the outdoors in accordance with § 205.241(d).

205.241(c)(2)

New

(2) Exit areas for birds to get outside must be designed so that more than one bird at a time can get through the opening and that all birds within the house can go through the exit areas within one hour.

205.241(c)(3)

New

(3) For layers, no more than 2.25 pounds of hen per square foot of outdoor space may be allowed at any time.

205.241(c)(4)

New

(4) For pullets, no more than 3.0 pounds of pullet per square foot may be allowed at any time.

205.241(c)(5)

New

(5) For turkeys, broilers, and other meat type species, no more than 5.0 pounds of bird per square foot may be allowed at any time.

205.241(c)(6)

New

(6) Space that has a solid roof overhead and is attached to the structure providing indoor space does not meet the definition of outdoor access and must not be included in the calculation of outdoor space.

205.241(c)(7)

New

(7) Shade may be provided by structures, trees or other objects in the environment.

205.241(c)(8)

New

(8) At least 50 percent of outdoor access space must be soil.

205.241(d)

New

(d) The producer of an organic poultry operation may temporarily confine birds. Each instance of confinement must be recorded. Producers may confine birds because of:

205.241(d)(1)

New

(1) Inclement weather, including, when air temperatures are under 40 degrees F or above 90 degrees F;

205.241(d)(2)

New

(2) The animal's stage of life, including the first 4 weeks of life for broilers and other meat type birds and the first 16 weeks of life for pullets; and

205.241(d)(3)

New

(3) Conditions under which the health, safety, or well-being of the animal could be jeopardized; however, the potential for disease outbreak is not sufficient cause. A documented occurrence of a disease in the region or relevant migratory pathway must be present in order to confine birds.

205.241(d)(4)

New

(4) Risk to soil or water quality.

205.241(d)(5)

New

(5) Preventive healthcare procedures or for the treatment of illness or injury (neither various life stages nor egg laying is an illness or injury).

205.241(d)(6)

New

(6) Sorting or shipping birds and poultry sales: Provided, the birds are maintained under continuous organic management, throughout the extent of their allowed confinement.

205.241(d)(7)

New

(7) Nest Box training: Except, that, birds shall not be confined any longer than two weeks to teach the proper behavior.

205.241(d)(8)

New

(8) 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth projects, for no more than one week prior to a fair or other demonstration, through the event, and up to 24 hours after the birds have arrived home at the conclusion of the event. These birds must have been maintained under continuous organic management, including organic feed, during the extent of their allowed confinement for the event. Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, facilities where 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth events are held are not required to be certified organic for the participating birds to be sold as organic, provided all other organic management practices are.

205.241(e)

New

(e)The producer of an organic poultry operation must manage manure in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms and optimizes recycling of nutrients and must manage outdoor access in a manner that does not put soil or water quality at risk.

In conjunction with the proposed amendments discussed above, AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241, entitled “Avian living conditions.” AMS chose to divide in two the existing living condition section, one for mammalian and one for avian, to provide for more clarity and specificity for each. The proposed avian living conditions section would include existing provisions from the current living conditions requirements as well as requirements recommended by the NOSB. AMS made a similar decision when the pasture requirements were added specifically for ruminants and not simply appended onto the livestock feed section. The requirements in this new section would apply to all poultry species, including but not limited to, chickens, turkeys, geese, quail, pheasant, and any other species which are raised for organic eggs, organic meat, or other organic agricultural product. AMS is proposing to add § 205.241(a) to require organic poultry operations to establish and maintain living conditions that accommodate the health and natural behaviors of the birds.

In addition, a new § 205.241(a) would require organic poultry producers to provide their birds with year-round access to the outdoors, soil, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, direct sunlight, clean water for drinking, materials for dust bathing, and adequate space to escape both predators and aggressive behaviors, in a manner that is suitable to the species, the stage of life, and the environment. These general principles will be further clarified in § 205.241(b) and (c). New § 205.241(d) describes exceptions to the requirement for outdoor access.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(b) to specify avian indoor space requirements. New § 205.241(b)(1) would require that indoor space allow all birds to move freely and engage in natural behaviors. This would prohibit the use of cages or environments which limit free movement within the indoor space. In addition, the indoor space must allow birds to engage in natural behaviors such as dust bathing or escape from aggressive birds.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(b)(2) to require ventilation suitable to prevent ammonia in excessive concentrations in the indoor space. Ammonia is a natural breakdown product of manure from livestock which can be harmful for birds to inhale. Producers must describe in the Organic System Plan methods and procedures which will maintain ammonia under 10 ppm. Ammonia levels would need to be monitored monthly to verify that ammonia concentrations remain under 10 ppm and never exceed 25 ppm. Producers would need to implement additional ammonia mitigation procedures when ammonia levels exceed 10 ppm to ensure that ammonia levels never exceed 25 ppm in the indoor space. Ammonia in high concentrations is harmful for birds to inhale, and, in many cases, is a sign that the litter is too damp, which also may cause lameness in the birds.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(b)(3) to clarify the lighting requirements for organic poultry. Organic producers may use artificial light to prolong the daylight up to 16 hours. No artificial light could be used to prolong the day if natural darkness was 8 hours or less. Artificial light must be lowered gradually to encourage hens to move to perches or otherwise settle for the night. Producers must design indoor spaces with access to natural light so that, on sunny days, inspectors can read and write when the lights are turned off. This requirement sets forth a performance standard that facilitates inspection, provides for enough lighting to accommodate natural avian behavior, and allows flexibility to operations in determining how to design their facilities for compliance.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(b)(4) to describe the types of flooring that may be used in all types of indoor poultry houses provided for avian species. Mesh flooring would be allowed under drinking areas to provide drainage in new § 205.241(b)(4)(i). AMS is proposing to add new § 205.241(b)(4)(ii) to allow for slatted floors as long as 30 percent of the flooring is solid with sufficient litter so that birds may dust bathe freely without crowding. Pasture housing is being exempted from this requirement, as birds on pasture will have large areas of outdoor space for dust bathing. AMS is further proposing in new § 205.241(b)(4)(iii) that the litter must be provided in all types of indoor housing and maintained in a dry manner. Wet litter can lead to a variety of problems for birds, including lameness and excess ammonia concentration. Litter may be topped off when needed to maintain sufficient dryness.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(b)(5) to describe the required openings in shelters so that the birds can easily access both the indoor and outdoor areas. Doors or openings must be distributed around the building. In addition, the openings must be large enough to allow the passage of more than one bird at a time. Wide doors spread around the building provide meaningful outdoor access to the birds.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(b)(6) to require a flat roost area which birds may grip with their feet with a minimum of 6 inches of perch space per bird. The perch space may include the alighting rail in front of nest boxes. In single story buildings, all birds must be able to perch at the same time. In multi-tiered facilities, 55 percent of the birds must be able to perch at the same time, and the 6-inch per hen requirement still applies.

Perches may be either set on the ground/platform or elevated.

AMS is proposing to add new § 205.241(b)(7), (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii), (b)(7)(iii), (b)(7)(iv), (b)(8), and (b)(9) to list the required minimum avian indoor space requirements. Indoor space requirements apply with various minimums to all methods of production, including ones in which indoor space is provided with permanent buildings or mobile pasture units. Indoor space is further defined in § 205.2, including pasture housing, aviary housing, floor little housing and slatted/mesh floor housing. In 2011, the NOSB recommended a minimum of 2.0 square feet per hen based on the outside perimeter of the indoor housing structure and in which all types of indoor housing would have the same space requirement. In preparation for this proposed rule, AMS examined a number of other animal welfare certification programs developed by scientific committees.

12

These animal welfare certification standards varied from a minimum of 1.0 square feet per bird in aviaries and pasture systems to 1.8 square feet per hen with no more than 500 hens per barn. In addition, AMS obtained comments from various producer, certifying agent, and trade groups. Producers in colder climates stated that maintaining a warm indoor temperature during the winter is much more difficult with a 2.0 square foot minimum requirement for indoor space. Producers with aviaries cited the scientific committees' findings that aviaries provided enhanced welfare due to birds being able to utilize vertical space to engage in natural behaviors. Producers with slatted/mesh floors cited the reduced welfare concerns from lameness by keeping the litter drier. To better align with current scientific consensus, AMS is determining the space density requirements by housing type. AMS is proposing that pasture housing have a maximum of 4.5 pounds per square foot; aviary housing have a maximum of 4.5 pounds per square foot; slatted/mesh floor have a maximum of 3.75 pounds per square foot; and floor litter housing have a maximum of 3.0 pounds per square foot. As explained below, AMS is proposing to use pounds of laying hen per square foot to measure indoor space per laying hen, in order to have consistent application of this requirement for different avian species/varieties.

12

AMS reviewed the following animal welfare certification programs: Certified Humane (Humane Farm Animal Care); Animal Welfare Approved; Animal American Humane Certified (American Humane Association); 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Program (Global Animal Partnership); and United Egg Producers Certified.

AMS recognizes that a wide variety of species and breeds within species may be used to produce eggs for human consumption. Using a minimum space per animal would be problematic if a producer of quail eggs or emu eggs were to seek organic certification. The square feet of space per hen metric would not be reasonable for these and other species. Therefore, AMS is proposing to convert the minimum square feet of space per hen to the construction of maximum pounds of laying hen per square foot of space provided, similar to format of the NOSB-recommended minimum space for pullets and meat-type birds. To make this conversion, AMS determined that a majority of organic eggs are brown eggs. AMS determined that about 60 percent of all brown eggs are produced by the ISA Brown strain of chicken. Based on this, AMS made the assumption a majority of the organic brown eggs were produced by the ISA Brown strain of chicken. An average mature weight for an ISA Brown hen is 4.5 pounds. AMS made the following calculation to convert minimum square feet to maximum pounds per square foot:

(1 hen/2.0 square feet) * (4.5 pounds/1 hen) = 2.25 pounds per square foot

Table 1 lists the square feet per laying hen for various housing types and the resulting calculation of pounds of hen per square foot allowed.

Table 1—Indoor Stocking Density—Unit Conversion

Indoor housing type

Square feet per laying hen

Pounds of hen per square foot

Pasture

1.0

4.5

Aviary

1.0

4.5

Floor Litter

1.5

3.0

Pit/mesh litter

1.2

3.75

All others

2.0

2.25

AMS is requesting comments regarding the above assumptions. Specifically, AMS requests comments on:

• Are most organic eggs brown?

• Are most organic laying hens from the ISA Brown strain?

• Is the mature weight of an ISA Brown hen 4.5 pounds under organic condition?

• What other avian species are used for organic egg production?

The indoor space requirement based upon maximum pounds of laying hen per square foot of space will allow producers to vary the number of birds in a given house depending upon the size of the bird or breed of the bird. For example, Rhode Island Red birds are heavier than white leghorns or ISA Browns, and thus could not be stocked as densely (number of birds per unit area) in the same area.

AMS is proposing to use the NOSB recommendation of a maximum 3 pounds of pullet per square foot of indoor space in new § 205.241(b)(8) and a maximum of 5 pounds of meat-type species (

e.g.,

broilers, turkeys, geese) per square foot of indoor space in § 205.241(b)(9). These are minimum standards, and organic producers may choose to provide more indoor space than required.

AMS is proposing to add new § 205.241(b)(10) and (11) to specify indoor requirements to meet certain natural behaviors. Indoor space, whether stationary or mobile, must have scratch areas which allow all birds access. In addition, the indoor housing must be sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stand normally, stretch their wings and engage in natural behaviors.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(c) to specify the outdoor space requirements for avian species. Section 205.241(c)(1) would require that the outdoor space be designed to promote and encourage outdoor access for all birds. Producers would be required to train birds to go outdoors from an early age. Outdoor space requirements are not meaningful unless the birds go outside. Therefore, producers must actively and repeatedly train their birds to access the

outdoors and provide sufficient enrichment so that the birds stay outdoors. Organic producers may temporarily deny birds access to the outdoors space, in accordance with § 205.241(d).

AMS is proposing in § 205.241(c)(1), in line with the NOSB recommendation, that outdoor areas must have suitable enrichment to entice the birds to go outside. One example of suitable enrichment would be a minimum 50 percent vegetative cover (living vegetation or harvested vegetation scattered in the area). Minimum vegetative cover would provide opportunities for poultry to engage in natural foraging behaviors. In addition, the vegetative cover would help to reduce soil erosion and nutrient run off. Other means of providing enrichment include, but are not limited to: Access to water for water birds; bales of straw or hay; raised platforms; cover for protection from aerial predators; shaded areas and trees; and loose substrate for dust bathing.

AMS is proposing to add new § 205.241(c)(3) through (5) to specify minimum outdoor space requirements. Organic layer producers must not exceed 2.25 pounds of hen per square foot of outdoor space provided. Organic pullet producers must not exceed 3 pounds of pullet per square foot of outdoor space provided. Organic broiler, turkey and other meat-type producers must not exceed 5 pounds of bird per square foot of outdoors space provided. AMS chose to convert the NOSB recommended space for layers from a minimum space per hen to a maximum weight of bird per square foot to provide greater flexibility in the regulations for organic producers that produce organic eggs from quail, emu, or other species using a similar calculation as shown in the indoor space requirement section earlier. These space requirements are the minimum allowed.

AMS is proposing to add new § 205.241(c)(6) and (7) to specify how outdoor space must be calculated. Outdoor space may not include any area which has a solid roof that is attached to the structure which provides indoor space. Areas under eaves and overhangs from the stationary barn or mobile unit may not be included as part of the outdoor space. However, the outdoor space must provide shade for the birds. For example, a structure with a solid roof that is not attached to a structure which provides indoor space may be included as part of the outdoor space. Shade may also be provided by trees or other objects in the environment.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(c)(8) to require that the outdoor space have a minimum of 50 percent soil. The soil would allow for the birds to engage in natural foraging and dust bathing behaviors. In addition, the soil, if covered in vegetation, would provide nutrition and enrichment to help draw the birds outdoors.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d) to describe the conditions under which organic avian livestock producers may temporarily confine birds indoors. Each period of confinement must be separately recorded with the reasons for the confinement, the duration of the confinement, and the birds or flocks which were confined. AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(1) to provide an allowance for temporary confinement in response to inclement weather. Birds may be confined due to storms, blizzards, and other hazardous conditions. In addition, this provision allows for birds to be confined indoors when the temperature does not exceed 40 °F. It also allows birds to be denied access or brought inside when the daytime temperature exceeds 90 °F. Producers must provide documentation for confinement due to inclement weather, such as an actual thermometer reading on the farm or a local weather forecast showing the daytime high would either not exceed 40 °F or that the temperature exceeded 90 °F. Producers would have to provide outdoor access during those parts of the day when temperatures were between 40-90 °F.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(2) to provide an allowance for temporary confinement indoors due to stage of life. Broilers and other meat-type birds may be confined up through 4 weeks of age. After the 4th week of life, broilers and other meat-type birds must be provided with outdoor access. Pullets may be temporarily confined indoors through 16 weeks of age. After the 16th week of life, pullets must be provided with outdoor access. The NOSB recommended that 16 weeks of age be used before required outdoor access, so that pullets could complete their vaccination program before exposure to pathogens outdoors.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(3) to provide an allowance for temporary indoor confinement under conditions in which the health, safety, or well-being of the birds could be jeopardized. Permanently restricting birds to the indoors is not allowed. In addition, confinement due to potential outbreaks is not allowed. A documented case of the disease in the region or migratory pathway must be present before a temporary confinement may begin.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(4) to provide an allowance for indoor confinement to prevent risk to soil or water quality. This allowance is for temporary confinement after major rain events in which the soil may be excessively soft so that the birds could create a soil or water run off risk.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(5) to provide an allowance for indoor confinement for preventive health care procedures or for the treatment of illness or injury. Neither life stages nor egg laying are considered an illness for confinement purposes. This provision would allow for producers to briefly confine a flock to administer vaccinations or to confine an individual animal that required medical treatment. This provision would also allow for an injured or sick animal to be confined indoors until the animal regained health.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(6) to provide an allowance for indoor confinement for sorting, shipping, and poultry sales. However, the birds must be managed organically during the entire time of confinement. Confinement must be no longer than necessary to sort the birds or to catch the birds, place them in shipping containers, and conduct the sale.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(7) to provide an allowance for indoor confinement to train pullets to use the nest box. However, this training period may only be a maximum of 2 weeks and must not be any longer than necessary to teach the birds the proper behavior.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(d)(8) to provide an allowance for indoor confinement for youth exhibitions, such as with 4-H or the National FFA Organization. This new provision also includes an exemption to the § 205.239(b)(6) requirement that a livestock sales facility being certified as an organic operation. As an example, if a youth exhibition and sale is held at a livestock sales facility which is not certified organic, a youth may sell birds there as organic, provided all other requirements for the organic management are met. Otherwise, non-certified sales facilities, such as auction barns, may not sell or represent livestock as organic. AMS is adding this exemption to encourage the next generation of organic producers.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.241(e) to require organic poultry producers to manage manure in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water quality by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms. Organic poultry producers must manage the

outdoor space in a manner that does not put soil or water quality at risk. In addition, organic poultry producers must comply with all other governmental agency requirements for environmental quality.

E. Transport and Slaughter

205.242

New

Transportation and Slaughter.

205.242(a)

New

(a) Transportation.

205.242(a)(1)

New

(1) Certified organic livestock must be clearly identified as organic and transported in pens within the livestock trailer clearly labeled for organic use and be contained in those pens for the duration of the trip.

205.242(a)(2)

New

(2) All livestock must be fit for transport to auction or slaughter facilities.

205.242(a)(2)(i)

New

(i) Calves must have a dry navel cord and be able to stand and walk without human assistance.

205.242(a)(2)(i)

New

(ii) Sick, injured, weak, disabled, blind, and lame animals must not be transported for sale or slaughter. Such animals may be medically treated or euthanized.

205.242(a)(3)

New

(3) Adequate and season-appropriate ventilation is required for all livestock trailers, shipping containers and any other mode of transportation used to protect animals against cold and heat stresses.

205.242(a)(4)

New

(4) Bedding must be provided on trailer floors and in holding pens as needed to keep livestock clean, dry, and comfortable during transportation and prior to slaughter. Poultry crates are exempt from the bedding requirement. When roughages are used for bedding they must have been organically produced and handled by certified organic operations.

205.242(a)(5)

New

(5) Arrangements for water and organic feed must be made if transport time, including all time on the mode of transportation, exceeds twelve hours.

205.242(a)(5)(i)

New

(i) The producer or handler of an organic livestock operation must transport livestock in compliance with the Federal Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502) and the regulations at 9 CFR 89.1-89.5.

205.242(a)(5)(ii)

New

The producer or handler of an organic livestock operation must provide all non-compliant records and subsequent corrective action related to livestock transport during the annual inspection.

205.242(a)(6)

New

(6) Organic producers must have in place emergency plans adequate to address possible animal welfare problems that might occur during transport.

205.242(b)

New

Mammalian Slaughter.

205.242(b)(1)

New

Producers and handlers who slaughter organic livestock must be in compliance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b) and 21 U.S.C. 610(b) and the regulations at 9 CFR part 313 regarding humane handling and slaughter of livestock.

205.242(b)(2)

New

Producers and handlers who slaughter organic exotic animals must be in compliance with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621,

et seq.)

and the regulations at 9 CFR parts 313 and 352 regarding the humane handling and slaughter of exotic animals.

205.242(b)(3)

New

Producers and handlers who slaughter organic livestock or exotic animals must provide all non-compliant records related to humane handling and slaughter issued by the controlling national, federal, or state authority and all records of subsequent corrective actions during the annual organic inspection.

205.242(c)

New

(c) Avian Slaughter.

205.242(c)(1)

New

(1) Producers and handlers who slaughter organic poultry must be in compliance with the Poultry Products Inspection Act requirements (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(5) and the regulations at 9 CFR 381.1(b)(v), 381.90, and 381.65(b)).

205.242(c)(2)

New

(2) Producers and handlers who slaughter organic poultry must provide all non-compliant records related to the use of good manufacturing practices in connection with slaughter issued by the controlling national, federal, or state authority and all records of subsequent corrective actions during the annual organic inspection.

205.242(c)(3)

New

(3) Producers and handlers who slaughter organic poultry, but are exempt from or not covered by the requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act , must ensure that:

205.242(c)(3)(i)

New

(i) No lame birds may be shackled, hung, or carried by their legs;

205.242(c)(3)(ii)

New

(2) All birds shackled on a chain or automated system must be stunned prior to exsanguination; and

205.242(c)(3)(iii)

New

(3) All birds must be irreversibly insensible prior to being placed in the scalding tank.

Under the OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2), “Health Care,” the NOSB may make recommendations “for the care of livestock to ensure that such livestock is organically produced.” As stated above, in December 2011, the NOSB passed a recommendation to add standards for transportation of livestock to slaughter facilities and the slaughter process. AMS is proposing regulations, in a new § 205.242 for Transportation and Slaughter, in response to this recommendation. This proposed section would require producers and handlers of livestock to maintain organic integrity and provide for animal welfare during transportation. Further, the proposed section would clarify the requirements for slaughter of livestock by certified operations. These requirements would include performance standards regarding the transportation of livestock, including a requirement that operations comply with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and its implementing regulations as a condition of organic certification. These requirements also would establish as a condition of organic certification compliance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and Poultry Products Inspection Act requirements concerning slaughter, as well as compliance with USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulatory requirements regarding the slaughter of exotic animals under voluntary inspection.

Transportation

AMS is proposing to publish the transportation requirements in new § 205.242(a). Section 205.242(a)(1) would require that all organic livestock be transported in a trailer/truck or in pens within the trailer/truck that are clearly identified for organic use, and that the animals remain within those pens for the duration of the trip.

AMS is proposing a new § 205.242(a)(2) to set minimum fitness requirements for livestock to be transported. Section 205.242(a)(2)(i) would require that calves have a dry navel cord, and be able to stand and walk without assistance, if they are to be transported. This provision would apply only to transport to auction facilities or slaughter facilities. Beef cattle and dairy cattle producers may transport calves on the farm before the navel is dried and the calves can walk. Section 205.242(a)(2)(ii) would prohibit transport of sick, injured, weak, disabled, blind, and lame animals to auction or slaughter facilities. These animals may either be given medical treatments and cared for until they improve or euthanized.

AMS is proposing new § 205.242(a)(3) and (4) to set minimum standards for the trailer, truck, or shipping container used for transporting organic livestock. The mode of transportation would be required to provide seasonal-appropriate ventilation to protect against cold or heat stress. This provision would require that air flow be adjusted depending upon the season and temperature. In addition, bedding would be required to be provided on trailer floors as needed to keep livestock clean, dry and comfortable. If roughage is used as bedding, the bedding would need to be organically produced and handled. Use of non-organic bedding would cause loss of organic status for all animals transported. Poultry crates would be exempted from the bedding requirement.

Section 205.242(a)(5) would require that all livestock must be provided with organic feed and clean water if transport time exceeds 12 hours. The 12 hour time period includes all times in which the animals are on the trailer/truck/shipping container but not moving. In

cases such as poultry slaughter where requirements do not allow feed 24 hours before slaughter, producers and slaughter facilities would need to ensure that transport time did not exceed 12 hours, as the birds would need to be fed at that time.

AMS is proposing new § 205.242(a)(5)(i) and (ii) to clarify the authority of the NOP, certifying agents and State organic programs to initiate compliance action if certified operations are found to have violated the Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502) and its implementing regulations at 9 CFR 89.1 through 89.5. In general, this law provides that animals may not be confined for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading for feeding, watering and rest. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces this law and has approved in-transit feed, water and rest stations. Violators of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law are subject to civil penalties. In the event that a certified operation receives a non-compliance or civil penalty under the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, the certified operation must present those records to the certifier during the annual organic inspection.

AMS is proposing a new § 205.242(a)(6) to require operations which transport livestock to sales or slaughter to have in place emergency plans that adequately address problems reasonably possible during transport. Such emergency plans could include how to provide feed and water if transport time exceeded 12 hours, if livestock escaped during transport, or how to euthanize an animal hurt during transport. Shipping and/or receiving operations would need to include these plans in their OSPs.

Slaughter and the Handling of Livestock in Connection With Slaughter

AMS is proposing a new § 205.242(b), regarding mammalian slaughter, to clarify the authority of the NOP, certifying agents and State organic programs to initiate compliance action if certified operations are found to have violated FSIS regulations governing the humane handling of mammalian livestock in connection with slaughter (note that AMS is separating mammalian from avian slaughter requirements due to the differences in how mammalian and avian livestock are handled and slaughtered). This new section, entitled “Mammalian Slaughter,” would govern the mammals defined as “livestock” or “exotic animals” under the FSIS regulations. Under the FSIS regulations, “livestock” are cattle, sheep, swine, goat, horse, mule, or other equine. “Exotic animals” are antelope, bison, buffalo, cattalo, deer, elk, reindeer and water buffalo. These regulations govern the handling and slaughter of the majority of mammalian animals used for food in the United States and would apply to all certified organic operations that slaughter these animals.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.242(b)(1) to require certified organic slaughter facilities to be in full compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901

et seq.

) and its implementing FSIS regulations. The HMSA requires that humane methods be used for handling and slaughtering livestock and defines humane methods of slaughter. In the HMSA, Congress found “that the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock prevents needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement of products and economies in slaughtering operations; and produces other benefits for producers, processors, and consumers which tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce.” The HMSA is referenced in the FMIA at 21 U.S.C. 603 and is implemented by FSIS humane handling and slaughter regulations found at 9 CFR part 313. The FMIA provides that, for the purposes of preventing inhumane slaughter of livestock, the Secretary of Agriculture will assign inspectors to examine and inspect the methods by which livestock are slaughtered and handled in connection with slaughter in slaughtering establishments subject to inspection (21 U.S.C. 603(b)).

All establishments that slaughter livestock, which include any certified organic operations that slaughter livestock, must meet the humane handling and slaughter requirements the entire time they hold livestock in connection with slaughter. FSIS provides for continuous inspection in livestock slaughter establishments, and inspection program personnel verify compliance with the humane handling regulations during each shift that animals are slaughtered, or when animals are on site, even during a processing only shift. The regulations at 9 CFR part 313 govern the maintenance of pens, driveways and ramps; the handling of livestock, focusing on their movement from pens to slaughter; and the use of different stunning and slaughter methods. Notably, FSIS inspection program personnel verify compliance with the regulations at 9 CFR part 313 through the monitoring of many of the same parameters proposed by the NOSB in 2011,

e.g.,

prod use, slips and fall, stunning effectiveness and incidents of egregious inhumane handling.

13

FSIS has a range of enforcement actions available regarding violations of the humane slaughter requirements for livestock, including noncompliance records, regulatory control actions and suspensions of inspection.

13

FSIS Directive 6900.2, Revision 2,

Humane Handling and the Slaughter of Livestock,

August 15, 2011.

Further, FSIS encourages livestock slaughter establishments to use a systematic approach to humane handling and slaughter to best ensure that they meet the requirements of the HMSA, FMIA, and implementing regulations.

14

With a systematic approach, establishments focus on treating livestock in such a manner as to minimize excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury the entire time they hold livestock in connection with slaughter. Establishments may develop written animal handling plans and share them with FSIS inspection program personnel.

14

Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements and the Merits of a Systematic Approach To Meet Such Requirements,

FSIS, 69 FR 54625, September 9, 2004.

AMS is proposing to add a new § 205.242(b)(2) for those certified organic facilities which slaughter exotic animals and voluntarily request FSIS inspection. FSIS also provides, upon request, voluntary inspection of certain exotic animal species on a fee-for-service basis, under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. FSIS regulates the humane handling of the slaughter of exotic animals under the regulations at 9 CFR part 352.10, which require that exotic animals be slaughtered and handled in connection with slaughter in accordance with the requirements for livestock at 9 CFR part 313. Violation of these regulations can result in a denial of service by FSIS.

AMS is proposing to add § 205.242(b)(3) to require that all certified organic slaughter facilities provide any FSIS noncompliance records or corrective action records relating to humane handling and slaughter during the annual organic inspection. Not all violations of FSIS regulations result in a suspension of FSIS inspection services. In some cases, FSIS will issue a noncompliance record and the slaughter facility must perform corrective actions to bring the slaughter facility back into compliance. These records must be presented during the annual organic inspection to verify that the slaughter facility is in full

compliance and has taken all corrective actions. In addition, AMS recognizes that in the United States some slaughter facilities are regulated by the State for intra-state meat sales. In foreign countries, foreign governments may be the appropriate regulatory authority for humane slaughter inspections. In all cases, the relevant humane slaughter noncompliance records and corrective action records must be provided during the annual inspection.

Slaughter and the Handling of Poultry in Connection With Slaughter

AMS is proposing a new § 205.242(c), regarding avian slaughter facilities. Section 202.242(c)(1) would clarify the authority of the NOP, certifying agents and State organic programs to initiate compliance action if certified operations are found to have violated the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) requirements regarding poultry slaughter, as well as the FSIS regulations regarding the slaughter of poultry and the use of good commercial practices in the slaughter of poultry. Under the PPIA and the FSIS regulations, poultry are defined as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guineas, ratites, and squabs. These species constitute the majority of avian species slaughtered for human food in the United States. However, the organic standards for avian slaughter will apply to all species biologically considered avian or birds. The NOSB did not directly address avian slaughter requirements. However, AMS is proposing avian slaughter requirements for consistency with the proposed mammalian slaughter requirements and to better ensure the welfare of all animals slaughtered by certified operations.

While the HMSA does not apply to poultry, under the PPIA at 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(5), a poultry product is considered adulterated if it is in whole, or in part, the product of any poultry which has died otherwise than by slaughter. FSIS regulations, in turn, require that poultry be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices, in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass and will ensure that breathing has stopped before scalding (9 CFR 381.65 (b)).

In a 2005

Federal Register

Notice, FSIS reminded all poultry slaughter establishments that live poultry:

. . . must be handled in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices, which means they should be treated humanely. Although there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, under the PPIA, poultry products are more likely to be adulterated if, among other circumstances, they are produced from birds that have not been treated humanely, because such birds are more likely to be bruised or to die other than by slaughter.

15

15

Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter,

FSIS, 70 FR 56624, September 28, 2005.

Also in this Notice, FSIS suggested that poultry slaughter establishments consider a systematic approach to handling poultry in connection with slaughter. FSIS defined a systematic approach as one in which establishments focus on treating poultry in such a manner as to minimize excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury the entire time that live poultry is held in connection with slaughter. Although the adoption of such an approach is voluntary, it would likely better ensure that poultry carcasses are unadulterated.

FSIS inspection program personnel verify that poultry slaughter is conducted in accordance with good commercial practices in the pre-scald area of slaughter establishments, where they observe whether establishment employees are mistreating birds or handling them in a way that will cause death or injury or prevent thorough bleeding or result in excessive bruising. Examples of noncompliant mistreatment could include breaking the legs of birds to hold the birds in the shackle, birds suffering or dying from heat exhaustion and breathing birds entering the scalder.

16

Also, in 2015, FSIS issued specific instructions to inspection program personnel for recording noncompliance with the requirement for the use of good commercial practices in poultry slaughter.

17

16

FSIS Directive 6100.3, Revision 1,

Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Poultry Inspection,

April 30, 2009.

17

FSIS Notice 07-15,

Instructions for Writing Poultry Good Commercial Practices Noncompliance Records and Memorandum of Interview Letters for Poultry Mistreatment,

January 21, 2015.

AMS is proposing a new § 205.242(c)(2) to require that all certified organic slaughter facilities provide, during the annual organic inspection, any FSIS noncompliance records and corrective action records related to the use of good manufacturing practices in the handling and slaughter of poultry. Not all violations of FSIS regulations result in a suspension of inspection services. In some cases, FSIS will issue a noncompliance record and the slaughter facility must perform corrective actions to bring the slaughter facility back into compliance. These records must be presented during the annual organic inspection to verify that the slaughter facility is in full compliance and has made all corrective actions. In addition, AMS recognizes that in the U.S. some slaughter facilities are regulated by the State for intra-state poultry sales. In foreign countries, foreign governments may be the appropriate regulatory authority for poultry slaughter inspections. In all cases, the relevant noncompliance records and corrective action records must be presented during the annual organic inspection.

Unlike the requirements for livestock slaughter inspection, exemptions from poultry slaughter inspection exist for some poultry which is going to be sold to the public. AMS is proposing handling and slaughter standards for such poultry that is either exempt from or not covered by the inspection requirement of the PPIA. Section 205.242(c)(3) would prohibit hanging, carrying, or shackling any lame birds by their legs. Birds with broken legs or injured feet may suffer needlessly if carried or hung by their legs. Such birds must either be euthanized or made insensible before being shackled.

AMS is proposing new § 205.242(c)(3)(i) through (iii) to require that poultry slaughter operations which are either exempt or not covered by the requirements of the PPIA meet animal welfare standards that non-exempt slaughter operations must meet. AMS is proposing to require that no lame birds be hung on shackles by their feet. AMS is proposing to require that all birds that were hung or shackled on a chain or automated slaughter system be stunned prior to exsanguination. This requirement would not apply to small scale producers who do not shackle the birds or use an automated system and, instead, place the birds in killing cones before exsanguinating the birds without stunning. AMS is proposing a new § 205.242(c)(3)(iii) to require that all birds be irreversibly insensible prior to being placed in the scalding tank.

Requests for Comment on Proposed Slaughter Regulations

As stated above, by proposing that compliance with the FSIS slaughter requirements for livestock and poultry be a condition of organic certification, AMS would be establishing requirements that govern the majority of mammalian and avian species slaughtered by organic operations for human food in the United States. However, the FMIA and PPIA provide for alternatives to Federal inspection of slaughter not addressed by this proposal. Further, the import of meat and poultry products produced by slaughter establishments in other countries raises issues not addressed in

this proposal. AMS requests specific comments on these areas:

State-Inspected Slaughter Establishments

Meat and poultry establishments have the option to apply for Federal or State inspection if they are located in states that operate under a cooperative agreement with FSIS. State programs must enforce requirements “at least equal to” those imposed under the FMIA, PPIA and HMSA. However, product produced under state inspection can only be sold or distributed in intra-state commerce, unless a State opts into an additional cooperative program, the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program. How should AMS regulate livestock slaughter conducted at certified operations inspected by State inspection programs?

Poultry Exemptions

The PPIA exempts from continuous inspection a number of types of establishments that slaughter poultry based on various factors, including volume of slaughter and the nature of operations and sales. In some cases, these establishments would be inspected by State or local government agencies. How should AMS regulate poultry slaughter at certified operations exempt from FSIS inspection?

Meat and Poultry Imports

Under certain conditions, meat and poultry products may be imported into the United States from operations in countries whose food regulatory systems are determined by FSIS to be equivalent with its regulatory system. Equivalence would include meeting the goals of the humane slaughter requirements for livestock and the good commercial practice requirements for poultry slaughter. Verification of compliance with equivalent slaughter requirements would be performed by regulatory authorities in the exporting countries. How should AMS regulate livestock slaughter by certified operations in foreign countries?

F. Other Amendments Considered/Implementation

AMS describes below where we are significantly changing or omitting provisions from the NOSB recommendations. The full NOSB recommendations which serve as the basis for this action are available on the AMS Web site at

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb.

The NOSB recommendations are further described in the Background section of this notice and in the description of the proposed amendments. In a few instances, AMS is incorporating NOSB requirements with minor alterations. For example, AMS is proposing a maximum of two weeks for nest box training of poultry, compared to the five weeks recommended by the NOSB. In general, minor alterations were made to either align with third-party animal welfare standards or reduce potential paperwork burden.

Documentation and Lists.

The NOSB recommendations included additional recordkeeping requirements to track practices and animal status. Examples included (1) an annual submissions of lists of all existing and purchased animals, (2) a list of animals with health issues and the treatment provided, and (3) a list of animals that left the operation and why they left. AMS did not include these explicit provisions in order to reduce duplication and minimize the paperwork burden. Producers are already required to maintain records on practices and procedures, and describe monitoring practices and procedures under the current scope of the organic system plan in § 205.201. In addition, the current USDA organic regulations require certified operations to maintain records that are adapted to the particular business the operation is conducting and fully disclose all activities and transactions in § 205.103(b). Therefore, the documentation and recordkeeping provisions that the NOSB recommended would already be met under the current regulations and would be sufficient to verify compliance with the proposed requirements.

Avian indoor space requirements.

AMS considered the NOSB recommendation that only the first level of indoor space be included as indoor space; and that perching areas and nest boxes could not be used in the calculation of floor space. In effect this would prohibit aviary-style housing, where chickens occupy multi-levels within a house, in organic poultry production. A sizeable portion of organic egg production currently comes from operations using aviary houses. AMS is not including that provision because the existing and proposed requirements for shelter and indoor space will ensure that these areas accommodate the birds' natural behavior regardless of housing type. To ensure that birds occupying the upper levels would go outside, this proposed rule would require that producers must train birds to go outside, that exit areas are of sufficient size and number to facilitate easy exit and that there are enticements in the outdoor areas to attract birds outside. Finally, AMS understands that aviary houses are not prohibited in other third party animal welfare certification programs.

Livestock health care.

AMS considered the NOSB recommendation to require livestock producers to use homeopathic remedies or botanicals before they could use appropriate, synthetic medications. AMS is not implementing this requirement because of the potential that this could delay the use of effective treatments for sick or injured animals. AMS examined the scientific basis for requiring homeopathic remedies or botanicals and found insufficient evidence that these substances would be more effective than conventional treatments to support a blanket requirement for use. The NOSB recommendation did not provide this information. This does not impact an organic producer's ability to use homeopathic remedies or botanicals on livestock as long as they do not contain unapproved synthetics or prohibited naturals, such as, strychnine from

Nux vomica.

However, if livestock are sick or injured, organic producers must not delay use of an appropriate medical treatment by administering an unproven remedy.

Slaughter performance standards.

The NOSB recommended a series of performance standards for slaughter facilities which would have required extensive paperwork for the facilities. However, considering the current shortage of organic livestock slaughter facilities, AMS is proposing the requirements in this document with the goal of limiting the burden on extant organic slaughter facilities. AMS regularly receives comments from organic livestock producers about the lack of availability of organically certified slaughter facilities. Certified organic livestock slaughtered in a non-certified slaughter facility cause the resulting meat to lose organic status. AMS consulted with FSIS about the specific NOSB performance standards and determined that most of these additional requirements would be duplicative. This duplication would have increased the paperwork burden and cost of inspection without increasing animal welfare. AMS was concerned that such an increased burden with no increase in animal welfare would further limit the availability of certified organic slaughter facilities. Below is a table listing some of the NOSB recommended slaughter performance standards and the corresponding FSIS regulations.

NOSB Recommendation or AMS preliminary draft proposed regulatory text

FSIS Response

Mammalian Slaughter

(1) Slaughter plants must have non-slip flooring

This provision is covered by 9 CFR 313.1(b)—Floors of livestock pens, ramps, and driveways shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide good footing for livestock. Slip resistant or waffled floor surfaces, cleated ramps, and the use of sand, as appropriate, during winter months are examples of acceptable construction and maintenance.

(2) Gates in the live animal area must swing freely, latch securely, and be free of sharp or otherwise injurious parts. Gates are never to be slammed on animals

This provision is covered by 9 CFR 313.1(a)—Livestock pens, driveways and ramps shall be maintained in good repair. They shall be free from sharp or protruding objects which may, in the opinion of the inspector, cause injury or pain to the animals.

(3) Adequate lighting must be in place to allow animals to be easily observed

This provision is covered by—9 CFR 309.1(a)—All livestock must be examined and inspected on day of slaughter. This requires that lighting is sufficient for inspectors to easily observe the animals.

(4) Livestock slips and falls must be scored in all parts of the facility including unloading areas, holding areas, chutes, stun box and the stunning area. No more than 1 percent of livestock may slip and no more than 1 percent of livestock may fall at any of the parts of the facility

This provision is covered by—9 CFR 313.2(a)—Driving livestock from the unloading ramps to the holding pens and from the holding pens to the stunning area shall be done with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals. Livestock shall not be forced to move faster than a normal walking speed.

Scoring provided for in FSIS Directive 6910.1—Acceptable-No falls; Acceptable with reservations-less than 1 percent.

(5) Humane treatment procedures for handling immobile and fatigued animals upon arrival at the slaughter plant are in place. Handlers may use sleds and place livestock in the bucket, but may not push them up against a wall, gate, or any other object

This provisions is covered by—9 CFR 309.3(e)—Non-ambulatory cows are to be euthanized—). FSIS has proposed to require that non-ambulatory veal calves need to be euthanized. Other livestock are addressed in 9 CFR 313.2(d)—Disabled livestock and other animals unable to move.

(6) Electric prods are available if needed for human safety or for medical use, i.e., in an effort to save down animals. Prod use must stop after three shocks interspersed with rest periods or if the animal does not attempt to rise. Prods may never be applied to sensitive parts of the animal: eyes, nose, ears, rectum, or reproductive organs. Prods may not be used on animals less than twelve months of age

This provision is covered—9 CFR 313.2(b)—Electric prods, canvas slappers, or other implements employed to drive animals shall be used as little as possible in order to minimize excitement and injury. Any use of such implements which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive, is prohibited.

Scoring in FSIS Directive 6910.1.

(7) Plans for euthanasia of sick livestock must be described. Euthanasia must only be performed by trained personnel. Euthanasia equipment must be properly stored at slaughter plants and maintained. Lists of all animal euthanized and the reason for euthanasia must be maintained

This provision is covered by 9 CFR 309.13—Condemned animals are to be killed by establishment and not taken into official establishment.

(8) No more than 3 percent of cattle vocalize as they move through the restrainer, stunning box and stunning area. No more than 5 percent of hogs squeal in the restrainer due to human provocation. No more than 5 percent of livestock vocalize when a head holder is used during stunning or slaughter. No more than 1 percent of hogs vocalize due to hot wanding. Electrodes must not be energized before they are in firm contact with the animal

FSIS does not have a vocalization standard. Vocalization is only as evidence that animal was not properly stunned in FSIS Directive 6910.1.

(9) Conscious, sensible mammals must never be restrained by suspending them by their limbs. One hundred percent of animals are insensible prior to being hung on the bleed rail

This provision is covered by—9 CFR 313.2(f)—Stunning methods approved in 313.30 shall be effectively applied to animals prior to their being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. FSIS Directive 6910.1 Stunning efficacy must be 100 percent.

(10) One hundred percent of mammals are insensible prior to being hung on the bleed rail

This provisions is covered by—9 CFR 313.2(f)—Stunning method approved in 9 CFR313.30 shall be effectively applied.

This provision is also covered in FSIS Directive 6910.1—The DVMS is to observe and verify that animals are unconscious and insensible after stunning and throughout the process of shackling, hoisting, cutting, and bleeding.

(11) Ninety-five percent of cattle and sheep are effectively stunned with one shot via captive bolt or gunshot. Ninety-nine percent of electrodes are placed correctly when livestock are stunned with electricity

This provisions is covered by—9 CFR 313.15(a)(3), 313.16(a)(3), 313.30(a)(3)—Requires that animal be in state of unconsciousness immediately after first stun. This provision is also covered in FSIS Directive 6910.1—Acceptable stunning is 100 percent. Acceptable with reservations is effectiveness of greater than 99 percent but less than 100 percent.

(12) When carbon dioxide (CO2) or other controlled atmosphere stunning systems, including gondolas or other conveyances for holding a group of animals, are used, animals must be able to lie down or stand without being on top of one another. When head to tail conveyor systems are used, this score may be omitted

This provision is covered by 9 CFR 313.5.

Avian Slaughter

Avian slaughter is addressed in FSIS Directives 6100.3 and 6910.1. Operations meet good commercial practices, 9 CFR 381.65(b).

(1) No lame birds may be shackled, hung or carried by their legs

This provisions is—included as Mistreatment of poultry, which is addressed in FSIS Directive 6100.3—establishment employees must not mistreat birds or handling them in a way that will cause death or injury or prevent thorough bleeding or result in excessive bruising.

(2) All birds shackled on a chain or automated system must be stunned prior to exsanguination

This provisions is addressed in FSIS Directive 6910.1

(3) All birds must be irreversibly insensible prior to being placed in the scalding tank

This provisions is covered by 9 CFR 381.65(b)—Poultry must be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the carcasses and ensure that breathing has stopped before scalding.

Implementation.

The provisions of this proposed rule, except for the avian outdoor space requirements in § 205.241(c), would be implemented one year after the publication date of the final rule. AMS chose a one-year period for operations and certifying agents to become familiar with the requirements and make modifications to their practices,

e.g.,

updating organic system plans, training staff.

AMS is proposing two distinct implementation timeframes for the avian outdoor space requirements. First, three years after the publication of the final rule any non-certified poultry house or facility would need to comply in order to obtain certification. This would include facilities that are not certified at the three-year mark, but subsequently become part of a certified operation. The three-year period would allow producers to transition the outdoor space to organic production.

Second, all poultry houses and facilities certified prior to the three-year mark would need to comply within five years of the publication of the final rule. AMS is choosing a five- year compliance period to reduce the economic burden on existing organic producers, without unduly delaying the implementation of practices for improved animal welfare. As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the five-year period reflects the average time remaining to fully depreciate an average barn for laying hens. Since AMS expects that the costs associated with this rule will fall primarily on organic egg producers, the five-year period will allow the average producer to write off the capital costs on their tax returns.

IV. Related Documents

Documents related to this proposed rule include the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) and its implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205). The NOSB deliberated and made the recommendations described in this proposal at public meetings announced in the following

Federal Register

Notices: 67 FR 19375 (April 19, 2002); 67 FR 54784 (August 26, 2002); 67 FR 62949 (October 9, 2002); and 68 FR 23277 (May 1, 2003). NOSB meetings are open to the public and allow for public participation.

AMS published a series of past proposed rules that addressed, in part, the organic livestock requirements at: 62 FR 65850 (December 16, 1997); 65 FR 13512 (March 13, 2000); and 71 FR 24820 (April 27, 2006). Past final rules relevant to this topic were published at: 65 FR 80548 (December 21, 2000); and 71 FR 32803 (June 7, 2006).

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Need for the Rule

AMS is proposing this rulemaking to maintain consumer confidence in the high standards represented by the USDA organic seal. Specifically, this action is necessary to augment the USDA organic livestock production regulations with robust and clear provisions to fulfill a purpose of the OFPA, to assure consumers that organically-produced products meet a consistent and uniform standard (7 U.S.C. 6501). The added specificity would further the process, initiated with the enactment of OFPA, to develop detailed standards for organic livestock products.

18

OFPA mandates that detailed livestock regulations be developed through notice and comment rulemaking and intends for NOSB involvement in that process (7 U.S.C. 6508(g)). In 2010, AMS published a final rule (75 FR 7154, February 17, 2010) clarifying the pasture and grazing requirements for organic ruminants, which partially addressed OFPA's objective for more detailed standards. This present rulemaking would extend that level of detail and clarity to all organic livestock and ensure that organic standards cover their entire lifecycle.

18

The Senate report that accompanied the OFPA legislations set the expectation for greater specificity in the future for organic livestock standards as the industry matured: “More detailed standards are enumerated for crop production than for livestock production. This reflects the extent of knowledge and consensus on appropriate organic crop production methods and materials. With additional research and as more producers enter into organic livestock production, the Committee expects that USDA, with the assistance of the National Organic Standards Board will elaborate on livestock criteria.” Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nutrition,

Report of the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nutrition to Accompany S. 2830 Together with Additional and Minority Views, 101st Congress,

S. REP. NO. 101-357, at 289 (1990).

AMS issued an administrative appeal decision in 2002 that allowed the certification of one operation that used porches as outdoor access to protect water quality. This Decision served to address a fact-specific enforcement issue. Some certifying agents used this appeal decision to grant certification to poultry operations using porches to provide outdoor access. Thereafter, certification and enforcement actions have remained inconsistent and contributed to wide variability in living conditions for organic poultry, as well as consumer confusion about the significance of the organic label with regard to outdoor access. In accordance with OFPA, this proposed action will clarify USDA statutory and regulatory mandates and establish consistent, transparent, and enforceable requirements. Further, it will align regulatory language and intent to enable producers and consumers to readily discern the required practices for organic poultry production and to differentiate the products in the marketplace.

This proposed rule would add requirements for the production, transport and slaughter of organic livestock. Most of these align with current practices of organic operations (

e.g.,

prohibiting or restricting certain

physical alterations, euthanasia procedures, housing for calves and swine). The proposed provisions were developed by the NOSB in consideration of other animal welfare certification programs, industry standards, input from organic producers, and input from public comment.

19

According to a survey by the Organic Egg Farmers of America, 76 percent of organic egg production in the U.S. participates in private animal welfare certification programs.

20

Therefore, AMS expects that many of the requirements in this proposed rule are already implemented and will not produce significant costs. Producers may incur some costs such as increased paperwork (see the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis below), building additional fences, providing shade in outdoor areas, or creating more doors in poultry houses.

19

NOSB, December 2011. Formal Recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board to the National Organic Program, Animal Welfare and Stocking Rates, Available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.

At the NOSB meeting in November 2010, the NOSB explained how the recommended handling, transport and slaughter provisions aligned with the American Meat Institute's animal handling guidelines. These guidelines cover handling, transportation and slaughter and are standard industry practices. The transcripts from that meeting are available at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/meetings.

20

Organic Egg Farmers of America (OEFA), Organic Poultry Industry Animal Welfare Survey, 2014.

This proposed action includes provisions to facilitate consistent practices regarding stocking densities and outdoor space at organic poultry operations. The outdoor space issues are divisive and controversial among producers and other stakeholders, and, therefore, the scope of this analysis focuses on impacts to the organic poultry sector. The current practices of organic poultry operations to provide outdoor access and minimum indoor and outdoor space per bird vary widely. This disparity causes consumer confusion about the meaning of the USDA organic label, threatens to erode consumer confidence in the organic label more broadly, and perpetuates unfair competition among producers. This rule would enable AMS and certifying agents to efficiently administer the NOP. In turn, the consistency and transparency in certification requirements will facilitate consumer purchasing decisions.

Consumer surveys indicate the need for more precise animal welfare standards within the USDA organic regulations. A 2014 Consumer Reports Organic Food Labels Survey noted that half of consumers believe that organic chicken living space meets minimum size requirements; 68 percent believe there should be minimum size requirements. Further, 46 percent believe organic chickens went outdoors; 66 percent believe the chickens should have gone outdoors.

21

A second survey, designed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, showed that 63 percent of respondents believe that organic livestock have access to pasture and fresh air throughout the day and 60 percent believe that organic livestock have significantly more space to move than non-organic animals.

22

21

Consumer Reports National Research Center, Organic Food Labels Survey, March 2014. Nationally representative phone survey of 1,016 adult U.S. residents.

22

This phone survey was administered to 1,009 adults in October 2013.

The majority of organic poultry producers also participate in private, third-party verified animal welfare certification programs.

23

These certification programs vary in stringency, particularly for outdoor access requirements. Such widespread participation among organic poultry producers is evidence that consumers want additional label claims to provide information about animal welfare practices. This proposed rule would align consumer expectations and the production practices required to make an organic label claim regarding animal welfare for poultry.

23

Organic Egg Farmers of America, 2014.

The broad latitude afforded by the existing USDA organic regulations leads to wide variance in production practices within the organic egg sector (

e.g.,

a porch in contrast to extensive outdoor area with diverse vegetation). These differences are not discernable to consumers through use of the USDA organic label. Consumers are increasingly aware of these varying outdoor production practices and either seek specific brands of organic eggs based on information about living conditions at individual farms, or seek animal welfare labels in addition to the USDA organic seal.

AMS believes that many livestock and poultry producers would prefer to use the organic label to convey information about their practices to consumers. While sales of organic products, including eggs and poultry, continue to increase annually, surveys designed to measure consumer trust in the organic label reveal consumer confusion about the meaning of the label. A report on organic food and beverage shoppers states that one-third of the respondents indicated that the term “organic” has no real value or definition.

24

The study concludes that consumers are confused by the various marketing terms, such as “natural,” and advises organic brands to convey more information to consumers. AMS believes that in the context of organic livestock and poultry production, particularly egg production, variations in practices result in consumers receiving inadequate and inconsistent information about livestock products. This is supported by the consumer survey results described above. By establishing clear and equitable organic livestock and poultry standards, this rule would help organic producers to more effectively market their products. It would (1) provide for consistent information to consumers about animal living conditions to distinguish organic products from competing labeling terms in the market, and (2) alleviate the need for multiple certifications and eliminate duplicative paperwork, on-site inspections and additional costs.

24

Mintel Group Ltd., “Organic Food and Beverage Shoppers—US—March 2015.” March 2015.

In 2009 and 2011, the NOSB issued recommendations, as authorized by OFPA, for additional requirements to support animal welfare. In the process of developing these recommendations, the NOSB consulted with and received numerous public comments from authorities in the fields of animal welfare, consumers, livestock producers and certifying agents. AMS developed this proposed rule in response to the NOSB recommendations and stakeholder feedback.

This action also responds to the 2010 USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit findings of inconsistent applications of the USDA organic regulations for outdoor access for livestock. OIG noted the absence of regulatory provisions covering the length (

i.e.,

hours per day) of outdoor access and the size of the outdoor area. Among organic poultry producers, OIG observed wide variation in the amount of outdoor space provided. As recommended by OIG, AMS published draft guidance, Outdoor Access for Organic Poultry, for public comment (75 FR 62693, October 13, 2010).

25

The draft guidance advised certifying agents to use the 2002 and 2009 NOSB recommendations as the basis for certification decisions regarding outdoor access for poultry. The draft guidance informed certifying agents and producers that maintaining poultry on soil or outdoor runs would demonstrate

compliance with the outdoor access requirement in § 205.239. However, after extensive comments by producers, certifying agents and other stakeholders, including the request for rulemaking, AMS determined to pursue rulemaking to clarify outdoor access for poultry and did not finalize the guidance.

25

The draft guidance was published on March 10, 2013 and posted on the NOP Web site.

Baseline

This baseline focuses on the current production of organic eggs and the market for this commodity. AMS used multiple data sources, listed below, to describe the ba

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.