Annotating Emerson

¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 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.

¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 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?

¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 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.).

¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 Specifically, AMS is requesting comments on the following topics:

¶ 35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 1. The clarity of the proposed requirements: Can farmers, handlers, and certifying agents readily determine how to comply with the proposed regulations?

¶ 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 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

¶ 37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 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

¶ 38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 1 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

¶ 39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 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.

¶ 40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 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.

¶ 41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 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.

¶ 42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 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.

¶ 43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 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

¶ 44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 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.

¶ 45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 (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.

¶ 46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 (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.

¶ 47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 (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.

¶ 48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 (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.

¶ 49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 (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.

¶ 50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 (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.

¶ 51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 (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.

¶ 52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 (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.

¶ 53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 (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.

¶ 54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 (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.

¶ 55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 (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.

¶ 56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 (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 ft² per bird indoors and outdoors.

¶ 57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 (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.

C. AMS Policy

¶ 58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 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.

¶ 59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 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.

¶ 60 Leave a comment on paragraph 60 0 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.

¶ 61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0 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.

¶ 62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 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.

¶ 63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0 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.

¶ 64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 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.

¶ 65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0 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

¶ 66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0 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.

¶ 67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 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.

¶ 68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 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	Currentwording	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.

¶ 69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 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.

¶ 70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 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.

¶ 71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0 Beak trimming would be defined as the removal of the curved tip of the beak.

¶ 72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 Caponization would be defined as the castration of chickens, turkeys, pheasants and other avian species.

¶ 73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 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.

¶ 74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 De-beaking would be defined as the removal of more than the beak tip.

¶ 75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 0 De-snooding would be defined as the removal of the turkey snood (a fleshy protuberance on the forehead of male turkeys).

¶ 76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0 Dubbing would be defined as the removal of poultry combs and wattles.

¶ 77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 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.

¶ 78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0 Toe clipping would be defined as the removal of the nail and distal joint of the back two toes of a male bird.

¶ 79 Leave a comment on paragraph 79 0 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.

¶ 80 Leave a comment on paragraph 80 0 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.

¶ 81 Leave a comment on paragraph 81 0 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.

¶ 82 Leave a comment on paragraph 82 0 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.

¶ 83 Leave a comment on paragraph 83 0 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.

¶ 84 Leave a comment on paragraph 84 0 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.

¶ 85 Leave a comment on paragraph 85 0 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.

¶ 86 Leave a comment on paragraph 86 0 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.

Contents

Search

Special Pages

Table of Contents

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. Definitions in § 205.2

Comments

Leave a Comment

Activity

Recent Comments on this Page

Recent Comments in this Document