“They can’t comprehend the vastness of a ranch like this,” he said of federal officials. “They don’t appreciate what is involved logistically.”

Photo

Ranchers like Mr. Platt have been joined by small-scale family farmers and other agrarian advocates to oppose the national animal identification system, a plan first broached five years ago by the Bush administration. It has created more visceral opposition than officials expected.

The plan, which is still being ironed out, might have seemed simple enough. With the ever-present threat of animal epidemics, why not modernize the system for identifying livestock? Why not keep computer records of movements so that when a cow is discovered with bovine tuberculosis or mad cow disease, its prior contacts can be swiftly traced? The disease source and the herds needing to be quarantined can be determined faster, officials said.

“Now, when there’s an outbreak, we can’t trace prior movements quickly, and we end up testing a lot more animals than necessary,” said Neil Hammerschmidt, director of the identification program for the federal Agriculture Department. “We want to put in place the infrastructure prior an outbreak.”

Mr. Platt expresses his opposition in more measured terms than many. Web sites analyze every official statement with suspicion, and angry farmers have packed the “listening sessions” held around the country this spring by the Obama administration’s new agriculture secretary.

Rumors have swirled, and farmers are asking whether the government will really require tags on every baby chick and catfish fingerling or a computer report when a pet pony trots onto a neighbor’s land.

Underlying the opposition is the fragile economics of ranches and small farms, which are already disappearing. The extra cost of radio tags, scanners and filing reports when animals change premises would be crushing, some smaller producers say.

Photo

“My main beef is that these proposed rules were developed by people sitting in their offices with no real knowledge of animal husbandry and small farms,” said Genell Pridgen, an owner of Rainbow Meadow Farms in Snow Hill, N.C., which rotates sheep, cattle, pigs, turkeys and chickens among three properties and sells directly to consumers and co-ops.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

“I feel these regulations are draconian,” Ms. Pridgen said, “and that lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture.”

Paul Hamby, owner of Hamby Dairy Supply in Maysville, Mo., and a vocal opponent of the plan, said, “It is very much an economic and class warfare issue.”

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

“Fifty years ago,” Mr. Hamby said, “hundreds of thousands of farms raised hogs, and now very few players have control of the market. I believe one of the reasons for this plan is to consolidate the cattle industry.”

The notion of centralized data banks, even for animals, has also set off alarms among libertarians, drawing former supporters of the Ron Paul presidential campaign like Mr. Hamby into the fray. One group has issued a bumper sticker that reads, “Tracking cattle now, tracking you soon.”

Among all the different types of livestock, cattle have the most pressing need for improved records, said Mr. Hammerschmidt, who added that some opponents were misinformed.

Photo

“It’s never been our intent to implant chickens, especially chicks,” he said. “People out there are saying that they have to microchip every chicken, and if that chicken crosses the road they’ll have to report that event to the government. That has really stirred the pot.”

Nor do officials want every small producer to buy a $1,000 scanner, Mr. Hammerschmidt said. “The tag could be read at the market or feedlot, where they are more likely to have a reader,” he said, suggesting looser monitoring than many ranchers fear.

Mr. Hammerschmidt pointed out that Michigan and Wisconsin, to strengthen the fight against bovine tuberculosis, now require radio tags for cattle. But he emphasized that the federal government had not mandated the tags, instead hoping it could prod states and individuals to join in.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

“At the end of the day,” he said, “we need the ability to trace an animal where there’s a disease issue.”

Mr. Platt, the rancher, said he believed that the authorities already had ample information to pounce on diseases.

Though he is one of the larger independent ranchers, the business is precarious, Mr. Platt said, sustained by land trades and sales. “Any new expense will mean a loss for us,” he said.

Mr. Platt watched with pride as one of his adult sons worked a cutting horse in a timeless ritual, hiving off calves from the herd in the branding corral. “We do this because we just enjoy it,” he said.