Factory Farms/EPA/Farm Bill

[Tex]

MRJ, ""Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?"

You want to explain that rule to all of us?

I'm still curious about this proposed rule.

MRJ?

mrj is just repeating packer talk from those packers who don't want anyone to know what the market is but themselves. Guess, what, mrj, that is how it is in the poultry business. Pork and beef was sure to follow without these legislative fixes thanks to the packers.

 

[Anonymous]

R-CALF USA Fact Sheet



Summary of the Senate Prohibition on Packers Owning, Feeding, or Controlling Livestock (Packer Ownership Ban)



December 18, 2007





Applicability of the Packer Ownership Ban (Section 10207 of the 2007 Senate Farm Bill)



Prohibits large meatpacker from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.


The Packer Ownership Ban does not apply to:


Contracts between a large packer and a producer for the purchase of livestock in which the producer maintains material participation over the management of the livestock and the farming operation that produces the livestock.


A processing plant owned by a livestock producer-owned cooperative.


A packer that slaughters less than 125,000 head annually and, as such, is not required to report the price and quantity of livestock purchased on a daily basis to USDA.


A packer that owns 1 livestock processing plant.




Transition Period:



For cattle and sheep: The effective date of the Packer Ownership Ban will be six months after the 2007 Farm Bill is signed into law.


For hogs: The effective date of the Packer Ownership Ban will be 18 months after the 2007 Farm Bill is signed into law.

 

[PORKER]

The prices for livestock should go down till the law goes into effect and then sharply rise after large amounts of packer livestock have cleared the yards. My thoughts only.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, ""Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?"

You want to explain that rule to all of us?

I'm still curious about this proposed rule.

MRJ?

You still researching, MRJ?

 

[RobertMac]

I'm still curious about this proposed rule.

MRJ?

You still researching, MRJ?

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm still curious about this proposed rule.

MRJ?

You still researching, MRJ?

MRJ, could it be that you're one of the misinformed that you were talking to nenmrancher about?

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ?

You still researching, MRJ?

MRJ, could it be that you're one of the misinformed that you were talking to nenmrancher about?

Got any more rule interpretations from NCBA to share? :lol: :lol:

 

[mrj]

Talk about double standards! You conspiracy geeks insist that I back up every comment I make with named sources..........yet most of your own 'wisdom' is given a pass.......even when stating what others (packers, USDA leaders, corporations) 'think'!

Being in a generous mood, I'll share with you the fact that I don't intend to stop repeating comment I've heard or read from others, even when I don't happen to recall a name or don't wish to expose the speaker to your venom, or, as in when a group of people is in a conversation, and a feeder states reasons for not liking the proposed rules, or a congressman states what he thinks a rule should be, or says he thinks may happen in a given situation. That applies ONLY to comment made openly without a request it go no further, BTW.

Get a life and get over your silly belief that NCBA is my only source of information!

One comforting thought in all this is that some of you may be very unpleasantly surprised if/when all your demands for government intervention in marketing systems, and government making decisions as to who may own cattle when, do come true.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Talk about double standards! You conspiracy geeks insist that I back up every comment I make with named sources..........yet most of your own 'wisdom' is given a pass.......even when stating what others (packers, USDA leaders, corporations) 'think'!

Being in a generous mood, I'll share with you the fact that I don't intend to stop repeating comment I've heard or read from others, even when I don't happen to recall a name or don't wish to expose the speaker to your venom, or, as in when a group of people is in a conversation, and a feeder states reasons for not liking the proposed rules, or a congressman states what he thinks a rule should be, or says he thinks may happen in a given situation. That applies ONLY to comment made openly without a request it go no further, BTW.

Get a life and get over your silly belief that NCBA is my only source of information!

One comforting thought in all this is that some of you may be very unpleasantly surprised if/when all your demands for government intervention in marketing systems, and government making decisions as to who may own cattle when, do come true.

mrj

Sandhusker wrote:[/quote]MRJ, ""Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?"

You want to explain that rule to all of us?

You can't because it is a lie, not because you can't disclose a source, mrj.

You continue to pass on packer lies like a little girl repeating a song she likes, not knowing at all what it means.

 

[Sandhusker]

Talk about double standards! You conspiracy geeks insist that I back up every comment I make with named sources..........yet most of your own 'wisdom' is given a pass.......even when stating what others (packers, USDA leaders, corporations) 'think'!

Being in a generous mood, I'll share with you the fact that I don't intend to stop repeating comment I've heard or read from others, even when I don't happen to recall a name or don't wish to expose the speaker to your venom, or, as in when a group of people is in a conversation, and a feeder states reasons for not liking the proposed rules, or a congressman states what he thinks a rule should be, or says he thinks may happen in a given situation. That applies ONLY to comment made openly without a request it go no further, BTW.

Get a life and get over your silly belief that NCBA is my only source of information!

One comforting thought in all this is that some of you may be very unpleasantly surprised if/when all your demands for government intervention in marketing systems, and government making decisions as to who may own cattle when, do come true.

mrj

In other words, that statement was completely false, which is what we already knew. We'll add it to the list the Stephenson's are compiling.