• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NCBA comments on the 2007 Farm Bill

RobertMac

Well-known member
Drovers magazine

NCBA comments on the 2007 Farm Bill
The following editorial was authored by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association president John Queen a cattleman from Waynesville, N.C.


Government meddling threatens cattle industry's future
By John Queen


Once upon a time, the 2007 Farm Bill was going to be about free market reforms that would reward the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit of our nation’s farmers and ranchers. Time and again, we heard top officials in Washington, D.C., talking of the need to loosen government's grip on American agriculture. As a National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) member, this was music to my ears. NCBA embraces the philosophy of less government control and interference in our industry.

But now the heavy hand of government threatens to make this Farm Bill a disaster for cattlemen. The Senate Agriculture Committee’s version of the bill contains several anti-competitive provisions, including a ban on packer ownership of cattle more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Now I'm sure this idea has surface appeal to some cattle producers. After all, nobody wants to see packers gaining control over cattle production and squeezing out the small, independent producer.

That's a noble thought, but it has no basis in reality. Independent cattle producers all across the country are improving their bottom line through innovative, value-added marketing programs. These smart business options are helping cattlemen break out of the traditional price-taker role. When they produce high-quality cattle that meet particular criteria, they are reaping the rewards they so richly deserve.

But some members of Congress want to derail these business strategies that have taken us many years to build. They want to dictate how, when, and to whom we can sell our cattle. I don't know about you, but I think I can make those decisions for myself, rather than have them imposed from Capitol Hill.

This urge to play nanny over the cattle business might be more understandable if the large meat packers were actually gaining significant control over cattle production. But nothing could be further from the truth. Because of the capital required and the risk involved, we've seen very little growth over the years in packer-owned cattle herds. The free market is doing a better job of keeping packers out of the cattle-raising business than any new law ever could.

Congress even ordered an independent study recently to examine packers’ influence over the market. In over 58 million cattle transactions studied between 2002 and 2005, only 5 percent involved any type of direct packer ownership. Does this sound like a trend that justifies a major government "rescue" effort?

This same study found that about 38 percent of cattle transactions involved some sort of alternative marketing arrangement. Some of these agreements may require transfer of ownership more than 14 days before slaughter, meaning this so-called ban on packer ownership places them in legal jeopardy. Even more revealing is the fact that these arrangements had a very minimal impact on the cash market – which still accounted for 62 percent of all transactions.

The bill advanced by the Agriculture Committee is bad enough. But a separate Senate floor amendment is also expected to outlaw the ability for cattlemen to engage in confidential, one-on-one business deals with prospective buyers, and ban the use of other marketing agreements that greatly benefit cattlemen. "The Captive Supply Reform Act" is dressed up like a proposal that will protect the role of the independent cattle producer. But in reality, it will penalize cattlemen who make the investment and commitment necessary to produce high-quality cattle. It will drag us back to the days of the average pricing system, put the government in charge of our businesses, and destroy many of the economic advances we have achieved in recent years.

If you feel you can run your cattle operation better than Congress can, call your U.S. senators today and tell them so. At stake is your ability to conduct business as you see fit, and the economic freedom on which our industry and our country were built.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBA line of bull is not surprising with their long history of being a Packer-backer .... Funny in talking to dozens of cattlemen lately-- how few cattlemen or even their members locally
agree with them on this.....Talked to one fellow yesterday afternoon that was so mad about their still fighting M-COOL and against the Packer Ownership Ban- that he was going to throw the NCBA membership renewal in the garbage....

I just received the following e-mail from the House....Interesting how GW and his USDA have done nothing to lead-- but now are bitching....

News from the House Agriculture Committee

FOR PUBLICATION AS RELEASED
Thursday, November 8, 2007

Media Contacts:
April Demert Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496

Opinion Editorial: Farm Bill Reformers' Fair Weather Friend

As the Farm Bill debate began this year, reformers thought they found an unlikely ally in the Bush Administration, which has argued
forcefully against the farm safety net because it allowed big city millionaires to collect farm payments.

What reformers don't know or have conveniently forgotten is that the Bush Administration has failed to use the authority it already
has to end those payments and has ignored recommendations to change weak regulations that allow this to continue.


In 1987, Congress passed the Farm Program Payments Integrity Act, specifically to prohibit farm program payments to individuals and
entities that are not "actively engaged in farming."

Since that law passed, USDA has written and defended weak standards that are used to determine if someone is really actively engaged
in farming. Just one look at the map that former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns used to show farm program payment recipients
in New York and other big cities shows you that USDA has done a terrible job enforcing the law.

The 2002 Farm Bill established a Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture. The Commission found that
USDA failed to devote sufficient resources to the administration of payment limits and did a poor job of policing related fraud and
abuse
.


In 2004, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed the Commission's finding and concluded that USDA failed to write
regulations strict enough to prevent non-farmers from receiving payments.
USDA responded to that report by arguing that the rules
were sufficient. Now the Administration is blaming Congress for the loose regulations it created and defended.


Yet again, the Bush Administration has failed to lead on important issues, then tried to place the responsibility and blame at
Congress' feet.


Not so fast, Mr. President. If you want to wear the banner of reform, you should lead the way instead of pointing fingers and
playing politics with the Farm Bill.


###

Congressman Collin C. Peterson serves as Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and represents the Seventh District of
Minnesota.


The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture web site http://agriculture.house.gov has additional information on this and other subjects.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
NCBA line of bull is not surprising with their long history of being a Packer-backer .... Funny in talking to dozens of cattlemen lately-- how few cattlemen or even their members locally
agree with them on this.....Talked to one fellow yesterday afternoon that was so mad about their still fighting M-COOL and against the Packer Ownership Ban- that he was going to throw the NCBA membership renewal in the garbage....

I just received the following e-mail from the House....Interesting how GW and his USDA have done nothing to lead-- but now are bitching....

News from the House Agriculture Committee

FOR PUBLICATION AS RELEASED
Thursday, November 8, 2007

Media Contacts:
April Demert Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496

Opinion Editorial: Farm Bill Reformers' Fair Weather Friend

As the Farm Bill debate began this year, reformers thought they found an unlikely ally in the Bush Administration, which has argued
forcefully against the farm safety net because it allowed big city millionaires to collect farm payments.

What reformers don't know or have conveniently forgotten is that the Bush Administration has failed to use the authority it already
has to end those payments and has ignored recommendations to change weak regulations that allow this to continue.


In 1987, Congress passed the Farm Program Payments Integrity Act, specifically to prohibit farm program payments to individuals and
entities that are not "actively engaged in farming."

Since that law passed, USDA has written and defended weak standards that are used to determine if someone is really actively engaged
in farming. Just one look at the map that former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns used to show farm program payment recipients
in New York and other big cities shows you that USDA has done a terrible job enforcing the law.

The 2002 Farm Bill established a Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture. The Commission found that
USDA failed to devote sufficient resources to the administration of payment limits and did a poor job of policing related fraud and
abuse
.


In 2004, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed the Commission's finding and concluded that USDA failed to write
regulations strict enough to prevent non-farmers from receiving payments.
USDA responded to that report by arguing that the rules
were sufficient. Now the Administration is blaming Congress for the loose regulations it created and defended.


Yet again, the Bush Administration has failed to lead on important issues, then tried to place the responsibility and blame at
Congress' feet.


Not so fast, Mr. President. If you want to wear the banner of reform, you should lead the way instead of pointing fingers and
playing politics with the Farm Bill.


###

Congressman Collin C. Peterson serves as Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and represents the Seventh District of
Minnesota.


The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture web site http://agriculture.house.gov has additional information on this and other subjects.

Do you mean that MRJ doesn't have the 28,000 members behind her, OT?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Why don't we really get the government out of our hair and rescind all "Consumer Affairs" and "White Collar Crime" legislation? :roll:

AND THEN LET THE CROOKS' GAMES BEGIN!!!!!!

If the PSA "Competition" clause were directed towards "Producers" equally as it has been towards "Packers", there would be no need for furthur rules and regs.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I just sent an e-mail to Drovers asking when we will see MaxThornesbury's or Bill Bullard's comments on the farm bill. Any predictions?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
:mad: THAT GUY IS FULL OF CRAP!!!! :mad: :mad:

Yup,I say he is fulla sheist too,can some one tell me how they elect their officials,seems like every time I read about the packer loving SOB's they have a new packer mouth piece,called president.
good luck
 

PORKER

Well-known member
NCBA stills fighting M-COOL and against the Packer Ownership Ban-so I am mad TOO as They are just stabing us in the back.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Op-Ed

NCBA’s Queen Flatly Misleads Producers, Public About Proposed Competition Reforms in 2007 Farm Bill




Note: R-CALF USA Vice President/Region II Director Randy Stevenson authored this rebuttal to a recent op-ed by NCBA President John Queen, titled “Government Meddling Threatens Cattle Industry’s Future.” Stevenson also co-chairs R-CALF USA’s Marketing Committee and represents the group on the agriculture advisory board for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. For a photo of Stevenson, contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson.


Mr. Queen has expressed chagrin over some proposed market reforms that may be included in the 2007 Farm Bill. The proposals he opposes would free the market from its limited access, thus encouraging young people to participate, invigorating rural development, and helping small business agriculture – without government expenditure.



His complaint about government meddling rings a little hollow, somewhat like the speeder stopped by the highway patrol. The proposed reforms have kindred restrictions that exist in other markets, and have existed for a very long time. Like traffic laws that make travel safe and efficient, those restrictions are in place because they make the free market work properly.



Mr. Queen raises an objection to the prohibition of packer ownership of cattle, but the prohibition of packer ownership of cattle is like the prohibition of insider trading. Mr. Queen says, “In over 58 million cattle transactions studied between 2002 and 2005, only 5 percent involved any type of direct packer ownership.” In the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that the study covered 590,000 transactions on 58 million cattle. But it doesn't matter what the packer ownership volume is, it’s an issue of market timing. Employees of companies traded on Wall Street own even less than 5 percent of the stock traded, yet insider trading is against the law. When packers own their own cattle, they can use the timing of their slaughter to affect the market. Their timing increases the market access risk endured by cash market sellers. By contrast, no one on Wall Street suffers market access risk.



The independent study Mr. Queen mentions – the Livestock and Meat Marketing Study (LMMS) – acknowledges market access risk and indicates that producers accept a discount on their cattle in order to guarantee market access. The Captive Supply Reform Act (CSRA) addresses the market access problem as well. While the focus of the CSRA is on making sure contracts are tied to a firm price when they are made, it would, in concert with the cattle ownership prohibition for packers, modify current captive supply practices so that market access risk would not exist in the slaughter cattle market.



Mr. Queen also suggests that cattlemen who have made large investments and commitments will be penalized. In contrast, the LMMS indicates that small producers do not widely participate in alternative marketing agreements such as captive supply contracts. They are, therefore, in the group with the greatest likelihood of suffering from the lack of market access. Small production is where young people who are new entrants into the market begin. It is no wonder their numbers are few.



It is important to note that the LMMS clarifies whom Mr. Queen is defending. The study differentiates between “small” cattle producers and “large” cattle producers by stating, “Large beef producers are defined as the 25 largest feedlots and 25 largest cow/calf operations in the United States, and small beef producers are the remainder.” So Mr. Queen's defense of the status quo helps only the 25 largest producers in the U.S. and the rest are left with a market access problem.



Contrary to the suggestion of Mr. Queen that these reforms would move the market in the direction of inordinate government control, they would, in fact, make the livestock markets work more like the old-fashioned capitalism of Wall Street. It’s not socialism. It’s not government meddling. It’s just the enforcement of time-proven free access to a market that is honest and competitive. And without free access, honesty and competition, capitalism is just an illusion.



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization and is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on both domestic and international trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA has more than 60 affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.



Stevenson and his family run Double S Livestock, a cattle-feeding operation near Wheatland, Wyo. They no longer feed cattle to finish, but take in a lot of freshly weaned calves, specializing in lightweight, early weaned cattle. They also feed and breed replacement heifers and winter-over brook cows and cattle for the next summer’s grass.
 

Latest posts

Top