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

Queston for Sandbag

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question assuming you know something about this topic.

I was once a member of a certain non profit organization. A friend recently sent me the cover letter that was sent along with a financial statement from an accounting firm that conducted an accounting of assetts, liabilities and net assets on a cash basis for this non profit organization.

I was disturbed when I read it and was wondering what your reaction would be. I really don't know enough about business accounting to know what is and what is not appropriate when conducting financial accounting for a non profit organization.

If you were a member of a non profit organization and you requested a financial statement from that organization, what would you think if you read the following statement from their cover letter..................

"A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statement and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them."

"Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements prepared on the cash basis of accounting. If the ommitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the users conclusions about the Company's assetts, liabilities, fund balance, revenues, and expenses. Accordingly, these statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters".

Is it normal for a public accounting company to omit disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements?



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question assuming you know something about this topic.

I was once a member of a certain non profit organization. A friend recently sent me the cover letter that was sent along with a financial statement from an accounting firm that conducted an accounting of assetts, liabilities and net assets on a cash basis for this non profit organization.

I was disturbed when I read it and was wondering what your reaction would be. I really don't know enough about business accounting to know what is and what is not appropriate when conducting financial accounting for a non profit organization.

If you were a member of a non profit organization and you requested a financial statement from that organization, what would you think if you read the following statement from their cover letter..................

"A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statement and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them."

"Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements prepared on the cash basis of accounting. If the ommitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the users conclusions about the Company's assetts, liabilities, fund balance, revenues, and expenses. Accordingly, these statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters".

Is it normal for a public accounting company to omit disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements?



~SH~
This is a normal disclaimer for an accounting firm which has compiled information on a cash basis. An accrual basis would require disclosure of some items not required on a cash basis. I have seen this exact statement on other financial statements. It's no big deal.

It is normal for smaller or growing companies to report on a cash basis. As they get larger it is normal to convert to an accrual method.

Even when accounting is done on an accrual method accountants will attach a disclaimer that is similar and sounds almost scary.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question assuming you know something about this topic.

I was once a member of a certain non profit organization. A friend recently sent me the cover letter that was sent along with a financial statement from an accounting firm that conducted an accounting of assetts, liabilities and net assets on a cash basis for this non profit organization.

I was disturbed when I read it and was wondering what your reaction would be. I really don't know enough about business accounting to know what is and what is not appropriate when conducting financial accounting for a non profit organization.

If you were a member of a non profit organization and you requested a financial statement from that organization, what would you think if you read the following statement from their cover letter..................

"A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statement and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them."

"Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements prepared on the cash basis of accounting. If the ommitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the users conclusions about the Company's assetts, liabilities, fund balance, revenues, and expenses. Accordingly, these statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters".

Is it normal for a public accounting company to omit disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements?



~SH~

The first paragraph I interpret as "We can only go off of what we're told and since we didn't verify what we were told as accurate or not, we're not going to say yay or nay.

The second is omitting disclosures, I don't necessarily think that is the same as omitting information. I take it that disclosures make it easier for the common guy to understand what they are reading. They're not using disclosures, so the common guy might have a difficult time intepreting what he is reading. The last sentence I take as they are admitting that only an account or somebody like that will be able to make heads or tails of what they are reading.

Boy, I don't think I've ever seen this before. Most financial statements that I've seen don't always bend over backward to make it simple to understand, but then they don't try to confuse the issue, either. The financial statement is supposed to inform the reader, but they're saying that the average guy won't be able to figure this out. I'd say you're correct to detect a red flag. Before I got too excited about it, I think I would ask the org. about it and why disclosures were not used.

I'd also ask why the auditors kept this at arm's length. Usually, an auditor signs the statement as verifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the statement is correct.

I think you're right, there is plenty justification for questions here.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question assuming you know something about this topic.

I was once a member of a certain non profit organization. A friend recently sent me the cover letter that was sent along with a financial statement from an accounting firm that conducted an accounting of assetts, liabilities and net assets on a cash basis for this non profit organization.

I was disturbed when I read it and was wondering what your reaction would be. I really don't know enough about business accounting to know what is and what is not appropriate when conducting financial accounting for a non profit organization.

If you were a member of a non profit organization and you requested a financial statement from that organization, what would you think if you read the following statement from their cover letter..................

"A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statement and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them."

"Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements prepared on the cash basis of accounting. If the ommitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the users conclusions about the Company's assetts, liabilities, fund balance, revenues, and expenses. Accordingly, these statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters".

Is it normal for a public accounting company to omit disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements?



~SH~

The first paragraph I interpret as "We can only go off of what we're told and since we didn't verify what we were told as accurate or not, we're not going to say yay or nay.

The second is omitting disclosures, I don't necessarily think that is the same as omitting information. I take it that disclosures make it easier for the common guy to understand what they are reading. They're not using disclosures, so the common guy might have a difficult time intepreting what he is reading. The last sentence I take as they are admitting that only an account or somebody like that will be able to make heads or tails of what they are reading.

Boy, I don't think I've ever seen this before. Most financial statements that I've seen don't always bend over backward to make it simple to understand, but then they don't try to confuse the issue, either. The financial statement is supposed to inform the reader, but they're saying that the average guy won't be able to figure this out. I'd say you're correct to detect a red flag. Before I got too excited about it, I think I would ask the org. about it and why disclosures were not used.

I'd also ask why the auditors kept this at arm's length. Usually, an auditor signs the statement as verifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the statement is correct.

I think you're right, there is plenty justification for questions here.

I'm going to take issue with Sandhusker on this. I checked our financial statements that we receive from our accountant (I work at an agricultural enterprise). They have this same exact disclaimer (with one further sentence added).

Another paragraph explains that the financial statements are prepared consistent with filling out an income tax form. It shows what would be shown to the IRS.

Our banker is unconcerned. Of course we go through and do an accrual based statement for him. There are some inherent shortcomings of cash based accounting.

The best solution is for the organization to change accounting methods.

For example, our church goes on a cash basis. If it were much larger an accrual basis would be better because it MIGHT show things not normally reported on a cash basis statement.

But no doubt--accrual is better.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I've looked at a lot of balance sheets on public companies, and I'll redily admit I can't think of any non-profits that I've looked at. Maybe that is the norm. However, I've never seen that anyplace. Sounds like ocm is better versed on this than I am.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
It is just another way to pass the responsibilty. That is one of the reasons we have Sarbanes Oxley. At least the board was pretty truthful about their inability to take a stance without better information.

SH, do you trust the organization?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
It is just another way to pass the responsibilty. That is one of the reasons we have Sarbanes Oxley. At least the board was pretty truthful about their inability to take a stance without better information.

SH, do you trust the organization?

After thinking this over I think it is just a standard way of presenting an income statement without a balance sheet--nothing more, nothing less.

All I said before still applies. One significant difference between a cash method and an accrual method is that accrual reporting SHOWS the interaction with the balance sheet while cash does not.

Our accountant has this disclaimer on all our financial statements. But he does not present balance sheets to the bank for us. We do a balance sheet periodically for the bank and a "borrowing base" monthly which accounts for the most changeable assets and liabilities.

What is probably missing on this report is a complete listing of all assets and liabilities. For that reason it may be considered incomplete. It depends on the purpose for which the statement was produced. No doubt it would accurately list all income and expenses for the reported period.

I have been involved in many small organizations ( a church, a camp, a private school) that have presented financial statements without balance sheets (or accounting review). As they grow they need to do it differently.

The best thing to do is to go to them and say, "Hey, can we get you guys on an accrual method of accounting and start tracking with balance sheets as well." The response you get then will tell you more than the mere fact that a balance sheet is missing.

When I worked in a different situation we weren't going to be able to get financial statements without disclaimers until we had balance sheets from two consecutive years audited. We couldn't do it overnight.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Didn't mean to sound so negative about it. If someone gives an opinion and puts information out there, and they have disclaimers to how to be careful with what it means, then that is okay. It is when the pres. or other officers of the company are trying to hide something that it becomes a problem. On little orgs that you trust anyway, there is no problem. It would be a major red flag on an auditited large org. All disclaimers should be looked at carefully for that reason. It doesn't mean something is wrong or unlawful, but it does mean that you should be careful with its interpretation. There were obviously some attorneys in there somewhere after something went wrong with some (other) outfit to make the disclaimer needed.

Thanks for the info. OCM. My wife used to do the church's books and taught accounting at the local community college.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Didn't mean to sound so negative about it. If someone gives an opinion and puts information out there, and they have disclaimers to how to be careful with what it means, then that is okay. It is when the pres. or other officers of the company are trying to hide something that it becomes a problem. On little orgs that you trust anyway, there is no problem. It would be a major red flag on an auditited large org. All disclaimers should be looked at carefully for that reason. It doesn't mean something is wrong or unlawful, but it does mean that you should be careful with its interpretation. There were obviously some attorneys in there somewhere after something went wrong with some (other) outfit to make the disclaimer needed.

Thanks for the info. OCM. My wife used to do the church's books and taught accounting at the local community college.

I think a lot of people overlook this kind of stuff when they have no liabilities. In other words if the organization has never had to go to a bank for a loan (which was true of all the small organizations I was involved with)they very well could never have had this called to their attention--that they need a balance sheet. Especially true if they also have no building mortgage, pension obligations, etc. If this was their first accountant reviewed financial report they need to have a little slack cut for them, BUT ask for an improvement. Big question. How big are they and/or how fast have they grown.

Clue. Look for an expense called "debt service". If it's not there, they're probably not deliberately hiding anything.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "The financial statement is supposed to inform the reader, but they're saying that the average guy won't be able to figure this out. I'd say you're correct to detect a red flag. Before I got too excited about it, I think I would ask the org. about it and why disclosures were not used.

I'd also ask why the auditors kept this at arm's length. Usually, an auditor signs the statement as verifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the statement is correct.

I think you're right, there is plenty justification for questions here."


Sandbag,

You'll be interested to know that this was the cover letter for a recent R-CALF financial audit (a non profit organization that I used to be a member of).

Had this been an NCBA audit, I'm sure you would have went through the roof. In contrast, I tend to believe OCM on this and I certainly believe in the "presumption of innocense". The cover letter reads suspicious and would only serve to fuel the conspiring mind. I don't operate that way. I'm quite sure this is common practice. You took the bait.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "The financial statement is supposed to inform the reader, but they're saying that the average guy won't be able to figure this out. I'd say you're correct to detect a red flag. Before I got too excited about it, I think I would ask the org. about it and why disclosures were not used.

I'd also ask why the auditors kept this at arm's length. Usually, an auditor signs the statement as verifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the statement is correct.

I think you're right, there is plenty justification for questions here."


Sandbag,

You'll be interested to know that this was the cover letter for a recent R-CALF financial audit (a non profit organization that I used to be a member of).

Had this been an NCBA audit, I'm sure you would have went through the roof. In contrast, I tend to believe OCM on this and I certainly believe in the "presumption of innocense". The cover letter reads suspicious and would only serve to fuel the conspiring mind. I don't operate that way. I'm quite sure this is common practice. You took the bait.


~SH~

SH, for what time period and how big was R-Calf at the time? Both OCM and I have said that when organizations are small and growing or have not been big enough or around long enough to be audited, this could be a statement that would give whoever was looking at the Board's report a heads up. Heads up should be given ANY time there are questions. A statement coming out of NCBA like that at this time after they should have been audited would be much different than a boy scout troop's statement, a church statement, or any start up organization.

Do you disagree?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This was written in Jan. of 2005.

Like I said Conman, the cover letter reads suspicious but I would bet my money that there is no inpropriety. I believe in the "presumption of innocense" even with an organization that I disagree with from virtually every standpoint. Even with an organization that has told outward lies to the media such as "USDA does not care about food safety". This accounting company's reputation is on the line here so I highly doubt that they would be involved in a coverup. My only point was that the "ILLUSION" of inpropriety can easily be created by such wording.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "The financial statement is supposed to inform the reader, but they're saying that the average guy won't be able to figure this out. I'd say you're correct to detect a red flag. Before I got too excited about it, I think I would ask the org. about it and why disclosures were not used.

I'd also ask why the auditors kept this at arm's length. Usually, an auditor signs the statement as verifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the statement is correct.

I think you're right, there is plenty justification for questions here."


Sandbag,

You'll be interested to know that this was the cover letter for a recent R-CALF financial audit (a non profit organization that I used to be a member of).

Had this been an NCBA audit, I'm sure you would have went through the roof. In contrast, I tend to believe OCM on this and I certainly believe in the "presumption of innocense". The cover letter reads suspicious and would only serve to fuel the conspiring mind. I don't operate that way. I'm quite sure this is common practice. You took the bait.


~SH~

I took the bait? I gave you my honest opinion. ocm then showed he knew more on the subject than I did and I admitted that ocm was better versed on the subject that I am.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
This was written in Jan. of 2005.

Like I said Conman, the cover letter reads suspicious but I would bet my money that there is no inpropriety. I believe in the "presumption of innocense" even with an organization that I disagree with from virtually every standpoint. Even with an organization that has told outward lies to the media such as "USDA does not care about food safety". This accounting company's reputation is on the line here so I highly doubt that they would be involved in a coverup. My only point was that the "ILLUSION" of inpropriety can easily be created by such wording.


~SH~

So your membership in R-Calf was before Jan. 2005 or only after you lost your bet with Sandhusker?

Did you follow up the red flag? Did you have any reason to think the unaudited organization was misappropriating funds and did you do anything about it to find out?

As far as the USDA' statement, it is obvious to anyone who looks into the BSE fiasco that the packer position the USDA is taking trumps the food safety responsibilities of the USDA. It is obvious that Secretary Johannes will push a premise I.D. program and spend 100 million dollars on it but not do a thing to implement M-COOL, a program that was legislated by Congress. Here is an excerpt of those expenditures:

After the BSE discovery, Agriculture Secretary Veneman announced, on
December 30, 2003, a series of initiatives aimed at restoring public and foreign
confidence in the safetyof U.S. beefand cattle. Oneof theseinitiatives was to be the
accelerated implementation of a verifiable system of national animal identification
— the “framework” for which was published on April 27, 2004.
During FY2004, USDA transferred $18.8 million from its Commodity Credit
Corporation account to APHIS to begin implementation. On June 16, 2004, USDA
provided nearly $12 million of the total for cooperative agreements with states and
tribal governments, to begin registering premises and to conduct research and data
collection. USDA asked Congress for, and received, $33 million more for its animal
ID activities in FY2005. On June 21, 2005, USDA announced that it was accepting
applications to disburse another $14.3 million to continue premises registration.
The Administration requested another $33 million for FY2006, and both the
House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the appropriation (H.R. 2744) would
provide this money. The House committee report said that it expects APHIS to
submit quarterly progress reports that cover data usage, confidentiality, and cost
issues; the Senate committee report expects APHIS to consult with private industry
and to include industry components in a national ID program, among other things.
The House also directs that no less than $2 million be provided for a cooperative
agreement with theWisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, and no less than
$600,000 for the Farm Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) program, both to
work in support of a national system. The Senate version also directs funds to the
Wisconsin and FAIR programs, and to animal tracking in Washington state, among
other items. The bill was awaiting full Senate action in late June 2005, after which
a conference committee likely will be asked to iron out differences between the two
versions.
Recent Developments. According to USDA’s website on its National
Animal Identification System (NAIS), “The NAIS builds upon aspects of the USAIP
and is the program that USDA is moving forward with in implementing national
animal and premises identification. USDA will continue to seek industryinput as the
NAIS progresses.” As of late August 2005, 49 states, two territories, and five tribal
organizations had the capabilityof registeringpremises, and nearly106,000 had been
registered, according to USDA. States are using standards based on the so-called
Standardized Premises Registration System initially developed by the Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium

Here is the full website:
http://tinyurl.com/afcgq

It is obvious, SH, that you are not out for the truth, you are out for the blood of the producers and their organizations.

Don't say I don't present facts. You are way behind me on that one.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "I gave you my honest opinion."

I know you did and I predicted your answer. The letter reads suspicious and had it been written by NCBA, you would have fed on it like a shark in bloody water, guaranteed.


Sandbag: "ocm then showed he knew more on the subject than I did and I admitted that ocm was better versed on the subject that I am."

I would think as a lender you would be well versed on financial statements and audits. The wording invites suspicion. Be honest about that. Had it been written for NCBA, I would have admitted to the wording being suspicion.

See what a phony you are Sandbag? Here you are a banker and you see "red flags" in this cover letter, then when you find out it was written for R-CALF you suggest that OCM is better informed than you on financial statements. You would sacrifice your knowledge of such topics to defend R-CALF from suspicion of inpropriety.

Show some integrity and stick with your original position. The wording reads suspicious but doesn't prove inpropriety.

You're so predictable.

~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "I gave you my honest opinion."

I know you did and I predicted your answer. The letter reads suspicious and had it been written by NCBA, you would have fed on it like a shark in bloody water, guaranteed.


Sandbag: "ocm then showed he knew more on the subject than I did and I admitted that ocm was better versed on the subject that I am."

I would think as a lender you would be well versed on financial statements and audits. The wording invites suspicion. Be honest about that. Had it been written for NCBA, I would have admitted to the wording being suspicion.

See what a phony you are Sandbag? Here you are a banker and you see "red flags" in this cover letter, then when you find out it was written for R-CALF you suggest that OCM is better informed than you on financial statements. You would sacrifice your knowledge of such topics to defend R-CALF from suspicion of inpropriety.

Show some integrity and stick with your original position. The wording reads suspicious but doesn't prove inpropriety.

You're so predictable.

~SH~

I have never done business with a non-profit entity (unless you count certain ranchers :lol: ) Why would I be familiar with their financial statements? If I was looking over their statements for a loan and saw that, I would of asked my boss about it.

SH, "you see "red flags" in this cover letter, then when you find out it was written for R-CALF you suggest that OCM is better informed than you on financial statements. "

You might want to check out the chronographical order of the statements, SH. Let me do it for you;
1) I saw a red flag
2) ocm posted
3) I stated ocm was better versed that I was
4) You revealed it was R-CALF's statement

Why do you feel the need to misinform and mislead again?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "So your membership in R-Calf was before Jan. 2005 or only after you lost your bet with Sandhusker?"

Totally irrelevant but since you've diverted, my membership in R-CULT was before I researched the issues for the facts. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once blind enough to have believed R-CULT's endless stream of lies but I was sucked into the hype.


Conman: "Did you follow up the red flag? Did you have any reason to think the unaudited organization was misappropriating funds and did you do anything about it to find out?"

I simply stated the wording was suspicious and Sandbag agreed not knowing this was R-CULT's financial audit cover letter.


Conman: "It is obvious, SH, that you are not out for the truth, you are out for the blood of the producers and their organizations."

Hahaha! Listen to you, the biggest liar on this site is going to lecture me on truthfulness. You are such a joke.

You haven't corrected me on anything I have stated yet. Statements that support your bias are not facts, they are statements.


Prove to anyone that USDA, the organization responsible for food safety in the United States, does not care about food safety. It's obvious that you are not out for the truth, you are out to blame anyone and anything you can because you are liberal who hates large successful corporations and the laws that protet them from baseless allegations.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
This was written in Jan. of 2005.

Like I said Conman, the cover letter reads suspicious but I would bet my money that there is no inpropriety. I believe in the "presumption of innocense" even with an organization that I disagree with from virtually every standpoint. Even with an organization that has told outward lies to the media such as "USDA does not care about food safety". This accounting company's reputation is on the line here so I highly doubt that they would be involved in a coverup. My only point was that the "ILLUSION" of inpropriety can easily be created by such wording.


~SH~

So your membership in R-Calf was before Jan. 2005 or only after you lost your bet with Sandhusker?

Did you follow up the red flag? Did you have any reason to think the unaudited organization was misappropriating funds and did you do anything about it to find out?

As far as the USDA' statement, it is obvious to anyone who looks into the BSE fiasco that the packer position the USDA is taking trumps the food safety responsibilities of the USDA. It is obvious that Secretary Johannes will push a premise I.D. program and spend 100 million dollars on it but not do a thing to implement M-COOL, a program that was legislated by Congress. Here is an excerpt of those expenditures:

After the BSE discovery, Agriculture Secretary Veneman announced, on
December 30, 2003, a series of initiatives aimed at restoring public and foreign
confidence in the safetyof U.S. beefand cattle. Oneof theseinitiatives was to be the
accelerated implementation of a verifiable system of national animal identification
— the “framework” for which was published on April 27, 2004.
During FY2004, USDA transferred $18.8 million from its Commodity Credit
Corporation account to APHIS to begin implementation. On June 16, 2004, USDA
provided nearly $12 million of the total for cooperative agreements with states and
tribal governments, to begin registering premises and to conduct research and data
collection. USDA asked Congress for, and received, $33 million more for its animal
ID activities in FY2005. On June 21, 2005, USDA announced that it was accepting
applications to disburse another $14.3 million to continue premises registration.
The Administration requested another $33 million for FY2006, and both the
House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the appropriation (H.R. 2744) would
provide this money. The House committee report said that it expects APHIS to
submit quarterly progress reports that cover data usage, confidentiality, and cost
issues; the Senate committee report expects APHIS to consult with private industry
and to include industry components in a national ID program, among other things.
The House also directs that no less than $2 million be provided for a cooperative
agreement with theWisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, and no less than
$600,000 for the Farm Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) program, both to
work in support of a national system. The Senate version also directs funds to the
Wisconsin and FAIR programs, and to animal tracking in Washington state, among
other items. The bill was awaiting full Senate action in late June 2005, after which
a conference committee likely will be asked to iron out differences between the two
versions.
Recent Developments. According to USDA’s website on its National
Animal Identification System (NAIS), “The NAIS builds upon aspects of the USAIP
and is the program that USDA is moving forward with in implementing national
animal and premises identification. USDA will continue to seek industryinput as the
NAIS progresses.” As of late August 2005, 49 states, two territories, and five tribal
organizations had the capabilityof registeringpremises, and nearly106,000 had been
registered, according to USDA. States are using standards based on the so-called
Standardized Premises Registration System initially developed by the Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium

Here is the full website:
http://tinyurl.com/afcgq

It is obvious, SH, that you are not out for the truth, you are out for the blood of the producers and their organizations.

Don't say I don't present facts. You are way behind me on that one.

Did you read this SH? Maybe a remedial course in comprehension would pay for itself with you since you are so easily fooled.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Where does that provide facts that proves that USDA does not care about food safety to support R-CULT's claim?

Statements are not facts you moron!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Where does that provide facts that proves that USDA does not care about food safety to support R-CULT's claim?

Statements are not facts you moron!


~SH~

SH, you have shown time and time again that you do not have the ability to recognize facts. This is just another example. Thanks for allowing me to point it out again. I enjoy your sport.
 

Latest posts

Top