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

Senators Support USDA's new GIPSA Rules

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Aug. 16, 2010 Phone: 406-672-8969; [email protected]


Cattle Producers, Farm Advocates Laud Senate Support
of USDA’s Proposed Livestock Competition Rule




Washington, D.C. – Twenty-one Senators have signed a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in support of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA’s) proposed livestock and poultry competition rule released in late June. Cattle producers and farm advocates who have long pressed for increased oversight of the meatpacking, hog processing and poultry integrator industries expressed support for the letter from the Senators.



“Independent livestock producers welcome the support for the rule by these Senators,” said Mabel Dobbs, a rancher from Weiser, Idaho, with the Western Organization of Resource Councils. “These rules are the first step toward leveling the playing field between producers and the packers.”



The Senators’ ‘Dear Colleague’ letter to USDA comes on the heels of increasingly vehement opposition to the proposed rule by the meatpacking and processing companies. The proposed rule would restore necessary balance between cattle and hog producers and the packers that buy their livestock, and would also prohibit some of the most egregious practices that are now common in the contract poultry industry.



“We are pleased that so many Senators are helping to demonstrate the importance of this proposed rule,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “If we are to restore a fair and just market that will provide economic opportunities for all livestock producers, we must embrace this rule that will not only hold the dominant meatpackers accountable for their market practices and impart transparency to the market, but also prohibit certain practices that clearly are anticompetitive.”



“The letter from Senators demonstrates the popular support for these sensible rules from poultry producers everywhere,” said Mike Weaver, President of the Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias. “These proposed rules must be swiftly implemented to protect contract poultry growers from unfair contracts that are all too common today.”



The release of the proposed rule coincides with a yearlong series of joint workshops on concentration and competition in the agriculture sector hosted by the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice) and USDA. The next workshop is scheduled for 8 a.m. MDT on Friday, Aug. 27, in Fort Collins, Colo., on the campus of Colorado State University. This particular event will examine concentration in the livestock sector, especially beef cattle and hogs. Livestock producers should attend this workshop and also submit comments to USDA in support of the proposed competition rule.



“Now is the time for action,” said Rhonda Perry, livestock and grain farmer from Howard County, Mo., and Program Director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. “Family farmers and livestock producers need to make their voices heard over the well-heeled lobbyists of the meatpackers. Independent hog and cattle producers in Missouri commend Senator McCaskill for signing on to the letter and standing up for Missouri's family farmers in support of the rules.”
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Yea........well. We also had a bunch of Senators that supported the Porkulus Bill. How's that going?????????????? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
I'm sure their "support" will result in additional costs to the all meatpackers. the smaller ones will not be able to absorb the costs as well as the larger ones.

Look at any other industry and let me know if that's not the way it has and is going.

When new regulations and standards are legislated, the larger operations are all for it, because it gives them a competitive advantage.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
They're not looking for anything new. They're looking for what was written 4 generations ago to be enforced as intended.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
They're not looking for anything new. They're looking for what was written 4 generations ago to be enforced as intended.

Not looking for anything new? How did you arrive at this conclusion? You would be well served to educate yourself further. Consider the facts:

copy of proposed rules http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/rulemaking/fr10/06-22-10.pdf

talking points http://www.beefusa.org/goveGIPSAProposal.aspx

Comments of Neb Cattlemans Assn President Bill Rishel of North Platte. www.cattlementocattlemen.org. (click on GIPSA 8-17-10) He indicates these proposed rules "will destroy the creative programs that've increased profit margins for those that've spent time and money to develop alternative marketing arrangements that benefit themselves and their customers."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett?
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett?

Nice try. Read the proposed rule.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Beefman said:
Sandhusker said:
Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett?

Nice try. Read the proposed rule.

Aren't they? I mean, shouldn't a person know the source of the opinions they are reading so that credibilty can be measured properly?
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
Beefman said:
Sandhusker said:
Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett?

Nice try. Read the proposed rule.

Aren't they? I mean, shouldn't a person know the source of the opinions they are reading so that credibilty can be measured properly?

Source? NCBA on one, and one of the most respected Angus producers in Neb on point 2. Now - your big chance to reveal how you know the 21 senators / Rcalf USCA bunch are not looking for anything new with the proposed GIPSA rule.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.

http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2010/08/19/cattlemen-concerned-about-gipsas-proposed-rule/

You would do them all a favor to educate yourself on the possible repercussions.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
They're not looking for anything new. They're looking for what was written 4 generations ago to be enforced as intended.

Was CAB and grid based premiums around four generations ago?

http://agwired.com/2010/08/20/gipsa-rule-could-set-beef-industry-back-25-years/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.

I doubt if he has any of the Big Four Packers as his clients- and if things keep going the way they are they will be the feeding industry before long....
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.

I doubt if he has any of the Big Four Packers as his clients- and if things keep going the way they are they will be the feeding industry before long....

I bet he does have clients that sell into or feed in one of these programs. http://beefmagazine.com/markets/2010-alliance-yellow-pages/ Their interests are in check with these proposed rules.

You should check the link / listen to the audio that Bill mentioned. Statements such as "they're not looking for anything new" indicates lots of education needs to take place.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Beefman said:
Sandhusker said:
Beefman said:
Nice try. Read the proposed rule.

Aren't they? I mean, shouldn't a person know the source of the opinions they are reading so that credibilty can be measured properly?

Source? NCBA on one, and one of the most respected Angus producers in Neb on point 2. Now - your big chance to reveal how you know the 21 senators / Rcalf USCA bunch are not looking for anything new with the proposed GIPSA rule.

NCBA? Heard enough. I've seen them on the wrong side of every major issue enough to know that listening to them on market issues is like listening to Pelosi on political issues.

It would of been nice to hear them argue their positions against R-CALF and the people in favor of laws. Our local radio tried to get everybody together for a debate to seperate the bull from the truth. He invited several of the main players in the industry; R-CALF, NCBA, AMI, Farm Bureau, etc..... and only got one taker - R-CALF. Bill Bullard was the ONLY invitee who said he would be there. Says quite a bit....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.

http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2010/08/19/cattlemen-concerned-about-gipsas-proposed-rule/

You would do them all a favor to educate yourself on the possible repercussions.

What about customers who sold their cattle to Creekstone Farms? Those same people that you think I should listen to did all they could to deny Creekstone a niche market that could of been very profitable for them and my customers. I've seen their colors.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.

http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2010/08/19/cattlemen-concerned-about-gipsas-proposed-rule/

You would do them all a favor to educate yourself on the possible repercussions.

What about customers who sold their cattle to Creekstone Farms? Those same people that you think I should listen to did all they could to deny Creekstone a niche market that could of been very profitable for them and my customers. I've seen their colors.

What has Creekstone got to do with this? I supported Creekstone and their "quest to test". This is a totally different issue.

You would do well to read and listen to those who are bringing the facts to the table and then making up your own mind instead of blindly supporting something just because NCBA is opposing.

Do you honestly think there will be ANY grid based premiums if this goes forward?
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
Beefman said:
Sandhusker said:
Aren't they? I mean, shouldn't a person know the source of the opinions they are reading so that credibilty can be measured properly?

Source? NCBA on one, and one of the most respected Angus producers in Neb on point 2. Now - your big chance to reveal how you know the 21 senators / Rcalf USCA bunch are not looking for anything new with the proposed GIPSA rule.

NCBA? Heard enough. I've seen them on the wrong side of every major issue enough to know that listening to them on market issues is like listening to Pelosi on political issues.

It would of been nice to hear them argue their positions against R-CALF and the people in favor of laws. Our local radio tried to get everybody together for a debate to seperate the bull from the truth. He invited several of the main players in the industry; R-CALF, NCBA, AMI, Farm Bureau, etc..... and only got one taker - R-CALF. Bill Bullard was the ONLY invitee who said he would be there. Says quite a bit....

Fine - forget NCBA. Go read the rules for yourself, read up on and listen to Bill Rishel, then come back and explain how "they are not looking for anything new."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.

http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2010/08/19/cattlemen-concerned-about-gipsas-proposed-rule/

You would do them all a favor to educate yourself on the possible repercussions.

What about customers who sold their cattle to Creekstone Farms? Those same people that you think I should listen to did all they could to deny Creekstone a niche market that could of been very profitable for them and my customers. I've seen their colors.

What has Creekstone got to do with this? I supported Creekstone and their "quest to test". This is a totally different issue.

You would do well to read and listen to those who are bringing the facts to the table and then making up your own mind instead of blindly supporting something just because NCBA is opposing.

Do you honestly think there will be ANY grid based premiums if this goes forward?

You're the one that wanted to inject my client's welfare into the discussion. I brought up Creekstone as an example to show where the guys that I'm supposed to be taking talking points from went completely against my client's best interests.... again.

What grid-based premium? It's been shown that producers, on average, received LESS on the grid.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "Bill Bullard was the ONLY invitee who said he would be there. Says quite a bit...."

Bill Bullard was also advised by his lawyers that their injunction against USDA had a 99% chance of failure and yet he insisted on going forward.

Bill Bullard and R-CALF have lost every court case they have been involved in.

Bill Bullard was involved in a lawsuit against the original founder of R-CALF when he refused to support their radical agenda.

THAT SAYS A HECK OF A LOT MORE !!!!!!


Sandhusker: "What grid-based premium? It's been shown that producers, on average, received LESS on the grid."

There it is. That unquestionable arrogance of R-CALF cow/calf men saving the cattle feeders from themselves.

PROVE IT!!

SHOW ME THE FACTS WHERE PRODUCERS RECEIVED LESS WITH GRID PRICING THAN THE CASH MARKET...

You ever fed cattle and sold cattle on the grid Sandhusker?? I have and when you sell the right kind of cattle on the right kind of grid, the premiums can be substantial.

USPB paid out $25 per head on carcass premiums in their first years. Care to refute that???

You don't have a clue what you are talking about here Sandhusker. Just a blind follower of an R-CALF effort to REGULATE SOMEONE ELSE.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
If Bullard is the idiot you try to project him to be, those smart boys at NCBA should be able to put him in his place right quick. But.... I guess you have to have to stones to show up first, don't you?

Why wouldn't NCBA show up, SH? It's one thing to issue written talking points, it's another to stand up and defend/debate them against a foe in front of a live audience.

Maybe the travel was a problem? They couldn't figure out how to get the checkoff to pay for the 5 hour drive to Gordon?
 

Latest posts

Top