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

The difference

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Support for farm bill split among livestock groups
Monday, July 30, 2007, 3:56 PM

by Peter Shinn

The livestock industry appears to be divided on the House version of the 2007 farm bill. Major pork and dairy groups have unqualified praise for the measure while beef cattle groups have a more two-sided assessment.

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is praising the House farm bill, approved by a 40-vote margin Friday, as one that "will help pork producers remain competitive in the global marketplace." NPPC President Jill Appell said in a release issued Friday her organization wanted a farm bill that, among other things, "protects producers from initiatives that would adversely affect their livelihoods, such as mandates on production practices." Appell said the farm bill passed the House "achieves those goals."

Similarly, the National Milk Producers Federation (NFMPF) said in a statement Friday the House farm bill will help keep the dairy industry "vibrant in the future." According to the NMPF statement, the House farm bill did no less than include "all of the major elements that the National Milk Producers Federation had sought when the process of writing a farm bill in Congress began earlier this year."

But R-CALF USA Vice President Randy Stevenson expressed frustration the House farm bill didn't contain "any measures to limit captive supplies, which just allows meatpackers the continued ability to manipulate the domestic cattle market." Stevenson added that R-CALF was disappointed "there was no language to limit packer ownership of cattle, and the House version didn’t include essential language to update and strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act.

And while the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is pleased the House farm bill doesn't tackle those competition issues, NCBA lobbyist Collin Woodall said his group isn't happy with the limits on conservation payments included in the measure. And overall, Woodall described the House farm bill as "not exactly the best farm bill for cattlemen, but it's a good start."

However, NCBA and R-CALF USA appear to be the only two mainline ag or commodity groups expressing serious reservations about the House farm bill. And both groups said there’s plenty in the measure that they do like.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And while the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is pleased the House farm bill doesn't tackle those competition issues, NCBA lobbyist Collin Woodall said his group isn't happy with the limits on conservation payments included in the measure. And overall, Woodall described the House farm bill as "not exactly the best farm bill for cattlemen, but it's a good start."

That was the talk of the waterhole yesterday-- bunch of the farmers were razzing a bunch of the ranchers about the fact that now with all these EQUIP and conservation programs, these ranchers are all getting mailbox brim on their cowboy hats-- same as the ranchers had always accused the farmers of their farmer caps..... :wink: :lol:

It was kind of comical to hear the ranchers bitching this time because of Farm Bill payment limits being too low... :shock: :wink: :lol:

Now don't get me wrong-- I think Equip and some of the conservation programs could be good programs-- but we are already seeing them getting mired down in politics/bureaucracy- and turning into a handout for those that have the right political connections of the day.....
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, how do we know whether what you say about conservation programs is accurate.........or simply a matter of you either being ignorant of facts OR denigrating people you ASSUME are "politically connected".

The fact may well be they are people willing to jump through the hoops AND spend a considerable chunk of their own money in order to comply with rules and regs in order to make NEEDED conservation improvements on their ranches??????

Given your record on this site, the latter scenario makes the most sense.

mrj
 

mrj

Well-known member
Any government checks we have received has been a pittance compared either with the losses we experienced (drought), or to the personal finances we put into projects for which we might have received PARTIAL cost sharing!

We HOPE the LONG TERM benefits to the ranch, wildlife, and conservation will make it worthwhile for future generationS, whether our family or other owners, working this ranch.

No mailbox on our ranch. We rent an indoor one in town.

FTR, my old 'granny-farmer' style straw hat usually has the brim blown backward over the crown by the *&#@$$ WIND!

mrj
 
Top