• 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 new farm bill will also not include a packer ban

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
2008 farm bill all but wrapped-up
Friday, May 2, 2008, 6:45 AM

by Peter Shinn

Congress finally made a lot of progress on the next farm bill after a six-hour meeting Thursday night that stretched into Friday morning. There are now just nine farm bill policy issues that are unresolved and congressional staffers are expected to work those out over the weekend.

Highlights of the bill include a big increase in nutrition and food aid spending. More than two-thirds of the roughly $290 billion the farm bill will spend over the next five years will go to feed America's school children and the needy.

The new farm bill does have some new safety net provisions for ag producers, including a $3.7 billion permanent ag disaster aid program, an optional revenue-based counter-cyclical pilot program beginning in 2010 and an increase in target rates and loan rates for various commodities.

The new farm bill does cut direct payments to farmers by around $313 million over the life of the legislation, despite two separate attempts by Texas GOP Representative Randy Neugebauer and Kansas GOP Congressman Jerry Moran to restore that funding. And House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, using characteristically blunt language, said those who see direct payments as the best safety net for farmers have definitely got it all wrong.

"It is a damn poor, stupid safety net, OK?" Peterson said. "The idea that a 2% cut for three years is going to make any difference is ludicrous."

The new farm bill will also not include a packer ban on owning livestock more than 10 days before slaughter after an amendment to that effect by Iowa GOP Senator Chuck Grassley failed. Grassley said the defeat of his amendment spelled the end of family-owned livestock production in the U.S.
"Further control over packer ownership of cattle and hogs will ultimately be the demise of independent producers," Grassley predicted.

The Senate also turned back an effort by the House to ban privatizing food stamp delivery by states, a provision that would have put Indiana in a real bind, since the Republican governor of that state, Mitch Daniels, has already done so. And early this morning, Peterson and Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin agreed the 2008 farm bill is essentially complete.

"We are basically done," Harkin said.

"Yeah, I agree," Peterson interrupted.

"But for some scoring," Harkin continued, "and a couple of these issues."

"These issues" include final figures on adjusted gross income limits for farm program payments and final policy on beneficial interest for marketing loans. Washington sources suggest Congress will move closer to the Bush administration’s positions on both those issues. But it’s still not clear whether that will be enough to get President Bush to sign the bill.

In a statement released after 11 p.m. Eastern time Thursday night, Deputy U.S. Ag Secretary issued a statement urging Congress to reduce the overall size of the bill and to include further "reforms" in the measure.

""The president wants to sign a farm bill that meets his criteria," said Conner in the statement.”If sent to him without meeting his criteria, he would be forced to veto the bill."

The NAFB News Service contributed material used in this report.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Now that bush's henchmen have the packer ban removed from the new farm bill ,watch how fast it gets pushed through.
good luck
 

Mike

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Could somebody explain why they have Social programs like food stamps and school lunches in the farm bill?

I really don't know but there is a history of farmers providing food for the public at a discount.

Back in the 60's and 70's when we had a dairy, summer was a welcome time in that school was out and milk prices (prices paid to producer) would go up.

We dairy producers had what they called a "base" (or "quota") of milk we could produce based on last years production.

The over-production above that "base" was severely discounted in the name of "school milk" during the times when school was in session.

I remember discount was about a $4.00 per/cwt at times.

Pretty steep cut considering we were only getting $7-$8.00 per/cwt.

Was a whacky system for producers to take such a hit and the processor got to keep his same margin.........................
 

PORKER

Well-known member
In a statement released after 11 p.m. Eastern time Thursday night, Deputy U.S. Ag Secretary issued a statement urging Congress to reduce the overall size of the bill and to include further "reforms" in the measure.

""The president wants to sign a farm bill that meets his criteria," said Conner in the statement.”If sent to him without meeting his criteria, he would be forced to veto the bill."

Any Bet to the above statement ?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Could somebody explain why they have Social programs like food stamps and school lunches in the farm bill?
Because they are food related programs and food related programs come under USDA...well, most of them. :? :???:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Members of a Farm Bill conference committee gave tentative approval late yesterday to language generally supported by KLA and NCBA policy. Conferees voted to remove a ban on packer feeding, which would have threatened alliances and producer-owned processing facilities that have helped ranchers and feeders capture more value for cattle and better address consumer demand. KLA and NCBA have worked diligently to make sure the packer feeding ban was excluded.


Creation of an Office of Special Counsel also was removed from the bill. Authority granted to the special counsel would have duplicated existing authority of USDA’s Packers and Stockyards Administration. KLA and NCBA opposed this additional layer of government regulation.



The tentative Farm Bill agreement does include language reducing the burden mandatory country-of-origin labeling will have on ranchers, feeders and others in the meat industry. KLA and NCBA fought to make the recordkeeping aspect of the new program more flexible for producers.



U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Jerry Moran, both conference committee members, have been strong supporters of beef industry priorities throughout the Farm Bill debate.



Once the conference committee completes work on the bill, it will be subject to an up or down vote, with no amendments, by the full House and Senate. It is uncertain if President Bush will sign the bill.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The biggest threat to "producer-owned processing facilities that have helped ranchers and feeders capture more value for cattle and better address consumer demand" is the concentration of the industry where over 90% of fed cattle are processed by the five biggest packers. Letting these packers own cattle helps them increase their hold on the beef market. They have been and will continue to drive these producer-owned processing facilities out of the market! :mad: :mad:

Who does NCBA represent on this issue?????
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Conferees voted to remove a ban on packer feeding, which would have threatened alliances and producer-owned processing facilities that have helped ranchers and feeders capture more value for cattle and better address consumer demand."

BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The words of liars and idiots!

Can any of these fools name ONE alliance or facility that would be threatened? Just one? MRJ is the biggest cheerleader there is for NCBA, she was repeating this garbage, and she couldn't come up with a single one. That shows you the mentality that is effecting legislation in this country. Makes me so damn mad and disgusted that I'm going to have to step outside and melt some snow.

Flipping pirates and morons!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Payment limits likely in new farm bill
FAITH BREMNER • Argus Leader Washington Bureau • May 2, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration continues to wave a veto pen at the tentative new farm bill, despite proposed new payment limits for wealthy farmers and landowners.

House and Senate farm bill negotiators included the limits to appease President Bush, who has complained that, among other things, the legislation does not go far enough to curtail farm support payments to rich farmers and landowners, some of whom don't even farm.

The deal on the farm bill, which has not been completed, would base limits on farm program payments on whether the recipients are farmers or non-farmers, said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D.


In the proposed bill, landowners with adjusted gross incomes of more than $750,000 who are not farmers would be ineligible for farm payments starting next year. The income cap for non-farmers would fall to $650,000 in 2010 and to $500,000 in 2011, Herseth Sandlin said.

The adjusted gross income cap for farmers would be $950,000. Farmers making more than that still could benefit from farm programs but would lose 10 percent of their direct payments for every $100,000 in income over the $950,000 cap, Herseth Sandlin said. Congress could vote on the bill within the next week or two, she said.

Bush wants an income cap of $200,000.

"If the administration stands by its unreasonable demands and vetoes good farm policy, I believe we'll have the votes to override that veto because the end product that we've arrived at is reform oriented and bipartisan," Herseth Sandlin said.

On Wednesday, USDA Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, who delivered the White House veto threat, said the proposed new payment limits would continue to subsidize people with "extremely" high incomes.

"This is not reform and does not move Congress closer to a farm bill that the president would sign," Conner said.

The tentative deal also would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from closing Farm Service Agency offices as planned for two years, Herseth Sandlin said. It also would require the USDA to move forward with regulations that require country-of-origin labeling for meat.

The proposed income limits are a step in the right direction and are the best Congress can do, said Senate agriculture committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa.

As negotiations on the bill continued Thursday, lawmakers for the sixth time extended the 2002 farm bill - seven months after its expiration. When complete, it would authorize spending for agriculture, nutrition, conservation and rural development programs through 2012.

Contact Faith Bremner at [email protected]
 

cedardell

Well-known member
Like I posted here once before the Italian Parliment claims that the Sicilian Mafia controls the US food industry. This is how they do it. They infiltrate politically powerful lobbying groups and tip the scales in their favor. Also like to point out that Brazil is well within the reach of Australia's cattle barges. So large packerowned feedlots down there will have access to all those cheap feedercattle with a direct pipeline into the US with the meat. So I'd like to hear those NCBA members explain how this will help US cattlemen. Even all you feeder cattle producers that sell direct to them should be able to see this coming.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Ditto "Conferees voted to remove a ban on packer feeding, which would have threatened alliances and producer-owned processing facilities that have helped ranchers and feeders capture more value for cattle and better address consumer demand." !BS! BS, BS, BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The words of liars and idiots! You Got That Right,they infiltrate politically powerful lobbying groups and tip the scales in their favor.
 

LCP

Well-known member
I read an article about South American beef production. Seems the majority are bos indicus breeds and not fed much corn, if any at all. The result being most of them become hamburgers. I saw a graph of beef (or cattle, don't remember which) imports compared to domestic cow slaughter. They were inversely related. I am by no means an expert on these matters, but it seems to me that imports of South American beef (or bos indicus feeder cattle), which mostly becomes hamburger, is directly affected by how many old cows we are killing here. I have a hard time believing that someone (packers, as related to the subject of this forum) could import feeders from the southern hemisphere cheaper, whether they owned them or not, than they could buy cull cows if all they make is hamburger?

I'm here to learn, not necessarily argue a point...that might come later :D
 

mrj

Well-known member
BMr, as a child back in the late 1940's & 50's it seemed more interesting to listen to the old men (my grandpa, my uncles and other relatives and friends who seemed to gather at our ranch quite often) than either play with the younger kids or listen to the women and risk getting put to work peeling potatoes or some such irksome chore.

One of the things I recall hearing was fuss over government programs. Not much has changed! Later on, when complaints over the welfare programs being in the Farm Programs, it was explained that it had to be that way to get the city politicians' votes. It seemed a good way to use surplus production to help out those in need in our own country as well as in other nations.

Poor pitiful Porker and Sandhusker and cedardell!!!! Sorry, but I can feel no sorrow for your pain. It is too early to say who wins and who loses, but truly the sky hasn't fallen! Those conspiracies you fear so may not come to fruition just yet. There is always time for the politicians to twist things your way. If they are so susceptible and willing to take money under the table, obviously you still have time.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
BMr, as a child back in the late 1940's & 50's it seemed more interesting to listen to the old men (my grandpa, my uncles and other relatives and friends who seemed to gather at our ranch quite often) than either play with the younger kids or listen to the women and risk getting put to work peeling potatoes or some such irksome chore.

One of the things I recall hearing was fuss over government programs. Not much has changed! Later on, when complaints over the welfare programs being in the Farm Programs, it was explained that it had to be that way to get the city politicians' votes. It seemed a good way to use surplus production to help out those in need in our own country as well as in other nations.

Poor pitiful Porker and Sandhusker and cedardell!!!! Sorry, but I can feel no sorrow for your pain. It is too early to say who wins and who loses, but truly the sky hasn't fallen! Those conspiracies you fear so may not come to fruition just yet. There is always time for the politicians to twist things your way. If they are so susceptible and willing to take money under the table, obviously you still have time.

mrj

Have you no remorse at all about spreading lies that harm cattle producers? Have you ever pondered for a moment on your inability to substantiate the "positions" of the NCBA/AMI that you parrot? You're not bothered one bit by the hypocracies that you help perpetuate?
 

mrj

Well-known member
That's pathetic, Sandhusker! You simply cannot tolerate the FACT that there are many cattle producer members in an organization who who do not think as you do. You refuse to admit that it is the cattle producer members who set policy for NCBA, so you obvioulsy have to resort to calling me names in denial of your own lack of reason in the matter.

I am NOT spreading lies! I'm stating my opinions, and you cannot accept that they are shared by many other cattle producers, so you obviously have to find 'other' reasons form my comments. I can ALMOST feel pity for you!

What you, and a few others refuse to recognize is that NCBA members understand the value of 'partnering' with AMI or other groups on SOME points or issues that will benefit cattle producers, and standing up against them when THAT will benefit cattle producers.

Maintaining a totally adversarial and confrontational relationship against packers, a necessary part of the process of making our cattle useful to consumers< is NOT beneficial to the cattleman! Those that do so have gained NOTHING for the cattle producer!

mrj

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "That's pathetic, Sandhusker! You simply cannot tolerate the FACT that there are many cattle producer members in an organization who who do not think as you do. You refuse to admit that it is the cattle producer members who set policy for NCBA, so you obvioulsy have to resort to calling me names in denial of your own lack of reason in the matter."

No, I can't tolerate the fact that so many cattle producers are being used against themselves and they haven't asked enough questions to figure it out.

I am NOT spreading lies! I'm stating my opinions, and you cannot accept that they are shared by many other cattle producers, so you obviously have to find 'other' reasons form my comments. I can ALMOST feel pity for you!

Your opinions are your opinions because some outfit you trust told you that. Otherwise, your reasoning woudn't be "Some producers said....", you would be able to back your "opinions" with examples.

What you, and a few others refuse to recognize is that NCBA members understand the value of 'partnering' with AMI or other groups on SOME points or issues that will benefit cattle producers, and standing up against them when THAT will benefit cattle producers.

You did a great job of standing up with the AMI against testing that would of benefitted producers. What was that number....$175/head? NCBA is doing an outstanding job spreading the AMI lies on the Farm Bill as evidenced by having no defense when called on it by a rancher's organization. And how about this latest deal with the Brazialians? Yep, a lot of benefit for producers there....

Maintaining a totally adversarial and confrontational relationship against packers, a necessary part of the process of making our cattle useful to consumers< is NOT beneficial to the cattleman! Those that do so have gained NOTHING for the cattle producer!

MRJ, these very same packers are doing all they can to make buying your cattle an option. They want you to need them, but them to be able to leverage beef from all over the world against you. How flipping blind to basic business stragegies is your outfit? R-CALF isn't saying we have to be adversarial to them, but R-CALF sees the obvious. They are not our friends or partners. We don't have to fight them, but we have to keep them honest and we can't be ashamed to fight for ourselves.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
WORC Cattle Update: Loss Of Packer Ban Won’t Slow Efforts

JBS merger fuels concern about meatpacker concentration

Western ranchers plan to keep pushing for livestock market reforms despite the failure of the Farm Bill Conference Committee to ban meatpacker ownership of live cattle prior to slaughter.

Late last night Senate conferees killed the ban on a voice vote.

"The packer ban would have helped return competition to the livestock markets and fairness to livestock contracts by stopping the biggest packers from controlling market access and lowering market prices," said Mabel Dobbs, a rancher from Weiser, Idaho, representing the Western Organization of Resource Councils. "Congress has left us to the wolves."

Dobbs said concern about consolidating markets is high because of JBS Swift’s plan to buy two of the country’s largest meatpackers, Smithfield Beef and National Beef. The acquisition would make JBS Swift the largest packer in the world.

If the merger succeeds, the three largest meatpacking companies in the U.S. would process nearly 9 out of 10 of the livestock slaughtered.

Based in Billings, Mont., WORC is a network of conservation and family agriculture organizations in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker: "The sky is falling....the sky is falling....WOLF! WOLF!.....the sky is falling!"

You are accusing some of the best and brightest cattle producers in this nation, as well as in your own state of not knowing that they are doing when they set NCBA policy, or that we don't understand and are being misled by some mysterious "they"......so I'm in mighty fine company when you accuse me of lying!

FYI, those who have stated their business reasons for being against your cherished law giving government the right to say who may own cattle when and for what reason did not give specifics. It is good enough for me when credible cattlemen say the law is not good for them.

It is YOUR unsubstantiated opinion, told to you by your groups leaders, that packers are determined to eliminate the producers of the best cattle they can get. It's quite obvious that R-CALF leaders do and say whatever their parent/sugar daddy organization dictates because that is best for LMA and it's members!

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker: "The sky is falling....the sky is falling....WOLF! WOLF!.....the sky is falling!"

You are accusing some of the best and brightest cattle producers in this nation, as well as in your own state of not knowing that they are doing when they set NCBA policy, or that we don't understand and are being misled by some mysterious "they"......so I'm in mighty fine company when you accuse me of lying!

FYI, those who have stated their business reasons for being against your cherished law giving government the right to say who may own cattle when and for what reason did not give specifics. It is good enough for me when credible cattlemen say the law is not good for them.

Perfect example of the parrot. There is no flipping law being proposed that says who can and who can't own cattle. I've asked you several times to bring that law and you never do - you just repeat the same damn nonsense. If there is a law that gives the government the right to say who may own cattle, WHY THE HELL CAN'T YOU PRESENT IT?

It is YOUR unsubstantiated opinion, told to you by your groups leaders, that packers are determined to eliminate the producers of the best cattle they can get. It's quite obvious that R-CALF leaders do and say whatever their parent/sugar daddy organization dictates because that is best for LMA and it's members!

You don't even know what my "group leaders" are saying about the packers. Open your eyes, read a paper, watch the news, see what the heck is happening in the world around you! Why are the packers trying to get our borders completely open for foreign beef? Why are they buying into foreign beef interests? Why is JBS ponying up millions to establish a position in this nation when you NCBAers claim there's not much money to be made in packing? WHY?

Jeeeze, MRJ, do you ever look at what the packers are doing and then wonder for an instant WHY? Have you ever tried to put yourself in their place and consider what you would do if you were them? They're not in any conspiracy to wipe out US producers, they're following what other companies have done, namely Walmart, they're concentrating on lowering the costs of the product they buy because that is easier than raising the price of the product they sell! If you would of taken a business 101 course, this material would of been covered in the second week!

The leadership of R-CALF isn't making any crazy declarations on the packer's intentions, they're simply stating what is obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of business. If you would check on what they are saying, you would see that this exact same business plan is being followed by many other industries as well. But here is NCBA and their parrots claiming the packers are our "partners in industry" while those "partners" are doing everything they can to make that "partnership" an option to them.


mrj
 
Top