Archives for the 'Sustainable Livestock' Category
Farmers Ask for Fair Markets and Contracts
Thursday, August 26th, 2010
.
In June, the USDA’s Office of Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards (GIPSA) issued a proposed rule that promises to finally rein in some of the worst anti-competitive abuses of meat packers and impose a measure of contract fairness for poultry producers. Lauded by NSAC and many major farm organizations the rules have the potential to begin to restore fair competition and contracts in livestock and poultry markets.
Hundreds of livestock producers and poultry growers have already sent in comments to the USDA in support of these rules.
A comment submitted by six neighboring beef producing families from Iowa said, “We hope that the proposed changes will help bring back competition in the cattle business and reduce the stranglehold of the meat packers. Vertical integration is killing independent producers financially… By entering into contracts with some cattle producers — or by actually owning cattle — they can process the cattle they control if and when cattle prices rise past survival mode for us producers. The result is that both consumers and independent cattlemen lose big-time.”
From a livestock producer in Wyoming: “Market manipulation by packers through cattle trading amongst themselves and granting preferential treatment to certain feedlots destroys our cattle business.”
A former poultry producer said, “Had these provisions been in place years ago, it would have protected me from the major financial loss that I experienced when my poultry company cancelled my contract without warning, after I had made significant investments in my poultry houses…I strongly support these provisions as well as all of the other important poultry provisions of the proposed rule.”
Opposition to the rule from packers, processors and their friends has also been fierce. The National Chicken Council, a DC-based lobbying organization for the nation’s poultry companies, is urging its member companies to distribute a document that provides misleading information about the rules to their growers. Poultry company personnel are delivering the papers to growers in person.
“The companies are using fear and intimidation to coerce growers to act against their own self-interest,” said Becky Ceartas, director of the Contract Agriculture Reform Program at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, a member of NSAC. “Ironically, these regulations are designed to rein in these kinds of tactics.”
This is our best shot in decades to restore a level playing field for family farm livestock and poultry producers. We need to let GIPSA know that these rules are needed. You can learn more here, here and here.
Take Advantage of the Summer Congressional Recess
Wednesday, August 4th, 2010
ACTION ALERT
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SUMMER CONGRESSIONAL RECESS TO
TELL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES TO SUPPORT
USDA’S PROPOSED RULES FOR FAIR PLAY IN LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY MARKETS
You don’t have to go all the way to Washington DC to meet with your Congressman, Senators or their staff. Five times a year your legislators come home to you! This summer the House and Senate are in recess from August 9th through September 10th. During a recess your legislators will head for their home state or district to meet with constituents, attend public events and fundraisers and generally reconnect with the locals. Town hall meetings and other public events are great opportunities to ask questions and to inform policy makers and their staff of your concerns.
This is your opportunity to tell your Senators and Representatives that you support USDA’s proposed rules to strengthen and clarify the protections for farmers and ranchers under the Packers & Stockyards Act. The new rules promise to outlaw preferential pricing, expand producer rights to sue over unfair and deceptive practices and compel greater contract fairness for poultry and livestock producers.
The rules have been praised by NSAC and by many major farm organizations including the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund-United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and more than 60 other organizations who signed this letter in support of the new rules. The Packers and Poultry Processors, however, are strongly opposed to the new rules.
Ask your legislators to stand with family farmers on fair competition and fair contracts.
- Respectfully urge your legislators to support the USDA proposed rules that restore competition and contract fairness to livestock and poultry markets. Tell them we need a level playing field for family farmers and ranchers.
- Urge them to Contact USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and let him know they support the proposed rule.
Find your legislators’ public meetings schedules by calling their district office. Go to Congress.org and type in your zip code. Click on the legislator’s name, and then on the contact tab for the phone number for the district office. Call and request a schedule of any town hall meetings or public events. Let them know you would like a moment at the event to speak to your legislator about the USDA fair competition and fair contracts rules.
Background
The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 makes it unlawful for meat and poultry packers and processors and companies that contract with farmers to raise hogs and poultry from engaging in any “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device,” or to “make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.”
But until now, USDA has never issued the regulations necessary to define these broad prohibitions, in order to adequately enforce the protections for livestock and poultry farmers. In the 2008 Farm Bill, a majority of the full Congress voted to include directives to USDA to issue the regulations to define these prohibitions. In addition, Congress told USDA to clarify how the Act should be applied to give individual farmers and ranchers a fair shake when dealing with the large corporate entities that control our nation’s meat and poultry processing.
Here are just some of the measures in the proposed rules that help level the playing field for farmers and ranchers:
1. For poultry growers, the proposed rules prohibit a poultry company from
- requiring growers to make equipment changes if the existing equipment is in good working order, unless the company provides adequate compensation to the grower;
- canceling a grower’s contract or reducing the number of birds placed on their farm based solely on the failure of the grower to make equipment changes, so long as existing equipment is in good working order.
- interfering with a grower’s ability to sell their farm by requiring large upgrades to their poultry houses after the grower has announced their plans to sell their farm;
For more information on how the GIPSA rules help poultry producers, go to the Rural Advancement Foundation International USA (RAFI) website.
2. For livestock producers, the proposed rules would:
- prohibit packers from selling livestock to each other and restrict livestock buyers from acquiring cattle for more than one buyer – both these practices can be used to manipulate the markets and lower prices for farmers and ranchers; and
- end discrimination against producers based only upon the volume of cattle sold, rather than on real differences in the cost to the packers and processors.
For more information on how the GIPSA rules help livestock producers, go to the Western Organization of Resource Councils website.
3. For both livestock and poultry farmers and ranchers, the proposed rule would clarify that when a farmer or rancher shows individual harm because of unfair or deceptive practices by livestock and poultry processors, the farmer and rancher does not also need to a show harm to competition throughout the livestock or poultry market. USDA has the authority under the Packer & Stockyards Act to clarify for the courts that farmers and ranchers do not need to show this “competitive injury” to the market as a whole, in order have the legal protections for fair play provided under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
USDA Interim Rule for the Conservation Reserve Program
Friday, July 30th, 2010
On Wednesday, July 28, USDA issued an interim rule to implement provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which were not implemented under two previously issued CRP interim rules. The interim rule is effective immediately. USDA is taking public comments on the interim rule, due by September 27, 2010, that will be considered when the agency develops a final rule for the CRP.
The interim rule makes the following changes:
- Provides a definition for pollinator to mean “ . . . an insect or other animal that carries pollen from one flower to another” and authorizes the development of habitat for native and managed pollinators and the use of conservation practices that benefit native and managed pollinators on CRP land. The Farm Service Agency will work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the State Technical Committees to develop conservation practices standards and habitat characteristics for pollinator habitat and beneficial conservation practices. The 2008 Farm Bill included a measure, championed by NSAC, that encourages USDA to provide for pollinator habitat and conservation practices that benefit pollinators in the USDA conservation programs.
- Makes eligible for CRP enrollment land on which alfalfa and other multi-year legumes have been grown in an approved rotation practice. This land is now included as land on which an agricultural commodity has been grown, an eligibility test for the CRP.
- Adds incentives for Indian tribes and for limited resource farmer and ranchers.
- Adds a preference for accepting CRP bids from owners of land who are also residents of the country where the land is located or residents of a contiguous county.
- Allows for a waiver of land in the continuous CRP, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, the Farmable Wetlands Program or the State Acreage for Wildlife Enhancement Program from the statutory cap that limits combined CRP and Wetlands Reserve Program acreage to 25 percent of total land in the county, if the county government agrees.
- Clarifies the limited harvesting and grazing activities that may be allowed on CRP land.
NSAC supports most of these provisions, particularly those for pollinator habitat, incentives for Indian Tribes and limited resource farmers and ranchers, and the eligibility of land with alfalfa and legumes in rotation. We will request some additional clarification on the limited harvesting and grazing activities to ensure that the various activities provide for adequate protection of natural resources and promote use of haying and grazing activities that can enhance the protection of natural resources.
USDA Extends Comment Period for GIPSA Proposed Rules
Friday, July 30th, 2010
Bowing to pressure from a group of large-scale livestock and poultry packers and processors and House Agriculture Committee members who are aligned with them, USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) announced on July 26 that it is extending the public comment period on proposed rules for the Packers & Stockyards Act by 90 days. Public comments are now due by November 22, 2010.
As NSAC reported last week, the proposed rules implement the directive of Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill that USDA issue administrative rules to clarify and strengthen the measures of the Act that protect farmers and ranchers. The proposed rules would clarify conditions for livestock and poultry packers and processors compliance with the Act. They would also provide farmers and ranchers with a fairer marketplace and conditions for livestock and poultry production.
GIPSA has posted a question and answer document for the proposed rule. The document addresses in detail many of the questions raised in the House Agriculture Committee hearing. One example is the potential effect of the proposed rules on the use by packers and processors of forward contracts, formulas, and livestock buying based on a grid. GIPSA emphasizes that these practices will still be allowed, with premiums and discounts offered to producers also allowed. The proposed rules, however, would require that packers and processors document the reasons for offering the premiums and discounts and treat all livestock sellers of the same type and quality of animal equally.
Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act Update
Friday, July 30th, 2010
The Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act, first enacted in 1999, requires USDA to establish a program of information regarding the marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and the products of this livestock. The Act requires that the information, including price and volume information, be provided in a format that can be readily understood by producers; improves the price and supply reporting services of the Department of Agriculture; and encourages competition in the marketplace for livestock and livestock products.
On July 28, the House Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 5852, a bill to extend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act for five years until September 30, 2015. Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) have introduced S. 3656, a companion bill to H.R. 5852, which has not yet been approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee. In addition to extending the Act, H.R. 5852 and S. 3656 would:
- require USDA to enter into a negotiated rulemaking with pork processors and producers for a rule establishing mandatory reporting of wholesale pork cuts in order to increase transparency for producers in the pork industry: and
- instruct the USDA Secretary to establish an electronic price reporting system for dairy products by September 30, 2011.
Section 11001 of the 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to conduct a study on the effects of requiring hog packer and processing plants to supply USDA with information on the price and volume of wholesale pork cuts. Currently, wholesale pork price reporting is voluntary unlike swine, cattle, boxed beef, lamb, boxed lamb imports, and boxed lamb markets where price reporting for qualifying packers is mandatory under the authority of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. The study was completed in November 2009. The overall conclusion of the study was that switching from voluntary to mandatory reporting for wholesale pork prices would benefit pork producers and consumers. The study also recommended that USDA consider wholesale price reporting for various segments of the market such as enhanced pork products and separate reports for formula and forward pricing methods.
The 2008 Farm Bill also directed USDA to improve its website for providing information required by the Act and to carry out a market news education program. At a July 20 hearing of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry of the House Agriculture Committee, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulation Edward Avalos announced the establishment of a new website for cattle marketing, dubbed the “Cattle Dashboard,” which can be viewed here. The website provides cattle marketing information for different regions and states, with information including negotiated cash prices and weighted average prices, all purchase types, and head counts. This Cattle Dashboard is the prototype which USDA will use for developing market information websites for other livestock and livestock products.
FSIS Names Advisory Committee on Meat & Poultry Inspection
Thursday, July 15th, 2010
On Thursday, July 15, USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service announced the reestablishment of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) and the newly appointed members of the committee for 2010-2012.
Established in 1971, the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) advises the Secretary of the USDA on federal and state meat and poultry inspection programs. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires the Secretary to consult with a committee for advice on meat, poultry and egg inspection and safety programs. The twenty-person committee is appointed by the Secretary and each member serves for 2 years. The committee makes recommendations through the Under Secretary for Food Safety to the Secretary of Agriculture. You can read more about the committee structure on the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) website.
Congratulations to active NSAC participant Steve Warshawer of Mesa Top Farm, Beneficial Farm CSA, and La Montanita Coop in New Mexico and the National Good Food Network for his appointment to this advisory body! Steve will serve along side representatives of academic institutions, state agriculture departments, food companies, and non-profits including the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Consumer Federation of America. We know Steve will be a strong, reasoned farmer and good food voice on this important committee.
Ohio Agrees to Improve Farm Animal Welfare
Friday, July 2nd, 2010
On Wednesday, June 30, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohioans for Humane Farms, The Humane Society of the United States, and other parties announced a landmark farm animal welfare agreement. This announcement came on the day that animal welfare activists were poised to submit 500,000 signatures to the Ohio Secretary of State in order to place farm animal welfare issues on the November ballot.
Under the agreement, Governor Strickland, the Ohio Legislature, and the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board are asked to work together to:
· Ban new gestation crates for breeding sows beginning January 1, 2011
· Phase out the use of existing gestation crates within 15 years
· Place a moratorium on new battery cage confinement operations for egg-laying hens
· Phase out the use of veal crates by 2017
· Prohibit strangulation of farm animals and require humane euthanasia methods for sick or injured animals
· End the transport of downer cattle to slaughter
Strickland said that the agreement appropriately balances animal welfare and economic concerns, noting that it has the support of Ohioans for Livestock Care Steering Committee, which is made up of poultry, pork, dairy, beef, corn and soybean associations. “This agreement represents a joint effort to find common ground. As a result, Ohio agriculture will remain strong and animals will be treated better,” he stated. “Instead of expending tens of millions of dollars and unproductive energy fighting an acrimonious campaign through the fall, both sides will be able to continue investing in our agricultural base and taking care of animals.”
Under Ohio law, the gathered citizen signatures remain valid after the November election, so farm animal welfare proponents retain the ability to place the matter on a future ballot if the agreement is not fulfilled.
Animal welfare organizations oppose the use of intensive confinement systems in animal agriculture, including gestation crates, battery cages, and veal crates, arguing that confining animals for most of their lives to small crates or cages causes physical and psychological harm.
FDA Calls for Comments on Antibiotics Use Guidance
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
On Monday June 28th, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft guidance entitled “The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals,” calling for public comment during the next 60 days.
The use of antimicrobials, including antibiotics, whether in people or animals, hastens the development of resistant microbes, including bacteria. Public health leaders call for caution in the use of medically important antibiotics (those antibiotics used in human medicine), in order to preserve the drugs’ effectiveness for future use.
Antimicrobials are used in animal agriculture for three purposes:
1) to treat diagnosed disease in an animal or a limited group of animals;
2) to promote growth; and
3) to prevent disease prophylatically.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of all antimicrobials in the US are used as feed or water additives for pigs, poultry and cattle for the non-therapeutic purposes of growth promotion and prophylactic disease prevention.
Leading public health organizations around the country and around the world, including American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and World Health Organization have spoken out against the routine use of medically important antibiotics in animal agriculture for these non-therapeucitic purposes.
The FDA’s draft guidance states that growth promotion is not a judicious use of medically important antibiotics. It argues, however, that some feed and water administration of medically important antibiotics for disease prevention is “necessary for assuring the health of food-producing animals.” The agency observes correctly that “some may have concerns” with this conclusion.
Critics contend that whether the subjective intent is growth promotion or routine disease prevention, routinely providing medically important antibiotics to animals through feed or water is the very same practice. Moreover, critics note that non-therapeutic use of antibiotics offsets for overcrowded, stressful, and unsanitary conditions at large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). By contrast, animals raised in more appropriate conditions, such as those on pasture-based systems, rarely, if ever, require antibiotics.
The FDA seeks to address the potential for abuse by recommending greater veterinary involvement. It notes, however, that there is a shortage of large animal veterinarians, which can make consultation and oversight challenging. The agency therefore proposes a phased-in approach to including increased veterinary oversight, and asks for public comments on how such as phase-in would work. The agency states that it does not want to “disrupt the animal agriculture industry.”
Comments on Docket No. FDA2010D0094 can be submitted during the next 60 days through regulations.gov.
Press coverage of the guidance included the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.
June ERS Reports: Opportunities & Constraints to Local and Alternative Production Systems
Friday, June 25th, 2010
This June the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) published reports identifying the opportunities and constraints facing both local food supply chains and grass-fed livestock production systems.
In response to the exploding demand for local foods the ERS published, “Comparing the Size, Structure and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains.” The report looks at the determinants of structure and size for local food supply chains and compares the social, environmental and economic performance of local vs. mainstream supply chains.
The report is one of the outcomes of a 2008 Farm Bill effort by Senators Feingold, Menendez, and Harkin, supported by NSAC, to foster greater research into local and regional food systems.
Using case study analysis, the report focuses on 5 products from 5 urban areas; blueberries in Portland, Oregon; leafy greens in Sacramento, California; apples in Syracuse, New York; beef in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and fluid milk in Washington D.C. Click here to read about the case studies in detail.
The case studies followed each product along 3 supply chains; local, inter-mediated and mainstream. Local supply chains relied on direct marketing from producer to consumer, defining “local” as produced within a 400 mile radius or within the state, a definition that NSAC helped develop for use in the Farm Bill. Inter-mediated supply chains refers to producers who grow/ raise food locally but then employ a marketing intermediary to reach consumers.
Key findings from the report include:
- Direct marketing comprises a very small portion of the total sales for each product but producers using local food supply chains receive higher revenues per unit and receive a larger share of the retail dollar. Farmers selling into inter-mediated supply chains also receive a larger share relative to the mainstream supply chains.
- Economic benefits from local supply chains accrue locally, but mainstream supply chains can also contribute to local economies.
- Local food systems generate greater social capital and civic engagement.
- Local food supply chains often rely on a more diversified portfolio of market outlets such as farmers markets, CSAs, buying clubs, restaurants, Internet sales, etc.
- Costs associated with mainstream processing and distribution often block small to mid- sized producers from opportunities to scale-up.
In their monthly publication, “Livestock, Poultry and Dairy Outlook,” the ERS published another report in response to growing consumer demand for grass-fed meat.
Most cattle spend the first half of their lives grazing on pasture. However, in conventional production systems, cattle are confined into concentrated into feedlots and finished on grain feed. In addition to providing a large market for abundant gran supplies, the grain feed also results in more tender meat with a shorter production time.
Alternatively, many ranchers are returning to production systems that finish the livestock on high-quality grasses and forages. The resulting meat is leaner and also provides a healthier fat profile with more Omega-3 fatty acids. Producers can also differentiate their products as “grass-fed” or “grass-finished” as a marketing niche. According to this ERS report, grass-fed or finished cattle comprise about 3% of the industry, growing at about 20% per year.
This ERS report explains that although grass-fed beef is a commercially viable alternative to conventional systems, as demand for grass-fed meat expands, foraged based production systems will face increasing constraints. Specifically, the ERS cites the higher costs associated with relying on feeds that are in shorter supply (particularly in winter months), potential land shortages, and the greater production time required to fatten cattle on forages. The report also addressed the need for more processing facilities in local areas to handle the increasing demand.
Click here to read this report.
NSAC Applauds USDA Proposal for a Fairer Deal for Farmers and Ranchers in Livestock and Poultry Markets
Friday, June 18th, 2010
On Thursday, June 18, NSAC issued a press release applauding a proposed regulation, issued by USDA’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), to increase protections for farmers and ranchers in their dealings with packers and processors.
The proposed regulation will be published in the Federal Register on June 22 with a 60-day public comment period.
A USDA press release, along with an outline, a question and answer guide, and examples of unfair market practices addressed by the proposed rule are posted on the GIPSA website.
Over the past few decades, the number of livestock and poultry packing and processing firms has decreased dramatically. A few of the remaining firms have control over a large share of the market.
In addition packers and processors, especially in the poultry and swine sectors, can control not only packing and processing but also supply animals, feed, medication and other inputs for raising the animals. With increased market power and control in the hands of packers and processors, farmers and ranchers have found themselves on an uneven playing field when it comes to marketing livestock and poultry.
At a press conference to announce the release of the proposed rule, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that the current Packers and Stockyard Act regulations to protect farmers and ranchers from market manipulation and unfair practices had not kept up with the realities of the marketplace and acknowledged that the proposed rule is “aggressive.”
He also emphasized his concern that many farmers were reluctant to make comments at ongoing USDA /Department of Justice listening sessions on market conditions because of their fear of retaliation by packing and processing firms.
Major provisions in the GIPSA proposed regulation would do the following:
• Establish in regulation USDA’s position that a farmer or rancher who has shown an injury from an unfair or deceptive practice under the Packers and Stockyards Act does not also need to show a competitive injury to a regional marketplace because of the practice;
• Set out the criteria for USDA to determine if a packer or processor is providing an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to a select group of producers without a legitimate justification and require packers, swine contractors and live poultry dealers to maintain written records to provide justification for any differential pricing or deviation from standard price or contract terms;
• Limit opportunities for market manipulation by preventing packers from acquiring livestock from another packer and by prohibiting a livestock dealer from acting as a packer buyer on behalf of more than one packer;
• Increase the ability of farmers and ranchers to make better informed business decisions and provide additional information to USDA by requiring packers, swine contractors, and live poultry dealers to provide USDA with copies of production contracts which will be available to the public;
• Require live poultry dealers to set a base payment for all growers raising the same type and kind of poultry in the same type of housing facility and prohibit poultry dealers from setting up a tournament or ranking system that would lower the base payment;
• Require that live poultry dealers provide at least 90 days notice to a grower before suspending delivery of birds to the grower and establish other criteria for determining whether or not a grower has been given reasonable notice of suspension of delivery;
• Establish criteria to ensure that processors do not require poultry or swine producers to make unreasonable additional capital improvements to their grow-out facilities during the life of a production contract;
• Require that a production contract with a poultry grower or swine producer is of sufficient length to allow the grower to recoup 80 percent of the investment costs related to the capital investments;
• Set out the criteria to determine whether a poultry grower or swine producer has been given a reasonable time to remedy a breach of a production contract before the contract is terminated; and
• Require that livestock and poultry production contracts include a statement in conspicuous print that a producer has the right to decline a contract clause requiring arbitration and establish the criteria for determining whether an arbitration clause provides a meaningful and fair opportunity for producers to participate in arbitration if they so choose.
The 2008 Farm Bill provision requiring USDA to issue these regulations was an NSAC farm bill priority issue.