‘Egg bill’ not part of Senate Farm Bill draft

The initial draft of the Senate Farm Bill, released on Thursday, does not include the so-called “egg bill” language dictating cage size for egg-laying hens. 

It confirms earlier speculation that Senate Ag Committee chair Debbie Stabenow would drop her plan to include the controversial provision in the farm bill markup. But National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) vice president of government affairs Colin Woodall expects it to come up again during the farm bill process.

The president of the United Egg Producers (UEP), Chad Gregory, has been highly critical of NCBA and other ag groups who are fighting against the egg bill.  But NCBA’s Woodall maintains the legislation sets “a dangerous precedent”.

“And in Washington, D.C., precedent is everything,” Woodall says. “So even though this is a deal between UEP and HSUS, HSUS didn’t make any deals with us or the pork producers or anybody else in livestock—and they will use that precedent to eventually come after all of us.”

UEP’s Gregory says the egg bill is critical to the egg industry’s survival.  Woodall argues federal legislation is not UEP’s only option.

“If this is really what the egg industry wants, then there are other mechanisms that they can use to push for adoption among their members—other than making Congress do the dirty work and force it upon their members,” Woodall says.

UEP represents farmers who produce nearly 90 percent of the eggs in the U.S.

Link to earlier story and interview with Colin Woodall

NCBA official: Egg bill fight not over

Even though Senate Ag Committee chair Debbie Stabenow has apparently backed off on plans to incorporate the so-called “egg bill” language into the Senate Farm Bill markup, Colin Woodall of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says the battle is far from over. 

“Late word is the language has been removed,” Woodall says. “But now we are worried about an amendment situation where an amendment could be offered either during the committee markup of the farm bill, or possibly on the floor of the Senate, that would also try to get that agreement put back in.

“So even though we’ve had kind of a short-term victory, it looks like, we’re still prepared to fight this as we move forward with the Senate Farm Bill process.”

Woodall disagrees with arguments put forth by United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States that the egg bill only involves the egg industry.

“This sets a precedent of Congress dictating, or mandating, a production practice to all of us in livestock—and all of us in production agriculture—and that’s just unacceptable,” he says.

According to Woodall, who is vice president of government affairs for NCBA, the Senate Farm Bill markup is expected to take place this Thursday.

AUDIO: Colin Woodall (8:14 MP3)

Stabenow backs off, but egg bill fight is not over

Senate Ag Committee chair Debbie Stabenow has apparently backed off on plans to incorporate the so-called “egg bill” into the Senate farm bill markup. 

But Colin Woodall, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, tells Brownfield that the battle is far from over.

“Late word is the language has been removed,” Woodall says. “But now we are worried about an amendment situation where an amendment could be offered either during the committee markup of the farm bill, or possibly on the floor of the Senate, that would also try to get that agreement put back in.

“So even though we’ve had kind of a short-term victory, it looks like, we’re still prepared to fight this as we move forward with the Senate Farm Bill process.”

The Senate Farm Bill markup is expected to take place this week.

AUDIO: Colin Woodall (8:14 MP3)

NCBA seeks changes in live futures contract

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is asking the CME Group to move its live cattle futures contract to a position where it converges with the cash market.

Specifically, NCBA is asking that fed heifers be included as deliverable cattle to honor a contract. The cattlemen are also asking for an increase in maximum live weights from 1,500 pounds to 1,650 pounds.

Ed Greiman, a cattle producer from Garner, Iowa and president of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, says the objective is to increase the deliverable supply of cattle against the futures market, which would force the futures and cash markets to converge.

“For instance, we’re into April right now—if, for some reason, the futures market was two to three dollars higher than the cash market is going to trade this week, you would see cattle want to deliver against the contract,” Greiman says. “It would then bring the two together and that’s what we need as hedgers.  We need those two to reflect each other so that our basis is appropriate.”

Greiman, who headed up an NCBA task force on the issue, says that by bringing futures and cash prices closer together, there should be more transparency as to what is happening in the market.

AUDIO: Ed Greiman (5:20 MP3)

NCBA asking for changes in live cattle futures contract

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is asking the CME Group to move its live cattle futures contract to a position where it converges with the cash market.

Specifically, NCBA is asking that fed heifers be included as deliverable cattle to honor a contract. For the past decade, fed heifers have averaged 38% of slaughter cattle. NCBA says that, in an environment of decreasing fed cattle supply, including heifers would benefit both buyers and sellers.

The cattlemen are also asking for an increase in maximum live weights from 1,500 pounds to 1,650. Current carcass weights of 1,050 pounds aren’t discounted, and that carcass weight typically would be yielded from a 1,667-pound animal. The 1,650 pound maximum individual live weight is a reasonable and logical standard, NCBA told the CME.

Ed Greiman, a cattle producer from Garner, Iowa and president of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, headed up a task force that looked into the issue.  Greiman tells Brownfield that the changes being sought from the CME would protect the live futures contract as a viable and valuable risk management tool, while increasing deliverable supply, better reflecting the trend of increased cattle weights, and improving convergence of futures and cash markets.

AUDIO: Ed Greiman (5:20 MP3)

NCBA’s reaction to EPA’s data recall

A spokesperson for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) tells Brownfield the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) attempt to recall the CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) information it provided to environmental groups “is a little too late”.

“From our perspective, the information was released and it’s still going to be out there in the public domain, no matter what the EPA tries to do,” says NCBA deputy environmental counsel Ashley McDonald.

The EPA is asking the three environmental groups to return the information provided to them under the Freedom of Information Act.  The agency says that information for ten of the 29 states that were part of the release contained some personal data, including individual names, email addresses, phone numbers, personal addresses and facility names.  EPA has now determined that the personal information should not have been disclosed under the FOIA request.  

“We’re glad that EPA took a second look and realized that they should not have released all this information that they did.  We’ve been saying that for two months.  So we’re happy that they actually recognized that,” says McDonald. “But again, our position is basically it’s a little bit too late to actually prevent this information from being out in the public domain.  They should have done their job the first time and they just, frankly, did not.”

AUDIO: Ashley McDonald (6:18 MP3)

EPA’s data recall ‘a little too late’

A spokesperson for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) attempt to recall the CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) information it provided to environmental groups “is a little too late”.

“From our perspective, the information was released and it’s still going to be out there in the public domain, no matter what the EPA tries to do,” says NCBA deputy environmental counsel Ashley McDonald.

The EPA is asking the three environmental groups to return the information provided to them under the Freedom of Information Act.  The agency says that information for ten of the 29 states that were part of the release contained some personal data, including individual names, email addresses, phone numbers, personal addresses and facility names.  EPA has now determined that the personal information should not have been disclosed under the FOIA request.  

“We’re glad that EPA took a second look and realized that they should not have released all this information that they did.  We’ve been saying that for two months.  So we’re happy that they actually recognized that,” says McDonald. “But again, our position is basically it’s a little bit too late to actually prevent this information from being out in the public domain.  They should have done their job the first time and they just, frankly, did not.”

Senate Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee have sent a letter to the acting EPA administrator asking him to detail steps EPA is taking to investigate the matter. The senators are asking the agency to examine possible conflicts of interest or “inappropriate relationships” between EPA employees and the groups that requested the information.

McDonald says they, too, have concerns. “We do see kind of a revolving door with environmental groups—people who work for those groups—and the EPA,” she says.

“Obviously something happened where EPA completely dropped the ball on addressing and analyzing this information before it went out the door.”

AUDIO: Ashley McDonald (6:18 MP3)

Link to original story on EPA’s recall action

 

Livestock groups applaud FSIS funding action

Two major livestock groups say they’re pleased with the action taken by Congress to prevent furloughs of federal meat inspectors.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) are applauding the move, which gives USDA the flexibility to shift 55 million dollars from other accounts to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). 

NPPC president Randy Spronk calls it “very good news for pork producers and other livestock and poultry producers”.  He says the furloughs would have had negative effects on pork producers, meat packers and consumers.

NCBA president Scott George agrees, saying a halt in inspections would have “resulted in a backlog of animals, shortened supply of beef to market, higher prices and harm to the futures markets.”

Furlough uncertainty has beef industry ‘on edge’

An official of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says the uncertainty over potential furloughs of federal meat inspectors has the cattle industry “on edge”.

NCBA vice president for governmental affairs Colin Woodall says he was hoping to hear more detail on the furloughs from Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack during Vilsack’s recent appearance on Capitol Hill.

“In fact, during the hearing yesterday with the House Agriculture Committee, he was asked multiple times how this would pan out—and he really did not have a solid answer,” Woodall says. “So that uncertainty really puts our community on edge because we don’t know what will happen with the furloughs—and because of that we don’t know what will happen to both the beef supply and also the potential backup of live cattle waiting to go these processing plants.”

Woodall says talk of furloughs and possible meat processing plant shutdowns has already had a negative effect on cattle futures prices.

NCBA: Latest EPA move ‘mind-boggling’

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is blasting the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for releasing detailed information on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to activist groups.

According to NCBA, the information was requested by the groups—including the Pew Charitable Trust, Earth Justice and the Natural Resources Defense Council—through the Freedom of Information Act.  The immediate past president of NCBA, J.D. Alexander, says the fact that EPA granted the request is, in his words, “mind-boggling”. 

“This action by the EPA is actually almost unbelievable,” Alexander says. “I just can’t comprehend their irresponsibility in releasing this information to known ag opposition groups that could pose some very terroristic attacks on our industry.”

In addition to bio-security concerns, Alexander says the release of information makes it much easier for activists to harass farm and ranch families.

“You know, beef producers are usually pretty private people,” he says, “and one of the big things that is of concern is when—I’ll use myself as an example—my name, my address, pertinent things about my private business are out there for known terrorist groups to have access to.”

Alexander points to an incident that took place in California in January of 2012, when an activist group called the Animal Liberation Front used arson to destroy 14 trucks at California’s largest feed yard, Harris Ranch Feedlot of Coalinga.

NCBA says the information released by EPA cover CAFOs in more than 30 states.