BVD Resources
Cow Calf
Baby Calf Heatlh
Cattle Feeding
Hot Topics
GIPSA rules sent to OMB, minus major component
- NMSU to host youth ranch management camp
- Assessing how you stand financially
- 2012 Alltech Symposium to envisage the world of 2050
- Organization makes generation donation in support of farm safety
- Money ahead before a calf hits the ground?
- Brent crude ends near $123/bbl, 9-month high, on Iran
- USDA website supports America’s future farming generations
- Rains green things up, but hay, grazing still in short supply
- Corn and wheat futures post good gains on Wednesday
- Cold Storage: Beef in freezers up 4 percent from last year
- Feedyard margins – Wow! Packer margins – Ouch!
- Traits that add value to calves
- Fed cattle to new records; feeders, boxed and retail beef advance
- Online weather resources
- Fewer farms and bigger farms
- Farm safety expert: Know what's in proposed child labor law
- D.C. Watch: Obama budget cuts farm programs
- Fading La Nina may be too late for southern U.S. drought
- Iowa State University releases animal-ag research report
- Commentary: A matter of triage
- No more pizza sticks and red sauce
- Worker shortage puts billions of ag production in jeopardy
- Beef’s carbon footprint gets trimmed in video, webinar
- Commentary: 'Get your paws off our laws!'
- NCBA: Partnering with extremist groups bad news for US ag
- Colostrum: What makes it work for the calf?
- EPA advanced E15 availability
- Commentary: HSUS (finally) under scrutiny
- Jolley: Five Minutes with Bill Donald, the exit interview
- Jolley: Five Minutes - John Nalivka & the shrinking cattle herd
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forwarded a stripped-down version of new Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review before final implementation. The rules forwarded to OMB retain the provisions on poultry production and marketing, but leave out major provisions strongly opposed by meatpackers and several beef producer groups.
Submitted to OMB are provisions that relate to delivery of birds, additional capital investment criteria, breach of contract and arbitration. OMB has 45 days to review the rules, at which time the rule will be published in the Federal Register and implemented over the following 60 days.
Several restrictions on livestock marketing were omitted from the rule’s final version, including the proposed ban on packer-to-packer sales, restricted multiple packer buyer affiliations and required records to justify prices paid. USDA indicates other provisions from the proposed rule remain under consideration.
The GIPSA proposed rule was first published in June 2010, and comments were accepted until late November of last year. The proposal gained support from several groups seeking to diminish packers’ influence on the marketplace, but opposition came forcefully from leading beef and pork producer organizations who believe the new regulatory burdens would eliminate opportunities to add value to livestock.
Upon learning that USDA had gutted major components of the rule, National Farmer’s Union president Roger Johnson issued a statement calling the omitted portions the “most critical, which include a clearer definition of USDA’s interpretation of competitive injury. The competitive injury definitions address the fundamental problems that have plagued the livestock and poultry industries.”
The meatpacking and poultry processing industries were united in condemning the GIPSA attempt to define “competitive injury,” claiming it was much broader than most courts of law have done.
Many cattlemen and hog producers argued that the proposed GIPSA rules would end marketing agreements and alliances, in effect preventing producers from gaining premiums for adding value to their animals.
Both sides of the debate, however, believe the battle will continue over the components cut from USDA’s version of the rule sent to OMB. Provisions may still be under review relating to competitive injury, and both sides are calling on members and individuals to “stay engaged” on the issue.
Comments (2)
Leave a commentc andrews
Report AbuseI'd like to see more specifics on opinions of the omitted portions. the orgional proposal would destroy market pricing.
james
Report AbuseWhat part of the US Constitution authorizes an unelected agency to take a public interest, a communal interest,
a communistic interest in other people's private property and private property contracts? Wasn't the industrial
might of the US that won WWI and WWII the very rights at issue here? It's not to say that business can't
function, even if marginally, in a top-down Soviet managment style in second iter countries. But, history proves
that no nation becomes or remains a world power without the present ability to field heavy machinery.