|
|
| |
| Mon, Dec. 1, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Livestock, poultry industry seek little from Farm Bill Sunday, Dec 2, 2007 By Aaron Sadler Stephens Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - Arkansas' livestock and poultry producers don't expect much from this year's Farm Bill. On the other hand, they don't want much either. The broad agriculture legislation that pays for crop subsidies, school lunches and a variety of nutrition programs contains only a handful of provisions for animal producers. That's OK with most of them. A limited law is what Arkansas ranchers prefer, said Claude "Tubby" Smith, head of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association. "Our goal is to have the least amount of government interference as possible," Smith said. "We don't want the government to get involved with us, and that's the way we've always wanted it." Beef and poultry producers receive no subsidies, except from some money set aside for land conservation. "We don't have much of a dog in this particular fight," said Richard Lobb of the National Chicken Council. "We don't get any subsidies like corn or wheat. We're at the mercy of the free market." Some provisions of the Farm Bill are important to poultry and livestock - such as new contracting and marketing regulations and updated country-of-origin labeling requirements. But as the Senate takes up the Farm Bill, likely this week, producers will be paying more attention to negotiations on a wide-ranging energy bill also tied up in Congress. Corn prices have skyrocketed in part because of a government mandate for corn-based ethanol production. Escalating prices for corn mean higher costs at the feedlot for livestock and poultry producers. Corn is at more than $4 a bushel, double last year's price. Wheat and soybean prices are also at record levels. Lobb said 22 percent of corn harvested this year is expected to go to ethanol production. "Every time we order feed it's up $10 a ton," said Bud Phillips, a Washington County farmer. Phillips owns four broiler houses that can hold close to 90,000 chickens. He also has about 55 head of cattle. Corn gluten feed, which three years ago was $100 a ton, is now $160, he said. Phillips lamented higher fuel prices, as well, and said he was discouraged about prospects of assistance from the Farm Bill. "These politics have lobbyists behind them and the money goes to the big people," Phillips said Friday. "The little farmer? He just gets squeezed and squeezed and squeezed." Springdale-based Tyson Foods Inc. supports a provision of the Farm Bill that grants assistance for renewable fuels other than corn-based ethanol and soy-biodiesel, said company spokesman Gary Mickelson. Tyson Foods last summer announced a partnership with a fuel technology company to produce synthetic fuels from animal fats. Tyson and other processors also are closely watching' Congress debate on controversial country-of-origin labeling for foods. Initially, such labeling for fresh meats, produce, peanuts and seafood was to be in place by 2004. Congress later changed the deadline to Sept. 30, 2008. It makes labeling easier by creating three distinct categories - one for meat born, raised and slaughtered exclusively in the United States; another for products entirely from other countries; and a third that states the product was not exclusively American. The House version of the Farm Bill keeps the 2008 mandate, but for red meats only. The Farm Bill is normally reauthorized every five years. Current legislation was enacted in 2002. The House passed its legislation this year in July. In the Senate, the bill cleared the Agriculture Committee in October. It stalled on the floor over a procedural dispute about the number of amendments that could be tacked on to the bill. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said she thinks senators will iron out their differences and pass a bill before the end of the year. A House-Senate conference committee would write a final bill probably in January, she said. Lincoln has asked Democratic leaders to assign her to the conference committee. The president has threatened to veto the measure, accusing Congress of overspending on crop subsidies. Lincoln is a staunch defender of federal aid for row-crop farmers. She argues that limiting subsidies that offset high production costs could jeopardize the nation's affordable and abundant food supply. The 1st Congressional District in northeast Arkansas received the lion's share of crop subsidies in the state between 2003 and 2005, according to data from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. Landowners in the district of Delta counties where row crops are predominantly grown collected $1.22 billion. The 4th District (mainly southern Arkansas) posted $323 million, followed by the 2nd District with $44 million. Last was the 3rd District with $3.1 million. Rep. John Boozman's district in western and northwest Arkansas has mostly animal production. "In the House bill, I'm really not hearing any concerns with the animal end of agriculture," said Boozman, R-Rogers. "Yet it's interesting, because you can't separate the animal of agriculture when what they need is an affordable supply of feed. Because of that, your row crops go hand-in-hand with producers." Producers were skeptical of programs included in the Senate version that relate to livestock and poultry contracting and marketing. The provisions give contract protections to producers who have investments of more than $100,000 in facilities. It makes arbitration voluntary and prohibits companies from refusing business with producers who are part of a cooperative. Major meat packers could not own or control livestock more than 14 days before slaughter. In addition, a new office at Department of Agriculture would investigate prosecute violations of competition laws. The changes have broad support in the Senate, said a spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Lincoln said the language represents a compromise to appease lawmakers who wanted to further regulate competition in the livestock market. "It's difficult for cattlemen to stay in business if we ask them to depend on the marketplace, but allow the packer house to take advantage of the market," she said. "I think it's a good compromise." Smith said he believes tampering with contracts and marketing will skew the market. The House version does not include competition regulations. |
