|
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS (Feb. 4, 2005) — While it typically draws a large crowd and often deals with contentious issues, this year’s Live Cattle Marketing Committee meeting at the Cattle Industry Annual Convention was relatively low-key. As in most of this year’s sessions, some attention was given to discussion of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the expected reopening of live cattle and beef trade with Canada. However, in-depth discussion and potential action were deferred to the Joint International Markets Committee.
Members were reminded that Congress will consider reauthorization of mandatory price reporting for cattle and boxed beef later this year. Previous legislation authorizing mandatory price reporting expired last fall, but was extended until September 2005. By then, NCBA must take a position on reauthorization and offer potential revisions to procedures.
Pete Thompson, Congressional staff member for the House Agricultural Committee, said field hearings for a new farm bill will be scheduled later this year. In addition to price reporting, topics will include country-of-origin labeling and animal welfare issues. The last farm bill contained 18 provisions relating to animal welfare. Thompson said advocates are becoming more active and are likely to propose more animal welfare provisions.
Allen Bright, active in development of a national individual animal identification system, said NCBA advocates private management of the system’s database. Concerned about protecting the confidentiality of producer information, association members are urging USDA to consider a proposal calling for data management by a private, nonprofit entity.
Committee members acted on two policy resolutions due for renewal. They approved renewal of a stand against assessment of user fees, by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), for activities and services. Also renewed was a resolution opposing federal legislation to eliminate packer ownership or control of livestock. Cited as the reason were potential negative effects to value-based cattle marketing systems.
— by Troy Smith, field editor, Angus Productions Inc.
© Copyright 2005 Angus Productions Inc.
Editor’s Note: This article was written under contract or by staff of Angus Productions Inc. (API), which claims copyright to this article. It may not be published or distributed without the express permission of Angus Productions Inc. To request reprint permission and guidelines, contact Shauna Rose Hermel, editor, at (816) 383-5270 or shermel@angusjournal.com.
|