“NFU has a proud record of supporting COOL. We were instrumental in getting the COOL laws passed in 2002 and again in 2008.

“We will oppose any attempt to change that law. Fortunately, the WTO decision against U.S. country-of-origin-labeling did not find fault with our law. It simply found fault with the rules and regulations which were used to implement the law.

“As the office of the USTR contemplates its approach to the WTO decision, we urge them to mount a robust and vigorous defense of COOL.

“We are aware that behind the scenes attempts at negotiating a settlement to the WTO decision have some stakeholders arguing that we must weaken our law. We strongly disagree and urge a fervent defense.

“Consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from – and they overwhelmingly want to know just that.”

The labeling law was passed as a part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and amended in 2008. COOL requires retailers to notify their customers of the source of certain foods. Canada and Mexico filed a complaint against the United States’ law, which led to the recent ruling. The deadline for filing an appeal to the WTO decision is March 23, 2012.

“We are pleased that the president and the administration have renewed their pledge to the United States’ energy independence. As the president said, we need to seek ‘a future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.’ Homegrown energy is how we keep money, jobs and families in rural America.

“Rebuilding the economy begins in rural America. It begins with U.S. family farmers and ranchers who provide food, fiber and American-made fuel. The farm bill is largest investment in rural America, and in order to ensure family farms and rural America can continue to prosper, it must be passed in 2012.

“We are encouraged by the president’s announcement of the formation of a trade enforcement unit. Trade is a necessity for U.S. agriculture, but we must all play by the same rules. This group will be critical to farmers and ranchers, ensuring that they have a level playing field in marketing their products.”

“The EPA does not need to collect any more information from CAFOs in order to monitor water quality,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. “By utilizing existing data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and relevant state agencies, the EPA can adequately access necessary information regarding CAFOs and water quality.”

The proposed rule would require CAFOs to submit basic operational information to the EPA so the agency can more effectively carry out its permitting programs on a national level and ensure that CAFOs are implementing practices to protect water quality and human health.

“NFU supports the implementation of alternative mechanisms for promoting environmental stewardship and compliance,” said Johnson. “This alternative is in alignment with NFU policy and would work more efficiently than other data collection efforts. By expanding technical assistance, outreach tools, and partnerships, this alternative provides an avenue to address the most significant water quality problems.”

In this series of columns, we have engaged in a somewhat detailed examination of the GIPSA (Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration) final rule that was published December 9, 2011 in the Federal Register. We first reviewed the 11 provisions that were in the proposed rule, but were not included in the final rule as a result of the inclusion of language in the recent Agricultural Appropriations bill that prohibited the United States Department of Agriculture from moving forward on these provisions. While many producers were in favor of these provisions, these 11 provisions were strongly opposed by the packers/integrators and some growers with value-added contracts.

After reviewing the 11 provisions not included in the final rule, we took time and two columns to look at GIPSA’s review of the comments that they received on the 4 provisions and the cost analysis that were included in the final rule. The comments review section contains a summary of the comments that GIPSA received during the comment period, both for and against, followed by GIPSA’s analysis of the comments and the reasoning behind its decision to either modify the rule or leave as proposed.

The final two sections of the 17 page rule deal the costs and benefits associated with the rule and the wording of the final rule on the four sections being finalized. Costs for the 11 provisions not included in the final rule were not included in the analysis.

GIPSA did not provide any financial amounts for the benefits for the final rule on the four provisions but rather gave a qualitative analysis. In explaining the benefits, the rule says, “In the June 22, 2010 proposed rule, we asserted that the proposed rule would have benefits but they are not quantified; however, we discuss below the qualitative benefits that we believe are associated with the final rule. In addition to the benefits expected from the various provisions as outlined below, this action fulfills the mandates specified in Title XI of the 2008 Farm Bill.”

With regard to the provision on the Suspension of Delivery of Birds, GIPSA wrote: “These new criteria may benefit poultry growers by allowing them to make informed decisions on the future use of resources. Adequate notice of suspension would give growers sufficient time to consider other options for their poultry houses and for keeping up with loan payments, and would help to address perceived equity concerns between dealers and growers.”

In addressing the benefits of the other three provisions (Additional Capital Investments Criteria, Breach of Contract, and Arbitration), the final rule states: “To the extent that market power exists and affects contracting, these criteria will provide greater parity in contractual relations between producers and the packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer. A fundamental decision facing both growers and integrators or processors is given an uncertain future, how much capital should be invested and what percentage of the risk should be borne by the grower and the integrator or processor. To the extent integrators or processors have market power, they can shift more risk on the grower.

“The relatively large investment in poultry growing facilities makes it difficult financially for growers to exit the industry once they enter into the contract and contract compensation rates may be below the grower’s initial expectations. Additionally, poultry growers are also restricted to a limited number of markets, frequently a single live poultry dealer, due to the limitations on transporting live poultry.

“Similarly, the breach of contract criteria may result in the packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer opting to provide adequate notice to a grower or provide sufficient time to remedy the breach. Finally, the arbitration provisions are expected to facilitate poultry growers, livestock producers, and swine production contract growers’ access to an effective arbitration process.”

While GIPSA couched its discussion of the benefits of the rule using conditional language—“To the extent that market power exists and affects contracting”—logically there is a credible argument that a significant power imbalance exists between an individual grower who may even have multiple facilities but provides an extremely small share of the animals that are processed through a given plant and an integrator who has multiple plants and controls a significant share of the total US market for meats. The conclusion being that growers are in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis the packer/integrator. The rule is intended to help provide some balance.

In documenting the potential costs of the rule, GIPSA assigns no cost to the requirement that growers be notified in the case of the suspension of the delivery of birds. For the other three sections the costs, including administrative costs range from $32.6 million to $144.1 million. The rule notes that the regulated entities have some control over these costs depending upon their perception of their vulnerability to complaints from growers. That would suggest that the less the regulated entities use their market power in their dealings with growers, the lower the costs of complying with the rule.

GIPSA provides the following summary of the four provisions of the final rule.

“Suspension of Delivery of Birds
“Section 201.215 of this final rule establishes the criteria the Secretary may consider when determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing arrangement. These criteria include, but are not limited to, a written notice at least 90 days prior to suspension, written notice of the reason for the suspension of delivery, the length of the suspension of delivery, and the anticipated date the delivery of birds will resume.”

“Additional Capital Investments Criteria
“Section 201.216 of this final rule provides the criteria the Secretary may consider when determining whether a requirement of additional capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act.

“Reasonable Period To Remedy Breach of Contract
“Section 201.217 of this final rule provides the criteria the Secretary may consider when determining if a packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer has provided a reasonable period of time for a poultry/swine grower to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of a production contract. These criteria include, but are not limited to, the form and substance of the notice following the discovery of a breach of contract.

“Arbitration
“Section 201.218 of this final rule requires production contracts that require the use of arbitration to include language on the signature page that allows the producer or grower to decline arbitration. Section 201.218 also includes the criteria the Secretary may consider when determining if the arbitration process provided in a contract provides a meaningful opportunity for the poultry growers, swine production contract growers, or livestock producers to participate fully in the arbitration process.”
A copy of the Final Rule can be obtained .

Secretary Rodman started the meeting by telling us the Dept of Agriculture represents Agri-business and Kansas producers. (He said it in that order too)

They intend to increase the appeal to corporate farming, mostly by addressing and eliminating the county option and making it the same as dairy for pork. (Isn’t it ironic that the entities who keep telling us there is too much government and over-regulation are the same ones who want to take away the counties rights?)

They want to create a Kansas ID card for illegal aliens to give them rights to work and drive in Kansas but not become citizens or vote. (Non-naturalized) (I wonder how insurance companies will deal with illegal aliens legally driving on our highways for our farms and businesses?)

They are not going to apply to the USDA to allow interstate shipment of state inspected meat. (This has been an issue fought and won by Farmers Union and placed in the last farm bill and could help value added producers quite a bit, especially on the fringes of Kansas City. All a state has to do is apply but Kansas isn’t. To me this just goes to show how much influence the KLA has on our Dept of Agriculture here in Kansas. It’s shameful!)

The Dept now has 1,600 applicants who used 2012 irrigation water rights in 2011. They intend to address this by creating 5-year “blocks” of water rights, which allows the producers to use the 5-year allotment of water the best way they see fit. (I assume that as climate change becomes dire and that they use the entire 5-year block the first 2 years that they will then create a “generation” or some other title that will let them pump at will. So much for stewardship of our natural resources) (I shouldn’t be so cynical though because I don’t know how I would do it differently. At least this way lets them have a chance to survive this drought if predictions are wrong about climate change. But if I was a municipality in western Kansas I would be pretty nervous about this whole game.)

They intend to create something called “water banking” which will allow producers to stockpile and then sell their water rights. They were pretty vague about this.

They want to make the voluntary “Water Transition Assistance Program mandatory for certain watersheds (Prairie Dog Creek & Rattlesnake Creek) because of lack of signup in the voluntary program.

They are very public about fixing the “use it or lose it” statue of the Kansas law, however it is just going to be the areas in Kansas that aren’t closed. I’m stupid about most irrigation
stuff but I’m told that most of western Kansas is closed so if I understand it right the law will remain there where water needs to be preserved the most.

The “Ag Marketing Advisory board” will be given new power. They will be the oversight to the specialty crop grant applications and the value added grant applications. This board is comprised of appointees selected by the Governor. (Considering Governor Brownback’s pro-corporate ag statements in recent months I feel this doesn’t bode well for the true intent of these grants.)

Two statements from the meeting that I wrote down were;
1. This year at Dodge City it was the driest and hottest year in the 140 years of recorded records.
2. There were NO private sector job creation in Kansas in the last 10 year census. (This was said during the “we need to make Kansas more friendly to corporate agriculture” statement)

Finally, Fracking. The Wichita Eagle reported that on the way down to the bowl game Governor Brownback stopped in Oklahoma to meet with key people to “smooth the way for energy companies to do more of it in Kansas.” Kansas Farmers Union delegates at our December convention voted to include in policy a special order of business; “We support a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing operations in oil and gas recovery until an environmental impact study guided by sound science, proves the activity safe.”

Looks like it’s going to be a long year!

The next issue I will update what’s going on and correct what I messed up in my interpretation in this issue…..

TOPEKA—Kansas Farmers Union (KFU) held its 104th Annual Convention at the Topeka Ramada on Dec. 2-3, 2011. There Kansas Farmers Union members heard from eight speakers about farm policy and the importance of speaking up for family farms and rural America.

“The first job of a citizen is to keep your mouth open,” Jim Hightower said. “It helps if that mouth is attached to a brain and that is what you bring. Kansas Farmers Union is a grassroots network that can provide information, education, vision, connections to link that brain power to mouth power that then connects to foot power that produces political power.”

“It’s critical that every one of you speak out on these issues and its critical that you reach out to your neighbors to get your neighbors involved,” Chuck Hassebrook said. “It’s critical that Farmers Union speak with clarity on the important issues to say it’s about how we support farming and what kind of an agriculture it causes.”

Herb Bartel

Herb and his wife Pat spent about 10 years on the Northern Slope of Alaska while they worked in economic development. They worked with the Eskimos and experienced their way of life.

“We went away with the ethic that we should try and do no harm in our lives and were still working on that. of all these experiences, I’d say that’s the one thing that we benefited from,” Bartel said.

Also on Friday during lunch, Kansas Democratic Party Chair Joan Wagnon stopped by to talk with Kansas Farmers Union members. “We’re going to be pushing schools and education,” Wagnon said. “We’re going to continue to talk about health care because if we start closing rural hospitals, we’re going to be in a world of hurt.”

Mercedes Taylor-Puckett

Kansas’ rural communities have an opportunity for 1,000 new fruit and vegetable farmers as a result of the local food movement, Taylor-Puckett said.

“Kansans spend $767 million in fruit and vegetables and Kansas farmers sell approximately $32 million in vegetables each year,” Taylor-Puckett said.“As you can see, there’s a huge gap. It’s an opportunity that we have for our rural communities.”

“There are a lot of young people who are very excited about farming, about growing food for people, about that interaction and so there’s a significant opportunities for rural communities for rural communities to attract young young people,” Taylor-Puckett said.

Roger Johnson

National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson discussed the 2012 Farm Bill and the cuts of roughly $20 billion. Johnson said the cuts more than likely won’t come out of nutrition programs, which account for 80 percent of the Farm Bill. He sees direct payments being cut and crop insurance being left alone.

The circumstances that we face in agriculture today are not a whole unlike they were in the 96 farm bill debate: high commodity prices, rapidly increasing costs behind those prices. Didn’t have budget concern that we have today, but a lot of attitude in the rest of the country, you know what agriculture’s doing pretty well,” Johnson said.

Johnson said the House and Senate Ag Committees are looking at passing the 2012 Farm Bill very differently. Senate Chairwoman Stabenow said she intends to hold hearing in February, with the goal of passing the Farm BIll by June.

“[House Ag Chairman] Lucas said no, no we’re not going to do anything in the house. We’re going to wait until the new budget scores are out and wait and see what the Senate does. He’s saying that because he doesn’t believe he can pass a farm bill of any sort,” Johnson said. “My personal view is that its going to be a really heavy lift to get it passed in June as well and I think its probably more likely we’re going to be looking at a 2013 Farm Bill.”

Henry Strnad

Longtime KFU member from Republic County Henry Strnad shared his “philosophy.” “What are the difficult things to do?” Strnad said. “Let me tell you it’s difficult to be a responsible citizen. It’s difficult to be a good steward of that which was given to us. It’s difficult to be accountable, and I think we’re failing miserably.”

Mary Hendrickson

Concentration can be found in every aspect of agriculture and food production, Mary Hendrickson, University of Missouri professor, said.

“There’s just a few fertilizers suppliers, just a few seed suppliers, we can count them on one hand, maybe two. There’s just a few folks to sell to, and then there’s just a few food manufactures,” Hendrickson said. “We’re relying on fewer and fewer mammals, birds and crop species to provide our human food supply. Sometime the environment is going to hit us back.”

What makes this problem, concentration in our food, something everyone should be concerned with is that it is taking away consumers’ ability to exercise democratic control our food system.

“I think it’s really important to understand, what’s happened is we’ve shifted the focus of control and decision making about food away from households and communities to corporate boards and we do this because its more efficient, its better for us. That’s the argument,” Hendrickson said. “I know we’re disheartened [about the recent rulings on competition policy, ie GIPSA]. We don’t feel like its going anywhere, but we have to keep our eye on the ball, because competition policy and antitrust is crucial. And we’re going to have to think about it on a global scale.” Hendrickson said.

Hendrickson sited that as Taylor-Puckett said, local food and farmers markets are seeing steady increases. “At the same time we’re getting these global production networks, we’re also reinventing these things at the local level. It makes the food system very exciting and very interesting,” Hendrickson said.

Chuck Hassebrook

“Policy determines what kind of agriculture and what kind of rural communities we’re going to have and what kind of agriculture communities we pass on to the next generation,” Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director for the Center for Rural Affairs, said.

Hassebrook spoke a lot about the importance of the Farm Bill, not only on agriculture, but also for rural communities. Although, the main point he addressed is how large, corporate farms are succeeding, causing the small, family farms to be squeezed out, which also causing rural communities to dwindle.

“The problem is that as long as we keep up that same kind of public policy, that over subsidizes the big and powerful and under invests in our future, we’re going to keep going the way we’ve been going in rural America,” Hassebrook said. “If we keep up this policy, its going to keep destroying family farming and it’s going to keep driving our communities to their death and we got to do something better.”

Fred Stokes

Fred Stokes, President of the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), stressed the fact that family farmers have “got to come alive.”

“If we’re going to come out of this thing with the family farm and ranch still being alive, we’ve got to move and we’ve got to move soon and we can’t be too passive,” Stokes said. “We’ve simply got to come together and work together on our common mission of promoting the interest of farmers and ranchers and ensuring our national food security and fostering a more livable rural America.”

Stokes also shared some facts on how the Beef Check-off is corrupt. “They can say we don’t use checkoff money to give to campaign contributions and advocate with it, but the fact of the matter, in my opinion, NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beeff Association) exists because of the checkoff,” Stokes said. “They have gone and become a powerful political force, thanks to the checkoff. We have funded our own opposition. There’s some gross, terrible abuses that have occurred.”  OCM has started a Beef Check-off Reform Task Force which has been successful in having an audit done by the Inspector General for USDA. The audit is expected to be done in February.

Stokes said the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance “scares me to death.” The Alliance is a confederation of about 50 entities, including Farm Bureau, NCBA, and “essentially all the commodity programs,” Stokes said. “They are putting together a massive fund and putting together a big PR (public relations) company and others to spin this thing and convince the public that they ought to institute the industrial model for agriculture rather than the family farm,” Stokes said. “I see it as a terrible thing thats going to be perpetrated on the american people if we don’t move pretty soon.”

Jim Hightower

Former Texas Ag Commissioner and Political Activist Jim Hightower entertained during the Convention Banquet with his political humor and a message about the need to speak up in rural America.

“My message to you is that we can have the kind of farm policy, we can have the kind of democratic economy, we can have the kind of communities, the good food culture, the kind of country that we want, if we do something that is very important in America, and that is to be disobedient,” Hightower said.

Hightower also talked about the importance of Farmers Union and why we need to continue to fight. “You (Farmers Union) have the guts and the gumption to stand up for future generations of family farmers, for the purity of our land. Stand up for rural communities, the culture of agriculture,” Hightower said.

“The great fight that you are making at a grassroots level all across this country is changing the food economy, but its also changing the American perception of what America is and how big we can be,” Hightower said. “Our leaders are small, but our people are not. And that’s the importance of farmers union, to invest in the people, lift up the people, encourage the people themselves, because they are the powers who can make the difference.”

“It should come as no surprise that FSA and other USDA service and research facilities are closing because of the continued emphasis on spending reduction,” said NFU Vice President of Government Relations Chandler Goule. “A ‘cut first, ask questions later’ attitude in Congress toward investing in agriculture and rural America is now showing its true cost to farmers, ranchers and rural citizens with these closures. Agriculture cannot be continually asked to do more than its fair share to resolve our nation’s deficit problems – our leaders must look elsewhere to find solutions.”

According to USDA, a total of 259 facilities across the country will be shut down. FSA offices will account for 131 of the closures, and agricultural research stations, Natural Resource Conservation offices, Rural Development offices and Food, Nutrition and Consumer Service offices, among other agencies, will account for the rest.

“The efforts Secretary Vilsack and USDA have undertaken to conserve resources are commendable,” said Goule. “They have made great strides toward streamlining and economizing the department’s operations. Since 2010, Congress has cut USDA’s discretionary spending levels by about 12 percent, and USDA has done its best to prevent those reductions from affecting the quality of service that farmers and ranchers have come to expect. With the latest spending reductions, it was not possible to avoid painful cuts that will harm farmers and ranchers across the country.”

National Farmers Union has been working since 1902 to protect and enhance the economic well-being and quality of life for family farmers, ranchers and rural communities through advocating grassroots-driven policy positions adopted by its membership.

Managing Ottawa County Feeders since 2003, Owens is no stranger to the cattle industry. Originally from Leoti, Kansas, Owens is a lifelong cattleman; not only has he worked in the feed yard business but also the cow/calf and stocker business. Owens is the immediate past president of the KCA, a current KCA Board of Directors nominee, and a member of the KLA Feeders Council. Owens is an active community leader, a member of the Parish Council of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Minneapolis and a Confirmation teacher.

“Perry Owens actively displays the qualities of leadership and good judgment that will bring even more value to the Checkoff program,” comments KCA President, Paul Acton.

McClintock and her husband Ed own and operate a cow/calf ranch in Jackson County, Kansas. She is also a member of the Kansas Cattlemen’s Association, Kansas Livestock Association, and the Kansas Farm Bureau. Not only is McClintock a leader in the cattle industry, she is also a community leader. Owner and operator of Bar S Tack and Western Wear in Holton, McClintock is a member of Holton Main Street, a program aimed at the preservation and revitalization of the downtown district. McClintock is dedicated to promoting local businesses and community activities in her area.

“I am confident that both Stacy and Perry will serve on the CBB with the utmost integrity and professionalism. Both have tremendous character and seek the best for the entire industry,” states KCA Executive Director Brandy Carter.

Both Perry Owens and Stacy McClintock were nominated by the Kansas Cattlemen’s Association and appointed to the CBB by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

In announcing the publication of the final rule, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack noted that the most recent Agriculture Appropriations bill included language prohibiting the Department from moving forward on a number of important provisions in the proposed rule. A full copy of the full rule is available athttp://www.gipsa.usda.gov/Federal%20Register/fr11/12-9-11.pdf.

In this column, we will focus on the issues that were in the proposed rule and not included in the final rule. Some would say that the elimination of many of these items represent an outsized influence of the meat industry compared to the ranchers and growers who actually produce the animals that are slaughtered.

In the final rule, the USDA noted eleven provisions in the proposed rule that were not finalized in the rule published on December 9, 2011.

Value-Added Production and Premiums - “The proposed rule included several provisions related to the potential use of price premiums and related types of contracts such as marketing agreements in a manner that are potential violations of the P&S Act.” This portion of the rule was intended to ensure that all producers of like animal quality would be entitled to the same pay. These provisions were not included in the final rule.

Recordkeeping – “Section 201.94(b) of the proposed rule that would have required packers, swine contractors and live poultry dealers to retain records justifying differential pricing decisions is not included in this final rule.”

Packer-to-Packer Sales and Relationships With Dealers – “Section 201.212 related to packer-to-packer sales and packer relationships with dealers will not be finalized. Although some comments supported inclusion of these provisions, many comments raised serious concerns about potential adverse effects on the marketplace, such as encouraging further vertical integration and reducing the number of dealers and other buyers. While this section will not be finalized, we expect covered packers and dealers to continue to comply with the related portions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 192c–g) and existing regulations (9 CFR 201.69–70).”

Prohibitions and Requirements Related to Capital Investments – “While section 201.217 of the proposed rule establishing specific requirements related to capital investments is not included in this final rule, the criteria required by the 2008 Farm Bill are being finalized, in modified form. Considering the variation that exists with respect to capital investments and payment terms in contracts, we believe stating criteria that the Secretary may use to determine whether certain terms in arrangements and contracts are in violation of the P&S Act is more appropriate. The associated definition of ‘Capital Investment’ (proposed section 201.2(n)) will also not be included in this final rule.”

Definition of Competitive Injury and Likelihood of Competitive Injury – “Sections 201.2(t) and (u) of the proposed rule provided definitions for ‘competitive injury’ and ‘likelihood of competitive injury’ in an attempt to provide more clarity on the meaning of these terms. These definitions are not necessary for the purposes of this final rule and therefore are not included.”

Applicability of Contracts – The USDA eliminated this paragraph because the “sections related to price premiums and discounts are not included in the final rule.”

Scope of Section 202(a) and (b) – What could be seen as the most important provision in the proposed rule was eliminated from the final rule. This eliminated provision clarified that these two sections of Packers and Stockyards Act describing unfair practices on the part of packers does not require “harm to competition” for producers to be able to sue a packer in court. As a result, for instance, slaughter facilities can still prohibit producers from watching their animals being weighed at the slaughter facility—an activity parallel to one that grain producers take for granted and exercise on a regular basis—without fear of being sued for unfair practices.

Unfair, Unjustly Discriminatory, and Deceptive Practices or Devices – In the proposed rule the USDA listed conduct that it considered to be unfair or deceptive and thus a violation of Section 202 (a). Because the clarification of 202 (a) was eliminated, the list of unfair and deceptive practices was eliminated as well.

Undue or Unreasonable Preference or Advantage – Because the clarification of  Section 202 (b) was not included in the final rule the criteria determining conduct that would violate 202(b) was eliminated as well.

Livestock and Poultry Contracts – The proposed rule included provisions to improve the transparency of poultry contracts by requiring that samples of each type of contract be published. This requirement was not included in the published rule.

Tournament Systems – The proposed rule prohibited paying growers less than the base pay and that growers being ranked together include only growers with the same type of houses. From the wording of the final rule it remains a possibility that the USDA may revise the proposed rule in the future.

For those producers for whom these eliminated provisions would reduce harm that they believe they are suffering at the hands of slaughter facilities, there appears to be few means of addressing their grievances.

Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the Director of UT’s Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC). Harwood D. Schaffer is a Research Assistant Professor at APAC. (865) 974-7407; Fax: (865) 974-7298;dray@utk.edu  and  hdschaffer@utk.edu;  http://www.agpolicy.org.