The U.S. Senate Ag Committee yesterday passed an amendment to its version of the Farm Bill that would prohibit packers from owning livestock for more than 14 days before slaughter. There was no debate on the measure, which passed on a voice vote as part of a package of 32 other provisions.
Under the proposed amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act, processors could not, "own or feed livestock directly, through a subsidiary, or through an arrangement that gives the packer operational, managerial, or supervisory control over the livestock, or over the farming operation that produces the livestock." NCBA and KLA oppose this amendment, which would limit marketing options for producers selling cattle.
Such language was not included in the House version of the Farm Bill. The Senate proposed a similar provision in the 2002 Farm Bill, but it was stripped out before the legislation was approved.
The Senate Ag Committee today will continue debate on livestock issues, including an amendment that would substitute “unfair” for “competitive injury” as the threshold for determining anti-competitive activity under the Packers and Stockyards Act. NCBA and KLA support an alternative amendment that would study the issue to determine the appropriateness of the language change and identify any unintended consequences prior to implementation.
Under the proposed amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act, processors could not, "own or feed livestock directly, through a subsidiary, or through an arrangement that gives the packer operational, managerial, or supervisory control over the livestock, or over the farming operation that produces the livestock." NCBA and KLA oppose this amendment, which would limit marketing options for producers selling cattle.
Such language was not included in the House version of the Farm Bill. The Senate proposed a similar provision in the 2002 Farm Bill, but it was stripped out before the legislation was approved.
The Senate Ag Committee today will continue debate on livestock issues, including an amendment that would substitute “unfair” for “competitive injury” as the threshold for determining anti-competitive activity under the Packers and Stockyards Act. NCBA and KLA support an alternative amendment that would study the issue to determine the appropriateness of the language change and identify any unintended consequences prior to implementation.
Comment