Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat (above), has removed all moved all the funds in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2010 budget to implement NAIS, the National Animal Identification System. NAIS would require that every farm animal be tagged. The proposal has stirred mass opposition in farm and ranch country. (See the Yonder's latest story here. For more, just search above for NAIS.) DeLauro was able to excise the NAIS funding because she is chair of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
DeLauro noted that the USDA has received $142 million since 2004 to start NAIS, but has "yet to put into operation an effective system that would provide needed animal health and livestock market benefits." DeLauro noted that USDA was currently conducting "listening sessions" about NAIS and that until these sessions ended and the USDA tells how it would implement an animal ID system, "continued investments into the current NAIS are unwarranted."
This doesn't mean NAIS is dead. Cattle Network says the "ball game just went into extra innings." Right now, the politics of NAIS are cool. Rep. DeLauro "votes with the left-leaning caucus of her party," notes Cattle Network. And "NAIS is a concept abhorred by small family farmers, about as conservative a group of people as you can find on the American political scene." So the new hero for many rural Americans is a Connecticut Yankee. How about them apples?
Some development pros are recommending that small towns go back to
recruiting outside companies. Tim Collins argues that a strong base of
local entrepreneurs has to be the first order of business.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is holding 'listening sessions' on its plan to tag farm animals. Yonder writer Richard Oswald drives to Jefferson City, Missouri, to testify.
Europe is headed toward a continent-wide election — and to promote the event, voters are being told the new Parliament will decide how food is labeled.
The Politico reports that "rural Democrats are threatening to vote against climate change legislation unless the Environmental Protection Agency halts new proposals that could hamper the development of corn ethanol." Recently the EPA released a report finding that changes in land use worldwide indirectly related to increased corn ethanol production in the U.S. could disqualify the biofuel as a renewable fuel.
As a result, House Ag Chair Collin Peterson of Minnesota and 26 Democrats on the Ag Committee have said they will vote against President Obama's climate change bill. Peterson told the New York Times that as many as 45 Ds will vote against the bill. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced legislation that would remedy the situation (from the pro-ethanol point of view).
The EPA has counted "indirect land use" to show that ethanol has little effect on reducing global warming pollution. What's that? Politico's example is that changes in which crops are planted in the U.S. could result in changes in crops planted worldwide. More corn planted in the U.S. could result in increased deforestation of rain forests in South America, for example. U.S. farmers (and farm-state politicians) object to this kind of calculation, which requires U.S. farmers to be responsible for land use decisions made on other continents. Farm Policy reports that deforestation in Brazil has actually fallen over the last five years, and that the country reports that it can triple its grain and beef production without having to cut down a single tree.
The Los Angeles Times reports this morning that ranchers are downsizing...their cattle. Writer P. J. Huffstutter reports from Nebraska about some ranchers who are raising minicows, stocky little critters with smaller frames and smaller appetites. These "miniature Herefords consume about half that of a full-sized cow yet produce 50% to 75% of the rib-eyes and fillets, according to researchers and budget-conscious farmers," Huffstutter reports. "We get more sirloin and less soup bone," said Ali Petersson (above, with cow). "People used to look at them and laugh. Now, they want to own them."
There is a trend, according to the Times. Dairy farmers are picking up mini Jerseys, little cows that can produce two to three gallons of milk a day. The mini Herefords weigh in at between 500 and 700 pounds each. There are more than 300 mini Hereford breeders in the U.S. and there are now 20,000 minicows in the country, up from 5,000 a decade ago. (Okay, there are more than 94.5 million head of cattle in the U.S., so the minis aren't taking over.)
These cattle aren't genetically engineered to be small. They come from the original breeds brought to the U.S. from Europe. As U.S. farmers and ranchers produced more grains, they didn't worry about the price of feed as much as the amount of beef on a single cow. "Feed prices were relatively cheap, and grazing lands were accessible," a Purdue University professor said. "The plan was to get more meat per animal. But it went way too far. The animals got too big and eat so much." The microcattle are a return to earlier times. And, hey, there are even been a mini bucking bull rodeos!
Cattle Network reports that a group of Midwestern U.S. Senators have introduced a bill that "would stop years of unfair and manipulative meat packer practices that negatively impact ranchers and farmers." The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act is sponsored by two Democrats (Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Tim Johnson of South Dakota) and two Republicans (Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Chuck Grassley of Iowa).
The bill seeks to insure that cattle raisers would have access to an open and competitive beef market. Meat packers have used contracts to control and to push down prices paid to hog and chicken raisers. These so-called "captive supplies" have allowed "packers to stop bidding in cash markets whenever prices rise above packers' preferred level," according to the National Farmers Union. "Nearly every study on the issue has concluded that packers' use of captive supplies leads to lower prices for ranchers and farmers." The bill would outlaw these captive supply contracts, according to the NFU.
Most of the hogs and chickens grown in the U.S. are purchased under contract. Cattle raisers believe these captive contracts have depressed prices paid to raisers in these industries — and they don't want to see the same transformation occur in their markets. “Captive supply is one of the most serious problems faced by cattle producers in Canada and the US,” said NFU Ontario Board member Grant Robertson. “Farmers are receiving prices that echo those of the Great Depression, and a big factor behind those low prices is packers’ using captive supply contracts and herds to depress prices."