|
             
|
By Colleen
Schreiber
SACRAMENTO — Sheep producers are set to receive an additional
$18.86 million in federal funds through fiscal 2004, following
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman’s decision to extend the ewe
lamb retention program.
Bill Hawks, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory
programs, delivered the message to sheep producers here during the
joint annual convention of the American Sheep Industry Association and
National Lamb Feeders Association. The announcement received a
standing ovation.
“There are a lot of reasons for extending the program,”
Hawks told producers. “For one, flock size is not back to the level
we want it. It needs to be at a more competitive level so we can
compete with our friends from Down Under. I think that’s absolutely
critical.”
The Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance program, of which the ewe
lamb retention program later became a part, was authorized in 1999.
The first of those programs was launched in the fall of 2000, and
additional programs were added in the fall of 2001 in the wake of an
international trade case involving Australian and New Zealand lamb
imports.
The result was a program for feeder lambs as well as one for
fed lambs, but the program with the most potential to help stabilize
the sheep industry was the ewe lamb retention program.
Unfortunately, a severe drouth was plaguing much of the U.S. at
that time. Many growers were lucky to be able to maintain their herd
inventory. Some not only couldn’t keep their ewe lambs, they were
forced to begin selling off more of their older ewes.
“In states like Montana and South Dakota, we actually lost
ewe lamb inventory because they didn’t have the feed and water to
carry numbers,” said ASI’s executive director, Peter Orwick.
“Those growers truly missed the opportunity to participate in the
ewe lamb program.”
Thus, long before the program was scheduled to end last July,
industry leaders were on Capitol Hill working to get the program
extended.
“Twenty-six U.S. senators and half a dozen leading members of
the U.S. House joined together in telling the administration that this
was a very supportable program, and that because of the drouth many
growers weren’t able to take advantage of the program, and therefore
we needed to extend it,” Orwick said.
Details of the program are expected shortly, Orwick expects
most of the details, such as eligibility and payment levels, to be
consistent with the previous program. In that version, growers were
eligible to receive $18 per ewe lamb when they agreed to retain the
animal for at least a full lambing cycle.
“The questions we will be asking in the next few days as the
department works on this are — do they have to put a rule out in
advance, or can we just do it through a notice in county offices? Do
we pick up where we left off in July 2003, or do we start as of today?
Those are the things we’ll be finding out shortly,” Orwick said.
Hawks also briefly touched on country of origin labeling,
acknowledging that funding has been delayed for two years.
ASI strongly supports COOL, and association president Guy Flora
put Hawks on the spot.
“The government currently functions under the 1930 tariff
act, which clearly specifies that products brought into the United
states for further processing retain their country of origin through
to the retail case,” Flora pointed out.
“I will take that under advisement,” Hawks commented.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or “mad cow” disease, was
another topic in Hawks’ presentation.
“We call it ‘the mad cow who stole Christmas,’” Hawks
said. “I think we have taken the appropriate actions to deal with
this. We have tracked down 27 of the 81 animals. We have removed 170
animals thus far, and every one of them has tested negative for BSE.”
Hawks told listeners that the emergency response plan was
effective.
“We diverted from the BSE emergency response plan
initially,” Hawks noted. “Our response plan says we are to get a
confirmation from the lab in the UK before we make an announcement,
but we had confidence in our test and we felt it was important to go
ahead and share that information.”
The BSE discussion led to questions on national animal
identification. Hawks reminded his audience that the government is
interested in animal ID for disease purposes, and he contended that
animal ID and country of origin labeling are two separate issues.
One grower encouraged Hawks and his agency to keep it simple.
“I want a system that reduces costs rather than adds
costs,” Hawks responded. “I think we have a number of
identification systems in place, and we need to find a way to
incorporate them and find ways to have a system that will provide
management type information back to the producers. The President, in
the State of Union address, encouraged Congress to make the tax cuts
permanent. We don’t want to take your money,” he assured
listeners.
One grower pointed to the ongoing scrapie program as an example
of an identification program that is already working for the sheep
industry.
“The Secretary has asked our chief informational officer to
look at what we’re doing from a purely technological standpoint to
see what standards we need and what standards are already out
there,” Hawks remarked.
Another sheep producer asked that such a system be one that
growers can use to make management decisions.
“One of the concerns I have is that as it stands now, the
program is very suitable for APHIS purposes for animal tracking and
disease, but it’s not overly useful for management purposes out in
the industry,” the grower commented. “The devices proposed are
good for the agency, but they’re not necessarily multi-functional. I
encourage you to think about that as you go forward.”
“You are exactly right,” Hawks agreed. “You need
information for management decisions for your operation, so a system
should be devised so you can capture that information with one system.
“We have some concerns about accessibility of some of that
information,” Hawks added. “We are actually planning to ask
Congress to address that issue.”
Hawks is also in charge of phytosanitary issues relating to
import and export trade.
“It is my responsibility to try and make all of our trading
partners deal with us on a sound science basis,” Hawks noted.
“We’re working with Mexico on some of those issues.
“I often talk about sound science, pseudo-science and
political science, and sometimes the issues we deal with have all
three of them involved.”
Hawks was asked whether the lamb industry would be part of the
meat purchase program in the future.
“You’re referring to Section 32 purchases for the school
lunch program,” Hawks said. “In making those decisions we look at
purchasing power of the industry, the economics, etc.”
He encouraged the industry to put in a request for purchases. |
|
 |
|
Questions? Comments? Suggestions? |