Packer Price Disclosure Moves
Forward In Nebraska And Iowa

LINCOLN, Neb. —(AP)— Nebraska must put the federal government's feet to the fire by becoming the first state in the nation to enact livestock and hog price reporting requirements, one state senator argued late last week.

Lawmakers advanced to the final round of debate a bill that would require packers to disclose prices paid for livestock under contracts. The measure would also prohibit contracts that allow packers to determine when deliveries will be made.

Meatpackers would be required to report twice daily the prices they are paying for cattle and hogs.

Under a compromise adopted, the price reporting would not begin until Feb. 15, as opposed to Jan. 3 as originally proposed. A similar measure passed in Iowa last week but does not go into effect until July.

``Iowa has said let's wait and see what Washington does,'' Nebraska Sen. Cap Dierks said. ``If we don't put their feet to the fire, they're not going to do anything.''

Nebraska should not be the first to require price reporting, argued Omaha Sen. Kermit Brashear.

``In trying to be so quick, so out front, so first in the nation, I'm worried that we're going to be out front, first and all alone,'' Brashear said. ``If we can all together come together at the same time we'll be better off.''

Brashear wanted to delay implementation until May. Under a compromise, the price reporting would begin in February, and other portions of the bill, designed to strengthen the state's law against corporate farming, would begin earlier, as soon as the bill is signed.

Under the bill, no corporate livestock operation as defined in the constitution can either directly or indirectly be involved with cattle ownership, keeping or feeding.

The bill also limits to five days the amount of time corporate operations can own livestock before slaughter.

Supporters say that will close a loophole in the law that allows large meatpackers to contract with a third party who sells cattle at a reduced rate to the corporation.

Iowa, meanwhile, moved ahead with its own mandatory price disclosure effort.

Aides say Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is likely to sign legislation on its way to his desk.

Supporters said the move is needed because of dramatic changes in the production and marketing of livestock, particularly hogs.

``Fifteen or 20 years ago, most of the livestock went to a public market,'' said Rep. Ralph Klemme, R-LeMars, main supporter of the bill. ``Most of it now is either sold directly or on contract.''

Critics pushed to toughen the measure even further, prohibiting price discrimination as well as forcing packers to make prices public.

``This is really a watered-down bill,'' said Rep. Jim Drees, D-Manning. ``It's a little bit better than nothing.''

The state House gave the bill final legislative approval on a 95-0 vote, sending it to Vilsack. Aides said Vilsack would have preferred the broader measure but was likely to sign the measure into law.

This year's legislature opened with harsh warnings about a hog industry that was in turmoil, with prices at historic low levels. Lawmakers proposed a series of efforts to aid the industry, including spending millions for low-interest loans.

Prices gradually recovered during the spring, and the momentum to act slowed. The current bill is the only one to actually win legislative approval, and critics said it doesn't do much.

Iowa is the nation's largest hog producer, accounting for about 25 percent of the hogs raised in the country.

Sweeping changes have hit the industry, particularly in the burgeoning development of giant, factory-style hog production facilities with thousands of animals raised under a single roof.

While the most public complaints about those hog lots are environmental and lifestyle-related because of odors, some economists warn that the most sweeping changes brought by the lots are economic.

Rather than farmers delivering animals to a livestock market where packers publicly bid on them, about two-thirds of the hogs raised now are sold directly to a meatpacker, often under a contract reached months in advance.

Those contracts are secret, and farmers are often prohibited even from sharing them with their lawyers.

Critics suspect that large farmers get special deals from meatpackers by agreeing to deliver large numbers of animals on a regular basis, while smaller family farmers often have trouble selling their animals.

``Farmer Brown and his wife, who support the local schools, the local hospital, the local everything, are probably going to get $6 a hundredweight less,'' complained Drees.

By forcing meatpackers to disclose what they are paying, it will put pressure on the industry to treat farmers fairly. There's already some evidence that a public debate on the issue has had an impact on packers, Klemme said.

``They are already being treated more fairly because we are talking,'' said Klemme. ``We need to be cautious a little bit. I don't think they (packers) are doing everything wrong.''

Some argued that it would make more sense for Congress to impose national reporting requirements. They noted the measure approved Tuesday doesn't go into effect until 2000. Critics said Congress has already made it abundantly clear it won't act.

``I don't think the federal government is going to do anything,'' said Drees.

Other critics said some farmers are simply more astute at business.

``Why should we discriminate against someone who has the foresight to lock in a profitable price for him?'' said Rep. Russ Eddie, R-Storm Lake.

Eddie argued that consumers are demanding the pork industry produce leaner animals, and farmers who understand how to do that through genetics ought to be rewarded in the marketplace.