USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is currently drafting a rule to ensure complete reporting under the new Cattle Contracts Library, which will contain information under Livestock Mandatory Reporting criteria.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 required USDA to create a Cattle Contracts Library Pilot Program to increase market transparency for cattle producers. The library concept was largely inspired by Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-SD-At large) and Henry Cuellar’s (D-TX-28) Cattle Contract Library Act of 2021, which suggested the creation of a library following volatility in the cattle markets as a result of COVID-19 and other black swan events.
After a stakeholder input process, AMS developed a working library model that included inactive contracts to be shown as examples to stakeholders and end users. In order to populate the library with active contractual information and volumes purchased against the contracts, AMS is creating a rule that will lead to a regulation to ensure complete and accurate reporting.
“We are pleased to see the pilot program progressing and note the important decision to use the Livestock Mandatory Reporting statutes as a basis for any subsequent rulemakings,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane in response to USDA’s announcement. “We look forward to continuing to work with staff at AMS to ensure the success of this tool as well as the protection of our members’ proprietary business information.”
Background
AMS held a cattle industry listening session on April 21 to gather input to develop the Cattle Contracts Library. The agency also accepted written feedback. Of utmost concern to AMS in the library’s development was what information should be included, what concerns there are with USDA releasing a library and in what format the information should be presented.
Various industry groups and cattlemen’s associations submitted comments during the input process, including NCBA, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) and the Livestock Marketing Association.
“We appreciate that this Cattle Contract Library would not limit the types of deals packers can make with feedyards,” LMA wrote in its comments. “Rather, it would provide more information about existing deals to the public. We believe seeing the agreements offered to other feedyards would provide feeders, especially smaller and independent feeders, potential ideas and additional leverage when negotiating their own contracts.”
NAMI’s comments asked USDA to be mindful of confidentiality requirements, requesting that “data should be summarized and aggregated appropriately to blind the identifiers of producers and packers.”
The groups noted the already-existing swine contracts and made detailed recommendations to make the cattle contracts more user-friendly. “The library should be constructed as a searchable database of individual contracts, not just as a static PDF document like the swine contract library, and not presented as aggregated summaries,” USCA wrote.
Groups also pinpointed simplicity, ease of use and producer education as top concerns.
AMS will announce when a rule is available on complete and accurate reporting of contractual information and volumes purchased against the contracts. — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
