Latest news with #PrestonKeres
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Class action lawsuit touching Montana beef industry sees $83 million settlement from JBS Foods
A USDA employee at work at Cargill Meat Solutions is pictured in Friona, Texas, on Sept. 20, 2022. (USDA Photo /Preston Keres) An $83 million settlement in a large class action lawsuit led in part by a Montana nonprofit against JBS Foods and other meat processing companies is accepting claims from cattle producers. The lawsuit alleged price fixing among four companies that control almost 85% of the meat processing industry in the country — including JBS Foods, a U.S. subsidiary of a Brazilian firm. The lawsuit also names Tyson Foods, Cargill and National Beef. In court documents, JBS denied wrongdoing. 'JBS denies Cattle Plaintiffs' allegations, denies any and all wrongdoing in connection with the facts and claims that have been or could have been alleged against it in the Action, and asserts that it has a number of valid defenses to Cattle Plaintiffs' claims,' a court filing stated. The lawsuit was brought by the Farmers Union and the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America, which is known as RCALF-USA. The legal fund, RCALF-USA, is a Montana-based nonprofit. The legal battle with the companies in the suit is likely not over, said Walt Schweitzer, the president of the Montana Farmers Union. Tyson, Cargill and National Beef have yet to conclude their parts of the suit in court. 'I do anticipate more developments with the other three (defendants), but it's in the court system, and it's anybody's guess how quickly it'll proceed,' Schweitzer said. The suit covers those who sold cattle to JBS Foods and its subsidiaries between June 1, 2015, to Feb. 29, 2020. A website, has been set up to handle the claims, which have to be filed by Sept. 15, 2025. 'We filed this case after witnessing the inexplicable collapse of fed cattle prices beginning in 2015,' R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said in a press release, 'Our case has been working its way through the court for six years now, and we will continue in our effort to recover as much as we can for American cattlemen.' Montana is a beef producing state and there are currently about 1.2 million beef cattle in the state. Including calves, that totals more than 2 million head. Schweitzer said the monopolization of the cattle industry was the biggest issue facing it. 'Price gouging, not just the producers, but the consumers, has been an ongoing issue for really decades, and Farmers Union has facilitated other lawsuits against the big four in the past. This is the farthest we've gotten, as far as settlement and discovery documents,' Schweitzer said. 'So we're getting to the bottom of it, but there's still a lot of discovery left to be made.' The class action lawsuit alleges the defendants 'conspired to fix and suppress' prices of fed cattle, or beef cows that are fed a concentrated diet to add weight before slaughter. Companies like JBS Foods and other meatpackers make their money on the 'meat margin,' or the difference between what they buy the cattle for and what they sell the processed meat for. Because it takes time for cattle to be old and large enough to be slaughtered, the price of meat does not move very fast. 'Beef demand is also relatively insensitive to changes in price (and) the meat margin is very sensitive to changes in aggregate industry slaughter levels,' the complaint states. 'Consequently, Packing Defendants can increase the meat margin, and thus their profitability, by working cooperatively to reduce their respective slaughter volumes, thereby depressing the price of fed cattle.' Using a system of complex contracts, the JBS Foods lawsuit alleges the companies artificially lowered the price of beef. The contract system and the formulas to set the sale price are relatively new, Schweitzer said, noting they were essentially unheard of 40 years ago. The packing companies get most of their meat — about 70% — through contracts at a price to be determined at delivery. Those prices in part come from the 'weekly cash cattle market,' which represents about 25% of beef sales. The contracts are also dated, meaning companies could manipulate the cash price of cattle on days when cattle on contract are brought in to be slaughtered. The companies named in the suit 'cratered' the cash cattle trade, the complaint alleges. 'Defendants used their market power and the relatively small cash cattle trade to their advantage and embarked upon a conspiracy to depress fed cattle prices that began no later than January 2015 and continues through to this day,' the suit alleges. The suit also says the companies let meatpacking plants go idle and that the defendants imported foreign beef cattle, 'after it became uneconomical for them to do so.' Cattle production is big business in America, and more than 2.5 million cows are slaughtered every month, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It takes about 15 to 24 months for a cow to go from birth to slaughter. JBS is also politically active. The company donated $5 million to Trump's inauguration, Forbes reported, far more than Meta, Amazon, Uber and even Nvidia. JBS, the largest meatpacking company in the world, was recently tagged with a $64 million fine in Brazil for raising cattle on illegally deforested land in the Amazon, although it did not admit wrongdoing in the case. The company has been beset by other legal woes and two billionaire shareholders went to jail in Brazil after bribing 1,800 politicians.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's USDA cuts programs aimed at helping farmers improve soil, water quality
The USDA announced earlier this month it was ending a $3 billion program to help farmers use climate-friendly practices. (Preston Keres | USDA) In the first months of the administration of President Donald Trump, organizations working to keep Wisconsin's environment healthy have seen cuts to key grant programs. Now they are watching for Trump's retreat from environmental protection to hit communities across the state. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it was cancelling the Climate Smart Commodities Program — a $3 billion effort to fund projects across the country to improve soil health, sequester carbon, reduce methane emissions and encourage other climate-friendly farming practices. Trump administration officials called the program a 'Biden era slush fund,' saying that not enough of the money went directly to farmers. The USDA cancelled projects that did not meet three criteria: a minimum of 65% of funds needed to be going directly to producers, grants must have had one producer enrolled by the end of 2024 and at least one payment must have been made to a producer by the end of 2024. 'The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative was largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers,' USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement. 'The concerns of farmers took a backseat during the Biden Administration. During my short time as Secretary, I have heard directly from our farmers that many of the USDA partnerships are overburdened by red tape, have ambiguous goals, and require complex reporting that push farmers onto the sidelines. We are correcting these mistakes and redirecting our efforts to set our farmers up for an unprecedented era of prosperity.' A USDA fact sheet published last year states that 28 Wisconsin-based projects were funded by the program. One of the organizations receiving funding was the Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance, which has worked to protect the Fox and Wolf Rivers — which are connected to Lake Michigan — for more than three decades in the region of the state most densely occupied by industrial agriculture operations. On April 22, the Alliance received an official termination notice for two grants it had received through the program to share costs with farmers to institute practices such as cover cropping and no-till planting, according to a statement from the alliance. Both practices help farmers maintain soil health and prevent potentially harmful nutrients such as phosphorus from running off fields and into the local water system. The grant funding also supported 10 technical support jobs at county land and water departments, Pheasants Forever and the Wisconsin Farmers Union. The loss of the money has resulted in the cancellation of 37 contracts with farmers, 4,000 acres of planned no-till planting going unfunded and, this fall, 16,000 acres of farmland that may not have cover crops planted. In its statement, the Alliance said that government support for programs like these is an investment that helps farmers long term, even if some of the money doesn't go directly into their hands. 'We fully support the goal of directing more resources to farmers. In fact, we design our programs with low overhead to ensure dollars go where they matter most,' the Alliance stated. 'However, the review process did not account for one important factor: technical assistance is direct farmer support.' Just because the money doesn't go straight to the farmers doesn't mean they don't benefit, according to the Alliance. 'Farmers often pay out-of-pocket for the kind of expertise our technical staff provide — support that is essential to the success and longevity of conservation practices,' the statement continued. 'Excluding this from the 'producer-directed' category overlooks the real-world value of those services. Without that guidance, funding becomes a one-time transaction instead of a long-term investment. Fox-Wolf's model is built not just on providing financial support, but on ensuring that practices are implemented effectively and sustained over time. That's what makes our work effective — and why this funding mattered.' Jessica Schultz, the Alliance's executive director, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the goal of the grants was to help the region's farmers transition to these soil-friendly practices beyond just one season, allowing the organization to help protect the watershed, which is suffering from 'excess phosphorus and sediment loading,' in the long term. 'These practices also improve soil health, but transitioning to a continuous cover system requires a new approach to farm management. This shift can result in short-term yield losses or necessitate investment in new equipment,' Schultz said. 'The cost-share provided through our grants would have played a vital role in helping farmers overcome these initial barriers. However, to realize lasting water quality improvements in our rivers and lakes, these conservation practices must be adopted consistently — not just for a single season, but year after year — across the majority of farmland in the basin.' 'The technical assistance offered through our projects was intended to support farmers through this transition, providing both expertise and access to equipment from across the region,' she continued. 'Our goal was to foster long-term adoption by equipping producers with the tools and knowledge they need to succeed — not just for one growing season, but for the future health of our local waterways.' The Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance isn't the only organization that has lost grant funding since Trump's inauguration. Wisconsin Green Fire has already had two grants, totaling nearly $100,000, canceled, according to Meleesa Johnson, the organization's executive director. The first grant, worth about $32,000, was aimed at working with the Wisconsin Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy to develop resources for local governments seeking to implement climate change mitigation strategies such as improving stormwater management and planting more trees to reduce heat island effects. The second grant was a $65,000 contract with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service to establish a farm sustainability rewards program. Similar to the alliance's grant, that program would have given farmers money in exchange for implementing practices such as no-till planting or reducing the use of nitrogen. Green Fire had already spent money on getting the farm sustainability program off the ground, and now, according to Johnson, it's unclear if the organization will be reimbursed. 'We're not the only ones,' she said. 'There's a lot of groups out there that have been moving along, doing the work, meeting the benchmarks of contract expectations, and now, well, many of us are, most of us are not being paid for the work that we've all begun. So it's hard. It's not impossible for organizations to regroup, but it just makes it more difficult.' Johnson said that this program was about getting money directly to farmers — even if the program's description used the word 'carbon.' 'First and foremost, this was about getting money into the hands of farmers either already deploying good conservation practices or wanting to, [who] didn't have the resources to do it,' she said. 'This wasn't about Green Fire. This was about farmers, and we were just developing the metric and the strategies to make sure that high performing farms with good conservation practices were being rewarded for doing really, really good work.' Without programs like these, Johnson said, Wisconsin will continue to 'see that continual slow degradation of farm fields and water quality.'
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cattle bills ‘Moove' forward in both legislative chambers
Cattle is pictured on the Jordan Ranch, near Livingston, Montana.(USDA/FPAC photo by Preston Keres) Mooing and cow puns briefly filled the House chamber on Tuesday morning as legislators passed one of the final cattle-related bills this session. The House passed House Resolution 34, which is in support of Montana beef producers, while down the hall, the Senate moved House Resolution 52 forward, which continues the discussion of a checkoff, or marketing and education program, for Treasure State cattle products. HJ 34 was brought by Rep. Randyn Gregg, R-White Sulphur Springs, while HJ 52 was sponsored by Rep. Eric Tilleman, R-Cascade. 'I moo that this bill do pass,' Gregg said on the House floor. His wasn't the only bit of humor, as Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings, asked Rep. Bob Carter, a Missoula Democrat and a vice chair of the House Agriculture committee, about the bill. 'I just wanted to ask,' Zolnikov said. 'Are you 'mooved' by this bill?' The resolution calls for sustainable beef production and encourages state and federal governments 'to prioritize policies that ensure fair market conditions,' and remove regulatory burdens. The resolution also 'strongly opposes' lab-grown meat, which the Montana Legislature voted to ban earlier this session with House Bill 401, currently on the governor's desk. As of January 2025, there were 1.2 million beef cows in Montana and, additionally, about 1 million calves in the state. Agriculture in Montana is a $6.5 billion industry. Tilleman's bill would study ways to grow that, following up on a somewhat controversial checkoff marketing legislation, HB 119, that was tabled in the Senate Agriculture fCommittee earlier this session. The bill would have created the Montana Cattle Committee and asked about 9,600 beef producers across the state, through a vote, whether or not they wanted to be taxed per head of cattle for the program. 'We decided to do a study bill to where we can get it ironed out, make it work for everybody,' Tilleman told the Daily Montanan. 'Because we know our beef in Montana is some of the best, and everybody keeps buying.' That idea was based on the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee, which was established in 1967 to promote Treasure State versions of those products. That committee works with the Wheat Marketing Center in Portland, Oregon, Tilleman said. 'They'll actually take our wheat from Montana,' Tilleman said. 'And they design special dishes for each of the different countries to try to show that our wheat is the best.' If the Montana Cattle Committee is created in a future session, that's the direction Tilleman hopes it goes. HJ 52 will also target educational opportunities. Tilleman is the Office of Public Instruction's agricultural education specialist and sees it first hand. In Kalispell, for example, there's six agriculture teachers with around 600 students. Tilleman said about two-thirds of schools in the state have some sort of agricultural education. 'There's a big push in our area for that,' Tilleman said. Several bills have touched on livestock this session, including increased financial protections for goat and bison producers. House Bill 356, which is on its way to the governor's desk, added black bears to a predation list. It allows livestock producers, through the Livestock Loss Board, to receive compensation for animals killed by black bears. The list was previously grizzly bears, mountain lions and wolves. 'We have a lot of good bills that we're trying to kind of rectify some of our code and try to actually help mitigate livestock loss,' Tilleman said. 'And that was the big ones I was pushing, is being able to use those dollars to help mitigate a little more and doing that education.'
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cattle committee bill gets robust hearing in Senate Agricultural Committee
A cow is pictured on the Jordan Ranch in Livingston, Montana. (USDA/FPAC photo by Preston Keres) A fight over a beef promotion program saw boisterous debate in a Senate Agricultural Committee meeting last week. House Bill 119, brought by House Speaker Rep. Brandon Ler, would create the Montana Cattle Committee, which would run what's called a 'checkoff program,' or promotion program for a specific product, in this case Montana beef. Perhaps the most famous checkoff program was the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 'Got Milk?' campaign. In this case, it would be a state — not federal — program promoting in-state beef producers. However, the bill, if passed, would ask for a vote by cattle producers to create the [committee or program?]. The vote would also create a fee, $1 per head, on about 1.75 million beef cows in Montana to fund marketing or other promotional work. 'I just want to state that this bill is not imposing the tax,' said Ler, R-Savage. 'The state itself is not imposing the tax. That would be left up to a referendum of the producers.' He added he wants to see the bill passed to 'promote Montana beef.' The bill states the committee 'is uniquely situated' to provide benefits including 'advertising, promotion, food safety production research, nutrition, marketing research, the collection and dissemination of production and related statistics, and public education.' Essentially the bill seeks to create a 'favorable environment' for Montana cattle producers to market their product both domestically and internationally. At the heart of the debate was an additional tax on beef cows which opponents said would add up for producers, and they didn't want to be paying to help market their competitor's' products. Proponents of the bill have said the program will benefit cattle producers across the state. 'We're just asking for the opportunity to ask the producers of the state of Montana if they would like to tax themselves and see if we can improve the atmosphere for the livestock producers, improve the profitability, basically,' said Gene Curry, who is the chairman of the Board of Livestock, but was speaking for himself as a livestock producer. 'We're not asking for you to levy a tax on us or anybody. We're just asking you to give us the ability to ask the producers if they would like to tax themselves.' The cattle committee would be housed in the Department of Agriculture. It would be made up of seven members appointed by the governor. Originally the bill also dictated what groups can forward names for consideration to the governor, though it's since been amended to open up the nomination process further. The groups originally named in the bill as organizations that would pick the members were the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Association of Livestock Auction Markets, Montana Cattlewomen, the Montana Beef Council, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, and the Montana Farmers Union. Representatives of two of those groups — the Montana Farmers Union and the Montana Cattlemen's Association — spoke against the bill during its Senate hearing. 'Ultimately, it pits neighbor against neighbor. That's a problem in my mind. As a business owner, I wouldn't pay for my competitor's advertising no matter how small the bill is, it just doesn't make sense,' said John Ferrat, a rancher and board member for the Montana Farmers Union. 'House Bill 119 is nothing more than taxation without representation, and if I recall, in 1773 there was some tea dumped into a harbor over just such a thing.' Blackfeet and Chippewa Cree representatives also spoke against the bill, as there is no direct tribal representation on the board. 'We do have Montana brands that were forced upon us to sell our cattle,' said Craig Iron Pipe, representing the Blackfeet tribal agriculture department and is a producer himself. 'We would like a voice at the table.' The bill was first introduced on Jan. 6. It had its first hearing two days later and some who provided testimony said they had little notice the bill was coming. Last week, the committee did not take immediate action on the bill. It passed the House on 52-47 vote to send it to the Senate. A fiscal note for the bill said the cattle committee would cost $1.5 million per year, but would be paid for by private donations and the head fee on livestock. Ler did not sign a third, most recent fiscal note, but signed the previous two.
Yahoo
26-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
134M poultry and counting: Interactive charts show hardest-hit counties in bird flu crisis
Egg laying chickens (Photo by Preston Keres/USDA) The latest data from the CDC and USDA show the continued devastating effects of bird flu outbreaks across the United States – with Iowa, the nation's leading egg producer, suffering substantial losses. Since November 2023, more than 12.1 million poultry birds have been affected in Sioux County, Iowa. On Jan. 17, health officials in Georgia, the nation's leading state for chicken production, announced it was suspending poultry sales after detecting bird flu, for the first time, in flocks designated for commercial sale. This recent development is not yet reflected in the CDC and USDA databases used for this analysis. 'This is a serious threat to Georgia's #1 industry and the livelihoods of thousands of Georgians who make their living in our state's poultry industry. We are working around the clock to mitigate any further spread of the disease and ensure that normal poultry activities in Georgia can resume as quickly as possible,' Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Tyler Harper said in a news release. Since federal and state government officials began tracking in February 2022, at least 1,400 outbreaks have been reported in more than 600 counties nationwide, affecting nearly 135 million birds. Other counties experiencing severe losses include Weld County, Colorado, with 9.95 million since April 2022, and Merced County, California, recording 8.35 million, according to the data. Midwest states with the highest number of birds affected include Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, and Nebraska. Meanwhile, 67 human cases have been reported in the U.S. since the flu was first detected in humans in 2024, according to the CDC. 'While the current public health risk is low, CDC is watching the situation carefully and working with states to monitor people with animal exposures,' the agency stated on its website, which is regularly updated with the latest information. This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
