Weekly equine and livestock news: January 31, 2022

Discounts are good for horse owners, but they’re not always good for their veterinarians

Equine veterinarians discount for a variety of reasons, but that tendency often risks leaving them in financial straits. Amy Grice, a former managing partner at an equine practice and a veterinary business consultant, gave billing advice at the American Association of Equine Practitioners Convention held in December. In a live audience poll at the conference, 71% of respondents said they give a discount to someone every week, and 29% said they do so about once a month. The equine profession faces challenges right now because it “cannot pay compensation high enough to keep, retain or attract people,” Grice said. Among other things, she recommended attendees establish and uphold well-written financial policies and communicate them with clients; communicate costs for routine care ahead of the veterinary visit; and get paid at the time of service. She also suggested offering prepayment plans, providing different treatments at different costs and requesting a deposit for major procedures. The Horse has more.

Pilgrim’s Pride raises wages at Kentucky production facility following December tornadoes

Pilgrim’s Pride said it will raise starting wages $2 for workers at its Mayfield, Kentucky, poultry production facility, to $16.50 per hour. This comes after a string of deadly tornadoes hit the area in December. The tornadoes, which killed at least 64 people in Kentucky, destroyed one Pilgrim’s Pride chicken hatchery and significantly damaged another that supplied to farmers near Mayfield, a town of 10,000 that suffered some of the worst damage, Reuters reports. The company negotiated the permanent pay increase with the UFCW Local 227 workers union for the Mayfield facility, which employs more than 1,500 people. The total wage increase amounts to $4.5 million on an annualized basis, the company said. This decision comes as the U.S. meatpacking industry deals with large-scale staffing shortages due to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus.

California court delays implementation of Proposition 12 for whole pork sales

A California court has temporarily halted implementation of some of the state’s new animal confinement standards after the state delayed issuing final regulations for the law, known as Proposition 12. In a January 21 ruling, the Superior Court for Sacramento County granted the petitioners’ writ of mandate to delay the enforcement of Proposition 12 on sales of whole pork meat, Successful Farming reports. The suit listed petitioners as the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the meat producer Kruse and Son; and state associations for grocers, restaurants and retailers. Rules on square footage for pigs went into effect January 1, but due to revised regulations announced by the state in December that are still awaiting final approval, the petitioners argued the square footage rules shouldn’t be implemented yet either. Once the state finalizes changes, the rules for whole pork sales won’t be enforced for another 180 days, as per the court ruling.

Pork industry report says higher prices are due to market factors, not meatpacker consolidation

A recent industry report says pork prices have risen due to strong demand for U.S. pork and because of challenging market factors, but not from concentration in the meatpacking industry. Factors such as rising input prices, higher wages and supply chain bottlenecks have contributed to rising prices, the report said. The economists who wrote the report, who come from the National Pork Producers Council, Iowa State University and North Carolina State University, said U.S. pork prices are lower than in many other countries. “This report shows the concentration level in the pork-packing industry is not significantly higher than it was 15 years ago,” said Jen Sorenson, president of NPPC. The report says concentration in 2022 is about 7% lower than it was five years ago because new pork processing plants opened between 2017 and 2020. It notes the industry is more concentrated now than it was 50 years ago. Meat + Poultry has more.

Largest U.S. farm group won’t support cattle market quotas

The American Farm Bureau Federation supports more transparency in cattle prices, but it won’t support a proposed requirement for meatpackers to buy slaughter cattle on the cash market, the president of the largest U.S. farm group said. Mandatory purchases are a key feature of the leading Senate bill for cattle market reform. The bill would also create a cattle contract library and require packers to report how many cattle are scheduled for slaughter in each of the next 14 days. Supporters say those provisions would help producers know if they’re being offered fair terms for their stock and the best time to ship cattle to market. “We support the majority of this legislation, but we cannot support mandatory cash sales,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall. Delegates at the organization’s annual meeting voted this month against “government mandates that force any livestock slaughter facility to purchase a set percentage of their live animal supply via cash bids.” Nationally, an estimated one in five fed cattle are sold for slaughter on the cash market, compared to as many as three of five in past decades, Successful Farming reports.

Supreme Court will hear case to determine federally regulated waters

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a long-running case in Idaho that could lead to a limit on the reach of the Clean Water Act. The justices said they will hear an appeal from an Idaho couple who have been fighting to build a house on land that federal regulators have deemed protected wetlands. The case asks the court to revisit a 2006 Clean Water Act case, Rapanos v. United States, which failed to produce a majority decision and left uncertainty about the governing standard. Four justices, led by Antonin Scalia, said the law covers wetlands only if they have a continuous surface connection to a river, lake or other major waterway. In their appeal, the Idaho plaintiffs say the court should adopt Scalia’s test. The Biden administration had asked the court to reject the case, saying it would limit the government’s ability to protect wetlands that are separated by minor barriers from a navigable river even when scientific evidence indicates the wetland affects the river. The administration also noted it’s finalizing its own proposed revision to federal regulations and urged the court to wait. The court is likely to hear the case in the term that begins in October, Bloomberg Law reports.