ADVERTISEMENT

Grassley proposes overturning California livestock regulations

Pork producers unwilling to conform to the CA standards are essentially losing about 15% of the consumer market. That’s a shock to their market system for sure.
California is about 13% of the market, but it would cost an average producer about $3,000,000 to convert to their standards and they would lose 15% of their space for hogs. They would spend money for fewer hogs. California may have to live with less pork for a while.
New facilities will be built to comply.
 
California is about 13% of the market, but it would cost an average producer about $3,000,000 to convert to their standards and they would lose 15% of their space for hogs. They would spend money for fewer hogs. California may have to live with less pork for a while.
New facilities will be built to comply.

I guess CAFOs aren’t all there cracked up to be then. Some producers will conform at least partially to meet the CA market, many will not. A smaller producer likely has much more flexibility and far lower costs to modify their operations so there may be a real benefit for them to jump in. The enhanced profits might make sense for them to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelbc1
California is about 13% of the market, but it would cost an average producer about $3,000,000 to convert to their standards and they would lose 15% of their space for hogs. They would spend money for fewer hogs. California may have to live with less pork for a while.
New facilities will be built to comply.
They’re is a pig farmer in southern Iowa who is saying you’re a liar, glimmered. He was on TV a couple of days ago.
He figured after Cali passed their rules a year ago, the writing was on the wall. He made his conversion and he said it was rather inexpensive to do so. He will continue to do business in California.
 
Last edited:
They’re is a pig farmer in southern Iowa who is saying you’re a liar, glimmered. He was on TV a couple of days ago.
He figured after Cali passed their rules a year ago, the writing was on the wall. He made his conversion and he said it was rather inexpensive to do so. He will continue to do business in California.
The numbers I used to convert were taken from an article that I no longer have, so I can't verify and they should be taken with that in mind. The math per square feet is solid though. You'll have at least 15% fewer hogs in the same space.
 
The numbers I used to convert were taken from an article that I no longer have, so I can't verify and they should be taken with that in mind. The math per square feet is solid though. You'll have at least 15% fewer hogs in the same space.
Farmers love to complain for the most part. That is why they vote Republican. Real doesn’t matter if it doesn’t fit the agenda.
 
Why isn't Grassley championing a grant program that reimburses some or all of the costs to update facilities? His position seems punitive in nature, with no eye to the future. There has to be a way for one of the most powerful men in Congress to leverage this situation to benefit Iowans other than hoping to purposefully circumvent the will of the voters in California forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
Why isn't Grassley championing a grant program that reimburses some or all of the costs to update facilities? His position seems punitive in nature, with no eye to the future. There has to be a way for one of the most powerful men in Congress to leverage this situation to benefit Iowans other than hoping to purposefully circumvent the will of the voters in California forever.
Chuck us just following the orders the Farm Bureau gave him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchLL
Why isn't Grassley championing a grant program that reimburses some or all of the costs to update facilities? His position seems punitive in nature, with no eye to the future. There has to be a way for one of the most powerful men in Congress to leverage this situation to benefit Iowans other than hoping to purposefully circumvent the will of the voters in California forever.
How about no! Let the free market work it out. California can pay more for pork, Hog producers can figure out who they want to sell pork to.
 
That this isn't standard is the issue...

The law requires that sows that give birth to pigs sold for pork in California be given at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their cage.

That there's a problem with providing this minimal level of treatment is ridiculous. Less than a 5x5 space that a 400+ lb sow can stand up in and turn around?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
That this isn't standard is the issue...

The law requires that sows that give birth to pigs sold for pork in California be given at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their cage.

That there's a problem with providing this minimal level of treatment is ridiculous. Less than a 5x5 space that a 400+ lb sow can stand up in and turn around?

What happens when the people of California determine in their next proposition that the new threshold requirement for accommodating birthing sows is 60 square feet, powder blue walls and air conditioning?,.. More isn't always better or necessary.
 
What happens when the people of California determine in their next proposition that the new threshold requirement for accommodating birthing sows is 60 square feet, powder blue walls and air conditioning?,.. More isn't always better or necessary.
Where living space is concerned, more IS better. You got one of these in your backyard?

201412548b6e757a78e.jpg
 
Where living space is concerned, more IS better.

But at some point more becomes unnecessary,.. and I'm not sure it's a good idea for us to allow the people of California, or any other state for that matter, to dictate topics like this on a national level.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
What happens when the people of California determine in their next proposition that the new threshold requirement for accommodating birthing sows is 60 square feet, powder blue walls and air conditioning?,.. More isn't always better or necessary.
Then the court will determine if that is reasonable.

I get a kick out of you and others who use such nonsense hypotheticals to try to prop up your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
They are determining it for their own state, not a national level.

Reality will be national,.. This new proposition requires that all pork sold inside the state of California abide by these new requirements. Most pork in the US is distributed by large national firms like Smithfield, Farmland, Tyson, etc.. Faced with this new law, and the reality that it would be cost prohibitive to produce a special California compliant labeled product, these firms will very likely require all of their livestock producers comply or go elsewhere. Since livestock producers tend to operate with limited outlets for their product, the majority of these producers will be forced to give in and make the necessary improvements. End result being that the cost of satisfying California, will ultimately be borne by consumers nationwide...
 
Reality will be national,.. This new proposition requires that all pork sold inside the state of California abide by these new requirements. Most pork in the US is distributed by large national firms like Smithfield, Farmland, Tyson, etc.. Faced with this new law, and the reality that it would be cost prohibitive to produce a special California compliant labeled product, these firms will very likely require all of their livestock producers comply or go elsewhere. Since livestock producers tend to operate with limited outlets for their product, the majority of these producers will be forced to give in and make the necessary improvements. End result being that the cost of satisfying California, will ultimately be borne by consumers nationwide...
That's up to the distributors and the producers. They have a choice to comply and sell to CA or not. And some already are. Nevertheless this law applies only to CA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
But at some point more becomes unnecessary,.. and I'm not sure it's a good idea for us to allow the people of California, or any other state for that matter, to dictate topics like this on a national level.
They are dictating for themselves. It's like TX dictating what goes into textbooks for everyone else. Happens all the time in all kinds of areas. And this isn't a question of "more"...anyone arguing that those requirements are excessive should spend a month in a cage where they can't stand up or turn around.
 
So what's california up to?

This...

Lab grown meat.

There are now 156 companies working on the proteins now approved for sale as “cell-cultivated.”

In the past year, the Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to two companies, Upside Foods and Good Meat, both of which have now received USDA clearance to sell cultivated meat in the U.S.

Industry investments since 2016 now total $2.8 billion,

Using legislation to get the market.

“Instead of all of that land and all of that water that’s used to feed all of these animals that are slaughtered, we can do it in a different way,” said Josh Tetrick, co-founder and chief executive of Eat Just, which operates Good Meat.

Cultivated meat is grown in steel tanks, using cells that come from a living animal, a fertilized egg or a special bank of stored cells. In Upside’s case, it comes out in large sheets that are then formed into shapes like chicken cutlets and sausages. Good Meat, which already sells cultivated meat in Singapore, the first country to allow it, turns masses of chicken cells into cutlets, nuggets, shredded meat and satays.

The product in the fryer is a JUST prototype chicken nugget, which costs about $50.

QDGM4EWRPV7QQMHXECFZE22TZY.jpg


Eventually, the price is expected to mirror high-end organic chicken, which sells for up to $20 per pound. YIKES!!! 1 lb. skinless chicken breast is $4.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT