April 28, 2022

Bruce Summers

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20250

Re – Cattle Contract Library

Dear Mr. Summers: 

The North American Meat Institute (NAMI or the Meat Institute) submits 

comments regarding the pilot program Cattle Contract Library (CCL or Library) the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS or the agency) has been directed to create. 

The Meat Institute is the nation’s oldest and largest trade association representing 

packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey, and processed meat and 

poultry products. NAMI member companies account for more than 95 percent of 

the United States’ output of these products. Several NAMI members will likely 

report contract information to AMS once the Library is functioning and for that 

reason the Meat Institute has a substantial interest in how AMS implements the 

law’s provision, as discussed below in greater detail.1

Above all Else, the Agency Must Ensure Confidentiality of Reported 

Information.

As NAMI stated in its oral testimony, as AMS contemplates how to develop 

this program and implement it, it is imperative that the agency remembers that 

information published through this mechanism is available for everyone to see -- not 

just producers and not just packers, but everyone in the supply chain and beyond. 

So, NAMI respectfully reminds the agency of the Hippocratic oath: First, do no 

harm. And the key to achieving that objective is ensuring the confidentiality 

approach followed is sufficiently rigorous to prevent disclosure of information that 

 

1 Because the provision in the appropriations bill does not amend either the Livestock Marketing Act 

or the Packers and Stockyards Act, whether AMS has the authority to require packers to report 

contract information is subject to question. By submitting these comments NAMI does not concede 

AMS has such authority. Rather, there comments are submitted to aid the agency’s decision-making 

as it develops the Library, whether it be voluntary or mandatory program. 
April 28, 2022

Page 2 of 5

2

allows a reviewer to link proprietary information with a reporting entity. In that 

regard, the minimum confidentiality expectation is how AMS addresses 

confidentiality for the swine contract library. Indeed, the authorizing provision, 

section 779 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, specifically says this 

cattle contract pilot program shall be similar to the swine contract library AMS 

already administers. 

This program shall be similar, as determined by the Secretary, to the 

swine contract library the U.S. Department of Agriculture currently

maintains pursuant to section 222 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 

U.S.C. 198a).2

This provision recognizes there may be differences in contracts based on species and 

gives the Secretary of Agriculture the flexibility to adjust. But the direction is clear: 

the cattle contract library pilot program should mirror, to the extent possible, the 

swine contract library with data summarized and aggregated appropriately. For 

example, no single premium/discount should be published. 

More specifically, data should be summarized and aggregated appropriately 

to blind the identifiers of producers and packers. AMS needs to consider the issues 

raised regarding regionality and concerns that current LMR aggregation is not 

sufficient to adequately blind business information. In addition, the three types of 

contracts currently defined should be used to aggregate the example contracts and 

believe it reflects the market. And on another specific issue, NAMI recommends

keeping the five reporting regions currently identified for cattle for continuity. 

Expanding regions or creating new regions without receiving industry input, 

particularly in a pilot program, could have adverse unintended consequences. 

AMS Should Seek to Minimize the Costs of Reporting and Publishing. 

As a general rule, the Library pilot should publish only the key 

components/terms that affect price discovery or base price calculation. Reporting 

extraneous business to business dealings must not be mandated. For example, 

transportation costs, delivery schedules, among other business to business 

interactions, should not be subject to mandatory reporting. Rather, Library should 

be focused on key components critical for cattle marketing. 

A key consideration for developing the Library is ensuring it includes 

components or terms that affect price discovery, e.g., base price calculation. 

Harmonizing the schedule of premiums/discounts used to determine the base price 

may be useful. AMS should consider whether, and if so how much, this data is 

already being reported through LMR and how that data can be presented most 

effectively for stakeholder use. Additional reporting should focus on topics not 

 

2 file:///C:/Users/mdopp/AppData/Local/Temp/BILLS-117hr2471enr.pdf
April 28, 2022

Page 3 of 5

3

currently being reported in LMR but the pilot should not collect data already being 

reported to AMS. In short, as AMS constructs the Library the agency should 

remember that better utilization of LMR data is needed, not necessarily a new 

reporting scheme through the pilot. 

The issue of “open commitments” was raised at the listening session and this 

issue demands careful consideration. So called open commitments should not be 

reported because of data variability and the assumptions based on that data may 

not be accurate as market factors evolve. This factor raises compliance and

enforcement challenges. If open commitments are a component of the Library, AMS 

needs to recognize data variability and ensure enforcement activities do not 

retroactively punish reporting entities for providing accurate estimates, even if 

factors change when cattle are bought and slaughtered. Should open commitments 

be included, AMS should enable reporting entities to provide corrected/updated data 

in a reasonable timeframe, e.g., 30 days. 

AMS also needs to examine the issue of active and inactive contracts between 

packers and producers. The concept of an "offered contract," as described by AMS 

at the April 21 meeting is not a contract. An offer is an ongoing negotiation 

between parties and is not a reliable data point for accurate reporting for price 

discovery. Requiring reporting of so called “offered contracts” would likely disclose 

confidential business information, requiring redaction. Once a contract is entered 

into, i.e., agreement both parties, it then becomes an active contract and remains so 

it is completed or until the parties agree it no longer is needed, when it becomes an 

inactive contract. Only active and inactive contracts should be reported in the 

Library. Following that approach will make the Library more focused and efficient 

avoid publishing information never included in an “active” contract.

Because this is a pilot program, the agency also should adopt an approach 

AMS and other agencies within USDA follow regarding Freedom of Information Act 

requests and discuss with reporting companies the proprietary or confidential 

nature of information reported. Knowing more about the information sought could 

help craft a program with better protection. Much has been made about the need 

for the Library and the “benefits” that arguably will flow to livestock producers in 

particular if this Library is established. But allowing publication of the wrong 

information or in an inappropriate manner could adversely affect not only packers 

but producers with whom they have entered into agreements. 

Finally, companies should have to report monthly, if not every two months, 

and not at a greater frequency. This reporting frequency is preferable for two 

reasons. Information is not free. Someone pays when information is collected and 

disseminated. With LMR, that cost largely is borne by packers and this project 

arguably adds to that burden.

3 The more often a packer reports the greater the 

 

3 See footnote 1 whether reporting can be mandated. 
April 28, 2022

Page 4 of 5

4

cost. Undoubtedly, some will call for daily or weekly reporting but those are the 

voices of entities not writing the checks to pay for reporting. Balancing the added

cost against the utility of the information published needs to be carefully 

considered. 

A second reason reporting should be done monthly or even less frequently is 

because the more frequent the reporting the greater the burden on AMS’s staff. The 

agency already has daily reporting obligations mandated by statute and a careful 

review needs to be done to determine what it will take from AMS to turn things 

around even monthly, given the other daily and weekly publishing obligations it 

has. That concern particularly applies if the number of contracts submitted 

regarding cattle is notably greater than swine.

Education Regarding what is in the Library, and what is not, is Critical. 

Given this project is a pilot program, NAMI suggests AMS consider taking 

certain actions before creating a permanent Library, should that be the preferred 

approach. Specifically, an “after-action report” regarding what AMS and industry

learn from the pilot should be prepared before creating a permanent a Library. 

This report should include input from all stakeholders. This report should be 

shared publicly, including with relevant Congressional committees. 

Several participants in the public listening session commented on the 

importance of education, particularly producer education, for the CCL to be most 

useful. NAMI wholeheartedly concurs with this observation, but not in lieu of the 

above-discussed after-action report. As stated before, the Library will be available 

for everyone to see and use and the better everyone understands the information 

being provided the better for the market. Too often in the past there have been 

calls to amend, and subsequent amendments to, the Livestock Mandatory Reporting 

laws without an understanding of the utility of the information demanded. That 

failure has only led to more demands for other information/amendments. NAMI 

supports the recommendation regarding expanding training centers to help 

education producers about information published in the Library – and what will 

not.

Finally, the USDA panelists were asked whether the agency would consider 

doing “trial runs” to see the pilot before going live. Along the same lines, it was 

suggested AMS conduct an “after action review/report” of the pilot and reengage 

with stakeholders who participated to determine what worked and what did not 

work. The Meat Institute supports these suggestions as well because that process 

will not only help inform what a final CCL might look like, should Congress direct 

AMS to create a permanent program, but is consistent with the point at the 

beginning of these comments: First, do no harm. . 
April 28, 2022

Page 5 of 5

5

* * * * *

The Meat Institute appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Please contact me if you have questions about this request or anything else 

regarding this matter. Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mark Dopp

Chief Operating Officer 

and General Counsel 

Cc: Julie Anna Potts

Sarah Little 

Nathan Fretz

Bryan Burns