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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Mexico cattle industry prepares and cattle imports paused as screwworm travels north
Jun. 1—A small, pale maggot about a half-inch long could cost New Mexico cattle ranchers greatly if it gets back into the country. One of the state's senators introduced new legislation to combat the New World screwworm fly, which has recently spread across Central America toward the U.S. At the U.S.-Mexico crossing in Santa Teresa, the pens supporting the nation's largest livestock entry point sat empty and eerily quiet Friday, with workers performing maintenance projects and catching up on paperwork at facilities normally bustling with thousands of cattle passing through daily. The U.S. Department of Agriculture closed the border to livestock imports after the screwworm was detected in the southern Mexico state of Chiapas in November. Imports resumed in February once the two countries established protocols for inspection and treatment. However, when screwworm was detected in Oaxaca and Veracruz, just 700 miles from the U.S., the USDA closed the border to imports once again on May 11. Unlike typical maggots, which feed on the dead, screwworm larvae feast on the living, meaning the fly larvae can do significant damage to cattle, even causing death. While New World screwworms overwhelmingly affect cattle, any warm-blooded animal can be susceptible to infestation, including livestock, pets, wild animals and people. The U.S. eradicated the parasites in 1966 and has worked with the Panama government to keep screwworms there in check, maintaining a buffer zone of several countries between U.S. ranches and the insects. But the New World screwworm population in Panama exploded in 2023, and last year's infestation in Chiapas prompted the U.S. to release $165 million in emergency funding to protect livestock, pets and wildlife. Some experts see a new U.S. infestation as inevitable. "It's not an 'if we're going to see it;' it's a 'when we're going to see it,'" said Bronson Corn, president of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association. "And unfortunately, I think we're going to see it sooner, much rather than later. Probably within the next three months, I would say, we're probably going to have it here in the United States." New Mexico has more than 10,000 cattle farms and ranches. The U.S. livestock industry benefits by more than $900 million a year because there aren't screwworms in the country, USDA estimates. Dr. Samantha Holeck, state veterinarian with the New Mexico Livestock Board, is preparing for the worst and hoping for the best by working to educate livestock producers on the New World screwworm and developing protocols for sample collection to make sure flies can be rapidly identified. "The challenge is, we've got very warm weather. The flies are able to move on their own, as well as with animal movement and things like wildlife that are going to move independently. We don't have control over how wildlife move. There are risk factors that still make it an imminent threat to the United States, even with a lot of good preventive strategies and surveillance in place," Holeck said. In the 1960s, New Mexico's livestock industry was heavily affected by the screwworm, she said. "A lot of our common management practices, even ear tagging potentially, can put an animal at risk, because any sort of fresh wound as small as a tick bite for example, can attract those female flies to lay eggs," Holeck said. "So once they have an opportunity to lay eggs in, those larvae begin to burrow in, because the larvae feed on live, healthy flesh." Left untreated, screwworms can cause traumatic injuries, are able to enlarge a wound and capable of even eating through bone. An untreated screwworm infestation could kill an animal within one to two weeks. Treatment with a dewormer like ivermectin can clear an infestation in a cow within two to three days. Livestock producers can usually identify an infestation by observing a rapidly expanding wound, signs of distress or pain in their animal, or by the foul smell of the wound. If screwworms are identified in New Mexico, the infested livestock will be thoroughly inspected and treated, Holeck said. They also won't be transported until free of screwworm larvae. Fly sterilization Female screwworms only mate once, so the strategy for managing the screwworm population has long been to produce sterile male screwworms and then release them into the wild. But, when the screwworm population was eradicated in the U.S., the country was producing sterile flies to release across a broad area. At present, the only sterilization facility is in Panama and is capable of producing hundreds of millions of sterile flies in a week. "If that facility were to go down, we'd be in a real big wreck," Holeck said. On Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the USDA is investing $21 million to renovate an existing fruit fly production facility in Mexico to produce 60 to 100 million additional sterile New World screwworm flies weekly. Sens. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a bill to authorize money for a new sterile fly production facility in the U.S. to combat the growing screwworm outbreak. The STOP Screwworms Act is cosponsored by Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss. With bipartisan support, Luján is hopeful the bill will move quickly through Congress because of the urgent situation. "The last time that there was an outbreak, it devastated the cattle industry, beef prices and availability in the United States," Luján said. "This little thing is quite devastating." At the border, empty cattle pens The orange theater-style seating at the Santa Teresa Livestock Auction was empty Friday. Hay and feed were neatly piled and only a few head of cattle were penned together. General Manager Hector Alberto "Teto" Medina estimated that the pause on imports will affect producers in Mexico, who exported over $1 billion in livestock to the U.S. in 2024, but would have ripple effects throughout the U.S. food system and related business sectors — down to what consumers pay for groceries or dining out. "This is the hardest we've ever been hit on the U.S.-Mexico border," he said. "We're talking about employment for farmers that feed these cattle, ranchers, transportation companies, brokerage companies, federal workers, feedlots, processors, for plants that process the cattle into meat — all the way down to restaurants and all the way down to our plates." So far, he said he had no plans to lay off any of his staff, and was upbeat about a solution. "What's being done at the USDA is the correct thing to do," he said. "They are ensuring that our food supply is safe and clean. ... I wish it didn't have to affect us as much, but that's the way life is sometimes."
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Which states are looking to ban soda, snack purchases for SNAP recipients?
(NEXSTAR) – On May 19, Nebraska became the first state in the country to obtain a waiver from the USDA to ban residents from purchasing sugary drinks with benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). By the end of the week, the USDA had granted similar exemptions for Iowa and Indiana. Not all waivers were seeking the same restrictions, however. Nebraska's waiver will effectively prohibit the purchases of soda and energy drinks with SNAP benefits. Iowa's will ban nearly all 'taxable' food items, as defined by Iowa law. And in Illinois, SNAP recipients won't be able to buy soda or candy under the new restrictions. The benefits or consequences of such restrictions have yet to be seen, as they won't go into effect until Jan. 1, 2026. But governors in a handful of other states have already submitted requests for their own SNAP waivers, with the intention of restricting certain foods or drinks — or, in a few cases, easing restrictions — within their own food-assistance programs. In April, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) submitted a waiver seeking permission to exclude 'soft drinks and candy' from permitted SNAP purchases. Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) also filed for waivers in May, requesting exemptions to ban 'soft drinks and candy' and 'sweetened drinks and candy,' respectively. And making its way through the Utah state legislature is a bill seeking to restrict soft drink purchases under SNAP. West Virginia Gov. Patrick West Morrisey, meanwhile, has submitted a waiver to request that soda is 'no longer an entitlement' to those receiving assistance. But he also indicated that he was asking to expand access to hot foods — which are generally not permitted to be purchased with SNAP benefits. Joining him in these efforts is Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), whose waiver seeks to make sweetened beverages unavailable for purchase with food stamps, but 'permit SNAP participants to buy a full range of hot prepared foods from grocery stores, including rotisserie chickens,' a representative for the Colorado Department of Human Services confirmed to Nexstar. It's likely that many of these requests will ultimately be approved (in their current form or otherwise) by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, who approved Nebraska, Iowa, and Indiana's requests. Rollins, like many of the Republican governors who supported the idea of these waivers, credited President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy (and his 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative) with her decisions. 'President Trump has given our nation a once in a generation opportunity to change the health trajectory for our entire country,' Rollins, who was sworn in this past February, was quoted as saying in a press release last Friday. 'I look forward to signing even more waivers in the days ahead as we continue to restore the health of America,' she said. In her statement, Rollins had also included Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) among a list of governors who 'stepped up' to request a waiver. But Kelly, who was initially supportive of a waiver, has since retracted her support for any state-mandated restrictions to SNAP purchases. Kelly ultimately vetoed a bill approving a waiver request, claiming the SNAP restrictions would hurt businesses. She also said the definition of allowable foods was 'nonsensical,' as it allegedly allowed the purchases of candy bars but not protein bars or trail mix. 'I support the idea that Kansans should eat healthier. However, changes to the SNAP food assistance program should be made at the federal level, not on a patchwork, state-by-state basis,' Kelly said. Anti-hunger advocates have criticized the waivers, too, saying they add costs, boost administrative burdens, and increase stigma for people already facing food insecurity. Gina Plata-Nino, a deputy director at the nonprofit advocacy group Food Research & Action Center, had argued that Nebraska's waiver 'ignores decades of evidence showing that incentive-based approaches — not punitive restrictions — are the most effective, dignified path to improving nutrition and reducing hunger.' Until this month, the USDA had also rejected the waivers, saying there were no clear standards to define certain foods as good or bad. In addition, the agency had said restrictions would be difficult to implement, complicated and costly, and would not necessarily change recipients' food purchases or reduce health problems such as obesity. Under Rollins, though, the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) now appears much more willing to approve — and even refine — the waivers. 'FNS continues to collaborate extensively with each state on their proposals, which includes holding near daily technical assistance calls with each submitting state,' a spokesperson for the USDA told Nexstar. 'There is no perfect timeline as each State is approaching this differently.' The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Is Beef Labeled "Raised Without Antibiotics" Actually Antibiotic-Free? A Disturbing Report Reveals, Maybe Not
This article may contain affiliate links that Yahoo and/or the publisher may receive a commission from if you buy a product or service through those links. One of the best tips for grocery shopping is to always read labels. From checking the expiration date to knowing what's in your food, it's best to be fully informed before you add anything to your shopping cart. But what about when the packaging is misleading? That's exactly what's happening right now with beef from some of the world's biggest suppliers. According to a report by Sentient Media, last summer members of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food & Safety Inspection Service — a team within the USDA that makes sure food is safe and accurately labeled — discovered that antibiotics had been used by dozens of meat providers that sell meat labeled as 'antibiotic-free.' They found that 20 percent of the sample of meat labeled as antibiotic-free tested positive for antibiotics. The organization sent out letters to inform these companies, including Tyson, Cargill, and JBS, of their findings. The USDA recommended that these meat producers take steps to figure out how the antibiotics were administered to the animals, and do whatever is necessary to make sure that beef products are no longer mislabeled. But that doesn't mean the companies are doing it. In fact, the USDA keeps approving labels from these same brands without requiring them to show proof of this claim. Essentially there's a widespread mislabeling happening in grocery stores right now. When shoppers intend to purchase beef 'raised without antibiotics,' there's no guarantee that they're actually buying what they want. There's also a concern that overusing antibiotics causes bacteria to evolve more rapidly and become resistant to the drugs when they are actually medically necessary for humans and animals alike. The USDA has updated its guidelines, recommending that companies use a third-party certification to confirm any animal-raising claims, but it's still just a recommendation that has yet to actually be enforced. So, what's the average consumer to do? Right now it's hard to say exactly how to confirm that your meat is in fact free of antibiotics. The best you can do is stay aware of the ongoing mislabeled packaging, and try to shop locally and at farmers markets whenever possible. Sign up for The Kitchn's Daily newsletter to receive our best recipes, posts, and shopping tips in your inbox.
