By MEGGIE I. FOSTER
Assistant Editor

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Despite some disagreement over details of legislation to establish the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (OLCB), the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF), a major advocate of the Issue 2 campaign, stands firmly behind House Bill 414 designed to ensure that livestock care is a priority in the state.
“We’re supportive of the bill as it’s been drafted with some of the modifications that will be likely,” said Beth Vanderkooi, director of state policy for OFBF.

In fact at the fourth hearing of the Ohio House Ag and Natural Resources Committee, Keith Stimpert, the senior vice president for public policy at OFBF presented proponent testimony outlining the overwhelming support of the state farm bureau organization, of which includes 60,000 members.

“As an organization, our mission statement has for years expressed our interest in building a partnership between consumers and farmers,” said Stimpert at the hearing on Feb. 17. “And that is why we are please to provide comments … in general support of House Bill 414 (HB 414). This measure is the next step in making Ohio a national leader in livestock care and strengthening the relationship between farmers and consumers.”

However, just two weeks ago, a parade of Ohio farm opponents presented testimony to the House Ag Committee revealing issues in the Board’s funding, lack of attention to federal organic standards and the ability for the director of agriculture to enter a farm premise without a warrant. Also, the point was made that perhaps by establishing the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the state would not necessarily be protecting Ohio farmers, but empowering the Humane Society of the United States.

Ohio Farm Bureau recently took a few minutes to clarify some of issues pointed out through opponent testimony.

Feed tax
The current funding option for the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board would increase an existing inspection fee paid by distributors of commercial livestock feed by 15 cents per ton in a three-year period. The existing fee is 25 cents per ton and could increase to 35-40 cents during a three-year period to fund the Board.

A handful of farmers contend that this is an unfair method of funding the Board because many farm operators who mix their own feed on-site will not be charged.

“I take issue with the fact that large farms won’t incur this tax burden because they mix feed on premise,” said David Hutchins, a beef producer from West Mansfield, Ohio. “Nothing here says they have to pay. This will place an additional burden on many small livestock producers.”

“We’re very sensitive to this argument, but we still believe this is still the most equitable sharing of cost,” replied Vanderkooi.
Vanderkooi added that all producers who mix feed on-site will still be required to pay through the purchase of mineral additives.
“As we started looking at the potential financial resources, we quickly realized the state is under state budget constraints, and there just aren’t any funds available in the general revenue fund,” she said. “Ohioans already have a fee out there on commercial feed. This was an existing system that would be easy to utilize.”
Vanderkooi shared that the cost of implementation for a new funding system, perhaps one that would charge a fee for every animal marketed, may cost the state more due to the additional costs associated with the system’s development, implementation and collection of fees.

In fact, Vanderkooi said that the Ohio Department of Agriculture Director Robert Boggs, who has been actively involved in language of HB 414, is considering reducing the fee to 5 cents (per ton of commercial feed purchased) for the first year, instead of 15 cents at the request of the General Assembly. However, no amendments have been filed as of Feb. 19.

“With this system, the average small-to-mid-sized dairy producer would pay around $5 per year,” added Vanderkooi, referring to the 5 cent-level.

Whether the final legislation may be a 5 or 15 cent increase on the commercial bulk feed tax, Vanderkooi wanted to clarify that this money ($150,000 per year and up to $500,000 over the course of three years), which will be extracted from the Commercial Feed and Seed fund, will be used to fund the Board itself, including staffing and office space. Current proposed legislation states that enforcement officers and inspectors will be cross-trained from the Confined Animal Feeding Operation inspection program to answer complaint-driven inquiries from the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.

“It’s difficult to project the financial needs of such a program when it’s never been done before,” said Vanderkooi. “The Ohio Department of Agriculture is using its best guess.”

Organic producers
Another group who recently took issue with language in HB 414 was the organic livestock industry in Ohio. Joe Logan, director of agricultural programs for the Ohio Environmental Council, mentioned that the bill will add an unnecessary burden on organic producers.

“Even though organic farmers are held to the highest of animal care standards and have annual compliance inspections, overseen and certified by the USDA, House Bill 414 does not exempt them from the program as a whole or from the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Feed Inspection Fee increase,” he said. “Therefore, organic producers will be subject to a needlessly redundant compliance system for the enforcement of livestock care standards.”

Logan asked on Feb. 3 that Ohio’s organic producers be exempt from regulations under the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.
“I don’t think they meant to be exempt, because there will certainly be a case where standards developed by the Board will want to be adopted by organic producers as well,” explained Vanderkooi. “But, certainly, we’re supportive of adding a provision that the Board consider federal organic standards and that the Board can’t take any action that will override federal standards. There’s nothing that says an organic producer can’t sit on the Board.”

Vanderkooi mentioned that many organic farmers are also members of OFBF.

“So we’ve been working closely with them to make sure that the Board can’t do anything to conflict with federal laws,” she added. “There’s a lot of support in the General Assembly, but we haven’t received notice of any official amendments, yet.”