Juan Salinas II
LINCOLN — A divide between rural Nebraska lawmakers is rustling in the statehouse.
State Sen. Teresa Ibach of Sumner, in west-central Nebraska, has proposed a bill that would exempt a significant sector of agriculture in the state — feedlots — from branding and inspection fees under the state’s livestock branding law that she has said she aims to “modernize” with Legislative Bill 646.
“LB 646 simply provides an exemption for [feedlots], so [they] are treated uniformly across Nebraska,” Ibach said during the bill Agriculture Committee hearing.
She has faced opposition from State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman, a freshman rural lawmaker from north-central Nebraska who proposed an amendment to essentially kill the bill and let lawmakers make a more informed decision later regarding one of the state’s biggest industries. Her reason: Most lawmakers don’t deal with cattle.
“The reality is there’s only about four in this body of 49 that understand that,” Storer said.
Nebraska is the second-largest cattle-producing state in the U.S., generating $13.2 billion from cattle and other livestock, according to the latest tally from the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Parts of that industry are regulated by the Nebraska Brand Committee, which is tasked with investigating cattle theft and verifying ownership through branding when cattle are bought, sold or moved in or beyond the brand zone in state law, essentially covering the western two-thirds of the state. Its services are funded entirely through fees, not by taxpayers.
The divide on the Ibach bill is that it would exempt feedlots in the state’s brand inspection area from paying branding-related fees, replacing them with a one-time payment of $500 to apply for feedlots to get exempt status. The Brand Committee called the legislation an attempt to “severely” weaken the cattle industry’s checks and balances, and several cattle industry groups have opposed it.
‘Invitation for abuse’
During the bill’s hearing before the Agriculture Committee, Nebraska Farmers Union president John Hansen said the Brand Committee provides security from cattle theft. He added the whole state should be under the Livestock Brand Act because the areas not in the branding area are an “invitation for abuse.”
“If I were stealing cattle, I know that I would be trying to sell them in the area of the state that does not have brand inspection,” Hansen said. “So the viability of the system will be undermined if this bill goes forward as is.”
The Nebraska State Dairy Association testified in support of the bill and requested its own exception from the state Livestock Brand Act, calling the system a time and economic burden on the dairy industry because the branding committee hasn’t updated its ID Program.
“Our producers are tired of waiting for the change to pay for a program that has no value to our industry,” said Steve Wolfe, who testified on behalf of the Nebraska State Dairy Association.
Bill sponsors initially included all eight of the Legislature’s Agriculture Committee members, though only six of the eight voted it out of committee for a floor debate: two original sponsors, State Sens. Mike Jacobson of North Platte and Dan McKeon of Amherst withdrew their names from the bill last week. Jacobson said it because his constituents won’t like it.
“The only reason I signed on to begin with was to try to get to the point where we could negotiate something better than what we have today,” Jacobson said. “Every email and phone call I’ve gotten on this issue, except from the feed yards who stand directly to benefit, have been not only no but hell no. That’s a pretty strong message.”
Nebraska’s quirky branding law
Other cattle-feeding states, including Texas and Oklahoma, deal with cattle branding differently. In those states, it’s not mandatory but encouraged to deter theft, while brand inspections are mandatory in Wyoming and Colorado.
Elliott Dennis, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor of livestock marketing and risk management, said Nebraska’s cattle branding approach is unique because some parts of the state don’t have to deal with the inspection fees.
Dennis said the quirk is because areas in the eastern parts of the state have fewer cattle than most of western Nebraska. He said consumers wouldn’t feel the proposed changes to the branding law.
Feedlot owners and beef and dairy cattle growers tried but failed in 2020 and 2021 to comprehensively update state branding laws. Dennis said feedlot owners have historically been against brand inspection due to the frequency of fees they must pay based on their cattle numbers and because getting an inspector can slow down production.
He said who proposed the bill tells a lot about its intention.
“This isn’t a person unfamiliar with the cattle industry,” Dennis said.
Explaining her stance
Ibach, a first-term senator, is married to the longest-serving state agriculture director Greg Ibach. She and her family own a cattle operation in Dawson County. She said the legislation is about updating the state brand law, not getting rid of it.
“To be clear, [the] bill does not do away with brand inspection inside the brand area, nor does it impact anyone’s ability to own or use a brand,” Ibach said.
In an op-ed last month on KRVN Rural Radio’s website in Lexington, Ibach said she worked with the Nebraska Brand Committee and the Nebraska Farm Bureau after the bill’s Agriculture Committee hearing to add amendments to address the concerns from the committee, farm bureau, and other groups.
“I believe the amendment addresses legitimate concerns raised by the testifiers and others,” Ibach wrote.
Her amendment, AM 829, to LB 646, would cap the amount the Brand Committee can charge feedlots.
Currently, the committee can charge for each additional increment of 250 cattle above the total of 1,000 cattle, which represents the lot’s one-time capacity. Feedlots are charged a $1,000 annual permit. If the bill becomes law, it’s estimated the committee would lose $1.6 million annually, roughly 25% of its operating budget.
Discussions continue
Nebraska Farm Bureau Senior Director of State Legislative Affairs Bruce Rieker said the Bureau’s stance on the bill could change as negotiations between stakeholders in the cattle industry continue.
“There are very sincere conversations going on between many of the parties now, Rieker said. “Much more so now than maybe they were earlier in the session.”
On Tuesday, the Farm Bureau released a statement expressing disapproval of the amendment to the bill, signaling that it still opposes the changes.
“For more than 80 years, the Nebraska Brand Committee has played a vital role in overseeing livestock brand registration, enforcement, and proof of ownership.” The statement reads, “We support the work of the Brand Committee and believe the Committee should have the fee authority necessary to adequately fund its programs.”
Nebraska Cattlemen also expressed continued opposition to the bill. Still, the group said it would “remain committed to working with Senator Ibach toward a solution that could be acceptable to the membership as we work to modernize brand laws in Nebraska.”After a Tuesday meeting, the Cattlemen’s Board of Directors voted to support the agriculture committee amendment.
Storer announced an amendment late last week to Ibach’s bill that would delay immediate action on the bill and call for a study by the Nebraska Brand Committee for potential solutions. Storer said she was “frustrated” with how the bill was initially crafted without the input of the Brand Committee and the cattle industry. She said her amendment was reasonable and would give more parts of the cattle industry a say.
“I believe it is vitally important that we have an agency in place to provide oversight that prevents fraud and theft in that industry,” Storer told the Nebraska Examiner. “So at the end of the day, anything that’s going to weaken that agency…to prevent fraud and theft is problematic.”
The legislation is set to be debated on the floor Wednesday.