FRANKFORT, KY - As the 2010 General Assembly winds down, animal agriculturalists have anxiously waited to see the fate of an important piece of legislation that would affect them.
Senate Bill 105 called for the creation a 14-member Kentucky Livestock Care Standards Commission (KLCSC) that would set rules for the treatment of animals and poultry on the farm in an effort to head off by groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to impose their legislative agendas on the industry in Kentucky.
The much anticipated bill was passed unanimously by the full Senate earlier in the month and finally got through the House last Wednesday but not without a few changes made in the House Agriculture and Small Business Committee.
"I'm pleased that the House finally got the bill voted on and moved and was very appreciative of the substantial support that we had there," said David Givens (R-Greensburg) sponsor of the legislation. "This is so important to our livestock producers and all of agriculture because our livestock producers are such a key component and a key customer to our grain producers. We are really all involved in this together."
Jeff Harper, director of the Kentucky Farm Bureau (KFB) Public Affairs Division said that even though the bill came through with a House Committee Substitute (HCS), the original intent remained intact; the biggest change being that the new commission would serve as an advisory board to an already existing agriculture board.
"In Kentucky we have in place a state board of agriculture that is already authorized to promulgate regulations, so rather than the KLCSC promulgating the regulations, it will make recommendations for on-farm livestock and poultry care standards to the state board of agriculture," he said.
Those recommendations would then be either approved by the board and enacted within 30 days or rejected with the reasons for rejection then provided in writing to the commission, according to Harper.
Through the course of the development of the legislation some groups voiced concern over language included in the original bill, prompting the changes.
"The big compromise is, the state board of agriculture can not take any action in terms of on-farm livestock and poultry care standards without a recommendation from this commission," said Harper. "In other words, even after these standards are in place and as agriculture not only in Kentucky but all over the U.S. evolves - and standards may need to be tweaked or changed - the state board of agriculture can not revise any of these standards without a recommendation from the commission."
The bill also maintains the preemption clause for local governments, which will prohibit them from enacting more stringent regulations for on-farm livestock and poultry care than is recommended by the commission according to information from KFB.
The commissioner of agriculture would chair both the new commission as well as the state board and both entities would be "housed" in the Kentucky Department of Agriculture.
Current commissioner Richie Farmer has supported the legislation from the start and said the guidelines of the bill should be based not on emotion, but on scientific research and widely accepted practices.
Harper noted that the changes have made a good piece of legislation even better. "It was a really good compromise. It does not reduce or harm the original intent of SB 105, it is just a mechanism where we already have a board that can write regulations so everybody is in agreement," he said. "We've worked with both of the bill sponsors, Sen. Givens and Rep. Tom McKee (D-Cynthiana) on this compromise."
Many other state agriculture groups have supported the legislation including the Kentucky Cattlemen's Association, the Kentucky Pork Producers Association, the Kentucky Soybean Association, and the Kentucky Corn Growers Association, just to name a few.
The Community Farm Alliance (CFA) was one of the organizations concerned with the earlier version of the bill but has always been supportive according to its president Adam Barr.
He said more representation by farmers was needed in such a commission, and that it should serve in an advisory role rather than a regulatory role. "We like the bill as it is and we think it will do what it is intended to do, protect Kentucky livestock," said Barr. "The majority of farmers are behind something like this and this bill takes care of their concerns."
Harper said it was always the intent of the bill to include farmer representation from all sectors, nominated by their respective Kentucky commodity organizations on the commission. He believes the changes made in the legislation will clarify that intent.
"The Committee Sub does more clearly defines that and if that makes folks more comfortable, that is perfectly fine with us," he said. Givens said the intent of the legislation was still going to be fulfilled, that being to "protect our good livestock producers in the state from the extremes on both ends, both the bad actors within the industry and the animal activists that wish to drive all livestock production not only out of Kentucky but out of the United States."
Givens also said he knows of no reason why Gov. Steve Beshear would not sign the bill, but to insure it a good position, the same language in that piece of legislation was attached to another bill, HB 398 which authorizes the creation of the Kentucky Equine Health and Welfare Board. That body would report to the KLCSC.
Essie Rogers, Director of Education with the Kentucky Horse Council said that organization was pleased with both bills and that it makes sense that a livestock care standards commission and an equine health and welfare board would go together.
"We're very happy to see these two bills combined. We have supported SB 105 and HB 398," she said. "We think that it is a natural fit."
Since the House version was different, including a floor amendment that stipulates that there be a seat on the commission for a certified organic farmer, the bill will go to a conference committee this week to iron out the details.
"We will attempt, in conference to have that (floor amendment) removed simply because we have no designation of any other marketing related representative on the commission," Givens said. "I think we are well positioned, I have spoken with my colleagues in the House and I'm very, very confident."