Changes to livestock brand inspection procedures advanced

Senators gave first-round approval March 6 to a bill that would create brand inspection service areas.

LB768, as originally introduced by Ogallala Sen. Ken Schilz, would have allowed the Nebraska Brand Committee to charge and collect a fee to cover the actual expenses for livestock brand inspections occurring outside the brand inspection area.

An Agriculture Committee amendment, adopted 29-0, replaced the bill. As amended, the bill would revise the fee calculation for feedlots and dairies by basing the calculation on capacity only upon an initial application. It also would utilize annual average inventory for calculating the fee for subsequent renewals to reflect current practices.

Schilz said the bill is a response to a report by the state auditor that found inconsistencies between statute and current practices.

“[This bill would] bring certain feed provisions in line with legislative intent and current practice,” he said. “It would insert express statutory authority for the feed processes that have been followed by the brand committee.”

The committee amendment also incorporated provisions of LB846, originally introduced by Hyannis Sen. Al Davis. It would create a brand inspection service area which would include any Nebraska county, or portion thereof, immediately adjacent to the mandatory brand inspection area.

The amended bill also would require that the amount of federal beef checkoff collected under the Federal Beef Promotion and Research Order be enumerated on a bill of sale.

O’Neill Sen. Tyson Larson introduced an amendment that would have allowed feedlots and dairies to claim a refund of any excess fees charged by the Nebraska Brand Committee during the period from Nov. 1, 2006 to present. Larson said the matter is a question of fairness.

“The fact that it took an auditor’s report and eight years for the brand committee to catch something of this nature is ludicrous,” he said. “It is wrong that these business owners across the state were overcharged for years.”

Davis opposed the Larson amendment, saying it would be counterproductive.

“People are well aware that this has been an issue, but not one person has come and said ‘Give us our money back,’” he said. “We’re trying to harmonize the statutes, but this amendment drives a wedge back into the situation.”

Larson withdrew his amendment and senators advanced the bill to select file on a 33-0 vote.