Committee pauses debate on proposed equine commodity board after extended testimony

Members of the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs committee heard extended testimony on a bill proposing an equine commodity board and a feed assessment to fund industry promotion and data collection, then voted to adjourn debate and not move the bill to the full committee at this time.

Ned Towel of Camden identified himself as vice president of the South Carolina Horse Council and chairman of the Kershaw County Planning Commission and urged the committee to support a commodity board that would fund industry studies, promotion and services. Towel told the committee the council’s proposal includes a modest per‑unit assessment — he described it informally as “5¢ on every bag of horse feed, $5 on every ton” — to generate funds for an industry board and to fund updated data collection that he said counties need for local planning.

Clint Leach of the South Carolina Department of Agriculture told the committee the department formerly staffed an equine specialist but the position was defunded because the industry did not fund offsets for the staff role. Leach said the department sponsored a 2019 economic impact study through the USC Moore School of Business that estimated the equine industry’s statewide economic contribution at roughly $1.9 billion. Leach and other department staff stated their view that any assessment and promotion program should be industry‑driven, typically by producer referendum and with industry governance of the assessment, rather than being imposed directly by statute.

Committee members pressed Towel and department staff about likely impacts and mechanics, including whether similarly labeled feeds for goats or cattle would be swept into a horse feed assessment, whether a statutory assessment would be passed to consumers by manufacturers and retailers, and how much revenue the measure might generate. In response, Towel said the industry and feed sellers he had spoken to generally supported a small assessment; department staff said a prior estimate (from a previous filing of the bill) projected annual assessment revenue of about $150,000 but cautioned that exact revenues depend on the assessment rate and collection mechanism.

Representative Cromer raised concerns about an unrelated provision she said appeared in a draft, asking whether demographic requirements for appointments would codify diversity, equity and inclusion standards into the board’s appointment process; the witnessing presenter said he had not been prepared to address that portion and could not speak to it.

After extended questioning and recognition that many implementation details remained unresolved, a motion to adjourn debate on the bill was adopted by roll call. Representatives Atkinson, Hadden, McDaniel and Neece voted aye; Representative Rees voted nay; Representative Chumley was not present. The chair announced the bill would not proceed to the full committee at this time and that members and stakeholders could continue to work on outstanding questions.