Senate ag committee advances dairy pricing bill after farmers describe steep losses

The Senate Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development Committee voted to advance House Bill 17‑29 after lengthy testimony from Arkansas dairy farmers who told the panel the state—s remaining family dairies are struggling under pricing practices by large cooperatives.

Cassie Davis, a third‑generation dairy farmer, told the committee that ‘‘the pay price of our milk is set by the federal milk marketing order 7’’ and that cooperatives were paying farmers ‘‘up to $6 a hundred weight less than class 1 price,’’ a difference she said can cost ‘‘a 90 cow dairy up to $70,000 a year’’ (Cassie Davis). She asked the panel to require co‑ops to pay farmers the full federally set class‑1 value and said, ‘‘When this bill moves into law, it will not fall on the consumer in any capacity. This bill does not raise a consumer tax, request a price increase, or have government intervention on pay price’’ (Cassie Davis).

Frederick Simon, a Faulkner County dairy farmer and chair of the Arkansas Milk Stabilization Board, backed the bill and argued the measure merely asks that the federal pricing formula be passed through to producers. He said shipping choices and processing arrangements mean farmers in Arkansas can see large swings in pay: ‘‘in a given month's time, it ... could result as much as a $10,000 increase in my paycheck for milk going out of state’’ (Frederick Simon).

Witnesses and committee members discussed ownership and control of processing plants. Committee members asked whether Prairie Farms and other plants were controlled by Dairy Farmers of America (DFA); witnesses said many plants operate as joint ventures and that DFA is a large, member‑run cooperative with thousands of members. Mike Fisher summarized the legal rationale for the bill, saying cooperatives currently enjoy exemptions from paying the federal order value to members and that the bill would give producers protection to receive fair market value.

After discussion, the committee took a voice vote. The transcript records a motion to ‘‘do pass’’ and later a motion to pass the bill as amended; the committee voice voted ‘‘aye’’ on the final motion. No recorded negative votes appear in the transcript. The amendment removed a separate provision (previously raised during a different bill) related to lessee authorization; the committee approved House Bill 17‑29 as amended and moved it out of committee for further consideration.