Friends of Rural New York

National Institutes of Environmental Health Study

New research shows that farmers who used agricultural insecticides experienced increased neurological symptoms, even when they were no longer using the products. Data from18,782 North Carolina and Iowa farmers linked use of insecticides, including organophosphates and organochlorines, to reports of reoccurring headaches, fatigue, insomnia, dizziness, nausea, hand tremors, numbness and other neurological symptoms. Some of the insecticides addressed by the study are still on the market, but some, including DDT, have been banned or restricted.

These findings will be available online in April, and published in the June issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. The research is part of the ongoing Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute, two of the National Institutes of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

“This research is really important because it evaluated the health effects of agricultural chemicals as they were commonly used by farmers. It’s different from previous studies that focused on pesticide poisoning or high dose exposures, for example when large amounts of a chemical were accidentally spilled on the skin,” said Freya Kamel, Ph.D., a researcher for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

The NIEHS researchers examined questionnaires completed by farmers on lifetime exposure to herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and fumigants, and their history of 23 neurological symptoms. Those who reported experiencing more than 10 symptoms during the year prior to completing a study questionnaire were classified as having high levels of symptoms.

Researchers found that nearly 3,000 participants had a high lifetime exposure to insecticides—that is, they used insecticides more than 500 days in their lifetime. Nearly 800 of these farmers reported more than 10 neurological symptoms compared to those using insecticides fewer than 50 days. The researchers found no significant association between neurological symptoms and other chemicals, including herbicides or fungicides, and only a weak association between fumigant exposure and neurological symptoms.

Some of the insecticides used by the licensed farmers over the past 25 years are no longer available commercially. DDT, a well known example of an organochlorine, has been banned for use in the US since 1972. Organophosphates, such as malathion, chlorypyrifos, and diazinon, have been banned or restricted for home and garden use in the US. However, some of the pesticides examined, including carbaryl and some pyrethroids, are available to home gardeners, although in different formulations and in lower concentrations, which may make them less hazardous.

“Because the participants in this study are telling us they have never been previously diagnosed with pesticide poisoning or medically treated for any exposure to any pesticide, we are led to conclude that their symptoms are related to moderate lifetime exposure,” said Dr. Kamel.

“Most studies of this issue have sample sizes ranging from 50 to 100 participants, making it hard to understand the detailed relationship between exposure and health effects. The large size of this study gives it great statistical power,” said Dr. Kamel.

The AHS (http://www.aghealth.org/) is designed to investigate the effects of environmental, occupational, dietary, and genetic factors on the health of the agricultural population. The study will provide information that agricultural workers can use in making decisions about their health and the health of their families.

NIEHS looks at factors in the environment that may be harmful to human health. More information about NIEHS and the Agricultural Health Study can be found at http://www.niehs.nih.gov

Despite the efforts of corporate lobbyists to pressure legislators to change their votes, Missouri legislators did not cave to corporate interests.  The MO House defeated a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations) bill by a vote of 84 to 77. Fifty-seven democrats and 27 republicans joined family farmers and rural citizens in defeating this bill.  The key components of the CAFO bill were:

--Removing public notification requirements to all neighbors living within one mile of a CAFO.
--Drastically weakening local control by taking away counties’ authority to enact health ordinances to protect their citizens from the environmental and health risks associated with CAFOS.

Missouri Rural Crisis Center members mounted an intensive campaign against this bill framing it as a taking of local control and property rights from the majority of family farmers and rural citizens. Hundreds of members participated in the creation and implementation of the campaign: crafting the message, writing letters, running a radio and print ad campaign, making phone calls and going to the capitol every week. This was a major victory won with the never-ending commitment of family farmers, rural citizens, county commissioners and allies in the conservation, labor and civil rights communities.

from: The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture

by John Bunting

The United States of America reelected President George W. Bush. Most people know that Americans focused on the pivotal point, a cloudy area called “moral values.� Traditional family farms, those icons of moral values, will continue to fold under the Bush administration’s agenda - a weight too large to bear. The cost to farm families, farm communities and the rural landscape cannot be measured.

It will, however, be felt.

More than once on the campaign trail George Bush mentioned that farmers were doing okay. In the key state of Wisconsin, President Bush being chummy with dairy farmers provided the necessary setting for a photo opportunity.

Representative David Obey’s (D-Wis.) staff uncovered a PowerPoint presentation given by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) senior dairy economist, Dr. Larry Salathe, to a group of people at the American Dairy Product Institute (ADPI) meeting in April 2004. Salathe presented USDA’s strategic plan, including 2004 goals and objectives, on how to “Maximize votes from major dairy states, such as California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and Michigan.�

Some of the 2004 objectives included: (1) to keep dairy farmers’ hopes high before the election, and (2) to garner votes and support by promoting “market fundamentals� and “policies.� On the slide entitled “Election Year Fallout,� however, likely possibilities include: “small producer assessment/support price decline,� and “increased likelihood of MILC (Milk Income Loss Contract, a government program that sets a floor price under dairy farmers’ farm-gate milk price) termination.�

While it is true dairy farmers received more for their milk this year, three months of “good pricesâ€? did not last long enough to make up for years of financial stress. For some farmers, these “good pricesâ€? did not cover this year’s cost of production. The stress for dairy farmers began under a previous Republican administration, that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan eliminated a pricing program that required corporate interest to pay farmers a decent price for their milk. As a result, in what is called a “good year,â€? dairy farmers will get about two-thirds the amount they would have received had Reagan not eliminated the program. 

Nationally, in what has been described by President Bush as a good year, dairy farmers will get about three-quarters of their total cost. Dairy farmers will realize less than minimum wage for their effort. Barns will continue to need paint. Wives, who traditionally write the checks for the bills from a farming income, will continue to find jobs off the farm to support the farm. Children will not follow in their parents’ footsteps. 

The economic fundamentalists insist there is no need for family farms. The values associated with family farms are, in the final analysis, of no value to them. They insist that large, “efficient� factory farms can supply America’s milk. There are several problems with this thinking. Basically, the public receives no benefit from factory farms. Major players in between the farmers and the consumers retain all financial benefits associated with these farms. Secondly, factory farms represent a growing environmental concern. America’s taxpayers will pay to correct, or possibly prevent, environmental problems. Moreover, data from Cornell University shows that large dairy farms lost money in 2002 through 2003, and experienced a negative return on assets.

Even worse though, is the fact that as family farms have been driven out of business, the large factory farms are not providing enough milk to meet America’s needs. Each year America imports more dairy products, which could and should be produced here. In 2004, the United States imported cheese and butter from countries where even the water is not considered safe.

“Moral values,� should mean something more than getting people to cast a vote reelecting George Bush. “Moral values� should add to the well being of families and communities. The public has an interest in traditional family dairy farms for a whole range of very practical reasons. Presidential leadership requires that the public’s interest in farms and communities not only be respected, but also fulfilled. Any shirking on the president’s part on this issue will clearly demonstrate that he used “moral values� as an election year ploy.

--

John Bunting is a dairy farmer from Delhi, New York. He participates in the National Family Farm Coalition’s Dairy Subcommittee and writes for a dairy publication called “The Milkweed.� The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) was founded in 1986 to serve as a national link for grassroots organizations working on family farm issues. http://www.nffc.net
Distributed by MinutemanMedia.org.

We need a sniff test before we pass judgement.

By Luis Pons
March 7, 2005
A new method invented by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and collaborators for treating swine-production wastewater may benefit hog producers and the environment alike.

The researchers--soil scientists Matias Vanotti, Ariel Szogi and Patrick Hunt at ARS’ Coastal Plains Soil, Water and Plant Research Center in Florence, S.C.--were impressed with the system’s stellar performance during a recent year-long evaluation. According to Hunt, the system converted the evaluation site’s brown wastewater lagoon into blue, clean and aerated water. A patent is pending on the system.

Relying on a mix of technologies developed by ARS and companies in the United States, Spain and Japan, the system comprises tanks and staging areas laid out over 200 feet. In three stages, it separates solids from liquids, removes ammonia, recovers soluble phosphorus and processes the solids into plant fertilizer.

The researchers tested the system’s ability to eliminate animal-waste discharge--and related release of ammonia, odors and pathogens--to surface and groundwater. They also gauged its ability to stem soil and groundwater contamination by nutrients and heavy metals.

During the evaluation, the system removed more than 97 percent of total suspended solids from wastewater. It also stripped the water of 95 percent of total phosphorus, 99 percent of its ammonia and more than 97 percent of its odor-causing components.

The evaluation was conducted by the inventors and the private firm Super Soil Systems USA of Clinton, N.C., on a full-scale version of the system built at Goshen Ridge Farm in Mount Olive, N.C.

The testing system was constructed as part of an agreement between Smithfield Foods of Smithfield, Va., Premium Standard Farms of Kansas City, Mo., and the North Carolina Attorney General’s office to use environmentally superior technology to replace current waste lagoons.

Read more about this research in the March 2005 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific research agency.

In a 3000 cow dairy operation, manure will be produced at approximately 100 lbs per animal per day for a total 300,000 lbs per day or 109,500,000 lbs per year. For the sake of comparison, we can estimate that at the estimated rate of .44 pounds of excreta per day per person the people of Syracuse produce 65,000 lb of waste per day. One CAFO which confines 3000 dairy cows daily produces almost 4 and 1/2 times the excreta of a small city the size of Syracuse. Please now imagine if untreated excreta from Syracuse were to be stored in an open holding tank in downtown and then sprayed in the parks.

05/08/2005
The bigger the farm, the bigger the environmental issues become
By JOHN T. EBERTH , The Times Herald

LYNDON — As long as he can remember, Joe Strzelec dreamed of being a farmer.
He’s not from a family of farmers. Farming is just something he’s always felt was in his blood even if it wasn’t in his family tree.
He changed his mind briefly while attending Cornell University in the 1970s. He didn’t have any money and figured he’d never have enough to start his own farm. He thought about becoming a veterinarian instead. But a Cornell professor assured him that if a farm is what he wanted, he could always borrow a little money and make it happen.
The 28 years that have passed since he began farming in 1977 have proven that Joe Strzelec dreamed well. According to the New York Dairy Producers Association, Mr. Strzelec’s Mallards Dairy on Rawson Road is one of five dairy farms in New York with more than 2,000 dairy cows. And it is the largest dairy in Cattaraugus or Allegany counties.
His dairy grew during the years of agribusiness, and Farm Aid. During a time when most independent farms auctioned off their herds and equipment, Mr. Strzelec was expanding.
But as he forged his dream to reality, his success brought with it a growing challenge. His 2,000-plus dairy cows not only produce gallons of milk, but tons of manure. The average healthy dairy cow produces between 100 and 120 pounds of manure per day. That’s about the same weight as a petite woman. A farm of 2,000 cows produces between 200,000 and 240,000 pounds of manure each day.
In the early days when he only had a 100 cows, Mr. Strzelec collected the manure and spread it on fields as fertilizer. That won’t work anymore. Today, waste-treatment lagoons dug on his 850-acre farm contain the manure produced by his 2,000 cows.
“This is it. This is the nemesis,� he said as he drove around the dairy explaining a new manure treatment system at Mallards Dairy.
Although it’s a vexing issue, Mr. Strzelec said handling manure isn’t an issue beyond Mallards’ control.
“It’s just a very large component of the management of the farm, but it is manageable,� he said.
Mallards Dairy has installed a waste-treatment system similar to systems used by small cities like Olean. The system breaks the waste down, turning it into fertilizer and treated water.
Dan Steward is a crop consultant with the Western New York Crop Management Association. The association helps farms develop nutrient management plans, which include the handling of manure. He said more and more new farms are building waste-treatment systems.
“What Mallards is doing is really proactive,� he said. “In the past farms have done more storage — digging a pit and putting the manure in it — than treatment.�
The new waste-treatment system is the second installed on the farm. An earlier treatment system didn’t work properly. The waste didn’t break down as predicted and had to be pumped from lagoons into tanker trucks, which then sprayed it over fields as fertilizer.
Mr. Strzelec said the partially treated manure produced a noxious odor even he couldn’t stand.
“We’d go down the street in our trucks and people would flip us off,� Mr. Strzelec said. “I don’t really blame them. The odor was vicious.�
The new manure treatment system cost Mallards Dairy $650,000. Mr. Strzelec just spent another $50,000 reinforcing it.
On April 18 a PVC pipe fitting leading out of a pump station broke, releasing 40,000 gallons of treated water from the sewage system. Some of the water found its way to Rawson Creek. Mallards Dairy workers quickly built a series of dams along the creek and pumped the water into nearby fields. The dams prevented the wastewater from flowing to Cuba Lake, which Rawson Creek reaches a few miles downstream from Mallards Dairy.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation tested the creek and found it was clear of contamination within days of the spill.
Mr. Strzelec had the PVC pipes replaced with steel. He is also building a berm around the pump station and the manure-treatment lagoons. If part of the system breaks again, nothing will leave the farm.
“We’re just doing everything we know how to take care of this,� he said. “We’re trying to opt on the side of safety. This is our problem and we intend to fix it.�
It’s a problem that isn’t unique to Mallards Dairy.
Joan Petzen, Cornell Cooperative Extension leader for agriculture and natural resources, said every spring and summer her office fields calls from farmers and their neighbors asking questions about manure handling rules and regulations.
“If you’ve got more than 175 to 200 milking cows, you are dealing with this issue,� she said. “Every farm really needs to have its own nutrient-management plan.�
She said the issue has grown during the last 10 years as people migrated from towns and villages to more rural areas.
“Now we have a lot of neighbors in the country who don’t understand farming or the sights, sounds and smells associated with it,� Ms. Petzen said.
Another factor is the growth of large farms that concentrate manure in one place.
Around the country dairies are struggling to find innovative ways to handle cow manure. In 2004 California instituted strict regulations regarding how long farms can keep manure on their property.
According to a June 2004 Associate Press article, the dairies east of Los Angeles and their roughly 300,000 cows produce a million tons of manure. The ammonia and other pollutants they generate mix with smokestack and tailpipe emissions to create some of the dirtiest air in the nation.
California law once allowed farms to keep manure for up to six months. Now the state requires farms to remove manure by hauling it to a treatment site or treating it on their farms within three months. New York state has no regulations regarding the amount of time a farm can hold manure on site.
Some of the dairies are building waste-treatment plants like the one at Mallards Dairy. Others are capping their manure lagoons to capture the methane created as the waste breaks down. The dairies use the methane to power turbines, which in turn supply electricity to the farms.
California leads the country in milk and cheese production with more than 1,900 commercial dairies. The state has an estimated 2 million dairy cows.

©The Times Herald, Olean, N.Y. 2005

A new study, published this week in the peer reviewed International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, estimates that the negative impacts of agriculture in the US may cost society anything from $5.7 billion to $16.9 billion (£3.3 to £9.7 billion) annually. The negative impacts identified include the cost of greenhouse gas emissions from cropland and livestock (estimated as $450 million), damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity ($3249 million), and damage to human health from pesticides ($129.4 million). The authors of the study call for a restructuring of agricultural policy that shifts production towards methods that lessen external impacts.

Erin M. Tegtmeier and Michael Duffy, the authors of this study, acknowledge that placing exact monetary figures on factors such as the value of a bird’s or a human being’s life is extremely difficult and that further work is called for, but insist that such studies can aid in influencing the future of agricultural practice: “A Monetary metric provides a base for comparisons to aid in policy decisions”.

According to the authors, the study illustrates that current agricultural practice results in very real economic, social and environmental impacts, which would significantly affect the perceived economic efficiency of industrial agriculture if they were met by the industry itself. Whilst US farmers spent $8.2 billion dollars on pesticides in 2002 for example, the study points out that this is less than 80% of the actual cost of pesticide use, when considering the $2253.9-2283.1 million in damages to water resources, wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity and human health calculated by Tegtmeier and Duffy.

The study concludes by stating, worryingly, that the figures identified may be on the conservative side, partially due to a need for more data, and partially because the full consequences of industrial agriculture may not yet be known. It also calls for valuation studies into the potential positive externalities of sustainable agricultural practices, such as providing carbon sequestration or wildlife habitats. Such acknowledgment of the true c

The upcoming May 23 issue of American Conservative magazine will feature an in-depth article from Matthew Scully, former speechwriter for US president George W. Bush, on the treatment of farmed animals. The article is entitled “Torture on the Farm,” with the subtitle “Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservativism - for Animals.” Scully’s article offers a wide-ranging critique of how humans view and relate to non-human animals, with emphasis on the treatment of farmed animals in factory-style environments and the responsibility of conservatives to support farmed animal protection. Scully provides a strong critique of factory farming, with the following representative quotes:

“Factory farming has no traditions, no rules, no codes of honor. The whole thing is a betrayal of honorable animal husbandry.”
“Factory farming is a predatory enterprise, unnaturally propped up by political influence and government subsidies much as factory-farmed animals are unnaturally sustained by hormones and antibiotics.”
“Our pets are accorded certain protections from cruelty, while the nameless creatures in our factory farms are hardly treated like animals at all. The challenge is one of consistency, of treating moral equals equally, and living according to fair and rational standards of conduct.”
Scully also turns his observations into suggestions, calling on his conservative colleagues to “get behind a Humane Farming Act so that we can all quit averting our eyes” to the treatment of farmed animals. Such an act, according to Scully, would include explicit federal anti-cruelty guidelines for farmed animals, as well as sufficient funding for enforcement. The act would also prohibit the mass confinement of farmed animals and ensure that they are “treated like animals and not as unfeeling machines.” Scully is well known in conservative circles for his views on animal protection since the release of his book, “Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy” in 2003.
From Farmed Animal Watch

“Torture on the Farms,” American Conservative, 5/23/05
http://www.amconmag.com/

How much does a glass of milk really cost?
A campaign to promote sustainable food choices.
from the Sierra Club National Sustainable Consumption Committee.

We, the consumers, through our food choices, can stop the practices that harm our health, our planet, and our quality of life.

Do you want a short, informative film to help your friends and neighbors understand the true cost of food production in the U.S.? This new DVD from the Sierra Club is just the right video to initiate discussion on community food sustainability. Now that the cost of oil is skyrocketing, it pays to give some attention to the problem of the high dependency of our food production on transportation and oil based farm inputs.
Order this video from
http://www.truecostoffood.org
It’s only 15 minutes long and it’s just right for initiating a conversation on food. It would also work well for teachers to use with their students- and why not order copies for your local legislators?