This was published in the Joplin Globe August 9, 2008. It has
brought out the CAFO industries’ anger. The Globe welcomes comments:
http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_222214415.html

Ken Midkiff, guest columnist:

CAFOs a drain on economy

Several state governors — including our own — promote concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as a rural economic development tool.
But are they?

I set out to find an answer to a simple question. That simple question
is: Are CAFOs economically beneficial?

The answer, I learned, is equally simple: No.

Realizing that I am entering an area that has traditionally been the
stomping grounds of rural economists, I relied heavily on the studies of
Bill Weida of Colorado College and John Ikerd of the University of
Missouri. Both are rural economists and both are retired. Retirement has
certain benefits. For one thing, it frees retirees from the dictates of
the hierarchy at whatever institution employed them. The second benefit
is that the retiree is freed up to work on the issues deemed important.

Both Weida and Ikerd have studied rural development and both have
concluded that CAFOs do more harm than good to the rural economy.

For indicators, they cite:

* The increase in rural crime (burglaries, driveby shootings, drug deals).
* The decrease in property values on lands near CAFOs.
* The necessity (and increased cost) for local school districts to teach
English as a Second Language.
* The necessity for local “C-Stores” to hire bilingual clerks.
* The closure of local retail outlets.
* That local banks and savings and loan institutions are purchased by
larger entities or close altogether.
* That independent farmers go out of hog-rearing, dairy or chicken
operations (and this has a “domino” effect).
* The amount of direct and indirect subsidies to CAFOs.
* The few local workers hired by CAFOs.
* The growing numbers of documented and undocumented immigrants as the
work force.
* The burden on the local community to provide social services for a
foreign population.

Any one of these indicators would be problematic, but when all of them
are added together, it becomes readily apparent that CAFOs are an
economic disaster for rural communities.

No doubt, a few on the boards of Tysons, Smithfield, and Seaboard
benefit. No doubt, that CEOs of ConAgra and Cargill do well. But the
folks on corporate agribusiness boards and the CEOs don’t live in rural
communities. Indeed, Joe Luter, the CEO of Smithfield — a self-described
“family farmer” — lives in a condo on Park Avenue in New York City.

So, while a few of the already-rich get richer, rural communities get
poorer. While a few bigwigs vacation for months in Bermuda or a tropical
island in the Pacific, rural residents can hardly afford to take a
vacation at all.

Economic benefit? No. Economic development? No.

If this is, as some say, “the future of agriculture,” rural residents
had better hang onto their pocketbooks and hope that the invasion of the
CAFOs goes away.

So what are the governors thinking in promoting CAFOs as a way to
benefit rural communities? While my first impulse is to state “They
aren’t thinking,” the adage of “follow the money” applies. Take a look
at which business organizations bankroll gubernatorial campaigns. Take a
look at the donations flowing in from advocacy groups such as the Farm
Bureau, the Pork Producers Association, the Poultry Federation, or the
American Dairy Federation.

Who are the governors listening to? Those with the most money for them.

Ken Midkiff is a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

Updated: 07/23/08 7:12 PM

LOCKPORT … The Niagara County Health Department announced Wednesday that swimming has been barred until further notice at three campgrounds and at Krull Park Beach in Olcott because of high bacteria levels in water samples taken this week.

The affected campgrounds are Niagara’s Lazy Lakes Campground, on Church Road in Cambria; Niagara County Camping Resort, on Wheeler Road in Hartland; and Niagara Hartland Campground, on Hartland Road in Hartland.

This is the third time this summer that Krull Park Beach, on Lake Ontario, has been closed because of elevated bacteria levels. The campgrounds, located inland, are affected for the first time this season.

The NJDA had set its spurious standards of humane farm animal care after the state legislature ordered it to develop humane care standards in 1996. In a disingenuous and duplicitous move, the NJDA responded nearly eight years later by qualifying all factory farming practices as “humane,” simply because they are routine in the industry.

In response, Farm Sanctuary launched a coalition and filed a lawsuit against the NJDA, stating that the NJDA’s sanctioning of factory farming practices as humane failed to follow the legislature’s directive. The lawsuit reached the state Supreme Court, which yesterday handed down its decision.

This decision does not stand without criticism. The Court failed to take the opportunity to strike down regulations that allow the confinement of breeding pigs in gestation crates, and calves in veal crates, as well as the transport of sick and downed cattle. Although the Court admitted that confinement practices were “controversial” and that downed animals “suffer greatly,” it refused to intervene in the agency’s decision to permit these systems, suggesting that these issues should be addressed to the legislature. In fact, there is growing momentum nationwide, and in other countries, to phase out these cruel systems, and we will push the agency vigorously to phase out these cruel and inhumane practices when the regulations are revised.

The Court’s decision will have far-reaching repercussions for farm animals across the entire country. Historically, perhaps the greatest legal obstacles preventing the application of cruelty statues to farm animals are state exemptions based on “routine husbandry practices.” Now that Farm Sanctuary has persuaded New Jersey’s highest court to reject such a consideration as sufficient grounds for declaring any practice to be humane, we have created a new and deep crack in the industry’s legal dam.

Read more about this landmark victory, and thank you for your ongoing support in our efforts to end factory farming. See Farm Sanctuary’s website for more information.

(WIVB) - As the holiday weekend approaches, you may be planning a trip to a local beach. But, Tuesday night many local beaches are closed. Why are they closed and will they open in time for the holiday?

Kelli Kruzel went to Woodlawn Beach Tuesday with her friend and family, but they could only sit and look at the water.

Kelli Kruzel, Lancaster, said, “When we entered the guy actually told us and we were kind of upset but we wanted to come out to the beach it was nice and it’s not raining or anything like it has been.”

Erie County Health Commissioner Dr. Anthony Billitier says Monday’s rain is actually the reason many beaches are closed to swimming Tuesday.

Dr. Anthony Billitier, Erie Co. Health Commissioner, said, “They have to close if there’s half an inch or more of rain in a 24 hour period either at the beach or upstream from the beach, until we can prove that the water is not contaminated.”

Testing goes on daily here in Erie County’s lab to make sure beach-goers stay safe.

Dr. Scott Zimmerman, Director of Laboratories, said, “The fact that we sit at the far eastern end of Lake Erie, we have westerly prevailing winds :00 which drive everything and anything towards our end of the lake. The contamination we’re looking for is actually fecal contamination, and so we’re looking for raw sewage kind of remnants, not in high quantities, but at least in microscopic quantities.”

Dr. Scott Zimmerman says it wouldn’t be worth the risks to swim in contaminated water.

Dr. Scott Zimmerman, Director of Laboratories, said, “The risks include a variety of types of infections, gastrointestinal infections, skin infections, ear, nose, eye infections.”

One mom appreciates the warnings, even if it means no swimming for a few days.

Sue Alessandra, Lancaster, said, “You don’t want to go in the water and take any chances, I think it’s good that they keep testing it, it’s disappointing that we’ve had so much rain and they had to close the beach.”

Story by Alysha Palumbo (WIVB)

Loboa, Linda and Curtis W. Stofferahn.  “The community effects of
industrialized farming:  Social science research and challenges to
corporate farming laws.” Agriculture and Human Values.  v. 25, number 2
/ June 2008.  p.219-240.

This article is very important for those fighting the pernicious effects
of industrialized farming in our communities.  It’s a survey and
analysis of 51 studies, done using 4 different study methods, across the
years since the 1930s.  It divides up the kinds of effects of
industrialized farming on communities into 3 categories:

1.  Socio-economic
2.  Community social fabric
3.  Environmental outcomes

Their conclusions are that 82% of the studies show adverse effects (57%
largely detrimental and 25% some detrimental effects).  The rest show
some beneficial effects, but when examined closely, these are mostly in
the area of income-related improvements for those owning the corporate
farms—and we all know how well THAT trickles down to the rest of us.

This is an extremely solid piece of academic research, well-documented
in a peer-reviewed journal.  It also provides concrete and irrefutable
talking points when you are out and about in the community as to why
corporate farms are no good for any of us in any way.  The researchers
who wrote the article have both served as expert witnesses in cases
against laws protecting corporate farming.

I am the daughter of a dairy farmer and having worked in the horticultural field for 20 years, I was fully prepared to find some fault with Sour Milk. However, I found Rebecca Lerner’s article to be interesting and informative.

David Galton, the dairy professor at Cornell University sums up many of the United States’ problems today with agriculture when he asks, “Why larger dairies? Well, why Wegmans? Target and Circuit City and Home Depot and Lowe’s?” People have demanded cheap goods and foods for so long that we have lost sight of the bigger picture and our future. It is a fact that if I grew a tomato and tended it from seed in late winter until summer harvest, most people would not even want to pay me a dollar for that tomato that I cared for six months. Yet people have no problem buying a chemically enhanced, greenhouse-grown tomato, trucked all the way from California, for 50 cents.

I would also like to point out that like most government agencies gone astray, the United States Department of Agriculture is no friend of farming. In fact, I believe that the USDA does more to hinder quality food from being produced. I would like to recommend that anyone interested in the plight of our food and the small family farm to read Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal by Joel Salatin, Night Came To The Farms Of The Great Plains by Raymond D. North, Small Farms Are Real Farms by John Ikerd and Unforgiven by Charles Walters.

–Caron Chapman-Case

Tully
Syracuse New Times
Letter to the Editor
July 2 2008

Ithaca Times
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19802348&BRD=1395&PAG=461&dept_id=216618&rfi=6

Mr. Cook paints a picture of Willet Dairy quite at odds with what Rebecca Lerner found. He makes unsubstantiated assertions about the farm’s practices and quite surprisingly mischaracterizes the decision of the district court. The court dismissed one of our claims under the federal Clean Water Act, but specifically allowed us to refile claims for nuisance, trespass and health harms in state court, which we have done. The state case is going forward.
The federal district court decision is being appealed by myself and Alan Knauf, who have yet to be paid a penny for our time. That we would bring a new state lawsuit and a federal appeal against Willet is an indication we believe strongly the case has merit.
The district court did not even look at proof we offered that Willet systematically overspreads liquid manure and other farm waste in violation of its permit. Contrary to Mr. Cook’s belief that we failed to meet our burden of proof, the district court avoided review of our proof by finding that the mere fact that Willet has a permit shields the farm from any lawsuit. The appeals court will decide whether violations of the permit can be excused for years after the permit was issued.
Citizens can bring an action in federal court to enforce such violations if DEC does not. Unfortunately, at the time we brought this action DEC was committed to developing a cooperative relationship with the factory farm industry in New York and, apparently on that basis decided that investigating Willet to determine whether our allegations have a basis was at odds with this policy. Even today, DEC has not devoted the time and resources required to compare the spreading rates on a field by field basis established in Willet’s waste management plan, a requirement under its permit, with records of the actual spreading rates, also required to be kept under Willet’s permit. We did, and it does not require expertise in farm practices to do so. It is complicated to find the information, but once discovered its analysis is no more complicated than simple arithmetic.
The results of Willet’s overspreading are not hard to see. Many streams and drainage channels around Willet’s fields are choked with algae. We measured runoff from Willet’s production area during a brief rain and found nutrients, e-coli and coliform counts many times in excess of DEC’s water quality standards. Without even seeking a special permit Willet diverted water from Fred Coon’s pond to get more water for the farm, abandoned the project, and allowed the stream and pond to be filled with manure runoff and sediment. Once used for swimming, the pond is now filled to the brim.
Once Fred started complaining he found a pile of dead rats deposited under his mailbox. Once his daughter started filming Willet’s practices, she got chased along the roads by men in pickup trucks. When she asked Willet to stop spraying liquid manure because her mom’s COPD had flared up, Willet refused, and her mom died that night.
Willet Dairy is not a good neighbor. Willet’s lawyer should know better than to tell the public we have no proof of their misdeeds. Justice delayed is justice denied, but we hope it will not be denied much longer.

-Gary A. Abraham, Esq.
Allegany, New York

PIGS VERSUS PEOPLE?

North Rose residents concerned about commercial pig farm and effect on water wells and smells, but new breed of farmer says concerns addressed

What do you get when you gather 2,000 pigs under one roof? Tons of bacon, lots of manure and undoubtedly some neighbors with concerns.

Last January, when the Town of Rose learned that a CAFO (Contained Animal Feeding Operation) was planned for Brown Road near the hamlet of North Rose, they passed a building moratorium on the construction.

Why the concerns? Gone are the days of the small family farm where a dozen pigs or cows were the center of the family business. The current market scenario favors big mechanized operations where thousands of head of livestock are mass produced for market.

According to Rose Town Supervisor, Lucinda Collier, the temporary six-month ban was enacted so the Town Board could learn more about CAFOs and their impact on the environment and to possibly quell neighbors’ concerns.

The large barn-like structure now under construction on the 150 acre farm of Ryan and Michelle Zimmerman, allows for the raising of the pigs from 40 pound cuties to 280 pound porkers in about three months. According to Ryan, Keystone Mills in Romulus ships in the pigs and feed. His job is monitoring the automatic feeders and taking care of any medical needs and wants. He readily admits his function is little more than babysitting for the pigs during their plumping-up transition.

The concrete based barn has one level for the pigs with a slatted floor where the pig manure falls to a level below. Twice a year, in Fall and again in Spring, the lower levels are emptied out and the manure spread over the nearby bean and corn fields on the farm for fertilizer. Ryan emphasized that there are no outdoor manure pits, everything is enclosed. “We built the barn far away from neighbors and on the east side of the road. The wind blows mostly from east to west. On the eastern, down wind border of the building is a large wooded area, all part of the Zimmerman’s property.

Collier is concerned that laws such as the ‘Right to Farm Act’ recently reaffirmed by the Wayne County Board of Supervisors, never really foresaw the coming of CAFOs. The ‘Right to Farm Act’ recognizes that such noises, smells and common farm practices that may otherwise disturb neighbors, existed well before there were neighbors who cared. That farmers have a right to farm where agriculture has a history.

CAFOs, the rules regulating their existence, came out of the early 1970’s movement to address any environmental concerns that large, commercial farm operations would have on the environment. The guidelines were set up by the Federal government and adopted by New York State .

Collier is also concerned that with the CAFO regulations, a local municipality has few, if any options to set local guidelines. “They can do just about what they (CAFOs) want.” The Rose Supervisor said the Zimmerman operation is “Smack dab in the middle of what the town had zoned for residential development.” She stated that the Town had been expanding water lines in the area, but that the municipal water well supply, as well as many homeowner private wells are located in the area. She was also concerned that the barn is close to wetlands that feed into the water table and any run-off from the pig operation could contaminate water supplies. as for the odors that could emanate? “Odor, the State has nothing to do with odor,” emphasized Collier.

Ora Rothfuss, the County Farm Planning Department Specialist, wanted to make it clear that the regulations governing a CAFO are strict and constant monitoring of operations is a standard.

A Certified CAFO specialist must be hired by the operation to ensure that concerns are addressed before the CAFO begins. Such things as manure spreading, nitrogen, phosphorus content, must fall into guidelines of crop need so that nutrients from the fertilizer does not run off and cause water pollution. It was not until the Clean Water Act of the early 1970s that farm run-off was really recognized as a source point to downstream water contamination.

Rothfuss said that a farmer must spend upwards of $20,000 to ensure the CAFO specialist has a total plan in place. Collier said she believes that a CAFO specialist, hired by the farmer to create such a plan and monitor the operation is a conflict of interest. She also said she believes a similar operation in the nearby Town of Butler has created some ongoing concerns. Rothfuss countered the conflict of interest concern by stating that a licensed, certified planner of a CAFO has his reputation and livelihood at stake and that a CAFO farmer has his entire investment at risk for violating the terms laid down.

Collier said the Town Board is thinking of creating a liaison committee with farmers to address and perhaps head off any problems with residential homeowners. “We are trying to be pro-active. This is not a zoning or building code issue,” she stated.

The Town of Rose will be conducting a meeting on Monday, June 9th at 3:30 p.m. at the Town offices to form a committee to address concerns with CAFO operations.

©2008 The Times of Wayne County. All Rights Reserved.