Although it appeared that Indiana’s state elections might at least bring up the issue of the increase in CAFO’s up for debate this year, so far, there has been little said about it.

This has not been the case in Iowa, a state that has had longer to look down stream of large scale livestock operations. The key issue in Iowa over the last couple of years has been state versus local control of large scale farming operations. This is the same issue confronting Indiana counties now as the try to put up local limits through zoning and health ordinances, while efforts are underway at the state capital to pass limits on the local control of these facilities.

In Iowa, the race for the Secretary of Agriculture is turning on the issue of local control. The Republican candidate, Bill Northey favors a single statewide set of regulations, while his Democrat opponent poultry farmer Denise o"Brien, favors maintaining local control. The race is likely to be a tight one, but Iowa’s Farm Bureau recently formed a "527" organization called "Iowans for Agriculture" to help muddy the waters and inspire voters to go for the Republican.

A friend in Iowa reminded me of this race, which is fast approaching its conclusion, and while not a purely local issue, I think Indiana will be having the same types of debates in the coming years.

A new hog facility in Paoli is generating some conversation. Some will be by way of an official IDEM talk (standard format) tonight at the Orange County Community Building at 7PM, but in the meantime, the Times-Mail has nice coverage of the issue. THis includes some quotes from the local farmer putting in the 2,000 hog finishing operation, some distressed neighbors, and Rae Schnapp from the Hoosier Environmental Council:

“There is no credible oversight of the manure handling process,” she said. “Animal factories produce as much waste as a city, but nutrient (manure) management plans are viewed by IDEM as unenforceable guidelines only and there are no public records about where manure is dumped. So, it becomes difficult to document problems when they occur.”

Link. As well as someone from the Indiana Pork Producers:

Greg Slipher, as director of industry services and development for the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said Indiana, with support from Gov. Mitch Daniels, is trying to reestablish its once-prominent place in the pork industry.

Slipher reported IDEM-issued livestock permits were up 84 percent in August over the same time period from last year. Swine permits, specifically, were up 119 percent from last year.

Slipher suggested the impact of hog waste would be minimal as production increases. “If all the manure,” he said, “from approved livestock operations in Indiana was applied at an agronomic rate to all available cropland in Indiana, there would be only enough manure to fertilize 3.2 percent of our cropland.”

That is an interesting claim.

The Michigan Sierra Club has produced a 24 minute video documenting the impact of CAFO style industrial farming on Michigan’s rural communities. Everything from interviews with rural neighbors to the results of field applications conducted in the middle of Winter.

Check it out on Google Video: Living Nightmare: Animal Factories in Michigan.

The Herald-Bulletin has a piece up on the new Hancock County hog CAFO being put up by Swine Pro1, LLC. As the article notes, the CAFO is going in right next door to Madison County &, to top it off, the plan it to apply manure from the CAFO on property located in part in Monroe County. The 8,000 head facility will also border Henry County.

Neither Henry nor Madison County will have any say over the placement and operation of this facility. 

Wednesday night, IDEM supervisor Mike Aylesworth, environmental manager Mike Dunn, and inspector Randy Jones appeared at a public meeting in Kosciusko County to talk about plans to construct what will be the 16th biggest hog CAFO in the state. The report in the local press reflects a fairly  standard public session with IDEM officials attempting to educate the public on the actual role IDEM plays in this process. IDEM made clear that they do not test lake water, do not control odor, do not deal with noise, and do not regulate air emissions.

I think Randy Jones, the inspector for IDEM, had the most succinct description of what IDEM DOES do:

We make our decisions on what an operator tells us. We can’t verify everything. We can’t go into the buildings. We inspect the manure and soil test records, and we have to assume they’re being honest with us.

Link.

Aylerworth said a bigger focus for IDEM at this point was combined sewer and stormwater systems in the state, claiming that 40% of the nation’s combines sewer-stormwater pollution occurs in Indiana.

The Star Press is reporting that Grant County has seen its plan commission pass a new CAFO ordinance that represents a pretty dramatic shift from standard approaches. The ordinance is based on a University of Minnesota study and uses a formula based on odor to establish setbacks as opposed to absolute setbacks:

The new equation the Area Plan Commission voted to use requires animal feeding operations to meet certain percentages of freedom from odor annoyance. The new setbacks:

98 percent odor-free (meaning there would be a 3 percent chance someone would notice the smell) for food processing centers.

97 percent odor-free for cities, towns and schools.

96 percent odor-free from homes.

Link. According to the study presented to the plan commission, the new 2,200 head dairy would have to be 4,000 feet, about 3/4 of a mile, from any homes and a full mile away from any schools.

Albert Heber, a Purdue University professor who studies air quality, told the commission equations were a better idea than set distances because they used scientific backing versus human emotion.

Most of the setback derived under the formula are greater than the ones under consideration when the commission was looking at fixed setbacks.

A group of citizens concerned about pending plans to bring a 4,100 dairy CAFO to the county planned to show up at the Carroll County Commissioners meeting to raise questions with that body about the details of the plan. The issue was not on the agenda, but the dairy’s promoters were ready:

What some in the audience didn’t know was the family who would be operating the proposed dairy farm was standing in the back of the room. The appearance came as a surprise to county commissioner George Mears who announced earlier that the family who would operate the facility "is over in Germany right now."

Gerrit Arendsen, his wife and two of their four children, made a surprise visit to the meeting and met those with questions face-to-face.

Some in the audience wasted no time in asking the family questions about their expertise in operating a large concentrated animal feeding operation and when they planned to move to the area.

Link.

The family was brought in by consultant, Brian Daggy who also brought news that IDEM would be hosting one of their informational meetings in the county on November 29th. Interestingly enough, such a meeting has not yet been announced by IDEM. Apparently, Mr. Daggy’s got some friends on the inside. Daggy is with North Point Engineering in Ohio, the firm that has worked on other mega dairies with Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management plans a public hearing Wednesday regarding a concentrated animal feeding operation in Kosciusko County. James R. Wolf has applied for a hog operation near the corner of CRs 700W and 400N. The meeting will be from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Shrine Building at the fairgrounds. The doors open at 6:30 p.m. The Wolf application is asking for up to 1,200 nursery pigs and up to 6,800 finisher hogs.

Same deal as the others: Questions to be submitted in writing and in advance.

Link. (Times-Union)

IDEM Spokesperson Amy Hartsock says that IDEM is attempting to educate the public on what its role is with these CAFO’s:

Hartsock said officials also hope to provide some clarification as to what IDEM’s responsibilities are concerning confined feeding operations, as well as what the department cannot do.

“People often don’t know where we come into the picture,” Hartsock said.

IDEM has no control over a confined feeding operation’s zoning, odor, noise or pests, she said.

Link (Fort Wayne Journal Gazette)

The Richmond Human Rights Commission has made another announcement on local businessman David Bane: It will continue its investigation of Mr. Bane because it found "substantial" evidence to back allegation of harassment:

A report by the city’s Human Rights office also alleged that after Bane lent [Rachelle] Ditty $600, he asked her how she wanted to repay the loan, suggesting that he would "take it out in trade."

Ditty said she believed that meant sexual favors.

Bane, through his Richmond attorney Jeffrey Arnold, "vehemently denies all the allegations."

The Human Rights office report said two Bane employees witnessed the comment, though they disagreed on where it took place. The report also said that Bane denied the allegations but offered no proof.

Link. I wonder how you would go about proving that you did not say something to an employee. This is the second time the commission has made a pre-hearing announcement about a pending investigation for play on the front page of the Pal-Item.

Also in today’s Pal-Item is a story about The Town of Hagerstown’s decision to clarify the signage in its downtown region. Currently, a sign warns visitors that "Bicycles, Skateboards or similar devices are prohibited on sidewalks & Streets . . . ." The town now says that it did not intend to bar bikes from the streets, it only wanted to keep the sidewalks clear for pedestrians:

Town manager Carl Gideon called the confusing language on the signs an oversight and apologized for it, but said, "Anyone with common sense could figure out what we were trying to do."

Huh? I’ve got a little sense, and the sign clearly says no bikes on the streets. Bikers recently pointed out that similar signs in downtown Richmond seem to prohibit bikes on the streets. Local biker advocate Mark Stosberg recently launched a Petition drive to have the City clarify that bikes are permitted on the streets: Support Bicycles in Downtown Richmond, Indiana.

The EPA’s new fine particle standards will pose a major issue for agricultural operations unless someone gets in there (Congress) and grants them an exception. Final Rule - Regulatory Text (PDF) The new rules reduce the acceptable emission rate of fine particles (those less than 2.5 microns in size) from 65 per cubic meter of air to 35. There is also a second annual limit, 15 particles per cubic meter of air on average over a year’s worth of sampling.

The main focus of this rule was mobile sources (diesel trucks) and power plant smoke stacks (point source discharge). However, studies have shown that Ammonia discharges from CAFO’s would qualify as fine particles, and as livestock produces 50% of US ammonia emissions, the new rules should impact large scale producers.

The trouble with fine particles is that we humans cannot filter them out of our lungs, so once the get in, they have a tendency to stay there, and they are linked to heart and lung disease.

PM2.5 particles, often a combination of gas from chemical reactions and invisible droplets of moisture, are linked to heart and lung disease. EPA data say there’s some connection to lung cancer and to chronic respiratory disease in children.

Link.

States have until 2007 to identify which areas are in compliance with the new standards and which appear to be in violation. EPA enforcement would commence in 2010.

But when farmers feel the pinch, Congress is typically at the ready with relief:

One highly visible farmer, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said top EPA officials remain in the dark about realities of farming and dust. Days after the EPA issued its final rule, Grassley sent a letter to EPA Administrator Steven Johnson inviting him to come to Iowa this month "while I am harvesting my crop with our combine."

Grassley said he wants Johnson to personally show him "how a farmer is to contain dust … while combining."

The senator is concerned over the enforcement of the large particle rules on farming operations, dust and litter, but I imagine there are lots of concerns over fine particles over in the CAFO industry.

As I reported earlier, concern over a dairy CAFO in St. Joseph County cause IDEM to schedule a public meeting in the county to "discuss" the issue. However, IDEM required ALL questions to be addressed at the meeting to be submitted in writing ahead of time, and from reports of the meeting, this permitted IDEM to pick the questions they would answer, and also take some liberties in the editing of these questions, effectively giving them the opportunity to say what they wanted to say without facing any actual tough questions from the citizens of St. Jo:

"This is actually a new format for us and what we are trying to do is make it as informational as possible. In the past, our public hearings have been sort of 1-sided, we only accepted comments and not really were we able to respond and provide information," said Idem Spokesperson Amy Hardstock.

Link (WNDU).

In a sign of just how unsatisfied people were at the meeting’s end, many applauded when Steve Ross, a county commissioner, blasted the almost 10 state experts from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management who answered questions during the meeting.

Ross said they were merely bureaucrats who were promoting large feedlots like the one under consideration. The state is currently weighing whether to grant a permit for the concentrated animal feeding operation.

Link (South Bend Tribune).

Local control debate continues over in Grant County, where county commissioners are considering the recommendations of the planning commission:

A move to delete the section requiring the monitoring of wells, however, did not pass. Purdue Extension officer John Woodmansee said he was concerned the section would turn the Area Plan Commission into a regulatory body, which it is not.

Ellis said the language would give him teeth if he saw problems with the wells because the state’s guidelines do not go as far.

The ordinance before the commission has evolved from just regulating confined animal feeding operations and confined feeding operations to include all animal feeding operations that have more than the minimum number of an animal.

Link (Grant County Chronicle-Tribune).

The Pal-Item reports on a candidates’ debate here in Wayne County. The debate on Tuesday Night at IU East was for candidates for the statehouse, and I say must read, as some of the pre planned questions covered CAFO’s in the state. Here is a report on the discussion between democratic incumbent Phil Pflum and republican challenger Jaye Gibbs:

Pflum, who lives on a farm, wants a moratorium on confined feeding operations until their effects on communities and the environment can be studied. If they’re built, he wants them to be put in the most rural areas.

Gibbs disagreed.

"If agriculture can’t be conducted on agricultural land, then where is it going to be conducted?" Gibbs said. "I don’t think Indiana should regulate it out of hand because it’s unpleasant."

Gibbs and Pflum are fighting over house seat in District 56. Up in District 54, all 3 candidates (Libertarian Rex Bell was included) expressed support of increased scrutiny:

Democratic candidate David Sadler supports studying the effects of confined feeding operations on the community and environment.

Libertarian candidate Rex Bell said he thinks the issue can be addressed with local zoning.

Republican incumbent Tom Saunders said he has asked the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to send in more inspectors for the operations, and he intends to follow up with legislation.

If I asked the questions, I would want to know if the candidates intend to stand by the Indiana Right to Farm Act passed last year (Indiana Code 32-30-6-9) which bars nuisance actions from neighbors of agricultural operations after 1 year of operation. The biggest impact of this law is that the 1 year window for neighbors to sue is triggered by a change in operations of the neighboring property. Note that, under the law, a change from a corn field to a 16,000 hog CAFO is not a change in operations as it is a continuation of agricultural activities.

So unless someone is tearing down a residential property to build a CAFO, neighbors to a new CAFO built on existing agricultural property will not be permitted to sue if the CAFO generates odors and wastes that make their property unusable.

There is a piece worth checking out over at the Indianapolis Star: Protecting Kids, Abusing Power? (Updated link). The Story covers the growing opposition to Indiana’s child welfare system:

The danger, some observers say, is that the confidentiality meant to protect children also allows caseworkers to abuse their authority. A new internal appeals process should address some concerns, state officials say. Critics go even further, arguing that grievances should be handled outside the agency.

A parents’ group, Honk for Kids, has sprung up to address these concerns. The group appears to be a project of J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), a group focused of striping away judicial immunity from Indiana judges and holding them personally accountable for their actions as judges. Founded by Ronald Branson, the group appears to me to be one of those advocating the idea that the courts have overstepped their constitutional limits, and therefore are improperly exercising power over we citizens, the kind of bizarre stuff that ends up in a lot of pro se prisoner appeals.

Anyway, the group made it in to an Indy Star article, so they at least have that going for them. The story does detail the trials of one mother who spent $100K fighting off caseworkers to regain custody of her child. In my experience, its hard to reach generalized conclusions about the child welfare system based on specific cases, though. One item of interest sticks out in the article:

Hoosier children living in poverty are removed from their families by Child Protective Services at three times the rate in Illinois and twice the rate in Alabama, two states recognized nationally for successful child welfare reforms. The national rate of removal for children living in poverty — often a major factor in neglect allegations — is 23.9 per 1,000 children. The Indiana rate is 31.1, compared with 9.9 in Illinois and 15 in Alabama.

Now it could be that we in Indiana are just bad parents, but worse off than Alabama? I think the statistics do point to something of concern with the present system in Indiana: In 2004, the state took 7,689 children, but only returned 605. This would put the annual growth of kids living in foster care at over 7,000 additional kids per year. This is particularly troubling in light of new federally mandated time limitations on having kids out of the home. This drives families into the teeth of a parental termination. The article quotes advocates for the current system in response. DCS spokesperson Susan Tielking noted the rights of parents to get into court and challenge the removal of their children by the Department.

The trouble with this right to go to court is that courts are hard-pressed to actually overrule the Department on a removal. No one wants to be responsible for placing a child into circumstances that lead to the child being harmed or killed. Children removed from their families by the state become tar babies: No one wants them in the system, but the state will be politically responsible for anything that happens to that child wherever that child is placed. Judges cannot be blind to the potential of a reelection campaign where the issue is his or her decision to overrule the Department and return a child to their family and the child is hurt. This is why the quick trigger on removal of the child in the first place is the real issue.

The organic food movement started with big ideas of producing foods in a natural setting, outside of the industrialized processes of modern agribusiness. The hard work of many small farmers made the term “organic” stand for these big ideas, and created consumers who are willing to pay a premium for the goods. Many consumers of organic foods like the idea that their money is going to support local small-time producers (family farms) instead of marginally increasing the profits of a large food conglomerate. However, with the federal government defining what “organic” means, and big time food retailers and producers jumping into the organic food market to share in those premium profits, the question becomes how long will the consumers continue to believe that organic still represents these big ideals?

Businessweek has a piece up called Organic Myth: Pastoral ideals are getting trampled as organic food goes mass market. The piece looks at the changes in the organic food market through the story of Gary Hirshberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Farm, the organic yogurt maker. The company started like many other small-time organic producers: A couple of back-to-the-land environmentalists start an organic dairy in New England to produce yogurt outside of the “system.” The brand continued to grow, ultimately giving up its own farm and relying on other to supply its ingredients.

The growth ultimately led to the sale of a controlling interest in the company to Danone, although Jirshberg stayed on as the leader. The limited supply of organic ingredients has caused drastic changes in the production of the yogurt:

What to do? If you’re Hirshberg, you weigh the pros and cons of importing organic milk powder from New Zealand. Stonyfield already gets strawberries from China, apple puree from Turkey, blueberries from Canada, and bananas from Ecuador. It’s the only way to keep the business growing. Besides, Hirshberg argues, supporting a family farmer in Madagascar or reducing chemical use in Costa Rica is just as important as doing the same at home.

So what is the primary ingredient going into the production of this yogurt? Diesel fuel.

The article also quotes Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute and the Institute’s report card:

Kastel’s report card included Horizon Organic Dairy, the No. 1 organic milk brand in the U.S., and Aurora Organic Dairy, which makes private-label products for the likes of Costco and Safeway Inc. Both dairies deny they are ethically challenged. But the two do operate massive corporate farms. Horizon has 8,000 cows in the Idaho desert. There, the animals consume such feed as corn, barley, hay, and soybeans, as well as some grass from pastureland. The company is currently reconfiguring its facility to allow more grazing opportunities. And none of this breaks USDA rules. The agency simply says animals must have “access to pasture.” How much is not spelled out. “It doesn’t say [livestock] have to be out there, happy and feeding, 18 hours a day,” says Barbara C. Robinson, who oversees the USDA’s National Organic Program.

But what gets people like Kastel fuming is the fact that big dairy farms produce tons of pollution in the form of manure and methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide — gases blamed for warming the planet. Referring to Horizon’s Idaho farm, he adds: “This area is in perpetual drought. You need to pump water constantly to grow pasture. That’s not organic.”

The reality of modern food production is consolidation. In 1980, the US had 334,000 dairy farms. We now have 60,000. This means that most of the milk we consume, including “organic” milk comes from large scale factory farms. This consolidation is going on in all areas of food production, from produce to pigs. Control of the food market by large companies permits them to set the prices paid to producers, making it impossible for small producers to compete. For instance, since 1985, the retail price of pork has increased 75%, but the hog producer’s share has gone from $.44 of each retail dollar to $.31.

With Smithfield Foods’s buying Premium Standard Farms, consolidation of the meat packing and livestock production in the hog market continues, giving the packers greater leverage to reduce the prices paid to producers, while maintaining profits at the retail level. All of this spells continued decline of the traditional “family farm.”

Carroll County did something with a proposed amendment to its zoning code. I think what happened is that the area plan commission met and voted to send the amendment on to the county commissioners for approval. The amendment would leave the determination to issue a building permit for a CAFO to the zoning administrator, the political sentiment being that requiring a farm manager to apply for a special exception would be too burdensome on large farms:

"It doesn’t go far enough," said Elaine McCain of Camden. "We needed that special exception."

Cutler area resident Terris Ayres disagreed. "I think the special exception would be a very poor idea."

Flora attorney Miriam Robeson referred to a special exception as an "undo burden" for large operators. She said that designation would give "anyone with an agenda to come and talk about it."

Link (Carroll County Comet).

Heck knows we don’t want people coming out to talk about these things before they are built. . . .

IDEM has announced an informational session in St. Joseph County regarding CAFO’s in light of the concern expressed by residents about a dairy being installed there. The session will take place at 6:00PM on October 11, 2006, at the LaVille Jr-Sr High School in Lakeville, Indiana.

The notice says that IDEM will be taking public comment on any pending CAFO proposed for St. Joseph County, so St. Joe folks should head over and be heard.

Much talk and action has been swirling around East Central Indiana over plans for biofuels operations both proposed and confirmed. Local citizens have been at work on various projects with a sustainability focus.

Cope Environmental Center has developed an extensive sustainability program, including an onsite operating windmill, and has hosted a series of sustainability workshops for residential and commercial property owners.

In Randolph County, a technology teacher has recently secured a grant from Indiana to fund another windmill project at the school:

Randolph Eastern School Corporation is hoping to bring Union City another step closer to becoming the “epicenter of alternative energy” in Indiana.  Last week the Indiana Office of Energy and Defense Development (OED) announced it will help fund the Randolph Eastern Energy Project, a proposal that calls for installation of a small hybrid wind and solar energy system at the school’s K-12 campus in Union City.  This project joins two other alternative energy initiatives in the Union City area – production of hybrid vehicles by Productive Concepts, Inc., and the development of an ethanol plant by Cardinal Ethanol. 

The 1,000-watt wind generator, which harnesses wind to make electricity, and a 920-watt array of photovoltaic panels, which convert sunlight into electricity, will be located near the new science and technology wing at the high school and should be up and running in time for Earth Day in April of 2007.  In addition to the power generators, a data acquisition system will be installed to monitor and log the amount of electricity being produced and environmental factors, such as wind speed, temperature, and sunlight intensity.  Students and the general public will have access to this data via an internet web site.  The total cost of the project will be nearly  $37,000,  with 50% of this coming from the OED’s Alternative Power and Energy (APE) Grant Program which provides grants to non-profits, businesses, industry, farms and government entities to support the purchase and installation of alternative energy systems.  This year the OED’s program will distribute a total of $650,000 toward Hoosier alternative energy projects. 

Many ideas about promoting sustainable alternatives in the local area are being discussed at Chris Hardie’s new project: Progressive Wayne County:

In Richmond and Wayne County, progressives are people working toward new and better ways of living together in this community - for themselves, for their families and neighborhoods, and for fellow citizens. We’re balancing the economic needs of business and industry with concern for equal opportunities, fair wages, and concern for the landbase and non-human forms of life. We’re working to attract and retain a diverse population of all ages, ethnicities, lifestyles and backgrounds. We’re embracing our differences and resolving our conflicts. We’re supporting politicians and civic leaders who can collaborate to solve short-term problems, but who aren’t afraid to pursue broad new initiatives that involve risk, sacrifice, investment, and unpopular positions in the name long-term success. We’re making decisions that consider the needs of many generations to come. We’re creating a culture of tolerance, sustainability, equity and genuine connection between the members of this community.

Chris is recently returned from the Third U.S. Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions, and has conducted a personal audit of sustainable efforts in his life. Chris recently announced that his incredible effort to provide weekly commentary on news in Richmond, the  Richmond News Review, will be updated on a less frequent basis. Chris’s efforts on this podcast were huge, and the time it was costing him on a weekly basis was more than he could sustain. Head over there and check out some of the existing issues. His reflections, interviews and general news coverage are worth the visit (And if he sees some more hits on his existing podcasts, maybe he’ll saddle up and give us some more).

Alright. Lots happening over the weekend:

Do you know someone who runs a CAFO? Think they are doing a wonderful job in protecting water quality? If so, the EPA wants to hear about them, and they could even win an award:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 announced it is seeking nominations for new annual regional awards to recognize concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that make outstanding efforts to protect water quality. The awards are intended to encourage effective environmental management of such facilities.

"Managers of feedlots have an important role to play in protecting water quality," said Jo-Lynn Traub, EPA Regional Water Division Director. "EPA will recognize leaders in the industry who demonstrate exceptional environmental stewardship through innovative pollution prevention and management and treatment of waste at their facilities."

The Water Resources Stewardship Award for CAFOs is open to beef, dairy, swine and poultry concentrated animal feeding operations in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. Individuals, agricultural organizations and agribusinesses may nominate potential award winners to the water quality contact at their state environmental agency by mid-January 2007. Award recipients will be selected and notified by EPA by March 30, 2007.

State water quality contacts are:

• Dick Breckenridge, Illinois EPA, (217) 558-6818, Richard.Breckenridge@epa.state.il.us;

  • Indiana Department of Environmental Management;
  • Ronda Wuycheck, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, (517) 241-7832, wuychecr@michigan.gov;
  • Bob Finley, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (320) 214-3794, Robert.finley@pca.state.mn.us;
  • Cathy Alexander, Ohio EPA, (614) 644-2021, Cathy.Alexander@epa.state.oh.us;
  • Gordon Stevenson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (608) 267-2759, Gordon.Stevenson@dnr.state.wi.us

Instructions, rules and guidelines for the awards program are posted on EPA’s Web site: www.epa.gov/region5/agriculture/cafo-awards.htm

The New York Times editorializes about the pending purchase of the #2 hog producer by the #1 (Premium Standard and Smithfield, respectively):

There is little or no role for the independent farmer in this landscape. The logic is simple: Why bother to buy pigs from farmers when you can own them yourself? If this deal closes, more than half the pigs Smithfield kills would be pigs it already owns, a percentage that is sure to increase. The hog farmers’ job would no longer be farming. They would be janitors in confinement barns across rural America where the packers’ huge herds of pigs are crammed in stalls to live out their short lives.

In non-CAFO agricultural news, the Pal-Item reports today that the Ohio Department of Agriculture has taken action against a dairy accused of selling raw milk. The dairy operates under a "heard-share" program, where customers purchase an interest in a cow and are entitled to a share of the milk produced. The dairy claims this activity falls under the "consumed on farm" exception to pasteurization requirement, permitting these cow "owners" to obtain raw milk. Ohio Ag said "no," and has jerked the dairy’s license. Link.

Other miscellaneous:

Don’t eat the fish out of Wildcat Creek, E. coli levels exceed the state maximum (The article does not specify which strain).

Anti-CAFO Movement Comes from Neighbors is the title of a piece by Seth Slabaugh in the Star Press, quoting remarks by the head of Indiana’s Pork Producer Association that I cited last week, and providing coverage for the Henry County IDEM meeting last week:

A crowd of those neighbors showed up one night last week at a meeting sponsored by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to discuss the expansion of swine CAFOs in Henry County. Since June, applications have been filed to build four Henry County CAFOs, each of which would house 8,000 finishing pigs.
Retired farmer Millard Goggin of Cambridge City is one of those neighbors. He was unable to attend the meeting, but his wife, Betty, went.

Is Goggin a vegetarian? "Who me? No, no, no — no. I’ve got a meatloaf in the oven," he said in a telephone interview from his residence.

Does he oppose modern farming practices? "No, but my thing is, this is not farming. It’s a hog factory. It’s not a farm as such. The air pollution is more of a concern than anything else. It’s something the state doesn’t have any control over. My wife has a lot of stuff on that. She has MS (multiple sclerosis). So does my daughter, a school nurse. They have a low-immunity problem."