Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - The "curse" of the factory farms

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: The "curse" of the factory farms
  • Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:06:28 -0500


List members:
I have few comments about the NY Times article as there is some incorrect
information.

> The New York Times
> Saturday, August 31, 2002

> These plants, called confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, now
> exist in 44 states.

The term AFO (animal feeding operation) refers to most livestock farms,
including organic farms since many dairy organic livestock are kept on
concrete or in a confined facility. All the organic poultry I am familiar
with (new one going in next door to Misty Ridge Farm), are confinement
facilities. The new rules help a "little" but are easy to flex a bit:)

The term CAFO is a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). The CAFO's are
merely a large enough unit to trigger increased monitoring of the nutrient
load. Typically 1,000 AU (animal units) which equates roughly to 1,000 beef
cows. Dairy cows are larger usually and they use a figure of around 700 now.
And with the new interpretations of the rules, the size can be smaller and
smaller so that many farms will become CAFO's. Even if they graze their
animals, if in the colder climes.

> The question is how to minimize their harmful
> environmental effects and prevent them from putting a final squeeze on
> smaller farmers, especially those who raise animals in more traditional,
> grass-based ways.

There is more mythology here than fact. Most of the backgrounded beef are
going to be raised in a grass based environment due to the lower COP. It is
more of the finishing that brings them to feedlots. With dairy, it becomes
very difficult to graze a herd once you exceed around 400 cows. The
environmental effects are closely watched for CAFO's and they must pass all
kinds of special rules. Historically, environmental effects of the small
farms were and still are mostly ignored unless someone makes a complaint.

> Factory farms have taken root mainly where zoning laws were lax or
> nonexistent, or in states where citizens were prevented from filing suits
> against agricultural operations. The inevitable byproduct of huge
> concentrations of animals is huge concentrations of manure, which
> is stored
> in open lagoons and eventually sprayed on farmland, though there
> is usually
> far more manure than local fields can absorb.

Maybe this was true in some areas (not ours) in the past, but this is no
longer possible in the past couple years with the new laws.

> In such quantities, manure
> becomes a toxic substance. Spills are always a risk, as is groundwater
> contamination. The bigger danger is airborne contamination of water from
> ammonia, which rises from the lagoons and falls into low-lying rivers and
> estuaries.

I would like to see some more monitoring of NH4 issues and would like to see
much tighter standards on air quality and odor issues and this is happening.

> A new report from the Sierra Club, titled "The Rapsheet on Animal
> Factories," draws a vivid portrait of the environmental violations caused
> by factory farms, many of which are owned by some of America's largest
> agricultural corporations, including ConAgra, Tyson Foods, Cargill and
> Smithfield Farms. What brought these factory farms to the Sierra Club's
> attention was a pattern of violations that resulted in criminal
> charges and
> fines, most often caused by toxic spills.

This is more common with poultry and hog since those forms of livestock
agriculture are mostly vertically integrated now or will be. Toxic spills
from anyone should be treated the same and they should be punished if they
violate the law.

> The new farm bill that President George W.
> Bush signed
> in May adds further insult by paying farmers up to $450,000
> apiece to help
> them comply with regulations that don't mean much to begin with.

The intent is to force farmers to install facilities to benefit society, but
do it on a cost share basis. If you did not do this, you would force the
smaller farms out of business in many cases.

> The regressive farm bill also continues the government's policy
> of throwing
> its weight behind the already hefty industrial farms and helping to drive
> smaller farmers out of business.

I wish they would explain how the farm bill is regressive? It is size
neutral for the most part, except for dairy where it is highly skewed
toward smaller producers. So the writer does not seem to be aware of the
direction of the bill.

I have been very critical however, of size neutral policies, and speak out
on this issue with my own farm organzation, since the effect of a size
neutral policy will tend to benefit the larger farmers. Since larger farms
are more efficient, they have economies of scale not possible in a smaller,
less efficient farm. So the value of a government welfare check is bigger
for them.

We must never forget that the reason we have these programs is because the
farmers of today have lobbied for these programs through their farm
organizations, particularly the American Farm Bureau Federation, which
represents most farmers. And the smallest farmers have lobbied just as hard.
When I ask them why they do this, they say that they figure they at least
will get something, even though the larger farms do get more. They do not
look at the long term consequences of farm welfare.

> The danger is that of an inverted pyramid, an enormous number of animals
> all resting on the same narrow genetic base, exposing them to the risk of
> catastrophic disease and requiring an inappropriate use of antibiotics to
> ensure their health.
> Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

I would agree with this last point.

In order to actually make any changes in the direction farming and society
in general are going, requires changing consumer choices. Is that going to
happen? Probably very unlikely. Some will and are changing, but not the
percentage you would need to see real change.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Dairy heifers and dairy beef graziers
Viroqua, WI

www.mistyridgefarm.com




  • The "curse" of the factory farms, Rick Williams, 08/31/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page