|
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Big Ag looks to state laws to smooth out local
resistance
Public policy directly influencing farming start-ups
and expansion is picking up at the state, county
and township levels. Anti-corporate-farming laws,
food safety rules on raw milk, farmer exemptions
to packaging and labeling happen at the state
level, while counties and townships also attempt
to lure or limit Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs).
As vertical integration and concentration continues
within livestock production, integrators seek
to remove limits to their expansion. Variation
equals expense, and expenses to adapt their model
to geographical variation cut profits. Some counties
and townships have adopted customized guidelines
on facility siting and operation that fit local
terrain and community sentiment.
Increasingly, agribusiness leaders are promoting
pre-emptive, state-wide CAFO regulations so that
corporate planners at the home office can efficiently
project expansion costs throughout the state --
without having to fit their “procurement
systems” to local or regional producer variations.
A good example is Pennsylvania’s recent
announcement of the Agriculture, Communities,
and the Rural Environment (ACRE) plan This proposal
appears to be mostly a conflict-resolution system
for siting better-regulated CAFOs. In exchange
for tighter environmental controls, CAFO planners
would deal with a state-appointed review board
rather than local officials. ACRE doesn't pretend
to be a comprehensive policy to develop sustainable
livestock farming to benefit rural communities,
family farmers, consumers and watershed integrity.
In this article, Jim Riddle highlights a recent
Minnesota initiative that is more egregious given
its alleged broader scope. It treats CAFOs as
the only serious way ahead for the state’s
livestock farmers, and tries to make the way plain
for them to have their way across Minnesota. This
is by now a standard “let’s get modern
and go industrial” proposal, but what it
left out is even more disturbing given previous
official commitments to the state’s organic
farming community – which includes livestock
producers.
Tellingly, it omitted support for premium organic,
grass-fed and antibiotic-free hog development.
This despite a comprehensive, multi-agency MOU
that commits the state government to:
- expansion of economic opportunity
- cooperation among partner organizations on
organic activities
- enhancement of consumer choice specifically
related to organic products grown in Minnesota.
Federal farm bills demand great vigilance and
set broad policy, yet without persistent attention
at the state level, sustainable agriculture options
will be diminished. Effective, holistic planning
to build rural economics takes time and money.
For cash-strapped states, it’s much easier
to cut regulations when integrators lay out their
program. Without tenacious advocates armed with
practical proposals in our state capitals, sustainable
farming groups will be marginalized in the quest
for state attention and support.– Greg Bowman
|
|
|
 |
August 30, 2004: Minnesota Governor Pawlenty’s Livestock
Task Force (LTF) recently released a report titled “Minnesota’s
Animal Agriculture Industry Report.” It does a good
job of addressing the challenges and barriers faced by Confined
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), but it does not address
environmentally sound, consumer-driven livestock production
systems, such as organic, free-range, or grass-fed.
A word search of the report shows that there is no mention
of “grazing,” “pasture,” “free-range,”
or “grass-fed.” The omission of these livestock
production systems reveals an underlying bias toward CAFOs.
If enacted, the LTF recommendations would provide a green
light for CAFOs in Minnesota. These proposals would reduce
regulatory requirements; weaken local authority; use state
resources to facilitate, simplify, and streamline the approval
of CAFO permit applications; provide tax credits for the creation
and expansion of CAFOs; and enhance producer management skills
for operations with additional animal units.
The bias against regulation of industrial animal systems
is revealed on page 12, which states, “As with state
permitting and environmental review process, the perception
of an extraordinarily difficult local siting process can have
a chilling effect on producers’ decisions to modernize,
expand, or build a new livestock operation. Some areas of
concern about local siting that lack a rational basis include
absolute size limitations (animal unit caps), large separation
distances (setbacks), and minimum acreage requirements.”
There are two positive references to organic livestock production,
but these passing references are inadequate, considering the
growing significance of the organic sector.
Pages 4 and 16 state, “Some have chosen to switch to
alternative farming methods such as organics, which offer
potentially higher per-unit returns in exchange for higher
production costs.” Page 19 states, “there is an
increase in consumer demand for organic and antibiotic-free/hormone-free
animal products.”
According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service,
the number of certified organic beef cattle, milk cows, hogs,
pigs, sheep, and lambs in 2001 was up nearly four-fold since
1997, and up 27 percent from 2000 to 2001. Poultry animals
raised under certified organic management showed even higher
rates of growth during this period.
ERS data shows that in 2001, Minnesota ranked sixth overall
in certified acreage in the U.S., with 4.4 percent of the
total U.S. certified organic acres. Minnesota ranked fourth
in the number of certified organic farms. Minnesota ranked
first in acres of organic corn, soybeans, and rye, and second
in organic buckwheat, third in organic pasture and hay, fifth
in alfalfa, and sixth in wheat, barley, and millet. Minnesota
ranked seventh in organic milk cows, hogs, and pigs, and ninth
in organic beef.
As reported in the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s
“Status of Organic Agriculture in Minnesota” report
issued July 2003, “retail organic food sales showed
strong and consistent growth at more than 20 percent per year
during the 1990s, a trend that industry sources predict will
continue. Retail organic sales reached $9.5 billion in 2001
and are expected to grow to $20 billion by 2005.” www.mda.state.mn.us/esap/organic
Organic meat in high demand
Recent media stories, as reported in the July 2004 issue of
Organic Business News (OBN), indicate that organic livestock
producers are scrambling to meet growing consumer demands
for organic meats, dairy, and eggs. Organic beef sales reached
nearly $10 million last year, according to the Organic Trade
Association, which expects sales of organic meat and poultry
to grow 30.7 percent annually through 2008.
“We cannot find enough certified organic cattle to
provide the number of cattle that our Organic Meat Company
would like to market,” reported Allen Moody, meat pool
coordinator for Organic Valley in LaFarge, WI. According to
OBN, Organic Valley has launched ad campaigns in farm newspapers
and set up information meetings to attract new farmers in
the Midwest.
Minnesota livestock producers are well positioned to enter
the growing organic market. In doing so, they increase acres
in resource-protecting pasture and forage crops and improve
markets for Minnesota-grown organic feed grains. The expansion
of organic livestock production in Minnesota also has the
potential to improve local and regional economic activity
by providing opportunities to seed industries, feed mills,
slaughter facilities, creameries, food processors and distributors,
retailers, restaurants, and more.
According to a study done by agricultural economist Dr. Luanne
Lohr, “Counties with organic farms have stronger farm
economies and contribute more to local economies through total
sales, net revenue, farm value, taxes paid, payroll, and purchases
of fertilizer, seed, and repair and maintenance services.”
A survey of organic livestock research needs that I conducted
in 2003-2004 while serving as UMN Endowed Chair in Agricultural
Systems revealed a widespread need for improved processing,
handling, and distribution systems for organic livestock products
and for organic feed, feed supplements, and approved medications.
These basic infrastructure needs of the livestock sector are
not mentioned in the LTF report.
Only one of the LTF report’s recommendations is relevant
to the organic sector. The recommendation states, in part,
that the State should “provide technical assistance
in the production and marketing of specialty or alternative
meat and dairy products.”
All other LTF recommendations focus on deregulation of the
livestock industry. These short-sighted recommendations will
not maintain the countryside or build livestock systems that
are safe and environmentally and economically sustainable
for farmers, rural towns, and consumers.
Commitment to organic?
In 2003, the MDA’s Organic Advisory Task Force
submitted comprehensive recommendations for education and
information; research; business and market development; policy
and regulatory support; technical and financial assistance;
and leadership.
Also in 2003, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(Minnesota), University Of Minnesota, University of Minnesota
Extension Service, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and
USDA Farm Service Agency signed a groundbreaking Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) on organic agriculture.
The MOU established a framework for cooperation among partner
organizations on organic activities, expansion of economic
opportunity, and enhancement of consumer choice specifically
related to organic products grown in Minnesota. The MOU states,
in part:
Through ecologically-based farming methods that emphasize
soil and livestock health, farmers are producing food and
other products for which a growing number of consumers will
pay more. Preserving the identity of organically grown foods
and agricultural products through processing and handling
is crucial, and creates opportunities for new on-farm, rural,
and tribal business enterprises in Minnesota to sell to local,
regional, national and international buyers. It is the intention
of the MOU Partner organizations to undertake complementary
efforts that will help Minnesota farmers, Minnesota-based
business enterprises, and Minnesota consumers make the most
of the opportunities presented by this rapidly growing sector.
While the LTF report acknowledges that organic livestock
systems “offer potentially higher per-unit returns”
and that “there is an increase in consumer demand for
organic and antibiotic-free/hormone-free animal products,”
the report does not integrate the potential for organic agriculture
to provide profitable, market driven, ecologically sound,
and regulatory compliant solutions for problems faced by the
livestock sector into its recommendations.
In order to address the long term environmental, social,
and economic needs of livestock agriculture in Minnesota,
the state government should fully implement the commitments
made in the 2003 MOU and the recommendations made by the Organic
Advisory Task Force, rather than the narrow recommendations
found in the Governor’s Livestock Task Force report.
Jim Riddle
Chair, MDA Organic Advisory Task Force
Organic Policy Specialist, NewFarm.org |
