Strickland shapes fate of ag sector

On June 30, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF), announced a compromise affecting Ohio’s agricultural groups.

This agreement terminates HSUS’ initial plan to advocate for an amendment inclusion of animal-care practices in the Ohio Constitution.

HSUS began rallying support for a constitutional amendment to be included on the November ballot about a year ago. HSUS wanted the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt minimum standards that would, “end confinement of animals in cages so small they can't turn around or extend their limbs,” as well as “cruel methods of killing sick or injured animals—to prevent the inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms.”

This agreement was made a day prior to the planned presentation of 500,000 signatures representing opposition to stop factory farming, to the Ohio secretary of state by an advocacy group, Ohioans for Humane Farms.

Some believe this agreement is good for Ohio agriculture.

“This agreement represents a joint effort to find common ground. As a result, Ohio agriculture will remain strong and animals will be treated better,” Strickland said. “Instead of expending tens of millions of dollars and unproductive energy fighting an acrimonious campaign during the fall, both sides will be able to continue investing in our agricultural base and taking care of animals.”

The actual agreement includes:

• A ban on veal crates by 2017, which is the same timing as the ballot measure.
• A ban on new gestation crates in the state after Dec. 31, 2010. Existing facilities are grandfathered, but must cease use of these crates within 15 years.
• A moratorium about permits for new battery-cage confinement facilities for laying hens.
• A ban on strangulation of farm animals and mandatory humane euthanasia methods for sick or injured animals.
• A ban on the transport of downer cows for slaughter.
• Enactment of legislation establishing felony-level penalties for cockfighters.
• Enactment of legislation cracking down on puppy mills.
• Enactment of a ban on the acquisition of dangerous exotic animals as pets, such as primates, bears, lions, tigers, large constricting and venomous snakes, crocodiles and alligators.

In a news release distributed by HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS stated:

"I'm grateful to Governor Strickland and his administration for their outstanding leadership on these issues. This agreement moves us forward on all of the components of the proposed ballot measure as well as other important advances for animals, too. I look forward to working with the legislature and the Livestock Care Board to see these reforms adopted."

OFBF supports the agreement as well. According to Fisher, this agreement helps farmers live up to the promises they made during the November 2009 Issue 2 campaign.

“One of animal agriculture’s most vocal critics has agreed that the Livestock Care Standards Board is the proper authority to handle difficult questions about farm-animal care,” said Fisher. “This is truly a milestone and confirms Ohio’s position as a national leader in farm-animal care.”

Others however, do not have the same enthusiasm as HSUS and OFBF about the agreement. A blog authored by Butch Hash in the Zanesville Times Recorder, mentions his disappointment — a “dark day” in agriculture is how Hash referred to it.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) states that “Ohio's agricultural leadership has succumbed to pressures from HSUS — and the only group to benefit from this agreement is HSUS,” claiming that Ohio family farms will suffer greatly because they do not have the capital to make the move to alternative systems required in the agreement.

The AAA contends that because of the cost of the new compliance, such as new gestation stalls for hogs and new conventional cages for chicken housing, Ohio consumers will face increased prices for local produce or will rely on conventionally produced foods imported from nearby states or elsewhere.

A part of the agreement includes a ban on veal crates — all veal calves in Ohio must be raised in group housing by the end of 2017. Robert Cochrell, president of Beth El Veal, Inc., isn’t sure about the new rules that were put in place by the agreement.

“One of the intended or unintended consequences for the independent veal farmers in Ohio is that they will have two choices: Either cease production and go out of business because of an unsustainable, unproven method of production, or turn to an integrator that will own the calves, pay or finance the conversion and pay the farmer for his investment in labor and facilities,” said Cochrell.

In a recent editorial for The Columbus Dispatch, Cochrell mentioned that studies comparing group housing for calves with individual stalls found that in group pens there was twice the sickness, twice the mortality, increased medication use and poorer growth performance (an indication of the animals ability to thrive) than in individual stalls.

In an article by Brownfield Ag News, Ken Anderson describes farmers as being “dismayed,” and “betrayed.” According to Anderson, farmers across the country agree that HSUS’ primary goal is to abolish animal agriculture.

“I could not agree more with those people,” said Joe Cornely, spokesman for OFBF. “We at Ohio Farm Bureau fully recognize and believe that it is the ultimate goal of the Humane Society of the United States—just as our ultimate goal is to not let that happen. We haven’t given up the battle—we’ve just changed the rules of engagement.”

Do you feel that the agreement made by Ohio agriculture and HSUS is a positive action for Ohio agriculture? Do you think there was another option for Ohio?

*Photo obtained from: http://humaneeducation.org/IHEblog/confinedpigs.jpg

Ohioans Approve Livestock Care Standards Board

Sixty-four percent of Ohio voters favored Ohio’s State Issue 2 Tuesday, Election Day. The constitutional amendment will create a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board to regulate food and farm policies in “the heart of it all.”

The majority of voters, nearly 2 million people, recognize the significance the board will have in shaping our state’s lead industry – agriculture.

The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board will:
• Assure Ohio families have a safe, locally grown food supply
• Bring the best Ohio experts in animal care and food production together
• Reinforce consumer confidence in Ohio-raised food
• Maintain the viability of Ohio agriculture
• Sustain Ohio's family farms

Executive Director of the Ohio Soybean Association and president of Ohioans for Livestock Care John Lumpe said the vote represented "Ohio taking care of Ohio.”

“Decisions about food and farming should be made in Ohio, by Ohioans,” said Lumpe.

The bipartisan board will be administered by the Ohio Department of Agriculture and comprises three farmers, two veterinarians (including the state veterinarian), a food-safety expert, a local humane-society expert, two statewide farm-organization members, an Ohio agricultural-college dean, two Ohio consumers and the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture who will also serve as its chairperson.

“The diverse group of experts serving on this board, together with Ohio’s citizens, will work to create a fair, uniform set of standards that ensure the safe and humane treatment of the state’s livestock and poultry, therefore sustaining the viability of Ohio’s family farmers and assuring safe, affordable food for all citizens,” said Ohio Agriculture Director Robert Boggs.

“We are committed to make this work,” said Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, referring to the amendment as the most important legislation to Ohio’s agricultural community since a proposed pesticide-labeling initiative in the 1990s.

The issue passed in all Ohio counties except Athens County.

“It is clear that all Ohioans – rural and suburban, Republican and Democrat – have come together and recognize just how important agriculture is to the state,” said Lumpe.

The amendment originated as a response to threats from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS – an organization that advocates vegetarianism) to initiate legislation in the Ohio Constitution similar to California’s Proposition 2 last November, which banned animal confinement. HSUS seeks to outlaw poultry cages, veal crates and gestation stalls in Ohio.

Though the ballot initiative passed, HSUS has vowed to intervene in Ohio’s agricultural practices in the future.

At CantonRep.com, several bloggers weighed in about the issue’s passage:

“The efforts being 'thwarted' are those of the Humane Society of the United States. I am searching for a less loaded phrase than 'radical animal-rights lobbying organization,' and yet I really cannot find a better means of description. To give you an idea, JP Goodwin, who is in senior leadership at HSUS, has made the following statement: “My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.'”

Fisher is hopeful that the board will be in session by spring 2010.

Issue 2 Divides Ohioans

As Nov. 3 approaches, advocates and opponents of Ohio’s State Issue 2 are campaigning to promote their beliefs about the proposed constitutional amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.

The 13-member board, comprising three farmers, two veterinarians (including the state veterinarian), a food-safety expert, a local humane-society expert, two statewide farm-organization members, an Ohio agricultural-college dean, two Ohio consumers and the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, will create and regulate standards regarding:

• Agricultural best management practices
• Biosecurity
• Disease prevention
• Animal morbidity/mortality data
• Food-safety practices
• The protection of local, affordable food supplies

Gov. Ted Strickland will appoint all board members except two family farmers, who will be elected by leaders of the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate.

The amendment originated as a response to threats from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to initiate legislation in the Ohio Constitution similar to California’s Proposition 2 last November, which banned animal confinement.

According to the HSUS Web site, “Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio’s agribusiness lobby. The industry-dominated ‘animal care’ council proposed by Issue 2 is really intended to thwart meaningful improvements in how the millions of farm animals in Ohio are treated on large factory farms.”

Many farmers and agribusinesses throughout the state have rallied, using mass-media and grassroots efforts, for the amendment, angered by blanket statements that all farmers mistreat their livestock and by attempts from the out-of-state activist organization (HSUS) to establish laws within their industry.

Issue 2 is designed to accomplish three things, says an Ohio Farm Bureau spokesman in a You Tube video: safeguard family farms, provide good care for animals and supply safe, local food to consumers.

“The Livestock Care Standards Board will have the best interest of Ohio agriculture and consumers in mind, “ said Brenda Hastings, a Geauga County dairy farmer, “as opposed to special interest groups such as HSUS who are motivated by promoting their agendas of a vegetarian/vegan society.”

Gov. Strickland, Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee and many agricultural groups, including Ohio Cattlemen’s Association, Ohio Corn Growers Association, Ohio Dairy Producers Association, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Pork Producers Council, Ohio Poultry Association, Ohio Soybean Association and Ohio Wheat Growers Association, endorse its passage.

Some opponents consider the amendment a dangerous precedent because, in their opinion, it concedes to the influence of special interests in the Constitution. Others believe it is masking agribusinesses in the guise of impartial counsel.

The social-media realm is crammed with dialogue about Issue 2. Pro and con-Issue 2 groups have created Facebook pages, Web sites, Twitter accounts and participated in countless blog chat rooms.

At Columbus Underground.com, one citizen blogger wrote:

“One of the common objections is adding another layer of government control over our lives. This is valid, but the alternative of activist control from Washington DC seems worse. Issue 2 is real simple; do you want Local Control or Washington Control. Control seems inevitable. Pick the lesser of two evils. A vote Yes will establish welfare and food safety rules based on research and data; a vote No will be a YES vote to activist control next year with no research or data as backing.”

As the days draw near, editorial after editorial can be found within Ohio’s largest daily newspapers, with farmers, consumers and editorial boards giving their two cents about the subject.

“HSUS, PETA and MERCY have chased pork productions out of three states and have Ohio in their sights. That makes a campaign and a ballot issue “necessary” to spread good, accurate information,” said Ralph Dull in a Dayton Daily News letter to the editor.

Akron Beacon Journal and Youngstown Vindicator have confirmed their support of Issue 2 while Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer and Dayton Daily News have publicly opposed it.

On Election Day, voters will have the opportunity to influence the mechanics of their food system. A “yes” vote for Issue 2 gives regulatory and oversight control of Ohio’s food supply to representatives with the education and history necessary to carry out such responsibility. A “no” vote may make Ohio’s farmers vulnerable to HSUS-invoked legislation that will significantly affect their ability to produce an abundant, affordable food supply.

Be informed before casting your ballot. Ask questions and take time to learn about what’s at stake for Ohio’s largest industry.