It Never Ceases to Amaze Me!

Although my next post was to be a continuation of the Land of Confusion this week has been one of those weeks! Un-freaking-believable is a more apt description! Of course I’ve been completely sidetracked from talking about genetics in farming.

One of my repetitive sayings is “it never ceases to amaze me”. This usually accompanies me closing my eyes and shaking my head as if trying to clear it in order to take in the latest assault to my brain. I’ve done this a lot this week. More often than not, it takes me a couple of days to absorb “the latest” and to wrap my mind around it.

I should be of a very jaded mindset in regards to the meat and poultry industries and their relationships with government/politicians in power. I don’t discriminate when it comes to political parties – I call it as I see it.

One of the latest revelations to my brain was the release of emails between Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, and Perdue, mostly through the company’s attorney. Cozy, is a polite description. This really shouldn’t have come as a surprise because in the recesses of my mind, it was something that I already thought and something that many had speculated about.

Through a Freedom of Information request, Food and Water Watch, a Washington, DC based nonprofit organization, emails between O’Malley and a Perdue representative were obtained and released to the public. It’s interesting, informative reading and certainly lends credibility to theories as to why taxpayers in Maryland are picking up the tab for industry and its share of pollution caused by company owned chicken poop! This is one of those “indirect” subsidies that continue to prop up cheap chicken.

On another subject, and leading back to the saga of The Land of Confusion, I’ve had several conversations this week about objections to farmers using the term “pasture raised”. I discussed this in my last post, The Land of Confusion Part II and from what I gather it has ruffled feathers of some who have adulterated the term “free range”.

In my mind and in the minds of many other farmers who are practicing the method of “pasture raised” it’s a term used to inform consumers that animals are REALLY outside on pasture. The animals REALLY do eat grasses, bugs, and worms and are able to forage.

The term “pasture raised” most definitely goes above the term “free range” because some have coined the term “free range” to conjure up a picture in consumer’s mind of animals being out on lush green forage. In reality, those who’ve bastardized free range through the definition of animals only needing to have “access” to the outside created the need for farmers who actually let their animals outside and provide actual pasture, to clearly define their farming methods.

It appears to me that coining of phrases can only be used if it suits the purpose of a select few. Like it or not, this argument is something that USDA is going to have to address. The high jacking of labels for the sheer purpose of greed has been going on in the farming community for quite some time. Closing loopholes through clear definitions of what actually happens on the farm needs to happen in order for farmers who REALLY do what they say they do can be the only ones to claim the phrase or term and consumers can be assured. To further add credence to the need for this to happen can be found from several sources who’ve felt the need to search out and write about this issue. The latest comes from Rodale

It’s perfectly clear where I stand on this issue and I’m sure that we can look forward to a huge and long battle! Of course we will see a lot of wheeling and dealing during this process and the flexing of money, power, and influence.

While there were other assaults to my brain throughout the week I haven’t quite decided what to make of them so discussion will have to wait for other posts. Hopefully, the next post will get back to the subject of genetics and the effects created by them in farming and food.

The Land of Confusion – Part II

Although I started out with explaining the confusion of a visitor to the farm over different farming methods, the saga of The Land of Confusion continues and expands after being bombarded with questions from readers. Before going forward I have to go back to my first post and explain to the many who’ve asked how I decided upon “The Land of Confusion”.

While I was writing the first post about animal confinement, fancy names for hen cages, and thinking about why these names are thought up, the song by Phil Collins (one of my favorites) Land of Confusion kept popping into my head. I have a tendency toward equating situations to music. It’s not something that I consciously do, it just happens. At times, it can be annoying, especially when I’m trying to concentrate.

I left off last time bringing into the conversation the term’s “free range” and “pasture raised” and how things can get really fuzzy. Again, I say it’s all about words and what kind of picture those words conjure up in the consumers mind.

Free range in my mind first conjures up the old song “Home on the Range”. What a lovely thought, right? Animals freely roaming the “range” with lots of lush grass to forage on – is NOT what it’s about. Free range varies greatly from farm to farm. Providing “access to the outdoors” is the key to free range. It could mean that the animals have huge pastures to forage in or it could mean that the animals have a small penned in area on dirt.

According to USDA, the term free range for poultry means that farmers must show that the “poultry has been allowed access to the outdoors”. What USDA doesn’t say is that the farmer must show that poultry actually went outdoors, for how long of a time period, or if grasses are readily available in the outdoor space.

In the beginning of the “free range” movement farmers who practiced this method intended for it to mean that their chickens were foraging outside on grasses and for the most part not confined. These were small scale farmers practicing a farming method which allowed for natural behaviors of chickens to abound. As the term caught on corporate agri-businesses saw opportunity in a market that was appealing to consumers. Legal minds went to work figuring how the phrase “free range” could be coined to suit the needs of industrial sized production and capture market share.

In my travels I’ve seen fenced in dirt lots running the length of an industrial sized chicken house that were considered “free range”. I found this method of farming to be appalling and although there is no legal definition for “free range” in my opinion the term has been adulterated. I don’t believe that this is the picture that consumers have in their minds when thinking about “free range”.

Enter the term “pasture raised”. When farmers saw what was happening to the original intents and purposes of the free range method of farming they saw the need to clarify. Farmers use this term to set their selves apart from “free range” and its meaning is the opposite as well. Chickens that are identified as “pasture raised” are outside on pasture and have access to shelter (indoors). To be more specific the chickens have continuous and unconfined access to pasture throughout their life.

To further complicate matters the “organic” seal of approval relates more to the diet of chickens than to how the chickens are raised. Again, the original intents and purposes of “organic” have become muddled whereby industrial agriculture has inserted itself into organic farming. Today there are several corporate giants that are synonymous with organic. The chickens only need “access” to the outside.

Another confusing type of phrase that is used to grab consumers describing laying hens and how they are raised – “cage free hens provided ample space and allowed to roam freely”. General thought would be that these chickens are not kept in cages and have lots of open space on the farm to roam at will. I’ve seen this type of wording used to define cage free hens raised in confinement buildings and never allowed outside. One might say that this is a misleading statement however there is nothing that says that the hens are outside roaming freely it just says that they are not caged and are allowed space to walk around. What it doesn’t say is that the space and freedom allowed is inside a confinement building or that the chickens aren’t allowed to forage. Technically this isn’t illegal.

As a farmer it’s hard to sift through all of the confusing language to figure out what method is right for the individual farm. Having now lived on both sides of the fence, so to speak, the choice was a no brainer. One could say that our farm took a drastic approach going from one side of the spectrum to the total opposite side of the spectrum.

Having become totally disgusted with industrial mass production of chickens and the methods used to adhere to the demands, from the farmer aspect and the animal aspect, changing to the complete opposite method was an easy transition. Knowing this doesn’t diminish the frustration when trying to explain different methods of farming to consumers and for their part, consumers are similarly frustrated in not having clear and concise language to understand what each claim or type of wording means.

A concise explanation about different claims of how chickens are raised and fed can be found here.
Not All Eggs Are Created Equal

Enter genetics. Most unknown to non-farmers is what type of animal is used for production. Maybe back in the 1920’s and 1930’s people were assured that a chicken was a chicken. What I call the “mix-master age of chickens” is today, a high stakes profit driven formula. For those who don’t know what a “mix-master” is, simply put, it’s a blender.

There’s a game that kids play called “mix em up, match em up” which is akin to the mix-master age of chickens. Genetics is an entirely different subject and we’ll talk about that in my next post about the land of confusion.

The Land of Confusion

I recently had a conversation with a visitor to the farm which made me think about how confusing different methods of farming can be for the average person. My visitor was clearly confused and after taking a hard look at the situation I could see why.

Since our conversation started out about our transition here on the farm from industrial confinement production of meat chickens to a pasture raised egg farm I’ll start with that.

Confinement operations in animal production are easily understood. The word “confinement” means exactly what it says. It is limited or restricted space of which one is unable to leave.

To put it into perspective, people are confined to places such as a jail. Most of us have heard some time in our life “go to your room”. That could be summed up as being restricted to the confines of ones bedroom as a method of punishment for bad behavior as a child.

In animal production confinement isn’t for the purpose of being punished for bad behavior. The main purpose is to have absolute control over the production of the animal whether it’s products such as milk or eggs or putting on pounds of meat, quickly. Confined production is basically designed for “efficiency”. Efficiency translates into profits.

In the case of meat chickens efficiency can be measured in restricting movement which would expend energy and in turn use more feed to put pounds of meat on the chicken. Saved feed reduces the cost of production which in turn raises profits.

Confining hens for egg laying is usually done by not only confining the chicken to a building but also confining the chicken to a cage. Sometimes the cages are stacked on top of one another. Life for the hens in cages is one which prohibits natural behaviors of chickens such as spreading of wings, dust bathing, and freedom of walking, running, or flying. Over 90 percent of all eggs produced in the US come from caged hens.

I’ve made my thoughts clear about caged hens in the past HSUS Takes a Dive Off of the Deep End! . The newest trend in industrial egg production is to put a fancy name on a cage. This is where the confusion comes in to play and it’s exactly what industrial agriculture corporate giants want.

Calling the new and better (not my choice of words) “enriched colony caging” for hens is supposed to conjure up a pretty picture in one’s mind. According to Merriam-Webster, “enrich” means to make rich or richer especially by the addition or increase of some desirable quality, attribute, or ingredient. If we were to take a look at this definition, proponents of caging hens could say that this is what has happened.

In reality, a cage is a cage no matter what fancy term is applied. Anyone who advocates for good husbandry practices or high welfare for farm animals should cringe. However that isn’t the case as we all know that HSUS has called it a landmark agreement between animal welfare advocates and the United Egg Producers (UEP). Thankfully, there are animal welfare advocates who haven’t caved in to industrial ag and HSUS should speak for its self.

Landmark agreements always come at a cost. No big deal, right! HSUS and UEP get to say that they did something great in compromising and this monumental move didn’t cost them anything. No indeed, it cost the hens!

Is it any wonder why the average person would be confused? It’s all about a play on words and what pictures those words present to the consumer. Before producing our own eggs I always looked for the word’s “cage free” when grocery shopping. That’s not to say that the hens are raised unconfined it just means that they aren’t also put into cages.

Recently, my friends at Flavor Magazine published an article about eggs. I suggest reading it to get a better idea of the mindset behind egg production and how the hens that produce the eggs should be raised depending on who is doing the talking.

Since we’ve gone to “pasture raised” another dilemma arises in the farming method confusion. My visitor was under the impression that “pasture raised” and “free range” are the same. Not so! This subject gets real fuzzy and will have to wait until my next post about the land of confusion.

Independent Contractor – to be or not to be?

My last post about Waterkeeper Alliance vs. Perdue and Allen and Kristin Hudson brought out many issues associated with the case. The saga continues………..

The lawsuit is about pollutants finding their way to drainage ditches surrounding a chicken CAFO owned by the Hudson’s into a tributary of the Pocomoke River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. It also questions ownership and responsibility of the waste discharged from the farm naming Perdue as the legal owner of the chickens that produce the waste.

On November 17, 2011 both sides in the case filed a motion for summary judgment and in doing so many legal documents in the case were made available to the public. Public perusal of these court records brings to light many other issues.

It’s hard for me to decide which of the other issues to start with.

Independent contractor status is a good place to begin. Contract poultry growers (chicken farmers) are classified as independent contractors by the companies they contract with to raise company owned chickens. The job of the farmer is to receive company chickens and raise them to a marketable age – PERIOD.

Not to put the chicken before the egg we have to look at where these contract chickens originate. It’s a complex web to untangle and there are many company steps involved before ever getting to the chicks placed on farms and grown. What is known is that the company designs, through genetic selection and engineering, what the final chicken will be. When placed on contract farms, the farmer has no choice or idea about the genetics, performance in growing of the chicken, or how much manure that chicken will produce.

Prior to chicks being placed on contract farms feed is delivered to the farm. This feed is formulated, mixed and delivered by the company. Feed ingredients are unknown to the famer and are a closely guarded secret claimed by companies to be a “trade secret”. The amount of feed delivered to the farm is unverifiable by the farmer and (s)he has to accept on “good faith” that the feed is what the company says it is. There are no options for contract farmers to acquire feed from another source because the contracts stipulate that feed comes from the company. This feed delivery process continues throughout the entire life cycle of the flock.

I have to insert here a few facts about the feed. Most people don’t understand that feed ingredient’s such as antibiotics/antimicrobials and arsenic isn’t the farmer’s choice to use or not use. This pertains to animal by-products in feed as well. Everything that goes into feed is decided by the chicken company and must be accepted and used by the farmer. Should a farmer decide to acquire feed from another source the farmer’s contract will be terminated.

The chicks delivered to contract farms derive from company owned hatcheries where the eggs are hatched into chicks. During the process at the company hatchery certain procedures could be performed such as in ovo injections of vaccines and antibiotics. In ovo is a process of injecting eggs before hatching and it’s anyone’s guess as to what is injected. Another company secret of which the farmer has no control over!

It could be assumed that the independent contractor, the farmer, comes into play once the chicks are on the farm for growing. That theory might hold water if the company only delivered the chicks and disappeared out of the raising process and returned to pick up the grown chickens for processing.

Throughout the flock company employees routinely come to the farm and manage the methods in which the farmer is raising the chickens. Court documents in the lawsuit revealed a company employee went so far as to leaving written instructions saying “need to work on these things ASAP’ and then listing things to be done. Some “notes” left by Perdue gave deadlines on work to be done and many notes referred to telling the farmer to do “heavy culling” (kill many chickens). If that is not telling the farmer what work to do, I’m at a loss to say what it is!

Other notes revealed that a Perdue employee set or adjusted equipment within the chicken house, moved fans around, culled chickens, and preformed many other tasks required in raising the chickens to a marketable age. These things are the job of the independent contractor not a company employee.

Again, I have to stop here and raise a question. Suppose some disaster should occur inside the chicken house because of the Perdue employee making a mistake in equipment adjustments such as ventilation and all of the chickens die (smother) – who would be responsible for the disaster? It’s my guess the blame would be laid at the farmer’s feet and income loss would be the farmer’s bitter pill to swallow. Having been a contract farmer I say this with ease because everything is always the farmers fault according to the company and there is no recourse for the farmer.

Reading court documents revealed that Perdue routinely performed farm operations inside of the chicken houses. It’s argued that the Perdue employee and Mr. Hudson had an understanding about this. The only time that I’m aware of the company coming on the farm, performing the daily tasks of the farmer, and caring for the flock would be if the company declared that the farmer was not doing his job and that the company was taking over. There is a clause in the contract that says that the company has the right to do that. However there are no supporting documents that say that Perdue made any such declaration or decision to take over the raising of the chickens on the Hudson farm.

Farmers have argued for a very long time that they aren’t independent contractors in their relationship with chicken companies. Independent – somebody or something that is free from control, dependence, or interference. Looking over court documents it’s clear that Perdue has some other definition of “independent”.

I remember a time in the early 1990’s Perdue declared all of its chicken catchers to be independent contractors. In the late 1990’s a lawsuit was filed against the company claiming that the chicken catchers were employees of the company not independent contractors. The lawsuit prevailed and a Federal Court found in favor of the chicken catcher’s. If memory serves me correctly, the court found Perdue willful in dealings with the chicken catchers.

Might Perdue also be willful in dealings with contract farmers?

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

Thrown to the Wolves!

Up until now I’ve refrained from commenting about a monumental lawsuit which has been brewing in my neck of the woods, the Delmarva Peninsula.  I’ve done so because I knew that despite public persona there would come a time when the little guy in the case would be offered up as the sacrificial lamb.

The lawsuit filed by attorneys for the Waterkeepers Alliance (plaintiffs) against co-defendants Perdue and Alan and Kristin Hudson (defendants) claims discharge of pollutants from the Hudson’s farm in violation of the Clean Water Act and that Perdue has legal responsibility for it.

Locally known as the “Hudson Lawsuit” the case has a lot of history and has turned neighbor against neighbor.  At the crux of the issue is that the Hudson’s raise chickens under contract for Perdue and do so accordingly to dictates by the company.  Since the farmer doesn’t own the chickens or the feed they eat its questionable as to who owns the manure (chicken poop).

In the beginning, claims by the Hudson’s and Perdue were that photographs of mountains of manure stored on the Hudson farm were piles of bio-solids (waste) from Ocean City, MD not chicken poop.  Regardless of what was in the photographs, at issue is that the farm, that houses Perdue’s chickens, is a point source of discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia as well as bacteria (fecal coliform and E Coli) which the Waterkeeper Alliance sampled at high levels downstream from the farm and also citing on-site and leaving the farm sampling conducted by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE).  Plaintiffs say this “confirms the poultry house pollutants are reaching the facility’s drainage ditches.”

The drainage ditches on the farm drain into Franklin Branch a tributary of the Pocomoke River which drains into the Chesapeake Bay.  Nitrogen and phosphorous have been long standing culprits in the killing of the Chesapeake Bay and efforts to clean up the Bay and revive it to its natural state have failed miserably over the years at the cost of millions to taxpayers.

We have a volatile mixture of people involved and interested in the outcome of the lawsuit and this is where the story gets really good.  Earlier motions filed by Perdue attempted to have the company dismissed as a defendant in the case which was denied.  This puts Big Chicken into hot water because if found guilty a precedent will be set for the country where corporate ag is responsible for the manure their animals produce.  I say “their animals” because legally they own the chickens, not the farmer.

Backing up Big Chicken are the usual attendees such as the Delmarva Poultry Industry INC. (DPI) the local industry trade union, allied industries and Farm Bureau.

Farmers have been propaganda-ized to the point of fearing for their livelihoods and believe that the environmentalists want to put them out of business.

The environmentalists, taxpayers, and the local public have become the nemesis of the farming community and are accused of not getting how it all works.  Outsider’s is what they’ve been labeled.

Just recently Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, stepped outside the bounds of legal decorum weighing in on the case and in a letter asked attorney’s for the plaintiffs to drop the case.

If anyone is confused by now don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.  I specifically recall asking the question in 1995 – who owns the manure.  In all of the initiatives set out toward cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, no one, including our illustrious politicians, has answered that question in 16 years.  It’s come down to a lawsuit to determine the answer.

On November 17, 2011, court filings in U.S. District Court have asked for “summary judgment” in the case scheduled for a 3 week trial March 5, 2011.  Both sides presented arguments why the case should be resolved in their favor immediately.

This is where the story confirms my belief that the little guy (the farmer) would be thrown to the wolves.  Throughout the past couple of years Perdue and the camp followers have publically supported the Hudson’s, holding fund raisers for their legal defense fund and publishing a website in defense of the Hudson’s. Court documents recently filed cite internal Perdue email’s  – the Hudson Farm “is one of its 10 worst on the Eastern Shore of Maryland”.  This was based on an informal survey of Perdue farm managers.  I can only imagine what the farmer must think after staunchly defending Perdue.

Furthermore, in an effort to absolve the company from blame, Perdue legal arguments suggests ways that the judge could find the Hudson’s to be at fault for polluting – it was the Hudson’s cows that are the source of any pollutants.  I have to laugh because we have now moved from waste from Ocean City to waste from the cows.  In one deposition a suggestion is introduced that it was the wild geese.  Oh no folks, it can’t be from the chickens.

Perdue arguments also contend that Mr. Hudson “did not always follow Perdue’s advice”…  and “Mr. Hudson has not adopted various ‘best management practices,’ (such as hosing down the vents in a chicken house) recommended by Perdue.”

Could this be a case of “he who speaks with forked tongue”?  This is a perfect example of talking out of both sides of the mouth depending on who the target audience is at the moment.

I have to step up on my soap box…….  Big Chicken adamantly claims that they want to save farm families and then turn around and submit legal arguments to the contrary.  It reminds of little kids who get into trouble over something and they all claim “I didn’t do it” all the while coming up with some of the most ridiculous arguments as to why they shouldn’t be blamed and putting the blame off on another! PROPAGANDA – ized indeed!

Somewhere within the tangled web weaved practiced to deceive responsibility for pollution of the Chesapeake Bay from industry chicken poop will be decided.

I’ve spent countless hours reading over court documents.  Evasiveness and playing just plain dumb is the theme.  I especially loved reading some of the Perdue internal emails.  It’s quite obvious how the company big shots go about business.  One asks about farms that don’t have “curb appeal” meaning farms which don’t present a pretty picture.  Guess esthetically pleasing is now part of grower performance and whether the farmer has a contract to raise chickens for the company!

It’s my bet that the Hudson’s will not continue to contract with Perdue and more than likely any other chicken company on the Delmarva Peninsula.  It’s easy to sacrifice the little guy!

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

Maryland Governor O’Malley Letter

GIPSA Rule – A Really Bad Joke

I recently had a contract chicken farmer, Craig Watts, ask me for advice after hearing the news that our illustrious politicians had delivered a crippling blow to farmers and consumers.

Specifically, the farmer was referring to the gutting of the USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards (GIPSA) Final Rule which would have dealt with many of the abuses contract farmers face. Known as the GIPSA Rule and something that I’ve opined about many times, House Republicans and Mealy Mouthed Democrats allowed language in a budget bill that defunded the GIPSA Rule which would have provided “commonsense protections that allow small livestock producers to compete and check the abusive practices of the poultry industry” says Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food and Water Watch. House Republicans Drive More Nails Into Livestock Rule Coffin

I had no good advice to give Craig and I fear for his livelihood. He has been one of the most outspoken contract chicken farmers about the GIPSA Rule and took a public stand against the abusive practices towards farmers in the poultry industry. Although no laughing matter, my first thought was to tell Craig to cover his head and duck.

On a serious note I told him to prepare for contract termination because he will be retaliated against for speaking out. One way or another, Craig will be paid back and or illustrious politicians, who claim that they support the farmer, have assured that he has no protection. Over the past twenty years or more, I’ve seen this happen many times to farmers.

It further worries me that farmers were led down a path of destruction by our government. I’ve had my doubts from the very beginning of the latest attempt by farmers to reign in Big Ag from the monopolization of food production and the anti-competitive nature of contract farming.

USDA and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) held field hearings all over the country and encouraged farmers to speak out. Farmers believed in this process especially since they had the DOJ covering their backs……. many spoke. Even still, with the mighty DOJ at their backs, some farmers gave private testimony. A statement in itself about the fear farmer’s harbor!

When USDA finally proposed the GIPSA Rule and opened a public comment period over 60,000 comments were received by the agency and the majority was in favor of the rule. At this juncture of the game some farmers were still fearful and submitted unsigned comments so that they could not be identified by Big Ag.

Farmers have written letters and spoken in person to USDA and their illustrious politicians who supposedly represent them and have put their selves in a precarious position. Anyone who really knows me also knows that I hold no faith in our elected officials whether they are Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or Independent.

My cynical view overwhelms me when I travel to our Nation’s Capital because I get the feeling that our illustrious politicians are doing nothing more than paying “lip service” to their constituents. They tell you what you want to hear and send you on your way. They then turn around and “toe the line” from wherever the most power, money, and influence come from. It’s cronyism at its best!

Personally, I have no faith in our government to do what is right for the majority. I don’t think that I’m alone in my cynicism about our elected officials. On occasion I think there are some people who run for public office with good intentions toward doing the right thing. When they reach the destination of being elected to office they quickly learn that their ideals have no place in the political machine that runs our country.

In this particular situation, the GIPSA Rule, is a really bad joke that has been played on farmers and Big Ag is laughing all the way to the bank! I hope our illustrious politicians and government agencies feel good about selling out the American farmer and leaving them to suffer the tyranny of Big Ag.