Issue 2 (Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board) will be on Ohio’s ballot, this November…how will you vote?  I would like to use this opportunity to tell you a little bit about the issue, and give you some information to process before you go to the ballot this November.  If you have questions after reading this article, Contact your representative, they passed the ballot issue unanimously.  It is important to be informed, to stay informed, and to make your own judgment.

This ballot issue is an amendment to the Ohio State Constitution.  A yes vote by simple majority, would create a 13 member “Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board”.  The board would be charged with setting livestock care standards, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture would be responsible for their enforcement.  Of the 13 members, the Governor will appoint 10 (2 veterinarians, 1 food safety expert, 1 representative from a local humane society, 2 members from statewide farm organizations, 1 Dean of an Ohio Agricultural College, and two Ohio consumers).  The House of Representatives will appoint 1 (a family farmer), the Senate will appoint 1 (also a family famer), and the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture will serve as chairman.  This board is to be bi-partisan- not more than 7 members from the same political party serving at the same time.  This is an attempt to keep the board an open forum with full and open discussions regarding the care of livestock.  The board would be responsible for developing policy recommendations and introducing them to the general assembly for approval and implementation.  Farmers would be responsible for adopting the approved standards.  However, implementation and adoption are not actually addressed in the ballot language.

Issue 2 asks voters to vote on a process to develop policy, not the actual policies that would result from a board’s formation.  However, separating the two is actually a difficult task.  Why is such a board necessary in the first place?  According to the Ohio Farm Bureau, such a board is necessary to protect Ohio’s agriculture.  If a board is not created, a third party from outside the state of Ohio could put legislation on the ballot to prohibit certain livestock care practices, because it deems them inhumane and some Ohio organizations are concerned that will happen given the similar ballot issue that recently passed in California.

California’s Proposition 2 “Standards for Confining Farm Animals” passed in 2008, with 63% in favor of the legislation.   That law will require that all egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant sows have room enough to lie down, stand, turn around and fully extend their limbs without touching another animal, or the side of a cage.  The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) expressed concern over the Californian ballot issue by stating that while they felt it was an admirable goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals, they believe the proposition ignores other variables that would threaten the well being of the very animals the legislation is supposed to protect.  AVMA further stated, that the best animal housing environments take into consideration not only freedom of movement, but also expression of normal behaviors, protection from disease, injury, predators, proper and adequate water, food, and handling.  While California’s proposition 2 would certainly give animals more freedom to move according to the AVMA it would most likely compromise other factors especially protection from disease and injury.  However, knowing what the full ramifications of the passage of Proposition 2 are in California is a few years off…since producers have until 2015 to comply.

Many Ohio farm organizations believe Ohio needs to act proactively, and set our own standards before a third party enters with ballot language similar to California’s.  Creation of such board-they say- would more likely address all of the relevant factors when creating a healthy living environment for production animals, rather than focusing on one aspect.  For example, Jack Fisher, of the Ohio Farm Bureau, was recently interviewed on the rural radio program, “Agri-Talk”,  and had this to offer in support of Issue 2: … “this challenge needs to be hit head on…we are trying to be broad based and give everyone a voice…this will take emotion out of it” (animal care).  Fisher also related that consumers should be engaged in order to protect their choice of what they eat.  He said, “availability of food, cost of food and the opportunity to locally produce food are all at stake.”   Ohio organizations that have already endorsed Issue 2 are: Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Ohio Poultry Association, Ohio Dairy Producers Association, Ohio Cattleman’s Association, Farm Credit Services, Ohio Sheep Improvement Association, Ohio Pork Producers and Ohio Livestock Coalition.

Proponents of Issue 2 believe setting up a standards board would:

• Assure Ohioans with safe, locally grown food
• Bring together the best Ohio expertise in animal care to ensure excellent animal care
• Reinforce consumer confidence in Ohio raised food
• Maintain Ohio’s Agricultural viability
• Protect our #1 economic contributor- Agriculture
• Keep Ohio’s family farms in business

What are the concerns with Issue 2?  I have searched the internet for opposition to Issue 2, and have only come up with 1 opponent (at the time of this article), the Human Society of United States (HSUS).  HSUS has stated that they are prepared to launch a statewide ballot for 2010 to ensure that animals on “factory farms” are given enough room to turn around and extend their limbs.  Wayne Pacell of HSUS was recently quoted as saying, “All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals for food.”   I doubt that anyone would disagree with that statement.  In fact, most farmers are very concerned with the well being of their animal, healthy animals = healthy profits.

Though I was not able to find any other right out opponents to Issue 2, I was able to find people and organizations that had some valid concerns with creating a Livestock Care Standards Board.  The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) testified before the Ohio House of Representatives expressing the following questions/concerns about the ballot measure:

1. Why is it necessary to amend the constitution, can’t the same objectives be accomplished by using the Ohio Revised Code?
2. By implication of its wording does Issue 2 suggest that livestock and poultry have a constitutional right to care and well being?
3. Why the urgency, why so little opportunity for public participation?
4. Is a new layer of government necessary?
5. Who will cover the costs of implementation and enforcement of standards that are established by the board?

In short, OEC agreed that the care and well being of Ohio’s livestock is very important but it questions the process and ramifications of this ballot issue.

As I stated earlier in this article, separating the issue of merely forming a board and policies it might recommend is very difficult and I am not sure such ramifications should not somehow, at least be discussed.  If you were to ask me the simple question, “Should I vote yes, or should I vote no?”…I would probably say, vote no.  However, this is not a simple question and there is no easy answer.   Voting yes for a process of forming a bi-partisan board to address and answer the complex questions of animal care sound like a great idea.  However, I have reservations revolving around what happens next.  Anytime, a board is formed the opportunity for a “one size fits all” mentality rears its ugly head.  This has happened in other states.  Will the three farmers that are appointed, actually and fairly represent the diversity of Ohio agriculture or will they represent one segment?   Could this be an attempt to make sure there are NO standards set at all?  Who will fund the mandated standards?  Will taxpayers be burdened with yet another layer of government to finance?  If Issue 2 passes, it will be imperative to demand real balance to the board:  Big, small, conventional, organic, and sustainable farming practices must all be represented.  If the board were to create standards that only large industrial farms could afford to adopt, we would run small farms out of Ohio and out of business.

Are there other alternatives?  I might suggest adding a task force to the already established, Ohio Food Policy Council- a Livestock Care Standards task force.  Such a task force could be charged with the same tasks as an appointed standards board, and make recommendations directly to the governor.  It would probably be as effective, less subjected to abuse and less costly.

As an advocate for agriculture, I want to urge you, as a voter, to make a truly informed decision regarding Issue 2.  Do I believe livestock care standards are important? Yes.  Do I believe we need to protect Ohio’s agricultural base? Yes. Do I believe there is an easy answer? No.  Do I think creating such a board would answer those questions? Maybe, but that depends on who is represented on the board and who would pay for the mandated standards.

So the matter lies there in the hands of the voters.  Do we assume that the board will represent Ohio’s agriculture, or do we assume it will not?   When asked the question on November 3, 2009, “Shall the proposed amendment be approved?, please take into consideration both sides of the story, make an informed decision, and by all means VOTE!

Should issue 2 pass, we will be looking for nominations for representation on the resulting board.  We will use your recommendations to petition the governor, house and senate.  If you know of qualified candidates for any of the 12 positions to be filled, please contact me!

Sources:

www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=128_SJR_6

www.theOEC.org

www.OhioLivestockCare.com

www.delphosherald.com

www.ballotpedia.org

www.hsus.org/press

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep08/x080915b.asp

http://ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/395/

By Darwin Kelsey

The bad news is there is no single right answer. And that can easily lead to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and frustration: I give up, forget it! Well don’t. We all can think our way to reasonable, practical, rules-of-thumb for deciding the issue of local vs. organic.

First though, let’s be clear that comparing local to organic is a classic apples to oranges exercise.

It could be worse, I suppose: We could be comparing apples and oranges to cucumbers and raw milk! And why not? I mean, really who’s satisfied these days with merely debating organic vs. local. Those are just two entrees from a much bigger menu:

So many choices. There is local, organic, post organic, beyond organic, naturally grown, real, authentic, ethical, sustainable free-range, grass-fed (& finished), humanely-raised, socially responsible, fair-traded, hormone & antibiotic free, GMO free….

And furthermore, let’s be clear that all of those are supposed to represent desirable and virtuous alternatives to what John Hightower colorfully calls “long-distance, bar-coded, tasteless, nutrition-free, corporate crap food.”

Those of us with lesser literacy skills usually just call this stuff conventional or industrial food – which, by the way, accounts for 96 percent to 98 percent of all the food consumed in America day in and day out, year in and year out. Conventional and industrial are catchall umbrella terms. They encompass not only, say, pretty looking heads of broccoli from California megafarms – they also include what Michael Pollan calls, “edible foodlike substances…which our grandmothers probably wouldn’t have recognized as food.”

Right. Well, that is at least some of the context for any informed discussion of organic vs. local. Sorry, there is more.

For starters, organic ain’t what it used to be. Once upon a time, say 30 to 40 years ago, the word organic began to be used to distinguish certain kinds of farming and agriculture from the new kind of large-scale, chemical-intensive agriculture that began to explode in America (and elsewhere) after World War II.

In general, the term organic was used to mean the kinds of the farming practiced since the beginning of agriculture itself – some 10,000 years ago – until roughly WW II. But, more specifically, by the 1960s and 70s, organic food meant to its producers and users, food grown in harmony with nature and neighbors; food grown, distributed and eaten mainly in one’s own community; food of superior quality – countless variety, healthy, safe.

Eventually, say 15 to 20 years ago the organic community decided (for scores of reasons, good and bad) that national standards were needed to rigorously define organic – and thereby allow it to achieve mainstream consumer recognition and acceptance. In 2002, after a decade of debate and scuffling among old time purists, and new time agribusiness opportunists, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) published strict rules and regulations on how food had to be grown and processed to be legally called organic.

For old timers in the organic movement that has turned out to be a sad case of be careful what you wish for – you might get it. Yes, the new USDA rules did eliminate the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, GMOs, and various drugs in many parts of the food production system. And many would argue that growers, consumers, and the environment are better for it.

Still, the new USDA rules had nothing to say about how workers were treated or neighbors affected, and nothing about how many thousands of miles organic food can be transported regardless of the nutritional or environmental consequences. And so, the original vision of organic as living in harmony and stewardship with one’s community and the environment got reduced to farming and processing methods.

Indeed, reduced to methods that are readily adaptable to industrial scale forms of production – the point of which is always maximizing short-term income with little regard for most of the original meaning – the soul – of organic.

Many of the best organic farmers in America have now abandoned the term and legal label organic – though not its methods. They focus on product qualities difficult for industrial scale producers to replicate (taste, nutrition, diversity), and they focus on relationship building with their own communities, and customers.

Yet, they have struggled to find meaningful alternative names or labels to describe what they do: Hence the terms beyond organic, post organic, real, authentic, ethical, responsible, sustainable, local. For many, “local is the new organic”.

Oh, really? How so – if organic and local are like apples and oranges? According to the USDA, they aren’t really like apples and oranges. According to the USDA, organic is organic regardless of whether it’s local or long distance.

And, in Cleveland you can buy fruits and veggies legally labeled organic whether they were driven in from the Cuyahoga Valley, or flown in from California or China. It’s all the same to the USDA.

But the reality is, modern local organic is much more apt to be like old time organic. Consciously, stubbornly grown for great taste and nutritional potency; grown for the good of the growers and his/her friends, neighbors, community. Long distance organic, except for certain limitations on specific production inputs, is grown (and transported) pretty much like long distance conventional – on a speedy, simplified, standardized, mechanized, grand-scale.

You may rest assured that few if any laborers (illegal immigrants or otherwise), executives, or stockholders from the megafarms and multinational corporations that grow and ship long distance organic food knows you – or has any reason to care about you, or your kids, your health, your neighbors, your school, your church, your fire department, etc.

And how do they do that? Well, among the ways it’s done is to begin with varieties/breeds of fruit, veggies, steers, broilers – whatever – selected to grow to harvest weight quickly (too quickly to acquire much taste or nutritional density), rather than selected primarily for taste and nutrition.

They also select varieties/breeds able to survive rough, high speed, mechanized harvest and/or processing, then survive days/weeks of distribution travel time (while loosing even more taste and nutrition) – yet arrive still looking pretty as they are placed on the grocer’s shelf, and able to keep looking good for a few days more.

And that is the point! That is what we as a culture have been taught to see, perceive, and value: Appearances (superficial, surface looks). And we’ve been taught to happily part with our money for it – especially if it’s also perceived to be cheap, or a bargain.

So where does all that leave us in the organic vs. local debate? Obviously I think long distance food has its down sides. But local food can also have its down sides.

Local isn’t necessarily organic – even if it is not produced on an industrial scale, it may well be conventionally bathed in pesticides. It may contain antibiotics, hormones or GMOs. And sometimes it too is taste and nutrition challenged.

How about local organic – or something close to it? If that matters to you (given your values) then you might be willing to inconvenience yourself enough to search it out at local farms and farmers’ markets, join a CSA farm or buyers club, seek out restaurants that “buy local”, etc. Most importantly, you will have to inform yourself about the issues I’ve raised here, and be willing to start asking the people you buy food from, the tough questions you care about.

The good news is that we as a society seem to be entering a new and blessed state of constructive confusion. And that, friends and neighbors, represents extraordinary progress compared to the past several decades of utter obliviousness to the issues we are discussing.

Is organic always/ever safer? More nutritious? Better for the environment? More/less expensive than local/conventional?

Once upon a time we did feed ourselves almost entirely locally – so could we do it again? How much – 100 percent, 50 percent, 10 percent, 1 percent? By when? How? Why would we want to? It depends.

As I say, the good news is that we are entering a new era of constructive confusion. All the issues I have talked about here have ceased to be fringe – they are becoming mainstream topics.

A good place to start is the Countryside Conservancy website. There you’ll find a lot more about what it is going to take to change the way Americans think about food – and to live responsibly in this place we call Northeast Ohio.

Survey: Ohioans Show Strong Support of Local Foods

Writer:

Martha Filipic
filipic.3@cfaes.osu.edu
(614) 292-9833

Source:

Molly Bean Smith, Human and Community Resource Development
bean.21@osu.edu
(614) 688-8798

COLUMBUS, Ohio — In 2008, Ohioans continued to support local food systems, with the number reporting “frequently” purchasing locally grown or produced foods remaining steady since 2006. That’s according to the 2008 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues, a mail survey conducted earlier this year by Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.

“Over 75 percent of Ohioans said they ‘occasionally’ or ‘frequently’ bought foods that are locally grown or produced in both our 2006 and 2008 surveys,” said Molly Bean Smith, research associate with the college’s Social Responsibility Initiative.

The survey, conducted every two years since 2002, was mailed to 3,500 randomly selected Ohioans between March and June 2008. The response rate was over 48 percent, which is favorable for this type of mail survey. The effort is coordinated by Jeff Sharp, associate professor of rural sociology in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development. Sharp also has appointments with Ohio State University Extension and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Just over half of the respondents reported spending more than $50 on farm products or food items directly from a farmer during the previous year, Smith said, including 18 percent who said they spent more than $200, and 6 percent who spent more than $500. The 19 percent of respondents who said they frequently purchase foods directly from a farmer spent a median of $200 during the course of the growing season.

Survey respondents also indicated that they think it is important for state and local governments to develop stronger local foods systems throughout the state. A strong majority, 64 percent, said they thought such work was “very” important, while 34 percent said it was “somewhat” important and a scant 2 percent saying “not” important, Smith said.

Among other findings:

• Predictably, fewer Ohioans reported visits to pick-your-own farms (6 percent frequent visitors; 32 percent occasional visitors) than to farmer’s markets and roadside stands (23 percent frequent; 56 percent occasional).
• Nearly half (45 percent) of respondents reported they grow their own fruits or vegetables, and 38 percent of respondents indicated they can or freeze fresh vegetables that they grow or purchase. Sixty-two percent of gardeners reported spending $51 or more on farm and food products directly from a farmer, including 15 percent who reported spending $200 to $500 and 8 percent who reported spending more than $500.
• At 59 percent, people who reside in the countryside (not on a farm) reported the highest levels of purchasing at least $50 of goods directly from a farmer; those who live in a city reported the lowest level, at 43 percent.
• At 63 percent, Ohioans residing in northwest Ohio reported the highest level of purchasing at least $50 of goods directly from a farmer; those who live in central Ohio reported the lowest level, at 44 percent.

The entire report, as well as past reports, can be viewed online at http://ohiosurvey.osu.edu/publications/food.html.

Support for the survey comes from the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences; the Department of Human and Community Resource Development; Ohio State University Extension; and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Preparing Exit Strategy Places Success into Business Succession

• December 2008 Newsletter

Whether a business owner is in their 20s or 60s, they should be thinking about how to exit the business. According to a recent survey done by the Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP), a number of rural Nebraska business owners are within 10 years of exiting the business.

In October, REAP co-sponsored a live video conference featuring Frank Haverkamp of Sunbelt Business Advisors, serving Nebraska and surrounding states. He serves as a business broker, introducing willing sellers to willing (and able) buyers. Frank has sold businesses valued anywhere from $11,000 to multimillion dollars.

Frank said that every business is going to sell; they either do it standing up or laying down. He described four kinds of buyers, listed from least favorable for the seller:

4. Auctioneer – the value of the business is next to zero. What has value (and very little at this point), is the inventory. How many times have we seen a “For Sale” sign in the window or, worse yet, locked doors, and had no idea the owner was ready to exit?

3. Family – it sounds like a good option, however, how do you as the owner negotiate at arms-length? What is fair for both parties? What does the buyer (family) do oftentimes for a down payment – ask the Parent?

2. Employees – the best potential buyer with the greatest potential for problems. While they know the business inside and out, it is difficult for the owner to keep it a secret when an employee knows. Again, arms-length negotiation may be difficult as well. Employees may also feel the need for “a deal” and may want the owner to carry the note.

1. Stranger – now, we are not talking a total stranger. Often the owner is from the area or used to live in the area. Almost all buyers are local. People will move for a job, but not for a business. This group realizes they have to borrow the money, and they create an environment that allows the buyer to negotiate at arms-length.

Using a business broker allows you to investigate your options without letting others (including your customers) know the business is for sale. While a realtor is a great avenue for selling your house, since their mission is to publish and promote, selling your business needs to be held strictly confidential.

Here are some things to consider when planning for your exit. Keep your books clean and accurate. Banks can only loan on what the taxes show are the proceeds from the business. A buyer and the banker will want at least three years of taxes to get a good feel for the cash flow (and debt service potential) of the business.

There is much more to consider when planning for business succession, including valuation. In Nebraska, call on your REAP Business Specialist for assistance in preparing your business for a successful transition. A podcast of Frank Haverkamp’s presentation is available on the University of Kearney website, http://www.unk.edu/acad/crrd/index.php?id=38712.

“Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bands.”

Thomas Jefferson

Listen to presentations from the 9th annual Farmland Preservation Summit in Columbus, OH.

Preparing for the Next Generation – Learn about legal strategies and programs for transferring the farm to the next generation. AUDIO (.mp3)
Robert Moore, Attorney, Wright Law Co. LPA
Meredith Poczontek, Farm Link Program, Countryside Conservancy

Dating is difficult without the aid of a matchmaking service. That is exactly why new farmer Elyse Perruchon attended a speed dating workshop last month. She wasn’t expecting to find love, she was looking for land. Perruchon wanted to find a small farm where she could grow produce and raise chickens. This particular speed dating event sought to match new farmers and farm owners instead of matching men and women. At the workshop she met William Takacs, a farmer with land in Chagrin Falls, and they made a match.

Perruchon and roommate Stephanie Privison will move to the farm this summer. They have already planted a garden where Takacs tilled the ground for them. He’s helping them build a chicken coop and install rain barrels. They pay rent for the house and, in exchange for the girls’ help with his hay operation, Takacs will provide feed for the chickens.

Leasing or working on an established farm is a good option for beginning farmers with limited access to capital. The cost of land can be highly prohibitive for new farmers trying to start their own operations, and many older farmers want to see their land stay in agricultural use but have no heirs interested in farming. FarmLink matches these two groups by holding events like the speed dating workshop.

FarmLink connects farmers and land in Northeast Ohio. It is a program of the Countryside Conservancy. The Conservancy works to protect farmland, support farmers, and grow a healthy local food economy.

Why not?
Fresh, locally grown foods don’t just taste delicious — they are better for you, your community and your planet.

• Low Mileage from Farm to Plate. Most food travels over 1,500 miles from farm to plate while locally grown food typically travels 50 miles or less. This reduces pollution, our dependence on fossil fuels, and protects the environment.

• Fresh Taste, Less Waste. Local food usually arrives in markets within 24 hours of being plucked from the vine or dug from the earth. It’s unusually fresh and delicious. Fresher foods keep longer – reducing waste in the kitchen and providing better value for our food dollar.

• Delicious and Nutritious Food. Because locally grown foods are so fresh, they are also more nutritious, containing higher levels of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients that healthy bodies need.

• Prosperous farmers. 91 cents of each dollar spent in conventional food markets goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen and marketers; while only 9 cents goes to the farmer. Farmers who sell direct at local farmers’ markets or through CSAs keep 80-90 cents of each dollar. Selling locally, farmers can reduce distribution, packaging and advertising costs and offer us fresher, more affordable food. Prosperous farmers keep farming and operate viable businesses that enhance our communities and strengthen our local food supply.

Farmland Preservation. Viable farm businesses are the best way to ensure farmland protection. Protected farmland promises future generations will have access to healthy local food.

• Variety: The Spice of Life. Local farmers cultivate mouth-watering varieties of delicious foods like Green Zebra tomatoes, Northern Spy apples, Purple Dragon carrots, Buckeye Chickens, and many other fruits, vegetables, and livestock bred for flavor, nutrients and suitability to our local climate and soils rather than uniformity and endurance to withstand a cross-country road trip. Biodiversity never tasted so good!

• Thriving Communities. Buying local, a greater portion of our food dollar stays home supporting farms and businesses that make up our local communities and our regional economy. NE Ohioans spend over $7 billion on food. But less than 1% comes form local farms and producers. Localizing just 10% of our food spending would generate over $700 million for our local economy and communities.