Local farmer takes issue with U.S. Agriculture Secretary's assessment of pork producers

To the editor:

In a media report regarding a visit to an area hog farm by Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, highlighting their support for Ohio produced agriculture products, Vilsack reportedly told Highland County pork producers “You are the best at what you do.”  

There is no doubt that there is much in which to be proud about Highland County and Ohio grown products, but this statement by Mr. Vilsack to Highland County pork producers does not reflect my experience. 

As agriculture producers use increased levels of technology, we need to recognize and accept the increased risk that is placed on consumers and our rural neighbors. 

As we know now, in 2008 the banking industry used increasingly advanced technology in the form of complex and unregulated financial instruments to “create” wealth for the corporate banking industry. Once the risk that they created and profited from was realized, the rest of us paid the price in the form of the massive bailout of the financial industry paid for by US debt (us and our children).   

The events in the Gulf of Mexico this summer highlight how the oil industry has also used advanced technology for profit while transferring the risk associated with this technology to us and our environment.  

Common sense regulation could have prevented both of these disasters. 

Short of common sense regulation for agriculture, I am concerned that agriculture could follow in the footsteps of BP and the financial industry by using technology for profit while placing the risk of the technology on the environment and fellow rural property owners.  

One agricultural technology that is being used in our area is confined animal feeding operations.  

Properly applied, this allows a producer to vertically integrate a grain operation and increase profits by selling a more refined product (an animal) as opposed to just grain. 

Also done properly, manure can be applied to the surrounding fields as fertilizer, and potential risks in the form of run-off and odor can be minimized by placing the confinement operation in the center of a large acreage owned by the operator. 

A confined hog feeding operation was sited adjacent to my farm in 2003 on a leased plot of land of less than five acres. At a public meeting to discuss the effects of the operation, the one question that I asked was “Who is liable for the risks associated with this facility?”  

The main answer that was given from the operator and the other local agricultural leaders in attendance was “There won’t be any risk because we are using advanced technology.” 

Last year I built a pond on my farm. My family enjoyed swimming. My boys wanted fishing poles for Christmas and hoped that the fish that we stocked would be big enough to eat this year. In November, the custom manure applicator for the neighboring farm left a pump unattended and a mechanical failure sent 15,000 gallons of hog waste directly into the creek and pond behind my home. All of the fish in the pond died.  

The EPA served the owner of the farm business a Notice of Violation but advised me against swimming and advised that in order to remove the solids in my creek and pond, I would need to carefully dispose of the pollution – an expensive process which I cannot afford.  

As of today, nine months since the fish kill, I have received no assistance from any responsible party. (Police and public EPA documents pertaining to the spill can be found here: http://southernohiomanurespill.weebly.com) 

I understand the value of the increased economies of scale that come from agricultural technology. It allows greater production per producer and per acre which brings down cost and feeds more mouths.  

However, improperly applied, it increases risk. We, as agricultural producers, need to make sure that as our industry continues to increase its use of technology, we support common sense regulation to ensure that we use technology appropriately, minimize our risk to neighbors and consumers, and be quick to take responsibility when technology fails and our operations harm others. If not, we risk sharing the reputation of the financial industry and BP. 

Regulation should tie risk to responsibility. It would motivate producers to be proactive to avoid risks to others. When there is very little accountability, such as in my situation, there is less motivation to operate responsibly. 

Mr. Vilsack, I hope that a substantial animal confinement operation located on less than five acres of leased land wasn’t what you had in mind when you stated that the pork producers in Highland County “are the best at what you do.” 

Sincerely, 

Rusty Friend, 

State FFA degree, Production Agriculture – Swine, 1992 

Highland County Farm Bureau Membership Drive Coordinator 2003

To the editor:

In a media report regarding a visit to an area hog farm by Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, highlighting their support for Ohio produced agriculture products, Vilsack reportedly told Highland County pork producers “You are the best at what you do.”  

There is no doubt that there is much in which to be proud about Highland County and Ohio grown products, but this statement by Mr. Vilsack to Highland County pork producers does not reflect my experience. 

As agriculture producers use increased levels of technology, we need to recognize and accept the increased risk that is placed on consumers and our rural neighbors. 

As we know now, in 2008 the banking industry used increasingly advanced technology in the form of complex and unregulated financial instruments to “create” wealth for the corporate banking industry. Once the risk that they created and profited from was realized, the rest of us paid the price in the form of the massive bailout of the financial industry paid for by US debt (us and our children).   

The events in the Gulf of Mexico this summer highlight how the oil industry has also used advanced technology for profit while transferring the risk associated with this technology to us and our environment.  

Common sense regulation could have prevented both of these disasters. 

Short of common sense regulation for agriculture, I am concerned that agriculture could follow in the footsteps of BP and the financial industry by using technology for profit while placing the risk of the technology on the environment and fellow rural property owners.  

One agricultural technology that is being used in our area is confined animal feeding operations.  

Properly applied, this allows a producer to vertically integrate a grain operation and increase profits by selling a more refined product (an animal) as opposed to just grain. 

Also done properly, manure can be applied to the surrounding fields as fertilizer, and potential risks in the form of run-off and odor can be minimized by placing the confinement operation in the center of a large acreage owned by the operator. 

A confined hog feeding operation was sited adjacent to my farm in 2003 on a leased plot of land of less than five acres. At a public meeting to discuss the effects of the operation, the one question that I asked was “Who is liable for the risks associated with this facility?”  

The main answer that was given from the operator and the other local agricultural leaders in attendance was “There won’t be any risk because we are using advanced technology.” 

Last year I built a pond on my farm. My family enjoyed swimming. My boys wanted fishing poles for Christmas and hoped that the fish that we stocked would be big enough to eat this year. In November, the custom manure applicator for the neighboring farm left a pump unattended and a mechanical failure sent 15,000 gallons of hog waste directly into the creek and pond behind my home. All of the fish in the pond died.  

The EPA served the owner of the farm business a Notice of Violation but advised me against swimming and advised that in order to remove the solids in my creek and pond, I would need to carefully dispose of the pollution – an expensive process which I cannot afford.  

As of today, nine months since the fish kill, I have received no assistance from any responsible party. (Police and public EPA documents pertaining to the spill can be found here: http://southernohiomanurespill.weebly.com) 

I understand the value of the increased economies of scale that come from agricultural technology. It allows greater production per producer and per acre which brings down cost and feeds more mouths.  

However, improperly applied, it increases risk. We, as agricultural producers, need to make sure that as our industry continues to increase its use of technology, we support common sense regulation to ensure that we use technology appropriately, minimize our risk to neighbors and consumers, and be quick to take responsibility when technology fails and our operations harm others. If not, we risk sharing the reputation of the financial industry and BP. 

Regulation should tie risk to responsibility. It would motivate producers to be proactive to avoid risks to others. When there is very little accountability, such as in my situation, there is less motivation to operate responsibly. 

Mr. Vilsack, I hope that a substantial animal confinement operation located on less than five acres of leased land wasn’t what you had in mind when you stated that the pork producers in Highland County “are the best at what you do.” 

Sincerely, 

Rusty Friend, 

State FFA degree, Production Agriculture – Swine, 1992 

Highland County Farm Bureau Membership Drive Coordinator 2003