Hogs Housing - Facilities

Cantinas Campaign Adds a Little Spice to Mexico Meat Promotions

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 15:32:18 GMT

Variety meats are popular in cantinas, or casual dining restaurants, in the central part of Mexico. That’s why the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) is finding creative ways to promote pork and beef variety meat items to bars and casual restaurants in Mexico as an affordable appetizer and snack option that will appeal to their customers.

“Variety meat exports provide critical returns for U.S. pork and beef producers, and Mexico is a leading destination for these products,” USMEF says.

USMEF’s marketing campaign, known as Cantina Vibes, has expanded to the northern part of the country because of the success in central Mexico. In northern Mexico, consumers are less familiar with variety meat dishes, but are attracted to the lower cost, high quality, U.S. pork and beef.

“When we talk about variety meats in pork, we talk about jowl, ears, brains, snout, stomach, etc. In beef, we are promoting small intestine, also liver and sweetbread,” says Rigoberto Treviño, trade manager for USMEF Mexico. “For example, with the pork snout, we are doing tacos, sopes, tostadas. So, it’s different cantina dishes with variety meat.”

Sweebread Taco

(USMEF)

Mexico is the leading volume destination for U.S. beef variety meat exports, totaling 124,000 metric tons last year. It is second only to China for pork variety meat exports, with shipments in 2024 topping 160,000 metric tons.

Treviño says U.S. pork and beef offer “really good quality” and amazing consistency. Plus, it is very affordable for the cantinas.

“Not all variety meats are affordable,” he points out. “I know that sweetbreads are a little bit more expensive. But the small intestine or pork stomach and pork snout are very affordable. You can have a pork jowl taco or a pork jowl sope with guacamole for about, a dollar. It’s very affordable, and it’s very important for those kinds of restaurants and casual dining.”

Avoid Confusion: Clear the Air on CAFOs

Mon, 05 May 2025 20:23:38 GMT

Concentrated animal feeding operations have continued to sustain meat and dairy industries since their implementation many decades ago by providing a steady flow of livestock for food chains for home and consumers abroad.

Contrary to popular belief, Kansas State University extension livestock specialist Joel DeRouchey says CAFOs present a more efficient opportunity to raise livestock with less stress on the environment.

“While CAFOs can get a bad rap due to their ability to house many animals in one location, they face some of the most stringent regulations for environmental protection, which is good for surrounding land and water quality,” he points out on Agriculture Today with the K-State Radio Network .

After considering what’s regulated, how CAFOs handle manure, how it’s applied and the regulations and inspections involved from both the state and potentially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DeRouchey says these operations are in business for a reason.

“They’re doing a very good stewardship for both for the land and water quality,” he adds.

Feedlot

(Shelby Chesnut)

But Josh McCann, associate professor of animal science at the University of Illinois, says it’s understandable people may have questions about CAFOs.

“I think it’s easy to get nervous or ask questions about things that we’re not exposed to, that we aren’t very familiar with,” McCann says.

CAFOs are highly professional environments led by teams of experts who help those animals remain healthy, grow in a productive way and provide an extremely affordable protein for Americans and people around the world, he adds.

“We have some of the very best nutritionists, the very best veterinarians, the very best management experts working at these facilities to help those animals actually grow and prosper,” McCann says. “I don’t think people truly appreciate the amount of effort, investment of time and people and science that goes into this.”

Is Your Operation a CAFO?
CAFOs include cattle and small ruminant feedlots, confined large indoor and outdoor swine and poultry operations and dairy facilities that meet the criteria as a CAFO. Once a CAFO is designated for a site, it has both state and federal requirements under which it must operate.

The challenge is every state is different when it comes to its respective state regulations, he says.

“Permitting of different livestock species could be different within a state and certainly is across states,” DeRouchey says. “But the bigger pictures items are the same.”

To be a CAFO, EPA explains that farms must first be an Animal Feeding Operation (AFO). If a farm does not meet the definition of an AFO, the EPA rules do not apply to it.

The AFO definition has two parts: Part 1 - A lot or facility where animals have been, are, or will be confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period. Part 2 - Where vegetation (crops, forage, post-harvest residues) is not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.

“There are many factors to consider when determining if your farm is a CAFO. Bottom line: Manage your farm in a way that ensures no discharges to WOTUS,” the Illinois Pork Producers Association says on its website .

For example, in Kansas, any facility with an animal unit capacity of 300 or greater must register with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Additionally – regardless of size – any facility that presents a significant water pollution potential must obtain a permit as determined by KDHE.

“Feedlot cattle over 700 pounds would be considered a single animal unit, 700 lb. and less is a half and cattle such as a lactating dairy cow would be considered 1.4,” DeRouchey says. “These figures relate to their feed intakes and the amount of manure produced per body weight.”

Another factor to consider when determining the size of your CAFO is if a farmer has multiple sites where animals are confined, they must determine if those sites are separate AFOs or should be combined. In Illinois, under the IL EPA Livestock Rules, two or more AFOs under common ownership would be a single AFO if the AFOs are adjacent to each other or the AFOs utilize a common area or system for handling or disposing of manure.

“Most situations in which pigs are raised will likely be defined as an AFO,” IPPA says. “If your farm is an AFO, then you must determine if you are a small, medium or large CAFO, which factors in the number of animals that are confined on the farm and whether pollutants are being discharged into Waters of the U.S (WOTUS).”

When determining if the operation has any discharges, a farmer must look at the entire production area including manure storage, feed storage and dead animal composting to determine if there is a discharge.

“CAFOs are strictly permitted to have full containment of all rainwater and runoff that reaches a pen surface, and the same goes for cleaning pen surfaces,” DeRouchey explains. “Manure must be stored in a contained area until it’s moved out to fields for spreading.”

Compliance is Key
Many regulations like these are in place to help keep the environment, water and land safe for multiple generations, McCann says.

Dairy

(Jim Dickrell)

To ensure compliance with these regulations, CAFOs undergo periodic on-site state inspections and a permit renewal where producers update their paperwork and nutrient management plan with any changes to the operation. An essential part of that process is developing a new nutrient management plan that says what’s going to occur with the application of manure to the agronomic crop ground surrounding the facility, DeRouchey says.

“With soil tests and manure samples taken, new projections are completed to ensure that the manure produced on those operations fits all the acreage,” DeRouchey says.

The challenge is those nutrient management plans are pretty region-specific, McCann says.

“Rainfall here in central Illinois is extremely different from rainfall in western Kansas,” he adds. “The appropriate ways you need to manage the nutrients in your animal waste is accordingly also very different. I think that’s one of the reasons why we have a lot of state-by-state regulation within this area.”

Compliance starts before the CAFO is constructed. Assessments, based on the species housed in the CAFO, look at criteria like geography. For example, in feedlots, rainwater drainage containment, manure storage areas, and agronomic manure application plans rank as some of the most crucial considerations.

Be a Good Neighbor
The one thing that’s not regulated directly is odors, DeRouchey says. Owners routinely clean pen surfaces as well on the outdoor facilities because the top layer of manure can turn into dust if it’s there too long, and that can carry odor from the CAFO to surrounding areas.

“We know that large or small operations have odor from livestock,” he adds. “And that doesn’t matter if you only have a couple animals or a lot of animals. What owners often do is look at, where can they potentially put up windbreaks? Where is the prevailing wind coming off of those facilities? How does that impact the surrounding area? How do they minimize potential dust? Because odor really travels a lot on dust.”

Being a good steward and making sure we’re minimizing any potential impact that our livestock farms would have on the surrounding area involves being aware of how it affects our neighbors, DeRouchey says.

“USDA scientists have confirmed that U.S. pork producers’ rigorous biosecurity efforts to keep pigs healthy are working,” says NPPC President Lori Stevermer.

(National Pork Board and the Pork Checkoff)

Eldon McAfee , attorney with Brick Gentry P.C. in West Des Moines, Iowa, says operational environmental management extends to neighbor awareness, communication and good relations.

“Don’t ignore neighbors who aren’t happy with your operation. Keep those lines of communication open,” McAfee says. “For example, when you apply manure, try to let everyone know. Attend educational seminars and obtain certifications to show you are being a good neighbor. Make sure employees are up to date on best practices when it comes to being a good neighbor, too.”

Can We Feed the World Without CAFOs?
CAFOs exist for a reason, McCann says. Some of those reasons are economic-related, and some of those are people-related.

“I would make the case that there are not enough people who want to work in the livestock industry and meet our animal protein needs without CAFOs now,” he says. “It’s pretty hard to imagine feeding a world that really craves lean, healthy, wholesome protein from livestock today without CAFOs. That’s difficult to do in my mind.”

Your Next Read: Don’t Let Your Guard Down: How to Avoid an Ag Nuisance Lawsuit

Why You Need to Pay Attention Now to EPA’s Proposed Rodenticide Mitigation Measures

Fri, 27 Sep 2024 01:18:52 GMT

Out of sight, out of mind. That theory works for a while until it doesn’t, especially when it comes to rodent control.

“Rodenticide use is like using insecticides. If you don’t see any cockroaches, you don’t worry about them. But once you see one, you throw the bomb at it,” says Larry Delozier, director of national poultry account sales for QC Supply.

Similarly, once you see a mouse or rat, it’s likely you have a big problem on your hands , explains Steve Von Haden, Midwest business manager for Motomco.

“Always assume you have rodents, and you should be putting bait out,” Von Haden says. “All agricultural buildings or structures will have rodents of some type. You just don’t want it to get to such high peaks it causes structural damage, diseases and contamination of food sources .”

Pending regulation could mean agriculture loses critically important tools to protect food security. EPA is proposing significant changes to rodenticides that would result in the canceling of products and uses, add more requirements to the labels, and reclassify some products to restricted use pesticides .

“Regardless of whether you are a livestock producer or citrus grower or manager of a golf course, this will have an impact on your ability to effectively manage a destructive farm pest,” says John Walt Boatright, director of government affairs at American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). “It’s one more challenge in a regulatory environment where challenges continue to grow for the American producer.”

What is EPA Proposing?

On Nov. 29, 2022, the EPA released for public comment new proposed mitigation measures for 11 rodenticides, which if implemented, will have a major impact on all currently available rodenticide products, the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) said on its website . The agency’s proposals are the most significant changes to rodenticides in 15 years that will result in the canceling of products and uses, add more requirements to the labels, and reclassify some products to restricted use pesticides, ARA noted.

EPA’s recommended changes are included in four Proposed Interim Decision documents (PIDs) that cover: 1) the seven anticoagulant rodenticides; 2) bromethalin and cholecalciferol; 3) strychnine; and 4) zinc phosphide.

“EPA’s proposal is quite wide-ranging, and it is going to impact any user of rodenticides and how rodenticides are applied,” Boatright explains. “The challenge is many of EPA’s proposed mitigation measures introduce additional challenges for on-farm application. I don’t know that they will have the intended effect that EPA thinks they’ll have.”

Boatright says this should be very concerning for everyone in the agricultural supply chain who apply rodenticides. Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), says it will also have a negative impact in urban areas where rodent infestation is a major problem.

“This is an example of one area where rural communities can build positive engagement and cooperate with urban communities. As much as rats and rodents are pests on the farm, they are even more so in an urban area,” Formica says. “In the back alleys in DC, you see rats that look like cats racing from one building to another, running around at night. People don’t want to live with them.”

And they shouldn’t have to, Delozier says. Rodent control companies have made effective, safe bait under EPA’s existing stringent restrictions. EPA’s proposed measures will add great cost and will likely be prohibitive for many.

What Does This Mean for Farmers?

If this proposal is enacted, rodenticide users will see many new restrictions.

“The average livestock farmer wouldn’t be able to use them, you would have to go through certification and training in your state,” Formica explains. “If you’ve got a row crop or grain operation, a lot of folks have that certification because they spray pesticides. But most livestock farmers don’t have all those different certifications.”

Certifications would be required annually, which takes a lot of time, paperwork and training.

“If you don’t have that certification, you would need to hire exterminators to come out. That’s expensive and creates its own biosecurity problem because you’re having people come out not just to apply the rat poison, but also pick up the dead rats,” Formica says.

Pick up dead rats? Yes, that’s part of the new measures, too.

“The proposal talks about mandatory carcass searches in the field. That seems to be quite a challenge to expect a farmer or a farm worker to stop what they’re doing and search for rodent carcasses in potentially hundreds or thousands of acres,” Boatright says.

Once the rodent carcasses are found, farmers would be required to not just log them, but also pick them up and dispose of them.

Another limitation of these measures includes the requirement of single-use base stations, which would create a lot of garbage, Formica adds. The bait stations being used today are refillable.

What Will Happen if Rodent Bait Goes Off the Shelves?

“The more regulation you put on farmers, the more resistance you will have and that’s not conducive to the economic engine that is farming and food in the U.S.,” says Mike Slegl, vice president of product sales for QC Supply.

Farmers aren’t misusing product with the intent of controlling other things, Slegl adds. Some believe EPA is rushing to do this because of pressure from environmentalists for Endangered Species Act concerns.

“There is a potential major negative impact of an additional EPA regulation on the true sustainability of livestock production and the livelihood of farms,” Slegl says. “If it’s one more forced hand that overnight becomes more expensive to something they’re already doing, there’s going to be major resistance and people will push towards non-compliance.”

Delozier fears EPA’s rodenticide mitigation measures will ultimately increase the cost of goods to the consumer.

“Whenever we add requirements, there is always a cost that goes into the food system and will eventually cost the consumer more, too,” Delozier says. “Farmers are already using rodenticides that have to be EPA-approved.”

Darrin Karcher, a poultry specialist and associate professor at Purdue University, says it could be a double-edged sword.

“With the larger integrated companies, if they have to pay someone else to do it, they will pay someone because it has to be taken care of. Where it may catch are those individuals doing it themselves who may not have financial depths to pursue having other people take care of application,” Karcher says. “The question becomes, can they find a way to do that?”

An Increased Biosecurity Risk

And what if they can’t? Rodents present a major biosecurity risk for farms. With devastating diseases like Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in the poultry industry and the threat of deadly foreign animal diseases like African swine fever (ASF) in the pork industry, leaders fear how this could impact the health of the nation’s livestock herds.

“The restricted-use pesticide designation concerns me,” says Matthew Galloway, Midwest sales manager for ag rodenticides with Liphatech Inc. “For the broiler and breeder side of the poultry industry, there are hundreds of thousands of barns all over the U.S. One contract grower often has four or five barns and there may be several thousand barns within each company. If farmers don’t get their license, they will have to hire an outside applicator. Then you run into the risk of biosecurity breaches. We can’t have applicators running through multiple farms over a week’s time, otherwise we’ll really see a massive problem.”

It’s also a major problem if rodents get out of control because farms can’t afford the added cost.

“You can put all the filters you want on the ventilation systems in your barns and be as biosecure of a facility as possible, but if rats can get in and out, they will find a way. They aren’t showering,” Formica says.

What Can You Do?

Every 15 years, pesticides are reviewed by EPA. This rodenticide review is part of a pilot project for EPA as they’re implementing their Endangered Species Act work plan. These mitigation measures seek to achieve compliance with their statutory directives at EPA, following recent court cases directing EPA.

“We will see this approach in reviewing other pesticides as well. Folks need to be prepared to provide input,” he says.

This is a proposed interim decision, Boatright explains. EPA will take comments through Feb. 13 and review them. They will then promulgate a final rule at some point in the future.

“Make your voice heard,” Liphatech’s Galloway says. “We’ve got to do everything we can. Submit comments to EPA.”

Both NPPC and AFBF are gathering feedback and information from its members and will be submitting comments to EPA by the Feb. 13 deadline.

“Weigh in and let elected officials know you value these products. The best thing you can do is call your member of Congress. We’re just coming out of three years of COVID, and there are tremendous human health issues of taking rodenticides off the market,” NPPC’s Formica says.

Read more about the rodent problem.

Animal Activist Wayne Hsiung Found Guilty of Felony Charges

Fri, 03 Nov 2023 18:57:50 GMT

A Transylvania County jury found animal activist Wayne Hsiung, who was arrested in 2018 for allegedly stealing a goat from a Pisgah Forest ranch, guilty on Dec. 6 of felony larceny after a breaking and entering and felony breaking and entering.

Hsiung was sentenced to a six-to-17-month suspended sentence with 24 months of supervised probation, the Transylvania Times reports. He was ordered to pay $250 in restitution for the value of the stolen animal.

Hsiung is one of the founders of the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an organization known for their headline-grabbing style of disruptive protest, which now has chapters and supporters all over the world. He is based out of Berkley, Calif.

During his trial in the Transylvania County Superior Court, prosecutors played the Facebook livestream video of Hsiung and three other animal rights activists breaking into Sospiro Ranch in Pisgah Forest and stealing a newborn baby goat.

Hsiung claimed he went to the farm with the “intent to save a life” during his testimony, the article said.

This marks the first time Hsuing has received a felony conviction for his animal rights activism, despite being arrested several times along with fellow DxE activists.

Activists Employ Open Rescue Strategies

Groups like DxE rely on strategies such as “open rescue,” where they film and/or livestream themselves entering farms or plants to steal (or “rescue” as they claim) livestock and poultry, explains Hannah Thompson-Weeman of the Animal Agriculture Alliance .

“DXE says its ‘open rescues’ are ‘seen by millions’ and ‘force the issue of animal rights into the public consciousness,’” Thompson-Weeman shared.

This case was the first time Hsiung and DxE ever attempted an open rescue, the Transylvania Times reports. Hsiung, a licensed lawyer in the state of California, represented himself in this case.

During opening statements, Superior Court Judge Peter Knight sustained so many of prosecutors’ Robert Bracket and Jason Hayes’ objections, Hsiung couldn’t finish his opening statements to the jury, the Transylvania Times reports.

Hsiung shared his animal activism beliefs when he took the stand as his first witness. One of his core arguments is that he believes Americans are entitled to the “right to rescue” animals facing cruelty, neglect, poor living conditions or untreated medical emergencies, and that he believes what he did was not only legal, but the moral thing to do, the article said.

The prosecution argued that this was a case of trespassing, breaking and entering and larceny, and that Hsiung had no prior knowledge of this specific goat’s existence before trespassing on the night of Feb. 11, 2018.

Time to Face Consequences

The Animal Agriculture Alliance has been following the trials of DxE members in California, North Carolina and Iowa (to begin soon) as they face the legal consequences of their actions over the past several years.

“Trespassing onto farms and stealing animals is not only unlawful, but it also threatens the health and safety of livestock and poultry. Farmers and ranchers should be able to do their important work to bring meat, poultry, dairy and eggs to the vast majority of consumers who choose to eat them without fear of intrusion by animal rights extremists who believe we should not be raising animals for food (regardless of how we do it) and want to take choices off of everyone’s plates,” Thompson-Weeman says.

She believes it is reassuring that the jury in North Carolina quickly decided on a guilty verdict in this case and she hopes to see similar outcomes in the other trials.

“While it is unlikely that this conviction or any others will deter the most dedicated extremists, perhaps others will think twice before engaging in what DXE calls “open rescue” activities,” she says.

Read more from Farm Journal’s PORK:

What Should You Do If Someone Breaks Into Your Farm?

Animal Rights Extremists Take Their Cause to the Courtroom

Crime on the Farm: How to Stay Calm When You Aren’t

CAFO Rules Made While Violating Open Meetings Laws, Lawsuit Filed

Fri, 08 Sep 2023 02:39:58 GMT

When debating possible farming rules specifically regarding concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), central Missouri’s Cooper County health board faces a lawsuit for knowingly violating the open meetings, “Sunshine Law.”

Closed meetings, beginning in 2018, failed to be properly detailed to county residents about the subject matter discussed in the meeting and why they were deemed “closed session” material.

Spurred by a Minnesota-based Pipestone farm proposal that would bring a new facility to southern Cooper County, the health board held a series of meetings to draft rules limiting how much manure farmers could use on their property that came from the CAFO, a local news source explains.

“The law gives elected officials in general and agency bureaucrats a lot of latitude in a lot of different contexts to make rules that can significantly affect your life,” says Brent Haden, an attorney for the local farmers told the news source. “At the very least, if they’re going to do that, then they should expose to the light of day what they’re doing, the reasons they’re doing it, the why and the how of what they’re doing.”

Last week, a jury found the board had violated the open meetings law five separate times and could face as much as a $1,000 per violation. Additionally, the lawsuit challenges the rules the county placed on the CAFO operation.

Cooper County also sued the state of Missouri in a separate lawsuit over laws outlawing counties from enacting stringent health rules on agriculture, the news article reports. The lawsuit is set to appear in front of the Supreme Court of Missouri on Sept. 20.

New Jersey Law To Impact Housing and Care of Breeding Pigs and Veal Calves

Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:23:18 GMT

Legislation in the state of New Jersey, signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy, now requires the State Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture to “adopt rules and regulations concerning the confinement, care and treatment of breeding pigs and calves raised for veal,” says a recent release .

Similar to California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, the bill “prohibits confinement in an enclosure that impacts a breeding pig and calf’s ability to freely move in certain ways and properly groom itself and that limits visual contact with other calves,” explains the release.

Following Gov. Murphy’s signing on July 26, the release notes rules and regulations must be adopted within 180 days as penalties will be established for violators.

However, some exceptions to the rules and regulations, announced by the State Board and the Department, have been included in the bill.

These exceptions, as listed by the state of New Jersey, include:
1. Medical research
2. Examination, testing or veterinary treatment that is supervised by a licensed veterinarian, either in person or via a telemedicine appointment
3. Transportation
4. State or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs or similar temporary exhibitions
5. Humane slaughter in accordance with applicable laws and regulations
6. Confinement of a breeding pig during the 14-day period prior to the expected date of the breeding pig giving birth or on any day when the breeding pig is nursing piglets

“The humane treatment of domestic livestock has long been a major priority for the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, and we endorse legislation that supports those rules while ensuring the farmers’ right to raise livestock,” said New Jersey Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary Joe Atchison III, in the release.

Primary sponsors of the bill (A-1970/S-1298), Senators Nick Scutari and Vin Gopal, respectively, were able to pass the legislation in the state Senate in June 2023, while Assembly members Raj Makherji, Daniel Benson and Carol Murphy successfully passed the bill through the state Assembly in May 2023.

The legislation is part of an extensive coalition co-led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, according to a HSUS release.

Read More:
Massachusetts Question 3: What’s Next for Pork Producers

The Real Facts About Prop 12 Implementation Modification

Supreme Court Rejects Meat Institute’s Petition to Review Proposition 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:55:54 GMT

The Supreme Court has denied a petition to review California’s Proposition 12, which requires the sale of meat products in California to conform with the state’s animal housing standards.

Prop 12, set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, will impose animal housing standards that reach far outside the state’s borders to farms across the country, driving up costs for both pork producers and consumers, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) said in a release.

The denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari was among dozens announced on June 28 by the court. No explanation was provided for the reason why the petition was denied. The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) filed the petition, with the support of 20 states, challenging the sales ban in California on veal and pork not raised according to Prop 12’s housing standards.

“We are disappointed our petition for cert was denied. We will be considering other options to block Proposition 12 which will cost both producers and consumers millions of dollars according to economists and the state of California’s own analysis,” Meat Institute spokesperson Sarah Little said in a statement.

Prop 12 is currently being challenged in a separate lawsuit from the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, asking the court to strike down Prop 12 as unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in April and is expected to make a decision in mid-July.

“Prop 12 hurts the family on a budget by causing higher prices for pork, veal and eggs, and unfairly punishes livestock producers outside of California by forcing them to spend millions just to access California markets,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a March release . “If this unconstitutional law is allowed to stand, California will dictate farming practices across the nation.”

Read More:

Pork Industry Braces for Catastrophic Costs to Implement Proposition 12

Proposition 12 Pressures Aren’t Going Away

On-Demand Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?

20 States Back Challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s Prop 12

California’s Proposition 12 Would Cost U.S. Pork Industry Billions

New Briefs Filed in Support of NPPC’s Proposition 12 Lawsuit

Pork Industry, Don’t Underestimate Proposition 12

Court Upholds California Proposition 12

California’s Proposition 12: NPPC, AFBF Seek to Strike as Invalid

Supreme Court Takes Up NPPC, AFBF Challenge to Proposition 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:38:46 GMT

The Supreme Court of the United States announced on March 28 that it will take up the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) challenge to California’s Proposition 12. The case is expected to be argued after the court begins its new term in October.

“We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Proposition 12, in which California seeks to impose regulations targeting farming practices outside its borders that would stifle interstate and international commerce,” NPPC President Terry Wolters said in a release. “NPPC has poured a lot of blood, sweat and tears into preserving the rights of America’s pork producers to raise hogs in a way that’s best for their animals’ well-being and that allows them to continue selling pork to all consumers, both here and internationally.”

NPPC and AFBF are petitioning the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of one state imposing regulations that reach far outside its borders and stifle interstate and international commerce. And, in this case, it’s about arbitrary animal housing standards that lack any scientific, technical or agricultural basis and that will only inflict harm on U.S. hog farmers, NPPC said.

The high court is taking up the case on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which in July upheld a lower court ruling against the NPPC-AFBF lawsuit, NPPC explained in a release. The appeals court found that despite the organizations plausibly alleging that Prop. 12 “will have dramatic upstream effects and require pervasive changes to the pork industry nationwide,” 9th Circuit precedent didn’t allow the case to continue. That precedent, however, runs counter to numerous Supreme Court decisions and is in conflict with nearly every other federal circuit court.

Proposition 12, approved by voters in 2018 and took effect Jan. 1, 2022, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig it comes from was born to a sow housed with at least 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching her enclosure. It applies to any uncooked pork sold in the state, whether produced there or outside its borders. Nearly all pork currently produced in the United States fails to meet California’s arbitrary standards. (Business groups in California recently got a state superior court to delay the effective date of Proposition 12 for 180 days after final implementing regulations are issued.)

“AFBF is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of California’s law imposing arbitrary requirements on farmers well outside its borders. We share California’s goal of ensuring animals are well cared for, but Prop 12 fails to advance that goal,” AFBF president Zippy Duvall said in a release . “We look forward to presenting the facts to the Court, including how Prop 12 hamstrings farmers’ efforts to provide a safe environment for their animals, while harming small family farms and raising pork prices across the country. One state’s misguided law should not dictate farming practices for an entire nation.”

In addition to its legal efforts, NPPC weighed in on problems with the initial proposal implementing regulations for Prop 12, including an unworkable annual certification of hog farms’ compliance with the initiative’s requirements. The California Department of Food and Agriculture, which wrote the regulations, has yet to issue final rules, NPPC said in a release.

“It requires massive and costly alteration to existing sow housing nationwide, necessitates either reduction of herd sizes or building of new facilities to meet its space mandates, raises prices in transactions with no California connection, drives farms out of business, and promotes industry consolidation, and will be policed by intrusive inspections of out-of-state farms conducted by California’s agents,” NPPC and AFBF said in their appeal.

NPPC and AFBF in the coming weeks will file their initial brief with the Supreme Court, which could hear oral arguments in the fall and could render a decision by the end of the year.

“This is important to the pork industry today, but it is broader than just Proposition 12,” Bryan Humphreys, NPPC CEO, said last month .

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

The Wait Continues for SCOTUS Decision on Prop 12 Petition

State Court Halts Enforcement of Prop 12, California Must Finalize Rules First

Prop 12 Countdown: California Food Industry Leaders Fight Back

How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:31:04 GMT

More than half of Californians voted in favor of stricter restrictions on animal confinement, commonly called Prop 12, which took effect on Jan. 1.

The law not only altered its livestock raising standards, but it also banned the sale of animal-derived products that do not comply with statute’s regulations. This means producers in other states cannot sell eggs, veal and pork products in California unless they meet Prop 12’s standards.

Challenged by numerous ag alliances, Prop 12 is scheduled to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Impact for Crop Producers

If the Court rules in favor of California, the legislation will open a door to a much larger arena of regulatory authority. This case should have all producers on high alert, according to John Dillard, principal at OFW Law.

“If California were to win this case in the Supreme Court, there’s nothing stopping the state from saying, for example, you can only sell corn in California if it’s harvested with an electric combine,” he says.

Dillard says the Supreme Court’s ruling could give the green or red light for each state to set its own standards on any and all products that come across state lines.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Profarmer policy analyst told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory that he believes once all Prop 12 arguments are heard on Tuesday, the Court won’t produce a final ruling until next June.

The live court hearing will be available here on Tuesday.

More on Prop 12:

Follow California Proposition 12 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Live
Proposition 12 Will Push Pig Farmers Out of Business, NPPC and Farmers Say
California Proposition 12 Took Effect Jan. 1, But Supreme Court Action Ahead

Winter Storms are Brewing: Is Your Barn Ready?

Wed, 21 Dec 2022 02:29:48 GMT

As the U.S. braces for Arctic Christmas weather, now’s the time to make sure your barns are ready. A powerful holiday-week storm will unfold across the central U.S. from Thursday into Friday and unleash heavy snow and strong winds. Areas farther south and east won’t get as much snow, but other threats will develop, AccuWeather meteorologists say .

For farmers in some areas, the predictions of 12 to 18 inches of snow carry all of the “typical” concerns plus more. Large snowfalls require extra diligence to keep animals safe and warm, not to mention maintaining agricultural building integrity.

Snow and ice accumulations can cause roofs to collapse when the roof is not strong enough to resist the load. If you need to remove snow from a roof, use extreme caution.

“More often than not, attempting to remove snow from a roof is more hazardous than beneficial, posing a risk to both (people) and the roofing structure,” the Federal Emergency Management Agency says in the Snow Load Safety Guide.

Removing snow from roofs is dangerous – not only because of the risk of falling, but it also can allow the snow up slope to suddenly slide down, burying people or animals below. Use a roof rake from a safe distance away to help lower the risk to the person removing the snow.

When snow adds up

FEMA says there are many factors that go into “snow-induced structural failures,” including a roof’s shape, slope, construction, maintenance, exposure to wind and the type of snow that has accumulated.

One foot of fresh snow can weigh as little as 3 lb. per square foot for light, dry snow compared with 21 lb. per square foot for wet, heavy snow, FEMA reports . Ice weighs much more. One foot of ice weighs approximately 57 lb. per square foot. When considering the size of most farm buildings, it’s easy to see how the weight of snow and ice can add up to dangerous sums fast.

Use caution when removing snow

Brian Holmes, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, offers some precautions when removing snow from a roof:

• Hire a structural engineer to look at the roof system to see if corrosion or rot has weakened the structure.

• Ask a structural engineer to look at the roof system to see if sufficient bracing has been installed during construction.

• Producers with very large roofs could ask the fire department to spray water onto the roof to melt the snow and encourage it to slide from the roof. This would have to be done strategically so the water doesn’t build up in the snow, increasing the load on the roof and causing a failure due to the process.

• In uninsulated sheds, use a portable heater to warm the interior and encourage snow to slide off the roof so you don’t have to manually remove it. Unvented heaters can cause oxygen depletion and carbon monoxide accumulation in an unventilated space. Carefully ventilate the warmed shed before reentering.

• Use a snow roof rake if possible. This allows you to stand on the ground in a safe place. These are typically available at the local hardware store or building supply store. Removing snow from the edge of the roof could allow snow above the edge to avalanche. Avoid the fall zone when scraping snow from a smooth roof surface.

• Use fall protection equipment when workers are on the roof. Use safety harnesses so workers don’t fall from the roof.

• If ladders are used, locate and secure them so they do not fall while workers are standing on them. Position ladders so they do not fall if snow slides off the roof, knocking workers off the ladder or leaving them stranded on the roof.

• Generally remove snow from the most heavily loaded areas first.

• Remove snow in narrow strips instead of large areas to help keep loading somewhat uniform.

• Don’t pile removed snow onto snow-covered roof areas increasing the load in those areas.

• Use plastic shovels or wooden roof rakes to avoid damaging roofing material.

• It’s ok if you don’t remove all the snow. A layer of snow next to the roof surface can protect the surface from damage during the snow removal process.

• Do not pick or chip at ice near the roof surface to avoid damaging roofing material.

• Do not use snow blowers as they can damage the roof.

Warning signs of overstress conditions

Overstressed roofs typically display some warning signs. Wood and steel structures may show noticeable signs of excessive ceiling or roof sagging before failure. The following warning signs are common in wood, metal and steel constructed buildings:

• Sagging ceiling tiles or boards, ceiling boards falling out of the ceiling grid, and/or sagging sprinkler lines and sprinkler heads

• Sprinkler heads deflecting below suspended ceilings

• Popping, cracking, and creaking noises

• Sagging roof members, including metal decking or plywood sheathing

• Bowing truss bottom chords or web members

• Doors and/or windows that can no longer be opened or closed

• Cracked or split wood members

• Cracks in walls or masonry

• Severe roof leaks

• Excessive accumulation of water at nondrainage locations on low slope roofs

Read More:

7 Smart Steps to Prepare Your Swine Barn Equipment for Winter

Good Farm Security is Good Biosecurity

Fri, 09 Dec 2022 14:57:04 GMT

Ask any farmer and they will tell you that biosecurity is one of their top priorities. It’s crucial to the health and welfare of their animals. While farmers typically focus on training their team on proper biosecurity protocols on the farm, it’s important to remember that some other threats can come from outside the farm.

Animal rights extremists continually attempt to gain access to farms and facilities by any means necessary – and oftentimes that means a disregard (or lack of knowledge) of biosecurity measures like proper clothing and sanitizing. We see this all the time in “undercover videos” of extremists breaking into barns and facilities wearing street clothing after possibly having visited other facilities that same day with similar intent. Keeping these high-risk visitors off your farm is important for many reasons but the health and safety of your animals is a big one.

The best way to eliminate any biosecurity risk is to stop any unwanted visitors from entering your farm – farm security is key. There are several aspects of implementing a strong farm security plan.

Here are three tips to get started:

1. Start by making your farm “YouTube proof.”

Pretend someone is taking a video of your farm to share on YouTube. Are you comfortable with that scenario? Typically, we don’t get a heads up or time to prepare when anti-animal agriculture visitors stop by. Be proactive in ensuring you’re doing everything right ahead of time.
Protect yourself and your animals by always using science-based animal care and environmental policies.
Conduct self-audits to find new ways to improve and ensure current practices and protocols are being properly followed.

2. Make yourself a harder target.

Put up “No Trespassing” signs.
Install motion sensor lighting and security cameras.
Have gates and fencing with locks – and make sure they’re locked when not in use.

3. Be cautious with hiring.

You might have done all you can do to protect yourself from unwanted visitors entering your farm, but extremists know other ways to gain access to your property, including through employment. Don’t cut corners on your hiring process and always have a formal policy. This should include a written application with references and past employers. It’s imperative that you take proper precautions and call the employers to verify that this person is who they say they are.

With biosecurity being top of mind for many farmers, it’s important to remember this wider approach to both biosecurity and farm security. While we can do our best to protect animals on the farm, we also need to stay vigilant about threats coming from outside the farm. More detailed advice is available on our website.

Read more:

When Something’s Not Right: 5 Ways to Protect Your Farm From an Activist Attack

Biosecurity and Farm Security are Closely Linked

Activist Threats Aren’t Just on the Farm Anymore

Swiss Reject Initiative to Ban Commercial Livestock Operations

Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:41:26 GMT

Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a proposal to ban “factory farming” in a referendum on whether the wealthy country’s strict animal welfare laws need to be tightened yet further.

The government’s VoteInfo App showed a provisional result of 62.86% of votes against the proposal, put to a referendum under the Swiss system of direct democracy, to make protecting the dignity of farm animals such as cattle, chickens and pigs a constitutional requirement.

VoteInfo takes voting results data collated by the Federal Statistics Office.

“I’ve voted no,” said Geneva resident Fabrice Drouin.

“There are farmers who are doing intensive farming with their animals but they are respecting animal welfare and to feed the population, we have to do factory farming, at least a little, otherwise, we won’t be able to eat meat anymore.”

In a second referendum, the Swiss voted narrowly in favor of a planned reform of old-age insurance, which among other things would raise the retirement age for women to 65 from 64.

The farming proposal would have required the government to set stricter rules for caring for animals, including giving them access to the outdoors, and for slaughtering them. The requirements would also have covered imported animals and animal products.

The government recommended against the proposal, saying such changes would breach trade accords, increase investment and operating costs, and boost food prices.

“I think in general, people are regulating themselves on their own,” said Geneva resident Florian Barbon who opposed the initiative. “I don’t think we need a legal framework for this.”

In a third vote, 52.01% of voters rejected a measure that would have provided for the abolition of a withholding tax on bond interest introduced to prevent tax evasion.

Although investors could reclaim the tax, provided they disclosed the interest income in their tax returns, the government had argued that abolishing the levy would reduce administrative costs and make Switzerland more attractive to business.

(Reporting by Cecile Mantovani Writing by Paul Carrel Editing by David Evans and Frances Kerry)

Kansas’ ‘Ag-Gag’ Law Denied a Revisit by Supreme Court

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:54:10 GMT

Another state’s effort to restrict undercover animal rights activists from using false statements to enter an animal facility with the intent to damage the business has been denied.

“In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Kansas’ appeal of two Kansas City federal court rulings that say sections of the Kansas Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act runs afoul of free speech protections,” Reuter’s reported in Aug. 2021.

In attempt to revive this ‘ag-gag’ law, Kansas’ appealed to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, Apr. 25, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and left in place the previous ruling that the law is a violation of First Amendment rights.

Kansas is joined by several other states, including Idaho, Iowa and Arkansas, working to inhibit the ability for activists to enter facilities without the owner’s consent or under false pretenses to take photographs and video.

These states have also experienced split decisions and several appeals with similar laws.

JBS Faces Lawsuit for Contract Breach of Arkansas Pig Farm

Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:42:45 GMT

Frequently appearing in antitrust allegations of price fixation , JBS faces a new lawsuit by Arkansas pig farmer, Justin Garner, for breaching a pig production contract and failing to pay for animals.

JBS is the second-largest pork producer in the world, and along with three other companies, controls almost 70% of the U.S. pork industry, according to recent district court documents . Utilizing vertical integration, JBS contracts pig farms to supply pork for their facilities.

Garner worked as a Howard County sheriff deputy and operated a family farm when he began to consider a 40-acre hog farm for sale used to produce pigs for JBS. Under contract with JBS, Garner understood that the farm would rely on the partnership to be successful, said the court documents.

Garner signed a five-year contract with JBS. As the farmer, Garner covered the entire investment cost of the farm facility, as well as the expense of owning and operating the facility. Under this contract, Garner was to be paid a set cost per pig dictated by JBS, said the court documents. In addition, JBS retained control over production output and day-to-day processes at the facility.

“Even under perfect conditions, many farmers are barely able to generate enough revenue under these term contracts to pay their expenses,” Garner explained in a recent complaint filed under district court.

Garner believes JBS’s contract was “incredibly one-sided” and favorable to JBS. Additionally, the contract allowed JBS “the unilateral right to amend, revise, or eliminate any standard, requirement or policy identified in this Agreement,” the complaint stated.

Multiple instances caused Garner financial loss according to the complaint. JBS began docking Garner for underweight pigs due to a unilateral change in their Sow Production Agreement. JBS also failed to provide gilts to Garner’s farm, which impacted his ability to produce under the contract.

On Nov. 8, 2021, Garner received contract termination notice and the complaint said, “The JBS representatives told Garner that he had to sign the document on November 8, 2021, in their presence.” JBS also told Garner that he would not receive any payment he was due, unless he signed the document that day.

Garner chose not to sign the document that was “a waiver, drafted by JBS, designed to prevent Garner from exercising any and all legal rights or pursuing any claims against JBS for its unilateral termination of the contract. The document also required Garner to keep its terms ‘secret and confidential’ and precluded him from disclosing its terms to anyone,” the complaint said.

Garner had not received any indication of issues with the farm prior to termination.

The unsigned document left all livestock under JBS possession. Garner was not paid the money he was owed and is now left with a waste lagoon and a facility that he can’t sell as the complaint explained, “some prospective purchasers were simply told by JBS that it would not provide a contract for the production of pigs at Garner’s farm.”

Garner has requested a jury trial.

Biosecurity and Farm Security are Closely Linked

Thu, 24 Mar 2022 13:00:00 GMT

While biosecurity focuses on protecting livestock and poultry from disease threats and farm security focuses on preventing trespassers and preparing for activist activity, the two concepts are closely related and share many of the same key principles. Although activism and activist activity certainly pose a reputational concern, biosecurity is one of the key drivers behind the importance of implementing farm security measures.

Activists visiting multiple farms in one day and sometimes entering biosecure areas to interact with animals poses a major biosecurity threat and puts animals at risk, which you would think would make activists think twice if animal health and welfare were their focus.

One of the first publicized incidents of activists conducting a “stealth visit” (where they break into a facility, usually at night, to capture footage and sometimes steal animals) came right after the last major avian influenza outbreak. Because of this biosecurity breach, a barn of laying hens had to be destroyed due to concerns about contaminants introduced by the activists. Despite this outcome and the fact that the activists involved were later ordered to pay the farm more than $300,000 in restitution, we’ve continued to see “stealth visits” and “open rescues” occur at farms.

With the current avian influenza outbreak impacting the poultry community and ongoing concerns about potential disease outbreaks on pig farms, now is the time to review both biosecurity and farm security protocols to protect our animals and our livelihoods. Visitors are one major liability in both areas, as individuals such as salespeople or delivery drivers may visit multiple farms or facilities in a day. Make sure you have a procedure in place that requires visitors to check in and limits exposure to animals as much as possible.

On the activism side, you also have to verify that any visitors are who they say they are. Don’t hesitate to ask for verification of identity and make any calls necessary to feel comfortable. During the last avian influenza outbreak, suspicious individuals were reported as visiting farms claiming they were with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and needed to conduct outbreak readiness audits.

Activists are also quick to try to make an opportunity out of any animal disease outbreak. We’re currently seeing groups attempt to use animal disease outbreaks to point to the “pandemic potential” of animal agriculture and claim that large-scale farms pose a public health risk. Depopulation, which is sometimes an unfortunate necessity, as part of disease management efforts is also capturing the attention of animal rights extremists, especially after a major activist campaign in 2020 centered around COVID-19-related supply chain challenges.

These activist narratives are capturing little attention to this point, but we need to remain aware of their efforts and how they might target farms and facilities to gain content they can use to advance them.

With both biosecurity and farm security principles, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Reviewing and enhancing your protocols before an issue arises to hopefully prevent any future problem is an extremely valuable and worthy investment of your time.

More from Hannah Thompson-Weeman:

Stand Up For Animal Ag: Policies Loom That Could Impact Your Farm

4 Keys to Prevent Animal Activist Attacks in the Wake of a Disaster

Things Animal Rights Activists Say: 2021 Edition

Winter Storms Are On the Way: Are Your Barns Safe?

Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:09:22 GMT

Winter Storm Landon is on its way, expected to spread a big mess of snow, sleet and freezing rain from the Rockies to the Plains, Midwest and parts of the Northeast as February begins.

For farmers in some areas, the predictions of 12 to 18 inches of snow carry all of the “typical” concerns plus more. Large snowfalls require extra diligence to keep animals safe and warm, not to mention maintaining agricultural building integrity.

Snow and ice accumulations can cause roofs to collapse when the roof is not strong enough to resist the load. If you need to remove snow from a roof, use extreme caution.

“More often than not, attempting to remove snow from a roof is more hazardous than beneficial, posing a risk to both (people) and the roofing structure,” the Federal Emergency Management Agency says in the Snow Load Safety Guide .

Removing snow from roofs is dangerous – not only because of the risk of falling, but it also can allow the snow up slope to suddenly slide down, burying people or animals below. Use a roof rake from a safe distance away to help lower the risk to the person removing the snow.

When snow adds up

FEMA says there are many factors that go into “snow-induced structural failures,” including a roof’s shape, slope, construction, maintenance, exposure to wind and the type of snow that has accumulated.

Fresh, fluffy snow can weigh as little as 3 lb. per square foot compared with 21 lb. for wet, heavy snow, FEMA reports. Ice weighs even more coming in at 57 lb. a square foot. When considering the size of most farm buildings, it’s easy to see how the weight of snow and ice can add up to dangerous sums fast.

Use caution when removing snow

Warning signs of overstress conditions

Overstressed roofs typically display some warning signs. Wood and steel structures may show noticeable signs of excessive ceiling or roof sagging before failure. The following warning signs are common in wood, metal, and steel constructed buildings:

• Sagging ceiling tiles or boards, ceiling boards falling out of the ceiling grid, and/or sagging sprinkler lines and sprinkler heads

• Sprinkler heads deflecting below suspended ceilings

• Popping, cracking, and creaking noises

• Sagging roof members, including metal decking or plywood sheathing

• Bowing truss bottom chords or web members

• Doors and/or windows that can no longer be opened or closed

• Cracked or split wood members

• Cracks in walls or masonry

• Severe roof leaks

• Excessive accumulation of water at nondrainage locations on low slope roofs

Read More:

7 Smart Steps to Prepare Your Swine Barn Equipment for Winter

Pay Attention to Warning Signs of Stress

Record Year for Pork Exports to Mexico, Expert Shares Why

Food Systems Under Scrutiny at UN Food Systems Pre-Summit

Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:00:00 GMT

The U.S. agriculture community tends to be pretty proud of our role in providing families around the world with safe, affordable and nutritious food options. And we have many reasons to be – the U.S. food supply is one of the safest and most secure in the world, and it is increasingly productive , providing both growing economic value and additional yields. There is certainly room to continuously improve, but most of us would probably say that our food system is working pretty well.

However, not everyone shares that same positive sentiment about food systems. In late July, the Pre-Summit leading up to the United Nations Food Systems Summit (to be held in September alongside the UN General Assembly) was held. The Pre-Summit was intended to “set the stage for the culminating global event in September by bringing together diverse actors from around the world to leverage the power of food systems to deliver progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”

Speakers from around the world had a lot to say about our global food system, saying it is “not fit for purpose,” in need of “urgent transformation” and “broken.” The animal agriculture community in particular was called out, with a session dedicated to “unleashing the power of the plate” that focused heavily on claims that eating animal protein is detrimental to our health and the planet.

Unfortunately, this negativity was not surprising, as throughout the Food Systems Summit process we’ve had concerns about misleading statements that have been made about animal protein, including exaggerations of its environmental impact and supposed negative impacts on human health. The Alliance hosted an Independent Dialogue in the spring to share positive messages about animal agriculture’s role as a solution to food system challenges.

There was some positive news for animal protein at the Pre-Summit, as more than 150 participants attended an affiliated session hosted by the International Meat Secretariat titled “Feeding the Future: Innovations in Sustainable Animal Protein.” Expert speakers shared key takeaways about the role of animal protein in a healthy, sustainable diet, including:

• Animal protein is nutritionally essential, especially for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and immunocompromised. In addition to protein, animal-source foods are rich in vitamin A, vitamin B12, riboflavin, calcium, iron and zinc.

• Between 1970 and 2015, U.S. beef production required 36% fewer animals. In Latin American countries, the contribution of livestock in capturing carbon from the environment is greater than damage it causes.

• Livestock convert large amounts of by-products and waste material, for which there is no alternative use, into higher quality proteins.

It’s important for us to be vocal in setting the record straight. The food system is not “broken,” nor in need of “complete transformation” – it is already a positive thing, and can get even better with continued innovation and commitment to continuous improvement. Lend your voice to the conversation by attending UN Food Systems Summit events or getting involved online using #FoodSystems and #UNFSS2021.

Read More:

When Events Return, So Will Protests

Stand Up For Animal Ag: Policies Loom That Could Impact Your Farm

Get Ready to Step Up Sustainability Efforts This Year

Why Animal Agriculture Needs to Take Petition 13 Seriously

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:36:09 GMT

Is Petition 13 out of Oregon as ridiculous as it sounds? AgriTalk host Chip Flory asked Hannah Thompson-Weeman, vice president for strategic engagement at the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

“Petition 13 would make things like any injury to an animal arising from a rodeo a crime, it would make livestock have to die of natural causes before they can be processed, and perhaps most ridiculously, it would redefine a certain animal health and animal husbandry practices as sexual abuse,” Thompson-Weeman said.

Fortunately, the PAUSE Act , a similar ballot initiative like Petition 13 was defeated in Colorado, she explained. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it was too broad and they were trying to do too much in one ballot initiative.

It’s Not Just About Oregon
“We know very well in animal agriculture that people don’t always understand what we do,” Thompson-Weeman said. “It’s easy to boil something down to very short, very outlandish language where somebody thinks they’re voting for better animal welfare.”

Both the Colorado and Oregon initiatives were put forth by self-proclaimed animal rights activists. Although the Colorado initiative has been defeated, Petition 13 is moving forward and will go on the ballot in November 2022 if they proceed through the signature gathering process and other checkpoints.

“It’s important to understand that even if you don’t live in Oregon, this could be bad news for you,” Thompson-Weeman emphasized.

Initiatives like this one would set a precedent that could be used to pass similar legislation in other states.

“Everyone needs to be mindful of what’s going on even if you don’t live in a certain state because that’s what it’s all about...getting this patchwork of regulations passed in different states that’s ultimately impossible for animal agriculture to abide by,” she said.

Prop 12 Adds Challenges, No Benefits
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied a petition to review California’s Proposition 12 , which requires the sale of meat products in California to conform with the state’s animal housing standards.

“Prop 12 was passed by ballot initiative just like the two other examples we talked about. The kicker with Prop 12 is that it does not just apply to products produced in California, it applies to items being sold in California, regardless of where they were produced,” Thompson-Weeman said.

This is a major challenge as California consumes about 15% of the U.S. pork supply and produces less than 1%.

“That’s pretty significant that a state where less than 1% of the production exists is able to pass a regulation that’s going to impact producers across the country,” she added. “People like animal agriculture, they want to eat animal protein. The vast majority of people enjoy putting meat, poultry, dairy and eggs on their plates.”

She said it’s not the general consumer who is looking for these changes, but rather activist groups pushing for it, getting it on the ballot, and convincing people they were voting for enhanced animal welfare.

“Even the California Department of Food and Agriculture in the proposed rules has noted this does not actually have any benefits. These regulations are not science-based, and they don’t improve animal welfare. They don’t improve food safety. They don’t have benefits for California consumers,” Thompson-Weeman said.

But it will raise costs and make pork production very challenging for producers .

“No benefits for California consumers and more expense and a loss of efficiency for hog producers across the country. It doesn’t make any sense,” Flory said.

Read More:

PAUSE Act A Radical Threat To Ranching

Oregon Dairy Farmers Oppose Initiative Petition 13

Supreme Court Rejects Meat Institute’s Petition to Review Proposition 12

Pork Industry Braces for Catastrophic Costs to Implement Proposition 12

Proposition 12 Pressures Aren’t Going Away

On-Demand Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?

Crime on the Farm: How to Stay Calm When You Aren’t

Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:00:00 GMT

Being the victim of a crime can be a traumatic experience. Whether it’s a break-in at your farm or an animal activist trespassing on your property, John Sancenito, now president of INA, a risk management and security consulting business, says how you respond can make all the difference.

“Crime victims feel violated,” Sancenito says. “Shock is usually the first response, followed by anger and a desire to put things back to the way they were.”

If your farm has been victimized, he says the first thing to do is stop and take a deep breath. He suggests using the STAR system of incident response:

S=Stop.

Avoid rushing in and taking actions that could put you in jeopardy or destroy potential evidence. Give yourself a moment to get over the shock and emotion of the situation. This may involve you taking charge of a potentially chaotic situation and telling others to stop what they are doing as well.

T=Think.

Think rationally about what happened and what needs to be done. Recognize that something happened and that an emotional response may not be best. Think about your actions and those around you. Consider how likely it is that the perpetrator is still onsite.

A=Assess.

Evaluate what happened and if immediate actions are necessary to protect life or further property damage. If neither of those is needed, then develop a plan to protect the area. Evaluate what areas may have to be preserved, and resource requirements accordingly.

R=Respond.

Take appropriate action based on the circumstances. Actions necessary to protect life or further damage should be taken first. If neither of those conditions exist, protect the scene, and contact the local police immediately.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is failing to protect the crime scene, Sancenito explains. It’s natural to want to immediately restore order after a break-in has been committed.

“It is natural for a farmer to feel violated that someone illegally entered his buildings or tampered with his property. If you are the victim of a break-in, avoid the temptation to immediately start picking things up or rummaging through items to determine what was damaged or stolen,” he advises.

Evidence like footprints, tire tracks, fingerprints, hair and fibers are fragile. Sancenito says if you must take an action, pull out your mobile phone and take pictures or video of the scene.

“Please do this only if you can do so safely and without damaging evidence,” he says. “Only touch what you absolutely have to. Once you have established that there has been a break-in, back out, protect the area and contact the police immediately.”

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

What Should You Do If Someone Breaks Into Your Farm?

20 States Back Challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s Prop 12

Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:33:09 GMT

The governments of nearly half the U.S. states are in agreement of the North American Meat Institute’s petition challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12).

On Monday, 20 states filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the petition filed by the North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute).

“If California is allowed to apply its laws to conduct in other states, a single state will dictate policies in all others, encouraging a patchwork of regulations and threatening the free flow of interstate commerce,” says Meat Institute President and CEO, Julie Anna Potts.

The brief was filed by Indiana, joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

“It (Prop 12) freely permits California to impose regulations directly on out-of-state commercial conduct and thereby fosters inconsistent state regulatory obligations and enables tit-for-tat state regulatory conflict,” the States said in the brief. “The ultimate result may be transformation of America’s current integrated national market into a patchwork of regulatory regions.”

The Meat Institute filed a petition in February for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review an earlier ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Meat Institute’s challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12: The Farm Animal Confinement Initiative. The Meat Institute says it opposes the law because it is unconstitutional and will hurt the nation’s food value chain by significantly increasing costs for producers and consumers.

The Meat Institute urges further review because the “Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the decisions of other federal courts of appeals on the question whether the Constitution limits a State’s ability to extend its police power beyond its territorial borders through a trade barrier dictating production standards in other States and countries.”

The brief says Prop 12 insulates in-state farmers from out-of-state competition, while imposing crushing burdens on out-of-state farmers and producers who have no political voice to shape the regulations that California has unilaterally determined to foist upon their operations outside of California.

Want to learn more about how Prop 12 could impact the producer? Do you have questions about enforcement and compliance? Interested in how it could affect your bottom line? Join us on for Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here? A free, one-hour webinar on Thursday, April 8 at 1 p.m. Register here .

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

California’s Proposition 12 Would Cost U.S. Pork Industry Billions

Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?

Court Upholds California Proposition 12

Pork Industry, Don’t Underestimate Proposition 12

How Will California’s Prop 12 Affect the Pork Industry?

New Briefs Filed in Support of NPPC’s Proposition 12 Lawsuit