Chicken Farm near Roaring River

[SilverMallard]

We're in complete agreement on CAFO's. My point was that we need to be smart about the words we choose to frame the debate. Segregating CAFO's pits you against Tyson for the most part, which is an AR-based company that operates mostly in the western Ozarks. THAT is a good strategy...one used skillfully so far by the Oklahoma AG's office. But we must remember that these CAFO's are HUGE customers of our row crop producers to the North and of our ag pharmaceuticals industry and of our agri-chemical industry. And that brings old money from STL and KC into play...in addition to Farm Bureau and MFA. So even this isn't a clear-cut numbers game.

I believe that the BEST strategy is to approach the issue from a "who DOESN'T want unpolluted water" perspective. Or...better still..."who DOES want polluted water?" Instead of the old divide and conquer, I like to take a synergistic approach. Most people simply take water for granted. And THAT is the Holy Grail of water conservation: educating folks so they no longer take clean and abundant water for granted. As for us, I think we all know that clean water = healthy fisheries. It's pretty simple.

I'm not even opposed to CAFO's, frankly. But I sure as heck favor ecologically sound placement and management of CAFO's. Currently, the state only regulates mega-CAFO's for ecological impacts. So the CAFO crowd is avoiding the mega-CAFO and proliferating smaller CAFO's wherever they can find a few acres at the right price on which to put one. This causes traffic safety and environmental problems. They're being built to close to critical streams and with insufficient road infrastructure for safely abosrbing the big truck traffic in and out of the CAFO's. Environmental response teams in these remote areas are non-existent. So response times to spills (which ARE going to happen sooner or later) are horribly insufficient.

We need legislation to regulate the smaller CAFO's and we cannot allow the state legislature to strip towns and counties of their RIGHT to regulate their own local ecosystems as they see fit (beyond the baseline set by the state and feds). Again, I say: NO ONE cares more about our local farmers and our local environment than LOCALS. So why on Earth anyone acting in good faith would think that SB 364 is a good idea is beyond me. It is a CLEAR attempt to roll back the strides we have made in conservation in this state over the past two decades for the sake of a few dollars to a select few corporate big shots. That, in my book, is the very definition of evil! It's predatory. And man preying upon his fellow man is how I define evil.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I suppose that I'm not opposed to "divide" and using Tyson as an example. The chicken industry isn't big business in SW Missouri, and it shouldn't be allowed protection because the main buyer doesn't want to offer to buy the product at a reasonable price.

Who is Tyson competing against, not China, not Mexico, just themselves. If they can buy cheap enough, they can sell cheaper and they can take business away from the beef producers, who then need to produce cheaper to combat the poultry industry, and the pork producer needs to produce cheaper pork to combat both, and not having to process waste is a big savings.

The cycle has to be broken, and the fact that none of these industries will leave, but will only raise prices slightly if we hang on to the environment we have left is good reason.

Pussy footing around won't cut it, the small farmer isn't the problem and would most likely love to see the field leveled.

[SilverMallard]

Dude, I'm not opposed to it done wisely, either. I just PREFER a synergistic approach. Carrot and stick...in that order...as far as I'm concerned. But Tyson is competing against China and Japan and European and third world producers, processors, distributors, and retailers. Tyson is the world's largest GLOBAL meats company...poultry and pork and a major beef player as well. They have huge market share in the Pacific Rim. That's why Clinton built him that big ole international airport out in the middle of nowhere with US tax dollars. But that is beside the point. If he wants to build skanky chicken farms and third world processing plants employing third world labor at third world prices, it's high time he did that in third world countries! Instead, we've seen 2 decades now of him running those sweat shops here in the heartland of America using illegal third world labor. As far as I'm concerned, Tyson Foods is THE quintessential example of the dark underbelly of capitalism. We try really hard not to buy their products at all, but that's getting harder and harder as competitive alternatives disappear with each passing day. Down in East Texas, at least we had Pilgrim's Pride ALL NATURAL chicken right next to Tyson's greasy yellow birds in the supermarkets and a plethora of Texas beef to choose from. Not so up here! Often times, it's Tyson or nothing. And that chaps my hide.

And, FYI, if you get further west and south of the Branson area, Tyson poultry IS a big deal so far as ag goes in MO. That's a fairly recent development, but a reality out there in never-never land these days. Who do you think is putting in this mega-CAFO on Roaring River we're all talking about?

Your point about the domino effect here in MO is valid though. If Tyson products get cheaper, then everyone has to get cheaper to not lose market share...even comparing beef to chicken or pork. Part of the problem we're seeing here is that MO is now a less regulated ag environment for agri-business than Arkansas is (due to recent changes in AR). And THAT, my friend, is REALLY embarassing!

[Max]

Location...location...location. When is enough enough?

A glance at permitted CAFOs in Southwest Missouri indicates a large cluster in the Roaring River spring recharge area. See Missouri CAFO Locations

Do we have enough CAFOs in this region when the U.S. EPA lists Table Rock Lake as an "impaired" water body due to excessive nutrient loads? Well, we're there. See Missouri Impaired Waters

Do we have enough when excess nutrients result in algal blooms that require costly dredging within the Roaring River trout park? We're there. Do we have enough when nutrient imbalances encourage the proliferation of aquatic nuisance species? We're there. Do we have enough when sportsmen voice there concerns in internet chats? We're there?

One can argue that excess nutrients come from several point and non-point sources (waste water treatment works, private septic systems, urban run-off, etc.). But if we have the ability to prevent a potential new source of pollution within a stressed watershed, shouldn't we? When is enough enough?

Max

[Wayne SW/MO]

I'm still not sure where you're coming from SM, but maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm well aware of what Tyson does in Missouri, and what they've gotten away with, I also know that the farm with several chicken houses on the ridge sells to them. I know that much of the labor income goes south, way south.

The problem with using polluted water as the reason for being strict is that our water is already polluted. I think its more important to point out that people will survive 10 cents a pound increase in chicken parts, 10 cents a dozen increase in eggs, much easier than paying the extra taxes to support thousands of American Missourians who have lost their jobs because the state can't attract outside money.

I can buy good chicken here, and I would prefer Nebraska, Iowa, or Missouri Black grain fed beef to Texas range steers anyway.

[SilverMallard]

The reason you are confused is because I am not trying engage in point-counterpoint dialectical debate with you. I am merely deepening a discussion we pretty much agree on in an effort to further refine positions and strategies for improvements. There is always a "but..." My point is that there are those out there with a different set of priorities and perspectives than you and I share. And we need to figure out the best ways to address THEM in a productive way.

[Wayne SW/MO]

My point is that there are those out there with a different set of priorities and perspectives than you and I share. And we need to figure out the best ways to address THEM in a productive way.

I would be the first to admit that I probably don't do a good job of getting my point across, but the difference in priorities is exactly what I'm trying to address.

If you tell many rural people in Missouri that their water might be polluted, they will shake their head, make a comment and go on. If you tell them they can no longer feed the fish in the river or creek to their children, but that the fish will eventually die out anyway, that the polluter takes most of the money and leaves, they will find a rope and a stout oak.

[Snow Fly]

There has been a great sharing of opinions on the current issue of CFAO's. I would like to share some of my thoughts on the subject, with not quite the insight others have shown . SM: I agree with you on the global market issues. I noticed an article concerning the import of chickens into the U.S. from China, no surprise there! When the issue of the Asian Fly was brought up, what with the documentation of cases in China, the governments answer was since the chickens will be cooked prior to shipment this will not be an issue! Well! I can only HOPE this issue was researched better than others have been in the last 3/4 years.

MAX: Great point about Missouri's DNR and the job they do with the resources they have been given. I also commend the voters of Missouri who have been willing to vote for taxes which have been used for conservation etc. Most communites want even vote in favor of tax increases to keep their schools at minimum operating standards.

The DNR's mission is to "protect, preserve,and enhance Missouri's natural, cultural and energy resources" they are also charged with the issuance of CFAO's permits, and now, to me, finds itself placed at direct odds with its own mission.

Well! For what it's worth that's my 2 cents worth

[Dave Cook]

Yesterday's rain in northern Barry and Newton Counties should have been enough to test any containment system. Do these operations get inspected after storms like these?

[SilverMallard]

Dave,

The standards are basically USEPA mandates under the Clean Water Act. They are set to contain a certain amount (not ALL) polluted runoff based on an AVERAGE RAINFALL EVENT...not anything above average. IT IS A GIVEN THAT IN ABOVE AVG RAINFALL EVENTS THEY WILL FAIL.

That is why I have said many times that, when it comes to ag entities and developments, the regs are WAY too lax. We had huge problems with this and excellent case studies in St. Charles County with the Dardenne Creek watershed. The issue there is more flooding than pollution, but that is because they only focus on the AMOUNT of water in places they don't want it instead of the PUTRID quality of the water in question. I lived on Dardenne Creek where it flows into the Mississippi River for 2 years...in a 6,000 sq ft lodge on 28' stilts. Those stilts and our levees weren't nearly as important with regard to the Mississippi River as they were in regard to Dardenne Creek...which drains the entire western half of St. Charles County. A rainfall event of over 1" in 24 hours (not that big or unusual in that neck o the woods) would create a creek rise in a matter of hours in excess of 10' and flow rates would jump from almost nil to about 10,000 cfs! Every single developer in St. Charles County is in compliance with federal and state guidelines for storm water drainage. So you can see that the cumulative effect of a slightly above average rainfall event creates catastrophic flooding. The amount of trash, lawn furniture, garbage cans, vehicles, bicycles, and dumpsters that would end up on our farm after these rainfall events was astounding! It required constant cleanup...several times/year costing us in the thousands of dollars each time. And it absolutely destroyed the fishery entirely. It also busted levees pretty routinely, eroded streambanks to the extent that they were seriously dangerous and unstable, and stunk to high heaven!

That is PRECISELY who local and county officials need to be able to pass STRICTER regulations governing such things within their own watersheds. We LIVE here. We see, feel, and smell the problems every day. And we can make wise and balanced decisions on our own...thank you very much! FYI...we WERE a corporate farm of 800 acres owned by 12 "big business" (Fortune 500) executives and board members. And those guys were PISSED!

Wayne,

I'm posting a bulletin I just received from a group of family farmers and rural residents and landowners from around MO who are lobbying HARD to defeat SB 364 for their own reasons. They are backed by American Family Insurance Co. I'll put it on the Mo Senate Action Alert thread. It is instructional to the discussion we've been having. Check it out.