Comments on: 72,000-Cow CAFO: Revitalizing Rural New York, or Ousting Small Farms?

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:15:51 +0000

“…damage to local producers by an attempt to create faux “local sustainable beef” that competes on price with producers of true local sustainable beef.”

It is happening to us. Our states brand of beef is being diluted even as I type. Be sure to read all the comments.

http://www.bizlex.com/Articles-c-2010-01-19-91093.113117_Kentucky_Proud_launches_local_beef_line.html

By: Ken Jaffe

Ken Jaffe — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:14:09 +0000

Hi Ulla,

Well done article. I also like the comments.

I’m a beef producer in NY State. Personally, the more I think about Bion’s plan the less I like it.

Mostly I see bad things from
1. the inevitable large taxpayer subsidies for this CAFO
2. damage to local producers by an attempt to create faux “local sustainable beef” that competes on price with producers of true local sustainable beef.
3. damage to an already fragile and shrinking network of small slaughterhouses, without which existing beef producers will have even more difficulty accessing processing services.
4. the very dubious energy ‘sustainability’
5. the working conditions for people in this type of plant
6. animal welfare issues inevitable in a huge CAFO
7. the air and water pollution issues (how close to Lake Ontario?)
8. human health issues from beef which is less healthy in terms of fat, and more likely to carry high risk pathogens, antibiotics, and hormones

Will this CAFO help create a cow-calf infrastructure that can actually help provide calves for sustainable production? Even if it did, I don’t think this potential cow calf infrastructure could outweigh all the very serious negatives.

Ken Jaffe
Slope Farms
Meredith, NY

By: Rod Morrison

Rod Morrison — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:20:46 +0000

Well written, well said. The real problem comes from the words we have choosen as small farmers and food producers to discribe our selves and how we produce our products. If you would take time to diesect their words,you would find that they are our words. We trap ourselves by using words that the corp. food people can use also. Organic, is the one word they cannot use, it is protected, it is legally defined and it means all the things small farmer, both local and regional all can support. And the real beauty is large corp food can not use our word. ORGANIC

By: Ulla

Ulla — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:23:49 +0000

Heather! I am glad that you agree. As a producer I know how much investment goes into making a change toward sustainable practices. If big AG sees more benefit in seeming sustainable to get subsidies or consumer demand they will. We must arm ourselves!

By: Ulla

Ulla — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:22:10 +0000

David,
You are so right! We also have to debunk the myth that ethanol is “green.” We need to arm ourselves against this trend toward “greener” CAFOs.
I also wonder what sort of “relaxed” regulations they are seeking. There were many points I could have added, one is the amount of anti-biotics that are needed in such crowded conditions.

By: Ulla

Ulla — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:19:20 +0000

Klaas:
Thank you so much for your comment. Those are all great questions. NYS state is in a big transition right now. Traditional dairy farms are closing. We still produce the same amount of milk though, just in large industrial farms.
Maybe this would turn NYS into a big factory system. Really lessons the power of “local” no?
I agree about what happens when these projects leave. There was a similar problem with a Cargill plant in Wilkes Barre PA where a lot of tax breaks were given and once they expired the plant left leaving the town with a lot of unemployed plant workers which ended up costing them lots of money in social services.

By: Heather Johnston

Heather Johnston — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:27:10 +0000

Excellent point. We do need to define what sustainable (and real food) means, at least at the consumer level. Closed loops like that don’t respect the land, the people, the animals or the earth. They are based on subsidies, and industrial farming practices that are anything but Thanks for the great reporting.

By: David Holmquist

David Holmquist — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:39:55 +0000

From Bion’s Website, information for investors:

“share resources and infrastructure, substantially reduce transportation inefficiencies and fuel costs, generate renewable energy from the waste streams for use in the Project, and greatly improve profit margins for all partners. Products will be produced in an environmentally friendly manner with a substantially reduced carbon footprint, creating branding opportunities that appeal to growing consumer demand for green products.

Bion can develop the environmentally sustainable large scale livestock operations needed to efficiently integrate these activities in locations that significantly improve economics but where it otherwise would be impossible to obtain a permit. Greenfield Projects can be developed close to either consumer or feedstock markets or new livestock herds can be brought to existing biofuel or food processing operations, in order to maximize economic efficiency and competitive advantages.”

The only “green” aspect of the proposed New York project is the manure-to-biogas segment, which produces no net renewable energy … only the energy required by the project itself. It would appear that the greatest advantage of these projects is in the relaxed permitting for the livestock operations. Very curious.

By: Klaas Martens

Klaas Martens — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:58:55 +0000

There is no shortage of beef in this country so the real question should be: How many farms will this project put out of business and which farms are most likely to put out of business if this giant feedlot is built?. How many small slaughterhouses will this put out of business? Large operations like this one employ far fewer people per unit of meat produced and tend to have poor working conditions. Just look at similar sized facilities in the south or midwest to see what happens in communities when these things are built. Why are so many of the touted ‘new jobs’ in big slaughter houses held by illegal aliens? It’s because they have poor pay and bad working conditions. If you take away the tax breaks and carbon credits this thing could not possibly cash flow so why build it. Those who profit from it and our money will both be long gone when this operation packs up and move on to destroy another community leaving us with the bill for cleaning up the mess they made.