Turning the Tables on The USDA

I recently made the acquaintance of Andrea Elliot. She and her husband have a dairy farm in upstate NY. Andrea is an active opponent of the NAIS and recently launched a one-woman anti-NAIS mail blitz that included some NY Ag & Market folks in Albany.

Within a week Andrea’s farm received a visit from an Ag & Market person concerning a “complaint” that just happened to be lodged against them. It’s all highly suspicious and seems to be nothing other than a bullying tactic against this family. The Elliots responded with courtesy and firmness, using a video camera and a Public Servant Questionnaire to make it clear that they were not going to be intimidated.

Here is the whole story as reported by David Gumpert at http://www.thecompletepatient.com/

NY Dairy Farmer Turns the Tables When the Ag Inspectors Arrive for a Mystery Visit

Over the last two weeks, Andrea Elliott has been writing emails to farm associations, her Congressman, and members of the U.S. House and Senate agriculture committees—all urging that the upcoming farm bill not include funding for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). She and her husband, Jim, own a dairy farm in the Catskill Mountains of New York, and she made it plain in her notes that she is adamantly opposed to registering the farm’s 80 cows under the federal program.

Yesterday (Monday) she received a call from an inspector with the New York Department of Food and Markets in Albany that he planned to come by the farm for a special inspection, based on “a complaint” made to the department’s Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services.

Andrea couldn’t imagine who might have complained, and what the complaint might have been about. Her farm, Crystal Brook Farms, sells nearly all its milk to a local creamery for pasteurization. She sells a few gallons of raw milk occasionally to individuals who stop in with their own containers, under New York rules that allow sale of 25 gallons a month without a permit.

Today (Tuesday), the inspector, Bradley Lyle Houck, arrived from Albany, two hours away, together with her regular local dairy inspector, and Andrea was prepared. As soon as they arrived, “I turned on my video camera. I think that made them a little uncomfortable.”

Then, she says, “I asked the state inspector to fill out my form.” Her form is a three-page “public service questionnaire” that asks for the inspector’s identity, his principal reason for doing the inspection, how the information he gathers will be used, and other such data.

“He shook his head and refused,” says Andrea. “He said, ‘I have to be authorized by Albany.’” He tried to make a call on his cell phone, but couldn’t complete the call because the farm area has no cell reception.

Andrea persisted. “I said, This is our property and I can require you to fill it out.'” He offered his state ID and badge.

Andrea moved on. “I asked him why he was here and he said a complaint was received in Albany.”

What was the complaint? “He said he couldn’t tell me.”

Who filed the complaint? “He wouldn’t tell me. He just wouldn’t go any further. He said all complaints that come into Albany are treated as confidential.”

“I asked him what statute allows a complaint to be treated as confidential. He said he couldn’t quote a statute.”

At that point, the inspector asked if they could talk off-camera. Andrea declined.

“He said, ‘I guess the best thing would be for us to come back another time.” The two got back into their car and took off.

Andrea adds, “At no time did I deny him the inspection. I didn’t ask him to leave. All I did was ask him for specific reasons for the inspection…I have a right to know who my accuser is.”

Andrea seems to have added an entirely new dimension to the agricultural inspection. Especially one with such an intriguing coincidence connecting it to NAIS.


Bravo, Andrea!

Jumping back in

Whoa.

It's been about 6 months since I last blogged. Life has been busy and we once again had a good year at the Farmers markets.

The reason that I am starting to blog again has to do a growing awareness of the pressure being put on small farms by various departments of our state and federal governments.It really does seem that all the stuff from the USDA that claims to support small farms and buying local is just a bunch of nonsense. All those web pages and handbooks are contradicted by the actual practices of the department which treats small farms like an annoyance to eliminated.

I have recently spoken with farmers in my area and all of them have "horror stories" of being pressured, harassed, and intimidated by agents of the Department of Labor, or some subset of the USDA. One of these has been driven out of business by some very shady government folks. I hope to post some details soon.

Also, I have become aware of the HUGE impact that locally-raised and locally sold foods can have on family health, the local economy, and the whole mindset of farming on a small scale. More to come on that as well.

So expect posts on farmers rights and the struggle to preserve them, the benefits of locally raised foods, the joy of raw milk and other living foods, and atleast 1post on how NOT to raise turkeys.

Gil

Everything I want to do is illegal

I can get frustrated with our government sometimes. It seems like every time I get a good idea of how to make a living from my little farm there are laws and regulations in place to make it harder than it needs to be. Here are some examples:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I used to process chickens from my neighbors and friends in the area for a nominal fee. I would do their birds when I did my own. In this way they did not have to travel over a hour to a USDA approved processing plant, and I had to clean up after my own processing anyway.

Well this changed when the chicken hobby grew into my main source of income. Now that am officially operating under the “Producer/Grower – 1,000 Limit Exemption” from the USDA, I can no longer process other people’s chicken. That would require a different exemption, the “Custom Slaughter/Processing Exemption” and according to USDA FSIS, “However, a slaughterer or processor of poultry may not simultaneously operate under more than one exemption” (emphasis theirs).

So, I had to inform the folks that were counting on my family to process for them that I could not legally do so. They were somewhat inconvenienced but they understood that I wanted to obey the law.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

We are currently operating at the 1,000 bird or less exemption level, and as I have mentioned here before pastured poultry does well at the farmer’s markets in our area. I have thought about expanding but once again there are USDA hoops to jump through. In order to go up to the next exemption level (20,000 or less birds) I will need to construct a processing facility with separate rooms for killing/plucking the chickens and eviscerating them. Each room needs a 3-bay stainless steel sink and a hand wash sink, sealed concrete floors with drains (that lead to the required new septic system), and washable wall surfaces. Add in a walk-in cooler also. Quite honestly, this expense is way beyond what we can swing financially. I need to process and sell more birds so that I can afford the facility necessary to process and sell the extra birds. Sheesh!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For the past few years I have been interested in making sausage. My family likes sausage and I thought that it would be fun to make it and maybe even sell some. Think of it – grass fed meats (beef, veal, pork, poultry even) made into fresh sausage without nitrates, nitrites or weird chemicals – and using good cuts, not just trimmings and such. Yummy! Pass the natural casings.

The other day I contacted our state Department of Agriculture and Markets to see what obstacles were placed in my path this time. This is what I found out:

•  I would need a commercial kitchen inspection and water test to have a 20C license for direct sale to customers. (No problems here since we already do this in order to sell our breads at market.)
  
•  Keep the sausages at 41 degrees F or less (Also not a problem, since we already keep our chickens chilled)
  
•  All animals must be butchered at a USDA inspected processing plant and all meat, whether made into halves, quarters, or recognizable cuts, must be stamped by the processing plant. The man I spoke with was not aware of any such plant in our area but gave me an 800 number where I can ask about it. (Big problem here. I know what those places are like, that is why I do not buy meat at a store and raise and butcher my own animals)
  
•  Separate processing facility for making sausages: 3-bay sink, hand wash sink, washable walls, etc – (Big expense - see above)
  

Sigh.

Years ago, Joel Salatin wrote an article for Acres USA entitled “Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal” I can relate.

It seems to me that our government has lost its sense of proportion. I don’t see why a small-time operator like me needs to go to the extremes deemed necessary for the big guys. I’m not Frank Purdue or John Morrell. I am a very small farm and always direct market to my customers. I do not plan on making a mega-corp out of my farm and do not need to make thousands of pounds of sausage every week. I just want to make ends meet and provide for my family.

I mentioned this to a farmer friend of mine. His response was that the whole idea was to keep the small farmer or businessman from succeeding. Big Farm puts lots of money into lobbying and contributions for political campaigns with the intent of keep the obstacles in the way of guys like us.

Is this true? I don’t know, but someone sure is making life difficult for this small farmer.

Avian Flu Immunity?

Another interesting item from WorldPoultry.net: "Humans may be immune to bird flu."

Tests at St Jude's Children's Research Hospital indicate that most people may be immune to both types of bird flu.
Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/2fu64f

Bird Flu in Britian

www.worldpoultry.net has been reporting on the avian flu outbreak in Suffolk, England. Apparently, 2,600 turkeys died from H5N1 within a few days. As a result the remaining 159,000 are all being gassed to death to prevent the spread of the disease. At first the disease was blamed on the possibility of infection via contact with a wild bird.



Now there is an investigation to see if this is linked to a recent outbreak in Hungary which resulted in thousand of geese being destroyed. According to the Guardian Unlimited web site (http://www.guardian.co.uk/birdflu/story/0,,2006082,00.html) the Bernard Matthews turkey farm in Suffolk is owned by the same company that owns Saga Foods, Hungary’s largest poultry company.



A follow up report by worldpoultry.net shows that this has not effected poultry purchases by British consumers.



OK. Some comments:

 A place with over 161,000 turkeys is not a farm. It’s a factory.

 This factory environment with it’s overcrowding of animals, lack of fresh air, sunshine, and cleanliness is the perfect breeding ground for disease.

 Animals existing (I can’t call it “living”) in these factory farms are under stress and have weakened immune systems already.

 It is no surprise that the feared disease would show up here. I am pretty sure that a wild bird had nothing to do with bringing in the disease. I think it’s a matter of hygiene, proportion, and humane treatment of animals.

 This type of “farming” is a time bomb waiting for an excuse to go off.

 Small sustainable farms are the only viable way to raise safe, nutritious food.

It won’t be the small farm or backyard flock that brings about a pandemic. It will be ridiculously huge unmanageable factory farms.









 

Catching up

   Wow, it's been more than a month since my last post here. Lots going 
on around these parts.

   My wife, Michelle, gave birth to our 12th child on Jan 16th!

 

 We named her Ellie after my mom. She is sweet, gentle, and peaceful! That makes the score to be 5 boys and 7 girls. We are so grateful to God for giving us another child to raise up and encourage. He is so very good to us!

  8 days later, I was rushed to the emergency room and gave birth to a bouncing baby appendix. Apparently, I would have been in big trouble if I had waited any 
longer to come in. I have a high tolerance for pain and did not realize there was a 
problem right away. A few more days and I will be off of the doctor's restrictions
and back to as normal as I ever get.

  It's tax prep time here. It's more complicated than in previous years, since I am self-employed now. This ought to be fun!

  Will try to post more regularly after this.

Gil

The Ambulance Down In The Valley

This old poem reminds me of the attitude of our government , particularly with regards to the NAIS debacle. Rather than diagnose or prevent animal diseases the NAIS simply wants to perform damage control. 48-hour Trace back will not prevent contaminated meat from reaching consumers nor will it keep any supposed pandemic from occurring. It simply ignores the causes and tries to inadequately deal with the effects. Rather than choose a good fence they have opted for an ambulance down in the valley.

The Ambulance in the Valley by Joseph Malins 1895

‘Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke, and full many a peasant.
The people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally.
Some said ‘Put a fence ‘round the edge of the cliff,’
Some, ‘An ambulance down in the valley.’

The lament of the crowd was profound and was loud,
As their tears overflowed with their pity;
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day
As it spread through the neighbouring city.
A collection was made, to accumulate aid
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave dollars or cents – not to furnish a fence –
But an ambulance down in the valley.

‘For the cliff is all right if you’re careful,’ they said;
‘And if folks ever slip and are dropping,
It isn’t the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below – when they’re stopping.’
So for years (we have heard), as these mishaps occurred
Quick forth would the rescuers sally,
To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Said one, to his pleas, ‘It’s marvel to me
That you’d give so much greater attention
To repairing results than to curing the cause;
You had much better aim at prevention.
For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source;
Come, neighbours and friends, let us rally.
It is far better sense to rely on a fence
Than an ambulance down in the valley.’

‘He is wrong in his head,’ the majority said;
‘He would end all our earnest endeavour.
He’s a man who would shirk this responsible work,
But we will support it forever.
Aren’t we picking up all, just as fast as they fall,
And giving them care liberally?
A superfluous fence is of no consequence,
If the ambulance works in the valley.’

The story looks queer as we’ve written it here,
But things oft occur that are stranger
More humane, we assert, than to succour the hurt
Is the plan of removing the danger.
The best possible course is to safeguard the source
By attending to things rationally.
Yes, build up the fence and let us dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Instead of the ineffeicient waste of resources that we call the NAIS, resources would be better applied to cleaning up the meat processing plants and huge agricorps that breed the diseases that the USDA is so afraid of.

NAIS Meeting in Whitney Point, NY

Report on Today’s NAIS Meeting in Whitney Point, NY

Attendance:

There were about 25 or more people in attendance, plus two ladies from New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, a man representing the USDA, and another man from the county level.

One of the ladies from Ag & Markets did most of the talking with occasional input from the others. She asked up front that everyone be respectful of each other even though the topic was controversial. Folks were respectful throughout the meeting, even during the Q&A/comment period.

Presentation of the program:

• The basics of the NAIS were explained in a slideshow. During the slideshow two things were emphasized:

1. The Voluntary nature of the NAIS,
2. And that NY state is not implementing everything that is being advised by the federal level of the program, (For example, NY will not require the use of RFID tags, and is actively encouraging the use of tags already on the animals).

• It was stated that the NY version of the NAIS is called the New York Animal Health Information Systems (NYAHIS). NYAHIS will attempt to maintain the “positive aspects” of surveillance embraced by the national system, discarding the elements that just do not work with NY State. They believe that in doing this they can still meet the goals of the national program. (Personally, I don’t see how they can do this.)

• The premises number will be 7 alphanumeric characters, and the animal ID number will be 8 alphanumeric characters. (If they were only using numbers that would give the possibility of trying to track over 999 trillion animals. With both number and letter variables in use I don’t even want to think how many that would be. Why does anyone need this many variables?)

• Current status: 51% of premises ID’s registered. (I’m not sure where this number comes from.)

Q&A session

The real heart of the meeting was the Q&A session: Lots of folks had strong opinions and concerns about the state and federal levels of the program. I don’t recall any farmer there who really had much good to say about the NAIS. As I mentioned, everyone was civil and reasonable. This helped us cover a lot of ground.

The main speaker fielded most of the questions, and did well overall. Here is a summary:

Q: How secure is the database?
A. She could only speak of the NY database, which is only accessible via direct physical (cable) connection to the computer storing the database. Only 5 state vets have access to the database.

Q. There were questions about RFID tags and the frequencies to be used. Also there were concerns about the vulnerabilities of the tags to tampering and duplication of the data.
A. You don’t have to use the RFID tags in NY.

Q. I received an information packet in the mail. It included a card that had my premises ID. What’s going on? (A few people there had this happen to them.)
A. Folks who had previously been registered with state animal disease programs were registered automatically. The literature that was sent to you included instructions in how to opt out of the program. (This must be the data mining hinted at in the last NY State Cooperative Agreement document. None of these gov’t folks seemed bothered at all by the blatant privacy invasion that had been perpetrated upon these farmers.)

Q. How can the program be “Voluntary” and still attain 100% participation?
A. Well, I have to admit that it doesn’t sound very realistic.

Q. What is really meant by a “Voluntary program?”
A. In NY State you will never be forced to participate in the NYAHIS. It will always be voluntary.
(This was discussed at some length with lots of comments from farmers. Many doubted that anyone could presume upon the future and guarantee that things would always remain voluntary. My own comments were that even if things remained unchanged that you could not avoid compliance even when you are not registered. State fairs could restrict participation to livestock with NAIS ID, processing facilities could require that ID tags be present before any livestock could be processed, etc. They had no answer for these concerns.)

Q. Have there been any cost analyses performed? Who is going to pay for the personnel needed to track animals, maintain the needed databases, and enforce the NAIS?
A. State level: Pretty sure that these have been done but could not readily reference any info. Did not know total cost (too variable) or who ultimately pays for it. Federal level: The USDA rep had no answer for these questions.

Q. NAIS does not address issues of disease prevention or treatment. Wouldn’t it be better to close the barn door rather than to go chasing the horses?
A. This was not really answered at all.

Q. There are at least 4 different amendments to the U.S. Constitution that are violated by the NAIS (1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th). Care to comment on that?
A. Hey, It’s a voluntary program. You don’t have to participate.
Q. That’s not a good enough answer. How can you as government employees actively support a program that violates the Constitution?
A. (They really couldn’t answer this one either.)

Q. The NAIS will create a complete “paper trail” for the whole life of livestock animals, say, for example, a cow. The cow can change hands several times and eventually be slaughtered in a USDA plant. What if someone gets sick and sues the place they bought beef from. They can now sue everyone who ever had anything to do with this cow, right from the market back to the farmer who first owned her. How does the NAIS handle the increased liability for farmers?
A. This won’t happen in NY. We are too good at preventing disease from spreading. If you see any problems, report ‘em. (This got a few polite chuckles from the group, even though she was sincere when answering.)

Q. How does the NY program protect farmers from lawsuits?
A: I don’t know but I can look into it.

Q. How does the federal program protect farmers from lawsuits?
A. (From NY level) The federal program has ensured that you will not be held liable. (She turned to the USDA rep but he did not say anything to confirm or deny this.)

Q. Every animal sale that is made has to have receipts. Everyone keeps records of their own animals. Plus there are disease prevention and herd improvement programs that keep records. Isn’t the NAIS redundant?
A. Maybe, but it is difficult to pull all this info together to use it efficiently. The NAIS will consolidate this info to speed up tracking of animals. On the state level it will mean being able to shift from thousands of paper files that must be manually searched to an up-to-date computer database. This will save many, many hours of work.

To be fair to our hosts I must say that they did well in the meeting. They had a tough subject to address with a tough audience (very independent-minded farmers). They were professional and friendly throughout, even when some of the questions were very difficult. They were not rapid big government fanatics trying take away our rights. They sincerely believe in what they are doing and want to help. They are good folks but rather naïve for trusting in the program to fix anything. I hope that we gave them some things to consider.

After the meeting some of the more outspoken farmers were able to talk together. A few of us have decided to keep in touch and continue to fight the NAIS.

Gil