Hog Watch Manitoba News
June 2002

Index:
Angry ratepayers storm council chambers - Kirkella land grab, Virden
Mobile Manure Treatment - Canadian Press - Winnipeg
Labour amendments for hog workers introduced in Saskatchewan James Parker,  Regina Leader Post
Farmers fear harassment           The Daily Graphic    June 7, 2002
Livestock battle in Daly lands in courts      Brandon Sun       June 11, 2002
State of emergency declared in six municipalities      Canadian Press       June 12, 2002
Quebec imposes longer moratorium on new hog farms     Reuters 14 June 2002
BOIL WATER ADVISORY FOR WATER SUPPLIES AFFECTED BY FLOOD WATERS Manitoba June 12, 2002
Trouble on the Farm        Article from "The Nation"      25 June, 2002
Why Fix It If It Isn't Broken?   New Brunswick      25 June 2002
Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming             British Columbia Water and Waste Association
It's not welfare it's 'price stability'    U.S. taxpayers stand behind mohair producers
                           (this is a humorous article on the absurdity of US agricultural subsidies)
Residents to voice hog barn concerns - Brandon Sun June 17, 2002
Vote to rescind sale will likely kill hog barn    (Kirkella Pasture) Brandon Sun
Corporate food giants in control    Winnipeg Free Press     June 12, 2002
Council takes back Kirkella pasture  -  Virden Empire-Advance    June 15, 2002
Hog industry changing rules of the game   -   The Guide, Killarney, Manitoba    May 25, 2002

Wallace Reeve Jim Penner was faced with a mutiny on Tuesday morning as irate protesters briefly hijacked a municipal council meeting.
Penner and his councillors were confronted by more than one hundred angry residents as they tried to make their way to council chambers around 9:00 am. Accusations flew back and forth outside the municipal building in perhaps the most heated exchange in the Kirkella debate since the issue first surfaced back in February.
Penner and councillors Don Neufeld, Walter Heaman and Paul Eilers made their stand together amid a growing sea of angry protestors who asked for the resignations of the elected officials several times.
"I think they're a disgrace to the positions they hold," shouted one woman after a call for the councillors' resignations generated an enthusiastic round of applause.
Complaints were raised on all counts regarding the sale of the Kirkella pasture, which was approved at the last meeting of the council, and the deal struck with Gret Farms. Some raised specific complaints regarding the terms of the deal. Kevin Wadham said that after the RM has constructed the roads required by the deal and once the final payment is made by Gret Farms, the RM will have parted with the Kirkella pasture for a mere $420,000.
"We're giving this pasture away," he said.
Under the terms of the deal negotiated between Gret Farms and the RM of Wallace, Gret Farms will pay a total of $700,000 for the Kirkella pasture lands, which cover a total area of 3,280 acres. Gret Farms will pay for the land in installments, the last of which will be turned over in 2008. No interest will be charged under the terms of the deal. The deal will also require that the RM construct up to 2½ miles of roadway.
One ratepayer raised concerns over what the loss of the pasture might mean to young producers in the area.
"How hard will it be on those 30 young, 30 smaller producers?" she asked. "If you take their pasture away from them... our younger producers have no other options. If they're not in the pasture, then they're not in the cattle business."
"Why aren't you listening to the people?" asked Wadham. "We gave you a petition with 500 names.
The petition in question called for a 90-day stay on the sale of the pasture and a referendum on the subject.
At its last meeting on May 14, Wallace council defeated a motion calling for a referendum 5-2 before passing a motion calling for the sale of the pasture by the same margin.
"I think we are listening to the people," replied Don Neufeld. "I had a lot of people call me on this issue, and more called in favour of the proposal. We're not going to satisfy everyone, and that's unfortunate."
Other councillors stood by their decision to sell the pasture. "I made a decision based on my best judgment," said Paul Eilers. "The (Gret Farms) proposal was the best one in front of us."
That seemed to provide little consolation to those present. "How many times do you have to see the opposition to this before it sinks in?" asked one man.
Reaction to the sale of the pasture was decidedly negative in a pair of public hearings on the subject. Yet despite vocal and visible opposition to the sale, and despite signatories to the petition which could account for 50 per cent of the RM's electorate, some councillors have maintained all along that the sale enjoys widespread support in the community.
At about 10:00 a.m., protesters stepped aside to allow council into the building to conduct their meeting. About 60 protesters followed them in, and ranged themselves along all four walls of the council chambers, which usually has seating for only about a dozen spectators.
Council agreed to hear a delegation from Kevin Wadham. Wadham is the chair of the Wallace Ratepayers Action Committee. However, he said he was speaking on behalf of not just the committee, but all ratepayers present.
Wadham made several demands of council. One was to have the motion to sell the pasture rescinded. Councillor Harry Bajus had already provided written notice that he will introduce a motion to rescind the sale at the June 11 meeting.
Wadham also asked council to study the net impact of the sale-to include in the balance the cost of constructing roads, the rate of inflation and lack of interest charges, and also the less tangible costs, such as the potential loss to small-scale producers who currently use the pasture.
Wadham also restated the ratepayers' desire for a referendum on the sale. And on that topic, he seemed to have found at least one convert. Councillor Herb Manser said that, given the petition council was served with, a referendum should have been held. Manser voted against the referendum motion when it came before council at its last meeting.
"The referendum idea should be revisited," Manser said. "If five hundred people have signed that petition, that's half our voters."
CAO Don Stephenson said afterwards there's nothing to prevent another motion for a referendum from coming forward. While he said it's conceivable the idea of a referendum could be revisited while the motion to sell the pasture stands, he said it would be easier to judge the possible outcome of the debate after council votes on the motion to rescind the sale at its next meeting.
Protesters gradually began to file out of council chambers after council moved on to the more mundane items on its agenda. Organizers of the protest were quick to label the operation a success.
Kevin Wadham said he was thrilled with the turnout, and said people seemed somewhat satisfied with the opportunity to voice their concerns to council.
"We definitely made some of them feel uncomfortable, which is what we wanted," he said. "Time will tell what we accomplished here today."
go to top

Monday, June 03, 2002 WINNIPEG --
A mobile manure treatment is promising to take the stink out of hog farming. Hogs are Manitoba's biggest agricultural money maker -- raking in nearly $860 million last year. But the sweet smell of financial success isn't enough to make people hold their noses when it comes to the stench. That's why producers are looking for a better way to deal with the manure created by nearly six million porkers.

Farmers, industry and government representatives had a look at the unit Sunday. Raw manure is treated with three non-toxic chemicals and the waste is separated into an odour-free slurry. It dries into a nutrient-rich powder suitable for fertilizer and clear, decontaminated water for misting barns and cleaning them.
© Copyright 2002 Canadian Press

go to top

Labour amendments for hog workers introduced in Saskatchewan
James Parker Regina Leader Post
June 5, 2002

After years of delay, the NDP coalition on Tuesday introduced legislation which will give 450 hog barn workers protection under the Labour Standards Act, a move that angered both business and organized labour.

Sask Pork, an industry association which mounted a vigorous lobby campaign against the amendments to the Labour Standards Act, said the legislation has been introduced without proper consultation with hog producers and without regard to the damage it could do to the industry.

Sask Pork contends the vast majority of hog producers meet or exceed the rules under the Labour Standards Act.

The Grain Services Union (GSU), which represents workers at the province's only unionized intensive hog operation, said the government has left unscrupulous employers too much room to get around regulations.

Labour Minister Deb Higgins, meanwhile, said the government is providing basic labour rights to workers while fulfilling a promise made to the hog industry.

The amendments will come into effect Sept. 1. Currently, people employed in farming and ranching are exempt from the act.

"We are keeping a commitment we made right from the beginning that we are not going near traditional farming operations," Higgins told reporters at the legislature.

"This is solely focused on the large commercial hog industry."

The government estimates 18 commercial hog operations with a total of about 450 employees will now be covered by Labour Standards Act, which sets the rules for overtime and holidays, among other things.

Commercial hog barns with fewer than six employees will continue to be exempt from the act. Sask Pork has 1,000 members who employ 1,600 people, so less than a third of the industry will be affected by the legislation.

To provide the industry some flexibility in scheduling, the amendments will allow hog barns covered by the act to have employees work a 10-hour day and 80 hours over a two-week period before overtime becomes payable.

GSU representative Larry Hubich said dozens of corporate hog operations with fewer than six employees are still exempt from the act. He predicted companies affected by the regulations will find a way around them.

"If you have 11 half-time employees, you're exempt. And I just figured that one out in the last minute."

Hubich was disdainful of the industry argument that there is no need for labour standards.

"If they were meeting the standards, they wouldn't be objecting to this so strenuously. It's kind of like someone saying, I don't speed so I don't need speeding limits."

Joan Steckhan, director of finance and business development for Sask Pork, said the government did not engage in meaningful consultation before introducing the amendments.

She said a consultant hired to discuss the issue with hog producers conducted a "series of subjective interviews".

"There should have been hearings and requests for submissions and it should have been done across the agriculture industry. Ninety five per cent of hog producers run mixed-farming operations."

Steckhan disputed the assertion that the amendments would not affect family farms.

"The definition of a family farm is a matter of the heart. There is no legal definition. We have couples who run large operations and consider themselves a family farm."

The Saskatchewan Party also criticized the consultation process and stressed the amendments could drive out investment in the industry.

But Higgins said the government has been discussing the issue informally since 1997. She said the amendments won't make a big difference if companies already adhere to the act.

Higgins said outside investors have told the government the amendments won't scare them out of the province.

© Copyright 2002 Regina Leader Post

go to top

Farmers fear harassment
BY DAVID MORRIS
The Daily Graphic
Local livestock producers say they could face greater scrutiny and harassment from animal activists if proposed new animal cruelty legislation is made law.
"It's ridiculous legislation," said Terry Simpson, a cattle and hog producer who farms just south of Portage. "When will it all end?"
On Monday, the House of Commons passed new legislation which will update and toughen laws protecting animals.
Under the proposed legislation, which must receive approval from the Senate, animals would no longer be treated as property but as beings who feel pain.
Penalties for abusing animals would also increase to a maximum of two years in jail, up from six months, while fines would rise to a maximum of $5,000 from $2,000.
Those convicted could also be forced to pay humane societies that nurse abused animals.
Simpson said that kind of law means farmers could be prosecuted for traditional cattle practices like branding, dehorning and castrating.
"They'll be no one invited to the farm for branding anymore," Simpson said yesterday. "When someone comes into the yard and wants to see me, I'll have to tell them to come back later.
"It now becomes more stringent as to who you let into your yard."
Those concerns were shared by Sidney area cattle producer Doug De'Athe.
"We do have cattle practices that could be deemed as cruelty under this new legislation," he said. "But some of them have to be done in order for us to make a living."
De'Athe said the courts don't need to protect animals from farmers.
"The animal rights people think (cattle) should be free and running around doing their own thing," he said. "But in this country, if they were running around free in the winter, they would all be dead because ... they have nothing to eat.
"The deer and the elk survive in the winter but that's only because they eat my haystacks."
De'Athe added farmers and ranchers like himself provide more comfort to animals than Mother Nature can afford.
"We don't want to hurt animals," he said. "Why would we want to hurt them unnecessarily? We're trying to make a profit from them ... so we want to take the best possible care of them."
But animal activists say farmers shouldn't be paranoid about the proposed new legislation.
"Frankly I find it quite interesting that livestock groups are so concerned about this," said Vicki Burns, executive director of the Winnipeg Humane Society. "What it shows me is that they must be thinking that some of the stuff that they're doing is causing animals considerable pain."
Burns said the proposed legislation is long overdue and will go a long way in preventing other violent crimes in society.
"It's very important because if someone commits an act of real deliberate violence towards an animal, that individual is very likely to commit further acts of violence against both animals and humans," she said. "I think in general everyone would agree that we all want to cut down on violence."
But Portage-Lisgar MP Brian Pallister said the new legislation doesn't provide farmers and ranchers enough protection.
The bill defines an offender as anyone who willfully or recklessly kills an animal brutally or viciously, inflicts unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, or kills an animal unless for research, agriculture or other lawful purposes.
"What the danger with this is that it will not only not protect animals but it will also penalize the people who have the greatest concern about them," said Pallister, who has collected the signatures of 1,000 constituents opposed to the new bill.
"I believe the legislation opens the door to frivolous lawsuits and malicious ... media campaigns to be launched by people ... who don't have concerns for farm families."
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Keystone Agricultural Producers and Manitoba Cattle Producers Association also expressed concern about the proposed legislation yesterday.
go to top

Livestock battle in Daly lands in courts

by Shelley Vivian
Brandon Sun
Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Residents concerned about intensive livestock operations developing are suing the Rural Municipality of Daly.
Joe Dolecki, resident and spokesman for the legal committee of Concerned Daly Ratepayers, said yesterday it was a decision members of the group felt necessary to have their concerns addressed. "They've left us no choice."
A Statement of claim was filed in Court of Queen's Bench in Brandon yesterday alleging RM councillors made multiple breaches of the Municipal Act on May 15, when they shut down second reading of a bylaw initiated by residents.
The ratepayer group is asking the court to declare each of the decisions made by council that day invalid and to order council to complete the amendment process.
The rural municipality council had approved a 90-day moratorium Feb. 12 on consideration and approval of intensive livestock operation development pending revision of bylaws to address public concerns on the issue.
Concerned residents consulted with community and presented a package of proposed bylaw changes to council about a month later.
Among the amendments were requirements applicants for intensive livestock operations meet certain conditions before their applications would be considered.
First reading was given to the amending bylaw April 2 and a public hearing May 7 elicited strong support of it. On May 15, council passed motions to scrap second reading of the bylaw, end the moratorium and return to considering intensive livestock operation applications under the existing bylaw.
Members of the group say it's regrettable legal action was necessary but council has shown it won't respond to anything else. "None of us wanted to go this route," said Daly resident Marianne Gerrard. "We tried everything in our power not to go this route but council refused."
Reeve Marlin Beever could not be reached for comment yesterday. No other officials at the office could be interviewed.
Concerned Daly Ratepayers also filed complaints yesterday with the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in relation to actions taken by certain provincial officials.
Dolecki said he could not name individuals or their actions.
Environment Defence Canada helped the group find a lawyer and will assist with raising funds for legal costs.

go to top

State of emergency declared in six municipalities
Canadian Press
Wednesday, June 12, 2002

LA BROQUERIE, Manitoba -- Brenda Chabot worries that flood water brimming with hog manure has already contaminated her well and made her sick.
Six municipalities declared a state of emergency after heavy rains in a short period of time produced flash flooding.
Chabot's rented home was surrounded by flood water in the southern Manitoba town of Marchand.
Although the water hasn't damaged the home, a neighbouring lagoon of hog manure is being spread by the flood water.
Earl Younie says many people are concerned about the quality of their wells and plan to test them once the flood waters recede and they can go home.
Emergency Measures Organization says at least 80 people forced to flee their homes have registered with local authorities.
The affected area is in southeastern Manitoba.

go to top

Quebec imposes longer moratorium on new hog farms
Reuters 14 June 2002

QUEBEC CITY - The Canadian province of Quebec announced an 18-month moratorium on the opening of new hog farms yesterday, trying to calm fears that industrial-scale hog facilities create massive air and water pollution.
"The discipline of the financial markets would have been tougher (on hog producers) if there had been an environmental problem than the discipline of the government," Environment Minister Andre Boisclair told reporters in Quebec City, unveiling new regulations.

A six-week moratorium had been in effect since May 1, pending Yesterday's announcement.

The new regulations include the control of phosphorus emissions, the hiring of more than 100 government farm inspectors and the prohibition of manure spreading close to creeks and waterways.

Quebec is a major pork producer with large exports to the United States and Japan. The C$1.3 billion ($845 million) pork industry is the second largest industry in Quebec's agricultural sector. It employs about 30,000 people.

The government has supported the opening of large hog operations over the past few years to help boost exports, but that has fueled the anger of nearby residents who complain of strong odors from the large-scale operations, which often contain thousands of animals.

Environmental groups also warn that large hog operations pose a serious water pollution threat because of runoff from the huge quantities of manure created by the farms.
go to top

BOIL WATER ADVISORY FOR WATER SUPPLIES
AFFECTED BY FLOOD WATERS
Manitoba Government
June 12, 2002

All people using water from wells or other sources affected by flooding caused by the recent heavy rains should boil water before drinking or using for food preparation, Manitoba's chief medical officer of health is
advising.
People who are affected may want to use alternative supplies of drinking water until flooding eases. The advisory applies to private homeowners and semi-public water systems such as day cares and camp-grounds.

Any well water system, whether deep or shallow, can become contaminated.
Harmful bacteria are more likely to get into well water if:

• wells are shallow or constructed in sand or gravel;
• wells are located in pits or depressions;
• wells have unsealed casings, casings that do not extend at least 30 cm or more above the ground or wells with rusted casings;
• wells are near unsealed, abandoned wells;
• wells are near septic tanks or fields, barns, feed lots, sink holes or
  quarries; or
• wells or groundwater sources are affected by changes in environmental
  conditions such as floods and heavy rains.

Water that may be swallowed or consumed should be brought to a "rolling" boil. This includes water for drinking, vegetable and fruit washing, brushing teeth, etc. Well water may be used for other domestic purposes such as bathing and laundry. Small children who may drink bath water should receive sponge baths instead of baths or showers. People with weakened immune systems are reminded to consult their physician about additional precautions that may be needed.

People using water supplies drawn from surface sources such as rivers, streams, lakes or ponds may have difficulty using their own equipment to treat their supplies due to increases in sediment and bacteria. These can
overwhelm conventional treatment processes commonly used in the home.

Water sampling should occur after the flooding has subsided. Boil water precautions should remain in place until test results confirm the bacterial safety of the water.

For further information on wells and water testing, contact your local Manitoba Conservation office or Health Links at (204) 788-8200 or toll free at 1-888-315-9257, or visit http://www.gov.mb.ca/flood

go to top

Trouble on the Farm
by Bill Berkowitz
Article from "The Nation"
25 June, 2002

Scum and foam were piled so high on the surface of streams and ponds in the rural Illinois area neighboring the Inwood Dairy that it looked like snow. According to Karen Hudson, a local family farmer and activist with FARM (Families Against Rural Messes), "The air pollution was so severe the neighbors were forced to tear their carpet out, and burn candles to keep the stench at bay--at night they had to spray perfume in their bedrooms.... The odor was not merely a manure odor," Hudson added. "It had a septic and the decaying smell of a dead body. It could be smelled several miles away--I know because I live 4.5 miles from it. That is why we renamed our state from Illinois, Land of Lincoln, to Illinois, Land of Stinkin'."

Despite an aversion to flying, Karen Hudson rounded up two colleagues from FARM, and convinced a friend to fly his small aircraft over the lagoon they had reason to believe was overflowing with animal waste emanating from the dairy. FARM invited several local news crews aboard subsequent flights, and documented what Hudson now calls the "Big Spill." The deliberate manure release of the dairy caused "enormous damage to our community," Hudson said.

The photos and videotape taken by FARM and reporters aired on a number of local television stations, and FARM's photos were later used by the Illinois Attorney General's office. "All the things we warned about
regarding this corporate dairy came to light," Hudson told me via several e-mail exchanges.

A year after the flyovers, FARM's action paid off--well, sort of. In early May, the Peoria Journal Star reported that the Inwood Dairy agreed to pay a $50,000 fine "under an agreement between the dairy and
the state's Attorney General, who sued it when a seven-acre lagoon containing an estimated 40 million gallons of livestock waste nearly overflowed last year." Since Inwood was ordered to drain, clean up and
refill the lagoon, neighbors report that the smell has improved.

However, Hudson worries that the fine will not stop the factory and hundreds of other similar operations from haphazardly dumping their waste when no one is watching. Inwood Dairy is just one CAFO--as
concentrated animal feeding operations are called--that "uses agricultural land as a septic system, or an open sewer, to dispose of the waste that's produced in massive quantities daily," Hudson said. It
is sometimes less costly for companies to pay the fine than to clean up their mess, she pointed out.

If the corporate owners of factory farms like the Inwood Dairy have their way, Hudson's next flyover could land her in jail. In April, the Illinois House passed House Bill 5793, by a 118-to-0 vote, making it illegal to photograph or videotape the animals at a factory farm.

The legislation, which is currently stalled in the State Senate, "makes it a crime to be on a farm (or other 'animal facility') and photograph or videotape pigs or any other animals without the consent of the owner
if one's intent is to 'damage the enterprise,'" reports the Chicago Tribune. The bill defines "animal facilities" as "anywhere an animal is 'kept, housed, handled, exhibited, bred, raised, or offered for sale or purchase.' " The Peoria Journal Star, arguing against the need for such a bill, observed that it "would prohibit state inspectors from taking pictures to document their investigations of these farms."

Corporate attacks on family farm activists have increased since the Seattle anti-World Trade Organization demonstrations. Shortly after Seattle, the Des Moines-based Truth About Trade and Technology (TATT)
set about tracking organizations participating in the fair trade movement. Two years ago, TATT published Who Props Up the Protesters, a 331-page report focusing on the history, goals, financial strength and level of activism of a number of groups active in the fair trade movement. Among them was the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) Factory Farm Project (http://www.factoryfarm.org), one of a number of groups listed by TATT that actively support family farming.

Since September 11, some industry spokespersons have taken to insinuating that anticorporate activists have something in common with the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center. Jimmy Neuhoff, president of the North Carolina Pork Council and owner of a large pork-producing farm, complained that family farm activists were unfairly targeting the pork industry.

In a letter to Pork Council members, published in the Winter 2002 issue of the NC Pork Report, Neuhoff wrote that, like the victims of 9/11, "the pork industry is also under attack.... [Through] a well coordinated propaganda campaign [that] began to change the public perception of agriculture, in particular pork production....

"While I am not suggesting activists are terrorists, it is interesting to note the parallels in their methods of operation. Both groups distort the truth to further their agendas. Both groups have no regard for the damage levied on innocent victims," Neuhoff wrote.

"Corporate lobbyists and the spokesperson from the Illinois Farm Bureau contended from the start that we were exaggerating about the problems at Inwood," Hudson pointed out. The spokesman "has been unusually silent since the disaster. We do hear that he is currently lobbying for another new megadairy that will use a twenty-six-acre lagoon and house approximately 7,000 dairy cattle. That operator allegedly has violations
in Wisconsin and was cited in California for selling products with too much antibiotic residue."

go to top

Why Fix It If It Isn't Broken?
25 June 2002

The Province of New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture has committed $1.5 million of taxpayer's money to the controversial Metz Farms II Ltd. Hog Factory in Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, New Brunswick.

For the last three years, the Province has repeated the litany that this Industrial Factory Farm operation has never broken any rules. Apparently, according to Provincial government departments, there have been no leaks of the liquid manure and there have been no increased health hazards to citizens. Called a "Model Farm" by politicians of both colours, the Metz Farms II Ltd. operation is now installing "New Technology".

It is not clear to citizens of New Brunswick why such huge sums of money, that are badly need by small family farms, would be spent to fix something that is not broken.

There have been no official reports released to suggest that the money now being spent will begin to solve the problems that don't exist at the Metz Farms II Ltd. operation.

Association for the Preservation of the Bouctouche Watershed
L'association pour la préservation du basin versant de Bouctouche

Web: http://www.mondata.com/action
E-mail: mailto:pigs.poop.politics@mondata.com

go to top

Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming
—In spite of the dangers, governments are reluctant to regulate
British Columbia Water and Waste Association

The growth of factory farms, many of which are largely unregulated, may pose significant hazards to safe drinking water. The concentration of feed lots, with up to 25,000 cattle in an area the size of a city block, is now a fact of life.

The manure from these type of factory farms can be deadly; it often contains pathogens such as E coli 0157. According to Dr. Murray McQuigge, Regional Health Officer for Walkerton, "the E coli outbreak in that community was due to animal waste from a farm having been washed into a shallow well." This is not an isolated situation but the fact that six people died and thousands more were sickened is a serious cause for concern.

Hog waste is also a concern as it contains a host of heavy metals, from the mineral supplements fed to hogs. Leakage from lagoons where this waste is often stored is a serious problem and spreading millions of gallons of waste on a field can lead to extensive contamination of surface water. The challenge to government: how to effectively monitor and regulate these factory farm operations.

A decade ago, long before the Walkerton disaster, there was an E coli 0157 outbreak in southern Alberta. Factory farming is prevalent there, and the outbreak led to the death of twelve children. As well, more than half of Alberta's small streams in agricultural producing areas have been found, by a government study, to contain excessive nitrogen, phosphorus and disease-carrying bacteria. Therefore, it may come as no surprise that a 1998 Health Canada study found that six rural Ontario counties with high concentrations of factory farms (including the Walkerton area) registered high rates of E coli 0157 infections.

In spite of the ever-present dangers of factory farming to safe drinking water, governments, both federal and provincial, have been reluctant to regulate factory farms. This past May, the federal Environment Minister refused to back a NAFTA Commission inquiry into a large Quebec based hog operation and the attendant waste generated by it. In Ontario, the Provincial government has opposed attempts to prevent factory farms from spreading manure on adjacent land, and in Alberta, the government has not acted on advisory committee recommendations to regulate large-scale hog, poultry and cattle operations.

In a related development, the federal government has responded with a $2 billion "Green" Infrastructure Assistance program, approved in its last budget, to help municipalities upgrade their water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities.
go to top

It's not welfare it's 'price stability'
U.S. taxpayers stand behind mohair producers

Most American taxpayers often wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and
ask themselves: "Am I doing enough to support mohair producers?"
I am pleased to report that they are, thanks to bold action taken recently by the United States Congress (motto: "Hey, It's not OUR money!"). I am referring to the 2002 Farm Security
Act, which recently emerged from the legislative process very much the way a steaming wad of processed vegetation emerges from the digestive tract of a cow.

The purpose of the Farm Security Act is to provide farmers with "price stability." What do we mean by "price stability?" We mean: your money. You have already been very generous about this: Last year alone, Americans gave more than $20 billion worth of price stability to farmers. Since 1996, they've given more than a million dollars apiece to more than 1,000 lucky recipients, many of which are actually big agribusinesses. Some of the "farmers" they've sent money to are billionaires, such as Ted Turner and Charles Schwab, as well as major corporations, such as Chevron, DuPont and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance.

But that is NOTHING compared with how generous taxpayers are about to get! Thanks to the Farm Security Act, over the next 10 years, they'll be providing farmers with 70 per cent MORE stability, for a total of $180 billion. At this rate, in a few years farmers will be so stable that they'll have to huddle in their root cellars for fear of being struck by bales of taxpayer-supplied cash raining down on the Heartland states from air force bombers.

Perhaps you are asking yourself: "Wait a minute! Isn't this kind of like, I don't know... WELFARE?"

No, it is not. Welfare is when the government gives money to people who produce nothing. whereas the farm-money recipients produce something that is critical to our nation: votes. Powerful congresspersons from both parties, as well as President Bush, believe that if they dump enough of Americans' money on farm states, the farm states will re-elect them, thus enabling them to continue the vital work of dumping taxpayers' money on the farm states. So as we see, it's not welfare at all! It's bribery.

But let us not forget the element of National Security This is where the mohair comes in. As you know, "mohair" is the hair of any animal whose name begins with "mo," such as moose, mouse, mongoose or moray eel.
No, wait, sorry. "Mohair" is actually wool made from the hair of a goat. During WWI, mohair was used to make military uniforms, so it was considered to be a strategic material, and Congress decided that the taxpayer should pay people to produce it. But, of course, today mohair has no vital military purpose, and so... American taxpayers are STILL paying people to produce it! And thanks to the Farm Security Act, they will continue to pay millions and millions of dollars, every year, to mohair producers!
As I say, this is for National Security. If terrorists, God forbid, ever manage to construct a giant time machine and transport the United States back to 1941, and we have fight World War II again, WE WILL BE READY.

Taxpayers will also be thrilled to learn that the Farm Security Act provides new subsidies for producers of lentils and chickpeas. And not a moment too soon. This nation has become far too dependent on imported lentils and chickpeas. Try to picture the horror of living in a world in which foreigners, in foreign countries, suddenly cut off our lentil and chickpea supply. Imagine how you would feel if you had to look your small child in the eye and say "I'm sorry, little Billy or Suzy as the case may be, but there will be no lentils or chickpeas tonight, and all because we taxpayers were too shortsighted to fork over millions of dollars in support for domestic lentil and chickpea producers, who thus were forced to compete in the market like everybody else, and... HEY, COME BACK HERE!"

Yes, that would be a horrible world, all right. And that is why I totally support the Farm Security Act. I hope you agree with me, though I realize that some of you may not; in fact, some of you may be so angry about this column that you've decided to never read anything by me again.
Well; guess what: I don't care! Thanks to the Humour Security Act recently passed by Congress, I'll be getting huge sums of money from the federal government to continue grinding out these columns, year after year, even if nobody wants to read them!
No, that would be stupid.

Dave Barry is a Humor columnist for the Miami Herald
go to top

Residents to voice hog barn concerns
BY ROB MILLER- Brandon Sun
June 17, 2002

A Glenwood ratepayers' group fearing the possible impacts on their lives from three proposed hog operations are taking matters into their own hands - so to speak.
They will hold a public-information meeting Tuesday night to hear residents' concerns, and to try to find answers to their questions.
Organizer Marilyn Morrison said many ratepayers are distraught by the mega-barn proposals, and are tired of waiting for community officials' answers.
"It's overwhelming," she said.
-~"There are three proposals, three sites, 10 hog barns, 23,000 hogs and the proposal indicates another 12,000 are part of the strategy"
Morrison said ratepayers had requested on May 14 that Glenwood council consider holding a consultation meeting to allow residents to discuss and debate the proposal.
The ratepayers' meeting will take place 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in the Souris school gym.
Many residents, Morrison' said, fear the proposed hog barns will harm the quality of their lives.
Glenwood ratepayer Phil Dornian said groundwater pollution and depletion are two major concerns.
Many people, he said, worry waste from the hog barns will make its way into the groundwater, contaminating their water supplies.
Dornian said people also worry their groundwater could disappear. He said the three proposed barns could we in one year as much water as the town of Souris.
Dornian said statistics he has obtained indicate a barn with 3,000 hogs can use up to 24.52 nillion litres (5.4 rnllion gallons) of water annually.
"That gets to be a lot of water The only way that groundwater replenishes itself is through rain and sluices," Dornian said.
"If you take more than what is going back, you're going to have problems."
Morrison, also a Glenwood ratepayer; said people are also concerned about the possibility similar developments will occur in the future.
Dornian said organizers want a large turnout Tuesday of residents from both Souris and the municipality.
"We want to make sure they have the information," he said.
There will be several speakers discussing various issues involved with hog barns, and the potential impacts on surrounding communities.
A question-and-answer session will follow
"Organizations, whose representatives are knowledgeable in regard to livestock facilities, have also been asked to attend," said Morrison.

go to top

Vote to rescind sale will likely kill hog barn
Dean Pritchard
Brandon Sun

A massive hog barn project slated for Elkhorn is all but dead after councillors with the Rural Municipality of Wallace voted to reached a decision to sell a community pasture.
"I would say it has killed the proposal," said Reeve Jim Penner of the vote.
Travis, Greg and Lawrence Penner hoped to build a pig breeding and cattle operation on the Kirkella Community Pasture near Elkhorn.
The project would have included a 6,000-sow farrow and nursery facility and finishing barn worth a combined $31 million.
The rural municipality had agreed to sell the community pasture to the Penners - operating under the name Gret Farms-for $700,000.
Angry opponents of the project said the RM had no right to sell the pasture without consulting residents or holding a referendum.~er
Councillors voted 5-2 in favour of rescinding the sale, Reeve Penner said.
"I think from an economic point of View; from a business point of view; I think most of the councillors still felt it was a wise decision to pursue the proposal from Gret Farms,'t Penner said.
"I think the whole issue has become far too emotional and perhaps too volatile and rationality had gone out the window. For myself at least, I felt why pursue something if the people who go up there always have to watch their back all the time."
Greg Penner declined comment on the decision. Travis and Lawrence Penner could not be reached for comment.
Fanner Derek Oliver applauded the decision.
"We had so many ratepayers against the decision to sell the pasture," said Oliver, a grain and cattle producer whose land surrounds the pasture.
"I think we should have had a referendum before something that big would take place. That's just common sense."
Oliver said the community pasture is a lifeline for young farmers just getting started..
"If that opportunity is taken away from the young farm generation there won't be a young farm generation around here," he said.
Oliver and other farmers worried what impact a large hog operation would have on their water supply.
"if we don't' have water we have nothing here ... ft's just going to be dirt," he said.
Oliver said ratepayers will remember the controversy come election time.
"I think we need a new council. I've talked to a lot of these councillors and they've learned a lot. I don't think a lot of them are willing to return."

go to top

Corporate food giants in control
A few processors battle to command the market for retail products
Peter Schroedter
Winnipeg Free Press
June 12, 2002

The supermarket aisle is as close as most people get to the world of the food-processing
giants, but almost every time someone eats, chances are that one of the giants had a hand in preparing the food.
Beyond the supermarket's loading dock, hidden in an endless maze of continental truck routes, camouflaged by layer on layer of brand names, the corporate food giants are battling for control of the food processing sector. Companies in the food business are consolidating and integrating or being gobbled up by giants with an insatiable hunger for market share.
The companies that control the food system own the critical links in the food chain. They own the processing sector, the slaughter plants, flour mills and secondary food processing plants that stand between farmers and consumers.
Companies like Tyson Foods, which bills itself as the world's largest protein supplier with sales for 2000 reported at $23.8 billion US or Archer Daniel Midlands, the world's largest processor of soybeans, corn and wheat, with sales of $20.1 billion US ending June 30, 2001. Then there is Conagra, billing itself as North america's No. 1 food service sector manufacturer with the
latest reported sales at $27 billion US. Then there is Smithfield Foods, the world's largest hog farmer and pork processor; with net earnings of 224 million US. Smithfield Foods owns 700,000 sows plus an interest in another 40,000 sows in Mexico, Brazil and Poland. In total, the company going under the name of Murphy Brown raised more than 12 million hogs in the past year or roughly 3.5 times more than their closest competitor
Tyson Foods is the big dog in the poultry business; so big, in fact, that it provides chicken to 97 of the top 100 restaurant chains in North America. Not satisfied with being the biggest in the chicken business, Tyson Foods recently bought IBP. IBP was North Americat's largest fresh beef and pork processor with' annual sales of $16.9 billion US and 52,000
employees working in 60 plants in North America. IBP also had joint venture operations in China, Ireland and Russia.
The weekly production figures for Tyson Foods are staggering. It processes 42 million chickens, 202,780 cattle and 336,770 pigs every seven days. That amounts to 7.2 billion pounds of chicken produced every week. To get this done, Tyson Foods employs 120,000 people and has 7,038 chicken farmers under contract as well as 41 of its own chicken-growing operations. Tyson Foods also owns 107,000 sows and markets a million feeder pigs and another million market-weight hogs annually.
Not too shabby for a company that claims it got its start when its founder; Arkansas chicken farmer John Tyson, hauled a load of his chickens to Chicago in the early '30s for a $235 profit.
Cargill is probably the biggest of the giants, but is definitely the oldest of the food-processing giants. It is a privately held company that got its start in the mid-1800s and is still going strong in every sector with global assets earning $161 million US for the third quarter ending Feb.28, for a total of $683 million US for total earnings up to the end of the third quarter.
As the farming sector continues to struggle in the face of low commodity prices, the processing sector produces record earnings for shareholders.
Cargill makes its money from everything having to do with agriculture including finance, food processing, cattle feeding, grain marketing, feed lots and transportation.
The debate concerning the future of agriculture amounts to little more than an exercise in public rhetoric for editorial writers and agricultural policy junkies. Governments of all stripes - federal, provincial, American and European - long ago understood that cheap food holds the cost-of-living index in check, giving consumers the economic freedom to stimulate other sectors of a nation's economy.
In the late '50s, urban consumers were spending 25 per cent of their income on food. Today the average consumer spends just over six per cent on food.
The concentration in the food processing sector over the 10 years has been dramatic, especially in poultry, pork and beef. There was a time, not too long ago, when it took a full work week to negotiate sales between feed lots and beef processors across North America. Today trading in live cattle doesn't really begin until Wednesday afternoon and is finished by the close of business on Thursday.
From the farmer's perspective, it's easy to see how the give and take of the free marketplace is all but gone. The two or three companies that control the majority of beef; pork and poultry processed in North America have effectively eliminated the prospect of a marketplace ruled by the supply and demand essential for free enterprise.
Consumers might want to ask, "What will the giants do to increase their earnings when there aren't any more profits to be had from the production and processing sectors?"
go to top

Council takes back Kirkella pasture
Town of Wallace reverses sale, decides to keep pasture for at least one year
by Kerry Campbell
Virden Empire-Advance
June 15, 2002
Residents of the RM of Wallace were crammed into the municipal council chambers for the second time in as many weeks on Tuesday, as council was faced with yet another crucial vote on the Kirkella pasture. This time, however, the crowd of more than 100 ratepayers left in a jubilant mood after council's surprise reversal of its original decision to sell the pasture.
It was on May 14 that council originally passed a motion to sell the community pasture to Gret Farms. Two weeks later, at its meeting of May 28, council was confronted with more than 100 angry ratepayers, asking council to reverse its decision. Councillor Harry Bajus served notice that he would introduce a motion at this week's meeting to rescind the sale.
At the time, Bajus and Ed Clayton seemed to be the only two councillors opposed to the sale of the pasture. A heavy swing among a council that seemed fairly entrenched in its positions was required in order for Tuesday's recall of the sale to proceed.
Councillor Herb Manser seemed the first to switch sides in the debate. Two weeks ago, he hinted that he would vote, if not against the sale, at least in favour of a referendum, if such a motion were presented again.
That still only made three councillors of the four necessary to provide a majority. Paul Eilers made it four with a surprise announcement while Tuesday's motion was on the table. Opponents of the sale were obviously counting the number of councillors opposed to the sale, and Eilers' announcement was followed with a boisterous round of applause.
"I think where we wound up, the proposal that was negotiated in the end, in my mind there was no question it was the best proposal that was put in front of us," Eilers said. "I feel it was a good proposal for the RM, and that's why I voted to accept that proposal. I guess with the process that has gone on in the meantime, it's obvious that it's not acceptable with a significant number of ratepayers within the RM. And I guess because of that, I can no longer support the motion to sell."
In the end, Reeve Jim Penner provided another surprise by voting in favour of the motion, which carried by the same 5-2 margin as the original motion to sell which was annulled by it. Councillors Don Neufeld and Walter Heaman voted against the motion.
Just before the motion came to a vote, councillor Ed Clayton came to the defence of his fellow councillors who had voted in favour of the sale. "A lot of the ratepayers here are not happy with the way some of the council members have voted on this issue," he said. "Even though you may not agree with the way they voted, they were voting the way they thought was in the best interest for the ratepayers of the municipality."
After the motion passed, Reeve Jim Penner said that there were lessons to be learned from the entire process.
"You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes," he said, addressing both the council and ratepayers. "Whether or not this whole process was a mistake I will let all of you be your own judge, but certainly there are some things that we can learn from a process such as we've been through." Penner said he hoped that ratepayers had been encouraged to take a more active interest in the dealings of council because of the affair, and suggested that council might want to be more transparent in its dealings in the future.
After the original sale was struck down, a motion to abandon any sale of the pasture for one year was introduced by Harry Bajus. It passed by a margin of 6-1, with Walter Heaman providing the single dissenting vote.
Afterwards, Kevin Wad-ham, a key figure and spokesperson among those opposed to the sale, called the proceedings a victory for ratepayers.
"I'm elated," Wadham said. "It's great to see that they did make the right decision, and finally the people's voice has been heard. It's unfortunate we had to take this kind of a route to accomplish what the community wanted, but in the end it's been worth it."
Wadham said that the proceedings have shown that the status quo won't be sufficient to maintain the pasture, and changes in its operation will be required for the near future. He also said that the community needed to start taking a more active role in its own governance.
"In the past, too many of our councillors have been acclaimed," he said. "That has to stop.
We have to get more people involved. We have to have elections. We need at least two people running in every ward."

Opportunity lost: Penner

Travis Penner, one of the three brothers who own Gret Farms, says the municipality has missed out on a great opportunity for development. Gret Farms had proposed to build a $20 million hog operation on the site. The proposed operation would have created 25 jobs on site and as many as 44 full-time equivalent positions both directly and indirectly, the proponents maintained. Gret Farms would eventually have paid $700,000 for the land, and property tax payments were expected to reach $60,000 per yean
"I think it was an excellent opportunity for the region," he says. "We don't often get substantial economic development for the area. I think this was an opportunity lost."
Penner says council was likely intimidated by an aggressive mob of angry ratepayers who've now left no opportunity for the development of the pasture. "This deal was quashed with no real alternative but to leave the pasture the way it is, which is not going for-
ward."
Penner suspects that factors such as the emergence of bovine tuberculosis in Manitoba will soon spell the end of the community pasture. He says council was forward-thinking in looking for alternatives for the pasture. "They were maybe a little too far ahead of the curve," he says.
Overall, Penner says there was too much attention on the negative aspects of the Gret Farms proposal, and not enough on the positive, development aspects. He couldn't comment as to whether Gret Farms would seek to amend its business plan to utilize land other than the pasture.

go to top

Hog industry changing rules of the game
The Guide, Killarney, Manitoba
May 25, 2002

Dear Mr. Editor,
It should come as no surprise that the hog industry in Manitoba and all of its supporters (including government) should feel the need to change the rules of the game, that in the first place would he considered to have been unfair. The game I'm referring to is the political game, or battle if you wish, that has the majority of rural communities and its residents (mostly farmers) pitted against the corporate takeover of hog production and everything else that goes along with it.
More recently some municipalities have taken independent action to regulate such development by imposing moratoriums, while at the same time assessing the need to regulate and in some cases amending (or attempting to amend) livestock by-laws. Agriculture Mischiefer Rosann Wowchuk says the disparity is causing concern. Disparity for whom, and concern for whom is well understood but her position suggests that she isn't really the Mischiefer of Agriculture, but rather the Mischiefer of Industry or Corporate Affairs.
In February she made the statement that consideration is being given to bring in standardized regulations right across the province but that these changes must be made in consultation with the hog industry and the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. But she didn't she say citizens or democracy?
An interesting comparison to this debate is identified in the proposed smoking bylaw in the City of Brandon. The City of Brandon is a municipal corporation and an associate member of the AM, no different from any rural municipality in the province. Controversy over the proposed by-law resulted in both the President of the Brandon Chamber of Cornmerce and Brandon City Councilor Don Jessiman moving that the NDP government, through the AMM, should establish a province wide law on smoking but both rejected that notion. Health Minister Dave Chomiak in particular stated that he is not considering a province wide smoking ban. As is the case in Winnipeg, regulating smoking has been left in the hands of the local government and obviously without any resistance from the province.
So, what's the difference in the province's position in respect to municipal affairs? In the case of smoking, public pressure has undoubtedly had an influence in the City of Winnipeg.. The province did not interfere nor did it commit to enforcement until pressured, but the by-laws and their enactment were left in the hands of local authorities.
On the other hand the Agriculture Mischiefer fully intends on breaching that same policy displayed by her colleagues under the smoking by-law. That being, to allow municipal corporations to establish by-laws in a manner not inconsistent with provincial statutes and consistent with public demands. Moreover, her department as well as others have been interfering at the rural municipal level and have besieged a process, that in light of their position on at least one other occasion, is inconsistent, contradictory and very undemocratic.
The residents of the RM of Daly are reeling as a result of government and hog industry intervention in a process that until recently has been rather routine. With the backing of several provincial departments the hog industry and the Manitoba Pork Council rigorously opposed a draft livestock bylaw that was instituted by consensus of its people. Not only did government oppose the will of the people, they suggested the draft by-law was unreasonable, illegal, onerous and not likely defensible because they were discriminatory by singling out hogs and in particular, liquid manure.
But, I think I'm beginning to understand the theory of Today's NDP. They have obviously taken the position that if they can't retain or expand Manitoba's cheap labour force (including migrant labour) then they might as well put the pigs to work. Pigs don't demand a safe workplace. They don't demand animal rights. They don't demand overtime. They only ask for lodging and the cheapest available feed and aren't concerned about food safety. They're provided free public transportation. They have their own private health care services. Unemployment statistics for pigs remains at zero percent. They don't require workers compensation or a pension plan. They won't vote in a union. They can't commit crime from behind bars. Pigs that don't produce can easily be replaced. They don't need to be regulated. They pass all profits to their employers, the Manitoba Pork Council and the NDP. They won't bother folks in the city, and they will stay in rural Manitoba if you want them to.
By the way, don't forget to sign your driver's license to donate to the organ donor program. I think the reason they're introducing a human gene into pigs is to take advantage of a program that would give pigs priority on the waiting list. After all, we shouldn't stand in the way of progress and we shouldn't be so selfish. Shame on us.

Earl Dyck
Douglas, MB

go to top
go to home page