Some thoughts...

Maybe, the solution to helping Ohio family farms is not Issue 2 but rather for the consumer to realize that our food costs are some of the lowest in the world, and lower then really makes sense. In 1929 the average American spent 23.4% of their income on food. Today it is around 10% with nearly half of that being from eating out! Maybe, the solution is to realize that an egg should cost more than 15 cents each! And maybe price increases should go to the farmer.

Out of that 15 cents the farmer sees maybe 6 cents. And that has to feed, house, and care for that chicken for a day (1 egg a day on average is very good production.) That 6 cents also has to pay for buildings, new chickens, insurance, and pay the farmer's salery.

The reason a dozen organic eggs is $3.50 or $4.00 is because that is how much it costs to raise chickens in conditions which most people would consider “reasonable.” The reason true Pastured eggs cost even more is because that is how much it costs to raise chickens in more “optimal” conditions.

Most people would be shocked to realize that in most egg farms chickens are kept in battery cages. On average, each caged laying hen is afforded only 67 square inches of cage space—less space than a single sheet of letter-sized paper on which to live her entire life.

We don’t like to think that the amount of money we choose to spend on our food has a direct relation to how the animals are raised. The extra $2 a dozen for cage free eggs does not buy the farmer European vacations and expensive cars, it buys them the ability to treat their animals the way most farmers want to, in the most humane way possible.

U.S. consumers spend roughly 10 percent of their income on food compared with 22 percent in the United Kingdom, 26 percent in Japan, 28 percent in South Africa and 51 percent in India. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reports that in 1919 the average American had to work 158 minutes to buy a three-pound chicken; nowadays, 15 minutes gets you the bird. Americans spend less than 6% of their after-tax income on groceries, a figure so low they can afford to spend another 4% eating out.

Add to that fact that today a much smaller percentage of the food dollar goes to the farmer then used to. Look at how even the price to farmers is compared with the price to marketers over the past 40 years.

From Envirovore: On average, farmers and ranchers only receive 20 cents of every dollar that consumers spend on food.
Lays Classic potato chips: $3.79 = .08
One head of iceburg lettuce: $1.99 = .37
One pound top sirloin steak: $7.99 = .92
Pound of bacon: $3.29 = .55
Loaf of sliced bread (one pound): $2.99 = .17
One gallon skim milk: $3.99 = 1.55
Five pounds of flour: $2.89 = .86

Add to this the fact that farmers costs from seed and fuel to fertilizer and land are steadily rising every year. It is really no wonder why large operations are so scared of additional regulation which will require them to give their animals ore space. They simply do not have the profit margin to do so. Many have little or no profit at all, even after long days and high risks.

Large farmers in Ohio are in a catch 22. If legislation passes in Ohio which limits confinement livestock operations what will happen? Probably most consumers will not even register the blip, grocery stores will just buy their product from states that do not have those regulations and hundreds or thousands of Ohio farms will go quietly out of business. And the funny thing is, many of the same voters who will vote AGAINST cruel confinement animal operations will be shocked that now their normal eggs have doubled in price, and will happily change to the cheaper out of state product.

Still, I feel the solution is not Issue 2, but rather for all of us to realize the true cost of the food we eat, and the way it is raised/grown, and vote with our dollars. Maybe eat out a couple fewer times a month or buy less processed food and use the diffrence to support farmers and farming techniques we agree with.

(I know, probably to much to hope for...)

Because Issue 2 passed in 2009...

Watch this hilarious but scary video about Issue 2 from our friends at George Jones Memorial Farm,



Here are farmers at the Shaker Square farmers market.

Issue 2 - anouther farmer's point of view

I received an email this weekend from a group I am involved with which shared an email from a local livestock farmer.

Hi Everyone,
We've been asked by quite a few people about our opinion on Issue 2. I sat here trying to write an email that tells you why we do NOT think Issue 2 is a good idea, and was looking around for sources to cite. I found http://www.ohioact.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Issue2.pdf does a much better job of accurately informing you about this issue than I felt I could.

How can this issue effect small family farms? For instance: if the appointed board rules that pastured poultry poses a health risk to confined chicken in large houses because of birds landing on our farm and flying to a factory farm, they will be eliminating pastured poultry. When the avian flu hit Virginia a few years ago, this really was an issue for pastured poultry farmers. Had they had Issue 2 in Virginia at that time, the state could've eliminated the pastured poultry operations without further protest. The modern conventional thought is already leaning in favor of the factory raised animal rather than the sustainable small farm model, so we're thinking their rules will be biased away from the sustainable farming practices that we employ. There is nothing to stop them from ruling against organic, sustainable farming practices!
Please take a few minutes to acquaint yourself with the information below (in the link above). The Vote Yes people have definitely used very appealing wording in their ad campaigns, but we think Issue 2 has a potentially damaging effect on truly small, local family farms.

We agree. A vote for issue 2 in not a vote for the small family farm. Instead it is a vote to put big agribusiness interests in our state constitution. And put their decisions above those of our elected legislator or state department of agriculture.

Tell your friends for sure, or we will see Issue 2 win easily. Afterall, who is against small family farms and taking care of livestock?

Issue 2

I know, I know. You want me to blog about the farm and not silly legislation! But here is one you get to actually vote for, YOURSELF. Here is one you get to tell your friends and neighbors about, to educate those around you. And we can make a real difference.

On the ballot this November 3rd you will see Issue 2. It will say:

• "2 PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: TO CREATE THE OHIO LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDS BOARD TO ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT STANDARDS OF CARE FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY"

And you will think to yourself. "Why, yeah! I support the care and health of livestock animals!" And you will reach for the "Yes" ____ (button, lever, chad, scantron bubble (however, we are voting this time!))

A yes vote is a mistake, in my opinion. You are voting to create a board, primarily of industry insiders (the ones who run CAFOs and Battery Chicken houses now) who will set standards that every farmer will have to follow. Rules that are probably not even applicable to people like me with 24 chickens...

The Humane Society of the United States says "It’s designed to favor large factory farms, not family farmers, Issue 2 is opposed by the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio League of Humane Voters, and the Ohio Sierra Club. The editorial boards of Ohio’s major newspapers—including the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, and Dayton Daily News—all oppose this effort to enshrine the agribusiness lobby’s favored oversight system in the state’s constitution."

Other groups which oppose Issue 2 are the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (the certifying organization for Organic in Ohio), Northeast Ohio's chapter of Slow Food, and the Innovative Farmers of Ohio (an organization for small, sustainable growers).

The Journal of Whole Food and Nutritional Health says "Factory Farmers are promoting this constitutional amendment as a way to protect them from criticism by the Humane Society and PETA and other people who may question their treatment of animals.... Do not be fooled by the misleading language of this proposal. It protects large, industrial farms that confine hundreds and even thousands of animals for rapid growth using antibiotics, hormones, and unnatural habitats. Vote NO on Issue 2"

We have about a month to make sure everyone we know knows about this issue, so I will try to talk about it about once a week until then, interspersed with lots of farm photos and news.

Until then, think about this. Many of us are doing what we can to limit how much meat we eat from CAFOs or Battery Chicken Houses. So why would we support a bill which puts that very industry in charge of animal care regulations in our state, in our state constitution?

Why?