NoNAIS.org

I don’t like seeing sows in gestation or farrowing crates. It really bothers me. I’ve seen photos of it at big factory farms and I’ve seen it in person at some local farms. It isn’t necessary. Bowing to public pressure Smithfield Foods recently announced that they are abandoning the practice of confining sows to gestation crates and will use group pens … in 11 to 21 years. This has created quite the uproar [1, 2, 3] in the pork publications I subscribe to. Some people feel that is insufficient while others say it is impossible, uneconomical and will be a disaster. It does feel like a looong time to the sows. Podchef wrote about this from a consumer and cook’s perspective over on The Kitchen Gardens Network.

While I would not defend Smithfield Foods in the slightest, I can tell you the likely reason as to why it will be 11 and 21 years for the transition. They are faced with replacing billions of dollars worth of equipment, perhaps tens of billions of dollars worth. Most of the farmers are ‘independents’ who work under contract for Smithfield Foods and must pay for this themselves. They just don’t have the cash to do it. The reality is they are often simply serfs to the system. Making an immediate change is not possible.

Then that raises the whole question of recycling all that old metal and other materials from the smaller foot print operations. Dump all that on the market at once and you’ll hurt still more people who’s business is recycling by depressing prices through over supply. As little as you and I like the crating, improvements don’t happen instantly.

Frankly, where Smithfield Foods is going is not the ideal either. It will still be confinement operations and factory ‘farming’. They will still have massive pollution problems, be using chemicals that are bad for the environment, bad you and I and bad for the pigs.

What consumers need to do is stop buying from the big producers, the factories, and I don’t call them farms. Instead look to your small local livestock producers that raise animals on pasture in more natural conditions. We raise pigs on pasture here at Sugar Mountain Farm in Vermont and are Certified Naturally Grown. We sell locally, a higher quality product and at a competitive price. There are a tremendous number of farmers like us who are your neighbors. Get to know them and buy from them. Support your local farmers, keep money in your community and Buy Locally.

Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mtn farm
http://SugarMtnFarm.com
http://NoNAIS.org

[A letter to Rolling Stone. -WJ]

Dear Editors,

I read your article “Boss Hog” by Jeff Tietz with interest. It reinforces what I know - I am a pork producer but our pigs live out on pasture and are raised Certified Naturally Grown. Factories like like you describe are not farms.

The horrors at Smithfield Foods and the factory farm industry in general are a prime example of why we must support true local agriculture from small farmers and homesteaders who produce livestock on pasture. The factory farms are the antithesis of healthy and sustainable.

Yet the USDA and our government in general is pushing for ever larger production facilities. Virtually all the government programs are aimed at making big business bigger and killing off sustainable farming. Through their new National Animal Identification System (NAIS) they’re squashing small farmers by increasing the costs on them and making exemptions that favor big business. They have switched to calling NAIS voluntary but have admitted that if you don’t volunteer you’ll be locked out of the market.

Consumers can fight back. Care about what you eat and what business you support. Buy locally. Do the http://SlowFood.com thing. Buy from small producers. Keep the money in your local economy and the pollutants down. Support your neighbors. Get healthy food. Go to http://NoNAIS.org to find out about how to protect our traditional rights to farm.

Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mtn Farm
Pastured Pigs & Sheep
in the mountains of Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog/
http://NoNAIS.org/

[As always, you are welcome to use anything including this letter, in whole or parts, in any way you can to fight against NAIS and for protecting our traditional rights to farm. See the Copyright & Use note in the lower left column. Cheers, -WalterJ]

The government keeps repeating that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is necessary to provide 48-hour tracking to improve animal health. To some people, this sounds plausible. But even a little scratching under the surface reveals that these claims have holes a mile wide. My personal experience with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and animal tracking makes it clear that this will be just another program to increase the size of government and place individuals at the mercy of bureaucratic whims, while doing absolutely nothing to actually address animal health.

On January 22, 2007, an Investigator for the USDA, Carl H. LaLonde, Jr., of Raleigh, N.C. came to our ranch. He showed me his gold and silver badge and laid a health paper on my desk. He asked, “Do you notice anything wrong with that?” I looked it over, noticing it was a cow we sold a year ago. I remembered the cow. After a careful viewing test, I said, “No, I am sorry I do not know what is wrong.” Reply, “You have exported cattle all over the world and you can’t see the cow doesn’t have an ID number - it says there is supposed to be a number on the cow!”

Actually, the box on the form said, “Eartag no. or other official identification, name or description.” When I pointed out that the cow’s registered name was clearly typed, meeting that requirement, LaLonde interrupted and insisted that only a “number” would do.

So here’s the story: In June 2005, we purchased a herd of 472 registered Texas Longhorn cattle in Oklahoma. Each animal received a health certificate from P. L. Edmonds, DVM, of Morris, Oklahoma. In January 2006, we sold one cow, named Rosey Barb, to an Ohio producer. Her health paper was prepared to ship her from Oklahoma to Dundee, Ohio.

In August 2006, LaLonde arrived, unannounced, at Dundee, Ohio and quizzed the owner about the shipment of Rosey Barb. Being a first time exporter from Oklahoma, he was shocked. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. LaLonde did not ask to see the cow, health records, or if she was dead or alive - the issue was entirely about paperwork, not inspecting the animal or protecting animal health.

In our conversation, LaLonde asked me who was driving the truck when Rosey crossed the state lines. He assured us the driver who had crossed into Ohio without legal paper work was in violation. I assured him I had authorized the shipment and no matter who the driver was, I was fully responsible.

LaLonde then said that the Oklahoma vet was at fault for omitting the number. Since the vet was licensed by the USDA, the government would punish him. We had physically transported the cow to Ohio without proper documentation and would equally be in violation. A citation would be in order and the case would be recorded on our ranch records. I was required to fill out numerous forms admitting guilt and detailing each fact for further prosecution. Although I have never had a USDA violation in Ohio, ever, the next time something happens I will be treated as a “second time offender.” That will be considered, in USDA legal terms, “wanton, habitual disregard of the law.” And all because a veterinarian wrote the cow’s name on the form instead of a number.

I asked what would be done to Dr. Edmonds. LaLonde said Edmonds had no excuse. He knows this number is required and understands the penalties if he does not fill out a health paper exactly correct. Dr. Edmonds would have a hearing, and he might even lose his license. I said it would be depressing to think a professional with a major large animal health practice could lose his license over one number. Investigator LaLonde smiled. His job was investigation and prosecution, not fairness or animal health. Dr. Edmonds prepared health papers for over 400 cattle for Dickinson Cattle Co. and left one number off of one certificate and he will pay the price.

This was not an issue of BSE, TB, Bangs, a stolen cow or forgery. It was one number. As of today, LaLonde has driven several hundred miles about this one single number. It could have been handled by phone.

This is USDA. This is what it can be like to have NAIS enforcers at the door. NAIS will penalize vets, livestock owners, buyers, haulers and numerous livestock workers. One wrong number. What will it cost your family if we have a fully functional NAIS?

It is the serious job of every USA livestock owner to oppose the total USDA program of NAIS. Do this for your family and children. NAIS is cold and ruthless. It is not about disease—it is about control. Call your state, federal and all elected officials who have authority to stop NAIS. Each farm/ranch has a few months left to fight for your freedom against wanton, unremorseful, full time enforcement of the most feared USDA proposal in history—–NAIS.

As Investigator LaLonde left the office,he smiled, shook my hand and said, “I love my job.”

This is exact to the letter.
Happened January 22, 2007, at
Dickinson Cattle Co.
Barnesville, Ohio.
Submitted by Darol Dickinson