Small farmers take dim view of avian flu plan
|
|
Toolbox
By Louis Porter Staff Writer - Published: April 9, 2006
Scout and Matt Proft's farm on an East Dorset hillside is, in some ways, an old idea in Vermont agriculture. Poultry, mainly chickens plus some ducks and geese, is a mainstay of their operation, with vegetable farming and maple sugaring thrown in. And most of what they produce is sold locally.
The Profts have taken a relatively new approach to poultry farming. Their birds are raised outdoors for much of the year and the premium price they bring for the "organic" label makes up for the higher cost of feed.
But Scout Proft worries that things are about to get complicated. She and others worry that the potential federal response to a virulent strain of avian influenza making its way to North America from Asia, Africa and Europe, and the illness itself, could change the way of life she and her husband have carved out of the Vermont landscape over the last quarter century.
"It is one of the few agricultural enterprises that is profitable on the side of a hill," she said of their Someday Farm, where 2,000 to 5,000 birds are raised at any given time. "It is probably one of the few ways we could use this land."
Like many small Vermont farmers and livestock owners, the Profts worry the one-size-fits-all approach of the federal plan will threaten their ability to raise animals cost effectively.
In Europe and Quebec, poultry farmers are restricted from raising fowl outside. There is evidence migratory waterfowl carry the disease, and it is feared that domestic poultry might get it from passing flocks, hence the "indoors only" rule.
For the Profts, building housing for their temporarily on hold, is hovering in the background. The federal plan would require livestock owners to tag their livestock, allowing the government to track them back to their origins if problems arise. Larger animals would probably need special ear tags. Smaller livestock like poultry would likely be tracked in flocks under the federal system, although some worry that small operations would have to put leg bands on individual birds.
Opponents are skeptical because the tracking plan, developed during the scare over mad cow disease, was hatched by a collaboration of federal officials, agriculture organizations and farm technology companies that make identification systems.
Karl Hammer of Montpelier is probably unique in his outlook as a small farmer. With a striped engineer's cap and a self-described nose for compost, Hammer raises chickens and keeps mules, although he earns most of his money from making compost.
His chickens — he has about 850 romping on his land right now — play a crucial role in turning the discarded food from local schools and institutions into rich potting soil.
A student of what he calls "chicken sociology," Hammer points out that like humans, the birds are both individuals and part of a group, he says.
What about the small group of chickens that live on his land but say "no thanks" to the chicken coop at night? "They're a guerrilla community living outside the law," he said. "I have a certain empathy for their position." Would he be required to track and monitor them, Hammer wonders.
In the end, "I am not finding it easy to have a position," he said of the debate between privacy and public health.
Some poultry operations bring in massive numbers of young birds, raise them up to weight and ship them to slaughter. "That is not what we are into here," he said. "We are into geriatrics." An elderly hen may not lay as many eggs, which he also sells, but she will still transform a rotten tomato into the makings of rich dirt.
Hammer said he understands why people are worried about avian influenza, but he cautions against fear overtaking preparation for the possible arrival of the disease. And he isn't crazy about the idea of the government tracking farms and livestock.
"I don't want to put a plastic tag on each of my animals," he said. "I am not into disseminating plastic."
But Kerr warns against confusing the state's modest plan with the U.S. Department of Agriculture draft plan on animal identification.
"We are not running interference for the USDA," he said.
The state considered and rejected an "animal identification" provision, Kerr said. The Agriculture Agency decided that most health concerns could be answered with the less intrusive program of "premises registration" now being proposed, he said. The best way to keep the federal requirement from going into effect is to defend the state's right to control animals within its borders and put the "premises registration" system in place, Kerr said.
He added he will also testify against the federal animal identification plan, if it moves forward.
But farmer advocacy groups like Rural Vermont contend the state program is intrusive and damaging to small farmers. And it could open the door to individual animal identification, they argue, pointing out that the state's own plan mentions that animal identification is a possibility in the future.
Scout Proft, who is also a member of the Rural Vermont advocacy group, isn't crazy about either the state's premises registration or the idea of animal tracking. The state already knows where most of the livestock operations are and farmers know better than anyone else the health of their livestock, she said.
"Like most small farmers, every single animal on our farm is crucial," Proft said.
Most agree that avian influenza is an issue whose potential importance to poultry farmers is clear.
Millions of birds have been exterminated on other continents in an effort to slow the disease, which has also killed more than 100 humans. What worries health officials is that while people do not often contract the illness, it generally kills them when they do.
There are so far no known cases of person-to-person contagion, and all human cases so far are among people in developing countries who live in close proximity to their poultry. The issue in Vermont is conflated with fears of government intrusion into privacy and individual rights.
And in some ways, the debate is also playing into other conflicts between small farmers and big operations, say lawmakers and others. Some see more advantages than harm to the state's premises registration effort and to individual animal identification.
Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Canaan, is a veteran dairy farmer with 600 Holsteins. One reason dairy farmers don't seem as concerned about either plan, is that they have been through it all before, he said. Until a decade ago when cattle no longer had to be vaccinated for brucellosis, cows were all tracked using ear tags. Even now, he and other dairy farmers use ear tags and keep records on their cows, Johnson said.
"Dairymen don't generally have a problem with it," he said.
The Vermont Farm Bureau supports implementation of the state rule and does not object to federal animal identification, as long as it's not a burden on farmers. Where Johnson farms, on the Canadian border in Canaan, farmers have already gotten a taste of the Quebec system, and he says it's not all bad. In Quebec, individual animal identification is the rule. If an animal gets sick or a person gets sick from eating it, the cow or sheep can be traced to where it was born and the other animals which came in contact with it can be as well.
"It does involve a great deal of monitoring and paperwork," he said. "The upside is that within an hour they can trace back every animal."
Sometimes Quebec farmers complain about their system. For instance, a calf that disappears and has probably fallen victim to coyotes, still has to be accounted for somehow, Johnson said. But he says the Canadian farmers he knows support the system, in part because it opens up new overseas markets for their products where consumers and governments demand such systems, he said.
The federal program appears to be driven by commercial concerns as well as health worries, Kerr said. In Japan tracking technology is taken to an extreme, experts said. There some grocery customers can scan a package of beef, and a computer screen shows a history – complete with photographs of its former homes — of the animal's life travels from calf barn to slaughterhouse.
Former Commissioner of Agriculture Paul Stone now has one of the largest turkey farms in Vermont. Fresh Thanksgiving turkeys from his Orwell farm fetch a premium from customers all over the Northeast looking for Vermont-raised birds. What will he do if his turkeys are wiped out by avian influenza months before slaughtering time? Stone wonders.
"I think we need a program now. We need to know where the animals are so if we have an outbreak of avian influenza they can act quickly to contain it," he said. "My livelihood, in fact the survival of my farm, depends on my turkey crop. I don't have other income." Government reimbursement plans would pay him the per-bird value — based on the price of regular commercial turkeys — at the time they were destroyed if any of them tested positive for the disease.
But that might be a fraction of what he had spent raising them and what he could get come fall. And he raises just one crop of turkeys a year, so his annual income could be wiped out in a single stroke.
Stone, whose farm has about 23,000 turkeys, has some personal experience with avian influenza. In 1985, when he was commissioner, a strain of the disease much less virulent than the current version sweeping across the Eastern Hemisphere, popped up in New York and Pennsylvania. Vermont farmers were spared, but 17 million birds in other states were killed to contain the illness, Stone said.
That experience and what Stone has learned about today's strain, has prompted him to put up enough buildings so he can keep his flocks inside. And although his meat packaging label proudly welcomes visitors to the farm, he may have to restrict their access for fear they could carry the virus onto the premises with their shoes.
Kerr and others said tagging individual poultry would probably not be part of the federal plan, even if it were implemented.
But small farm advocates are not easily convinced. Indeed, the tracking requirements could drive small holdings under, they said.
"I think Vermont should say we are not going with the USDA program," Proft said. "I am suggesting we write our own laws and say we will not go their way. Vermont is a very different place than other states. We really do rely on our local food."
But Kerr said that if someone opposes at least the state's proposed premises registration they need to suggest an alternative.
"If you own livestock in this state you have a responsibility to everybody else in this state," he said.
13