STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.
- Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.
- Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually.
- Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.
I thought then if you really want to look into as I have I would go to the websites I've added below.
American Veterinary Association
dvm360.com
Beef - beefmagazine.com
I found all three articles basically the same. They presented both sides of the issue. I think the thing that interested me the most was the division that occurred in the California Veterinary Medical Assoc. So divisive was it among the members of the Assoc. there is now two associations in California. The other were veterinarians who opposed Prop 2 they formed the Association of Californian Veterinarians.
So where do I stand. Like most farmers/ranchers we are against this Proposition. We see it as an attack by animal rights activists. The states of Florida, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon have passed similar statutes on veal calves and sows. Most veal producers are moving to a different confinement system then those of the past. As for sows research has been done over and over on different types of confinement systems to insure a higher survival rate of piglets.
I find myself falling into the economic impact of this future law when it comes into effect in 2015. Most individuals do not understand the the potential in agriculture of any shift in the cost of inputs or weather can cause financial collapse of the agriculture operation. It doesn't matter if it is the family farm or corporate farming. Both our egg industry and broiler industry are what called integrated industries. A corporation owns all of the production of the eggs and broilers that we consume. There are only about seven or eight corporations in both industries that produce both products. To require larger cages requires more space. To be honest it would be cheaper to move the operations in California out of the state where it will be cheaper to produce eggs. This will be a large loss to the state of California in revenue. The cost to the consumer will go up because of the cost of transportation of eggs into the state. I'm sure the 64% of voters who passed this bill didn't even think of the cost of their eggs and pork increasing.
As I sit and look at what is happening around me in agriculture since the stock market went in the tank I see as gloomy near future. I've watched fellow cattle producers dump their cows on the market because they can no longer feed through the winter. Pilgrim's Pride has filed for bankruptcy protection. Tyson is also having problems. All as a result of speculators involved in the Futures Market with grain. Producers of Eggs, Broilers, Milk Producers, Beef Feedlots, and Pork Producers all have to buy large amounts of grain to produce the meat, eggs and milk you drink. They use the futures market to guarantee a price on the grain they need. This gives them an exact amount of dollars they will put into a calf that will go to your plate as a ribeye or hamburger. Same with the broiler, the egg, a gallon of milk and the pork loin. Tyson ventured into pork production and other companies have followed so pork like broilers is mostly integrated. Those inflated grain prices have caused a burden on these companies and food prices won't go down until they have run through the grain they purchased earlier this year via the Futures Market. Then it still may not go down even though the transportation costs have gone down. Grocery stores rarely lower prices once the consumer is used to paying a particular price for their product since they run on a very small margin.
I suppose the thing that drives me the nuts the most are the animal rights activists. Disease and injury is a greater risk in these larger systems. When it comes to chickens and pork their control of disease is the greatest issue. In chickens that range in the open or even in covered pens that are moved each day their is a greater risk of disease. In laying house they can control the environment to keep disease at a minimum. This is so true I could not enter a laying house if I wasn't an employee. The same is true in a farrowing operation (swine breeding). So that argument is mute. And as I mentioned above one small thing should go wrong in any agriculture operation it can mean the difference between profit and loss. Should disease hit a laying operation the only thing the egg producer can do is empty the entire facility of hens, which are humanly destroyed. Then totally clean the entire facility and wait for the next available delivery of replacement pullets. This throws the entire process by the corporation in their ability to meet delivery on their normal rotation of replacing older hens with younger hens in all of their laying houses.
The other thing that seems to drive me nuts more then anything is that the great majority of our population has no idea that the most dynamic industry in the US is agriculture. Without the continued research in agriculture we would not enjoy the availablity of food we enjoy today. If I could scream at the top of my lungs I would. You enjoy the lifestyle you have today because of the ability of our country to feed our population. Wake up and realize we have a hunger problem in this country for reasons other then our agriculture systems. Wake up and realize I'm not the dumb rancher. If I have to I can grow food other then our cattle to feed myself. Could you? Your food doesn't come from a grocery store. It comes from people like me. So animal rights activist I doubt greatly that you could do what I do. Trust me if our economy so totally collapsed you would be in a heap of problems trying to get food. Every producer would protect their food for their family first, I'm no different.
Finally, there is an estimated 3500 jobs lost in California as a result of this bill. That is another economic impact that the state doesn't receive tax revenue from those who lost their job. Californian residences will be paying for their loss of jobs. Right now we in our current economic position as a country just don't need more jobs lost.
I can only conclude the voters of California were STUPID!
Just my thoughts.
Kim
3 comments:
You contend the voters in California were stupid. I contend they were compassionate.
I removed the comment above as I quoted myself twice with exactly the same comment.
Below is part of my response to Tracy's comment. I was very nice in my email to her. I appreciate Tracy's comment, but felt it needed a response. Overall I feel the general knowledge of the citizens of this country is blind to what really happens when it comes to where your food really comes from.
Is what the voters of California done with their vote compassionate, maybe in your eyes. Do you think compassion towards chickens is a good thing when you don't know the problems that occur by allowing chickens more space? Did you know they are constant fighters. More room in cages allows for more fights leading to more injuries thus more hens needing to be destroyed prematurely (before they are sent to Campbell's soup. Have you seen a piglet squashed by their mothers? Under current confinement systems there is less then 10% loss of piglets. Under any other confinement systems the loss of piglets is 60-100%. That is including a natural confinement system (pasture). More and more producers of veal have already moved to systems of large paddocks for their calves. I would hope that if you find the voters compassionate in California then is a more expensive product in the grocery store a burden to those at the lower end of the economic scale in our country? Are you willing to pay more taxes to support those families so they can eat?
I want to leave you with one more thought. Using the example of three commodities sold in this country: bananas, coffee, and chocolate. Of the three we only grow a small amount of Kona coffee in Hawaii and import all of the remaining coffee into our country from mostly third world countries. Bananas are grown by those individuals in extreme southern climates but not on a level that are grown by growers for the grocery store. All of the bananas and cocoa (used to make chocolate) is imported into our country. Well over 95% of the coffee consumed in this country is imported. Now why in the world would we take productive land out of production of food for the people of countries like Sumatra, Columbia and other countries? I often ask the same question, because I'm guilty of buying coffee and cocoa in the form of chocolate. I certainly can do without bananas as they aren't essential to my survival. Are we as a nation guilty of not being compassionate to third world countries, my answer would be yes.
Just my thoughts!
Kim
Post a Comment