July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
A difference between CAFOs (03/24/2009)
Editorial
One thing farmers don't want to acknowledge is that there are differences between different types of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).
We've argued with farmer friends for years that poultry are different from hogs and hogs are different from dairy cows. While we suspect that they agree, they can't admit it; it's important for ag interests to hang together for solidarity. That may not be smart, but it's certainly understandable.
Today, the concern is about a huge dairy operation planned along the county line road. The original public notices ran in the newspaper in the spring of 2008. It was reported on in articles on county commissioners' meetings and zoning meetings.
But it didn't raise much of a blip on the radar because the zoning processes, which mostly bounce the decision to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, were already in place, having been approved after a period of years of debate.
(After numerous hog and poultry operations, another CAFO - though different and close to the Wabash - was within the norm. Not the sort of things to set off alarms.)
The site on the county line is troubling because of its proximity to the Wabash River.
The dairy operation, like all CAFOs, had to get an NPDES permit (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System). So does the town of Geneva, which operates a wastewater treatment plant near the Wabash. And so does, we believe, Red Gold, which operates a canning factory close to the Wabash.
The long and short of all this is that these issues are complicated.
They're impossible to talk about effectively when the focus is on a single project.
It's not about one CAFO. It's about larger policy implications for both agriculture and the environment. As such, it's a state issue.
Unfortunately for those concerned primarily about the environment, the governor has been a booster of large-scale livestock development and even made it one of his campaign planks. He's also been busy gutting the enforcement division of IDEM.
Ohio CAFO operators face much greater scrutiny from inspections than those in Indiana. The governor's approach has been to be reactive (after a mess) rather than proactive (before the problem develops).
Fortunately, there are indications that EPA does not find Mitch's approach to be sufficient. - J.R.
Thursday, the state and international aspects.[[In-content Ad]]
We've argued with farmer friends for years that poultry are different from hogs and hogs are different from dairy cows. While we suspect that they agree, they can't admit it; it's important for ag interests to hang together for solidarity. That may not be smart, but it's certainly understandable.
Today, the concern is about a huge dairy operation planned along the county line road. The original public notices ran in the newspaper in the spring of 2008. It was reported on in articles on county commissioners' meetings and zoning meetings.
But it didn't raise much of a blip on the radar because the zoning processes, which mostly bounce the decision to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, were already in place, having been approved after a period of years of debate.
(After numerous hog and poultry operations, another CAFO - though different and close to the Wabash - was within the norm. Not the sort of things to set off alarms.)
The site on the county line is troubling because of its proximity to the Wabash River.
The dairy operation, like all CAFOs, had to get an NPDES permit (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System). So does the town of Geneva, which operates a wastewater treatment plant near the Wabash. And so does, we believe, Red Gold, which operates a canning factory close to the Wabash.
The long and short of all this is that these issues are complicated.
They're impossible to talk about effectively when the focus is on a single project.
It's not about one CAFO. It's about larger policy implications for both agriculture and the environment. As such, it's a state issue.
Unfortunately for those concerned primarily about the environment, the governor has been a booster of large-scale livestock development and even made it one of his campaign planks. He's also been busy gutting the enforcement division of IDEM.
Ohio CAFO operators face much greater scrutiny from inspections than those in Indiana. The governor's approach has been to be reactive (after a mess) rather than proactive (before the problem develops).
Fortunately, there are indications that EPA does not find Mitch's approach to be sufficient. - J.R.
Thursday, the state and international aspects.[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD