Future of livestock in Ohio uncertain

Last November, voters in Ohio passed a ballot initiative amending the state Constitution to create, for the first time, a Livestock Care Standards Board. The Board is to consist of 13 members, representing a "variety" of interests, as follows.

- The Director of Agriculture (Chairperson)
- One person representing family farmers
- One person knowledgeable about food safety
- Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers (essentially, Farm Bureau members)
- One licensed veterinarian
- The State Veterinarian
- Dean of the Agriculture Department at a college or university
- Two representatives of consumers
- One representative from a county humane society
- One family farmer appointed by the Speaker of the House, and
- One family farmer appointed by the President of the Senate

A couple of things to note right off the bat. First, neither the bill nor the enacting legislation define 'family farmer.' Given this ambiguity, the Board could potentially define it broadly to include farms technically owned by a family (i.e. Smith Family Farms) that nonetheless employ several hundred workers and raise hundreds to thousands of animals; hardly a family farm in the common understanding of the term. Alternatively, it may choose to simply operate without defining the term, thus leaving it to a future legal challenge and court interpretation, though it is unclear who would have standing to bring that kind of action.

Second, Ohio is an Ag state. This means that agricultural interests dominate state and local politics, the same as energy does is West Virginia and ranching interests in Montana. Potentially then, there are 12 out of the 13 seats on the Board that can be filled with Ag interests. The one that is least likely to be an Ag seat is the humane society representative. With that kind of majority, there is no reason not to expect that the Board will simply perpetuate the current policies in place regarding "livestock care."

Let's be clear, the current policies are not pretty. Ohio is a significant meat and dairy producing state in the country, with over 2.5 million animals in agriculture in the state. It is the 9th largest pork producing state in the country. Currently, standard industry practice (farming is "industrial" in nearly every sense of the word), includes the use of gestation/farrowing crates for pigs, battery cages for hens, and nearly constant milking for cows. Gestation crates are holding devices that restrict a sow's ability to move once impregnated, through gestation, and into birth. Farrowing crates, which follow, are also holding devices that restrict a sow's ability to move so that her piglets can constantly suckle her for milk. Battery cages are also holding pens for laying hens that are used on industrial farms across the state and country. They are incredibly confining for the hens, and are generally stacked 6-8 high, and the hens never leave the cages. Lastly, dairy cows are milked constantly and are artificially inseminated several times a year. See my previous post for some of the more egregious consequences of industrial dairies.

Fortunately, in the wake of Ohio's push to maintain the status quo organizations are gathering signatures for an initiative on this year's ballot that would at least limit the Livestock Care Board's seemingly unfettered discretion a little by creating minimum standards of care. These include:

- prohibiting any tethering device or confinement that wouldn't allow a veal calf, pregnant sow, or egg-laying hen to stand up, lie down, turn around freely and stretch its limbs,
- requiring "humane" slaughter (though this is ostensibly already embodied in the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, a federal law),
- prohibiting strangulation as a form of euthanasia (see my post: Death on a Factory Farm), and
- prohibiting the transfer/sale of downer cows for human food supply.

Last time, Ohioans got it wrong. Hopefully this time, they won't.