Friday, August 5, 2022
CapitalPress.com 11
Poultry: No chickens will be slaughtered on site
Continued from Page 1
community of Jordan and another
between the cities of Stayton and
Aumsville — are still in the pro-
cess of obtaining permits.
Eric Simon, a longtime poul-
try farmer from Brownsville,
Ore., will own and manage J-S
Ranch. He said newer facilities
are equipped with modern tech-
nology and state-of-the-art ven-
tilation systems that minimize
impacts like odor, while provid-
ing the perfect environment for
chickens.
Barns are cleaned and disin-
fected between each flock, and
manure is sold as nutrient-rich
fertilizer.
“Frankly, we’ve been operat-
ing these businesses for 30 years
out here, and we haven’t done
harm to the area,” Simon said.
“So the proof is out there.”
Continued from Page 11
George Plaven/Capital Press
Eric Simon, a longtime chick-
en farmer, will operate the J-S
Ranch near Scio, Ore. He and
others in the poultry indus-
try say new technology for
the farms is tailored for ani-
mal welfare, while controlling
odor. Simon is pictured here
at Hiday Poultry Farms LLC in
Brownsville.
Three farms
It has taken Simon nearly
two years from when he bought
the property in 2020 to receive
his permit for a confined animal
feeding operation, or CAFO, for
J-S Ranch.
The permit was issued May
26 by the Oregon Department of
Agriculture and Department of
Environmental Quality, which
jointly manage the state’s CAFO
program. J-S Ranch will include
11 barns, each measuring 39,120
square feet, where Simon will
raise six flocks of up to 580,000
chickens per year, totaling 3.48
million birds.
No chickens will be slaugh-
tered on site. Instead, they will be
sent to Foster Farms’ processing
plant in Kelso, Wash.
Farmers Against Foster Farms,
along with seven other groups
that oppose the project, peti-
tioned ODA and DEQ in June
to reconsider the permit, saying
it does not do enough to protect
water and wells from possible
contamination.
The agencies denied the peti-
tioners’ request for a temporary
stay, finding they did not show
they would suffer irreparable
harm.
Simon said he has not yet bro-
ken ground, but hopes to later this
summer.
Meanwhile, the owners of the
two other proposed large-scale
chicken farms are still seeking
permits.
Jason Peters submitted a
CAFO application for Evergreen
Ranch on May 22, which would
allow him to construct 16 barns
each measuring 60-by-600 feet.
Here, he would raise six flocks of
up to 750,000 chickens annually,
or 4.5 million birds.
Evergreen Ranch would be
near Thomas Creek, roughly 8
miles east of Scio and within a
half-mile of the Lourdes Public
Charter School in Jordan.
Meanwhile, Hiday Poultry
Farms LLC has purchased an
86-acre property between Stayton
and Aumsville in Marion County.
The other two farms are in Linn
County.
Owner Randy Hiday currently
raises 530,000 chickens per flock
for Foster Farms in the Browns-
ville area, 40 miles to the south.
Neighbors concerned
Teresa Clausen, a neighbor
whose home is across a small irri-
gation ditch from where Hiday
plans to expand, said she first
learned about the proposal in
2019.
At the time, Clausen was
working at a store where she met
a man who was a land scout for
Foster Farms. He told her about
the company’s plans, which Clau-
sen said came as a shock.
“I was fighting back tears, and
my adrenaline was rushing,” she
said. “Now slowly, over the last
two years, all of it is coming to
fruition.”
Until then, Clausen said
she had no idea the region was
being considered for more large
chicken farms. She contacted
Kendra Kimbirauskas, a small-
scale rancher in Scio, to learn
more about the proposals.
While Clausen said she
believes in the right to farm, she
worries such a large operation
next door might contaminate her
home’s well and foul the air with
poultry dust and ammonia.
“It will affect the community,”
she believes. “Not just the people
who live in proximity to it, but
the entirety of it.”
Kimbirauskas is one of the
core organizers of Farmers
Against Foster Farms, and has 20
years of experience advocating
for sustainable agriculture and
food systems.
“Neither our land use laws,
nor our water laws, nor our air
Ruling: Farmers
have technology
agreements
with biotech
companies
George Plaven/Capital Press
Baby chicks in a barn at Hiday Poultry Farms LLC in Brownsville,
Ore. The operation raises 530,000 broiler chickens per flock for
Foster Farms.
George Plaven/Capital Press
Linda Duman is the administrator for Lourdes Public Charter
School in Jordan, Ore., near the proposed Evergreen Ranch site
that would raise approximately 4.5 million broiler chickens an-
nually for Foster Farms. Duman said she is concerned about how
the operation will affect air and water quality in the community.
laws are currently at a level that’s
effective at mitigating (these)
impacts,” she said. “I think Ore-
gon is about 15 to 20 years
behind the rest of the country, in
the sense of how industrial ani-
mal agriculture has expanded.”
Water quality
A major point of conten-
tion is how the chicken farms
might impact surface water and
groundwater.
Opponents have argued the
local water table rises above sur-
face level during the rainy win-
ter months, increasing the likeli-
hood that pollutants from chicken
manure could seep underground
or wash into creeks and rivers.
“This place is just too wet in
the winter,” Eastman said. “The
water will come straight up, and
all that bird feces, ammonia and
urine is going to be pulled right
down into the ground.”
However, Bill Mattos, pres-
ident of the Northwest Chicken
Council, said farms are built and
managed in such a way to prevent
that from happening.
“There’s never been a dis-
charge of poultry product into a
stream in Oregon. It’s just never
happened,” Mattos said.
Chicken barns do not have
concrete floors, but instead have
compacted soil topped with 6-8
inches of dry wood shavings.
Used litter is stored in separate
facilities that do have a concrete
floor, and is kept only until it can
be sold for fertilizer.
“The idea that the manure is
going to lie around, it’s just not
going to happen,” Mattos said.
“It’s gone as soon as they can get
it shipped.”
As added conditions of the per-
mit issued to J-S Ranch, Simon
must complete a ground compac-
tion study before any chickens
arrive and monitor each of two
static wells to ensure groundwa-
ter remains at least 2 feet below
the floors.
Still, some residents say they
are not reassured.
Linda Duman, administra-
tor of the Lourdes Public Char-
ter School in Jordan, worries
the potential of airborne ammo-
nia and increased groundwater
nitrates from the proposed Ever-
green Ranch could cause health
problems in her students. The
school enrolls up to 49 kids,
grades K-8.
“It really hits children and
older people,” Duman said. “I
would think we put some com-
mon sense and critical thinking
into this.”
Need for expansion
Expansion is already under-
way at Hiday Poultry Farms’ Nye
Road Ranch in Brownsville, a
densely agricultural area sur-
rounded by grass seed fields,
hazelnut trees and sheep ranches.
Randy Hiday began raising
chickens nearly 30 years ago,
starting out at two small farms
in neighboring Lane County. He
bought the operation from Fos-
ter Farms in 2005, starting with
eight barns and building five
more.
Now, seven additional barns
are under construction as Hiday
said the need for expansion has
grown.
“When I started, we had about
105 to 110 farms in the North-
west. We have 26 left,” he said.
“I know we’re 5 million birds
short, probably, of where we
need to be.”
According to the Northwest
Chicken Council, Oregon has 26
growers with 151 barns totaling
3.17 million square feet, raising
more than 25 million chickens
per year. All of that production is
in the Willamette Valley.
Rich Reid, live production
manager for Foster Farms based
in Aurora, Ore., estimated the
company has lost 500,000 square
feet of barn space in the last five
years to grower retirements,
and expects to lose 1.2 million
square feet in the next five years.
”All of that growing space
we’re trying to replace to con-
tinue to be sustainable,” Reid
said.
Mattos said Americans eat
more chicken than any other
protein, and local production
is needed to satisfy increasing
demand.
Inside the barns
During a tour of one of the
Hiday barns near Browns-
ville, Mattos and representa-
tives of Foster Farms showed
how automated technology cre-
ates an ideal indoor environment
for thousands of baby chicks.
They all donned Tyvek suits for
biosecurity.
”This is what keeps the birds
happy,” Reid said, pointing to a
control panel that continuously
monitors temperature, humidity
and ammonia levels that meet
American Humane Farm Pro-
gram guidelines. “This is the
brain.”
According to a publication
from the University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension, though
smells associated with any type
of livestock farm are inevitable,
advancements in ventilation and
drinking systems help keep poul-
try barns dry, which in turn helps
to control odor.
“Properly operated poultry
houses emit minimal odor,” the
publication states. “In fact, it is
not unusual to approach a mod-
ern, well managed poultry house
without experiencing any or only
minimal odors. The drier condi-
tions in the houses also ensure lit-
tle or no fly production associated
with growing chickens.”
Air from inside these barns is
circulated to keep chickens cool,
and emitted from exhaust fans.
The exhaust extends about 50
feet before it is dispersed into the
atmosphere.
The publication, written by
Dan Cunningham, the univer-
sity’s extension coordinator for
poultry science, recommends
providing “reasonable” setbacks
from property lines and dwell-
ings to ensure neighbors are not
adversely impacted.
Both Hiday and Simon said
they have never received com-
plaints about their farms from
neighbors.
Jason Gentemann, Pacific
Northwest Division manager
for Foster Farms, said the mod-
ern facilities adopted by Hiday
and Simon are evidence of their
commitment to animal welfare,
while simultaneously minimizing
impacts such as odor.
”Somebody’s gotta grow
chickens to be able to feed peo-
ple in the state of Oregon,” Gen-
temann said. “They do it the right
way.”
Working group
The issue has garnered atten-
tion from the Oregon Senate,
which has convened a working
group to further examine the
impact of large poultry farms.
Sen. Michael Dembrow,
a Portland-area Democrat, is
leading the 21-member group,
which
includes
members
from Farmers Against Foster
Farms and other environmen-
tal groups, industry represen-
tatives and staff members from
ODA, DEQ, the Oregon Water
Resources Department and
Department of Land Conserva-
tion and Development.
The group met twice in July,
and will meet again Aug. 12 and
31 and Sept. 15. Dembrow said it
is still too early to tell what — if
any — proposals may be brought
back to the full Senate Committee
on Natural Resources and Wild-
fire Recovery.
Kimbirauskas, with Farm-
ers Against Foster Farms, said
the group needs to examine Ore-
gon’s land use laws to determine
whether massive chicken barns
should be allowed on high-value
farmland, and whether Oregon’s
CAFO program should regulate
air quality in addition to water
quality.
She said the farms also take
advantage of the state’s live-
stock watering exemption, which
exempts livestock from water
rights permits without restriction.
“We’re really trying to make
our rural area a place where peo-
ple want to live and have a vibrant
life,” she said, “and not just have
it be a sacrificed zone for these
corporations to take our wealth
and send it elsewhere.”
What is happening now may
be just the tip of the iceberg, Kim-
birauskas said. Foster Farms was
acquired in June by Atlas Hold-
ings, a Connecticut-based invest-
ment firm, for an undisclosed
amount.
“One thing we do know is that
companies don’t acquire other
companies to maintain the status
quo,” she said.
Depending on the work
group’s findings, Dembrow said
it is possible the state will need
to come up with a new strategy
to mitigate the impact of poultry
farms.
“I think there’s concern,” he
said. “(Opponents) are really
focused on Oregon not becom-
ing such a ‘chickenville.’ I sym-
pathize with that. If that’s what
we’re facing, that is problematic.”
the chain of events,” thereby directly
and immediately causing the injury,
the 8th Circuit said.
Unlike meth cooks, who are
“totally independent” from pharma-
ceutical companies, farmers have
technology agreements with biotech
companies and are licensed to use
genetically engineered seeds, the
ruling said.
Due to these “direct relation-
ships,” the biotech seed manufac-
turer exercises “some degree of con-
trol over their acts,” according to the
8th Circuit.
Cold medicine doesn’t have to
be misused to be effective, while
the “primary benefit” of the biotech
seed is its ability to withstand her-
bicide applications, the ruling said.
“Consumers could not receive that
benefit without misusing dicamba.”
Crops that are genetically engi-
neered to resist herbicides have
a contentious history in the farm
industry.
Though GE seeds are mostly
planted in the Midwest, controver-
sies have erupted in the Northwest
as well.
Commercialization of alfalfa
and sugar beets resistant to glypho-
sate herbicides resulted in years of
litigation.
The discovery of unauthorized
glyphosate-resistant wheat disrupted
overseas export markets, while gly-
phosate-resistant grass seed escaped
from field trials to became a weed
problem.
Glyphosate has become less
effective against some weeds over
time, which compelled Monsanto
and BASF to develop seeds resistant
to dicamba herbicides. That way,
weeds that survive glyphosate will
still be killed by dicamba.
Under a legal settlement over
dicamba-resistant seeds between
the two companies, BASF gave up
its intellectual property rights in
exchange for acreage-based pay-
ments from Monsanto.
Dicamba-resistant cotton and
soybeans were approved by the
USDA before federal regulators
authorized new less-volatile for-
mulations of dicamba that aren’t as
prone to drift.
When Monsanto commercialized
the GE seeds, “off-label dicamba use
exploded” in 2015 and 2016 because
farmers used older formulations of
the herbicide, the 8th Circuit said.
In this case, it’s unknown who
manufactured the dicamba that
harmed Bill Bader, the Missouri
peach farmer who sued the compa-
nies, but the actual “injury-produc-
ing agent” is the GE seed sold by
Monsanto, the ruling said.
Without the commercialization
of that product, farmers wouldn’t
have sprayed the older dicamba for-
mulations, the ruling said.
The jury awarded Bader $15 mil-
lion for damage to his peach trees
as well as $250 million in puni-
tive damages against Monsanto and
BASF, but a judge reduced the puni-
tive damages to $60 million.
The 8th Circuit has now ordered
a new jury trial over punitive dam-
ages for Monsanto and BASF, since
the companies didn’t have equal
control over GE seed sales.
Even so, the jury’s previous deter-
mination regarding liability will be
allowed to stand under the 8th Cir-
cuit’s ruling, which is the aspect that
most worries the seed and pesticide
industries.
The American Seed Trade Asso-
ciation and Croplife America, which
represent those industries, urged the
8th Circuit not to hold agribusiness
companies liable for other people’s
law-breaking actions.
“Factoring in how a product can
be misused by third parties, if that
is even possible, will only add con-
siderable time and cost to an already
lengthy and costly process,” the
groups said in a court brief.
“That threat of liability, in turn,
will only discourage further invest-
ment and innovation in two distinct
areas — seed and herbicide products
— which are critical to American
agriculture,” they said.
Several environmental groups,
on the other hand, said the lawsuit
is an example of why “herbicide-re-
sistant crop systems are unsustain-
able,” since they continuously lead
to new herbicide-resistant weeds
and more chemical use.
“This damaging system offers no
real public benefit, only externalized
costs borne by other farmers and the
environment,” the environmental
groups said. “The manufacturers and
regulators have both utterly failed to
protect farmers from these foresee-
able, indeed, known dangers.”