Gassy animals could cost farmers Updated: 12/03/2008 06:28 AM By: Curtis Schick
RENSSELAER COUNTY, N.Y. -- Cows digging in at Tiashoke Farms and if you make as much milk as these guys do, there's no wonder they eat so much.
They also do a lot of something else and leave plenty of it behind. And the gases associated with what's left behind could have farmers paying.
“It's a natural process to the dairy cows,” said Brian Ziehm, owner of Tiashoke Farm. “It's nothing we have control over. It's just another added expense.”
A recent Supreme Court decision allows the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The New York Farm Bureau says for each gas producing animal, you would you'd need a permit and the new regulations would mean $175 for each of Zhiem's cows.
So if the plan goes through, Tiashoke Farm would have to pay more than $100,000 for its cows. And for a small farm, that is pretty big price.
“Ag is a very small part of the emission portfolio and to treat small farms as large polluters doesn't make sense to us,” said Jeffery Williams, Deputy Director of Public Policy for the New York Farm Bureau.
“The added cost is going to make them make a decision and it is probably to go out of business,” Ziehm said.
In the new rules, other livestock, like pigs or beef cows, would cost less. Right now, nothing has been put into law and even the EPA is lukewarm on the idea.
The EPA Administrator said in a report this summer the Clean Air Act is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.
When all the farmers go out of business due to ridiculous regulations like this and we're all starving to death maybe the idiots who write the laws will finally be happy.
More great ideas springing forth from the socialists. They are not happy unless the destroy and control everything they deem unworthy. The vast majority of the American people will find that out soon.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
I am speechless!! Shadow is right.....there really is NO CURE FOR STUPID! In fact it is becoming contagious!!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
$6-7 for a gallon of milk is right around the corner. Either that or all the individual farmers, who have been holding out for decades, will finally be driven into the dust, sucked up by the big conglomerates.
Not that it matters, but is the $175 a one time fee, a recurring annual (or other periodic) charge, or a per incidence fine? Are there any cow flatulence mitigation devices that a farmer can obtain and deploy in lieu of paying the fee? Perhaps burp (or whatever) free hay.
I will be looking to adopt out my domestic pets before the fee is applied to dogs and cats. Though the dog gets blamed when it is sometimes undeserved
Proposed fee on smelly cows, hogs angers farmers Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Bob Johnson, Associated Press Writer – Fri Dec 5, 4:43 am ET AP – These Montgomery, Ala., cows seem unaware of a proposal Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008 by the Environmental … MONTGOMERY, Ala. – For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.
Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which is one of several put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases emitted by belching and flatulence amounts to air pollution.
"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal.
It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.
The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."
Sparks said Wednesday he's worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.
"We'll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don't have the health standards we have," Sparks said.
EPA spokesman Nick Butterfield said the fee was proposed for farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions.
Butterfield said the EPA has not taken a position on any of the proposals. But farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the idea, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week.
"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.
"It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
"We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share," he said.
U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn't believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.
"Who comes up with this kind of stuff?" said Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation's beef division. "It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms. This would certainly put them out of business."
Butterfield said the EPA is reviewing the public comments and didn't have a timetable for the next steps.
So maybe the 'fee' will be the 'bailout' for the farting car industry?????
working in healthcare there should be a 'fee' for patients too.......trust me.....I smell it everyday.......and sometimes give medication to cause it.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
EPA exempts farms from reporting manure gas releases BY DINA CAPPIELLO The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The nation’s farms no longer have to report to authorities the toxic, smelly fumes released from manure. The Bush administration issued a regulation Friday exempting farms from reporting releases of hazardous air pollution from animal waste to federal, state and local authorities. The rule applies specifically to the gases from manure that are often responsible for odor problems. Environmental Protection Agency officials said that the changes will allow responders to focus on spills and releases from factories, natural disasters and other emergencies that require urgent attention. They said it would also reduce reporting burdens on America’s farmers, saying it is difficult to estimate the pollution coming from “a herd of cows.” “When there is a train wreck, we need to know about it because we need to go out and look at chemical spills,” said Barry Breen, director of the agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “When there is a lagoon full of manure there is nothing our folks can do when they show up.” The farm reporting rule is one of several eleventh-hour environmental regulations unveiled by the Bush administration this week that were lobbied for by industry. The Interior Department on Thursday issued revised rules loosening protections for endangered species. And the EPA, also on Friday, issued regulations exempting industrial solvents and other chemicals that can be burned for fuel from the strict regulations governing hazardous waste. Environmentalists lashed out again, saying that the new reporting rule would make it difficult to keep track of farms polluting the environment and putting neighbors at risk. The gases released when animal waste decomposes include hydrogen sulfide, with its characteristic rotten egg smell, and ammonia. Exposure to these chemicals can cause respiratory problems and irritate the eyes, nose and throat. “The effect of this is to create a loophole for all operations to not report their toxic emissions to the federal government,” said Ed Hopkins of the Sierra Club. “If you don’t know there is a problem you aren’t going to get a solution.” Representatives of the poultry and beef industries said Friday the rule was long overdue. In 2005, associations representing chicken, turkey and egg farmers asked the Bush administration to exempt all ammonia emissions from reporting requirements. The rule finalized Friday covers gases just from animal waste. Large farms with hundreds of dairy cows or thousands of pigs would still be required to report air releases to local and state authorities. “We have always felt that reporting requirements . . . were never meant to address the release of naturally occurring substances,” said the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association in a statement. “We believe the EPA heard our concerns and has come to a reasonable compromise.” Congress also wanted clarification. In appropriations bills passed in 2005 and 2006, it directed the EPA to ...................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00401
Environmentalists lashed out again, saying that the new reporting rule would make it difficult to keep track of farms polluting the environment and putting neighbors at risk.
In most cases the farms are operating long before the "neighbors" move in. They are not running a secret operation, you really can't hide a farm. If you don't want to smell cow manure or chicken manure then don't buy/build a house near a farm.
Logged
