Document Actions
Eleventh Hour Letter
Poultry Partners' eleventh hour letter to Oklahoma Attorney General's office addressing farmers' concerns in mediation talks.
June 6, 2005
Assistant Attorney General Burch
State of Oklahoma
112 State Capitol
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4894
RE: Poultry Industry Mediation
Dear Assistant Attorney General Burch:
Although Poultry Partners, Inc. is disappointed in the answer, thank you for providing a written response to my request for a seat at the mediation table tomorrow. As stated in Poultry Partner’s May 11, 2005 letter, we believe that the mediation cannot be as effective for all interested parties, and may be detrimental to poultry growers in particular, if poultry growers are not involved in the process.
We also thank you for agreeing to meet with us this morning – we have a bit of an idea how busy you are in preparing for the mediation and appreciate your taking the time to receive in person some of our comments and concerns.
Let us begin by stating that we are responsible stewards of the land. We want good and clean water for all. We pledge ourselves to support and help in the implementation of reasonable and fair solutions that are based upon good science. However, we do not agree or accept agronomic rates as such a solution, nor do we believe that proper application rates should be determined by the legal or political community. We recommend that the amount of litter that can be used in the watershed be determined after performance of an unbiased study in which we can all have faith. We also recommend that the results of the study or the scientific model(s) that are generated should not be the end of the story. The practical experience of poultry growers and farmers who have actually applied litter and seen the results should be taken into account and provide a practical guide to the determination of the appropriate litter application rate. As an interim compromise, although we believe the current phosphorous index of 400 pounds/acre in non-threatened watersheds is appropriate, we will support a global phosphorous index of 300 pounds/acre.
Contrary to the belief and misunderstanding of the uninformed, litter is a valuable asset, particularly to farmers and cattle growers. However, any competent farmer realizes that only the wise application of nutrients, including litter, is beneficial. Litter even benefits the watershed, when properly used, by preventing erosion through enhanced growth of soil retaining vegetation. As a result, we believe that use of this valuable asset should remain in the hands of the poultry growers – unless any such grower is unable to beneficially use the litter. In such a situation, we recommend that the integrated poultry industry take responsibility for moving the excess litter out of the watershed to a locale that can benefit from application of the litter.
With regard to “excess litter,” we strongly believe that the determination of whether litter is an asset or a liability is so individualized that it should be decided by each poultry grower. As a result, we will support a compromise that defines “excess litter” as that litter which the individual poultry grower so designates. A corollary of this definition would be the agreement of the integrated poultry industry to take or retain ownership and responsibility for “excess litter.”
According to our information and as acknowledged recently by Governor Brad Henry, phosphorous levels in the Lake Eucha watershed are declining. Even though conditions have improved in the Lake Eucha watershed, poultry growers were prevented from participating in the settlement discussions there and have suffered hardships as a result. It is a given that the upcoming mediation involves issues that affect poultry growers’ homes, farms and livelihoods – to exclude poultry growers from the talks and to conduct these resolution efforts behind closed doors is simply wrong. Poultry growers want to continue to live on their farms and to continue to farm and preserve the land for all. If the end result of the mediation is to put the integrated poultry industry out of business in northeastern Oklahoma and northwestern Arkansas, losing our contracts with those companies will bankrupt us. Ask yourself, “Would I want to be included in negotiations that potentially would cause me to lose my job, my home and my way of life?” In Oklahoma alone, over 12,000 people derive their income from the poultry industry. And please remember that our family farms support not only our families but also our rural communities, banks, farm stores, insurance brokers, equipment dealers and on and on. Our goal, the goal of your Office and the goal of the integrated poultry industry should be to craft a solution that will not put the integrated poultry industry out of business and that will prevent a negative economic “ripple effect” on this region of the country.
One of our concerns is the singling out of the poultry industry as if this one industry is the sole contributor of phosphorous. There are many other sources of phosphorous in the watershed. It is our belief that all nutrients, no matter what the source, should be part of the solution -- any and all nutrients applied to the environment, from homeowners and golf courses to the farmers, should be scrutinized.
As you know, all contract poultry growers in Arkansas and Oklahoma are working under nutrient management plans that have been developed by federal and state conservation specialists. In Oklahoma, the Legislature mandated that all poultry growers come under these regulations. No other form of agriculture or use of nutrients is scrutinized so closely as are poultry farmers. Another of our concerns is that additional and excessive regulations could force the integrated poultry industry to not only leave this region of the country but to leave the country altogether. Is this another step toward off-shore outsourcing of our food supply? Surely your Office does not want to send the message that the poultry industry is not welcome in the State of Oklahoma.
Already roughly 99.5% of the population of the United States live off the farm. Because of assaults like that which is underway at this time, we are finding it more and more difficult in good conscience to encourage our children to follow us in the agriculture business. Please do not provide additional discouragement for the small number of young people who want to follow us in the noble work of providing and protecting the United States’ food supply.
In closing, we believe that there are opportunists at work to find a way to make money from this assault on the poultry industry. We are not such opportunists. We simply want to help farmers stay on the farm and to make a decent living. Please ask Attorney General Edmondson to reconsider and allow us to participate in all discussions, decisions and proposed solutions that will affect us. Any representation that the foregoing letter is an adequate substitute for our direct participation in the mediation, decisions and proposed solutions is simply not accurate. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call our counsel, Hall Estill Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C. (918) 594-0519.
Sincerely,
Keith Morgan, President
cc:
Integrated Poultry Companies
Honorable Thomas R. Brett
Michael D. Graves
D. Kenyon Williams, Jr.
538892.1:712304:00550
Assistant Attorney General Burch
State of Oklahoma
112 State Capitol
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4894
RE: Poultry Industry Mediation
Dear Assistant Attorney General Burch:
Although Poultry Partners, Inc. is disappointed in the answer, thank you for providing a written response to my request for a seat at the mediation table tomorrow. As stated in Poultry Partner’s May 11, 2005 letter, we believe that the mediation cannot be as effective for all interested parties, and may be detrimental to poultry growers in particular, if poultry growers are not involved in the process.
We also thank you for agreeing to meet with us this morning – we have a bit of an idea how busy you are in preparing for the mediation and appreciate your taking the time to receive in person some of our comments and concerns.
Let us begin by stating that we are responsible stewards of the land. We want good and clean water for all. We pledge ourselves to support and help in the implementation of reasonable and fair solutions that are based upon good science. However, we do not agree or accept agronomic rates as such a solution, nor do we believe that proper application rates should be determined by the legal or political community. We recommend that the amount of litter that can be used in the watershed be determined after performance of an unbiased study in which we can all have faith. We also recommend that the results of the study or the scientific model(s) that are generated should not be the end of the story. The practical experience of poultry growers and farmers who have actually applied litter and seen the results should be taken into account and provide a practical guide to the determination of the appropriate litter application rate. As an interim compromise, although we believe the current phosphorous index of 400 pounds/acre in non-threatened watersheds is appropriate, we will support a global phosphorous index of 300 pounds/acre.
Contrary to the belief and misunderstanding of the uninformed, litter is a valuable asset, particularly to farmers and cattle growers. However, any competent farmer realizes that only the wise application of nutrients, including litter, is beneficial. Litter even benefits the watershed, when properly used, by preventing erosion through enhanced growth of soil retaining vegetation. As a result, we believe that use of this valuable asset should remain in the hands of the poultry growers – unless any such grower is unable to beneficially use the litter. In such a situation, we recommend that the integrated poultry industry take responsibility for moving the excess litter out of the watershed to a locale that can benefit from application of the litter.
With regard to “excess litter,” we strongly believe that the determination of whether litter is an asset or a liability is so individualized that it should be decided by each poultry grower. As a result, we will support a compromise that defines “excess litter” as that litter which the individual poultry grower so designates. A corollary of this definition would be the agreement of the integrated poultry industry to take or retain ownership and responsibility for “excess litter.”
According to our information and as acknowledged recently by Governor Brad Henry, phosphorous levels in the Lake Eucha watershed are declining. Even though conditions have improved in the Lake Eucha watershed, poultry growers were prevented from participating in the settlement discussions there and have suffered hardships as a result. It is a given that the upcoming mediation involves issues that affect poultry growers’ homes, farms and livelihoods – to exclude poultry growers from the talks and to conduct these resolution efforts behind closed doors is simply wrong. Poultry growers want to continue to live on their farms and to continue to farm and preserve the land for all. If the end result of the mediation is to put the integrated poultry industry out of business in northeastern Oklahoma and northwestern Arkansas, losing our contracts with those companies will bankrupt us. Ask yourself, “Would I want to be included in negotiations that potentially would cause me to lose my job, my home and my way of life?” In Oklahoma alone, over 12,000 people derive their income from the poultry industry. And please remember that our family farms support not only our families but also our rural communities, banks, farm stores, insurance brokers, equipment dealers and on and on. Our goal, the goal of your Office and the goal of the integrated poultry industry should be to craft a solution that will not put the integrated poultry industry out of business and that will prevent a negative economic “ripple effect” on this region of the country.
One of our concerns is the singling out of the poultry industry as if this one industry is the sole contributor of phosphorous. There are many other sources of phosphorous in the watershed. It is our belief that all nutrients, no matter what the source, should be part of the solution -- any and all nutrients applied to the environment, from homeowners and golf courses to the farmers, should be scrutinized.
As you know, all contract poultry growers in Arkansas and Oklahoma are working under nutrient management plans that have been developed by federal and state conservation specialists. In Oklahoma, the Legislature mandated that all poultry growers come under these regulations. No other form of agriculture or use of nutrients is scrutinized so closely as are poultry farmers. Another of our concerns is that additional and excessive regulations could force the integrated poultry industry to not only leave this region of the country but to leave the country altogether. Is this another step toward off-shore outsourcing of our food supply? Surely your Office does not want to send the message that the poultry industry is not welcome in the State of Oklahoma.
Already roughly 99.5% of the population of the United States live off the farm. Because of assaults like that which is underway at this time, we are finding it more and more difficult in good conscience to encourage our children to follow us in the agriculture business. Please do not provide additional discouragement for the small number of young people who want to follow us in the noble work of providing and protecting the United States’ food supply.
In closing, we believe that there are opportunists at work to find a way to make money from this assault on the poultry industry. We are not such opportunists. We simply want to help farmers stay on the farm and to make a decent living. Please ask Attorney General Edmondson to reconsider and allow us to participate in all discussions, decisions and proposed solutions that will affect us. Any representation that the foregoing letter is an adequate substitute for our direct participation in the mediation, decisions and proposed solutions is simply not accurate. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call our counsel, Hall Estill Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C. (918) 594-0519.
Sincerely,
Keith Morgan, President
cc:
Integrated Poultry Companies
Honorable Thomas R. Brett
Michael D. Graves
D. Kenyon Williams, Jr.
538892.1:712304:00550