small farmers are facing bigger hurdles in future in Ohio

Big Business Strikes Another Blow to Small Farmers

    Just heard on the radio the other day from an ag network, the state of Ohio is going to start restricting the use of antibiotics in normal animal husbandry practices in an effort to reduce the amount of antibiotics in the food we eat specifically, poultry , pork and beef as well as in milk.  This is a welcome relief for the consumer but also puts the small farmer in a difficult financial position and may actually force some small farmers out of business or at the very least make raising any of these species of animals an unacceptable risk  they may not want to take on . This will eventually reduce the amount of small farmers providing these animals for market, and will be subjecting the consumer to higher prices for these products from the grocery shelf and not actually reduce the antibiotics in anything.

        The new rule changes will affect all producers across the board including small farmers as well as large producers and at first glance is a positive change for the consumer. But closer look sees the new rules which will be phased in over 3 years as another hurdle for the small farmer to climb across. Large corporate farms or family farms for the most part secure their veterinary services on a regular basis and have a working relationship with a large animal veterinarian who is now or will be required to prescribe antibiotics that were normally over the counter and readily available to all when needed to administer to animals to help them through illnesses without prescription. The small farmer rarely uses a vet but instead administers antibiotics as a rarity and only when needed.

    Abuse of these antibiotics under the guise of preventative care has resulted in trace amounts of antibiotics showing up in all forms of meat production and milk and dairy products. This happened mainly due to large corporations misusing the antibiotics and feeding them to healthy animals to prevent problems before they arise. The trouble is when antibiotics are needed for human consumption they are becoming ineffective due to a buildup in our bloodstream due to this agricultural practice. They are now going to require all antibiotics to be prescribed by veterinarians to supposedly halt this practice. This is a boon to two groups the large producer and the veterinarians in the large animal practice of whom there are very few and they are almost exclusively practicing for large producers in the first place.

       There are plenty of dog and cat veterinarians who almost exclusively practice on small animals and this is a multimillion dollar industry while large animal vets are rare and hard to get ahold of for small farmers who use them only when absolutely needed. Small farmers like me, with knowledge of animal husbandry have for quite a while purchased antibiotics and administered them without a vet’s prescription. Now this has changed and will lead to mistreatment and more deaths of animals due to the inability of not getting vet services when needed and not having the availability of antibiotics when it is needed. Not only will the small farmer have the cost of the prescription of antibiotics they could have purchased under the old rules, but will now also have a vet bill associated with the illness, the farmer could have prevented himself if he can find a vet who will write the prescription.

       Will it make our agricultural products any safer? Actually I doubt it as the veterinarian understand that the money is in servicing large accounts like the corporate farms and that whatever the farmer or manager wants done will usually happen regardless of whether there are rules governing the use of antibiotics. If you have a barn full of about 30000 chickens and you have a die off due to whatever, you are still going to resort to antibiotics they have always used only now it will be under the vets care. This will cause the number of large animal vets to be limited as corporate farms that would have normally just administered the antibiotics will now have to retain a vet and the cost will be passed on to the consumer . Chickens, pigs , cattle , it makes no difference. With less vets available then it will be increasingly harder for the small farmer to retain veterinary services in the long run. Coupled with other factors like GMO’s or genetically modified organisms , and other feed additives will result in a lower quality product for market with a higher price tag and less competition from the small farmer who normally produces a higher quality product. Less competition from small farmers always mean higher profits for corporate farms while actually in effect reducing quality. This is the future of corporate farming. And the demise of the small farmer, who has always been the backbone of agriculture and who has always stood for quality products that made this country famous.

     We vote representatives into our state legislature who write these laws at the bequest of corporate farming specifically to limit competition and to drive the small farmer out of business. We have to vote these people all out and elect representatives who have the people’s interest at heart. Consumers and small farmers have to be protected with sound laws and regulations not designed to benefit one portion of the populace or enhance profitability in the name of progress.  To me an incumbent politician is someone who needs to be retired as they are partially responsible for the laws that exist now that require us to obey good or bad. When left in office to long, politicians become part of the good old boy network subject to cronyism and setting up of alliances with corporate America to write laws in favor of one group or another, instead of what is good for the voter or consumer. This is just my opinion, one small farmer seeking progress in legislative action, in a positive manner, not a negative action to cover an alternative purpose.

p.s -In an effort to provide references to this i checked the Ohio Farm ag network which i am sure provided the news cast that caught my ire and could find no reference instead found a supporting article that describes basically the same thing but only that it puts a burden on the large producer which I dispute. the proof is in the numbers as the larger the operation, then costs are kept to  minimum as cost compared to a small farmer. here is the supporting article. i couldn't find the supporting Ohio legislation unless it is tied into other legislation -ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/2594/- interesting to note in this Ohio Farm Bureau article is the increase of therapeutic use of antibiotics to treat animals in Denmark after similar legislation was enacted on farmers there, they saw a 223 percent increase in supposedly antibiotic prescription usage by veterinarians to supposedly treat animals . another note worthy of mention is most of this legislation  is the result of large producers marketing livestock in close confined conditions and using antibiotics as a preventative cure to avoid major health issues as a result of this total confinement.