Jasper County Politics and CAFOs

In "CAFO Burden of Proof" and "Coal C-Stone flyash and Schuringa CAFO" the timeline for activities at the Shuringa poultry-turned-calf CAFO paints a disturbing picture.

After posting those 2 articles, I received some additional information -- including a copy of a letter that NIPSCO sent out regarding the flyash issue. It's in a scanned ppt format, so I won't be posting it since many visitors to my blog do not have powerpoint software installed on their computers.

With that said, here's a quote taken directly from the NIPSCO letter:

"Regarding your question relating to the Schuringa project, NIPSCO cannot comment as to whether the placement of c-stone as a sub-base liner in the Wheatfield location is an appropriate re-use of the material. While in the past, NIPSCO has approved similar applications in other locations in Indiana, it has never been asked to evaluate the specific project you have identified in the Wheatfield area. Indeed, your inquiry is the first time NIPSCO was apprised of the fact that c-stone had been transported to the Schuringa farm in the Wheatfield area. Without further site-specific information, NIPSCO is not in a position to assess the suitability of that location as a location for placement of c-stone.

Once NIPSCO became aware that c-stone was being transported to the Schuringa farm, it immediately took steps to halt the transporting of c-stone to this site. We have requested that the c-stone be returned to NIPSCO's property."

This begs the question, "Who told Walstra Trucking drivers to deliver the c-stone flyash to the Schuringa location?"

If we were to backtrack the chain of command, I have to assume the owner of Walstra Trucking, Jasper County Commissioner, Jim Walstra, gave the order to a supervisor on the hauling project, who then passed the order on to the drivers... unless, maybe his supervisors act on their own without owner's approval?

From what I can gather, the material was intended for a dairy in this area, and approximately 100 to 200 loads, a significant amount, was diverted from that approved location to this (the Schuringa) unapproved location.

I find it difficult (although not entirely impossible) to believe the dairy would be giving the order, right?

After all, if the approved dairy location did in fact give the order, and Walstra Trucking drivers followed those orders without approval from the owner -- namely Jim Walstra -- or his supervisors/foremen... you really have to wonder how much power over politics the said dairy has in this region.

Think about it.

CAFO Burden of Proof

Remember the pictures I promised to post today? Here you go... two pics taken by IDEM at the "new" Shuringa Poultry-turned-calf CAFO, complete with IDEM comments of who was present during the shots.

The two "little mounds" pictured below are sitting atop the mountain of flyash delivered to the CAFO:



Note Photo 3 below, how large the "mountain" area is... and keep in mind again, how close to the land surface our aquifer runs.



Here's a better view of "Shuringa/denDulk Flyash Mountain" that we took today, as seen through the trees from the road. It's a lot whiter today than it appears in IDEM's pics. Notice the 2 mounds on top of it (also pictured close up in IDEM's shot above)?



It kind of looks like a GIANT SUBMARINE from the road. Kind of hard to see it if you weren't actually looking for it because they hid the mountain behind the barns tucked back in a field hidden by trees growing along Wolf Creek.

And wouldya look at how close to that creek it is? From those foreground trees to the pile. Tsk, tsk, tsk... shame on you guys!

Now, what does this "unauthorized fill" (NIPSCO's definition of the material hauled to the Shuringa Poultry aka Wolf Creek Calf CAFO by Walstra Trucking) contain?

From what I've gathered, C-Stone, the "lable" given to this particular fill, is aggregate coal flyash material, and can be either "Class C" or "Class F." Here's just a brief description of the difference between C and F as described in a West Virginia University document - "WATER QUALITY EFFECTS OF BENEFICIAL CCBS USE AT COAL MINES":

Coal combustion products can be grouped into four main classes: 1) Class F ashes; 2) Class C ashes; 3) Fluidized Bed Combustion ashes; and 4) Flue Gas Desulfurization solids. Class F and C ashes are produced in large pulverized coal boilers. They comprise the bulk of CCBs produced in the United States. They are distinguished by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) on the basis of their free lime (CaO) content2. Class F ashes have less than 10% lime while Class C ashes have more than 10% lime. Nearly all ashes produced by pulverized coal boilers in the eastern United States are Class F while those burning western United States coal are typically Class C...

The CCPs can be placed in permeable or impermeable forms. At one end of the spectrum, bottom ashes have the hydraulic conductivity of gravel, while fly ash is closer to silt. Class F ashes tend to be more permeable than class C ashes due to the tendency of class C ashes to self-cement. At the opposite extreme, fixated FGD solids have very low hydraulic conductivity, and the various CCP grouts behave like concrete and are virtually impermeable.

Nearly all CCPs contain soluble and insoluble salts. If permeable and exposed to groundwater, soluble salts will dissolve. These include salts of boron, chlorides, and sodium carbonates. On the other hand, the solubility of sulfates and calcium or magnesium carbonates is controlled by their concentrations in the mine water. It is not unusual to find mine waters that are already saturated with respect to gypsum or calcium carbonate. In such cases, little or no net dissolution will occur. Care should be taken that CCPs containing substantial amounts of soluble salts are not exposed to zones of significant groundwater flux.

If the above sounds confusing, not to worry. Tests of the material hauled to the Shuringa Poultry-turned-calf CAFO have been sent to a lab for testing. We'll know soon enough what it actually contains.

I'm still rather curious if it is "Class C" or "Class F" material...

An interesting aside... Back about 1990, my husband was working at the NIPSCO plant (where this material came from) and remembers going in one day to find signs warning to wear respirators in the area they were doing construction -- he recalls the big arsenic signs going up and wondered why, the previous time they were working there, there were no such signs. The information he was given at the time was that they had changed the source for their coal supply, and the new type of coal generated higher concentrations of arsenic which required further safety precautions on site.

But I digress. What does all this have to do with "burden of proof" with respect to CAFOs?

Well, above and beyond the "unauthorized" mystery fill being dumped and spread on the land near residential homes in this area, there's strong pressure at the Federal level to exempt CAFOs from important enviromental laws.

If you haven't yet read this article in the Demoines Register, you might want to take a quick look at it now (link). Here's just a brief snapshot:

EPA wants exemption for livestock farms - Washington, D.C. - The Bush administration is moving to protect livestock farms from pollution reporting rules and potential liability for manure runoff.

The Environmental Protection Agency intends to exempt farms from having to report emissions of ammonia and other air pollutants under the federal Superfund law, said Jon Scholl, the agency's agriculture adviser. The agency also will clarify that manure should not be considered a hazardous waste when properly used as fertilizer, he said.

Scholl, who outlined the agency's plans at a livestock industry meeting Tuesday, said the agency wants to finalize the actions by fall 2008, shortly before President Bush leaves office.

Here in Indiana, there's quite a bit of heat being taken by politicians attempting to set new CAFO guidelines, as picked up by Kemplog (link):

Saunders said the bill got 62 votes in the House, so it had bipartisan support, but it’s not easy being a Republican supporting more regulation of agriculture. “Our Republican caucus has several large hog farmers. Behind closed doors, I’ve taken some heat,” Saunders said. “There’s a lot of lobbying. Those who have been talking (of the bill) have to keep it up.”

Now there's a tasty "Conflict of Interest" story waiting to be exposed by some astute reporter out there. I wonder which pockets stand to profit by pushing this new EPA legislation through?

Is it really the EPA pushing for it? If so, I'm smelling more than a story at that particular Agency. If not, then I'm curious if the same "unnamed" masterminds behind the USA Attorney firings are helping in the orchestration of this new EPA initiative, and if anyone at the EPA have been working in fear for their jobs lately?

Because, according to one former Big Ag marketer, there is good reason to be alarmed about the changing face of Agriculture across the USA...

John Ikerd, a professor emeritus of agricultural economics from the University of Missouri, was recently quoted in Times-News (link) saying,

"I don't think there is any doubt anymore there are significant health risks associated with CAFOs."

The article is worth reading. It ends with another poignant quote from Ikerd:

Ikerd advised the crowd - who were mostly CAFO opponents, judging by applause - to convince local politicians to strictly regulate CAFOs before small farms are gone and the rural landscape is desecrated.

"The burden of proof should be on the dairy that it isn't polluting the environment," he said. "Not on the people to prove that it will."

We, the taxpayers who pay the salaries for EPA, IDEM, etc. agree. The U.S. Attornies might "serve at the pleasure of the president" ...but all taxpayer-funded agencies, political positions, and more "serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers." Maybe they just forgot who really foots the bill?

Coal C-Stone flyash and Shuringa CAFO

If you're going to build a calf CAFO in the heart of a residential community where you know your neighbors are unhappy about your settling it "next door" so to speak ...one would think you would

• dot all your "i's" and cross all your "t's" --
• keep your operations well within all guidelines, including environmental, health, etc. --
• and most probably do your best to make friends with those residents as quickly as possible --

...wouldn't you?

After all, as the CAFO owner, it's in your best interest not to intimidate people, not to scare people, not to raise unnecessary negative attention, nor raise serious questions about what you are doing ...right?

It appears to me (just my humble opinion) that the Shuringa Poultry-turned-Calf CAFO operation has chosen a different set of principles to guide their decisions.

Here's a quick "timeline snapshot" of what has been happening this month.

Tues. March 6, 2007: They get the word from IDEM that their NPDES permit is approved. Not for the 10,000 calves mentioned at the BZA hearing, but for 3,150 calves. Also... they put in another permit application to put cement floors in the 2 buildings that have dirt floors... so, just a guess on my part, but now that they have their "foot in the doors" that number of 3,150 calves may rise quickly?

Adjoining neighbors and interested parties didn't receive their letters from IDEM announcing the approval until Friday or later.

We got our letter from IDEM on the Saturday (March 10) following the approval. Interestingly enough, IDEM never addressed our point-by-point concerns as they had promised they would do in their "form" letter that was sent after we wrote them on the subject.

It strikes me as their way of sending a message on how important we are (and other residents are) with respect to CAFO decisions made at IDEM. But I digress... Back to the timeline.

Wed. March 7, 2007: Walstra Trucking trucks started hauling material into the site first thing in the morning -- some type of "mystery fill" according to one witness who scraped some of it up off the road where it had spilled out from some of the trucks.

Thurs. March 8, 2007: A helicopter was witnessed going straight down 49, took a left at 800 circled Schuringa's CAFO site and then went north. At 5 pm hauling operations to the site are ceased. At 8 pm, all equipment is taken off the Shuringa site.

Fri. March 9, 2007: NIPSCO (investigators?) show up at the site and start taking pictures. People witnessed them from County Road 800. Some said it appeared that they were videotaping the scene.

Sat. March 10, 2007: A helicopter is again witnessed in the area.

After that, all is silent... however, rumors of fly ash start to fly. Concerned citizens contact IDEM and are answered by e-mail QUOTE:

Thank you for your email regarding the Schuringa Poultry Farm, Inc. operation. You are correct, calf hutches have not been approved for the operation, as was 2 barns were not approved. I will inform you that a new application has been submitted to approve the 2 barns and install concrete. That application material is pending until engineer/permit review is complete. It is my understanding from the operation that the fly ash material is being stockpiled at the farm. Our inspector is aware of the situation and is looking into the situation.

Interestingly enough, no mention of flyash stockpiling was ever mentioned at the BZA meetings regarding this CAFO.

In a later email from IDEM to another individual on the subject, this response was given to concerns regarding the flyash material:

Thank you for you email regarding Schuringa Poultry Farm, Inc. and accepting fly ash material from NIPSCO. First of all, let me inform you that there are legitimate beneficial reuses for fly ash material, i.e. under-lament for concrete pads and roads. I encourage you to contact Tracy Barnes (317-308-3110) or Dave Berrey (317-308-3341) of IDEM’s compliance section. They will be able to explain the benefits for reusing fly ash. Secondly, I have been in contact with representatives for Schuringa Poultry Farm, Inc. and was informed that they are stock piling the fly ash material. Finally, I have made our compliance inspector in the area (Bill Burns) aware of the situation. If you have compliance issues regarding the operation, please call him at (219) 757-0275.

If you have any additional questions, please call me at (317) 233-3554.

Sincerely,

Daniel Bruggen

One unconfirmed rumor has it that the trucks were hauling the flyash materials to another dairy in the region which apparently was authorized to receive it, and about 100 to 200 loads were "diverted" from this approved destination to the Shuringa CAFO -- unauthorized. Another rumor has it that NIPSCO will be doing a "clean up" removing this "unauthorized fill" (which they also referred to as C-Stone ...a type of flyash aggregate) from the site. Sounds almost like a "Superfund Site" operation, doesn't it? But NIPSCO can't begin clean up operations right now owing to frost laws protecting the roads into the property.

Frost laws went into effect for these roads on or about the 15th or 16th (not sure of exact date).

Why all the concern surrounding stockpiling and/or use of flyash and/or C-Stone at this particular location?

You may recall my mention of the fragile nature of our aquifer being so close to the surface -- the necessity of shallow wells providing water to so many homes -- the sandy consistency of soils in this area -- and the proximity of Wolf Creek.

BUT you might not know about -- The Pines, Indiana.

Download the f-ree pdf regarding the situation at The Pines, Indiana. It's a good read -- and very educational on the subject of flyash.

Meanwhile, back to my original question. In less than 24 hours after getting their IDEM permit, this CAFO is already tossing out "good neighbor" principles (my humble opinion), creating all kinds of concerns -- and raising all kinds of questions for residents in this area.

I'll be back with pictures tomorrow and more.

New Poll at the Courier Times

The Courier Times has a poll up today (not sure how long it will be up). Check it out through this link.

At the time I placed my vote, the results looked like this:

----------

Poll Result

Should the Indiana Legislature pass the bill co-authored by local Representatives Phil Pflum (D-Milton) and Tom Saunders (R-Lewisville) which would limit where Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are built?

81%
Yes, pass this Legistation.

19%
No, do not pass this Legislation.

----------

What's it all about? House Bill 1197 was authored by Rep. Pflum and Rep Saunders. Later Rep Tyler was added.

The Bill passed the House and now is sponsored by Senator Gard. Myself (and others) have a few concerns about the Bill as it stands now. For examples:

1. This Bill states only cfo, and we believe the wording must be changed to include CAFO.
2. The Bill also says only public schools, whereas we think it should read all accredited schools (which would include religious and private schools).
3. Also the bill does not have any mandatory requirements for haulers of CAFO waste. We believe there is a need for licensing and bonding of haulers.

As of Monday, the Bill had not been scheduled for hearing in the committee. If you want to do your part, you can encourage hearing and passage of this Bill by writing all political parties involved:

Senator Gard s28@in.gov
Riesgsecker s12@in.gov
Bray s37@in.gov
Dillon s17@in.gov
Drozada s21@in.gov
Hershman 7@in.gov
Miller s32@in.gov
Hume s48@in.gov
Errington s26@in.gov
Lanane S25@in.gov
Tallian S4@in.gov

Be sure to include any concerns you have (like maybe those mentioned above) and be sure to cc your own Senator. You might also want to include the fact that we need a moratorium so there will be time to draft rules at local levels. Make sure you mention it in your letters.

New Poll on PAL

There is a new Poll on PAL-Item today where you can cast your vote for Rep Pflum's new legislation that would restrict where CAFOs can be located. At the time I voted, the results looked like this:

• YES: 70.4%
• NO: 22.7%
• NOT SURE: 6.9%

Visit through this link to cast your vote on this HOT issue facing Indiana. Just scroll down on their home page to find the small POLL box.

PAL-Item reported a quote regarding the new CAFO legislation from Representative Phil Pflum during his attendance at last Friday's meeting in Richmond:

"I have an obligation to protect the quality of life for all our citizens. Studies show when one of these (CAFOs) is built, property values within two miles experience a 50 percent drop,” Pflum said. “Is it right, when you’re already there, to have them move right across the road?"

Thank you, Rep. Pflum. And thank you PAL-Item for bringing this subject to the surface. That's exactly the situation our community has been placed in. Five generations of my family have lived peacefully in this family home. Where once there were no CAFOs, over the past 10 years they've been swarming into our region like an invasion of killer bees without much thought to anyone (or anything) in their path.

Think it can't happen to you? Without at least some kind of legislative boundaries on the books, it can happen to anyone!

Scenes from New York

A friend sent me the link to this blog ...and the pictures paint a thousand words each. This is what it's like folks: Welcome to CAFO H-ll Part 1 ...and... Part 2

The pictures were taken just this past week.

It's enough to make you weep for those poor residents of Eden.

This isn't about a few cows wandering around dropping a few cow-paddies here and there. This is about millions of gallons of liquid waste being spread on acres and acres of land next to subdivisions. How many pets will be wandering through those fields? How many children play nearby? How many wells draw water for homes nearby?

It's not just the nauseating smells ...it's also the thoughts screaming at the back of your mind every time you have to "THINK BEFORE YOU DRINK" ...while you and your family remain a virtual prisoner in your home until the smells subside -- if they ever do subside.

CAFOs are NOT farms. They are heavy industrial sized livestock assembly lines built to produce milk, eggs and meats -- complete with industrial-sized hazardous wastes.

Air, water, soil and wildlife all feel the impact. And yet, some people and politicians think the hundreds of homes and families living nearby don't. Du-uh!

USDA slammed by the Courts over GM crops?

I'm not sure if you read my comments regarding Food Safety here in the USA, but if you did, you might find this new article interesting:

"In a surprising development that may well stump the further approval of GMOs, Federal Courts in the US have ruled against the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in three successive cases for failing to carry out proper environment impact assessment, making the original approvals of GM crops illegal." (link to full article)

Like CAFOs, GM crops are part of what the Agricultural industry likes to call "modern farming" that have also brought several negative environmental consequences.

I've mentioned before in this Blog about the years ahead being years of accountability and responsibility. Could it be unfolding before us now?

Update on the Ethanol Cafo Connection

Herb Bucholtz, a Michigan State University professor, spoke at a regional meeting of the Purdue Dairy Extension Team and the Indiana Professional Dairy Producers held for dairy farmers in Decatur yesterday. The Fort Wayne Journal picked up the story (link):

Distillers’ grain contains less starch and a higher concentration of fat than corn. Ethanol production removes much of the starch from corn, but that nutrient helps cows make glucose, which increases their milk production, Bucholtz said. Farmers who want to increase their milk production may be better off feeding more corn to their herd, he said.

“It’s not just a simple substitution” of replacing corn with distillers’ grain, Bucholtz said. The two feeds contain different amounts of nutrients, he said.

What is his recommendation?

Bucholtz advised area farmers to use distillers’ grain for about 10 percent of a cow’s dry feed. Some farmers may be able to gradually increase that amount to as much as 20 percent, depending on what else the cow eats. Distillers’ grain tends to work best when farmers combine it with a diet containing lots of alfalfa, he said.

In an earlier post on the subject, I neglected to include a reference to the USDA website on the subject of adding distillers grain (aka CDG) to livestock feed. The USDA site indicated:

"Our research has shown that distiller's grains can be used for as much as 60 percent of the diet in beef cattle," said Berger. "We've achieved smaller levels with dairy cattle. It is clear, however, that we can greatly expand the use of distiller's grains in growing and finishing rations for beef cattle."

Now I'm left with a question in my mind... Is this the reason the Jasper County BZA (or at least 4 out of 5 members of the BZA) are so eager to see the Poultry-to-Veal Calf operation go through?

The new IBEC ethanol plant is no secret. They even state on their website, "...the wet cake by-product of fermentation, will be marketed to livestock producers."

Since beef cattle seems to be the only livestock where you can "beef up" the volume of distiller grains used in feed (pun intended), then I'm guessing there just might be a few more veal operations coming to Indiana.

As I've mentioned before, I'm all for finding alternative fuels and energy sources. The recent U.S. Treasury statistics are scary enough to convince most anyone:

The U.S. imports two-thirds of its oil, and the strategic oil reserves have declined from 120 days in 1985 (i.e., we had enough oil to go 120 days without imports then). It is now down to 60 days. A hike or embargo could pinch the U.S. economy hard.

But corn based ethanol? I'm still skeptical. A lot of people indicated it would not impact the price of corn much. Well, that prediction appears to have been blown out of the water very early this year. (link)

The price of corn rose steadily throughout 2006. Corn prices have averaged around $2.50 a bushel for the past decade, but increased to than $3.00 a bushel in 2006, and then in January 2007, the benchmark price of corn reached an exchange-imposed limit of $3.96 a bushel shortly after trading began Friday, January 11 at the Chicago Board of Trade.

Another problem many ethanol plants may be facing is where will they be getting all that corn?

Nationwide in the U.S. , supplies of corn are expected to drop to 752 million bushels this year, a drop from last month's forecast of 935 million bushels and a steep decline from last year's supply of 1.967 billion.

As food processors and biofuel producers increasingly compete in the same commodity markets, I'm wondering how many of them will still be in operation in the next 3 to 5 years.

Back to the calf operation planned next to those subdivisions. I've heard the proposed calf operation has changed it's IDEM application, dropping from 10,000-head to 3,500-head CAFO. In my humble opinion, it's the wrong spot to have ANY CAFO, regardless if it's an illegitimate poultry operation or a calving operation. And if the ethanol-plant-distilled-grains-by-product problem factored into the BZA's decision, based on the news coming out... I'm wondering how many of their recent CAFO approvals will survive the next 3 to 5 years. (You heard about the bottom dropping out of pork again?)

Oh... did I tell you? In Europe another interesting prediction has been made. "The days of industrial farming and food production are coming to an end..." (link) Now, I do like the sound of that!

Food Safety Notes and Comments

The Safe Food Act is back on the table... just as news comes out that, QUOTE:

A Federal Court has ruled that the USDA failed to abide by federal environmental laws when it approved a genetically engineered crop without conducting a full Environment Impact Statement (EIS).

The Safe Food Act "...aims to help protect consumers from food-borne illness by consolidating the current fragmented and overlapping food-safety system." Currently, food safety monitoring, inspection and labeling responsibilities are spread across 15 agencies in the federal government. Here are a few examples:

Eggs still in the shell are under the jurisdiction of USDA, while FDA takes over once the eggs are broken.

The FDA has jurisdiction over frozen cheese pizza, and inspects cheese pizza processors once every 10 years on average. On the other hand, USDA has responsibility over frozen pepperoni pizza, and inspects such processors daily.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable residue levels on food commodities and animal feed.

The National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections of seafood safety and quality.

Sandwiches depend on whether there is one slice of bread, or two. The USDA inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches while the FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches. "...the USDA inspects wholesale manufacturers of open-face sandwiches sold in interstate commerce daily, while FDA inspects closed-face sandwiches an average of once every five years," according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), which recently called for massive reform in Food Safety.

And what about overlap?

Both the USDA and FDA inspect shipments of imported food at 18 US ports-of-entry ... BUT ... the two agencies do not share inspection resources at the ports. According to the GAO, this means FDA-regulated products are occassionally sent to USDA-approved import inspection facilities and may remain in storage for some time awaiting FDA inspection.

Interestingly enough, in fiscal year 2003, USDA spent about $16 million on imported food inspections, while the FDA spent about $115 million. Could some of those millions$ have been saved using unified facilities and a single inspection agency responsible for all food imports?

Meanwhile, back to the egg. Who is working on eliminating the salmonella in eggs?

Federal and state governments, the egg industry, and the scientific community are working together to solve the problem. Involved government agencies include: USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and State departments of agriculture.

The conundrum, as I see it, is that without enough power over the entire "farm-to-fork" process, a new agency overseeing Food Safety in the USA might only result in crisis management instead of actual prevention and protection. And what about overlap? Most everyone will agree, we're paying a ton of taxes already and the last thing we need is yet another Govt. Agency that gives us a false sense of security.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in FAVOR of a new Food Safety Agency.

With the recent outbreaks due to lettuce, spinach, peanut butter ...and the Gold Star Sausage Co. recall of more than 15,500 pounds of hot dogs and sausages distributed in Idaho and other states last month because the meats might be contaminated with illness-causing bacteria... there's little doubt, in my mind at least, that our current system/agencies are dropping the ball on food safety.

I'm just saying a new Agency makes sense if/when the other agencies are streamlined and stripped of their powers (and downsized accordingly) in the areas of food safety, and this power and related resources are passed on to the new agency.

And with the long shadow of factory-style farming in the background, I have a feeling the food safety issue is only going to get worse if nothing is done soon.

Just my humble opinion.

Bio-Hazardous Materials Hauled Through Wheatfield

Just after dropping off the kids at Kindergarten today, my husband saw the most horrific site. A truck (looked like a garbage truck with no top) was heading north on Hwy. 49 nearing the corner of 49 and 10... and it was jam packed with dead dairy cows.

How packed? Heads and legs hanging over the top, legs reaching up so high from the top that they almost touched the flashing red light at the 4-way stop intersection inside Wheatfield city limits...

It's hard to say if there were other dead animals stuffed underneath, but if they were all cows, it looked like there were more than 30 dead cows jammed into that truck!!

There were bits of dried grass (or straw/hay?), sticks and other debris frozen to the dead animals.

Several alarming questions come to mind, such as:

1. How did the cows die?
2. Were they carrying any potentially contagious diseases?
3. Where did the cows come from?
4. Why were they being transported in an open-top truck and not safely contained?
5. Did they die recently?
6. Or were they stored for some time near one of our rural communities?
7. Has there been an outbreak on one of the dairy farms?
8. What if an accident happened and all those dead bodies came tumbling out?

Thankfully, the children didn't have to see this horrific sight. It's not something you want 6-year-olds talking about in school.

But just imagine what the children living in the beautiful subdivisions surrounding the proposed calf operation will be witnessing if the owner gets his IDEM certificate. I ask you, "WHAT in the WORLD was the Jasper County BZA thinking when they approved this special exception permit? Are they plumb nuts???" The pathetic conditions they attached to the permit will not, in my humble opinion, protect our children.

When I think about Gutwein's rediculous statements regarding perceptions of modern agriculture... then hear of such large quantities of dead animals being carted in open trucks inside city limits ...it's enough to make any parent shudder.