Government Control of the Food Chain

“Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field, is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action,” responded Callicrate. “How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033537_hay_pollutant.html#ixzz1YV7jPBOt

    
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zero Cool
Zero Cool
13 years ago

I cannot believe that someone would post this crap and not verify its validity first. If you read the following conspiracy blog you will have a laugh:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1627393/pg1

You will see that its all about disgruntled REP-California, Mike Callicrate, who was fined by the EPA at one of his Ranches in Kansas. Who knows the real story, but he had to turn it into a political story. The the conspiracy bloggers and other crazy blogs are now posting this crap. Amazing how gullible people have become. God Help us all!

DRenegade
Admin
13 years ago

According to http://westernfarmpress.com/government/epa-we-never-said-hay-pollutant

Here are the facts. On August 15, EPA’s Region 7, which includes Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and nine tribal nations, took action to correct several serious environmental violations at the Callicrate Feeding Company in St. Francis, Kansas. EPA found water permit violations at Callicrate’s operation that needed to be addressed. The compliance order was not based on hay. Nor would EPA have issued such an action based on hay.

To be clear: The order had nothing to do with hay. At no place in the 11-page order is the word “hay” mentioned. Nor is there mention of alfalfa or grass.

EPA cited the Callicrate operation for failure to control harmful runoff, maintain adequate manure storage capacity, keep adequate operation records, and meet the state and federal requirements of its nutrient management plan. Compliance Order (PDF) (11 pp, 1.5MB, About PDF)

EPA inspectors observed silage, and dried distillers grains within the uncontrolled feedstock storage area.

When stored inappropriately, the silage and grains can turn into a liquid material that contains contaminants detrimental to water quality. EPA inspectors also observed slaughter wastes being stored outside in an uncontrolled area. The EPA order was based on those contaminants and the other violations mentioned above.

The Callicrate facility is permitted by the State of Kansas for a capacity of 12,000 head of beef cattle and had 3,200 head at the time of the inspection. Under EPA definitions, 1,000 head of beef is considered a large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). This is not a small operation. The permitted capacity puts the company in the top five percent of the largest animal feeding operations in Region 7.

This action by EPA was issued to correct problems. Less than two weeks after the order was issued, Callicrate’s attorney informed us that the company had already taken action to address the problems identified in EPA’s order.

We have some indication of how other producers have perceived this fracas in a feedlot. Region 7’s offer to meet with Kansas cattle producers to discuss CAFO enforcement was warmly received and we will be meeting within days. Drover/Cattle Network published an article debunking the “hay-as-pollutant” myth.

As that article concludes: “But as the industry confronts and negotiates these genuine regulatory issues, R-CALF’s claim that ‘EPA declares hay a pollutant to antagonize small and mid-sized U.S. cattle feeders’ is unnecessary, inflammatory hyperbole.”

Zero Cool
Zero Cool
13 years ago

Admin,

Thank you for clearing up this false allegation of EPA. I guess the original poster did not do his research before posting. This type of irresponsible posting is what contributes to mad hysteria among those that do not know better.

Hans
Hans
13 years ago
Reply to  Zero Cool

I post items that appear to be of interest to myself and others. Some items I “vet” and others I pass along for others to do their own due-diligence.

A polite reference to the URL of a site that debunks an article is all that is required for me to accept and own an error.

Regarding your comment: “I cannot believe that someone would post this crap and not verify its validity first.”

I don’t own you, and as a consequence, I don’t owe you. Please take your attitude and shove it ‘where the sun don’t shine’.

Zero Cool
Zero Cool
13 years ago

Grin…..:))