Factory Farm Redefined

What is a factory farm?

A quick Google search of the term “factory farm” describes these farms as industrialized, intensive agriculture operations designed to maximize profits at the expense of the animals, environment, and public health.

Let’s work on redefining that.

In no way is it a factory. It’s a farm. Most likely, it is a family farm.
Is it larger than 50 years ago? Sure.
Does the size change what it is? Nope. Do words like “industrialized” or “intensive” change it? Again, no.

98% of all farms are family-owned and operated.

Those families are utilizing technology to be efficient and produce more with less.

Their efficiency and innovation has indeed been designed to maximize profits. After all, a farm is a business.

Let’s pause here for a second. Does the fact that a farm is a business change anything? Some would say it means farmers are motivated by profit, only caring about the bottom dollar. Here’s the thing—cutting corners and irresponsibly raising animals doesn’t mean more profit. It eats into your profits. Well-cared for animals and efficient facilities mean a higher quality product. Lowering your product’s worth is not profitable.

Back to efficiency and innovation. It has been designed to do more than maximize profits. It also maximizes resources.  In fact, they are using less land, water, and energy to produce pork than ever before.

One way these “factory farms” have done this is to raise animals indoors. This allows them to use less while producing more. It also protects the animals from weather, disease, and predators. But does this protect the environment or public health?

Yes. By maximizing resources, they are being more sustainable. They are feeding more people with less resources (as has been previously mentioned). To raise the same number of animals on pasture would mean a lot more land, a lot less containment, and less control. Pasture isn’t bad. It has its place. Raising animals indoors isn’t bad either, though. It also has its place.

Farmers are maximizing profits through innovation and efficiency because of the animals, environment, and public health, not at the expense of.

Now that that’s settled, let’s amend the definition.

Factory Larger farms are (most likely) family-run industrialized, intensive agriculture operations designed to maximize profits, technology, and resources at the expense because of the animals, environment, and public health.

Farmers use soil sampling to care for their land

Farmers rely heavily on the health of their soil, not just for a successful crop, but for the sustainability of their farm. Protecting the soil is an important part of being a good farmer.

Testing soil: One way to ensure that soil is healthy is to take soil samples.

Taking soil samples: Farmers use a soil probe into the ground 4-8 inches to retrieve a core of soil. The sample is then put into a plastic bucket (metal or galvanized buckets may result in incorrect sample results). 12-15 cores of soil will need to be taken across the area being tested to get the most complete understanding of the soil. Once all the samples have been taken and mixed in a bucket, they will be packaged into special boxes to be sent to the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

How often is soil sampled?: North Carolina hog farmers are required, by law, to take soil samples every three years, but many farmers take them annually.

What is being tested?: For hog farms, the main thing being tested is phosphorous levels and heavy metals like zinc and copper. The test also tells farmers the PH and nutrients of the soil. All this lets farmers know what the soil needs to grow crops (e.g. lime, fertilizer, etc.). Farmers only put enough nutrients on the field as can be absorbed to prevent run-off, reduce costs, and grow the best quality crops possible.

Soil is a farmer’s most precious asset, and they are deeply connected to it. Soil sampling is just one practice that farmers employ to protect the health of the land they care for.

All eyes on Richmond: An update on Murphy-Brown’s appeal of nuisance lawsuits

 North Carolina’s hog farmers came under a vicious, well-financed attack by class-action law firms in recent years. Five cases went to trials, with negative – and unfair – outcomes in each. Now, the first trial, which involved the Kinlaw Farm in Bladen County, is making its way through the appeals process at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va.

 The first trial verdict must be reversed. That’s the message from defendant Murphy-Brown in a persuasive 58-page brief that outlines, in meticulous detail, the numerous and significant errors made by W. Earl Britt, the judge who presided over the case.

 The appeal makes clear how critical the appeals court’s review will be.

 “This suit is the tip of a spear aimed at North Carolina’s agricultural economy,” the appeals brief says. “… A great deal depends on the outcome of these coordinated lawsuits, including the livelihoods of many in eastern North Carolina’s predominantly agricultural communities.”

 Indeed, it does.

 The appeals court filings — and accompanying briefs filed by the NC Pork Council, NC Farm Bureau, and other agricultural groups — outline how the plaintiffs received unfair jury decisions by claiming that hog farms near their rural North Carolina homes are a nuisance.

 The appeals note that the plaintiffs did not seek any injunctive relief — that is, they did not ask the court to make any changes on the farms. They just want money, and they have their sights set on Murphy-Brown, the state’s largest hog producer and a division of Smithfield Foods.

 Murphy-Brown has identified seven critical mistakes that occurred during the trial and by the judge that influenced the outcome of the cases. Those mistakes can be read here.

 “These errors took a costly toll. Deprived of the opportunity to resolve factual disputes, improperly exposed to prejudicial evidence, misled by one-sided expert testimony, and misinformed about the law, the jury awarded ten plaintiffs more than $50 million — all for the alleged annoyance and discomfort of living near a farm that opened nearly 25 years ago,” the court filing says.

 The brief filed by the NC Pork Council, NC Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups raises concerns about additional issues that call into question the “overall fairness of the trial, which does not give the appearance of having been conducted on a level playing field.” Specifically, they highlight the location of the trial and the court’s refusal to allow jurors to visit the Kinlaw Farm themselves.

 Through five trials, held from April 2018 to March 2019, juries awarded 36 plaintiffs a total of $550.5 million. (The awards were later reduced to approximately $98 million due to a state law that places a limit on punitive damages.)  Those verdicts have put family farmers out of business and taken a toll on our rural communities.

 What Happens Next

Murphy-Brown has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to consider the following options:

 (1) Reverse the punitive damages award because there was insufficient evidence to allow punitive damages, and order a new trial limited to liability and compensatory damages;

 (2) Dismiss the case because (a) damages should have been limited to the plaintiffs’ loss of property value, of which none was presented, and (b) the trial did not include Kinlaw Farms, an indispensable party, thereby forcing the plaintiffs to refile their case in state court; or

 (3) Order a new trial that (a) excludes the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Shane Rogers and permits the excluded testimony of Dr. Pamela Dalton; (b) excludes improper evidence relating to the profits of Smithfield Food and WH Group, as well as the nationality of ownership; and (c) allows the jury to determine whether the claimed nuisance is continuing or recurring.

 Murphy-Brown has requested the opportunity to present its case in front of a Court of Appeals panel. At this time, no decision has been made about whether oral arguments will be made. If allowed, those arguments would not be made until December 2019 or early next year.

 There is no set timeline for when the Court of Appeals may ultimately decide this case. If oral arguments are presented, the court typically issues a ruling within three to six months. In the meantime, the remaining nuisance lawsuits – and future planned trials – are on hold.

 So, we wait. And we pray. And we hope that the appeals court will exercise wisdom and good judgment in reversing the many errors that were made in a Raleigh courtroom.  We will continue to stand by our family farmers and tell their side of the story.

The N.C. Pork Council recently published a comprehensive update on the nuisance lawsuits and the appeal filed by Murphy-Brown with the U.S. Court of Appeals. NC Farm Families is providing a condensed summary of that article to keep our farm families informed about the status of the lawsuits and the arguments in Murphy-Brown’s appeal. You can read the entire article in the NC Pork Report.