‘Factory Farms’ Measure on the Ballot: Yea or Nay?

Measure J, the initiative on the November ballot to shut down a number of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations  (CAFOs) or “factory farms” in Sonoma County, has encountered widespread opposition among public governing bodies, most recently including the Healdsburg City Council.

At its Aug. 5 meeting, the council voted 4-1 to oppose Measure J, joining the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in opposition. A similar vote by the Sebastopol City Council is expected in September, and on Aug. 21, the Windsor Town Council will hear a presentation from Supervisor David Rabbit encouraging them to oppose the measure as well.

Whatever the merits or problems with Measure J,  Vice Mayor Evelyn Mitchell cast the solitary vote against the council’s opposition resolution. But not for the reasons one might think: While Mitchell’s credentials in animal welfare are strong, the very fact that the City Council took a position on the issue is what rubbed her the wrong way.

Measure J is usually cast as an effort to ban factory feedlots in the county, although the county’s coastal zone is excluded (it has specific zoning and development regulations under the California Coastal Act). The initiative gathered enough signatures to be eligible for the ballot in the general election. However, while the Board of Supervisors was obligated to approve it for the ballot in May, it voted 4-0 to submit a letter of opposition to the measure. (North County Supervisor James Gore was unable to attend the meeting.)

So opposed was the board, in fact, that in July it revised the wording of the measure as it will appear on the ballot, excising the phrase, “To promote animal welfare, water quality and other goals,” holding that the phrase was not impartial.

The objection of the board, and the cities that have weighed in against Measure J, is that it will affect too many small farms in the county, especially “family farmers” who have been in agriculture for generations.

But proponents of Measure J say that it is very limited. “There are around 700 animal farms operating in the county, and Measure J would only impact the 21 largest ones,” said Kristina Garfinkel, who is an organizer with Coalition to End Factory Farming, endfactoryfarming.vote. 

She bases the number on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of “Large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,” with a specified number of animals in the following categories: (i) 700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry; (ii) 1,000 veal calves; (iii) 1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.

Poultry are included in the definition if they are confined for over 45 days a year by a more complicated measure, roughly 125,000 chickens per “animal unit.”

“There are around 700 animal farms operating in the county, and Measure J would only impact the 21 largest ones,” said Garfinkel. The endfactoryfarming.vote  website has an abundance of research on the topic of CAFOs, and details on the specific local business they are targeting.

“The 21 CAFOs could downsize their operations rather than shut them down completely,” added Garfinkel. “Of course, downsizing is more feasible for some facilities than others, but some of the dairy and poultry facilities are just barely over the limits.”

The Council Meets 

The City Council undertook its recent discussion and vote at the urging of Mayor David Hagele, who in May cited an article in the Press Democrat about factory farming and asked that the council take up opposition to the measure. He asked staff “to craft the letter that’ll be on a future agenda that we can review.” Two other council members agreed, enough for a majority; but even at that time, Mitchell was a firm “no.”

At the Aug. 5 meeting, City Clerk Raina Allen presented the staff letter, and outlined some of the research used to support a position against Measure J. For instance, the Sonoma County Economic Development Board (now the Economic Development Collaborative) said the measure would impact 60 agricultural businesses, not 21, and 450 employees.

Though the discussion was far down the evening’s agenda, two people remained to offer public comments on it. Sarah Laybourn, of a small Windsor poultry farm called Kaya Bird, said, “The economic impact is really interesting—but the human impact and the animal impact would go even further. If this measure does pass, it would take out where we get our feed. Hunt & Behrens will go under—they will no longer be able to exist. That will put myself, and Tiffany Holbrook of Wise Acre Farms, out of business.”

Laybourn shares a 15-acre ranch with Wise Acre Farm, on Arata Lane in Healdsburg. They practice regenerative agriculture, moving the poultry huts (where the birds shelter during the heat of the day) from place to place so their waste helps nourish depleted soil. The chickens raise for poultry are of the Freedom Ranger breed, which as the name says are free range.

The chickens they grow for poultry grow for up to 12 weeks, and are harvested on site, “humanely slaughtered” (a term whose irony Holbrook was well aware of), dressed and sold as whole roasting birds.  They also raise “layers” for eggs, which they sell to the community in an honor-system shed on the property.

Of Hunt & Behrens, Holbrook said, “They create our supplemental feed to make sure that the poultry had the exact carbohydrates and protein percentage that they need.” It’s a custom non-GMO feed, and delivered free of charge directly into the two silos they have on the property. “They are able to help us stay in business by delivering about 8,000 tons of feed into our silo for us, without us having any extra overhead.

“They are a large producer for the smallest farms in the county and the largest farms in the county.  If Measure J passes, they could go out of business,” said Holbrook. (Hunt & Behrens did not respond to questions about the future of the business if Measure J passes.)

The other speaker at the council meeting, Sarah Van Mantgem, argued in favor of Measure J and against the resolution’s passage. “Like me, most people care about animals and how they are treated,” she said. “We believe that they deserve more than a life of misery, even if they’ll end up on someone’s plate.”

Van Mantgem said she helped collect signatures for Measure J—37,000 were gathered to get the item on the ballot—and said, “I encountered folks that strongly agree that you cannot justify animal cruelty.”

She went on, “If those things were happening to humans, we would call it torture. Sensory deprivation, not being allowed outdoors, being highly concentrated to the point of just being super crowded and not even being able to move around. This is what we’re talking about.”

Discussion

The council discussion proved almost entirely favorable to the resolution opposing Measure J, relying on concern for the agricultural heritage and businesses of Sonoma County, and the sense that this was the wrong place to ban CAFOs in such a “poorly written” measure (though how so was not discussed).

But Mitchell, last to weigh in, said she “struggled” with the resolution but explained her opposition to it, for reasons she reiterated in a message to the Tribune this week.

“Having served on the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Humane Society for over 12 years, 5 as Board President, I know the animal welfare issues are real and animals do suffer,” she wrote. “I have worked hard for many years with many amazing animal advocate people and groups who have accomplished a lot. But still, there is a long way to go.”

Beyond that, however, it was being asked to vote on it at all that troubled her. “I became very uncomfortable being put in a position of having to take a public position on Measure J and did not want to do so. I don’t think it is good policy for the Council to take a position on issues that don’t directly relate to Healdsburg … I simply don’t believe this is the correct use of our influence.”

The resolution did pass, 4-1, with Mitchell in opposition. Following that, she asked that the council consider at some point—perhaps a goals session—a re-evaluation of the idea of taking positions on political issues that “don’t directly relate to Healdsburg.” And that if the council still wanted to entertain such action, she asked that it require a unanimous vote for passage.

This article differs slightly from the version in the print edition of The Healdsburg Tribune (Aug. 15, 2024), with additional information on Measure J. Also, several misspellings of personal names have been corrected. We regret the errors.