Ohio Farm Bureau Federation

My corn was over 146 bu/ac. the beans went 55 bu/ac. Both exceed last year's yields. In Morrow county beans are running in the high 50s and into the 60s. My son had one of his fields go at 66 bu/ac. There's not enuf corn run yet to est an ave yield.

I have a funny story for you all. When my husband and I took a load of beans to the mill in Leesburg last night the operator told us that earlier last week a skunk had gotten sucked up the leg and down the pipe into the bin and survived! They found him running around on top of the beans; they had to get up on top of the bin and shoot it. They said the beans smelled terribly.

This is amazing! I really think my Industry will be next!

Photos from the Ohioans for Livestock Care Election Night Celebration held Tuesday night at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Cafe.

Wish I could be there!!

Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of agriculture and the consumer.

Great job everyone.!!!! Now it's "Katie bar the door" time. Will 64% of the vote stop them? Who knows. But hopefully it will slow them down. Again, thanks to every one for their hard work.

Best approach would be to handle slaughter the Kosher way (I'm not Jewish, but I like their ways with animals and foods). Bless the animal and slaughter it as quickly as possible and with the least amount of pain. That's my take on this issue.

That is the dead on truth! Even with issue 2 voted in we have a lot more battles coming in the future I truely believe from the HSUS.

Yea - it passed!

Anyone that is a registered voter in Ohio, that is. ;)

Vote yes. I'd suggest everyone needs to be concerned, regardless of your zip code.

Thank you.

Additionally, to address your concern, Rep. Bill Batchelder has argued Issue 2 belongs in the Constitution. Here's his perspective, which was printed recently in the Cincinnati Enquirer:

For Issue 2, the livestock board
Animal panel belongs in Constitution
... Read More
By Rep. William G. Batchelder • October 29, 2009

Recently some individuals and groups have come out in opposition to Issue 2 on the grounds that the state constitution is not the proper place for the Livestock Care Standards Board. However, as a student of the Ohio Constitution for more than four decades, both as a legislator and as a Court of Appeals judge, I believe that Issue 2 should be part of the Ohio Constitution rather than treated as a statute, or regular law.

First, inclusion of such a provision in the constitution is not at all unique. The Ohio Constitution has at least 12 similar provisions, several of which establish councils as part of state government. Such important state functions as the State Board of Education and the Workers' Compensation Board are found in the same part of the Constitution as the Livestock Care Standards Board will be when voters approve it.

The content of the proposed amendment governs cost, quality, safety, and supply of food for Ohioans. That is, this provision provides for one of the most fundamental aspects of human life.

Second, some have objected to Issue 2 on the grounds that the constitution is difficult to alter should the board ever need revision. But Issue 2, like the State Board of Education, sets forth the form of the board, not the details. Those details would later be established via the administrative procedure and safeguarded by legislative requirements as found in Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Another safeguard to keep the process responsive to the people is found in the appointment process: The members of the board are appointed by the governor, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

Also, one member of the board is appointed by the President of the Ohio Senate and one by Speaker of the Ohio House. These safeguards make Issue 2 plenty adaptable, and placing it in the Ohio Constitution would not make the board unresponsive to Ohioans.

Third, in the absence of Ohio establishing such a board, outside entities from Washington, D.C., may come to Ohio and through the initiative process put a livestock care issue on the ballot, which could be arbitrary and capricious. Under that scenario, Ohio might be faced with a non-deliberative process to determine the best practices of animal husbandry and to meet the changing scientific needs of livestock care. Several states now have such arbitrary and inflexible laws. Issue 2 would preserve public access to the livestock rule-making process in Ohio.

Ohio's Constitution is a marvelous document that embodies the values and beliefs of our citizens.

From the Constitution Convention in 1912 came a document providing an extensive Bill of Rights, a clear delineation of the three branches' powers and responsibilities, and a clear empowerment of many boards and commissions to which Issue 2 is an appropriate complement.

Our forbearers would be proud to find that this generation has learned from their precedent and that the livestock board is a very proper application of Ohio's great constitution.

Here's the link to his opinion piece: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091029/EDIT02/910290373/1019/EDIT/For+Issue+2++the+livestock+board

Thanks for letting us know the information has been helpful, Eric. Hope you can share what you've learned with friends and family prior to getting to the polls.

Eric, this is from the people that deliver my local food each week.... he has many connections with many different farmers, including beef, poultry, eggs and veggies... he supports these farmers extensively, and helps them sell their products by delivering them to local restaurants and citizens... this is his take on issue 2 and why he is voting NO.

I’m against Issue 2 because:

1) I question the constitutionality of an executive board for policing animal humanity issues. The Ohio constitution (like all constitutions), in my understanding, is designed to create a framework for which government may operate efficiently and with checked powers. ... Read More

2) I think that such a board is not conducive to free market competition. Creating a board that sets an industry standard for animal humanities removes the free market competition of producers competing to provide a safe, high quality product based on the way they treat their animals. Depending on what regulations the board creates, many producers may not be able to afford to comply with the regulations or have the resources to complete the paperwork, inspections, etc. These producers (likely small farmers I work with) will then have an uphill battle educating their customers on how they comply or exceed those animal humanity standards but still don’t have the stamp of approval.

3) Farmers probably don’t need more regulation. This regulation is an added cost to producers and it is particularly a heavy burden on small producers who don’t have the resources of large producers.

Many of the arguments you hear make assertions that it protects the “factory farms” and that it’s funded by “big ag” or that “factory farms are harmful to the environment.” I don’t buy these arguments because they are blanket statements. Yes, large producers have a lot of “skin in the game” on this piece of legislation. Some may be supporting a Yes vote; others may be supporting a No vote. Furthermore, not all “factory farms” are bad. Our economy has a need for low cost, mass produced product. And some of the “factory farms” actually have very innovative ways of recycling their waste and turning it into other useful products. These are processes that small farmers may not have the resources to do.

Oh, and finally, the idea of a bipartisan board appointed by the governor is silly. Anything appointed is likely not 100% bipartisan; further, in my skepticism of government, I believe that the seats on the board will be reserved for those with the deepest pockets and providing the most support to the one making the appointments (governor). As a result, myself and small farmers alike probably won’t be sitting on this board and therefore our concerns may not have equal weight.