Buffer strip proposal creates Minnesota controversy

Buffer strips

Buffer strips between farm fields and permanent waterways are designed to help improve water quality in Minnesota. (photo from www.topps-life.org)

Buffer strips are a hot topic of conversation in Minnesota agriculture. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) defines buffer strips as “small areas or strips of land in permanent vegetation, designed to intercept pollutions and manage other environmental concerns.”

A recent push by Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and other legislators seeks to push all buffer strips along waterways in Minnesota to a uniform 50 feet in length. Farmers are fighting back against what they call a ‘one size fits all’ proposal.

A recently introduced bill before the Minnesota Legislature would require farmers to install a 50-foot buffer strip of permanent vegetation between their fields and adjacent bodies of water. The strips work to help filter phosphates, nitrates, and sediment from running off the fields and into any nearby water, thereby helping to improve water quality.

On Friday, April 3, Governor Dayton and other officials met with Austin area farmers to discuss the proposal. The Austin Daily Herald quoted Mark Novak, who farms near Wells, Minnesota, telling the Governor, “With 33 feet of buffers, very little water is going from my land into the ditch. You want me to add another 15 feet?”

Governor Mark Dayton

MN Governor Mark Dayton recently met with Worthington-area farmers to discuss his push for 50-foot buffer strips in the state. (Photo from www.wctrib.com)

“All buffers are not the same,” said Minnesota Farmers Union President Doug Peterson on a recent interview with Dustin Hoffmann of KLGR Radio in Redwood Falls. “One size does not fit all.”

Peterson said the Farmers Union clearly stated that there is a need for buffer strips during a recent board meeting. “Again, it greatly varies throughout the state, and one size does not fit all. We do want to work with state agencies to improve water quality, but we need a common sense approach.”

“It’s critical here that local officials and local control be exerted over some of the decisions that may be made in the countryside,” said Peterson. “We need to get an inventory and we need to find funding for making decisions on buffers. We need to work with local officials on that, and that’s what we’re recommending to the Legislature.”

State Representative Paul Anderson wrote a piece on the EchoPress.com website, quoting Howard Midje, a retired Minnesota state design engineer at the former State Conservation Service (what is now the National Resources Conservation Service). He quoted Midje as saying, “The Governor’s buffer strip requirement the largest land grab in state history.”

MN Republican Representative Paul Anderson of District 12B (photo from www.house.leg.state.mn.us)

MN Republican Representative Paul Anderson of District 12B (photo from www.house.leg.state.mn.us)

Midje said maintaining buffer strips and pheasant habitat, which the Governor (an avid pheasant hunter) wants to see more of, is not always workable. “Buffer strips need to be mowed and clipped several times in a season to keep the grass short and to keep trees from putting down roots. If grass is allowed to grow over two inches tall, it will simply bend over when water flows through it, and it loses its effectiveness at trapping sediment.”

Anderson said he doesn’t want what he referred to as a “Cookie cutter approach. We should be targeting high-impact areas, where buffers will do the most good. We should be doing it in a way that fairly compensates farmers for the loss of productive land.”

The KLGR radio website reported that originally, the Governor promoted this idea back in December as a way to improve pheasant habitat. The original proposal would turn over enforcement of the buffers to the DNR, and take it away from the Soil and Water Conservation Service, who have been enforcing the laws currently on the books. The idea of DNR enforcement on private lands was called “unacceptable” at a recent listening session at the Redwood Falls Community Center.

One Redwood-area farmer was quoted as saying, “This feels like nothing more than a land grab by the DNR. We already have water conservation buffer rules on the books. How about we do a better job of funding that, instead of spending money on a whole new initiative?”

Senator Gary Dahmes of Redwood Falls visited with KLGR Radio recently, and said he doesn’t support the bill for several reasons. “In 4 of the 6 counties I represent, we have 1,423 miles of dredged ditches. With a 50-foot buffer strip,that is 16,100 acres. If you take that number times the average sales price registered at the court house, that’s $114,000,000 in agricultural assets that we’re asking our farmers to set aside, without any way of making money off it.”

MN District 16 Senator Gary Dahms, a Republican from Redwood Falls.  (Photo from senate.mn)

MN District 16 Senator Gary Dahms, a Republican from Redwood Falls. (Photo from senate.mn)

Dahmes wants to know why that much land should be taken out of food production. “We have to double our food supply by 2050 (because of rising population), and this works against that.

Bruce Peterson is the President of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, and farms near Northfield. He posed a question in a guest column on southernminn.com: “How many non-farm people even know farmers already use buffer strips?”

He speaks from experience. “I already use these practices on my farm near Northfield to protect several waterways that flow near my fields. Each of these practices is sized and designed specifically for their location in a way that maximizes water quality benefits.”

Peterson wants to know who is to blame for the knowledge gap?

“In my opinion, it’s farmers,” he said. “Farmers have not done a good job of telling their conservation story, and we’re losing the public perception battle because of it.”

After the recent meeting in Redwood Falls, Minnesota Farm Bureau President Kevin Paap encouraged farmers to speak up.

“We need to be the ones to improve the image of agriculture,” he said. “Don’t approach the issue defensively. Instead, educate the public. Show them what we are doing to maintain land and water quality.”

He said farmers know the long-term importance of protecting resources.

“Many of us are descendants of the people who built the farms we live on,” said Paap. “My own son lives in the house his great-Grandfather built. He sleeps in the same room his Grandfather was born in. We need to show that we know the importance of the land we’ve been given, and the importance of maintaining it for future generations.”

 

 

National beef checkoff discussions hit snag

A push to increase the national beef checkoff from 1 dollar to 2 dollars per head of cattle sold is approaching its fourth year of discussion, and recently took a step forward. Several of the nation’s largest Ag organizations came together in a USDA-sanctioned Beef Checkoff Enhancement group, with the goal of putting together a proposal on increasing the checkoff in a manner they could support.

The discussion on how to proceed has been controversial. Several major Ag groups signed a Memorandum of Understanding on how to proceed with the change. However, 3 of the original Ag groups withdrew from the discussions, citing concerns over the checkoff structure and how the money is allocated to different groups.

“The working group has sat down for formal meetings roughly 19 times over 3-plus years,” said Dale Moore, the Public Policy Executive Director for the American Farm Bureau Federation. “It’s largely been a work of a number of groups that represent folks who pay into the beef checkoff.”

The discussions actually involve more than just raising the checkoff dollar amount.

“It’s got a number of facets too it,” said Moore. “Fundamentally, we at the Farm Bureau support an increase in the checkoff because there’s always more work to do, and we need the resources to do it. Discussions also included some potential changes on how those dollars are spent, but by and large, it’s been about how to reach a consensus on moving forward to facilitate increasing the checkoff.”

Dale Moore is the Executive Director of Public Policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, based in Washington, D.C. (Photo from fbvideos.org)

Dale Moore is the Executive Director of Public Policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, based in Washington, D.C. (Photo from fbvideos.org)

The talks on changing the process of spending checkoff dollars are where the discussions bogged down.

“The Beef Promotion Act was passed in 1985, and it was one of the most descriptive pieces of legislation I’ve ever read,” said Chandler Goule, the Vice President of Programs for the National Farmers Union. “It literally says who can sit on what committee, who has what authority, how many people from the Federation (of state Beef Councils) are on the Beef Operating Committee, and how many other people sit on the BOC too.”

“There’s only 20 people on the BOC,” said Goule, “and 10 seats go to the Federation of State Beef Councils. Since the Federation is a subsidiary of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, all you need is one more person from NCBA and they control all of the authorization requests.”

Goule added, “That’s why you’ve seen NCBA get anywhere from 93 to 95 percentof the checkoff dollars. Over the last ten years, that adds up to half a billion dollars. Because of them executing a large number of contracts, they have an indirect financial benefit that frees up other resources to lobby against things like Country of Origin Labeling, the RFS, and even the Farm Bill.”

Chandler Goule is the Vice President of Programs for the National Farmers Union in Washington, D.C.  (Photo from CommodityClassic.org)

Chandler Goule is the Vice President of Programs for the National Farmers Union in Washington, D.C. (Photo from CommodityClassic.org)

In a recent press release, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF USA) called the new proposal to increase the national Beef Checkoff “window dressing.”

“It’s designed to deflect attention away from the NCBA’s misappropriation of over $216,000 in producer money,” said R-CALF USA President Bill Bullard, “as well as Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack’s failure to maintain the integrity of the program.”

Bullard ads, “The checkoff has become a USDA-supported cattle tax that helps NCBA to fight policy proposals that support independent farmers and ranchers across the nation. It’s exemplified by NCBA’s ongoing litigation and lobbying effort to eliminate the widely popular country of origin labeling for beef.”

Bullard said the new proposal doesn’t eliminate the conflict of interest in which the NCBA houses and controls the Federation of State Beef Councils, and the Federation in turn controls half the votes needed to consistently award the lion’s share of the checkoff dollars to NCBA.

Bill Bullard is the President of RCALF-USA, one of the organizations that didn’t sign the recent MOA on raising the national beef checkoff from 1 to 2 dollars (Photo from oklahomafarmreport.com)

Bill Bullard is the President of RCALF-USA, one of the organizations that didn’t sign the recent MOA on raising the national beef checkoff from 1 to 2 dollars (Photo from oklahomafarmreport.com)

“The process is a little confusing,” said John Schaefer, a beef farmer from Buffalo Lake, and a former member of both the Beef Board and the Beef Promotion Operating Committee.

“One of the provisions of the national checkoff is the Beef Board and the Operating Committee cannot do any programs themselves,” said Schaefer, a Minnesota Beef Board member from 2007-2013. “They are required to contract with national non-profit industry organizations. By far, the biggest amount of money goes to NCBA. It states right in the Beef Promotion Act that the Federation of State Beef Councils is an eligible contractor.”

Schaefer adds, “That’s where most of the controversy lies at. The organization that gets most of the contracts also has ten of the votes guaranteed on the organization that decides how to spend the checkoff dollars.”

The way the structure is set up is part of the problem.

“Ever year, legal counsel instructed the Operating Committee to maintain an arm’s length relationship with the contractors,” said Schaefer, who spent 5 years on the Beef Promotion Operating Committee. “You have ten representatives of a contracting organization, including their chairman and vice-chairman who are making that decision, and it’s a difficult task to serve to masters.”

“That said, the people I worked with on the Beef Board were conscientious people, and were diligent in carrying out their responsibilities,” said Schaefer. “They were good people put in a rather tough situation.”

Despite the way the checkoff is set up, Schaefer feels it’s still efficient.

“While it’s easy for outsiders to get the wrong impression, it’s operates very efficiently,” said Schaefer, “and the programs by-and-large are well run. It’s not perfect and there’s always room for improvement. The program staff is top notch and doing a good job too.”

More transparency in the process could be a key to clearing up the controversy.

“When you have a structure like that, what you also need is transparency,” said Schaefer. “People need to see that there’s nothing irregular going on, and, in my opinion, that’s where NCBA has fallen down a little. They’ve been a little too secretive about how things are done.”

What’s next in the process?

“Our next steps are making sure our members across the country know what’s in the agreement,” said Dale Moore of the American Farm Bureau. “Then we’ll start laying out the next steps of the process, specifically as it relates to educating the public and what we’ll need to do on Capitol Hill to build support for it.”

Chandler Goule of the National Farmers Union said just because their organization didn’t sign the MOU, it doesn’t mean they’re not keeping an eye on the issue.

“We are still very much engaged,” said Goule. “We only withdrew because NCBA kept walking it in a circle. NFU spent thousands of dollars and staff resources to listen to NCBA reject every proposal we put forth. We put a total of 14 options on the table to make it a more fair and balanced program, and they rejected every one because it took NCBA out of the driver’s seat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmers struggle to find immigrant labor supply

“Imagine going to bed at night and not knowing if you’re going to have enough people to help pick your crops.” That’s how Bernie Thiel, a farmer from Lubbock, Texas, describes the challenge farmers face in finding enough labor to run their operations.

Farmers in the south typically use a lot of immigrant labor, but it’s become harder to find the help they need. This is why agriculture across the country is watching the nation’s immigration debate, and wondering if workers will be available in the future.

Bernie Thiel, Jr.

Bernie Thiel, Jr., farms near Lubbock, TX, and is having a hard time finding enough labor to complete his harvests every year (photo from oklahomafarmreport.com)

“Being in the business as long as I have, I’ve got people who’ve worked for me for 25 to 35 years,” said Thiel. “These are laborers who come from Mexico every year, and they’ve shown up for a long time. The problem is my labor force has gotten older and harder to come by now.”

Said Thiel; “There’s no new generation of laborers since the Reagan years, when we got amnesty in 1986. That’s where a lot of the hands I’m using now came from. I do get a few of my hired hands that have families and will come over and help.”

“As far as finding help locally, it’s virtually impossible,” said Thiel. “I do advertise on the radio. I had it on two Mexican-American stations all summer long, from the start of the season to the end. When the season ended up, I didn’t have one hand from those advertisements, and never kept a hand that did show up for more than two weeks.”

Other industries have begun to compete for immigrant labor, and it’s affecting farmers all over the country.

“In the last few years, we’ve had a demand for more laborers because of the oil industry,” said Bernie. “That has pulled some of my labor. Not a great deal of it, but my gosh, they start their workers at 18 to 20 dollars per hour.”

“Reading through some of the different periodicals, it’s not just me,” said Thiel. “This is happening nationwide. I read an article about a strawberry farmer in

Strawberry farming is an expensive proposition, and a California farmer spent 25,000 dollars an acre to plant a crop, and then plowed it under because of no labor available labor help (photo from mommasgottabake.com)

Strawberry farming is an expensive proposition, and a California farmer spent 25,000 dollars an acre to plant a crop, and then plowed it under because of no labor available labor help (photo from mommasgottabake.com)

California that plowed up 20 percent of his acreage. Keep in mind, it can cost up to 25,000 dollars an acre to grow strawberries.”

Thiel said he knows the sickening feeling that the farmer from California experienced.

“I’ve had to plow up squash for the last three years because I can’t find help,” said Bernie. “Of my normal plantings, I’ve had to plow up quite a bit because I couldn’t get it picked. This was marketable product that I already had a home for, but couldn’t get it harvested.”

Produce farmers aren’t the only ones feeling the pinch of a labor shortage. It’s hitting the dairy industry hard too.

John Rosenow is a dairy farmer from Cochran, Wisconsin, and he said the downturn for labor has gone on for several years.

“About 10 to 15 years ago, the local labor force dried up,” said Rosenow. As a result, the Wisconsin dairy industry became stagnant. People were afraid to grow their operation because they couldn’t find any help.”

John Rosenow is a dairy farmer in Wisconsin who’s having a hard time finding enough labor to help on the farm.  He’d like the nation’s immigration policy changed in order to assure a reliable supply of help for years to come (Photo from wisconsinwatch.com)

John Rosenow is a dairy farmer in Wisconsin who’s having a hard time finding enough labor to help on the farm. He’d like the nation’s immigration policy changed in order to assure a reliable supply of help for years to come (Photo from wisconsinwatch.com)

He said, “At that point, we discovered that Mexican immigrant labor was fantastic. They do an incredible job, work really hard, and they’re reliable. At that point, many operations began to hire Mexican labor, and the industry began to grow again.”

“Things improved, people started expanding, and the dairy industry improved in Wisconsin,” said Rosenow.

As the nation’s immigration debate continues, the labor force is once again shrinking in Wisconsin, and dairy farmers are feeling the pinch.

“Generally, everyone is short one or two people,” said Rosenow. “It’s because the inflow of Mexican labor from the south has dried up quite a bit.”

John said, “A large part of the downturn stems from border security. It’s a lot harder for people to cross the southern border. The fact that it’s gotten so much harder gives people less hope that they can come be part of this economy and industry.”

The need for reliable farm labor is growing again. “As far as people to milk the cows day in and day out, feed the calves, clean the barns, and other chores like that, I have not found anyone worth hiring, other than immigrant laborers, over the last 10 to 15 years.”

“If society wants to have an abundant supply of safe, wholesome food, produced here in the United States, which helps keep America secure, we have to have labor to do it,” said Rosenow. “That labor is going to have to come as immigrants.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota Grown Directory seeking new members

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is updating its popular, statewide, MDA-logoMinnesota Grown Directory filled with direct to consumer farms and farmers markets. Membership and Directory listing are open to Minnesota producers who grow or raise products. The 2014 edition promoted 978 farms and farmers markets. Minnesota Grown has more than 1,200 members including fruit and vegetable farms, livestock producers, farmers markets, CSA farms, orchards, garden centers, farm wineries, Christmas tree growers and more.

170,000 copies of the Minnesota Grown Directory are released annually in April and distributed statewide in tourist centers, libraries, chambers of commerce, farms, and retailers. Farms who advertise in the printed Directory are also included in the online edition, which was redesigned and had more than 290,000 unique visitors in 2014. The new, mobile friendly, website was improved to simplify searches for Minnesota products and farms.

 

“The demand for local foods has increased dramatically the last few years,” said Ag Marketing Specialist with the Minnesota Grown Program, Jessica Miles. “Our Directory is the most comprehensive and commonly used guide to local foods and plants available in Minnesota. It’s also becoming an excellent resource for family activity ideas and learning opportunities.”

 

While memberships are accepted year-round, farms must sign up or call Jessica Miles by February 6, 2015 to be included in the 2015 printed Directory.

“For $60 farmers can get an entire year’s worth of advertising both online and in print,” said Miles. “They’ll also have access to other great Minnesota Grown member-only benefits, such as use of the trademarked logo and FREE stickers, price cards and other promotional items. Just don’t delay and call right away because the deadline to be included in the printed Directory is February 6, 2015.”

 

Potential new members may sign up and pay online by clicking on the “Members & Retailers” tab at www.minnesotagrown.com, then clicking on “Become a Member” or contact Jessica Miles at 651-201-6170jessica.miles@state.mn.us to request an application by mail or with questions.

 

Consumers will feel the pinch of the immigration debate

“The debate over the nation’s immigration policy is one of the more political and complex debates there are right now,” said Kristi Boswell, Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau.

While the debate rages on, agriculture is paying close attention to the process of establishing a new policy. If the nation’s farmers can’t find a reliable supply of workers to harvest crops, it would put America’s food supply and overall security at serious risk.

Americans who don’t live on a farm or have any close connection with agriculture may not know that agriculture relies on a steady supply of immigrant workers.

Kristi Boswell

Kristi Boswell is the Director of Congressional Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washington D.C. (Photo from the Farm Bureau website)

“Currently, 70 percent of our immigrant work force is not authorized to work in the United States,” said Boswell. “We also have a flawed guest worker program (H2A) that is expensive and burdensome, and it only supplies 4 percent of our workforce because of that cost and complexity.”

“Our farmers crave stability, and this is only going to come through responsible legislative immigration reform that provides solutions,” said Boswell.

Chandler Goule

Chandler Goule is the Senior Director of Programs with the National Farmers Union in Washington D.C. (Photo from www.biofuellawconference.org)

“I would say agriculture is the silent partner that gets hurt the most in this debate,” said Chandler Goule, the Senior Vice President of Programs at the National Farmers Union. “For those who say we should send all immigrants home, I’d like to see what their grocery bills look like in a few months. Immigrant labor gets the crops out of the fields and into the grocery stores.”

“I would love to say Americans would come and do this work,” said Boswell. “I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t want their children to become a crop worker. The wages are very competitive, peaking around 20 dollar an hour during harvest, but it’s very hard work and seasonal in nature.”

The H2A program presents challenges to farmers because of the way it’s structured.

“A producer tells the government how many employees he needs, then those folks come in and you pay them a set wage for a certain amount of time,” said Jordan Dux, the National Affairs Director for the Nebraska Farm Bureau. “It’s too stringent in the way it’s regulated, because if you’re employees finish work early, then you as the farmer still have to pay them for that contracted period.”

Jordan Dux

Jordan Dux is the Director of National Affairs with the Nebraska Farm Bureau (Photo from www.nefb.org)

“There’s not a lot of flexibility there for farmers because of the way it’s regulated,” said Dux. “They’re trying to make it a one-size-fits-all program for all of agriculture, and it doesn’t work that way.”

Agriculture is a hard business to lump under one umbrella. “Agriculture is a unique business in the way that different products are produced,” said Dux. “If you can build in flexibility within any program, that’s going to be beneficial for anything, including tax policy, farm programs, and anything else, it always works better.”

The need for flexibility stems from the fact that immigrant labor touches many different types of agriculture. “The issue definitely touches hand-labor intensive ag the most,” said Kristi Boswell. “It really does hit all of agriculture, including specialty crops, strawberries, citrus. You have apples, lettuce, and really, the entire produce industry relies on immigrant labor.”

“On the livestock side, dairy is very labor intensive,” said Boswell. “You have feedlots and pork facilities that require a lot of labor. Custom harvesters also use a lot of H2A labor as well.”

A lack of immigrant labor is causing some serious problems in agriculture fields across the country.

“We have a Farm Bureau member in Texas that literally had to shred 10 acres of squash because he didn’t have the labor force to get it out of the fields,” said Boswell. “That’s heart wrenching.”

Chandler Goule said, “It’s true. We have a segment of society sitting on government programs in agricultural areas that are more than capable of going out there and working in the fields. They won’t do physical labor.”

“The immigrants from the south will come and do all of the labor,” said Goule. “It’s a conundrum. That’s why I think it’s important for agriculture to remain in the debate.

“Everybody is so worried about the amnesty part of the debate,” said Chandler. “If they don’t do this right, agriculture will be hit first, it will be hit the hardest, and then you’ll see the true impacts of it because it will hit the consumer.”

“You’re used to going to the store and finding everything you need,” said Goule. “When we can’t get it out of the field and it’s rotting, you’re either going to see more imported food, which could come from a country that doesn’t have the same safety standards for food and vegetables, or you won’t find the product, period.”

Check out more Midwest Farm news at www.MidwestProducer.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not much change to Minnesota fence law

The need for man to fence in livestock has been around a long time, and Minnesota is no exception. Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 346 and 561, cover livestock fencing, and state that a landowner does not need to fence his land against the livestock of another landowner. The livestock owner is required to restrain his livestock from entering the land of another.

Cattle behind a fence

Humans have fenced in livestock as far back as anyone can remember. But who actually pays for fencing in Minnesota Law Books? (Photo from www.extension.org)

However, Minnesota Statute, Chapter 344, supplements the Common Law of 346 and 351. Chapter 344 covers “partition fencing,” and says the livestock owner is not the only one responsible for maintaining the fence that keeps livestock on his land and off his neighbors. A landowner who doesn’t have livestock may have to pay his neighbor to help put up that fence.

“When there’s adjoining land and one of the parties wants to have a fence erected, the other adjoining landowner has to pay for half. That’s the long and short of it,” said Bruce Kleven, President of Kleven Law in Minneapolis, and a lobbyist for the Minnesota Cattlemen and Minnesota Wheat Growers.

Bruce Kleven

Bruce Kleven of the Kleven Law Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Photo courtesy of brucekleven.com)

The obligation doesn’t stop when the fence is put up, either. “It says build and maintain in here (the statute),” said Kleven. “If we think that out, say 20 years go by and you have to paint it, the adjoining landowner would pay half the cost.”

Kleven has been involved in agriculture law for years, and said he thinks many farmers may not even know the law exists. “I think most farmers, if they want to put up a fence, they put up a fence, and they don’t even know they could charge the adjoining landowner for half the cost,” said Kleven. “Property law has been around a long time. It’s old. It’s mid-1800’s.”

“The law itself is a territorial law, which means it predates Minnesota statehood,” said Kleven. “When you look at the development of the law, it was put in out state code in 1858 when we hit state hood. There was an amendment in 1866, and then a couple more in the late 1800’s.”

“Since then, it’s been pretty quiet on Minnesota fencing law through most of the Twentieth Century,” said Kleven.

The only recent amendment to the law was applied in 1994. “The amendment said this law applies to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) like it does to everyone else,” said Kleven. “Elk farming was taking hold at that time. For clarity, I think they said if there’s an elk farm next to a piece of DNR property, this law applies to the DNR like it does to everybody else.”

“I don’t think we’ve had any bills attempting to change the fencing law at the Legislature since 2000 and ‘02,” said Bruce Kleven. “House and Senate members from the Otter Tail County area brought a bill forward, but it never really moved.” He said, “Then, in 2002, House and Senate members from Wright County brought the same issue, and it didn’t move either.”

“What they were trying to do is change the fence law because urban sprawl was beginning to cause conflicts between farmers and non-farmers,” said Bruce. “The non-farmers were moving out into the country and asking ‘why do I have to help pay for your fence?’”

Minnesota hasn’t seen a large number of fencing conflicts in recent years. “There was a court case in 2001 up in Lake of the Woods County,” said Bruce. “The case made it to the Court of Appeals in St. Paul, and the main question there was what kind of fence would be used instead of whether or not one was needed.”

“Some of why it’s so quiet is if you go back 100 years, we had more grazing, cattle, and prairie. Quite a bit of livestock has left the state, and we’re seeing more confinement and feedlot-type activity, so that may be some reasons why we haven’t see a lot of land use conflict,” said Kleven.

“Just think of the Dakotas. Miles and miles of fences, and we just don’t have that here.”

Kleven did find one exception to the state Statues. “The local Township Board, by resolution, may exempt adjoining landowners or occupants from this Statute when their land is less than 20 acres,” he said. “That can get into your suburban landowner who moves a couple miles out of town and only has five acres. They can take it to the town board and get an exemption.”

Salmonella cases linked to raw, frozen chicken entrees

MDA logoST. PAUL, Minn. – State health and minnesota-department-of-health-logoagriculture officials said today that six recent cases of salmonellosis in Minnesota have been linked to raw, frozen, breaded and pre-browned, stuffed chicken entrees. The implicated product is Antioch Farms brand A La Kiev raw stuffed chicken breast with a U.S. Department of Agriculture stamped code of P-1358. This product is sold at many different grocery store chains.

Investigators from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) determined that six cases of Salmonella infection from August and September 2014 were due to the same strain of Salmonella Enteritidis. One person was hospitalized for their illness.

“Our DNA fingerprinting found that the individuals were sickened by the same strain of Salmonella,” said Dr. Carlota Medus, epidemiologist for the Foodborne Diseases Unit at MDH. “The Minnesota Department of Agriculture collected samples of the same type of product from grocery stores and the outbreak strain of Salmonella was found in packages of this product.”

There have been six outbreaks of salmonellosis in Minnesota linked to these types of products from 1998 through 2008. This is the first outbreak since improvements were made in 2008 to the labeling of these products. The current labels clearly state that the product is raw.
Salmonella is sometimes present in raw chicken, which is why it is important for consumers to follow safe food-handling practices. This includes cooking all raw poultry products to an internal temperature of at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit. “The problem arises when consumers don’t realize that they are handling and preparing a raw product,” according to Dr. Carrie Rigdon, an investigator for the MDA Dairy and Food Inspection Division.

MDA and MDH officials advised that consumers with these products in their freezers, if they choose to use them, should cook them thoroughly. Other important food handling practices include hand washing before and after handling raw meat, keeping raw and cooked foods separate to avoid cross-contamination, and placing cooked meat on a clean plate or platter before serving. Consumers can find more information about safe food-handling practices on the MDH website at: www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety

Symptoms of salmonellosis include diarrhea, abdominal pain and cramps and fever. Symptoms usually begin within 12 to 72 hours after exposure, but can begin up to a week after exposure. Salmonella infections usually resolve in 5 to 7 days, but approximately 20 percent of cases require hospitalization. In rare cases, Salmonella infection can lead to death, particularly in the elderly or those with weakened immune systems.

Approximately 700 cases of salmonellosis are reported each year in Minnesota.

More information on Salmonella and how to prevent it can be found on the MDH website at www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/salmonellosis/index.html