01-01-2007
Following Up on ACRE Part One: Understanding the Timeline in Context (3-part series)
In September 2006 the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (OAG) presented the legislature with its first comprehensive report on the Agriculture Communities and the Rural Environment Act (ACRE). Since that date, more requests have arrived at the OAG and the first oral arguments have taken place in Commonwealth Court. This series of articles will attempt to demystify the ACRE process and map its progress. The first installment will explain what takes place during the statutory review period and will follow a request through that timeline. In further installments we will discuss specific cases and analyze decisions and activities that continue to shape the future of agricultural law in the state.
An owner or operator of a “normal agricultural operation” may request review of a local ordinance believed to be unauthorized. The definition of “normal agricultural operation is the “customary and generally accepted activities, practices and procedures that farmers adopt, use or engage in year after year in the production AND preparation for market or poultry, livestock and their products and in the production and harvesting of agricultural, agronomic, horticultural, silvicultural and aquicultural crops and commodities and is: (1) not less than ten contiguous acres in area; or (2) less than ten contiguous acres in area but has an anticipated yearly gross of at least $10,000.”
What does “unauthorized” mean? It would be an ordinance that regulates something in a municipality which has already been pre-empted by the state and restricts a “normal agricultural operation”. The request comes in the form of a letter to the Attorney General explaining the background facts, the reasons he/she believes the ordinance is unauthorized, with a copy of the ordinance included in the request. Maps, plans, photos and other information that the operator/owner believe to be important may be included. When the OAG reads the request they will contact and individual if there is need for clarification.
The OAG is given 120 days to decide whether or not to accept a case. At the request of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS), the OAG has been alerting municipalities that a request has been submitted. The OAG also sends acknowledgment to the owner/operator.
Some misconceptions have existed with regard to the process that takes place during the 120 day review. While every case has a different set of facts the OAG often looks to the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences for opinions and information. These contacts with Penn State are part of a flexible and informal exchange. They are not protected by attorney-client privilege and do not become part of a formal record. The University is not obligated to indicate definitively on whether a subject is part of a “normal agriculture operation”. Penn State’s information can potentially lead to identifying experts. However, the University follows a separate process (according to established Penn State policy) when the University is approached with a request for expert testimony.
On completion of the review the farmer is notified. If a case is rejected a letter of notification is sent. This letter is general and no reasons are given. The OAG has discretion and is not required to provide reasoning in the letter. If the OAG decides not to take the case, the farmer has the option, under §315(b) of the Act, to take action on his/her own directly to Commonwealth Court thus bypassing the Court of Common Pleas. This action is an option for farmers who felt that the OAG should have found their municipality’s ordinance unreasonably restrictive. Under this section (when a farmer proceeds in court on his/her own), Commonwealth Court has the discretion in awarding attorney fees to a farmer who successfully challenges the legality of a local ordinance if the farmer is able to show the township “negligently disregarded” the legality of the ordinance when it was enacted. Likewise, the Court may award attorney fees to a township that successfully defends a legal challenge of its ordinance, if the township can show the lawsuit by the farmer was “frivolous” in nature.
On completion of the review the municipality is also notified. If the OAG plans to take the case and challenge the ordinance(s), the OAG offers to have a discussion meeting with the municipality to better clarify legal issues. These meetings often result in a municipality deciding to rescind an ordinance. After the meeting (or if a meeting is offered and a municipality declines), another letter is sent asking the municipality to rescind the unauthorized ordinance by a specific date (usually 30 days from the date of the letter). If the ordinance remains after that time, a complaint is then filed by the OAG in Commonwealth Court. The municipality is named as the defendant and must answer the complaint. This is the first step in the court proceeding.
While those of us on the outside can not predict every decision by the OAG, we can try to understand the processes that lead up to the decision. As more cases are reviewed we can attempt to detect patterns in the ordinances that are challenged and continue to watch the court system for the outcomes. By bringing the challenges in Commonwealth Court, the OAG and the farmer have the opportunity for their case(s) to set legal precedent state-wide.

This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This series is written by Phyllis J. Marquitz, Acting Director of the Penn State Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center. Contact information for the Center: 717-241-3517 aglaw@psu.edu.

NEXT TIME: The OAG declines a request and the farmer takes the case to Commonwealth Court on his/her own. What impact can this have on agriculture?

Printed in the December 16, 2006 Issue of Lancaster Farming.

Following up on ACRE – Part 2
Commonwealth Court and the Power to Determine Agriculture’s Future

This article will explain how ACRE changes the order of court proceedings when a farmer challenges an ordinance and how that change may have a state-wide influence on agriculture.
In Pennsylvania the judicial system is set up differently than in other states. If the complaint is over a land use ordinance, it will be heard by the Zoning Hearing Board of the municipality first. If one of the parties disputes the outcome, the appeal is to the Court of Common Pleas. Complaints for a law suit start in each County’s Court of Common Pleas (some rural counties combine to have one court at this level). Many cases do not get appealed beyond that. If a case is not appealed, the interpretation or application of the law sets a pattern within that Court’s jurisdiction and not necessarily beyond. In other words, one county district’s interpretation of a law does not require that the county next door apply or interpret the law the exact same way. However, these Courts of Common Pleas do have to follow the precedent handed down through higher Courts. Appellate Court decisions do influence county-level courts across the state. The next appellate level has two branches, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court. Superior Court hears cases related to certain civil, family and criminal cases. Commonwealth Court hears cases brought against the state, state agencies and local agencies. Therefore, an appeal in a case involving a township’s ordinance goes to Commonwealth Court. The decisions at Commonwealth Court are binding on all Courts of Common Pleas. Finally, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania hears cases appealed and accepted from either the Superior or Commonwealth Courts.
Prior to ACRE’s (Agriculture Communities and Rural Enterprise Act) passage in 2005, several legal events took place across the state that brought about calls for change. One of these cases was the Leese/Swope v. Belfast Township case from Fulton County. A municipality created ordinances that the plaintiffs allege restrict normal agriculture operations both through regulation of water and types of business structures (corporations). The case is currently progressing with the Attorney General’s Office (OAG) under the ACRE law. In the Burkholder v. Zoning Hearing Board of Richmond Township case, the process from Zoning Hearing Board to final outcome took four to five years. This case was decided in favor of the farmer prior to the OAG’s first ACRE case.
Today, ACRE gives the OAG the ability to take a case on a farmer’s behalf directly to Commonwealth Court, bypassing the Court of Common Pleas and creating state-wide precedent when the Commonwealth Court makes a decision on one of these cases. The Commonwealth Court has drawn a line with its first few decisions supporting township’s preliminary objections – they clarify the circumstances where the Attorney General can bring an ACRE case and have determined that a challenged ordinance must be either enforced or enacted after the date ACRE was passed for a case to go forward.
Direct access to an appellate level court creates an interesting circumstance for farmers in Pennsylvania. ACRE’s passage has proven that agriculture is an issue that the state has an interest in protecting. It strengthens laws like the Right to Farm Law and the Nutrient Management Law by allowing interpretations state-wide. As we await the first decisions under ACRE, we can reflect on the impact of decisions that will come through ACRE. Last month we noted that the definition of the “normal agriculture operation” protected by ACRE came from the PA Right to farm law.
The language “customary and generally accepted activities and practices” can be divided up and debated by farmers, let alone townships and other citizens. This is where the Commonwealth Court would come in. The Court has not heard testimony on any issues that would define agriculture thus far, but that is a possibility. Also, ACRE’s section 315(b) provision, that a farmer may take a case directly to Commonwealth Court even if the OAG does not take the case, gives the Court a new responsibility – setting up the state-wide legal definition of agriculture.
The first case to blaze the trail into Commonwealth Court without the OAG is one out of Skippack Township in Montgomery County. A farmer claims that his use of a critter blaster – an electric version of a liquid propane cannon, (which the operator claims creates less volume) – that he uses to keep deer from damaging his trees - is an activity that is part of a normal agriculture operation. The operator was arrested for disturbing the peace after complaints from neighbors.
As observers, we must wonder, will the Court listen to experts and make a determination as to the Blaster’s use as part of “normal agriculture”? If they decide against the Blaster, will this apply to other noise methods for other crops such as apples, or other animals such as raccoons on corn? The Commonwealth Court’s new responsibility to apply agricultural laws, specifically and legally define agriculture can be a double edged sword to those in agribusiness. It will largely rely on testimony and will be instantly relevant state-wide. It will create norms for agriculture where it may have been varied in the past from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and farmers can then expect equal treatment regardless of region or local sentiment. However, it will also put the future of agriculture in Pennsylvania in the hands of judges who are likely unfamiliar with modern agriculture norms. Now that we have arrived at the point where cases are beginning to be heard we must watch the Pennsylvania legal system in action to understand our future.
This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This series is written by Phyllis J. Marquitz, acting director of the Penn State Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center. Contact information for the Center: (717) 241-3517 aglaw@psu.edu.

Published in the January 27, 2007 Issue of Lancaster Farming


Following Up on ACRE: Taking a Look at the Municipal Perspective (Part 3)
Phyllis J. Marquitz
Acting Director
Penn State Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center

Update: The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has worked with several municipalities to "settle" issues that have been brought to light. Municipalities that do not work with the OAG face challenge in Commonwealth Court. Since our last piece, the Locust Township ACRE challenge was dismissed with the same enforcement technicality. This means that the Commonwealth Court has not yet heard an ACRE case on its merits. More cases have been submitted to the OAG's office bringing the total number to 28 thus far. Belfast Township, (a case from Fulton County that started as a private suit), has given word that they will repeal the ordinance before the case is heard in Commonwealth Court.

A different perspective: It wouldn't be fair to update on the progress of ACRE as it makes its way through the PA Court system without getting perspective from municipalities that face challenges to their ordinances. What makes a municipality settle an issue and rescind and ordinance? What motivates municipalities to have these ordinances in the first place?
I spoke with a few of those municipalities and while none of the parties would be named (ongoing litigation concerns and settlement concerns prevented most), they were willing to discuss the ordinances in question and the motivating factors. These interviews were with officials from different townships.
Solicitor's Response: "I do not agree that the ordinance ever violated state law and believe that the township has a right to regulate health, safety and welfare. The Nutrient Management Act was not being enforced, and we found that our community values were being undermined." The solicitor continued, "We are not unfriendly toward agriculture, but some of these farms are not really agriculture. They are quasi-agriculture, part agriculture and part industrial. We saw that certain entities engaged in practices that we wanted to limit because of the health and safety of our township residents. We didn't try to define anything, only limit those practices." In response to a question about ACRE, the solicitor was frank in stating, "I do not think it is well-drafted and the Commonwealth Court recognized that."
Township Manager's Response: "We are a very agriculture-friendly township. We understand that agriculture is a business and a way of life. We are working with the Attorney General to come up with an acceptable solution. It wasn't that we believed our ordinance was wrong in every aspect, but we are accepting that it may need to be changed."
Understanding the motivations behind your township ordinance and working with the boards and managers in a municipality prior to filing an ACRE complaint can be beneficial. Although I did not interview municipal officials who were unaware of ACRE, there may be townships that simply have not been introduced to aspects of state regulated farm practice. Each township, like each person, has a different perspective and a different motivator. Open communication can be the first step for conflict resolution. ACRE does not strip the rights of municipalities to zone or plan. However, ACRE is another tool for operators of "normal agriculture operations" to use in defending their legal agricultural practice against an ordinance, that for whatever the reason, oversteps its bounds.

This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agricultural planning. This series is written by Phyllis J. Marquitz, Acting Director of the Penn State Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center. Contact information for the Center: (717)-241-3517, aglaw@psu.edu.

Printed in the February 24, 2007 edition of Lancaster Farming

03-24-2007
Making Soup When You are in Hot Water with Regulations
A review of what to expect when Confronted by an Environmental Regulatory Agency

An environmental review as part of a CAFO permit or Nutrient Management Plan may not be the highlight of anyone’s day; but these types of reviews can be a valuable monitor for farmers in gauging how they are performing. Most often these types of reviews result in some suggested improvements or an update. The type of environmental inspection that no one wants is when through an accident, complaint or perhaps negligence; a representative from the county conservation district, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) or the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) visits the farm.

When confronted with this situation, it is important to keep your cool and act professionally. It is perfectly reasonable to require that biosecure measures be observed by people visiting the facility. Next, gather information and listen closely to the facts surrounding this visit. In the event of an accident, a quick response to stop the pollution is critical. The farmer is also required to notify DEP and the conservation district, immediately. When a representative from an environmental agency arrives at the site, be ready to work with them to remedy the situation. Review your ideas with the representative and ask for assistance if needed. Honesty and a quick response are the key to making this situation better.

If a complaint or negligence is the driver for the visit, thoroughly explore the concern and your options. Try not to make the issue personal, even when you may feel that this is a personal attack on you, your family or your farm. Deal only with the facts that relate to the environmental issue. If the representative determines there is an environmental concern, there are several options that may be chosen. If the visit results in finding no violations, the process ends. Even with this good news, the realization that the business of farming is under scrutiny will be stamped indelibly on your mind.

If a relatively minor problem is found, a letter stating the problem and recommendations for correcting the problem will be sent by the agency performing the inspection. Even if DEP was the representative on your farm, follow up may come from the county conservation district or DEP. County conservation districts are also available in these situations to offer technical and financial assistance.

If a more serious problem is found, a “Notice of Violation” (NOV) will be sent to the farmer noting the violation, a notice to cease the offending activity and a course of action to correct the problem. This may or may not involve the procurement of additional permits or fines. Follow up inspections will be included and may be delegated to the conservation district. Once an NOV is issued, financial assistance to correct the problem may no longer be available. In the event that the violation impacts other regulatory statutes, other agencies may issue violations, fines or warrants. For example: in the event that manure runoff accesses waters of the commonwealth, the Fish Commission will be contacted. According to Title 30 of the Fish and Boat Code, any substance deleterious to aquatic life is a violation and is a criminal offense. The Fish Commission will assess a fine and additional fees are added in the event of a fish kill. A fish kill can also result in the court ordering that the landowner replace the fish that were destroyed.

In the event a farmer feels that the violation is unwarranted, the farmer has the right to petition the Environmental Hearing Board for a review. One thing to remember is that an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date on which a party receives written notice of the Department's action.

With the advent of CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) regulations which are federal requirements, farmers may be contacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if they are in non-compliance with CAFO regulations. A visit from EPA may include a more comprehensive investigation than one might expect. A review of the fields, farmstead, including all animal housing facilities; manure storages, livestock handling areas, feed storage areas, storage and handling of petroleum products; and pesticide storage and mixing areas will ensue. In addition, records may be requested and copied relating to crop yields, manure application rates and/or transfers including the locations and dates. Manure and soil tests, nutrient management plans, conservation plans and information on livestock weights and management may be requested. Other areas of interest include water sources, mortality handling and a review of handling for all discharges.

No matter what the reason may be for an encounter with an environmental agency, consider documenting the visit for your records. When dealing with an accident situation or violation, noting weather conditions or taking pictures can be helpful, especially when a mechanical malfunction occurred. As farmers strive to survive in an ever smaller world, old axioms and proverbs still pertain: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This article is written by Amanda Ritchey, PA Agricultural Ombudsman. Contact information: (814) 696-0877 or aritchey@blairconservationdistrict.org

Published in the 3/24/07 edition of Lancaster Farming

04-14-2007
Brochure Explains Realities of Moving to the Country
Shelly Dehoff
Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program


As fewer and fewer people understand agriculture, the relationship between farmers and non-farm neighbors can be complex. Many times, people dream of “living in the country” but do not realize that living in the country may involve new sights, sounds and odors they were not previously accustomed to. Living in the country also may not include services or conveniences found in more urban areas. Some move to agricultural areas, and then try to change or stop normal agricultural practices, because they didn’t realize what was involved with living in the country.

A newly revised brochure entitled, “If you are thinking of moving to the country, you might want to consider this…” is now available from the PA Agricultural Ombudsman Program. The brochure is designed to be an informative guide for prospective homeowners considering buying or building a house within a rural or agricultural area. The brochure is not designed to dissuade home ownership in rural areas; only to create a sense of awareness that will hopefully decrease conflicts that may occur when homeowners discover agriculture is an industry that includes practices some may find inconvenient or offensive.

The brochure begins by asking, “Does congested traffic, noise and the hassles at your current residence make you want to move? Does the thought of clean, fresh air and country stillness make you dream about owning a home next to farmland? Do you envision moving to the country to be surrounded by natural scenery and panoramic views? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you should reflect on the realities of living in the country.” The brochure has a paragraph on the economic value of PA agriculture, and a short section on PA’s Right to Farm Act. The brochure states that odors, truck traffic and mushroom production are normal agricultural practices, and protected by the Right To Farm Act.

The brochure brings awareness to the primary causes of neighbor conflicts, such as manure, pesticide and chemical fertilizer application, odors, dust, flies, slow moving vehicles, and noise. It also mentions that rural landowners may not have public sewer or water, and the need to maintain and protect wellheads and septic systems.

The brochure lists some actions rural landowners can take to keep agriculture viable, such as
• communicating with the neighboring farmer when special events will be taking place, and requesting farmers refrain from spreading manure, if possible
• refraining from unwarranted complaints to local, state and federal governments about normal and acceptable agricultural practices
• refraining from filing lawsuits aimed at curtailing farming practices
• receiving permission from farmers before entering property
• refraining from dumping grass clipping, leaves, household chemicals, containers, old tools, etc. in farmers’ fields
• not riding ATVs or dirtbikes on farmers’ fields
• not entering livestock buildings unless authorized

The brochure will be mailed to all the municipalities in Pennsylvania. Each municipality may request a supply of the brochures to distribute within the municipality. The brochure will also be available for displays at family farm days, fairs and other public events that will attract non-farm citizens. Consider asking your municipality to include the brochure with “welcome” packets or as part of a homeowner association mailer.

Just as rural residents should be respectful of agricultural operations, and try to keep agriculture viable, farmers should be good neighbors, too. Stay tuned for a future article with suggestions on how to be a good neighboring farmer.



This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This article is written by Shelly Dehoff, PA Agricultural Ombudsman. Contact information: (717)880-0848 or shelly.dehoff@verizon.net.

Published in the 4/14/07 edition of Lancaster Farming

05-26-2007
Why and How Farmers Need to Be Good Neighbors - 2 part series

PART 1 of 2

Shelly Dehoff

In the April 14th ‘Building Bridges’ column I talked about a brochure that is available to let residents who live in agricultural areas know what to expect when living “in the country”. The brochure encourages people who live close to farms to be good neighbors by being considerate of farmers’ property and fields and refraining from complaints about normal agricultural practices. But farmers should be good neighbors too.

If you are reading and thinking, “What do MY neighbors do for ME? THEY moved in, so why is it MY responsibility to be a good neighbor?” I can understand why you are tempted to think that, but attitudes like that will get you NOWHERE. Agriculture as a whole, as a community, as a business, CANNOT WAIT for our neighbors to be good to us. We need to take the first step.

Approximately 1% of the US population is actively involved in producing food, fiber or fuel from agriculture for the other 99% of the population. If approximately 99% of the United States is not actively involved in agriculture, what is the likelihood that “waiting for the other guy to do it first” is going to accomplish anything? Instead, farmers can help the neighbors have a positive experience with agriculture. Help the neighbors understand what you do, and why you need to work late, and spread things that smell, or utilize chemicals, and why you keep animals in enclosed buildings.

Maybe you are thinking that your neighbors don’t say anything to you, so everything is just fine. Hopefully, you are right. But all it takes is for one “new guy” in the neighborhood to question his other neighbors. Are you confident that your neighbors will defend you to the “new guy”? Are you also confident that in the event of an accident that results in manure on the highway or chemical drift onto their lawn, that they will come to you before calling DEP, the police or a lawyer?

Many people who are not familiar with animal agriculture, think farmers are enclosing their animals because they have something to hide. Not true! Enclosed buildings provide preventative health measures, climate control, predator protection, and ease of care and feeding. Farmers can’t invite the public into enclosed operations for biosecurity reasons. So what CAN farmers do to counteract the theory that agriculture is hiding something?

What signs are hanging at the end of your farm lane? Do you have a “Dairy of Distinction” sign at the end of the driveway? Did you get an award from your milk co-op, feed company, or your integrating company? Were you a Chesapeake Bay Program farm? Do you have a PEACCE-certified farm, and therefore have a sign proclaiming environmental excellence hanging at the end of your lane? Do you have signs educating about biosecurity on your animal buildings? Any positive thing that you can do to show that you are managing your farm well, can only help show that you are trying to be a good neighbor.

Did you know that a clean, neat farm doesn’t smell as much as a muddy, untidy farm? The reason is that PEOPLE SMELL WITH THEIR EYES. What does your farm look like? One relatively simple, low cost option of presenting agriculture in a positive light, is to keep a neat farm.

I realize if you are busy making a living off the land, you don’t necessarily have time to keep your barns painted, the meadow mowed weekly, and the fence in the best of repair. But, is your old, dead equipment sitting out in the front pasture, rusting away? Do you let the bags that held your corn seed blow all over the neighborhood in the wind? Does your baler twine pile up and become an eyesore? Sometimes, you are so used to the way your place looks, you don’t even realize it isn’t the prettiest place on the block anymore. I encourage you to take an objective look at it. Look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn’t understand why you keep a pile of scrap metal next to the shop? I know it is good for repairing equipment, but does it have to be where everyone can see it? Are animals allowed on pastures that have become a brown-lot resulting in mud-caked cattle? Does water run through feeding areas that becomes contaminated with soil and manure?

Do you keep the grass around your house mowed? Do you have a few pretty flowers planted by the mailbox? Is your front porch actually a porch, and not a storage room without walls? Again, PEOPLE SMELL WITH THEIR EYES. If they think you have a relatively neat, well maintained house and buildings that they CAN see, they will be more trusting of what they CAN’T see, such as the animals in an enclosed operation. They will be less likely to distrust you, or call in complaints about you.
Published in the 5/26/07 edition of Lancaster Farming
#######


Why and How Farmers Need To Be Good Neighbors
PART 2 of 2

Shelly Dehoff


In last month’s column I started discussing ways farmers can be good neighbors. This is the continuation of last month’s article.

When do you spread manure? Do you spread on weekends and holidays? Do you accommodate your neighbor when you know their annual picnic is about to take place? For the positive image of ALL agriculture, we need to be as courteous as possible when spreading. Sunny, breezy days take the smell of manure up into the atmosphere. Morning and evening, when the thermal inversion forces air to stay low to the ground, and follow the topography of the ground, the smell is at its worst. It is best to spread in the morning, after people go to work, and allow for the sun and breeze to carry the smell upward, and away from the houses. Do you take wind direction into account when you spread? Do you have a wind sock? Can your neighbors see it? Let them know the windsock is used to help determine which way the wind blows, so you at least attempt to take that into account when spreading.

When you started farming, you probably didn’t think you would have to worry about a public relations plan. But, times are changing. The small things matter. What do you do for public relations with your community?

These ideas will not work for every farm, but don’t be afraid to try something if it will work for your place…
• Get to know your neighbors. Typically, people will be more willing to ask questions or voice concerns if they feel you are approachable and friendly. They’ll be less likely to call the township or a governmental agency.
• Create a list of neighbors phone numbers so you can contact them easily, or vice-versa in the event of an accident or simply to provide notice that something unusual is about to occur on your farm.
• Let your neighbors know when you will be spreading manure, or ask them to let you know about a particular event coming up that will be outside.
• Incorporate manure
• Take your neighbors some of your home-grown products.
• Take a shower before you leave home, so you smell clean and fresh.
• Limit silage spoilage.
• Plant windbreaks or vegetative, visual barriers (fast-growing willows are a great option) because “out of sight” is also “out of mind” and trees modify wind patterns. Remember, PEOPLE SMELL WITH THEIR EYES.
• Delegate the neighbor-relations job to someone who is good with people, and has the patience and personality to deal with the non-farm community.
• Create a newsletter or periodically email your neighbors with updates of the farming operation.
• Host school tours.
• Host a once-yearly neighborhood tour of the operation.
• If you can’t invite all neighbors onto your farm, at least invite your local municipal supervisors and planning commission for a tour, so they have a better understanding of agriculture. It’s OK to ask them to shower in/shower out if that is necessary, just warn them ahead of time.
• Offer a free car wash coupon to help with dust on neighboring cars.
• Sponsor a local sports team.
• Make the press your friend by building relationships with local reporters, so they learn to trust you, and come to you for explanations.
• Offer a neighborhood picnic for farming and non-farming folks; covered dish is fine.
• Offer a few evergreen trees as free Christmas trees to your neighbors.
• Plow snow for the neighbors, even one bucket-width to get them started.
• Run your post-hole digger for a few neighbors.
• Plant a row or two of sweet corn for the neighbors to pick, or a few pumpkins and gourds for them to get in the Fall.
• Offer hay rides and a bonfire and marshmallows in the Fall.
• Do whatever else you can think of that allows the neighbors to see you, the farmer, your family, and your operation in a positive light, whether it is directly related to agriculture or not.

I hope you remember these two points… people smell with their eyes, and it’s the little things that go a long way. What are you doing to help your neighbors view agriculture in a positive light?

Published in the 6/02/07 edition of Lancaster Farming

07--2007
Siting Livestock Operations to Reduce Community Impact
Dr. Robert Mikesell
Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science


Siting Livestock Operations
Part 1 – Importance of siting

Location, location, and location are the three most important things about real estate, according to those in the business. The same axiom holds true for livestock operations. If placed in the right location, livestock can provide farm families with years, or even generations of farm income. However, if in the wrong location (or expanding a poorly located, previously existing operation), headaches, heartaches, community strife, and even lawsuits can result. This article, the first of a 3-part series, examines why livestock siting is important to both producers and neighbors living and doing business in the community. Future installments will investigate livestock operation siting on a large geographic scale, then look at “micro-siting” or exact facility placement on a tract of land.

Odors drive a majority of conflict arising from livestock operations, and are a local issue. Farm animals generate odors from housing facilities, manure storage facilities, and when manure is applied to cropland. Odors are then transported with air currents to people living in nearby homes or neighboring businesses. In general, people within the potential odor path are called receptors. If receptors are not present, odors generally do not cause any local problems. However, as is the case in much of Southeast Pennsylvania, development has brought receptors much closer to livestock odor sources. In addition, some of these receptors take offense to normal odors from animal agriculture. While livestock producers can take steps to reduce odor generation or disrupt odor transfer to receptors, the most proactive step producers can take to reduce odor conflict is to construct operations where odors have difficulty reaching potential receptors.

While right to farm laws, agricultural zoning, and agricultural security areas protect producers from nuisance odor complaints to a degree, proper facility siting can reduce the odds of creating neighborhood tension in the first place. Every year, community groups organize to oppose a proposed livestock operation. In many cases, these groups’ opposition is based on misinformation and unfounded fears. In other cases, the groups are rightfully concerned about potential odors generated from an improperly sited facility. Studies have indicated that in some cases improperly located livestock facilities can potentially reduce nearby property values and impact neighbors’ quality of life. Given these potential impacts, producers considering building new facilities or expanding their operations should take steps to reduce impact potential and locate operations in the best possible location to reduce off-site odors.

Properly located operations simply reduce the possibility of impacting nearby neighbors as well as reduce the potential for odor complaints and nuisance lawsuits. Unfortunately, sometimes the best site from an odor standpoint is not the most convenient site, or may not be suitable for other reasons. Increasing separation distance from receptors often results in increased costs for road construction and utility access. The best site from an odor perspective may increase biosecurity or physical security risk. In a few cases, the preferred site may be within established setbacks from ground / surface water, destroy tillable land, or hamper future expansion. Producers should select the site with the least potential for odor conflict given these few constraints.

Next time we’ll look at livestock operation siting on a grand scale and answer the question “If the entire country were available to livestock production, where would we choose for expansion of the livestock industry?”

Siting Livestock Operations
Part 2 – Siting on a grand scale

In the first part of this 3-part series, we rationalized why proper siting of livestock operations is important to livestock producers. This second installment will look at large-scale geographic factors that influence where livestock operations should be located.

Livestock operation location is often constrained by factors such as existing production facilities, land ownership, family ties, etc. However in instances where there are no such limitations, the following regional factors should play a role in selecting broad areas for further expansion of the US livestock industry.

Industry infrastructure. Markets, feed, and technical expertise must all be available within a reasonable distance of the proposed area. In addition, road quality and maintenance should be considered when selecting a general livestock production area. Finally, the local financing sector’s familiarity with livestock production eases project development.

Water availability. Adequate amounts of potable water must be available for drinking and facility wash-down.

Geology. Producers should be aware of the composition of bedrock in any proposed area of expansion. Specifically, special care should be taken when considering areas underlain by limestone geological formations where errors in manure management could swiftly enter groundwater supplies.

History of livestock in the area. Areas with a history of livestock production sometimes face less community conflict over a proposed new operation since neighbors may be tolerant of the sights, sounds and smells of animal agriculture. However, depending on historical manure management practices of existing livestock producers, cropland in historical livestock areas may be near (or above) nutrient saturation and thus not suitable for additional manure application. Alternately, residents in areas without a history of animal agriculture are often misinformed or frightened of an unknown industry and may provide considerable resistance. This is particularly true in regard to livestock production.

Biosecurity. Areas already containing significant livestock numbers also harbor livestock diseases. Good biosecurity may be easiest to maintain on the edges of mainstream livestock production.

Availability, fertility, and accessibility of manure application land. If the operation plans to apply manure onto local cropland, enough land must be available and secured to accommodate total manure production from the enterprise. Ideally nutrients should be applied on a phosphorus balance basis, requiring more land than when nutrients are applied on a nitrogen basis. Soil fertility must be adequate for at least reasonable crop yields and nutrient uptake. Finally, the land must be accessible to application equipment. If manure is handled as a liquid, the land must be nearby and not excessively steep. In addition, the soil type must be able to absorb the manure over the expected range of application rates.

Topography. As mentioned previously, steep areas are difficult to traverse with manure application equipment. However areas with some topographical variation serve to hide facilities from public view and disrupt odor plumes as we’ll discuss next time.

Airsheds. It’s generally accepted that air emissions from livestock facilities will eventually be subject to government regulation. Airsheds that have already been identified as “non-attainment” by environmental regulatory authorities require careful monitoring of activities within the boundary to bring the airshed into compliance. Selecting land outside of designated “non-attainment” areas should make compliance easier for livestock producers.

Demographics. Traditionally rural, sparsely populated areas are often the first choice for expansion. Regardless of the demographics of the area, neighbors deserve amiable treatment, keeping in mind that long-time residents unfamiliar with large-scale animal agriculture may object to a new livestock operation.

While it’s entertaining to think about where the ideal location for a livestock operation might be, for many producers the options are limited to tracts of land they already own. Next time we’ll look at “micro-siting” factors that can guide us to the best location on a farm for a newly constructed livestock operation.


Siting Livestock Operations
Part 3 – Micro-siting

In the first two installments of this series, we examined the importance of locating livestock operations correctly, then evaluated large geographic factors relative to where in the country livestock should be raised. This segment will explain some of the nuances of precisely placing a building to reduce odor conflict.

After an individual farm or land tract is identified for the building project, the precise location for the proposed building must be established. Criteria listed below can help isolate the most appropriate building location (micro-site) to reduce community impact from odors.

Distance / direction to neighbors. The greatest possible downwind distance to neighboring homes, businesses, and public use areas allows odor plumes to mix and dilute with fresh air. Therefore, odor complaints should be fewer when distance is maximized.

Vegetation. Thick, dense vegetation, especially downwind of the production facility acts as a vegetative filter to reduce dust, and also disrupts the odor plume leaving the building. Seasonal vegetation such as corn may provide a similar benefit from mid-summer until fall.

Visibility. Vegetation and topography can shield an operation from public view. Less visible operations generally receive fewer complaints.

Micro-topography. Topographical variation (particularly downwind of the site) would predictably disrupt the odor plume, and enhance dilution with fresh air. Farm structures, depending on their location, may also contribute to odor plume dispersion.

Inversion Path. During times of temperature inversion (when the atmosphere is stable and cool air settles to ground level), odorous gasses from exhaust fans or manure storages may remain close to the ground and, depending on local topography and wind direction, be carried from the facility for fairly long distances with minimal dilution, or remain undisturbed in a nearby low-lying area. Temperature inversion conditions (e.g. fog or frost) often occur in the late night or early morning hours and can lead to complaints from neighbors in the inversion path.

Strategies to improve a marginal site
Perfect sites are difficult if not impossible to find. However, imperfect sites can often be improved using some of the following tactics.

Reducing facility size. Reducing the number of animals also reduces odors and can improve nutrient balance issues. Operation size reduction should not be overlooked on marginal sites, although reducing animal numbers may impair the business strategy.

Management practices
A variety of management practices (too numerous to mention here) can reduce odor generation and release. Chief among these is sanitation.

Community relations. Most neighbors will tolerate more odor or life quality disruptions if they feel the owner and the operation contribute to, and are a part of, the community.
Producers with a personal and / or family history of conscientious livestock production should make neighbors feel more at ease with a proposed new operation. Personal visits to surrounding neighbors during the planning phases of the operation can be used to explain the proposed operation’s scope. These visits should be used to explain proactive steps to reduce odors and protect the environment. Community involvement such as membership to local benevolence groups solidifies a producer’s value to the community.
“Good neighbor” approaches such as holding an open house after completion of the facility, offering snow removal services, or hosting an annual neighborhood BBQ significantly improve neighborhood perception of livestock producers. Some producers have even designed web pages to allow neighbors access to current operation information.

Selecting the best location.
In certain situations, mathematical odor plume models can predict how far away, in what directions, and how often an odor plume may strike certain neighboring homes. Odor plume models may work reasonably well in flat, un-forested areas, but vegetation and topographical changes can reduce accuracy.

While hiring an independent consultant adds expense to a new operation, a professional consultant, NRCS personnel or local conservation district can provide valuable perspective to proper siting. Perhaps more importantly, professionals can help guide operators through the sometimes difficult permit process and can assist with CAFO permitting, nutrient management planning, land development, and hydrology studies. Additionally, consulting engineers are especially trained to design and precisely locate manure storage facilities and manage surface water around the site.

Over the next year you will be hearing more about Pennsylvania’s approach to a siting tool, the Odor Siting Index that will be required for newly constructed and expanded CAOs and CAFOs. The Index analyzes odor factors dictated by the ACRE legislation at a site and calculates a score based on the site’s potential for odors to impact neighbors. Sites that score poorly will be required to implement selected Best Management Practices to help reduce local odor impacts. This approach proactively and objectively allows producers to select the best location for a livestock operation that reduces the odds of community impact. While the Index will only be required for certain operations, siting considerations are important for all livestock producers. Please stay tuned to this channel for more information on odor management and permitting as the regulations become finalized!

This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This series is written by Dr. Robert Mikesell, Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science.

10-06-2007
A Glimpse into the Proposed Odor Management Regulations
Odors resulting from agricultural operations are the main complaint voiced by people living or traveling in rural Pennsylvania. Agricultural odors are most commonly associated with animal agriculture, but are also an issue with other agronomic products such as mushrooms. In 2005 Pennsylvania began an effort into regulating agricultural odors as a component of Act 38, the Agriculture, Communities and the Rural Environment (ACRE) legislation, which included an odor management requirement for new or expanding Concentrated Animal Operations (CAOs) or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The Odor Management requirement in Act 38 included guidelines and limitations which reflected the obvious difficulty in regulating something as subjective as odor.

Development of a set of proposed regulations for odor management began over a y ear and a half ago and required the continuous involvement of a very diverse group of technical experts, local government, state and federal agencies, agricultural industry and the public. Numerous briefings occurred and input was solicited throughout the development of the proposed rules. The Nutrient Management Advisory Board, which is composed of members representing academia, government, environment, agriculture and private interests, was highly involved. Experts in odor management at the Pennsylvania State University provided research based guidance and assistance. Through the input and assistance of those groups, the Commission developed a proposal that is expected to be practical and effective.

One of the limitations included in Act 38 was that Odor Management Plans were not to be a plan for odor elimination. The plans are to include practical and economically feasible practices, standards and strategies to manage the impacts of farm odors. Key words in the act include, “practical and economically feasible” and “manage”. These words require a certain level of interpretation which necessitated investigation and discussion into many aspects of currently available technology and the effect that odor regulations will have on agriculture. Other limitations reflected by the odor management provisions in Act 38 include limiting it to new or expanding manure management and animal housing facilities at CAOs and CAFOs. The odor management provisions will not relate to the application of manure, non-animal agriculture or existing operations that do not undergo expansion. A key component of the proposed regulations is that OMPs will not need amended once approved unless the operation makes a significant change. This removes the need for continual assessments and surveys for established farms which could change the level of planning as development pressure increased around a farm.

Odor Management Plans are to reflect the current level of technology and economic feasibility. An Odor Management Plan will include an assessment of the farm and surrounding topography conducted by a certified Odor Management Specialist. The field site evaluation method being proposed for adoption in Pennsylvania is called an “Odor Site Index” and is described in the Draft Odor Management Guidance on the State Conservation Commission’s Odor Management Program webpage. The index is site-specific and includes factors such as prevailing winds, proximity to neighbors, adjoining land uses, species of animals and local topography. Based on the result of the Odor Site Index, the need for additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) is assessed and if needed, BMPs are prescribed in the plan to manage odors and reduce the potential impact from odors on neighbors that could lead to conflict. The BMPs for odor management are divided into two levels. The first level of odor BMPS are more basic and involve the use of maintenance activities common to the industry. The second level is more specialized and would be applied in addition to the Level 1 odor BMPs for situations where additional protections are necessary, as indicated by the result of the Odor Site Index.

The proposed Facility Odor Management Regulations are currently available for public comment and can be found in the PA Bulletin by going to: www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-35/1614.html or to the Odor Management Program under the Commission Links at: www.agriculture.state.pa.us/scc. Written public comment will be accepted on the proposed Odor Management Regulations until October 31, 2007, by contacting the State Conservation Commission at, scc-odor-regs@state.pa.us or by mailing comments to State Conservation Commission, Suite 407, Agriculture Building, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA, 17110.

This article has been sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This article was written by Amanda Ritchey, Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman in consultation with Karl Dymond, Odor Management Program Specialist, State Conservation Commission. Contact information: 814-696-0877 x5 or aritchey@blairconservationdistrict.org.

11-01-2007
Farmer/Neighbor Communication
Option 1

Date:

To: Our Neighbors

From:

RE: Our Farm


Dear Neighbor:

Agriculture is more than a way of life, it is our livelihood. We recognize that farming uses practices that many people do not understand and may find offensive. As your neighbor, we are hopeful that you will feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns regarding our farming practices. More importantly, we want to hear from you if you are holding a special event at your home, that you feel may be impacted by our farming operation. We will make every attempt to avoid the fields adjoining your property for that period of time. Our farm is a business that is dependant on many factors that are beyond our control such as weather, insect infestations and crop maturity; but, we will do our best to honor your request. As with anything, the more notice we have, the easier it may be to adjust our schedule. You can reach us at:

Name:
Address:

Home Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email:

Thank you and we hope to hear from you.

Your Neighbor,




Option 2
Date:

To: Our Neighbors

From:

RE: Our Farm


Dear Neighbor:

As your neighbor, we are hopeful that you will feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns regarding our farming practices. More importantly, we want to hear from you if you are holding a special event at your home, that you feel may be impacted by our farming operation. We will make every attempt to avoid the fields adjoining your property for that period of time. Our farm is a business that is dependant on many factors that may be beyond our control such as weather, insect infestations and crop maturity; but, we will do our best to honor your request. As with anything, the more notice we have, the easier it may be to adjust our schedule. You can reach us at:

Name:
Address:

Home Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email:

Thank you and we hope to hear from you.

Your Neighbor,










Additional items you could add to this letter are:

personal information about your family such as: names of spouse or children
history of the farm
your philosophy for your farm
letterhead
photos of the farm or family
information on the daily farming practices you employ or a “day in the life” at your farm
request contact information from your neighbors
website address if available
tentative farming schedule

11-24-2007
The Farmer and the Angry Neighbor
By: Amanda Ritchey
Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program


When an angry neighbor knocks on your door to complain about your farming operation, you get your crash course in conflict management. The Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program deals with conflict in agriculture. As we talk to farmers who have dealt with a contentious situation, we often hear of many imaginative and gentle ways that farmers have dealt with neighbor issues and turned a potentially hostile situation into a highly successful “public relations” opportunity. Developing a plan for public relations before the knock on the door is a smarter way of dealing with conflict, hopefully by avoiding it.

Recently, while sharing information about the Ombudsman program with a mixed group of agricultural professionals, a banker in the midst shared his story about living in the country. He shared that for the 20 years he and his family had lived in the country, they barely noticed when the farmer spread manure on the surrounding fields, until the weekend they had a house full of guests for their daughter’s wedding. Guests not familiar with the smells of manure constantly complained about the odor. Now the banker’s wife has become hyper-sensitized to the odors and becomes irritated every time manure is applied.

In another situation, a farmer who was continuously hassled by his neighbors and one in particular decided to hold a picnic for the community. Although the one neighbor did not attend, 200 neighbors did attend the first picnic which has evolved into an annual event. Now his neighbors invite friends and family to the event because they enjoy the opportunity so much. Also, he has been able to acquire sponsorships and donations of food from his milk company and other suppliers. How’s that for public relations?

Farmers are frequently confronted with difficult situations from neighbors which may escalate into an issue with their local township. A public relations plan can help prevent situations that involve their township. Farmers are well poised to offer their neighbors positive experiences that build good will and tolerance. Sharing sweet corn, pumpkins, corn shocks or even manure to neighbors is a very easy and inexpensive way to help neighbors appreciate your contribution to their community. For the more sociable, holding a community picnic or hayride or a small corn maze is an option. Offers to plow out a neighbor after a heavy snow-storm, sponsorship of a local ball team, willingness to plow a garden, or dig post holes could be much appreciated.

These are just a few of the many ways you can enhance the value of your farm in your community. The most important way you can avoid issues is by opening the doors of communication. If you have informed your neighbors that you welcome their concerns and would be willing to work with them to try to accommodate special occasions, they are now empowered with some control. This also places some responsibility on their shoulders.

For help with developing a public relations plan, you can check out: www.agombudsman.com under “News” for a sample letter and additional suggestions. The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau website includes a brochure entitled: “Winning Support From Your Neighbors”; found at www.pfb.com and click on the “News” tab then look for “brochures” under the PFB Newstand. We would also welcome your feedback on imaginative ways you have dealt with neighbor complaints or have successfully implemented a “public relations plan”.
This series is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Agricultural Ombudsman Program, which serves state-wide as a liaison to communities for conflict management on issues affecting agriculture, land use, environment and planning. This article is written by Amanda Ritchey, PA Agricultural Ombudsman. Contact information: (814)696-0877 or aritchey@blairconservationdistrict.org..

Printed November 24, 2007

01-01-2008
Hiring Practices for Agricultural Employers
The issue of farm labor, or any labor for that matter, is a complicated one. Many agencies regulate employment such as the Department of Labor, EEOC and OSHA on the Federal end and the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry for the state. Also, individuals, associations and unions can weigh in on labor issues. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to employers with 15 or more employees. It prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination or participating in an investigation is prohibited. All employers with one or more employees are subject to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) which prohibits wage discrimination between men and women in substantially equal jobs within the same establishment.
Denying employment to a person because of marriage to, or association with an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin; or an individual with a disability are not allowed under Title VII. It also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools, or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group. In regards to disabilities, an employer may not ask or require a job applicant to take a medical examination before making a job offer or make a pre-employment inquiry about a disability or the nature or severity of a disability. An employer may ask questions about the ability to perform specific job functions and may, with certain limitations, ask an individual with a disability to describe or demonstrate how they would perform these functions.

The interviewing process is a very important time for discovery as well as a time it is easy to overstep the legal bounds. Do not ask: “what clubs, lodges or social organizations do you belong to”? Do not ask: “what is your religious denomination or religious affiliation”, “what holidays do you observe” or “are you married”? You can ask: “do you belong to any professional or trade organizations that you consider relevant to your ability to perform this job”? Ask many questions about their experience and why they are interested in this position. These types of questions are acceptable.

There are times when people try to gain employment in the agricultural industry with ulterior motives. Some indicators that something is “just not quite right” include being over qualified, or unusual characteristics that make a person stand out from the usual employee pool. But, remember, you can ask what professional or trade organizations they belong to that are relevant to the position.

Some rules that can be implemented on the farm to protect against activist infiltration include prohibiting private video devices on site and not allowing unannounced visitors on site. An employer can post written information that enforce or educate the work force by stating your standards for animal welfare. Using statements like: “#1 animal welfare is in the best interest of this business,” is acceptable. Keeping records that include more than just employment and disciplinary records is valuable. Records specific to your operation dealing with the education provided and policy are important to have and to distribute to employees. Daily reports on even the seemingly mundane can prove valuable in a discrimination claim.

The hiring practices you implement can help you hire the best person for the job and avoid potentially difficult situations. Some very basic points to remember is to be consistent in your practices, be fair and be thorough. An employer should be concerned with finding the best person for the job and nothing more.

02-09-2008
How Farming Can Help the Environment
The issue of carbon has gained notoriety in the world as we delve into the topic of global warming. Buzz words such as carbon trading, carbon sequestration and greenhouse gases all relate to carbon. Carbon dioxide is a key ingredient in the greenhouse gases thought to contribute to global warming. How to decrease carbon levels that are emitted into the atmosphere to bond with oxygen to form this gas is a question that may be answered, in part, by farming methods.

One way that carbon is sequestered is through tillage or the absence of tillage. Soils are a major storage house for carbon. Soils contain 300 times the amount of carbon now released annually through the burning of fossil fuels (Baveye, 2007). Soils release carbon when they are cultivated. Tillage aerates soils increasing the rate of biological activity and breakdown of organic matter and nutrients, thereby releasing stored carbon. When tillage is eliminated from the system, carbon is actually stored in the soil not lost.

Agriculture’s ability to sequester or store carbon enables it to be a possible player in carbon trading. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates transportation contributes 32% of the total carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. and industry for 56%. When industries are faced with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a lower cost alternative to reducing carbon emissions may be in the form of purchasing carbon credits from other sources such as agriculture.
Most research on the potential value to carbon trading has been done through setting aside land and planting a perennial crop. However, no-till builds organic matter which is approximately 58% carbon. Carbon sequestration refers to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into a long-lived stable form that does not affect atmospheric chemistry. Currently, the only viable way to trap atmospheric carbon dioxide is via photosynthesis, where carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants and turned into carbon compounds for plant growth. Carbon is considered sequestered if it ends up in a stable form, such as wood or soil organic matter. Soil carbon sequestration is an important and immediate sink for removing atmospheric carbon dioxide and slowing global warming. (Miller, Engel, Brinklemyer, 2004)
The issue of global warming has many facets. Agriculture’s role may not yet be clearly defined but agricultural soils have the potential to bank carbon in a safe and environmentally beneficial way. This gives farmers employing conservation practices such as no-till some good press and if carbon trading ever takes off, farmers could have one more source of revenue.

Sources:
Philippe C. Baveye. Nov/dec 2007. Soils and Runaway Global Warming: Terra incognita. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. vol62 no. 6
Perry Miller, Rick Engel and Ross Brinklemyer. April 2004. Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University