LANSING, MI — Small backyard farmers fear proposed changes in farming practices endorsed by the Michigan Agriculture Commission could strip them of state protection under Michigan's Right to Farm Act.



They're right-- but that protection was never intended for them in the first place, said Jim Johnson, division director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Environmental Stewardship Division in an interview Tuesday.

“People found a loophole “…that allowed them to force farm animals into residential areas that are not appropriate, Johnson said.

The intent of the suggested changes: Close that loophole.

"The proposed change allows for local governments to decide what’s acceptable within their own communities and set conditions for that use," said Jennifer Holton, Director of Communications for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Supporters and opponents of the proposed changes have until 5 p.m. today, Jan. 22, to submit their comments to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's Environmental Stewardship Division. Or, they may attend the public input meeting that begins at 9 a.m. today, Jan. 22, in Room A at the State Secondary Complex – General Office Building, 7150 Harris Drive, Dimondale, MI.

Protecting rural farming

The state’s Generally Acceptable Agricultural and Management Practices-- GAAMPs-- were originally designed to protect commercial farms from urban encroachment at a time when people were moving from cities into rural areas, then complaining about the farming operations they found there, Johnson said.

With commercial agriculture in a rural setting in mind, the state created a detailed set of documents that spell out what generally acceptable agricultural practices entail; farmers who voluntarily comply with those standards are protected from nuisance complaints about odor, noise and other farm-related irritations.

Currently farms with fewer than 50 “livestock units"-- the equivalent of 5,000 chickens-- are not required to comply with the livestock facility recommendations; in a rural setting, so few animals would not likely create a problem, Johnson said.

But more and more people are undertaking small farm activities in suburban or even urban settings. If they are complying with all other applicable GAAMPs, those backyard farmers have argued that state law protects their right to carry on farming, too, trumping local zoning restrictions.

The proposed changes would change that. First, the recommendation to define a Livestock Facility as “any facility where farm animals as defined in the Right to Farm Act are confined regardless of the number of animals" would mean that anyone with farm animals would need to comply with the livestock facility recommendations to receive consideration under Right to Farm.

Another proposed change suggests that some areas “ are exclusively zoned for residential use and are not acceptable locations for livestock facilities regardless of number. Confining livestock in these locations does not conform to the Siting GAAMP. “

The approval of those changes "would severely restrict the rights of Michigan farmers, particularly small scale farmers," the Michigan Small Farm Council warned on its website.

An "action alert" urging public comment says: "The proposed changes first bring operations as small as a single animal under the control of the Site Selection GAAMPs, and then uses the new Category 4 definition to exclude those operations from RTF protection in residential areas.

That's true, Johnson said, but not unfair.

“If you read the the current siting GAAMP, your neighbor could have 4,999 chickens in his backyard and not have to abide by the siting GAAMP," Johnson said. "Our sense is that’s not fair in a residential setting.

“Part of what makes Right to Farm work is (the understanding) that 'I have a right to farm in Michigan only if I abide by certain standards,'” Johnson said. “The tradeoff is doing things the right way, and it is our opinion that 4,999 chickens on a 50 x 75 plot is not fair to the neighbors.

The idea of Right to Farm was to protect farms when people brought their urban expectations to the country, he said. But people who live in urban or suburban areas have a right to have their expectations protected, too, he said. “Now you have just brought the country into their neighborhood, that’s what we are trying to get away from" with the creation of a new category where the existence of farm animals is not protected by state law, he said.

It would fall to local municipalities to set their own guidelines for those uses, Johnson said; no longer could state Right to Farm be used to override those rules.

“The whole purpose (of Right to Farm) is to try to reduce conflict,” Johnson said.

Urban sprawl

According to the Right to Farm Annual Report of 2012, The Right to Farm program's complaint response program was initiated in 1986 to address farm-related environmental complaints, and is designed to educate producers and complainants alike about generally accepted agricultural and management practices.

The GAAMPs that have been developed since then are:

1988, Manure Management and Utilization; 1991, Pesticide Utilization and Pest Control; 1993 Nutrient Utilization (fertilizer use); 1995 Care of Farm Animals; 1996 Cranberry Production; 2000 Site Selection & Odor Control for New/Expanding Livestock Facilities; 2003 Irrigation Water Use, and, in 2010, Farm Markets.

The detailed documents outlining good practices help farmers "bring their farm operations into conformance with GAAMPs, and subsequently earn nuisance protection under the RTF law," the annual report says.

But it's not all reaction to complaints. In 2012, 13 "proactive determinations" of compliance were made, the report said, all at small-scale farm facilities typically involving a few farm animals on small acreage, "that included facilities with six to 50 laying hens, five to 15 dairy goats, eight miniature horses, two or three bee colonies, 16 acres of blueberries, and small scale on-farm composting.

"MDARD determined that most of these farms were conforming to applicable GAAMPs," the report notes.

That year, 108 complaints about farming odors or water pollution originated with neighbors, compared to 32 from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

" Urban encroachment, suburban sprawl, and more residential housing in rural, traditional farming areas" may be contributing to that trend, the report suggests."While the percentage of complaints made by ‘neighbors’ has remained quite constant over the past six years the actual numbers increased by 27 from FY 2011 to FY 2012. Complaints from neighbors have always been the largest percentage of the total each year. "

That trend is unlikely to change if urban and suburban farming is a contributing factor. A snapshot of Michigan agriculture from the USDA's Agriculture Statistics Service showed that in 2011, the state had 10 million acres in farming, with 54,900 farms and an average farm size of 182 acres. That average size may be misleading.

The 2007 Census of Agriculture, the most recent measurement immediately available, showed that on 31,000 of those farms, farming was not the primary occupation; 18,648 reported a farm income of less than $1,000; 5,502 reported income of $1,000 to $2,499; 5,229 generated an income of $2,500 to $4,999 and 5,292 reported income of $5,000 to $9,999.

With the increase in small farming, commercial or for family subsistence, has come conflict with with non-farm neighbors, those farmers say.

In the comments from a Jan.20 story about the proposed siting GAAMP change,Reader Nicole Birkett wrote:

Wendy Hutchison wrote:

The public has until Wednesday to voice concerns about proposed changes, though that comment period is not required by the law, nor will a record of comments be made available for public perusal, MDARD officials said. Each GAAMP committee will review the comment and adjust the wording as it sees fit.

Then the GAAMPs will go to the Michigan Agriculture Commission for approval; the commission can opt to approve the GAAMPs without change, approve or amend the changes, or send the proposed changes back to the committee for consideration of other possibilities.