Farmers discouraged by Prop. 2 passage

Backers of Proposition 2 scoffed at reports from farmers and university experts that the ballot initiative would force most California egg farmers to close. But now that the measure has passed, California egg farmers say there is a huge cloud of uncertainty hovering over the future of their operations and livelihood. Several said they plan to close their farms.

"There are just a lot of question marks right now about how this is going to affect us all. It's not good for sure," said David Demler, an egg producer in Kern County.

California voters approved Proposition 2 last week. It prohibits specific farm animals from being confined in a way that prevents them from being able to turn around, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. The measure targets housing systems used for veal calves and pregnant sows as well as for egg-laying hens. But since there is little production of veal in California—with no known production using the housing prohibited by Proposition 2—and a relatively small pork sector, the bulk of the impact will be felt by egg producers.

Groups representing egg farmers in California and nationally led the coalition that opposed Proposition 2. Known as Californians for Safe Food, the coalition "raised and spent significant resources to educate Californians about the risky, dangerous and costly consequences of this initiative," coalition spokesman Matt Sampson said in a post-election statement.

The No on 2 coalition said it brought together "a broad, diverse group of interests," including labor and community organizations as well as agricultural and business groups, to oppose the measure. Most of the state's leading newspapers opposed Proposition 2.

But ultimately, the coalition said, it was unable to overcome "an emotionally manipulative, dishonest and often deceptive campaign" by the backers of Proposition 2.

The coalition said "the special-interest group that pushed Proposition 2," the Humane Society of the United States, "will now go back to Washington and leave it to California's farmers, veterinarians, regulators and lawyers to interpret what this poorly conceived and vaguely worded initiative actually means for the real people it affects."

Egg farmer Demler is one of those people. With 2 million hens in his operation, Demler said he's not sure how he's going to accommodate all of them, under Proposition 2 requirements, in the space that he has. Right now he's housing about 100,000 birds per building and estimates he will have to reduce his number of egg-laying hens back to 30,000 or 40,000 per house to go cage-free.

The initiative is vague about housing design specifications, he said. It says the birds must be able to stand up, turn around and flap their wings. But Demler said his birds can do all those things now.

Demler's brother, John, who runs an 800,000-bird egg ranch in Riverside County, said when the law takes full effect in 2015, he will be 68 and too old to want to rebuild his ranch and start something new. He said his four children are not interested in carrying on the business, so he will likely phase out his ranch, sell the land and retire.

"The problem is the language in the ballot measure is so ambiguous that nobody knows what it means," said Arnold Riebli, an egg producer in Sonoma County. "It doesn't tell you what you can do. I don't know what kind of equipment I can or cannot use. So I think we're going to have to sit down and wait for the regulators to interpret whatever it is going to be."

Although several years remain until Proposition 2 takes effect, many egg farmers say that having to retool their production facilities to comply with the law will be an enormous expense.

Riebli said he took a trip to Mexico a few weeks ago to investigate the possibility of relocating his business there but decided that it was not an alternative for him. He now thinks his only option is to try to rebuild his ranch in Sonoma County.

"I'm just not interested in pulling my roots up," said the fourth-generation farmer. "My roots are here in the county. I have a love for the land. I couldn't just pull up and go. I'm going to see what I can do to make it go. When you work all of your life to build something, it's pretty hard to give it up."

Others, such as San Joaquin County egg producer Richard Jenkins, are less steadfast about their prospects in the state. With one daughter who's already in the business and a college-aged son who's interested in getting in the business, Jenkins said the passage of Proposition 2 puts him in a disheartening position of telling his children they will need to find other careers.

"We're just going to close our doors and go out of business," he said. "That's what I'm discussing with my family. We're going to have to discuss an exit strategy."

A second-generation farmer, Jenkins said he's already spent more than $2 million in the last 12 months upgrading his facility to a state-of-the-art system that improves efficiency, air quality and the health of his birds. But in six years, his facility will be worthless, he said. What's more, he'll likely have to spend more money to rip the chicken houses down and get the land back to bare ground before he can sell it.

Jenkins already farms a small percentage of his eggs as cage-free organic and said he could possibly expand that part of his operation if there is more of a market for the eggs. But he said that despite passage of Proposition 2, he is not convinced that California consumers will buy cage-free eggs if they can choose the less expensive eggs, produced conventionally elsewhere.

He noted that specialty eggs­—cage-free, cage-free organic or free-range—make up only 5 percent of the state's current egg sales.

"The farmer will produce whatever the public wants," he said. "If they would buy it, I will convert everything we've got into cage-free. But out of the 95 stores that I supply, I have not gotten a phone call saying that they're out of cage-free eggs. Why is that? The shopper doesn't care. They voted for (Proposition 2), but they're not going to buy (cage-free eggs)."

Redistricting reform leads in close vote

If final vote tallies show that California voters passed Proposition 11 on last week's ballot, the state will reform the way that legislative boundaries are drawn. The measure places those duties in the hands of a bipartisan commission, instead of the state Legislature. It was leading by a small margin, as elections officials finished counting absentee and provisional ballots.

"We're encouraged and hope to see Proposition 11 earn final approval," California Farm Bureau Federation President Doug Mosebar said. "Reform of redistricting will bring more competitive campaigns and allow the Legislature to focus on working to solve our state's problems." Several legislative candidates endorsed by Farm Bureau won election last week.

In a closely contested race considered key by both parties, Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford, won a narrow race to represent the 30th Assembly District.

Other Farm Bureau-endorsed candidates elected last week included Jim Nielsen, 2nd Assembly District; Cathleen Galgiani, 17th Assembly District; Jerry Hill, 19th Assembly District; and Bill Berryhill, 26th Assembly District. Jack Sieglock, R-Lodi, had a narrow lead in the 10th Assembly District race, with absentee and provisional ballots still being counted at our deadline.

(Ching Lee is a reporter for Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee@cfbf.com. Ag Alert Editor Dave Kranz contributed to this story.)