Dear Editor,
In response to a letter that recently appeared in the Ponoka News, I feel it is important to clarify the language that has been used when talking about confined feeding operations (CFOs).
As a veterinarian in the county that deals with CFOs on a daily basis I have taken issue with the language that attempts to categorize CFOs as large factory farms as opposed to non-CFO farms which have been called traditional small family farms.
Every CFO that I deal with is a family run operation and the majority of them have multiple generations working on the farm. This has been their traditional way of life for many years and they work hard to care for their land, the welfare of their animals and the future of their family farm.
Secondly, by stating that the right to farm has become the right to harm gives the impression that CFOs are willingly harming the environment to grow increasingly larger without any thought to the natural resources or their neighbours. Farm families that own CFOs also want to ensure a sustainable future for the next generation on their farm and have to adhere to environmental guidelines put in place by the NRCB and their commodity organizations.
Labelling these operations as large supply management CFOs gives the impression that they are only corporate driven and ignores the fact that they too are family farms that also want a farming future for the next generation. This type of language will create a false impression of CFOs among the general public and will only create more division when communication between all parties is needed.
Dennis Klugkist