John Winn’s growing market providing farm-raised lambs to Muslim families for halal slaughter, as well as to other Vermonters, will be capped by new regulations in a miscellaneous agriculture bill, H.515, that passed at the end of the legislative session.
The provisions were a response to a clash between the mostly careful traditional outdoor on-farm slaughter convenient for small livestock raisers who sell animals directly to the public and USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) standards that govern federal and state meat inspections.
Some use the term “black market” for the direct sale of animals that are not slaughtered to FSIS standards on the farm or not taken to a commercial slaughterhouse.
Under the new regulations, the Franklin County farmer must build a custom slaughter facility if he slaughters more than 25 sheep per year. But his customers for on-farm slaughter have been increasing steadily over the past few years, especially in the Muslim community. This season he has 85 lambs in the pipeline.
Winn had offered an outdoor space on his Georgia farm for halal slaughter because he was comfortable with occasionally providing customers a patch of his land to use along with some help, including cleanup and disposal of the offal. Like more and more farmers around Vermont, he has been responding to the rising demand for local meat raised in healthy, humane conditions. He also wanted to expand sales of his Clun Forest sheep.
As a compromise for farmers who want to raise and sell no more than “10 swine, three cattle, 25 sheep or goats; or any combination … [but] no more than 3,500 pounds of live weight of livestock … per year,” the new law permits on-farm outdoor slaughter — that is, without a custom facility — but under more tightly regulated conditions.
Winn ran afoul of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, when a rival farmer, who had built a custom slaughter facility, filed a complaint about Winn’s outdoor operation. Winn was served with a cease and desist order and the state levied a $2,000 fine, since reduced to $500, but requiring him to build a facility if wants to expand his business beyond the 25-sheep maximum. Building a custom facility is estimated to cost between $5,000 and $15,000.
As a compromise for farmers who want to raise and sell no more than “10 swine, three cattle, 25 sheep or goats; or any combination … [but] no more than 3,500 pounds of live weight of livestock … per year,” the new law permits on-farm outdoor slaughter — that is, without a custom facility — but under more tightly regulated conditions. The farmer cannot “assist” in any way and the site must meet more stringent sanitary conditions that include being free of contaminants and designed to prevent water pollution and livestock or meat adulteration. The slaughter must be done by the buyer or an itinerant slaughterer hired by the buyer.
Rob and Tamara Martin of Chandler Pond Farm in South Wheelock are among the younger farmers who have been expanding into whole-animal sales, in their case pork and poultry. In her testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, Tamara Martin spoke to the “high cost of infrastructure for farmers just starting out.” With the limits imposed by the new regulations, expanding the meat-animal side of their business would mean facing the added costs of either building a custom facility on-site or taking her animals to a commercial slaughterhouse.
Andrea Stander, executive director of Rural Vermont, advocates for the growing number of small farms around the state. Stander sees on-farm, outdoor slaughter as an intermediate step for a farmer, particularly a young farmer, to figure out whether it is a viable part of their business. “These are farmers who are not on a trajectory to become part of a commercial stream,” she said. “They intend to remain hyper-local.”
During hearings on H.515, there was some ardent opposition to the bill, both in House and Senate agriculture committee testimony. It focused on the number of animals allowed before the requirement for building a facility kicks in, but also on worries about the “case-by-case” basis on which the state Agency of Agriculture inspectors would evaluate the permitted on-farm slaughter.
For the agriculture agency, the rock and a hard place is that USDA-FSIS regulations require states with their own inspection service to do meat inspection for food safety at least “equal to” the FSIS requirements. Federal requirements are at odds with traditional on-farm slaughter, so much so that the term “black market” is now used for those who have been selling animals slaughtered on the farm under conditions that might not have passed state inspection, which are governed by federal regulations.
The ag agency says it was forced to push for new regulations out of fear that existing on-farm slaughter, because it does not really meet FSIS standards, would jeopardize federal funding, which amounts to half the agency’s annual budget for state meat inspection. Beyond that, since it is charged with public health and food safety, it doesn’t want to see damage to the rapidly growing market for Vermont-raised meat should there be a case of foodborne illness or contamination.
H.515 language was an attempt at compromise
Under H.515, any farmer slaughtering for his or her household or “nonpaying guests or employees” is still free to do so in the manner they see fit and without applying for a license. But when selling animals to others, a licensed custom slaughter facility is required at the farm with the following exception: the buyer of the farm-raised animal does the slaughter themselves — or hires an itinerant slaughterer to do it — on a site approved by the farmer, conducts the slaughter in a way that meets specific “sanitary conditions,” and does not get assistance from the farmer except by being provided with a site and some “implements” and relying on the farmer for “disposal of the carcass and offal from slaughter.”
Among other requirements: The farmer must keep a record of livestock sales and file it with the state. The farm can be inspected at any time and whether the farm’s methods pass muster is up to the individual inspector.
To its supporters — the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and a good number of the small farmers affected — the custom slaughter clauses of H.515 are an acceptable compromise because the exemptions allow small-farm enterprises that sell a few animals to do so without building a facility or going to the expense of taking the animals to a commercial slaughter facility. At the same time, they provide oversight of the Vermont brand. The agriculture agency sets conditions for building a custom slaughter facility, something that meets FSIS standards, and sets sanitary conditions for any on-farm slaughter which their inspectors will rule on if a verifiable complaint is filed.
Prior rules to help propel the new market weren’t working
Rising demand among Vermonters for locally raised, high-quality, humanely slaughtered meat prompted the Legislature to passed Act 207 in 2008, with the expectation that it would help farmers expand the in-state market for whole or half animals.
Act 207 was passed “to help small farmers to raise beef to sell to neighbors,” as Sen. Bobby Starr, head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, puts it.
That legislation did not end “black market” meat sales, as traditional non-FSIS-compliant on-farm slaughter continued. It left gaping holes in the regulations, even though it laid out rules for legal sales.
Starr says that the new regulations in H.515 respond to the fact that “the USDA had severe problems with the way [on-farm slaughter] was being handled” even after Act 207 was passed. The committees worked very closely with the USDA and the agriculture agency in crafting the language in H.515, he said.
Stander advocated for some leeway for small meat producers. From Rural Vermont’s point of view, economic viability for small farmers is of primary concern and the cost of custom facilities is too great for many.
When funding was discussed in the Senate Agriculture Committee and Starr asked whether funds might be made available to help someone like John Winn, he was told that meeting the demand for such facilities all over the state is beyond the capacity of the ag agency’s budget.
Randy Quenneville, chief of the state’s meat inspection service, also said state funding is out of the question. He counters the complaint about the cost of a “custom facility” by saying that though the agriculture agency does not have the money to build the facilities, there are many sources of funding through Vermont nonprofits, and the Working Lands Initiative Grants program entertains applications for this kind of project. He also says the “clean room” need not cost much.
“You can renovate a room in a barn for the purpose,” he said. “If you had an old milk house, you could be close to what you need.” Underlining the increasing need for more custom slaughter facilities around the state, he has also suggested that the farmer who builds a custom facility rent it out to other small, local producers to spread the cost.
H.515 regulations come into being at a time of change. But there is unanimity across the board — small livestock producers, the Agency of Agriculture, and an array of nonprofits and quasi-governmental organizations such as the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund and its Farm to Plate Initiative, the Vermont Council on Rural Development, Rural Vermont and NOFA-VT — on the desirability of promoting the sale of animals direct from the farm to Vermont consumers. More and more, Vermonters want to know where their meat comes from and how it was raised and slaughtered.
Enthusiasm for buying farm-fresh food has grown exponentially in the last decade, according to the latest Farm to Plate Strategic Plan. That includes those raised for the buyer on a farm where they are, in due time, slaughtered. Vermont is, in fact, part of a livestock renaissance in New England. In March, New England livestock producers celebrated the new market for high-end meat with its first annual “Meat Ball.”
A report from the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund’s Farm to Table in February confirmed that, if the supply grows, demand will continue to grow. But among the “pinch points” that are retarding growth of this market, according to the report, are convenient, year-round, USDA-FSIS facilities.
Commercial slaughter facilities are becoming more available — there is a new state-inspected slaughter facility coming on line in Lyndonville, commercial facilities in New Haven and Wilmington and a mobile slaughter facility in Middlebury — but they are still few and far between. And it is really only larger or specialized meat operations that find commercial facilities convenient.
Some operations, such as Sugar Mountain Farms in West Topsham, owned by Walter Jeffries, and Rep. Chip Conquest’s Full Circle Farm in Wells River, are investing in slaughter and processing facilities of their own. Last fall, Conquest hosted a tour and discussion about the “opportunities and challenges a custom slaughter facility might provide for your farm or region” for NOFA-VT.
The state and sustainable farming nonprofits are eager to encourage on-farm slaughter. Rural Vermont backs local facilities for “neighbor-to-neighbor” sales because they revive the old tradition of a local source for food.
Will H.515 put an end to the tension between farmers and the Agency of Agriculture? That may depend on the availability of funding for custom slaughter facilities and whether the limits on the number of animals permitted are enforced.
Stander has been in touch with the Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Ross to initiate a conversation leading to a clearer definition of “sanitary conditions,” the next battleground for the small-scale lifestock producers Rural Vermont represents.
This is needed, she says, “so that farmers can go ahead with on-farm slaughter without fearing they will not pass inspection if a state inspector comes to the farm. Knowing how to meet the intent of the regulations will protect the Vermont brand while enlarging the market for small producers.”
For Stander, the overriding issue is that with more and more Vermonters wanting to buy safe meat and local food, “we are going to have to rely on small farmers. So let’s find a way to make this work.”