Bion to build dairy complexes

10-Jul-2002

Related topics: Markets

Dairy Park, LLC - a subsidiary of Bion Environmental Technologies - has entered into an agreement with investors Dr. Michael McCloskey and Timothy den Dulk to develop, own and operate a number of large dairy facilities in the US.

Bion anticipates that two to four complexes, ranging in size from 10,000 to 50,000 animals, will be developed by the joint venture over the next three years. The complexes will be turnkey, state-of-the-art facilities and will be made available to dairy producers under terms of a 10-year, triple-net lease.

Bion will provide its technology for waste management, secure financing for the facilities, develop the financial lease terms and provide independent management. The primary responsibilities of the McCloskey/den Dulk partnership will be site selection and development, lease terms and recruitment of tenants, and management of the facilities.

David Mitchell, chairman and CEO of Bion, said: "The complexes envisioned by Bion and the McCloskey/den Dulk partnership represent a significant shift in the economics of dairy farming and milk production. The availability of a turnkey facility will enable dairy farmers to concentrate their capital resources on herd development instead of land and equipment, marketing and waste management expenses.

Additionally, because the environmental issues normally associated with large dairies are solved by the Bion Nutrient Management System, the complexes can be located to maximize profitability and distance to market."

Dr. McCloskey obtained a Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine in 1976 from the University of Mexico, Mexico City and completed a speciality in dairy production medicine at the University of California, Davis. Since that time he has served in leadership positions in every aspect of the dairy industry - from individual production to the development of dairy policy at the regional and national levels.

Regarding the concept of large dairy complexes, Dr. McCloskey said: "The Bion technology will allow us to position these facilities very competitively, from the standpoint of both marketing and feed."

Dr. McCloskey and den Dulk are co-owners of Quality Milk Sales, responsible for marketing the milk produced by dairy farmers members in Central and North America. As a group, these members produce in excess of 4 billion pounds of milk per year.

Founded in 1989, Bion provides waste management solutions to agriculture, focusing on livestock waste from confined animal feeding operations, such as large dairies

Letter From New State Resident Meredith Grosshandler, In Opposition to the Proposed CAFO

In Uncategorized on May 21, 2010 at 6:16 pm    ==== Meredith Grosshandler

I recently learned that a large-scale concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) may soon be built in central NY.  According to the company’s Dec. 14, 2009 press release, Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc., has received the support of the Oswego County town of Schroeppel, NY, to proceed with plans for a 72,000-cow, 6-barn, beef CAFO with associated ethanol production and beef processing plants.  In Bion’s own words, this operation will be the “largest individual cattle livestock facility east of the Mississippi River.”

After a fair amount of research into this planned “Project” (as Bion refers to it), I am writing you today to urge you to stand against it in any and every capacity possible.  I realize that you do not represent the district in which this CAFO is planned, but the effects of such an operation are wide-reaching, and have real potential to negatively impact every NY district, and far beyond.

Some of the more pressing concerns about this proposed CAFO are:

• Bion is touting the project as “environmentally sustainable.”  This is misleading the public, however, because the operation will still require massive amounts of fossil fuels (for shipping, energy, etc.) and environmentally damaging land use (for corn crops, etc.), and the long-term detrimental effects of this sort of livestock operation on the environment are far worse than grazing/finishing cattle by rotation on grass pastures.  Just because something is less bad does not make it a good idea, especially when far better options do exist.
• According to its press release, Bion plans to market its beef products as “local” within a 300-mile radius of the facility.  Aside from the glaring fact that describing a market circle encompassing more than 282,000 square miles as “local” is far beyond appropriate, this is problematic because it creates unfair competition for truly local independent farmers actually raising cattle in truly environmentally responsible ways.
• Also, while Bion trumpets the company’s plan to market its product as “local” within their 300-mile radius in its press release, this presents a problematic contrast to the response Bion gave on a Citizens’ Q&A forum last year (when the same CAFO project was being considered for a St. Lawrence County location).  When a citizen inquired about the possibility of increased access to local beef, Bion responded that “[Bion] has not represented that its output will be sold within St. Lawrence County.”  It seems that Bion tells people what it thinks will benefit the company the most at the time.
• As mentioned above, Bion had been courting St. Lawrence County for essentially the same CAFO “Project” last year, but abruptly backed out due to concerns over whether they would be able to properly finance the situation amid the economic crisis.  This, in and of itself, raises questions about Bion’s ability to fund a project of this magnitude.  Additionally, Bion originally stated that it would return to the project in St. Lawrence County when the credit markets loosened up, but in actuality Bion abandoned SLC and moved on Oswego County with no explanation.  This only raises more questions about the company’s ways of doing business.
• Bion advertises that they expect the creation of between 300 and 600 jobs from its proposed Oswego County CAFO project.  This may sound very enticing, but we must think beyond the short-term and consider how many small, independent cattle farms will be negatively impacted in the long-term in that huge 300-mile radius due to the unfair competition from a corporate giant deceptively representing itself as local and sustainable.
• Bion has indicated that it will attempt to obtain any local, state, or federal assistance available to the company on the basis of its self-professed environmental sustainability.   However, again, this will only reduce the amount of funding available to those independent farmers who are truly trying to raise cattle in a healthful and environmentally responsibly manner.
• Bion has never implemented its proposed technology on a scale even close to the proposed project’s size.  In fact, the operation on which Bion is modeling its 72,000 head CAFO proposal is a 1200-cow dairy operation in Texas.  That means that their proposed CAFO operation in Schroeppel is sixty times larger than the model, involves a different product (beef instead of dairy), and is to be implemented in a radically different climate.
• Bion’s plan hinges on what it refers to as its “closed-loop integrated technology platform,” in which corn byproducts (called WDGS) from the ethanol production process would be a large part of the cows’ finishing diet.  Yet recent independent studies (including studies conducted by the USDA) have indicated that cattle fed WDGS harbor higher concentrations of harmful e. coli bacteria, which translates to increased risk of contamination and human sickness or death.
• Current research has also shown that meat from cows fed WDGS has a higher fat content (including trans fats) and less visual appeal on the retail market.  Additionally, diets high in WDGS have been shown to cause polioencephalomalacia in cattle, an acutely fatal condition often seen in “downer cows” that causes the cow to become disoriented, go blind, stare skyward, and repeatedly ram its head against walls or other hard objects.
• It is worth noting that the research mentioned above all compares meat from cows fed WDGS to that from cattle fed just corn, but remember that it is now widely known that even meat from cattle finished on corn alone is significantly less healthful than meat from cattle finished on natural grasses.  Feedlot/corn finishing is also known to be much worse for the cows’ health, as well as for the environment, when compared to cattle grazed on rotated natural grass pastures and finished on grass too.

The points listed above are just some of the many reasons why Bion’s “Project” is not a good idea for New York (or anywhere, for that matter).  What we need in this state is a network of independently operated, small-scale, reliable, USDA inspected slaughterhouses to accommodate the honest, local, responsible farmers of the state without unreasonably long wait times or preferential treatment for Big Ag corporate farms.  What New York State does NOT need is Bion’s CAFO.  Therefore I respectfully request that, should the opportunity present itself, you vote in the best interest of the good people of New York by voting AGAINST Bion’s CAFO project.

Meredith Grosshandler is a native of the Northeast.  She spent her adolescence playing in the mountains and farm meadows of southwestern Vermont and Washington County, New York.  Although she now lives in Albany, her childhood experiences continue to influence her daily life.  As a product of nature herself, she advocates respectful and responsible cohabitation with all of nature’s other creations.

Carol Thompson 07-28-2010

by Carol Thompson

Residents from around Central New York have gathered to form a group to oppose the proposed Bion Environmental Technologies cattle project.

One of the group’s goals is to track the company’s previous history in other areas and seek the answers that both lawmakers and residents claim are missing.

Bion is proposing a large-scale, integrated, closed-loop beef cattle/renewable energy project in Oswego County that was met with skepticism by some legislators, farmers and members of the general public when the idea was first introduced to the county legislature last year.

That skepticism has grown to include more community members, environmentalists and college professors.

Under a proposal presented by Bion, there would be more than 70,000 head of cattle housed somewhere in the county. There would be an estimated 600 jobs created and it would be a “closed-loop” operation, meaning the cattle’s manure would be used for ethanol, according to Bion officials.

The project may be located in the Town of Schroeppel and that town board has passed a resolution to support a preliminary look at the proposal.

Karen Hall, a member of the organization called Citizens for Family Farms, said the town board is willing to listen to anyone with information in regard to the company and will read any materials presented to them.

Among the materials is the book “Animal Factory” by David Kirby, which contains information in regard to Bion’s experience in Illinois. The company, according to the book, was sued by that state’s Attorney General in a matter pertaining to a sow farm known as Highlands.

The lawsuit alleged, based on 230 complaints lodged with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, that offensive odors were coming from “animal confinement buildings and the waste treatment system, which does not perform in a manner consistent with the claims of Bion Technologies.”

The book author claims that Bion company officials eventually “turned” on the farmers who were involved with operating their system, paid a fine and withdrew from its contractual obligations with the Highlands.

The company’s history is a concern said Hall, who has been actively involved with the opposition group. She gave the Schroeppel Town Board an overview of the Illinois matter.

Schroeppel’s planning board chairman John Capenos said that the town board should not be taking the heat for the proposed project as it was the county legislators who sent the company to the town.

Few county legislators have expressed interest in the project, primarily due to the lack of information the company has provided.

An informational meeting held July 14 brought out many residents in opposition and, according to Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann, few answers to the many questions asked by the public.

“It was the same as usual,” he said noting that as with past meetings, questions were unanswered or answered with technical talk that a layman could not understand.

Almost 500 people to date have signed a petition in opposition of the project, with many signers from the village of Phoenix and Pennellville area.

The company recently revealed that it will develop the project and turn it over to someone else to operate. Leemann said he first learned of the most recent development at the July 14 meeting.

There are, to be sure, agricultural technologies that have been developed; but none are guaranteed failure proof. The magnitude of this proposed project adds dimensionally to the impact of any problems. Questions about workplace safety, real estate values, antibiotic resistance, air pollution and the integrity of our river and aquifers remain unanswered.

Links to discussions and documents can be found at www.PhoenixTalks.com. Your input is welcome.

Susan Lynch
Phoenix

To the Editor:

Attending the SUNY Oswego Bion Forum was a very enlightening experience. Upon hearing about it, I immediately wondered why reservations were needed and why those with opposing views were not on the panel of a “public forum.” The answer to my questions unfolded right before our eyes Wednesday night.

Bion is unable to adequately defend its “cutting edge technology” when asked pointed questions about it. It was brought to light that Bion has absolutely no interest in protecting our communities. Dominic Bassani, vice president of strategic planning, informed the audience that Bion is a development company.

It was clearly evident that Bion would assume no responsibility if anything goes wrong with its “state of the art” processing facility and animal factories, even though it has never tested its technology on a project of this size.

Bion has no plans to bond the project, so farmers and citizens would be left holding the bag for any inevitable disaster; which is what happened in Meade, Neb. Let’s learn from their tragic lesson and make sure that is not what happens here.

Oswego County has no Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for a very good reason. Small farms thrive in Oswego County, not massive ones. Politicians need to look at passing legislation now to protect our communities and ensure that family farms continue to succeed here.

It is imperative that the town board of Schroeppel does the right thing and rescinds the resolution passed Dec. 10, 2009.

Karen Hall
Citizens for Family Farms
Clay

Schroeppel weighs in on Bion project

By AARON CURTIS
acurtis@palltimes.com

Officials weigh in on Bion proposal

By AARON CURTIS
acurtis@palltimes.com

Audience Skeptical of Proposed Bion Ethanol-From-Cattle Project

Slaughterhouse company makes presentation in Oswego
An ethanol and livestock operation that wants to move into CNY put its plan before more than 100 people Wednesday night. Bion Environmental Technologies plans to build a $150 million within Oswego County. Video     25 comments

Schroeppel residents take on ethanol and livestock operation
June 15
Video

Residents have beef with proposed Bion project

By AARON CURTIS
acurtis@palltimes.com

Audience Skeptical of Proposed Bion Ethanol-From-Cattle Project

Bion Environmental Technologies is trying to win the support of the Oswego County community to build a beef cattle and ethanol production mega project in Schroeppel. Bion has its work cut out for itself, if the audience that heard its pitch is any indication.

By Ryan Morden, contributing writer

Proposed 'deathanol' plant in Oswego County raises some stink   

JEFF KRAMER

Post-Standard Humor Columnist on Life in Syracuse and CNY

Click Here 

Letter From New State Resident Meredith Grosshandler, In Opposition to the Proposed CAFO

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2010/06/post_47.html

Great fishing doesn’t mix with factory farm

To the Editor:

On June 7, you ran an article by Debra Groom about Oswego being cited by Outdoor Life magazine for fishing and hunting opportunities, and that it is now on the magazine’s list of “America’s Top 200 Towns for Sportsmen.” The city also is in the top 20 for trout and bass fishing. This is exciting for Oswego and surrounding areas, home to many lakes and waterways that must be preserved to attract tourists.

The town of Schroeppel passed a resolution that paves the way for a 72,000-head beef cattle project to come to our area. There are many known incidents where large facilities of this sort have polluted waterways and killed large amounts of fish, in addition to polluting groundwater and wells. In Jeff Kramer’s column, “Proposed ‘Deathanol’ Plant Raises Some Stink,” he indicates that mainstream America has realized factory farms are cruel and unhealthy, and the trend is toward organic products. As a farmer, I know that well-run smaller farms work in conjunction with the environment. This is the direction we need to look to for the future of farming, not toward huge facilities that ravage the environment.

Please go to www.phoenixtalks.com to educate yourself. And let it be known that the citizens of Central New York do not want to this project. Do we want to continue to be known for our outdoor opportunities, or as the home of the largest “deathanol” plant east of the Mississippi?

Karen Hall
Clay

March 22, 2010

To the Town Board of Schroeppel:

We are Schroeppel Town residents and neighbors who have many concerns about the proposed Bion project. We understand all of the information regarding the proposal was provided by the Bion Corporation. We have questions about the dearth of local input and independent research sought by the Town Board.

Has the Board considered where they are going to place the facilities, and what impact there will be on surrounding areas? Has the Board looked into any research other than that presented by Bion, such as odor assessment of 72,000 head of cattle?

Have the issues of worker safety, MRSA, antibiotic resistance, air-borne disease and particulates been discussed with the local and New York State Departments of Health?

How much water will be used for the ethanol plant, cattle, and slaughter facilities, and has there been a watershed study on the impact of an operation of this size on our two aquifers, our three river system, and even our Great Lake? How will the potential for tourism in this area be affected?

What will be the effect of all of the trucking related to this animal factory operation on local roads, highways, and other infrastructure? What other costs will be incurred if a natural disaster causes a breach of containment facilities? What safety features, such as a dedicated fire department would have to be put in place?

What will happen to the offal from the slaughter facility?

What would happen if this company goes bankrupt, and the Town is left with the cost of removing pollutants from the sites?

This is possibly one of the largest CAFO's (Concentrated/Confmed Cattle Feeding Operations) ever attempted. What will happen to our quality of life in the Town of Schroeppel? We strongly request that the Town Board of Schroeppel reconsider their resolution of approval for the Bion project.

Sincerely,
Noreen Patterson and Susan Lynch,

This letter was signed by over 30 local residents & submitted to the town  board 

It is important for all residents of Central New York to know the facts about the proposed beef cattle closed-loop process because it will affect us financially and environmentally for years to come. Contact us Today  (Click Here)

In 2007, Bion Energy Technologies, Inc. proposed a cattle-and-ethanol business plan that would have built six 14,000-steer feedlots and a 50 million gallon ethanol production facility in St. Lawrence County, NY.

Citizens' Bion Forum developed as a repository for documents and a means of communication among people trying to figure out the likely costs and benefits of Bion's proposed project. The resources listed below include both documents consulted and documents created. Citations provide links either directly to the source document or to the website where the original document came from.

     

What Does Carbon Credit Mean?
A permit that allows the holder to emit one ton of carbon dioxide. Credits are awarded to countries or groups that have reduced their green house gases below their emission quota. Carbon credits can be traded in the international market at their current market price.

Investopedia explains Carbon Credit
The carbon credit system was ratified in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol. Its goal is to stop the increase of carbon dioxide emissions. 

For example, if an environmentalist group plants enough trees to reduce emissions by one ton, the group will be awarded a credit. If a steel producer has an emissions quota of 10 tons, but is expecting to produce 11 tons, it could purchase this carbon credit from the environmental group. The carbon credit system looks to reduce emissions by having countries honor their emission quotas and offer incentives for being below them.

Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit Program allows ag producers and landowners to earn income by storing carbon in their soil through no-till crop production, conversion of cropland to grass, sustainable management of native rangelands and tree plantings on previously non-forested or degraded land. In addition, the capture of methane from anaerobic manure digester systems can also earn carbon credits.

Farmers Union has earned approval from the Chicago Climate Exchange to aggregate carbon offsets (carbon credits) and sell them on behalf of producers. Farmers Union enrolls producer acreage into blocks of marketable offsets that are traded on the Exchange, much like other agricultural commodities are sold. Proceeds from the sales are then forwarded to producers as each pool of carbon credits is marketed. National Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit Program earned more than $8 million for producers in its first two year of operation.

No-till crop production offsets are eligible in most central and eastern states. Seeded grass acres can be enrolled in most states and managed native rangeland offsets are offered mostly in central and western states. Maps are available on this Web site that show eligible states and counties. They are automatically programmed into the enrollment system and payment estimator. Forestry and agricultural methane projects also are available in every state.

Farmers Union offers continuous online enrollments for all offset types, although pools of enrollments are closed periodically for verification and registration of offsets.  Producers provide land descriptions or map designations for the land they enroll in the program. The entered information is then transferred directly into Farmers Union’s database. Producers then follow up by sending in FSA 578 forms that detail their cropland acres, pasture descriptions, grazing plans for range acres and current maps. Producers also remit a signed contract. It is necessary for producers to have a valid e-mail address, as well as a post office address, for communication and verification purposes.

Agricultural methane offsets are also available, but only sample contracts and applications are available online. These individual projects will require producers or landowners to send in all materials by mail. Pooling, verification and marketing of carbon offsets will follow.

In step with the dramatic rise in C0₂ emissions and other pollutants in recent years, a variety of new financial markets have emerged, offering businesses key incentives — aside from taxes and other punitive measures — to slow down overall emissions growth and, ideally, global warming itself.

A key feature of these markets is emissions trading, or cap-and-trade schemes, which allow companies to buy or sell “credits” that collectively bind all participating companies to an overall emissions limit. While markets operate for specific pollutants such as greenhouse gases and acid rain, by far the biggest emissions market is for carbon. In 2007, the trade market for C0₂ credits hit $60 billion worldwide — almost double the amount from 2006.

Greenhouse Gas – Carbon Credits

Like the CAA, the Kyoto Treaty has a provision for the earning and trading of carbon dioxide emission reduction credits – carbon credits. In anticipation of its ratification, carbon credits have been trading for several years.

In January 2005 the European Union carbon credit trading program commenced, The market for these credits has been predicted to grow to $40 to $100 billion per year. Europe is already not meeting its commitments for Greenhouse Gas reductions and, as a result, the prices of Carbon Credits has gone up (to $28 per tonne as of Oct 5, 2005). With the known reductions of methane and NOx for the Bion process, the Bion process offsets the equivalent of 9.3 tonnes of Greenhouse

Warming Gases per cow per year. At current levels, this is the equivalent of $260 of carbon credits per cow per year.

AgCert, a privately owned company, has been awarded an approved protocol for taking animal manure, placing it a lined hole in the ground, flaring the methane gas which results, and earning tradable carbon credits. Bion believes that CAFO operations utilizing its technology in Kyoto signatory countries (including Canada) will be able to qualify for such credits. Bion is in the early stages of evaluating the business opportunities this potentially creates for the Company.

Carbon credit

Critics of the Bion Environmental Services Project Weigh In      Great Reading

Op Ed: Bion Facility is Risky Venture for the North Country    Click Here

Rise of the Superbugs: Why We Are Increasingly at Risk From Antibiotic-Resistant Diseases  Click Here

Welcome to Bion's Oswego County Integrated Livestock and Ethanol Project Feb 26 ,  Click Here

Bion Ag Project Slated for Small Upstate Town,Submitted by Editor on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 12:47pm.Oswego County Concerned About Impact,Deborah Jeanne SergeantN.Y. Correspondent,, Click Here

Bion Environmental Technologies Inc. in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission said that the company will require additional capital. The company said, While there are no assurances that the Company will be successful in its efforts to develop and construct its Projects and market its Systems, it is certain that the Company will require significant funding from external sources. Given the unsettled state of the current credit and capital markets, there is no assurance the Company will be able to raise the funds it needs on reasonable terms.   Click Here

09/23/2009 Bion Environmental Technologies Inc. filed its 10-K on September 23,2009 for the period ending June 30, 2009. In this report its auditor, GHP Horwath, P.C, gave an unqualified opinion expressing doubt that the company can continue as a going concern.   Click here
Bion Environmental Technologies Inc. (BNET) financial news, and detailed stock charts