CAFOs Archives - Land and Table

A Lack of Regard for the Public's Opinion in Bedford (via News and Advance)

Jason F. — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:01:58 +0000

an opinion piece from their Editorial Board expressed the concern many citizens in Bedford County have after witnessing the June 9th public hearing concerning zoning changes for CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). With the rush to vote many members of the local community are disturbed and wondering how to respond to what appears to be a lack of transparency and a disregard for public concern. Here is the article from the News and Advance:

By THE NEWS and ADVANCE EDITORIAL BOARD When leaders in Bedford County decide on a course of action, it’s full speed ahead evidently, no matter what the public thinks. We’re talking about last Monday’s joint public hearing held by the Board of Supervisors and the county planning commission on proposed changes to the county’s zoning ordinances regarding setbacks for “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs for short. Of “factory farms” in reality. And they are just that: large buildings for “growing” animals for corporate food processors. Thirty thousand chickens. Thousands of cattle or pigs. Factories in every sense of the word that produce toxic environmental waste. County residents caught wind of the politicians’ intentions to dramatically reduce setback requirements for these factories and turned out in large numbers, filling the board chamber and spilling into the hallway. Under the old ordinance, CAFOs were allowed but with setbacks of 1,000 feet for poultry operations and 2,500 feet for other animals. The setbacks were designed to protect neighboring properties, homes, residential subdivisions, streams and public water sources. But after Monday night and a 6-1 vote by the supervisors, those setbacks have been slashed. Now, instead of 1,000 feet for chickens or 2,500 feet for other animals, it’s 250 feet. Except for homes; chickens and cows can come within 300 feet while for pigs, it’s 500 feet. As one speaker at the public hearing pointed out, that’s only the length of football field from a home. And we’re not talking about a bucolic scene of beef cattle grazing in a lush green pasture or chickens scratching and pecking in a wide-open field. We’re talking about thousands of animals being “grown” in large buildings built on a concrete slab, generating thousands of tons of waste either to be collected on site or trucked off. Certainly doesn’t sound like a “farm” operation to us. Sounds much more like a factory in need of more government and environmental oversight, not less. That’s what a great many of the people who showed up for Monday night’s public hearing thought so, as well. Farmers and members of the county’s Agricultural Economic Development Advisory Board at the meeting spoke about the benefits to the county and their livelihoods from such operations: increased economic activity in the county, farms that are more financially stable, farmers able to keep farming. Other residents spoke about air and water pollution dangers posed by factory farms. They spoke about waste disposal and collection on-site. To say it was a contentious meeting would be an understatement. Sensing the public’s split on the matter, Planning Commission member Jeff Burdett quite properly moved to table a decision that night, in an attempt to buy time for further study of the matter. He lost that motion on tied vote, 3-3, and was next on the losing end of a 4-2 vote to approve the setback cuts. After the hand-off from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, it became apparent what the result would be. Supervisor Steve Wilkerson proposed to amend the setback requirements for operations near private homes, but the ball was rolling down hill for approval. And that’s what happened. On a 6-1 vote with only Chairman John Sharp objecting, the supervisors OK’d the new ordinance. What would have been the problem with the supervisors taking more time to study the issue, to hold meetings and work sessions with the public and all interested parties? That’s what Sharp wanted to do, sensing the deep split in the board chambers that night and in the public at large. But apparently his colleagues had already made up their minds. No more public hearings. One and done. That was enough for the majority of the board. In the end, the process of good government lost Monday night in Bedford. Supervisors had a chance to involve the public in a major decision, working with them and bringing them into the governing process. But, instead, they chose not to. Read the article at NewsAndAdvance.com]]>

The post A Lack of Regard for the Public's Opinion in Bedford (via News and Advance) appeared first on Land and Table.

Mixed Reactions to Changes to Bedford CAFO Zoning Ordinance

Jason F. — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:10:18 +0000

From WSET:

Bedford County, VA – Changes to the future of farming in Bedford County have divided the agricultural community. The Board of Supervisors voted 6 -1 to make regulation changes that will allow many more farmers to build poultry and hog feeding facilities in the county. Supporters of the changes to the long standing zoning ordinance say now Bedford farmers have the opportunity to get into the poultry and swine business. “Before it wasn’t even possible here in the county, because of restrictions they placed on the placement of the buildings” said Dairy Farmer Matt Proehl. Proehl says the previous setbacks prevented him from building a chicken feedlot on his property a few years ago. “My family and I are in the dairy business. I wanted something to supplement or go a long with the dairy business. What happened to me was, honestly, it couldn’t be done in the county” said Proehl. Concentrated Animal Feeding Facilities allow farmers to enter contracts with large corporations — like Tyson Foods. However, the opposition says industrializing farming in Bedford is not the best move in the long run. “They are talking about guaranteed income. These facilities are indeed owned by the farmer” said Farmer Brent Wills. Facilities, which, Wills says take 100’s of thousands of dollars to build and will rely on corporations to run. “I don’t see that argument holding up when there’s really no guaranteed income from anything especially from a biological system like agriculture” said Wills. Wills says he doesn’t believe the board really considered the social and environmental issues a long with the economic benefits.

+ WSET.com – ABC13 + (link to video) ——————————– Previous Story:

A local group is fired up about possible changes to Bedford County’s zoning regulations. The Bedford County Agricultural Economic Development Advisement Board is pushing for changes that would allow for more chicken and hog concentrated feeding facilities in the county. Ag Board Chairman Jeff Powers says the board came to the decision to support the changes after researching and visiting local feeding facilities for the last six months. He says the feeding farms would allow farmers to work out contracts with large corporations to make more money. “If it is someone who is already farming then that’s a second product. A crop farmer may not get but one check a year and if the weather is bad he might not get that. This would be a guaranteed income” said Ag board chairman Jeff Powers. However, the local community group Land and Table says there are long term consequences to bringing in these large corporations. “As a community we should not be listening to the promises of corporate agro-businesses” said Land and Table co-founder Jason Fowler. The board will be holding a public hearing on the matter on June 9th.

]]>

The post Mixed Reactions to Changes to Bedford CAFO Zoning Ordinance appeared first on Land and Table.

Bedford Decreases Setbacks for CAFOs (via News and Advance)

Jason F. — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 04:44:35 +0000

From the News and Advance:

“A battle for Bedford County’s culture sprouted at a joint public hearing on changing zoning setbacks for concentrated animal feeding operations, which opponents referred to as factory farms. The seeds of the confrontation were sown in at least the last week as county supervisors and planning commissioners fielded calls from irate taxpayers on both sides. Residents filled the board chambers and spilled into the hallway Monday. The operations are large buildings for growing animals — for example 30,000-plus chicken coops — to produce meat for a large company. While the buildings and land are owned by the farmer, the animals usually are owned by the processor. The planning commission voted 4-2, and the supervisors voted 6-1, to decrease the set backs for these operations following a public hearing that lasted almost two hours. The operations were not banned in Bedford County, but regulations were such that few, if any, parcels are large enough to meet them for poultry and swine. The board and commission’s decisions will allow the operations much closer to property lines, dwellings, residential subdivisions public facilities, streams and public water sources. The majority of those who faced the supervisors and commissioners Monday night asked the setbacks not be cut, at least not so “drastically,” for the sake of community, economic and environmental health. Some said they should be equaled by raising setbacks for cattle and beef…”

Continue Reading at NewsAdvance.com >>>]]>

The post Bedford Decreases Setbacks for CAFOs (via News and Advance) appeared first on Land and Table.

Large-scale Animal Farming at Issue in Bedford County (via News and Advance)

Jason F. — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 13:46:28 +0000

From the News and Advance:

An effort by some Bedford County farmers to adjust zoning regulations to allow larger factory-like farming operations faces opposition from those saying they will harm the community.

Proponents say the setback for poultry and swine are only being changed so that they are equal to that of beef and dairy cattle.

They say concentrated animal feeding operations — for example, a confined poultry house with 30,000-plus chickens — will give small farmers definite income to balance the risks of crop farming.

Opponents say the operations will have a negative impact on Bedford County farmers, the economy and environment. They also say a decision is being rushed.

A joint public hearing of the planning commission and board of supervisors will be held Monday about the setback requirements, which would cut the distance concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, can be built from property lines, dwellings, residential subdivisions, public facilities, streams and public water sources.

The operations are not banned in Bedford County. The setback requirements, however, are such that there are few if any parcels in the county large enough to meet them for poultry and swine.

Under the proposal, the setbacks would be reduced dramatically for poultry and swine to match that of cattle.

Currently, a poultry operation must be set back 1,000 feet from a property line. Swine operations must be set back 2,500 feet. The new requirements would set them at the minimum applied to beef or dairy cattle, which is 250 feet. Similar cuts were made for every setback category.

Continue Reading at NewsAdvance.com >>>

]]>

The post Large-scale Animal Farming at Issue in Bedford County (via News and Advance) appeared first on Land and Table.

Bedford Ag Board Presentation On Industrial Livestock Production

Jason F. — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:50:53 +0000

June 9th is the public hearing concerning zoning regulation changes related to bringing CAFOs to the county – please come and say a few words about your support or opposition of bringing this industry to the county.) There are many people on both sides of the debate concerning opening the door for CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) in Bedford County. Some people say farmers should have the freedom to take advantage of all forms of agricultural opportunities. Others of us contend that industrial livestock production is more manufacturing than agriculture and that it will dramatically change our community forever. This is a watershed moment in this county and every citizen needs to be a part of the conversation. Below, we are making available a powerpoint presentation that was made by the Ag Board to the Planning Commission regarding the industrial livestock production industry that they want to bring to the county. To download it as a PDF: click here. [gallery type="slideshow" ids="998,999,1000,1001,1002,1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008,1009,1010,1011,1012,1013,1014,1015,1016,1017"]]]>

The post Bedford Ag Board Presentation On Industrial Livestock Production appeared first on Land and Table.

Farm Owner and Scientist Speaks Out On Bedford CAFOs Debate

Jason F. — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:35:50 +0000

(Note: This open letter was sent privately to the Bedford Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This is being made public by permission with the name changed for the sake of privacy. If you want to add your voice to the CAFO debate please come Monday, June 9th to the public hearing or contact the Bedford County Board of Supervisors) Dear Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors, I’d like to start by introducing myself. My name is CB and I grew up and lived in Bedford County most of my life until I went away for college. My family has owned land and farmed in the county for almost 100 years and I am now a farm owner in District 7. I am not an environmental activist but I do hold a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology. I should disclose that I currently work for the pharmaceutical industry and the main product my company produces is swine derived. Thus, I have a firm understanding of the need for industry but I also firmly believe there should be a balance of risk and benefit. I am contacting you in regards to the upcoming meeting on June 9 to vote on the Amendment to Section 30-81-2(B)(1) of the Bedford County Zoning Ordinance being general standards for Commercial Feedlots (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). As a farmer and a trained scientist, the proposed changes deeply concern me. I understand the need for growth and change; however, I don’t think we should compromise our environment or public health to accommodate it. CAFO are currently welcome in our county under the existing regulations, which in my opinion are much safer than what is proposed in the amendment. You have proposed these changes as standard zoning changes. However, reducing the required distance these facilities will reside from our homes, schools, roads, water sources etc. by ~80% or more is not a minor change. Many citizens may plead with you because of the odor, unsightly facilities or nuisances associated with the transport of these animals. While these are all valid reasons, my plea is strictly based on scientific evidence that these facilities propose hazardous risks to our environment and community. Thus, reducing the regulations currently in place to protect our community does not seem like a fair risk. I imagine these zoning changes will make our community more attractive for industrial farming. Where would you expect these facilities to be located in our county; miles down a side road or just off our major highways and byways where they are more accessible? What is the probability that making our community more accessible to industrial farming will lead to a processing facility also becoming a part of our community? The fact that this proposed change has occurred just as China lifts the 7-year ban on Va poultry imports does not seem like a coincidence to me. I’d like to know who is driving these amendments; is it industry or our state government? These are questions I think we as a community need to consider when debating these zoning changes. CAFOs are known to be an environmental hazard because of the large amounts of animal waste produced that increase risk to air and water quality and aquatic ecosystems. According to the EPA, states with high concentrations of CAFOs experience on average 20 to 30 serious water quality problems per year as a result of manure management issues. The most common toxins found include nitrate and ammonium, but various phosphates, antibiotics, arsenic, and estrogen hormones are also present. I’d like to remind you that a CAFO is responsible for one of the biggest environmental spills in U.S. history. In 1995, a 120,000-square-foot (11,000 m²) lagoon ruptured in North Carolina, releasing 25.8 million US gallons (98,000 m3) of effluvium into the New River. The spill resulted in the death of 10 million fish in local water bodies. The spill also contributed to an outbreak of Pfiesteria piscicida,which caused health problems for humans in the area including skin irritations and short term cognitive problems (neurotoxicity). I realize this is an extreme example of the negative impact a CAFO can have, but the risk is clearly there. This recent publication by the EPA reports on a survey of 7 CAFO sites that were monitored for a number of years for water pollution (http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100F9DI.pdf). I don’t anticipate that you have the time to read this entire 236 page document, but if you would like a more inclusive overview of this document, I recommend reading pages 11-12 which contain the executive summary. In short, these data show that ground water contamination by nitrate, ammonium or estrogens, particularly estrone, can occur at very different types of CAFO, whether through leaking lagoons, leaking pipes or infrastructure, land application of wastes in excess of agronomic needs, or other factors. Estrogens have slow degradation rates, tend to bioaccumulate in the food chain and have long half lives in humans. Although estrogen levels in some sites are dropping, it may be several years before 17β-estradiol and estrone drop below the PNECs of 1.0 ng/L and 3-5 ng/L, respectively, as established by http://www.salmon-trout.org/pdf/EA.%20(2004).%20Proposed%20predicted%20no-effect%20concentration%20(PNECs).pdf. I leave you with this question: do you ever wonder why your female children or grandchildren reach puberty earlier than previous generations? There is scientific evidence that suggests the hormones in our food and in our environment are a contributing factor. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/Supplement_3/S167.short )(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23367522) Furthermore, animal studies show minute concentrations are capable of eliciting these effects. There are also studies showing the effect of CAFO emissions on local air quality and the increased risk of asthma, particularly in children. (https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/cafo/ID-358-W.pdf). Due to the small number of these studies and conflicting data, it is difficult to draw a conclusion on the impact CAFO may have on respiratory illnesses in neighboring areas. However, it is certain that CAFO emissions can have a detrimental effect on the respiratory health of those that work inside the facilities, and these effects are mediated by the same toxins that pose a risk to our water supplies. Other considerations to keep in mind include the fact that the samples from these sites are often only taken annually, thus toxin levels could be higher or lower depending on timing. There are also variations of monitoring by the EPA based on the size of the CAFO, which is determined by animal type and number. I found it shocking that “small” CAFOs are only monitored on a case by case basis. A facility housing less than 37,500 chickens is considered small. Does that seem like an insignificant number that should be excluded from monitoring? What I find most disturbing is that this contamination can continue to occur years after the lagoon in no longer is use. In the case report above, toxins were detected 2 years after one of the CAFO sites was closed down. The EPA is also constantly revising these regulations, which is concerning since some have been reversed after observing the adverse effect or ineffectiveness of the policy. Without more consistent and stringent monitoring and regulation, I feel safer being more conservative with our zoning policies. Although estimates vary, 40% to 87% of all antibiotics produced in the U.S. are used in animal feeds to promote growth (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817683/). One complication is that antibiotic degradation products may be almost as potent as the parent compounds, and yet may be more mobile in soil (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12966963). This hasn’t been studied to the extent that would really allow us to understand how the bi-products of what these animals are fed impact human health. However, there are numerous reports of workers from these facilities developing antibiotic resistance and allergies to most of our current antibiotics. What will happen when we stop responding to the current antibiotics for the treatment of common illnesses? I work in the pharmaceutical industry and I can tell you that development of new antibiotics is not a priority, and thus our options are limited. The Peaks of Otter and Smith Mountain Lake are two of the most beautiful attractions for our county, and tourism provides revenue to our local businesses. Due to the increased value of lake front homes, the tax revenue from the homes located on the lake are important to our local government revenue. The presence of CAFO also has negative impacts on property values. I found this resource to be an excellent example and compilation of references referring to the impact of the presence of CAFO on property values. In 2007 the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy reported that proximity to a CAFO can reduce the value of a home by 40%. In 2013, the National Association of Realtors published “A Field Guide on the Impacts of Animal Feedlots on Property Values” University of Northern Iowa published “An Analyisis of the Impact of Swine CAFOs on the Value of Nearby Houses” reporting large adverse impacts suffered by houses that are within 3 miles and directly downwind from a CAFO are found. This should be a concern for any property owner in the county considering these amendments would allow a facility within 250 feet of a common property line. I’d like to end by asking you what you perceive the positive attributes of these zoning changes to be? How do you foresee these proposed changes making our community more user friendly for these industry farms? CAFO are welcome to set up camp in our county now, they just have to make a little extra effort to do it. Why should we risk our beautiful environment to make it easier for them? CAFO produce similar amounts of toxins as chemical and pharmaceutical facilities do but they don’t supply jobs to our community. Most of these facilities employ only a handful of people and offer low paying wages. I’d like to ask you what perceived benefits to our community are worth risking our environmental safety, our land values, our health and our tourism. I have to assume there is some tax or revenue benefit to having these facilities in our county. Regardless, if these facilities decrease land values and ultimately the tax revenue, how do you see this as beneficial? How much money would the county lose if Smith Mountain Lake had to close due to pollution, or if our beautiful mountain streams were impacted? What impact would this have on our revenue from tourism? Who is responsible for cleaning up a mishap? It is my understanding that taxpayers pay for CAFO clean up through assistance from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Currently Representative Saunders from Indiana has proposed legislation for CAFOs to set aside funds to pay for cleanup in case of environmental spills. Is this because he has witnessed firsthand who actually pays for these mishaps? Who pays for the costs of updating these facilities when regulations change? I want to thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I hope you will consider the true and full impact these facilities could have on our community when considering these zoning changes. I am not against farming or industry as long as it occurs responsibly. If you have any questions or you would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact me. Kind Regards, – CB]]>

The post Farm Owner and Scientist Speaks Out On Bedford CAFOs Debate appeared first on Land and Table.

The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives

Jason F. — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:35:49 +0000

another essay by agricultural economist, John Ikerd, who has repeatedly warned that industrial meat production and CAFOs (aka: concentrated animal feeding operations) are negatively impacting rural communities all over our nation – and have been doing so for along time. Will we listen? And will we consider the sustainable alternatives?

CAFOs, meaning large-scale confinement animal feeding operations, are the epitome of industrial agriculture. Therefore, the economics impacts of CAFOs on rural communities are a direct reflection of the economic nature of industrial agriculture. The agricultural establishment[iii] boasts loudly about the economic efficiency of American agriculture. Each decade since the 1930s, fewer American farmers have been able to feed more Americans with an ever-decreasing share of consumers’ incomes spent for food. This has been a direct consequence industrialization of American agriculture, as reflected in ever-increasing specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control into fewer, larger operations. The economic efficiency of industrial agriculture has been impressive, but what about the long run economic costs? The quest for economic efficiency has transformed American agriculture from a system of small, diversified, independently operated, family farms into a system of large-scale, mechanized, corporately controlled agribusinesses. In the process, millions of farm families have been forced off their land and thousands of small farming communities have withered or died. The social costs have been undeniably tremendous, but since they aren’t economic costs, they have gone uncounted. There are no short run economic benefits from investing in healthy rural communities. The ecological costs of economic efficiency also have gone uncounted and thus largely ignored. Today, only the most diehard industrialists bother to deny that industrial farming has degraded the productivity of the land through erosion and contamination and has polluted the natural environment, including streams and groundwater, with chemical pesticides, fertilizers, infectious diseases and other biological contaminants from livestock manure. However, there are no short run economic benefits from protecting the natural environment. The basic problem arises from the fact that economic value is inherently individualistic. Since economic value accrues to individuals, it must be expected to accrue during the lifetime of the individual. Life is inherently uncertain; so, economics places a premium on the present relative to the future. At a market determined interest rate of 7%, for example, economic benefits expected to accrue a decade in the future are worth less than fifty cents on the dollar today. Economic value, being individualistic, simply does not include value that accrues to society or humanity. It makes no economic sense to invest in protecting or renewing natural or human resources if benefits accrue to those of future generations, rather than to individual investors. However, all economic value ultimately arises from either natural or human resources. Once the economic productivity of nature and society is depleted, there will be no source of economic value. Based on everything we know about nature and society, the economy places far too little value on the future to ensure that those of future generations will be able to meet their basic economic needs. Regardless of when the earth’s resources are ultimately depleted, an industrial economy driven by the economic bottom line, which includes industrial agriculture, quite simply is not sustainable. CAFOs epitomize of this lack of sustainability. Virtually every argument made in support of CAFOs is based their supposed economic benefits to rural communities. However, CAFOs have consistently failed to live up to the economic promises. CAFOs may generate profits for a few local investors but they do not promote rural economic development. CAFO operators do business wherever they can get the best deal, which typically is not in the local community. They routinely place greater demands on local roads and bridges than they pay in local taxes. The few low-paying jobs go mostly to immigrants to the community, whose demands for new public services outweigh any additions to the local tax base. In addition, most of the short run economic benefits typically go to outside corporate investors. While the promised economic benefits of CAFOs are illusions, their environmental and social costs are real. Today, there is no legitimate basis for the denial of those costs. Virtually every socioeconomic study done on the subject in the past 50-years has shown that both the social and economic quality of life is better in communities characterized by small, diversified family farms. Even in cases where larger, specialized farming operations have brought more jobs and total income to communities, they have also brought greater inequity in income distribution. The rich got richer and the rest became poorer, leaving communities with fewer middle-income taxpayers to support education, health care, and other local public services. The only studies finding anything positive about CAFOs are those that focused solely on short run economic impacts, while ignoring the negative impacts of income inequity on overall quality of life in communities. A 2006 study commissioned by the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office provides a review of 56 socioeconomic studies concerning the impacts of industrial agriculture on rural communities. It concluded: “Based on the evidence generated by social science research, we conclude that public concern about the detrimental community impacts of industrialized farming is warranted. In brief, this conclusion rests on five decades of government and academic concern with this topic, a concern that has not abetted but that has grown more intense in recent years, as the social and environmental problems associated with large animal confinement operations [CAFOs] have become widely recognized (italics added).”[1] CAFOs are the epitome of industrial agriculture and industrial agriculture simply cannot sustain rural communities. Reams of scientific reports also document clear linkages between the obvious air and water pollution from CAFOs and public health risks. Those risks include contamination of air, water, soil, and foods with toxic chemicals, infectious diseases, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and E. coli 0157:H7.[2] A prestigious commission funded by the Pew Charitable Trust concluded in their 2008 report, “The current industrial farm animal production system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals… the negative effects of the system are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore. Significant changes must be implemented and must start now.”[3] The preponderance of scientific evidence leaves little credible doubt that CAFOs represent significant environmental and health risks to rural residents. As CAFOs degrade the social and ecological integrity of rural communities, they are destroying the foundation for future economic prosperity. Even so, people in rural communities are told by the agricultural establishment there are simply no logical alternatives to large-scale, corporately controlled agriculture. They claim we simply must have industrial agriculture to feed a growing global population. They dismiss the new opportunities for farmers emerging in response to food safety, environmental, and social concerns as small niche markets that hold promise for only a few, small, specialty farmers. However, the reality again is quite different. Together, the new markets for foods produced by socially and ecologically responsible farming methods – sustainably produced foods – are creating the future of American agriculture. The market for organic foods has been growing at a rate approaching 20% per year over the past 20 years, doubling every three to four years. This growing preference for organic is not simply a reflection of consumers trying to avoid pesticide and agrichemical residues in their foods. They are concerned about genetically modified foods, hormones and antibiotics, e-coli, obesity, and a wide range of social and ethical issues, including the impacts of their food choices on farmers, farm workers, farm animals, and stewardship of our land and water resources. They want food with ecological and social integrity – food they can trust. Recent surveys indicate that around three-fourths of American consumers have a strong preference for locally grown foods preferably grown on small family farms. They want to know where their food comes from, how it is produced, and who produced it. A growing number of Americans have simply lost confidence in the integrity of the corporations and the government agencies with whom the integrity of the food system has been entrusted. Increasingly, they are buying as much of their food as possible from local sources – from people they know and trust. Among the most profitable of the new sustainable/local alternatives are grass-based, free-range, and pastured livestock and poultry. Pastured and free-range poultry production became popular because of growing concerns about health and food safety and about inhumane growing conditions in industrial poultry production. Grass-based livestock operations initially gained popularity because of low investment requirements and low cost of production. However, it has become increasingly popular because of evidence of important health benefits in grass-fed products compared with products from animals fed in confinement. Pastured and free-range livestock production also allows producers to avoid hormones and antibiotic concerns and to meet the humane standards of production demanded by an increasing number of consumers. Producing hogs on deep bedding in hoop houses provides another viable alternative to the slatted floors, cramped crates, and manure lagoons of CAFOs. Studies at Iowa State University have shown that hogs can be produced in hoop houses just as efficiently as in CAFOs; they just require more and better management. Studies at various universities have shown grass-based dairy farms to be more profitable than confinement dairy operations, in fact, among the most profitable of all farming operations. When farmers take the initiative to process and market their own meat, milk, and cheese directly to caring consumers, their profits are often multiplied. The markets for sustainable/local meats and milk are growing far faster than are the numbers of farmers willing to produce for these new markets. The number of farmers markets – where meat, cheese, and eggs are taking their place along with local produce – has more than doubled in the past ten years. Increasingly, CSA’s and food buying clubs are offering their subscribers animal products along with vegetables and berries.[4] Sustainable livestock, dairy, and poultry producers also have opportunities to market through local and regional cooperatives and organizations such as Organic Valley, Country Natural Beef, Shepherd’s Grain, and Red Tomato.[5] There are a growing number of profitable and sustainable alternatives for farmers. CAFOs represent the agriculture of the past, not the agriculture of the future. Contrary to claims of critics, sustainable farmers can produce just as much or more food than can their industrial farming neighbors. Sustainable farming just requires more intensive management – meaning more imagination and creativity, a better understanding of the land and people, and a commitment to working in harmony with nature and society. As a result, sustainable farming will require more farmers to produce enough food for the future, but what’s wrong with having more thinking, caring farmers? In addition, sustainable farming relies less on fossil energy and releases fewer greenhouse gasses, both of which will diminish any economic advantages for industrial agriculture in the future. Industrial agriculture simply cannot meet the needs of future generations; we must create a sustainable agriculture that can. In summary, the highly touted productivity and efficiency of industrial agriculture is largely an economic illusion. In fact, food in America isn’t really all that cheap; most of us are simply in a position to avoid paying the full costs of our food. Some our food costs have been paid by family farmers who have been driven out of business or to the verge of bankruptcy. Some have been paid by rural communities that have withered and died as farm families have been forced off the land. And some have been paid by migrants and other farm workers who see no alternative to exploitative wages and working conditions. These unpaid costs are paid by people who, through no fault of their own, are at the mercy of those with more economic power. Much of the food costs we don’t pay are being billed to our children, grandchildren, and others of future generations. When our choices of “cheap food” lead to environmental degradation and social injustice, we are not really avoiding those costs; we are simply charging them to future generations by destroying the social and ecological foundation for their economy. Those of future generations can’t express their preferences and values either in the marketplace or at the ballot box. They can’t choose to pay the full cost of food nor can they redirect government programs to support agricultural sustainability. They must depend on us. People in rural America today are confronted with choices that will shape their future, for either better or worse. Many rural places still have clean air, clean water, open spaces, scenic landscapes, and opportunities for a life of peace, quiet, and privacy. The people in many rural communities still have a sense of belonging; the people know and care about each other. Crime rates are still low and a sense of safety and security is the norm. These attributes are becoming increasingly scarce, even in rural America, and thus are becoming increasingly valuable. Now is the time for rural people to rise up and reclaim their right to protect their community, their environment, and their economy from industrial agriculture. Now is the time for rural people to confront the economic realities of industrial agriculture and to choose the alternative of agricultural sustainability. Now is the time for rural people to create good places to live, where their children and children’s children will choose to live and can flourish in the future. Now is the time for rural people to break free of the forces of short run, individual economic self-interest and to invest in the long run economic future of their communities.

End Notes [i] Prepared for presentation at Annual Meeting of Jefferson County Farmers and Neighbors Inc., Fairfield, IA, October 7, 2009. [ii] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable Capitalism, http://www.kpbooks.com , A Return to Common Sense, http://www.rtedwards.com/books/171/, Small Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA , http://www.acresusa.com/other/contact.htm,and Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press http://nebraskapress.unl.edu; Email: JEIkerd@centurytel.net; Website: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/. [iii] The “agricultural establishment” refers to The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Universities, Farm Commodity Organizations, The Farm Bureau Federation, and Agribusiness Corporations. [1] Curtis Stofferahn, “Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: an Update of the 2000 Report by Linda Labao,” special report prepared for the North Dakota, Office of Attorney General, http://www.und.edu/org/ndrural/Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf (accessed December 2006). [2] Robert Lawrence, MD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Superfund Laws and Animal Agriculture,” Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, November 16, 2005. http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/11162005hearing1714/Lawrence.pdf [3] Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production: Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=38438 , full report, http://www.ncifap.org/. [4] Oklahoma Food Cooperative, http://www.oklahomafood.coop/ and Idaho’s Bounty http://www.idahosbounty.org/ [5] Agriculture of the Middle, “Value Chain Case Studies Provide Mid-Scale Food Enterprises,” http://www.agofthemiddle.org/]]>

The post The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives appeared first on Land and Table.

Community Health Impacts of Factory Farms: Dr. Steve Wing (Video)

Jason F. — Mon, 26 May 2014 17:31:11 +0000

The post Community Health Impacts of Factory Farms: Dr. Steve Wing (Video) appeared first on Land and Table.

The Hidden Costs of Factory Farming (in Bedford County and beyond)

Jason F. — Fri, 09 May 2014 00:54:49 +0000

Here is another one of several talks I will be posting related to factory farming and CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) by John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia. “John was raised on a small dairy farm in southwest Missouri and received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Missouri. He worked in private industry for a time and spent thirty years in various professorial positions at North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University, University of Georgia, and the University of Missouri before retiring in early 2000. Since retiring, he spends most of his time writing and speaking on issues related to sustainability with an emphasis on economics and agriculture.” (source)

The Hidden Costs of Factory Farming I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this national conference to end factory farming; it is a very worthwhile and timely mission, in fact is long overdue. The emphasis of the conference quite logically is on large-scale confinement animal feeding operations, as these so-called CAFOs are the epitome of factory farming. I have been involved in the war against CAFOs for more than 15 years now, going back to the mid-1990s. While we have been winning more of the battles recently, we are a long way from winning the war. More of our meat, milk, and eggs are produced in CAFOs every year. First it was poultry, then beef, then pork, and now dairy production has been forced off independent family farms and into giant animal factories. So, why haven’t we won the war? I am going to focus my response to that question on the economic reasons. I am one of the few agricultural economists who have been willing to critically evaluate CAFOs. I assume that’s the reason I was invited to this conference. First, I think most people have been led to believe that CAFOs are the most economically efficient means of producing animal products. Consumers are told that farmers can’t provide adequate meat, milk, and eggs for the hungry people of the world without CAFOs, or at least that food costs will be so high that many people won’t be able to afford adequate protein in their diets. However, USDA data on food consumption clearly refute those claims. For example, trends in per capita production of beef and pork in the U.S. has remained basically flat during the transition from family farms to CAFOs. Poultry production has increased for other reasons, and has continued to increase long after the industry was taken over by CAFOs. In fact red meat consumption has actually declined in recent years. Retail prices have also remained basically constant, after considering inflation. Any reduction in farm level costs of production have been offset by wider profit margins for food processors and retailers. Consumers have not benefitted economically from CAFOs. Second, most people don’t consider the socio-economic costs of CAFOs. Rural residents are told that CAFOs are the future of farming. If they oppose CAFOs they are not only threatening the economic future of American farmers but are destroying the economic foundation for rural communities. In truth, CAFOS are the end of real farming in America. They are factories, not farms. They drive real farmers out of business, not because they are more economically efficient but because they have more economic and political power. They are able to manipulate market prices and garner government subsidies to mask their actual lack of ability to compete with independent family farms. There is no future for farmers in an industry dominated by CAFOs. Regardless, CAFOs have been successfully promoted as an economic development strategy for depressed rural communities. However, the promised employment turns out to be low-paying jobs, without benefits, that go primarily to people who move into CAFO communities. Few local people are willing to work under the dangerous and degrading conditions that exist in CAFOs. Most of the profits from factory farms go to outside corporate investors, not to local farmers or rural residents. Any local tax benefits are more than offset by higher costs to repair roads and bridges damaged by the large trucks that service CAFOs and by increased costs of education, health care, and law enforcement made necessary by people who move into communities to work in the CAFOs. Perhaps most important, the controversy that inevitably surrounds CAFOs rips the social fabric of rural communities asunder. CAFO proponents invariably rely on economic impact assessment models to project how many jobs will be created by CAFOs and how much economic benefit will accrue to local communities. These models can be easily manipulated to generate just about any result you want. We don’t need to rely on economic models. We now have decades of economic data and socio-economic studies clearly documenting that communities without CAFOs are better places to live – aesthetically, socially, and economically.[iii] Perhaps most telling, no rural community where CAFOs represent a major aspect of the local economy is looked to by other communities as a model for rural economic development. A third reason we haven’t won the war against CAFOs is that people still don’t understand the environmental costs of CAFOs, in spite of modest success in this regard. The environmental costs are readily apparent in air pollution, water pollution, and associated health risks for those who work in CAFOs and live in CAFO communities. For example, the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health has assembled an abundance of scientific studies concerning the contamination of air, water, soil, and foods with toxic chemicals, infectious diseases, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and E. coli 0157:H7.[iv] A prestigious commission funded by the Pew Charitable Trust concluded in their 2008 report, “The current industrial farm animal production system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals… the negative effects of the system are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore.”[v] Last, and perhaps most important, CAFO advocates have been able to use “wedge issues” to weaken public opposition to CAFOs. They label CAFO opponents as “outsiders who don’t understand farming,” although many local opponents are multi-generation family farmer. They label opponents as radical environmentalists who are willing to destroy agriculture to restore pristine streams and natural areas or to protect endangered species. They label opponents as “animal rightist” who care more about the comfort of animals than the welfare of people. They have been able to use these wedges to splinter CAFO opponents into separate camps that are unable or unwilling to work together on public initiatives, even though they obviously agree in their opposition to CAFOs. More specifically to this conference, they are able to drive wedges between those who believe in animal agriculture and those who oppose animal agriculture. If we are to win the war against CAFOs, we must find common ground on which to fight the battles. First, we need to focus on the fundamental problem; not on specific environmental, social, or ethical consequences. The factory farming systems as a whole is the source of all these problems and the solution is not to fix specific problems but to eliminate the system as a whole. Second, we need to find and focus on our areas of agreement. Both advocates and opponents of animal agriculture agree animals must be treated with respect, which is totally lacking in CAFOs. We also agree that public health is a major concern and that CAFOs are a major contributor to public health problems. We need to set our philosophical differences aside, at least for a time. If we can’t work together to eliminate CAFOs we are not going to be able to protect family farms, rural communities, or farm animals. We must be willing to allow time and further enlightenment to evolve toward a fuller understanding of relationships between humans and farm animals. End Notes:

[i] Prepared for a panel presentation at “The National Conference to End Factory Farming,” sponsored by The Farm Sanctuary, Washington, DC, October 27-29, 2011.

[ii] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable Capitalism, http://www.kpbooks.com , A Return to Common Sense, http://amazon.com , Small Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA , http://www.acresusa.com/other/contact.htm, Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press http://nebraskapress.unl.edu; and A Revolution of the Middle and the Pursuit of Happiness, on line at http://sites.google.com/site/revolutionofthemiddle/ . Email: JEIkerd@centurytel.net; Website: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/ or http://www.johnikerd.com .

[iii] Curtis Stofferahn, “Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: an Update of the 2000 Report by Linda Labao,” special report prepared for the North Dakota, Office of Attorney General, http://www.und.edu/org/ndrural/Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf .

[iv] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Gateway Project. http://aphg.jhsph.edu

[v] Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production: Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=38438 , full report, http://www.ncifap.org/.

]]>

The post The Hidden Costs of Factory Farming (in Bedford County and beyond) appeared first on Land and Table.

An Agricultural Economist's Public Concerns About CAFOs

Jason F. — Thu, 08 May 2014 21:33:08 +0000

Here is one of several talks I will be posting related to factory farming and CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) by John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia. “John was raised on a small dairy farm in southwest Missouri and received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Missouri. He worked in private industry for a time and spent thirty years in various professorial positions at North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University, University of Georgia, and the University of Missouri before retiring in early 2000. Since retiring, he spends most of his time writing and speaking on issues related to sustainability with an emphasis on economics and agriculture.” (source)

Going Public with Concerns about CAFOs Finally, the promoters of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, are on the defensive – after many years of persistent opposition. The general public is beginning to awaken to the problems and perils of CAFOs. The war against CAFOs may be far from won, but the tide of the battle seems to be turning. As might be expected at this point, the defenders of CAFOs have mounted major counteroffensives all across the country. For example, the US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) is a new national public relations initiative defending so-called modern, industrial agriculture. It is supported by a multi-million dollar annual budget provided by major agricultural commodity organizations and agribusiness corporations.[i] Bob Stallman who is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, a major promoter of CAFOs, also serves as chairman of the USFRA. The primary objective of the organization is to defend modern industrial agriculture against a growing wave of public concerns, as the public relations firm in charge of USFRA propaganda readily admits. Several states have formed “Farmers Care” organizations with similar missions and are collaborating with USFRA to portray a positive public image for industrial agriculture, which includes a series of public forums or “Food Dialogues.”[ii] “Breakfasts on the Farm” have become popular events where the public is invited to visit local farms for breakfast.[iii] These groups claim to be advocates for all types of farms, which is but a thinly-disguised effort to obscure their obvious pro-corporate/industrial agriculture bias. Naturally, CAFOs are highlighted in the current “defense of farming” initiatives, since CAFOs are the epitome of so-called modern, industrial agriculture. Young families who own CAFOs are featured in videos as the faces of modern agriculture. These families talk about their love of farming, concern for their communities, and their commitments to caring for their animals and protecting the environment. CAFOs are touted as the only means many multi-generational farmers have for continuing the family tradition of farming. The USFRA website defines “food safety, animal welfare, water quality, and consumer prices and choices” as their major lines of defense.[iv] With respect of animal welfare, the propaganda claims animals in CAFOs are actually treated more humanely than in previous non-confinement facilities. They claim confinement buildings are well-ventilated to keep animals cool in the summer and can be closed in the winter to protect animals from the cold. Baby pigs are provided a warmer environment during winter farrowing and farrowing crates protect them from accidental crushing by their mothers. They claim slotted concrete floors provide a much cleaner environment that do open lots or pastures, and efficient ventilation systems provide animals with plenty of clean, fresh air. CAFOs are portrayed as veritable pork palaces where happy pigs lead peaceful lives of perpetual comfort. Proponents also claim that CAFOs are actually better for water quality, and the environment in general, than were the pastures or open feed lots. They tout the effectiveness of modern manure management systems, with comprehensive manure plans that include details of where and when manure will be spread. Modern manure storage facilities that allow manure to be spread only one or two times a year are replacing open manure “lagoons,” thus minimizing any odor problems for neighbors. CAFO proponents claim that neighbors who continue to complain about odors or water quality problems are people from cities who have moved into rural areas and don’t understand the environmental realities of farming. After all, CAFOs are subjected to strict U.S. and state environmental regulation, so they claim. CAFO proponents respond to food safety concerns with proclamations that Americans have the safest, most healthful food system in the world. They tout the biosecurity and other sanitation measures taken by CAFOs as a reflection of commitment by modern agriculture to ensuring food safety as well as minimizing diseases. Organic, free-range, pasture-based, and other systems of livestock and poultry production are touted as means of providing consumers with choices. The clear message is that other producers should reciprocate by not saying anything derogatory about CAFOs. Whenever food safety concerns break through into headlines, however, CAFO advocates are quick to direct public scrutiny to organic production practices or to smaller, less-regulated operations, such as farmers markets and direct sales of raw milk. Laws against criticizing industrial food products (veggie libel laws) have been largely ineffective, so industrial agriculture has turned to public relations as a means of silencing criticism. Continuing concerns regarding a variety of public health risks associated with CAFOs are brushed aside as being anecdotal and lacking in scientific credibility. In an attempt to seal their case, proponents claim CAFOs are the only means of providing consumers with adequate quantities of meat, milk, and eggs at affordable prices. The groups point to the growth in CAFOs as clear and compelling evidence that CAFO are simply a rational producer response to consumer demand. They argue that CAFOs could not have displaced the smaller livestock and poultry operations if CAFOs were not more economically efficient in providing the products that consumers need and want. Even if some consumer have concerns about animal welfare, the environment, and food safety, proponents claim that such concerns are small prices to pay for the economic benefits of CAFOs. Nothing worthwhile in life is ever without some risks. Obviously, more people are concerned about keeping prices low than about any added risks associated with CAFOs; otherwise we wouldn’t have CAFOs. In general, CAFO proponents blame growing public concerns for animal welfare and environment issues on radical “animal rights” and environmental groups that are more concerned about funding their organizations than protecting animals or the environment. Those who are concerned about food safety and the demise of family farms are labeled as “Luddites” or “idealists” who resist progress or long to return to some idealistic past that never really existed. After all, farmers depend on healthy animals and fertile soil for their livelihood, they say. Voluntary compliance with industry-defined standards of good management practices is all that is needed. The impersonal forces of a free-market economy has chosen CAFOs: Case closed! Most long-time veterans of the CAFO wars know the fallacies of such claims, but proponents are banking on being able to sell their pro-CAFO propaganda to a largely-uninformed general public. This means that CAFO opponents must to be willing to move their battles beyond the concerns of rural communities and into the larger arena of general public opinion. Although CAFO opponents lack the corporate funding of those who promote CAFOs, we have one important advantage: We don’t have to rely on false propaganda; we only need to tell the truth. First, we need to continually remind the public that opponents of CAFOs are not opponents of “real agriculture” or “real farming.” Although there are many “bad actors” among CAFO owners and operators, in truth, many others are simply “good people” who have become entrapped in a “bad system.” In fact, most opponents of CAFOs are actually proponents of animal agriculture. We oppose CAFOs because they are the epitome of everything that is wrong about large-scale, specialized, standardized, corporately-controlled industrial agriculture. We also need to admit that it may be theoretically possible to plan, construct, and operate a CAFO in a manner that would not threaten the natural environment or public health. The problem is that CAFOs don’t operate in a theoretical world; they must cope with the vagaries of an unpredictable reality. CAFOs operators can host “breakfasts on the farm” and visits by various dignitaries because, for at least for a few days, they can clean up their act and operate responsibly when it’s needed for good public relations. While some CAFOs may not harm the environment some of the time, the hard, cold truth is that whenever a significant number are located in a given area, one or more of the CAFOs will be polluting the environment at any given time, and any one of them will be polluting at least some of the time. If CAFOs are models of environmental stewardship, why has the US EPA found 35,000 miles of rivers and groundwater in 17 states polluted by CAFOs?[v] Why have the number of waterways labeled as “impaired” by the Iowa DNR jumped from 215 in 1987 to 642 in 2012, as CAFOs took over the Iowa hog industry?[vi] The fact that some streams are still clean and some water wells are still not contaminated, is not a logical defense. If such pollution is a result of irresponsible management, then irresponsible management obviously is widespread and ongoing among CAFO operators. The pollutants originating from CAFOs include nitrogen, phosphorus, antibiotics, pesticides, and heavy metals. Municipalities along these streams have been forced to add costly waste treatment facilities to mitigate the effects of CAFOs on their drinking water. Why have massive “dead zones” have been created in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and elsewhere by CAFOs and the large-scale, chemical-intensive, industrial corn and soybean operations that provide their feed grains. These consequences are not the result of a “few bad actors;” these are characteristic of an under-regulated “industry.” The environmental regulation of CAFOs has been largely ineffective because CAFO proponents have convinced lawmakers that CAFOs are farms, not factories, and farming is exempted from many environmental regulations. Meanwhile, the “right to farm” has resulted in about 800 officially reported manure spills in Iowa since 1995, and numbers of polluted steams and water wells continue to grow.[vii] These are facts, not propaganda. If CAFOs are havens for humane care of animals, why have CAFO proponents promoted “Ag Gag Laws” in virtually every significant livestock producing state? These laws make it a crime for anyone, including employees of CAFOs, to take pictures that document animal abuse or environmental violations. There would be no motive for Ag Gag Laws if animals in CAFOs were treated as well every day as they are when the public is invited for “breakfast on the farm” or when visiting politicians are bought through on public relations tours. Real farmers should be proud to have scenes from their farms video recorded and shown on YouTube. The cold, hard truth is that while animals may appear to be well-treated in some CAFOs some of the time, some animals are horribly abused in some operations some of the time, and all suffer from “unnatural confinement” all of the time. Admittedly, major anti-CAFO initiatives have been mounted by mainstream animal protection organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States and the Farm Sanctuary. These initiatives have focused on providing more space for animals in confinement systems. However, there is simply no way that massive numbers of animals can be treated humanely while in the large confinement facilities that typify CAFOs. Farm animals did not evolve to live in confinement any more so than humans evolved to live in prisons. There is simply no opportunity to afford farm animals the dignity and respect that must precede humane treatment when the animals are confined in large-scale concentrated feeding operations. Animals are sentient, feeling, living organisms or beings, not inanimate mechanisms. Real farmers treat animals with dignity and respect – even when they ultimately are to be used for human food. CAFO proponents respond to food safety and other public health concerns with platitudes rather than facts concerns, because public health may well be the Achilles’ heel of CAFOs. CAFOs have been linked to numerous illnesses and even deaths caused by chemical and biological contamination of streams and groundwater. The odors from CAFOs are not just an obvious and obnoxious nuisance but also contain chemical compounds that are known to contribute to a variety of respiratory illnesses. CAFOs are also natural breeding grounds for a variety of harmful pathogens. Massive recalls of contaminated foods have become almost commonplace in the U.S. One such recall involved billions of eggs as a result of contamination with salmonella. A deadly version of the common E. coli bacteria, E-Coli 0157:H7, has caused illness and death and has resulted in a number of nationwide food recalls. This pathogen has resulted from feeding high-energy grain rations to animals that have evolved to eat forages. Other organisms originating in CAFOs, including campylobacter and cryptosporidium,contribute to illnesses of millions of Americans each year. Perhaps most significant among the public health risks associated with CAFOs is the dramatic increase in instances of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA, which reportedly kills more Americans than AIDS. An estimated 80 percent of all antibiotics produced in the United States are used in animal agriculture, many of which are also used to treat diseases in humans. Numerous studies by reputable public health institutions have documented that antibiotics use in CAFOs has contributed to the development of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing pathogens.[viii] CAFO operators routinely give sub-therapeutic or small doses of antibiotics to animals to make them grow faster and prevent disease outbreaks among the animals in close confinement. The small doses are not sufficient to kill all members of a given strain of bacteria, which allows the most resistant organisms to multiply and eventually dominate the bacteria strain. CAFOs are degrading the entire health-care system of the United States. In spite of growing concerns, CAFOs have continued to grow. Contrary to the claims of proponents, however, the growth in CAFOs is not a response to consumer demands. CAFOs are not more economically efficient than many of the well-managed independent farming operations they have forced out of business. CAFOs need only be more efficient than the least-efficient one-third to one-half of independent producers to gain a sufficient share of the market to displace the remaining more-efficient producers. Most corporations that produce through CAFOs are “vertically integrated,” meaning they control more than one stage in the production process. Vertically-integrated corporations can keep retail and wholesale prices high during periods of cyclical oversupply and thus keep live animal prices low enough for long enough to force even the most-efficient of independent producers out of business. Once CAFOs dominate a market, periodic oversupply situations are addressed by manipulating or cancelling contracts with growers, which keeps retail prices high and corporate margins at highly profitable levels for stockholders. As a result, CAFOs would not necessarily result in lower prices for meat, milk, and eggs for consumers, even if they were more economically efficient than independent producers. This is not anti-CAFO propaganda. USDA statistics clearly show that retail prices for meat, milk, and eggs have continued to rise, in some cases rise dramatically, as animal production was moving off of independent family farms and into contract CAFOs.[ix] As the market power of corporate contractors grows, the price spreads between farm-level prices and retail prices widen, leaving retail prices even higher than before. In addition, much of the recent increases in meat produced in CAFOs in going to export markets rather than to reduce food costs for American consumers. As if to punctuate this trend, the largest Chinese meat packing company is in the process of buying Smithfield Foods, the largest U.S. meat packer. CAFOs are designed to benefit corporate investors – not farmers, not rural communities, and not consumers. Once the independent producers were eliminated from the mainstream food system, consumers were left without alternatives to CAFOs. That’s the reason why alternatives to CAFOs, such as organic, free-range, and natural food products are now emerging: To give consumers a real choice. When all else fails to silence consumer concerns, CAFOs proponents point out that a certain amount of risk to the environment and public health is inherent in any worthwhile economic activity, including CAFOs. Admittedly, there are inevitable and necessary risks in life. However, there are “no economic benefits” from CAFOs to offset their obvious environmental, animal welfare, or public health risks. These conclusions are not based on idealism or emotion. The pendulum of “good science” has swung in opposition to CAFOs. There are reams of scientific studies that confirm the growing public concerns about CAFOs. [x] The proponent’s only defense is an ambitious program of pro-CAFO propaganda designed to mask the cold, hard truth. In response to the propaganda, we must stress that we are not opposed to farmers or ranchers, but we are opposed to any system of production that threatens the health and well-being of both rural and urban Americans. The CAFO promoters are using “good people” to protect a “bad system.” Until now, most of our efforts have focused on issues of greatest concern to people in rural communities. To confront the new propaganda campaign, we must expand the perimeter of the battleground to embrace the growing concerns about broader issues, such an animal protection and public health. These are issues that affect everyone. These are the issues that have spurred CAFO proponents into their defensive strategies. These are the issues on which we can ultimately win the war against CAFOs. To win, we will need to build bridges between rural and urban America and go public with the growing concerns about CAFOs. That said, we must not falter or fade in our battle to help people in rural communities defend themselves from the continuing onslaught of CAFOs. The defenders of CAFOs are relentless in their arguments that CAFOs are essential for the economic viability of family farms and rural communities, regardless of public concerns about the environment, animal welfare, or public health. The USDA, state departments of agriculture, and major agricultural universities are all promoting CAFOs as the future of animal agriculture and the economic foundation of rural America. It’s difficult to blame people who listen to those they should be able to trust. So, we must continue to emphasize that CAFOs are not a logical strategy for rural economic development, regardless of what those in our public institutions may claim. CAFOs are not the future of farming. They are not real farms and are in fact destroying the future of farming. Between 1980 and 2008, years of major growth in CAFOs, the U.S.D.A. statistics indicate the number of beef cattle operations fell by 41%, the total number of hog farms declined by 90%, and the number of dairy farms fell by 80%.[xi] Between 1992 and 2004 alone, the number of hog farms fell by more than 70 percent, whereas the inventory of total hog numbers remained stable.[xii] The CAFOs weren’t producing more hogs; they were just producing a similar number of hogs with far fewer hog farmers. This is not propaganda but fact: CAFOs drive real farmers out of business. The number of independent producers displaced by CAFOs is inevitably greater than the number of people employed by CAFOs. CAFOs gain their economic advantage by specializing in specific phases of livestock or poultry production, which allows production processes to be standardized, routinized, and mechanized. As a result CAFOs can be operated without skilled labourers and each worker can oversee more animals and each owner/investor can control more CAFO operations. CAFOs are factories, not farms. Any economic advantages of CAFOs result from reducing labor costs and spreading management costs over more animals. As a result, CAFOs inevitably employ fewer people at lower levels of compensation in the process of producing a given number of animals than do non-factory operations. As a result of the low-pay and poor working conditions, most people employed in CAFOs are not local residents but immigrants into rural areas who are desperate for work. These immigrants may be good, hard-working people, but they create increased needs for education, health care, law enforcement, and other public services – at least proportionate to their numbers. Increased traffic of heavy trucks on local roads and bridges also add economic burdens to local governments. CAFOs typically add little to local tax revenues, as they often receive preferential tax assessments. In addition, CAFOs tend to do business with companies in major trade centers rather than with local businesses. Perhaps most telling, no community in the U.S. that relies on CAFOs as its economic foundation is looked to as a model for rural economic development. The impacts of CAFOs are a bit different for each community, but the basic issues are the same. Invariably, some few people in CAFO communities benefit economically, while others suffer the inherently negative ecological, social, and economic consequences of CAFOs. Perhaps no single issue has been as disruptive of life in rural America as when local proponents and opponents of CAFOs confront each other and the rest of the community is forced to choose sides. Regardless of the ultimate outcomes, communities invariably suffer from these conflicts. Rural people have the same basic democratic rights as other Americans, including the rights of self-determination and self-defense. These rights are being systematically denied when rural people are told they must rely on so-called experts to decide when their health is threatened – that rural people are incapable of reading scientific reports and drawing their own conclusions. The rights of rural people are being systematically denied when rural people are told they must trust public officials with obvious economic and political ties to CAFOs to protect them from the threats CAFOs inevitable pose to the overall well-being of people in rural communities. We must continue to defend the democratic rights of rural Americas to protect themselves from CAFOs, even as we expand our efforts to refute the current barrage of pro-CAFO propaganda with truth.

End Notes [1] Prepared for presentation at CAFO Conference, sponsored by Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens Group, York, PA; September 7, 2013. [2] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable Capitalism, and Essentials of Economic Sustainability, http://www.kpbooks.com , A Return to Common Sense, http://Amazon.com, Small Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA , http://www.acresusa.com/other/contact.htm, Crisis and Opportunity in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press http://nebraskapress.unl.edu; and A Revolution of the Middle and the Pursuit of Happiness, online: http://sites.google.com/site/revolutionofthemiddle/ . Email: JEIkerd@gmail.com; Website: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/ or http://www.johnikerd.com . [i] Anna Lappe, “Who’s behind the US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance and why it matters,” Grist, September, 2011. http://grist.org/factory-farms/2011-09-26-whos-behind-the-u-s-farmers-ranchers-alliance-and-why-it-m/ [ii] Food Dialogue to be held by Missouri Farmers Care, Quincy Journal, Quincy, IL, July 24, 2013. http://quincyjournal.com/business-beat/2013/07/21/food-dialogues-to-be-held-by-missouri-farmers-care1374334562/ . [iii] Breakfast on the Farm, A Michigan State University Extension Program, http://www.breakfastonthefarm.com/ . [iv] US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, The Food Dialogues, http://www.fooddialogues.com/ . [v] Global Action Network, “How Factory Farms Pollute Air and Water,” http://www.gan.ca/lifestyle/vegetarian+guide/vegetarians+and+the+environment/how+factory+farming+pollutes+water+and+soil.en.html . [vi] IowaWatch.org, “Large Livestock Farms Spread Across Iowa, Threatening Waterways,”http://iowawatch.org/2013/05/30/large-livestock-farms-spread-across-iowa-threatening-waterways/ [vii] IowaWatch.org, “Large Livestock Farms….” [viii] U.S. Government Accounting Office Report 04-490, April 2004 Antibiotic Resistance; Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to AddressRisk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf [ix] USDA Price Spreads from Farmer to Consumer, www.usda.ers.gov/data-products/price-spreads-from-farm-to-consumer.aspx . [x] Curtis Stofferahn, “Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: an Update of the 2000 Report by Linda Labao,” special report prepared for the North Dakota, Office of Attorney General, http://www.und.edu/org/ndrural/Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf . Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Agriculture and Public Health Gateway,” Industrial Food Animal Production, http://aphg.jhsph.edu/?event=browse.subject&subjectID=43 [x] U.S. Government Accounting Office Report 04-490, April 2004 Antibiotic Resistance; Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to AddressRisk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf [x] American Public Health Association, Association News, 2003 Policy Statements, http://www.apha.org/legislative. [x] Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production: Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=38438 , full report, http://www.ncifap.org/ . [xi] R-CALF USA. “Comments on Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement Issues in Our 21^st Century Economy.” Comment to U.S. Department of Justice. December 31, 2009. [xii] Nigel Key and William McBride, “The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production,”Economic Research Report No. (ERR-52) 45 pp, December 2007.]]>

The post An Agricultural Economist's Public Concerns About CAFOs appeared first on Land and Table.