Hog Confinement Controversy Impacts Community Relations

My interest in modernized agriculture stems from my life-long love of farming and animal agriculture. My grandparents farmed and raised hogs and cattle. I spent many hours on the farm with my grandpa while growing up. He taught me so much about farming techniques and raising livestock that I knew from a very early age that I wanted to spend my life working in the agricultural field. I was very involved in 4-H showing club calves and also in my local FFA chapter. My interest peaked as I watched the changes being made each year to tractors, technology and the way that livestock was raised. It was hard to believe how fast new ideas came out and replaced what was previously thought of as high-tech. I watched some unbelievable events unfold as my neighbor and part-time boss went about building some hog confinements in our area.

Some of the other neighbors starting showing hostility to my boss and his family for reasons I wasn’t clear on. People who used to be friends were no longer friendly. I struggled to figure out what the big deal was. I thought the hog confinements were a good idea. Financially they would eventually make money for the owner by providing manure as fertilizer and they would also provide income from the market animals. As the projects moved forward, I started to hear more from both sides of the controversy. The confinements weren’t actually right near our house, but some of the people that lived closer would say, “Would you like that confinement next to your house?” That got me to thinking that they had a point. I needed to better understand both sides of the issue before

I made my own opinion up. I needed to research the ideas behind building and also get a better understanding of the consequences or effects it was going to have on the neighbors and our small community. Driving force of change in the pork industry

As is common with many changes in business management, economics is generally one of the leading or driving forces. This holds true in the pork industry. There has always been a wide variation in costs associated with raising hogs, from purchasing pigs on the open market, to buying corn for feed, to the finished cost paid out by the packing plant.

With this variation comes risk to the owner or producer. Throughout the years, the swing between good times and bad times for pork producers became so wild that many producers opted to leave the business. Others, determined to find a way to keep their operations going, explored new concepts and new technologies. New theories such as

“All In/All Out”, “Split-Sex Feeding”, and “Pelleted Hi-Density Phase Feeding” were being introduced with claims of herd health enhancement, lowered costs and reduced risks. Outside investors became interested in the potential for high margin profits.

Integrators saw an opening that they perceived as mutually beneficial to the formerly independent producer and the meat packing industry. Contract production became a practice of interest because it offered the producer a stable supply of consistent quality hogs, standardized nutrition and health programs, streamlined transportation, and management resources. The integrator would own the hogs and provide the services needed for raising and marketing them while the producer supplied the buildings, equipment, land and labor. The producer would receive a contractual fee and possibly bonus options for outstanding efforts. It would provide a guaranteed set income for the producer while the potential for gains and losses went to the integrator. Pork packers now control over 50% of the total industry marketing contract volume with Smithfield Foods being the largest pork packer (Churning Out the Links). While this contract concept was endorsed by many, it was also rejected by those who felt it was more of a sell-out to big business than an opportunity for keeping the operation viable. Many of the producers who left the industry were small producers. “In 1980, 670,000 farms produced hogs. By

1994, only 236,000 such farms remained. Of the 434,000 farms that left the industry in that timeframe, 85% of those had less than 100 hogs in inventory” (Industrialization in the Pork Industry). There doesn’t appear to be one main reason why these smaller producers dropped out of the industry but some factors appear to be limited capital to invest in buildings and equipment for large scale operation, producer age and limited options for farm labor, and the overall dislike of concentrated confined animal production. “Other driving forces for change in the pork industry include the values of society which have demanded a more sustainable environmental system from animal agriculture and the consumers who have continued to demand a more consistent, top quality end-product” (Interrelationships of animal agriculture, the environment, and rural communities).

Opposition to factory farms

Opponents of large scale hog confinements have traditionally been very vocal in their concerns and still are today. Main areas of concern are potential health impacts on neighboring residents, irritating odor, and lower property values. There is also a dispute regarding the economic impact or possible beneficial impacts of hog confinements.

“Research has indicated that fewer, larger farm numbers is related to increasing food stamp usage which would lead us to believe that the overall economic well-being of individual families have not seen any advantages from the confinement scenario. When there are more farms in the county producing hogs, fewer people use food stamps. This analysis suggests it is important to maintain and create small-to-moderate sized hog operations, not large ones” (The Expansion of Large Scale Hog Farming in Iowa: The

Applicability of Goldschmidt’s Findings Fifty Years Later). Health concerns have been validated by studies that show the main gases making up the hog confinement emissions are hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Under specific exposure conditions, both have respiratory health impacts. The impacts will depend on a combination of exposure duration and concentration. Iowa has now implemented a hydrogen sulfide standard of 30 ppb, measured at the legal separated distance of the hog confinement from the nearest residence. Neighbors living within 3 miles of hog confinements have experienced higher levels of respiratory irritations and made complaints. Headaches, eye irritation and nausea have been reported by some local residents. Children and older residents are more susceptible to neurological effects in they are exposed to high exposures of hydrogen sulfide for extended periods of time. Concern over ground and surface water contamination has driven many rural residents to question the quality of their drinking water. Odor too has been a very heated topic of the hog confinement controversy.

Neighbors do not want to have their clothes hung on the lines since they can pick up the odor from the nearby confinement. Windows can’t be left open in nice weather as the odor seeps into the house. Family picnics and outside events may be limited or eliminated all together because odors are offensive. The quality of outside recreation has been severely limited according to opponents. “Research on residential property sales during

1992-2002 in Iowa estimates that the average property valuation decrease was 8 – 9 % for introduction of a moderately sized livestock facility ½ mile upwind from a home previously located at least 3 miles from the nearest livestock facility” (Economic Impacts on Hog Operations).

Benefits of Hog Confinements to Counties and Communities

The concentration of livestock production into confinement facilities requires a sizable capital investment in both buildings and equipment and therefore, the tax base increases which then results in increased property taxes associated with the confinements. This increased revenue can be used by the county for improvements to roads, bridges and many other projects. Sales tax can also be beneficially impacted in an area where new confinements are constructed with the influx of a new or expanded customer base and the support or purchase of local supplies and services. New job opportunities may arise in the concentrated feeding operations. “Surveys have shown that the larger operations generally pay higher wages, offer more generous benefit packages and have better work environments.” (Economic Impacts of Hog Operations). Proponents of large scale hog production also cite benefits to the environment along with the job opportunities and financial impacts. “Rules and regulations implemented by Iowa Department of Natural

Resources and the Natural Resource Conservation Service have facilitated changes in farming practices and the application of liquid swine manure. The NRCS Nutrient

Management Code 590 establishes criteria for land application of manure and other nutrients. The goal in mind is to protect groundwater by influencing the timing of manure application, method of manure application and amount of nutrients applied. If all standards are followed there will be no effect on surface water and minimal to no effect of groundwater. The standards put in place were based on sound science and proven experience” (Animal Agriculture and the Environment – Water Quality). Following best management practices in both farming and manure application can actually lead to less soil erosion and therefore less runoff from farms into the water sources of our country.

Ecotone – balancing agriculture industrialization and community acceptance

The debate over hog confinements is not new, nor has it gone away or been silenced. It is still very much alive and heated today. If rural harmony is to be restored as it pertains to hog confinements, both sides of the issue will need to come to the table. Traditionally, farmers were held accountable to their communities and the land on which they lived. If they failed to produce food, or if their practices resulted in harm to the environment or community, they were held accountable. There is a generalized perception that producers are not held accountable today. There is a general lack of trust. Efforts have been made in the past years by regulatory agencies such as the Iowa DNR to enact stricter permitting requirements. Separation distances have been increased for locating confinements from residential properties and engineers are involved in the design of the facilities and their manure storage structures. The Phosphorus Index went into full effect Sept. 1st, 2008 which put limitations on the amount of nutrients that can be applied. This Index takes into consideration the slope of the ground and potential for run-off, proximity to water sources, erosion control measures such as terracing or lack of, and tillage practices. The end results of this Phosphorus Index are beginning to show improved water quality, improved farming and tillage practices on highly erodible land and more responsible nutrient application. Peer Responder: Hannah Hilsabeck

8. right not I think your beginning, with the personal experience is the most important thing you have in the draft. It really drew me in and made me have a sense of your background.

9. Maybe give an example of the complaints filed again hog confinement owner and what they are being asked to do, ie. Pick up and move, which is very expense. Also I am interested to know your mediated argument.

10. make sure you have a conclusion at the end of each section. Wrap things up for your readers. What does that mean?

11. one main thing to work on, what other sides can you present? Right now its basically a pro/con.

12. being an aggie myself, I knew most of the back ground.