TWP As Discussed Below
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technical Work Paper on Social and Community Impacts Prepared for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board June 2001 Prepared by: Wynne Wright, University of Minnesota Cornelia Butler Flora, Team Leader, Iowa State University* Kathy S. Kremer Willis Goudy Clare Hinrichs Paul Lasley Ardith Maney Margaret Kroma, Cornell University Hamilton Brown, National Center for Small Communities, Washington, DC Kenneth Pigg, University of Missouri, Columbia Beverly Durgan, Project Leader, Associate Dean for Research, COAFES, University of Minnesota Jean Coleman, Project Manager, BIKO Associates, Inc. Debra Elias Morse, Technical Writer/Editor Team Leader/Contact: Cornelia Butler Flora Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Agriculture and Sociology Director, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development 107 Curtiss Hall - Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50010-1050 * Unless otherwise noted, all team members are affiliated with Iowa State University June 2001 Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Section 1: Structural Change in Minnesota Agriculture 4 Section 2: Context of Case Study Examination 9 Section 3: Impacts on Social and Community Well Being 13 Methods of Study 13 Research Findings 16 Interviews and Personal Contacts 16 Changes in the Structure of Animal Agriculture 16 Quality of Life 20 Community Interaction 22 Future of Animal Agriculture 26 Changes in Population Dynamics 28 Media Analysis 30 Relationship of Production and Processing 33 Conclusions 35 Section 4: Policy Recommendations 38 Section 5: Additional Items from CAC Review 42 Section 6: Literature Review Update 44 Attachments 1. Format of Key Informant Interview 61 2. Framework of Roundtable Discussions 62 3. Format of Personal Interviews 64 4. Narratives Express Everyday Experiences 66 5. Transcripts of Roundtable Discussions 70 6. Alternative Conflict Resolution Strategies 224 7. Fresh Air Pork 225 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of County Study Criteria 10 Table 2. Population Characteristics by County 11 Table 3. Farm and Farmer Characteristics by County 12 Table 4. Summary of Media Accounts 32 __________________________________________________________________________________ ii Social and Community Impacts Technical Work Paper GEIS on Animal Agriculture in Minnesota June 2001 List of Figures Figure 1. Community Capitals at Work 1 Figure 2. Change in Farms and Farmers in Minnesota, 1982-1997 4 Figure 3. Farm Operators as a Declining Proportion of 6 Minnesota's Residents Figure 4. Full Time Farmers in Minnesota, 1987-1997 8 Figure 5. Location of Study Counties 9 __________________________________________________________________________________ iii Social and Community Impacts Technical Work Paper GEIS on Animal Agriculture in Minnesota June 2001 Social and Community Impacts Executive Summary The Social and Community Impacts Team was charged with the following data collection tasks: • Updating the Social/Community literature summary completed in 1999, and identifying on-going research relevant to social and community impacts. • Collecting and analyzing qualitative data in the form of case studies on the social and community impacts of animal agriculture. Update of Literature Review and On-going Research On-going research was reviewed and incorporated into an update of the literature review completed in June 1999. Proceedings of annual meetings and professional societies where researchers typically present emerging areas of research were reviewed, as were refereed journals. There were 38 additional citations identified related to different types of animal production and changes in animal agriculture. The number of citations located in this review points to a continued academic interest in the social and community impacts of change in animal agriculture, community conflict, and local food systems. Social and Community Impacts of Animal Agriculture Clearly the most persistent theme in the research is that changes in animal agriculture in Minnesota do have social and community impacts. These impacts are uneven due to context and an individual's physical and social proximity to animal agriculture, and can be perceived as either positive or negative depending on one's position. Community conflict does exist, and seems more related to context than does impact on individual quality of life, which has a greater relationship with proximity to animal agriculture. Interviews and personal contacts presented five recurring themes - changes in animal agriculture, quality of life impacts, community interaction, future of animal agriculture, and changes in population dynamics. The most dominant theme is change in the structure of agriculture, and animal production specifically. Producers feel they need to "get big or get out" of animal agriculture. They point to vertical integration and contracts as two of their limited options to continue as producers. Nearly everyone agreed that animal agriculture is visually disappearing from the Minnesota landscape, and what remains is more concentrated and industrialized. Both small and large producers suggest there has been a reduction in shared production practices of farmers. Yet networks of farmer-to-farmer contracts have increased __________________________________________________________________________________ iv Social and Community Impacts Technical Work Paper GEIS on Animal Agriculture in Minnesota June 2001 cooperation and shared production practices in that area of the swine sector. Membership in FFA and 4-H has declined in most areas, and the number of animal exhibits at county fairs has declined. The focus of high school agriculture programs and these youth organizations has moved away from animal production. Among producers who have expanded their operations, including those that have constructed CAFOs and entered into contract production, most consider industrialization of animal agriculture to be a positive influence on their farming operations and their personal and family quality of life. It allows them to continue farming in the face of narrowing profit margins, or allowed another family member to join the operation. Producers in their mid-50's and older who have not made changes in their operations expressed concern with the amount of debt taken on by young farm families to expand and build new confinement buildings. Although these older producers didn't see their own quality of life impacted by changes in animal agriculture, they did express a sense of loss for what they view as a way of life they feel cannot be returned to. For younger producers with small and mid-sized operations who are not engaged in contract production, the expansion of other operations has impacted them by tightening their access to markets with equitable prices. This has negative quality of life impacts as they are often balancing an off-farm job with animal husbandry responsibilities and time with their families. Those whose home property neighbors a large scale animal production facility (almost always a confinement operation) have the greatest reduction in quality of life. Odors, noise, increased truck traffic, health problems, and concerns about well-water safety curtail their ability to enjoy their home and conduct day-to-day activities. While the problems may not be constant, there are specific times or days when odors, noise, or other intrusions from the production facility interfere with daily activities, decreasing their quality of life. Community members not involved in animal agriculture, or not directly effected because of the location of their property, do not feel animal agriculture or changes in animal agriculture impact their quality of life. They may hear about it in stores and coffee shops, read about it in the newspaper, or even smell odor from a facility as they drive through the neighborhood. But since it does not have a direct bearing on their lifestyle it does not become something that they're concerned about. The media analysis points to a declining visibility in animal agriculture over the past decade, further dividing these 'bystanders' from those who consider themselves stakeholders in animal agriculture. Community interaction has been impacted by change in animal agriculture. Those who speak out against expansions feel significant risk. Producers who often feel they have no other option but to expand find themselves excluded from neighborhood functions and their church community. Also noted is a widening gap within the farming community between those who are taking an industrialized approach, and those trying to maintain their operation without making changes. __________________________________________________________________________________ v Social and Community Impacts Technical Work Paper GEIS on Animal Agriculture in Minnesota June 2001 One of the most troubling findings is the prevalence of an economic determinism expressed both by producers of all sizes and other community stakeholders. The perceived lack of choices about food provision systems negates alternative opportunity structures. Changes in population dynamics in rural areas are not necessarily a result of change in animal agriculture, but do influence rural community life. Increased nuisance complaints from 'new-to-rural' residents; increased attention to neighborliness by producers; decreased opportunities for farm operators to be involved in community functions; an aging farm population; decline in rural churches; and new immigrant populations were all noted. This research