Weir1

Bob Weir

Mr. Kirsten

College English

16 September 2018

A Piggish Disaster

Thesis: The Bad River Watershed is a national asset and it is a national responsibility to defend it against threats to its wellbeing; the Badgerwood CAFO threatens its wellbeing, and it has to be prevented in order to protect the surrounding population and landscape

IIntroduction

  1. Factory Farming
  2. Environmental effects
  3. Economic effects
  4. Kewaunee
  5. Thesis

IIFactory Farming Environment

  1. Waterborne
  2. Pathogens
  3. Antibiotics
  4. Eutrophication
  5. Phosphorous
  6. Nitrates
  7. Airborne
  8. Volatile Compounds
  9. Ammonia
  10. Hydrogen Sulfide
  11. Methane
  12. Particulate Matter
  13. Respiratory issues

IIIFactory Farming Economic

  1. Subsidies
  2. Money removed from local economy

IVKewaunee County

  1. Well contamination
  2. Decreased property values

VOpposition Arguments

  1. Bring jobs
  2. Boost economy
  3. Feed the world

VIRebuttal

  1. Hire outside
  2. Economic Drain
  3. Small farms
  4. Give back to economy
  5. Produce as well

VIIConclusion

  1. Factory farming damage
  2. Environment
  3. Economy
  4. Badgerwood
  5. Thesis

Bob Weir

Mr. Kirsten

College English

16 September 2018

A Piggish Disaster

Farming and civilization have grown together over the ages. However, there is something incredibly uncivilized about the concentrated animal feeding operation proposed in the township in Eileen. The proposed Reicks View Farm would house “7500 sows, 18,750 pigs, and 100 boars” (Badgerwood 2) according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.The farm would operate as a farrowing operation, or a farm where piglets are birthed. While the environmental and economic effects can only be speculated, there is significant evidence that CAFOs, concentrated animal feeding operations, have a degrading effect on the surrounding environment. The proposed farm is sited in a position that simultaneously threatens the Bad River Watershed. The effects of large-scale factory farming on delicate ecosystems is seen by the results of factory farming in Kewaunee County. The Bad River Watershed is a national asset and it is a national responsibility to defend it against threats to its wellbeing; the Badgerwood CAFO threatens its wellbeing, and it has to be prevented in order to protect the surrounding population and landscape.

Factory farming has many externalities associated with it. Many problems are traced back to the waste created by factory farming. “Depending on the type and number of animals in the farm, manure production can range between 2,800 tons and 1.6 million tons a year” (Hribar 2). For many CAFOs, there is so much waste produced that processing the waste in a processing plant is not an option; spreading all of it over large tracts of land as fertilizer is the only option (Hribar 2). “Groundwater can be contaminated by CAFOs through runoff from land applications, leaching from manure that has been improperly spread on land, or through leaks or breaks in storage or contamination units” (Hribar 10). Once contaminants are in ground water, it can take hundreds of years for a well to be safe again, because “ground-water velocities can be as low as 1 foot per year or 1 foot per decade” (USGS 6). The slow movement rate of groundwater poses a great threat to rural communities where well water is the most common water source. “In general, private water wells are at a higher risk of nitrate contamination than public water supplies” (Hribar 4). Due to the slow recycle rates for groundwater and the many ways that manure from CAFOs can enter a watershed, large factory farms pose a significant threat to local water supplies.

Large volumes of animal waste in a water body are destructive to the water’s quality. Countless pathogens live in animal waste, and there are higher concentrations of pathogens that harm humans around CAFOs relative to other environments (Olson 1). Pathogens such as Cryptosporidiumand Giardiathrive in the compact, moist environments that CAFOs create (Olson 3). “In a large Alberta study involving 1602 animals and 50 farms, Giardia was documented in 70% of farms” (Olson 3). The results are similar for concentrations of Cryptosporidium in similar farming operations (Olson 4). These pathogens, once introduced to a watershed, can infect the surrounding population and compromise wells should it enter the groundwater. The diseases in factory farms affect animals as well as the surrounding population, and many farms heavily use antibiotics to combat this.

Antibiotics are a staple for many corporate farms, and endanger the communities around them because of the widespread drug abuse. The animals in factory farms are in such close proximity to their own waste that they commonly are infected pathogens and bacterial infections(ISTPP 3).Industrial farms use antibiotics so aggressively, and on such a large scale, that the rate of antibiotic resistance increases much more than it would otherwise (ISTPP 3). As antibiotic resistant diseases spread, “humans infected by antibiotic-resistant bacteria can no longer be treated effectively by standard antibiotics” (ISTPP 5). These antibiotic resistant bacteria spread through waterways, along with two other damaging substances: phosphorous and nitrates.

“Contamination in surface waters can cause nitrates and other nutrients to build up” (Hribar 4) leading to eutrophication.Eutrophication is “a process by which pollution fromsuch sources as sewage effluent or leachate from fertilized fields causes a lake, pond, or fen to become overrich in organic and mineral nutrients, so that algae and cyanobacteria grow rapidly and deplete the oxygen supply” (eutrophication 1). The two main pollutants from manure are nitrogen and phosphorous. Both contribute greatly to eutrophication (Guerian-Sherman 4). Eutrophication is incredibly damaging to waterways and any industry that derives its profits from the same water. “The Chesapeake Bay’s blue crab industry, which had a dockside value of about $52 million in 2002, has declined drastically in recent yearsalong with other important catches such as striped bass, partly due to the decline in water quality caused in part by CAFOs” (Guerian-Sherman). The damages nitrogen and phosphorous generate are not limited to fiscal matters. “Elevated nitrates in drinking water can be especially harmful to infants, leading to blue baby syndrome and possible death” (Hribar 4). The CDC has also found nitrates to be cancer-causing agents (ISTPP 7). While it may seem like the environmental damage created by CAFOs is limited to waterborne diseases and contaminants, the processes associated with industrial farms cause airborne pollution as well.

“A typical swine livestock factory of 10,000 hogs will create as much waste as 25,000 to 50,000 humans” (ISTPP 4). CAFO waste emits greenhouse gases as well as volatile compounds and particulate matter that damage the respiratory system.Unfortunately, air pollution from CAFOs is loosely regulated by the government, “. . . like water contamination, air emissionsfrom intensive livestock operations are essentially unregulated because there are no federally mandated air quality monitoring programs for CAFOs in the United States…” (Adawi 6) Gaseous emissions from factory farms are methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. The dusts and fine particles from feed and grain also raise issues due to the fact that these particulate are damaging to respiratory function. Ammonia is a respiratory irritant and can cause chemical burns on the eyes, and respiratory tract. Hydrogen sulfide leads to olfactory neuron loss, and eventually death. The particulate matter from mega-farms causes chronic bronchitis, declining lung function, and organic dust toxic syndrome. Methane, while relatively inert, is a greenhouse gas and as such contributes to climate change (Hribar 6). While short-term exposure to these compounds will not lead to the development of the aforementioned conditions, factory farms are not in a community short-term. The airborne pollution around CAFOs compromise surrounding communities’ health and pose an environmental hazard that cannot be ignored by anyone. Many workers in industrial farms experience decreased respiratory function over time due to their work conditions (Adawi 5). The health costs created by CAFOs contribute to the economic damage with which factory farming is associated.

“All of the environmental problems with CAFOs have a direct impact on human health and welfare for communities that contain large industrial farms” (Hribar 3). Factory farms drain the economic systems associated with them. In an effort to stimulate American agriculture, state and federal governments have proposed and enacted a multitude of subsidies to make it more economical for livestock corporations to operate in the United States (Guerian-Sherman 3). These subsidies benefit larger businesses, but do not benefit the smaller communities that factory farms are situated in. The subsidies provided to CAFOs aid them with production costs on all levels of production. Grain prices are so low for CAFOs that “low-cost grain [subsidies were] worth a total of almost $35 billion from 1996 to 2015, or almost $4 billion per year” (Guerian-Sherman 3). CAFOs are able to operate entirely because of their low production costs. “CAFOs have relied on cheap inputs (water, energy, and especially feed) to support the high animal densities the offset these operations’ high fixed costs (such as buildings)” (Guerian-Sherman 2). The subsidies are so necessary to the agricultural sectors function that the federal government has superseded many state controls in order to loosen restrictions on industrialized agriculture (Adawi 6). In fact, CAFOs appear to place an economic burden on the communities they house themselves in (ISTPP5).

The way factory farms damage a small community is easily visualized. In a system with small farms, local farms use resources produce the farms products, and the money gained is spent in the community. When large farms move into a community, instead of being spent in the local community, money is taken out of the community. Given enough time, small municipalitiesare deprived of resources by larger farms. “CAFO operations with gross incomes in excess of $90,000 spend less than 20% locally while farms with incomes spend 95% locally” (ISTPP 6). According to another source, “a Michigan study found that small hog farms spend almost 50% more at local businesses than large farms do” (Adawi 4). What is clear is that smaller farms spend more of the money they earn locally, whereas larger farms tend to take the resources away from the area.The devastating results of factory farming dominating a rural community is demonstrated well be Kewaunee County, a county not entirely different than Bayfield County.

Kewaunee County is a small, rural community on a great lake, where the average income is not high. Unlike Bayfield County, Kewauneehas been inundated with large factory farms in recent years. As of this year, there are sixteen concentrated animal feeding operations in the area (Lundstrom 1).Because of their presence, over 30 percent of the wells in Kewaunee County test positive for E. coli or other contaminants (Lundstrom 2). The farms in the area have led to serious recessive change in Kewaunee. In Kewaunee County, well contamination can be found in far higher concentrations around CAFOs than anywhere else can be found in the county (Rodewald19). Well conditions have become so deplorable that some residents of Kewaunee have referred to their water quality as analogous to “third-world conditions” (Rodewald 22).

Residents of the town of Lincoln,located in Kewaunee county near the CAFOs have experienced decreased property values as a result of manure spreading activities in their location. “In 2012, an unknown volume of liquid manure spilled on a nearby field and ran into the Kliments’ property. A berm prevented the manure from entering a pond on their land. That same year, the appraised value of the Kliments’ home plummeted from $360,000 to $249,000” (Rodewald 27).While it is not the intent of any corporation to force out local residents and reduce the general quality of life of locals, factory farms appear to do just that.

Proponents of CAFOs argue that Kewaunee County is a lemon. The events experienced there are simply one-off situations that are not representative of the agricultural industry as a whole. Industrial mega-farms are required to fill out permits with the DNR; some argue that factory farms cannot contribute to environmental damage, because they have filled out a rigorous permitting process. These supporters will argue that factory farming does not shade out smaller farms, and actually creates jobs. Factory farm supporters argue that because a CAFO is a larger site that it requires more workers to keep it running safely and smoothly. Furthermore, proponents of factory farming claim that it boosts the economy. Because a CAFO ideally produces more product with less input, it should boost the economy because it has a better profit margin. Big-agriculture fansargued that factory farming is the only way the world can truly feed itself. Without large feeding operations, such as the ones in Kewaunee, there would simply not be enough food on the planet to feed its inhabitants.

There are problems associated with the above assertions. The disaster of an environment that Kewaunee suffers through every day,because of the agricultural processes there,is not abnormal. “In 1995, in the biggest environmental spill in U.S. history – more than twice as big as the Exxon Valdez spill – a 120,000 square foot manure lagoon in North Carolina ruptured, releasing 25.8 million gallon of effluvium into the New River” (ISTPP 7). Factory farms contribute to environmental damage regardless of the permitting process. Events like the above have led to many researchers and scientists to note, “Federal environmental laws largely exempt agricultural activities” (Adawi 1). If the lagoons tendency to rupturing had been during the permitting process, the manure lagoon could not have existed. The reality that it had existed despite the permitting process is all too real.

Contrary to popular belief, CAFOs do not bring jobs to or bolster the economy. CAFOs are able to exist and produce so cheaply because of tax-funded subsidies.In other words, taxpayers pay for their meals twice in the current agricultural system. Factory farms also provide few job opportunities, as “. . . they are created for the sole purpose of maximizing economic returns to their stock holders” (Ikerd 11), which means reducing labor costs to the bare minimum (Adawi 4). John Ikerd said well, “the corporations that increasingly control agriculture are not people: they are financial entities created for the purpose of amassing large amounts of capital” (Ikerd 11). CAFOs also enter into small communities, in which jobs are scarce to begin with, and will begin to shade out smaller farms that are under greater pressure due to the mega-farms presence (Adawi 3). CAFOs kill smaller businesses and operations, and they concentrate earnings into the hands of few, as opposed to the many.

The biggest lie tied with factory farming is the idea that it is the only way to feed the world. To say that an industry that has proven that it cares not about the people it operates around has the ultimate goal of altruistically feeding the world is naïve. “CAFOs do not represent the only way of ensuring the availability of food at reasonable prices,” (Guerian-Sherman 2) and many studies have been conducted that show that medium to small sized agricultural operations are as efficient as large scale operations without the externalities associated with larger operations (Guerian-Sherman 2). There are better solutions than to stick with a broken system.

CAFOs destroy their surroundings. They taint water. They suck-dry small municipalities. They foul the air. They steal employment from America’s backbone: local farmers. How the proposed Badgerwood CAFO will be any different is a matter of ignorance. Those who wish not to see the horror and pain that big-agriculture has forced upon families and towns just like Bayfield, places like Kewaunee, will see an economic boon, ready to save the area from stagnation. Those who choose to learn from the past will see a harbinger of death.Badgerwood cannot operate in Bayfield County without falling into the repeated pattern of abuse that CAFOs exhibit. The Bad River Watershed is where Badgerwoodwould be housed, but it is our mutual obligation to stand against this sinister threat to protect it for generations to come, and preserve it and protect it from harm. The blind can’t see what the truth illuminates; it is more important to have pristine water, fresh air, and thriving communities than it is to house an industrial monster.

Works Cited

Adawi, Nadia S. “State Preemption of Local Control Over Intensive Livestock Operations.” Environmental Law Institute

"Badgerwood LLC, WPDES Permit." Department of Natural Resources, 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

“Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).” Institute of Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Institute of Science, Technology, and Public Policy. 7 Apr. 2007. Web. 30 Oct. 30. 2015.

"eutrophication." The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 15 Nov. 2015. <Dictionary.com

Gurian-Sherman, Doug. "CAFOs Uncovered." Union of Concerned Scientists. 23 Apr. 2008. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

"General Facts and Concepts About Ground Water." General Facts and Concepts about Ground Water. United States Geological Survey, 11 Jan. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.