Guest Column: Getting Closer to the Truth About CAFOs

Last updated on 2020-02-19

by Nancy Johnson Wirsing

This article responds to a three-part series of articles in the Gregory Times Advocate by South Dakota News Watch reporter Bart Pfankuch – the first: “Special Report: Expansion of large ‘CAFO’ livestock farms causing division and concern across South Dakota,” January 1, 2020, pp. 6 & 10; the second: “A look inside a CAFO: SD farmers share stories of a life in livestock,” January 15, 2020, pp. 2 & 10; and third: “Human health, environmental, and antibiotic concerns follow CAFO development”, January 22, 2020, p. 8.

In these three articles Bart Pfankuch seeks to inform South Dakotans about the increasing expansion of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) into the South Dakota countryside. There are today 452 CAFOs in the state housing, Pfankuch tell us, 9.6 million animals – a development that is bringing about a fundamental transformation of the livestock industry that, in his words, “may alter farms, farmers and rural communities for generations to come” and that is “without a doubt one of the most controversial topics in agriculture”. Drawing on both academic and governmental studies, as well as interviews of persons on both sides of the often heated argument over CAFO expansion, Pfankuch appears to aim at providing even-handed and accurate coverage of the stakes involved. The aim is commendable, and – to some extent – it is reasonably well achieved: Pfankuch does provide readers with much useful fact-based information about CAFOs. However, while his narrative obviously strives for comprehensive and balanced reporting, it falls short of doing so. It should certainly leave some troubling questions on the minds of its readers; but it may inadvertently leave them more confused than clear-headed about the pros and cons of CAFOs. It may even leave readers wholly unfamiliar with CAFOs wondering what all the fuss is about. So while Pfankuch and South Dakota News Watch are fully deserving of praise for undertaking a topic as complex and controversial as this one, information about CAFOs that is inaccurate or that is either too lightly passed over or not touched on at all requires more attention. This article attempts to fill that gap.

First of all, there are two problems in the way Pfankuch constructs this series of articles. The first is that he writes about CAFOs with less than a full sense of urgency and as if they scarcely have a lengthy (four to five decades) and well-documented history in this country and around the world – indeed, as if there were not already over 200,000 of them in the United States alone and that they had not already given rise to an enormous amount of alarmed and steadily worsening critical reaction. The second problem concerns the information he chooses to include and exclude in these articles. On the one hand, Pfankuch employs key pro-CAFO terminology and indiscriminately mixes into his articles CAFO-favoring commentary that substantially undercuts the CAFO-disfavoring commentary. As a result, his assessment is overstocked with unsubstantiated and uncontested claims that are dangerously misleading and sometimes egregiously inaccurate. At the same time, Pfankuch omits much recent, readily available and highly authoritative information needed to ensure a balanced accounting of anti-CAFO arguments.

I begin with two examples of Pfankuch’s inappropriate use of pro-CAFO terminology. The first is that throughout his articles he calls CAFOs farms. As Pfankuch himself notes in his articles, there is in fact no resemblance whatsoever between CAFOs and traditional family farms. A relatively recent agricultural innovation to grow out of industrial agriculture, CAFOs are appropriately called industrial agricultural operations or, at a minimum, factory farms. Rather than being agricultural operations that are independently owned by skilled farmers who are in complete charge of running their farms, CAFOs are typically owned by or run in collaboration with corporations, generally out of state and sometimes out of country, that are accountable not to local communities but to stock holders. Thus, they are operated in strict accordance with the customary industrial production standards of maximum production and minimum cost. While local CAFO managers may own the land and physical buildings housing livestock, the livestock is corporate owned and supplied. Local CAFO managers contract with corporate entities to raise a certain number of animals for a particular length of time. CAFO advocates call CAFOs farms to take advantage of the positive image traditional farms enjoy in South Dakota. In fact, CAFOs are in conflict with traditional farms, having consistently had the effect of driving out of business traditional farmers engaged in the small-scale production of hogs, poultry, and dairy products.

Pfankuch’s second misuse of terminology is that he speaks of “risks” when describing problems associated with CAFOs. Risk is inappropriate as it implies a “potential” problem that “may” happen and that “may” be solved or avoided in one way or another, which is how CAFO supporters like to cast CAFO problems. In fact, the extremely well documented history of CAFOs establishes beyond a doubt that CAFOs harbor a long list of concretely harmful consequences for neighbors and communities located nearby to CAFOs and for water sources whether close by or far from CAFOs. This history shows that these harmful consequences are basically unavoidable due to inherent CAFOs characteristics. Some problems, for example, are too great and too complex to be effectively solved – absolutely not in the short run. Included, of course, are the staggering quantity of toxic manure produced and the intensity of the foul odor produced. Some problems caused by CAFOs result from the application of profit-driven production practices, such as reliance of CAFOs on pesticide-laden grain as livestock feed and the routine use of antibiotics. And some CAFO problems are simply too costly for CAFOs ordinarily to be willing to pay for them. These include, for instance, installation of reliably water-proof liners and covers for lagoons and undertaking of extensive and regular monitoring of water quality to reliably protect local water sources from being polluted. Accordingly, particular kinds of economic, social, health, and environmental problems can predictably be expected to accompany CAFOs in more or less serious form. Examples of these chronic and widely discussed problems include the:

• lowering of neighboring property values;
• undermining of the quality of the everyday outdoor, social, and home life of CAFO neighbors;
• jeopardizing of the respiratory health of CAFO neighbors and of the elderly and young of nearby communities;
• exposing of the public to pesticides linked to serious human health problems through consumption of CAFO meat and poultry products made from livestock fed grain contaminated by pesticides in the course of production;
• polluting of local waterways near CAFOs and of fields on which CAFO manure is spread;
• cumulatively causing pollution of statewide water ways, as in the case of Iowa;
• contributing significantly to the massive dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River; and
• stressing of county resources due to heavy road maintenance costs caused by CAFO traffic.

At the same time, some CAFO problems do qualify as “risks”— outcomes that may or may not occur. Examples of these risks include the:

• risk of losing local political control. There is, for example, the very serious risk that the state government, pressured by CAFO operators tired of having to deal with local complaints, may pursue legislation enabling the state to assume administrative control of CAFOs, such as has occurred in mammoth fashion in Iowa. Rural Iowans have virtually no say whatsoever about the location, size, or number of CAFOS to be authorized within their counties. It should be recalled that the South Dakota legislature has already passed a law (House Bill 1140) limiting the ability of local citizens to appeal pro-CAFO decisions by county commissioners.
• risk of loss of water-related recreational activities, such as fishing, swimming, and boating.
• risk of exposure to the intense stench of dead livestock. Crowding and living in filth regularly result in animal deaths, especially in the case of hog and poultry CAFOs, and carcasses that are not responsibility removed and handled will add to the already terrifically foul stench of CAFO manure.
• risk of contracting a difficult-to-cure super bug infection. Scientific research establishes as fact that CAFOs create antibiotic-resistant super bugs through regular administration of antibiotics to CAFO livestock. Found in CAFO livestock manure, super bugs are carried on dust particles and vapor droplets to persons living close to CAFOs. Because super bugs also travel with CAFO livestock to processing plants where they can contaminate packaged meat and poultry products marketed at grocery stores, consumers of CAFO meat and poultry products risk exposure to super bugs. Quoting from the report “Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities”, Pfankuch confirms that “This is a serious threat to human health because fewer options exist to help people overcome disease when infected with antibiotic-resistant pathogens.” Pfankuch, however, fails to include updated authoritative information about the graveness of the danger represented and the urgency of the need to effectively address this danger. Hardly two months ago (November 18, 2019), for example, the Center for a Livable Future at the J. H. Bloomberg School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University issued a report – A Precautionary Moratorium on New and Expanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations – urging government and public health agencies at federal, state, and local levels to impose a complete halt – a moratorium – on all new and expanding CAFOs pending the collection of additional scientific data and the thorough addressing of serious public health concerns involved, important of which is the spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. And just this month The New York Times (on January 17) published a new warning made by the World Health Organization that the pipeline for new antibiotics is running dry.

The second problem with how Pfankuch constructs his articles – his overly generous inclusion of CAFO descriptions provided him by CAFO supporters – varies by subject. With respect to the economic rewards derived from CAFOS, Pfankuch’s coverage is straightforward. He correctly informs readers that CAFOs are profitable for some parties. These include CAFO corporations, which explains the push of out-of-state CAFO corporations to move into South Dakota where land necessary for the spreading of CAFO manure is available. Some local grain producers and local businesses benefit from the sale of feed and supplies to CAFOs. Making a reasonably good income and enjoying a reasonably comfortable and satisfying living, CAFOs managers benefit, as Pfankuch shows in his second article. CAFOs also serve as an important source of sales tax revenue for the state of South Dakota, which explains Gov. Noem’s aggressive support of CAFOs (a “win for everyone” she claims), support that includes economic incentives for counties that accept CAFOs.

In this discussion of rewards, however, Pfankuch does not happen to mention that CAFOs are given valuable political rewards along with “conditional use permits” to operate. Permitted CAFOs are effectively given the right to trespass onto neighbors’ property in a variety of ways that harm neighbors, while neighbors have minimal ability to protect their interests once a CAFO is established. The creation of CAFOs creates a fundamental clash of political rights.

With respect to stakes involved in CAFO expansion for rural South Dakotans and communities, Pfankuch’s inclusion of glowing CAFO descriptions provided CAFO supporters clearly distorts the portrait of CAFOs he presents. In granting CAFO supporters an abundance of opportunity to offer highly favorable descriptions of CAFOs, and, as well, absent any careful examination of any actual CAFO history, Pfankuch’s articles convey unsubstantiated, misleading, sometimes incomplete, and sometimes outright inaccurate claims.

Some examples of this sort of misinformation are as follows.

• CAFOs strengthen rural communities. If CAFOs were good for rural communities, small towns in Iowa should be booming. They definitely are not. A drive through the countryside of northwest Iowa reveals back-to-back CAFOS, few people living on the land, and diminished towns filled with struggling businesses. Independent research (such as by the respected Pew Foundation) backs these facts up. This research shows that CAFOs drive traditional livestock producers, traditionally the backbone of rural community prosperity, out of business. The report mentioned above that was recently issued by the Center for a Livable Future at the J. H. Bloomberg School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University – A Precautionary Moratorium on New and Expanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations – directly links CAFOs with the social and economic decline of rural communities.
• “The development of CAFOs is also generating new jobs, state and local tax revenues and significant spinoff spending on feed and other commodities.” While CAFOs are a good source of sales tax revenue for the South Dakota state government, the claim that there is “significant spinoff spending on feed and other commodities” is false. Actual study shows that CAFOs commonly do not purchase basic supplies from local communities; that CAFOs instead primarily purchase supplies from businesses directly connected to them, often out of state businesses. Study also shows that the new jobs CAFOs create are also relatively unattractive, low-paying jobs. Furthermore, CAFOs can be financial liabilities for counties because of the heavy wear from the coming and going of CAFO trucks on county roads.
• CAFOs are strictly regulated. In fact, state or DENR (Department of the Environment and Natural Resources) regulation is minimal and there is little state funding for it. Given the stupendous amount of manure involved and, as a result, the enormous potential for pollution of community water sources, along with state and national waterways, how does one DENR inspection within the first 18 months of operation and another every one to three years thereafter (with CAFOs being given prior notification before an inspection) qualify as strict regulation? How can the claim be made that “CAFO operators are held to strict standards on proper storage of wastes…” when DENR does not do any monitoring of CAFO storage systems? DENR instead responds only to complaints, which may result in a fine, as Pfankuch notes, but which rarely, if ever, results in a CAFO shutdown, a fact not noted by Pfankuch. Without sustained and systematic monitoring, what is the basis for DENR’s assurance, as twice reported by Pfankuch, that “little or no environmental damage resulted” from the nine known times between Oct 2009 and August 2019 that CAFO wastes spilled into state waterways?

Bear in mind, moreover, that there is no regulation whatsoever when livestock numbers are less than 1,000 “animal units” – a measurement based on the amount of waste produced by an animal species. In fact, as Pfankuch point out, 1,000 animal units still represents a large number of animals and, as a result, a staggering amount of manure and potential for pollution. Precisely because of the complete lack of regulation, there has recently been a surge in the establishment of under 1,000 animal unit piglet nurseries in the state.

• CAFOs can be good neighbors. “We want to be great neighbors, and we don’t want to be an environmental risk in any way, shape or form,” says Nick Fitzgerald of Pipestone System, a Minnesota-based firm that operates 74 hog birthing and weaning facilities and wants to expand his operations into South Dakota. This is a far-fetched claim. Though CAFO supporters would have CAFO neighbors and communities believe that technology works (or can work) to effectively control the odor, toxic gases, and pathogens that accompany CAFO manure, it does not and cannot given the massive amount of manure produced on a daily basis. The claim made by CAFO supporters that CAFOs can be cleaner than smaller farms is a similarly irresponsible claim for much the same reasons, especially when “smaller farms” is left undefined.

• Manure is an effective, valuable fertilizer. This is only part of the story. An important but left out part of the story is that CAFO manure is untreated raw manure that contains toxic pesticides, heavy metals added to livestock feed, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs administered to livestock, and pathogens. CAFO manure also releases toxic gases. Thus, spreading CAFO manure on cropland not only spreads fertilizer; it also spreads these dangerous ingredients, which, along fertilizing minerals, are absorbed by crops, passed into food products, and consumed by buyers.

The spreading of the right amount of minerals is also a tricky procedure. If too many fertilizing minerals are added, soil cannot absorb them and unabsorbed minerals are easily washed into waterways by rain and irrigation water. While CAFO supporters claim that the spreading of manure is strictly regulated to avoid such run off – “Operators must adhere to plans for how, when and where they will spread the wastes on land…” and must maintain records – there is no DENR monitoring to ensure adherence to these plans. Studies show that in fact significant runoff occurs and that this run off is a primary cause of pollution in the lakes, rivers, and streams of the entire United States. The spreading of CAFO manure on cropland is tantamount to the licensed polluting of our countryside.

• Consumers are driving the demand for cheap CAFO meat. While this is true to an extent, the demonstrable push for the production of CAFO meat also cannot be separated from the economic incentives provided CAFO corporations (and stockholders), CAFO managers, local grain suppliers, and the SD Department of Revenue. And though there is evidence, as Pfankuch points out, that many SD consumers want alternative naturally-produced meat products – such as 100% pastured and certified organic beef, hog, and poultry products, which is free of pesticides and antibiotics – our State does not provide material support to these alternative meat products. Lack of such state support is significant. Sate support could bring down the higher cost of these products and, very importantly, would create the opportunity for farmers, newcomers included, to convert small farms into an alternative livestock production method that is well-suited to small farms, thereby returning farms to the rural countryside, and that enables small farmers to both earn a reasonable living and pursue meaningful work in a wholly positive way, thereby revitalizing the rural countryside.

• CAFO treatment of livestock is humane. The claim that the providing of water, plentiful food, and temperature-controlled shelter adequately attends to the needs of livestock defies the fact that animals have a lot more than the most basic physical needs. Extensive modern scientific study of animals, whether domesticated or wild, shows that they, like humans, are sentient creatures having social and emotional needs and drives. Though agricultural production has obviously been fundamentally transformed over the centuries, these basic needs of animals have not disappeared. That CAFOs completely and routinely ignore these needs causes livestock great suffering.

A far more objective assessment of CAFO management of animals is found on page 82 of Yuval Noah Harari’s best-selling book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. “From an objective perspective, the sow no longer needs to explore her surroundings, socialize with other pigs, bond with her piglets or even walk. But from a subjective perspective, the sow still feels very strong urges to do all of these things, and if these urges are not fulfilled she suffers greatly. Sows locked in gestation crates typically display acute frustration alternating with extreme despair.”

To conclude, the effect of Pfankuch’s use of key pro-CAFO terms and the inclusion of numerous pro-CAFO descriptions in his articles seriously distorts and blurs readers’ understanding of CAFOs. As the result of the use of misleading terms and the acceptance of CAFO descriptions containing unsubstantiated or controversial claims, Pfankuch’s articles yield a largely disarming portrait of CAFOs that has the effect of significantly disguising the reality of the harsh trade-off that CAFO expansion involves: economic and political rewards for a select few and, as Pfankuch warns, the fundamental transformation of rural South Dakota for everyone else.

*      *      *

The author is the South Dakota-born owner and resident of a small ranch near Gregory in south-central South Dakota. She is active in efforts to assist counties in developing ordinances that ensure CAFOs operate within rules that are protective of local citizens, their communities, and counties. She is author of the recently published health-focused cookbook Cooked Alive! Life Savoring Whole Food Recipes to End Processed Food Dependence.