Invasive Species

Hog Farming

In a little over a decade the U.S. has seen a massive shift in the agricultural economy from smaller, family owned farms to larger corporate farms. This has lead to many families that once relied on farming being forced to sell their farms to larger corporate farms and sometimes leaves families impoverished. As these corporations have grown more powerful economically they have also grown more powerful politically. Some corporate farmers have used this power to get laws and regulations passed that allow them to operate in ways that are extremely harmful to the environment and the surrounding comunities. These corporations have been receiving most of the government subsidies for farmers and thus president Bush has proposed an agricultural reform bill that would cut government subsidies to any farm that makes more than $200,000 of income a year. Although Bush’s main reason for proposing this bill is because of economic concerns it could possibly have a positive impact for the environment as well. This is because smaller, family owned farms are traditionally much less harmful to the environment than large corporate farms and therefore by promoting smaller family farms we also promote healthier and safer environmental practices.

This trend of corporatization of farming is most visible among hog farms in North Carolina, specifically eastern North Carolina where sandy soils and high water tables make contamination of groundwater an even bigger threat. A hog produces 2 to 5 times as much waste as an average human and these hogs are fed in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Until recently little was known about the environmental effects of these confined animal feeding operations because the industry has grown so quickly, but without much thought or imagination, the simplest mind can comprehend how a large concentration of hogs in a small area will impact the world around them. The 9.5 million tons of hog waste produced annually is stored in earthen pits called lagoons where it decomposes or is collected to be sprayed as fertilizer. While industry officials say that the lagoon system is proven to be effective in containing the hog wastes, recent studies have shown otherwise. A U. N.C. report estimated that as many as half of the lagoons in N.C. are leaking enough to contaminate ground water. Eastern N.C., where the majority of farms are located, is especially vulnerable to ground water contamination due to its sandy soils and high water table (New Studies Show). Livestock wastes are notorious breeding grounds for numerous types of bacteria. One such bacterium that is known to develop in hog farms is cryptosporidium. This protist parasite causes problems with the gastro-intestinal systems of animals. A human with a weak immune system, such as a child or senior citizen, can die from infection by this parasite. Hog farms also produce large amounts of airborne ammonia when the waste in the lagoons is broken down by bacteria. As this ammonia falls back to the earth in rainfall, it creates nutrients for algae, resulting in additional algal blooms. Ammonia also accounts for much of the odor that is produced by the wastes and is a respiratory irritant.

In addition to the physical effects of hog farming, there are social and economic ramifications as well. Hog farms are located away from society’s “haves”, and instead are located in the communities of the “have-nots”. A recent study done at N.C. state university examining 2,500 CAFOs located in N.C. found that, “These facilities are located disproportionately in communities with higher levels of poverty, higher proportions of nonwhite persons, and higher dependence on wells for household water supply. The disproportionate location of hog CAFOs in these areas raises numerous public health and social justice issues.” (Wing). The study also found that the areas that where these facilities were located had the highest rates of disease and had the least access to medical care. These CAFOs also have negative economic impacts in that they create a great deal of odor which deters other industries from locating in the area. Because of this odor, the industry, by its very nature, is effectively able to hold hostage the communities it occupies, almost becoming “the only game in town”.

After hearing this information one would probably be inclined to ask the obvious question: Why doesn’t the state pass legislature to regulate the farms? Smith and Kuch discuss some policy issues that have lead to problems associated with the rapid verticle integration of animal agriculture sector into the economy. Two federal statutes are in place that impose regulation requirements on livestock operations: The clean Water Act (CWA) and the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). The CWA designates CAFOs as point sources of pollution and therefore requires CAFOs to obtain a National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) permit if they are going to discharge into any U.S. surface waters. Those that are permitted must meet the federal standard of zero discharge into surface waters. The NPDES program is implemented by each states related agencies thus giving individual states discretion in how to implement the national standard. The CZARA applies to the twenty-nine coastal and great lakes states and requires them to develop and implement “Coastal Nonpoint Control Protection Programs” to deal with non-point pollution sources as well. This act also requires livestock operations that spray the waste as fertilizer on croplands to develop a nutrient management plan. This decentralized approach, like CWA, allows the states discretion in how to implement standards as well. Smith and Kuch note that, “consistent and standards-based sate-level implementation of federal guidelines, with variation among states attributable solely to unique environemental problems and needs, should, if we accept the hypothesis that environmental regulation affects location decisions, result in interstate patterns of industrialized animal agriculture that reflect efficient response to environmental protection goals.” As is the case with N.C. however, this did not occur. Smith and Kuch identify two features of state discretion that reduce the probability of an efficient outcome. The first factor is that many states have translated federal standards into requirements for specific technologies and therefore there is o economic incentive to implement newer and better technologies. In the hog farming industry, many companies continue to argue that the lagoon system is an effective program to deal with the hog waste when it has been clearly shown that is it is not. The second factor that Smith and Kuch note that state responses

...