Action Alert: Don't Let Conservation Buy The Farm

Kerry Trueman blogs about sustainable agriculture, progressive politics, and a less consumption driven way of life for Eating Liberally and Huffington Post. This is part of Farm Bill blogging.

I have a not-very-taxing question for all you tax payers out there:

Would you like to see your hard-earned dollars used to conserve precious wetlands and vital habitats, or would you prefer to see that money used to build football field-sized pools of pigshit generated by industrial pork producers?

The "manure lagoons" that surround Smithfield slaughterhouses like methane-filled moats emit a deadly and brain-damaging gas called hydrogen sulfide, so for the people who live downwind from them the question is, presumably, a no-brainer.

But what about the 90% of Americans who don't live on or near a farm? Would we rather see our agricultural policies promote conservation, or help fund factory farm cesspools that spew lethal levels of contaminants into air, soil and water with that legendary agribiz efficiency?

Congressman Collin Peterson, Democrat from Minnesota and Chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee, thinks we'd rather put our money into pollution than preservation.

So he's submitted a 2007 Farm Bill Proposal that would take funds away from the conservation programs that provide, among other things, aid to sustainable and organic farms, and use it instead to help corporate owned CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) offset the cost of creating more manure lagoons.

I know, I know, you're thinking, sheesh, like Smithfield needs a handout?

But, actually, it turns out that they do, because, as Jeff Teitz noted in a scathing expose for Rolling Stone about Smithfield's execrable handling of its excrement, "There simply is no regulatory solution to the millions of tons of searingly fetid, toxic effluvium that industrial hog farms discharge and aerosolize on a daily basis. Smithfield alone has sixteen operations in twelve states. Fixing the problem completely would bankrupt the company."

And that's the largest, most profitable pork producer in the world we're talking about. You would think they could afford to deal responsibly with the vast pits of toxic waste that are a by-product of industrial pork production methods. But you'd be wrong, according to Tietz:

Hogs produce three times more excrement than human beings do. The 500,000 pigs at a single Smithfield subsidiary in Utah generate more fecal matter each year than the 1.5 million inhabitants of Manhattan. The best estimates put Smithfield's total waste discharge at 26 million tons a year. That would fill four Yankee Stadiums. Even when divided among the many small pig production units that surround the company's slaughterhouses, that is not a containable amount.

Smithfield estimates that its total sales will reach $11.4 billion this year. So prodigious is its fecal waste, however, that if the company treated its effluvia as big-city governments do -- even if it came marginally close to that standard -- it would lose money.

So obviously Smithfield needs a hand from Uncle Sam.

But what about all those forward-thinking farmers looking to be better stewards of the land? Don't they need assistance, too?

"In 2004, three out of every four farmers and ranchers applying to participate in Farm Bill conservation programs were rejected due to lack of funds," as Ferd Hoefner, policy director for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, told Dan Imhoff, author of Food Fight, the delightfully digestible, if disturbing, guide to the Farm Bill that's chock full of shocking charts and statistics. Read it or you'll get no dessert. Or should I say, if you don't read it, and don't lobby your legislators to better this bill, you'll get your just desserts.

Notes Imhoff, "In dollar terms, eight and a half out of every ten dollars requested were denied due to the funding shortfall. In fact, the 2004 backlog for conservation dollars exceeds the total funding available in 2005 by a three-to-one margin."

Despite being chronically underfunded, the Farm Bill's conservation programs have managed to restore nearly two million acres of wetlands and reverse the decline of waterfowl whose habitat gets destroyed when farmers drain wetlands to plant commodity crops.

More farmers clamor every year to board the sustainability bandwagon, but Congressman Peterson's decided we can't give them a lift. His proposal guts the Conservation Security Program and shifts those funds to the already amply funded Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which goes in part to help defray the costs incurred by CAFOs.

The House Agriculture Subcommittee's set to vote on Congressman Peterson's proposal this coming Tuesday, May 22nd.

So if you'd like to see your tax dollars help underwrite the costs of more disease and death caused by CAFO-contaminated waterways, air, and soil; antibiotics rendered less effective in people by their overuse in chronically sick livestock made ill by horrendous living conditions; the millions of fish killed every time the manure lagoons burst and spill tons of toxic manure into our rivers (which they do regularly, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council); and millions more fish who die because of oxygen-gobbling "dead zones" that spread algae blooms thousands of miles along our coasts, fed by nutrients in animal waste, well, then, just sit back and let congress take its course.

If, like me, you think it makes more sense to encourage sustainable farming and conservation instead of funding more factory farms, you have just one day--tomorrow, May 21st--to ask your representative to, you know, represent you.



Display:


Re: Action Alert: Don't Let Conservation Buy The F (none / 0)

The first tangible thing that anyone can do is to refrain from eating any pork unless you know that it has been grown in a sustainable manner.

And then let Smithfield (and the Pork Producer's association) kno0w that's what you're doing.

They won't make it if nobody buys it.


by Conservative apikoris on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:30:39 PM EST

Re: Action Alert: Don't Let Conservation Buy The F (none / 0)

Consumers are already forcing the factory farms to make some changes. Voters in Arizona and Florida have approved bans of the cruel, cramped gestation crates to which the CAFOs confine their sows, and the fast food chains have followed suit, telling Smithfield they won't buy pork from producers who rely on these crates.

So Smithfield recently announced that it would phase out the use of the crates. They're not doing it fast enough, and it's just one small step, but it's better than nuthin', and demonstrates that you can, in fact, vote with your fork. Three times a day, to be exact.


Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens. William Beveridge
by Kerry Trueman on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

our agriculture policy is a travesty (none / 0)

and Tom Harkin is no hero to me, but at least he tried to put a little in for conservation in the last Farm Bill.

It frustrates me to no end that Collin Peterson wants to slash this program instead of multiplying it tenfold. I saw this in the Des Moines Register recently.

I don't buy pork at all, but for those who do, look for Niman Ranch or one of the other sustainable producers out there.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:35:35 PM EST

Re: our agriculture policy is a travesty (none / 0)

You've gotta give Harkin credit for his tireless lobbying on behalf of fruits and vegetables, at least. Who else is daring to ask the question, "Why isn't Shrek advertising fresh fruits, healthy vegetables?''

Although perhaps a better question would be "Why does the USDA marginalize frutis and vegetables by designating them "specialty crops"?

We are lucky to be able to get grass-fed, humanely raised pork at our Greenmarket, but if I couldn't have that I, too, would choose Niman Ranch.

Once you realize what goes into those factory farmed franks you can't really eat that stuff anymore. As Slow Food founder Carlo Petrini is reportedly fond of saying, "Knowledge changes taste."


Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens. William Beveridge
by Kerry Trueman on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Other options and concerns? (none / 0)

Unless the US public decides to become less carnivorous, there is probably little option than to allow CAFO's.  Organic farming cannot maintain the productivity levels needed to meet the demands that we place on our food system at the current time.  This is not to say that we should ignore sustainable farming practice, clearly we should encourage this.  Nor should we give more subsidies to large agrobusiness polluters. But the long term solution is a more moderate amount of meat protein in the American diet.  It's also healthier.

Funny that Kerry Trueman focuses on H2S as the scary pollutant.  Nitrogen is a much bigger issue.  Manure ponds produce huge amounts of gaseous ammonia, which is a greater environmental issue.  If manure is dumped directly on land, or if the ponds leak, the ammonia can be changed to nitrates and easily enter aquifers, where it can cause birth defects or fetal death, among other things.  The ponds are a particularly bad way to manage N, because they have little oxygen in them and the low O2 enviroment results in both the sulfide and ammonia emissions.

An interesting non technical summary of N management can be found here and more details in a report linked to at the end of that article. Switching from lagoon to pit operations would decrease noxious gas emissions and lower profits by about 12%.


by The lurking ecologist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:29:20 AM EST

Re: Other options and concerns? (none / 0)

You are right on the money, our meat-centric diet is a source of so many problems. Aside from the health issues, the production of livestock generates more greenhouse gases than driving an SUV. So if all us carnivores cut back on our meat consumption we could reduce our carbon footprint NOW. No need to wait for those solar panels or that Prius to make a difference. Just cut back on the burgers, buy local, and go grass fed.

Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of "eating little animal food, and that not as an aliment, so much as a condiment for the vegetables which constitute my principal diet."

Meat as a condiment to enhance a plant-based diet. Founding Father Knows Best!


Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens. William Beveridge
by Kerry Trueman on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Action Alert: Don't Let Conservation Buy The F (none / 0)

"The House Agriculture Subcommittee's set to vote on Congressman Peterson's proposal this coming Tuesday, March 22nd."

Do you mean May 22nd?


Rochester Turning: Turning the tide Upstate.
by sayhar on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:21:39 AM EST

i would like to see... (none / 0)

a farm policy that provides some sort of goal that if you are a family farmer, then you should be able to have an income that is comparable to middle class incomes for the rest of the nation.

If you farm in this country, you shouldn't have to live a third world life-style.

The original New Deal farm legislation contains this goal of comparable income- and the department of agriculture is actually still charged with fulfilling this role.  Current Farm Policy and Programs, however, do not advance this notion.

You can do whatever you want about conservation and the environment.  It still misses the point that if you want reasonably-scaled, local, family-owned farms, then the nation has to pay for them in some form- either higher food costs, taxes, deficit spending, or some sort of combination.


d
by d on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:20:14 AM EST

Re: i would like to see... (none / 0)

Agreed. It is tragic how hard farmers work for so little. I seem to recall that JonTester was making about $20,000 a year on his farm. The hours are brutal, the risks are great, the rewards are far too small.

It is critical to eradicate the notion that farmers' markets are a haven for elitist foodies, and we need to address the perception problem that fresh fruits and vegetables are "too expensive" when the reality is that overprocessed packaged foods are kept artifically cheap because of subsidies.

And, btw, when the USDA started tracking how much the average household spends on food in 1929, it was something like 25% of our disposable income. It's now down to less than 10%. We have the lowest food costs of any industrialized nation.


Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens. William Beveridge
by Kerry Trueman on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Action Alert: Don't Let Conservation Buy The F (none / 0)

Well, I'm not sure I want to completely wade into the debate on Americans eating less meat.  But I will say that I think if we do choose to eat meat, the price of that meat should reflect all of the costs of producing it.  And in fact, if that did happen, you would see Americans eat less meat simply as a result of that meat costing more.  A CAFO surcharge on every 99 cent double cheeseburger sold at McDonalds is not the worst idea.

Kerry's point that overprocessed packaged food is subsidized is spot-on.  Occasionally, I meet farmers producing local, sustainable food who want nothing to do with policy or politics.  I understand that urge.  My point to them is that unless we do something about policy, they will always be at an enormous market disadvantage, and healthy local foods will never reach as many consumers as it should.

Regarding the  House Conservation Security Program proposal- Collin Peterson proposing no new money for the program, which would put in on ice for about five years- is hugely disappointing.  Even more shocking, Peterson not only proposes to steal CSP money, he also got around to rewriting the whole program, gravely weakening the conservation standards and environmental focus of CSP.  So even they do find money for CSP at the end of the day, it would be a far weaker program than it is right now.  Pitiful.


Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:34:20 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.