Soil
TillageWhen rural streams take on a muddy color after spring rains, farmers and environmentalists become concerned. As rich topsoil erodes into streams and rivers, agricultural land becomes less productive and water resources become less healthy for aquatic life. Some environmental groups decry conventional farm practices, accusing farmers of being apathetic toward the loss of this valuable resource. I did not find these acusations to be true. All of the people involved with agriculture that I spoke with readily recognized the problem of soil erosion. The crop farmers I spoke with all expressed their interest in reducing erosion as much as possible. However, in order to reduce erosion, farmers must change their methods. Adapting new methods requires that farmers place their investments in seed and other resources into unfamiliar practices instead of familiar and reliable conventional methods. In spite of their concern for reducing soil erosion, farmers must take time to test and experiment with new methods before fully undertaking them.
Farmers may reduce their soil's vulnerability to erosion by choosing new methods to till their soil. Conventional farmers use a moldboard plow to cut and invert the soil
before planting. Tillage using a moldboard
plow leaves the soil loose so that seeds may rise to the surface more easily.
Farmers generally till their soil at least twice each year--after fall harvest
and before spring planting. While loose soil provides seedlings with
less resistance as they sprout upward, it also becomes much more vulnerable
to erosion. By reducing tillage, farmers can reduce the amount of soil
that leaves their fields due to rain and wind. Alternatives to conventional tillage have gained in popularity across America. In the Northwest, a movement toward minimum-tillage and no-till has attracted a substantial following. Farmers who have begun to experiment with less tillage note the environmental and economic benefits of their new practices (Werblow, 2001 p6). In addition to reducing soil-loss, reductions in tillage minimize costs. Cutting and inverting hundreds or thousands of acres of soil requires a substantial amount of energy. Gasoline, by means of a tractor engine, provides this energy. Consequently, conventional tillage involves a large expenditure in fuel costs. Using less energy to till the soil lowers costs for farmers and reduces the amount of time they must spend in their tractors.
All of the agricultural people I spoke with recognized the increased usage of no-till practices in the Northfield area. A majority of the farmers had already begun to experiment with reduced tillage on their crop lands. When asked why they didn’t use no-till or minimum-tillage on all of their lands, farmers gave a variety of answers. One individual noted that reduced-tillage technology is still being developed. He saw the availability of good equipment as part of the reason why reduced-tillage had not gained in popularity sooner. For the past six years, he had placed a greater number of acres under no-till practices each year. This year he planned to significantly increase the size of the no-till area within his land. He explained that changing methods takes place gradually. In a profession of thin profit margins, farmers must have confidence that new practices will offer comparable success to their current practices. Confidence in a new method takes several years of consistent output to develop.
Issues of pride also enter into the decision-making process. No-till agriculture leaves last year’s remnants of corn stalks and bean plants lying above ground. These left-over plants provide coverage and stability for the soil. Coverage makes soil less vulnerable to wind gusts and old root structures hold the earth in place when rains threaten to wash it away. However, farmers refer to these plant remnants as “trash.” As the negative connotation of the word “trash” suggests, farmers do not like to see their fields covered with last-year’s left-overs. Rural neighbors take note of each other’s practices and have opinions about people who break from the norms. Farmers who adopt no-till practices must swallow their pride until they can demonstrate the positive results of their new ventures
Local farmers believe that no-till and minimum-tillage practices will continue to become more popular in the Northfield area as long as they prove their cost-competitiveness with conventional tillage methods. If farmers cannot make a profit from their no-till and minimum-tillage trials, they will hesitate to continue to pursue such practices. Each year, farmers must make large investments in land and seed and equipment and they cannot afford to risk these investments on methods that they have not yet become comfortable with. As one farmer stated to me, “I agree with the logic of no-till farming, but I don’t know if I have the stomach for it.” He saw the benefits of new practices, but could not bring himself to abandon the methods he had relied on for many years. Furthermore, he recognized the difference in his soil and land from his neighbor who had begun to experiment with no-till. The conventional farmer’s soil and land were less prone to erosion and presented more potential problems for no-till than did his neighbor’s soil and land.
Overall, farmers are as interested as anybody else in conserving their soil and preventing the degradation of aquatic resources. Farmers in the Northfield area have shown their openness to new methods and willingness to experiment with limited land areas. However, farmers must deal with the reality of substantial capital investments and cannot abruptly break away from proven methods. Farmers understand the uniqueness of their land and must rely on their own experience as the ultimate determinate of their actions. top
Tiling
Farmers utilize a method known as tiling in order to reduce the wetness of certain lands and make them more useful for farming. Before advocates of conservation began to note the value of wetlands as a natural resource for wildlife and water quality, farmers often installed tiling to drain the wetlands and make the land useful for farming. Conservation groups oppose the degradation tiling causes to wetlands, while farmers defend the positive impact of tiling on soil retention.
Installing tiling in land involves placing a hollow pipe filled with holes several feet underground. Water in the soil above and around the pipe drains into the pipe and flows straight to a drainage ditch.
Conservation groups detest tiling due to its destructive impact on wetlands. The farmers I spoke with recognized the importance of wetlands, but defended their use of tiling nonetheless. They argued that tiling’s adverse effect on wetlands are compensated for by its capacity to reduce erosion. By keeping the soil unsaturated with water, tiling ensures that heavy rains will soak down into the earth. If soil cannot absorb new water, the water runs across the surface and takes topsoil with it. Consequently, farmers who place a high value on environmental quality nevertheless defend their tiling practices against the condemnations of environmental groups. top
Pesticides and Herbicides
The debate over genetically modified seedsWhen Monsanto, a large agribusiness firm, began offering genetically modified (known as GMO) seeds to farmers, environmental and other interest groups responded with strong criticism. Debate over the implications of GMO seeds on human and environmental health still rages between farmers, seed-producing companies and citizens, but GMO use has already become widespread in the US. The farmers I spoke with discussed the immediate environmental benefits they see from using GMO seeds and told of the difficulty of holding back from GMO use based on limited proof of
adverse impacts.
GMO seeds contain a special gene that makes them resistant to certain herbicides and and/or pesticides. The most common GMO seeds have a gene that makes them resistant to Roundup, an herbicide that kills all non-GMO plants. GMO seeds with the Roundup resistant gene may also contain genes that make the plants resistant to pests such as corn borers and root worms.
Environmental groups have expressed concern about the possibility of GMO genes spreading to other plants. These groups have also expressed concern that pests will evolve to overcome the GMO plants resistance. If such events occur, they may threaten to disrupt or destroy ecosystems.
Farmers understand the possibility of negative outcomes occurring from their use of GMO seeds, however, each of the farmers I spoke with noted the significant positive environmental effects that they had observed from using GMO seeds. By using GMO seeds, the farmers I interviewed have substantially reduced the amount of chemicals they apply to their fields. I spoke with one gentlemen who worked in the chemical supply business. He attested to witnessing a dramatic reduction in the amount of herbicides and pesticides he supplied to farmers. Commenting on his own dilemma, he remarked, “I want to sell people chemicals so I can make money, but I support farmers in their use of GMO crops because I can see how much better it is for the environment.”
Deciding whether or not to use GMO seeds presents farmers with a decision between tangible and intangible evidence. Farmers can directly see the benefits of GMO seeds. Although GMO seeds require a larger investment in seed costs, most farmers save money overall by reducing the amount of money they spend on chemicals. The farmer who works with his planter can directly observe the reduced amount of chemicals he uses. He appreciates the time and money he saves by using the GMO seeds. Potential benefits from abstaining from the use of GMOs are harder to witness. In order to forego the potential benefits from GMOs, a farmer must have firm faith in the ecological dangers of GMO seeds. The dangers to ecosystems must exceed the potential dangers to nearby streams and other aquatic resources from herbicides and pesticides. As I was reminded of by several farmers, farmers must drink from their own wells. If groundwater contamination takes place, the family on the farm is the first to encounter the damage. When deciding whether or not to use GMOs, farmers have a choice to put their faith in the debated claims of distant environmental groups (See section on hog farming)—many of whom have discredited themselves by making mis-informed statements on other issues—or to base their decision on the reality that they can touch and see. top
Organic Farming
Some farmers abstain from using any chemicals on their crops. By farming organically, farmers can avoid contaminating surface and groundwater and can assure consumers a healthy product. However, I learned from speaking with local farmers that organic methods still may cause environmental problems and may not represent the most environmentally-responsible way of producing food.
In order to avoid using chemicals, but still control weeds and pests, organic farmers must employ a variety of alternative practices compared to conventional farmers. Dave, one of the
farmers I spoke with, discussed his thoughts about becoming an organic
farmer. While considering changing to organic farming, Dave studied
the practices involved with avoiding herbicide and pesticide usage.
He found that organic farmers control weeds primarily through aggressive
tillage methods. According to Dave, organic farmers may till their
soil as many as four times per year in order to prevent weeds from growing.
Dave, who has moved to reduced-tillage and will soon employ no-till methods,
noted the adverse consequences on soil erodibility of such intensive tillage
practices. Emphasizing the importance of soil retention over potential
damage from GMO seeds or chemical application, Dave chose to continue minimum-tillage
farming rather than converting to organic. With environmental welfare
as the criteria for his decision, Dave chose not to farm organically.
Dave’s choice to continue farming with conventional seeds and chemicals illustrates the complexity of agriculture’s relationship with environmental welfare. Reduced-tillage farming and organic farming both improve the environmental impact of food production, but both practices also involve negative environmental consequences. Each option compromises environmental welfare in a different way. The wealth of environmental and non-environmental factors involved with sustaining a productive farming operation demands that farmers constantly deal with compromise between conflicting ideals. Farmers must find a balance between environmental stewardship, efficiency, and profitability in order to sustain their livlihood. top home
Hog Farming
Changing PracticesChanges in hog-raising practices during the past several decades have attracted attention from environmental groups. The industry now features larger and more concentrated farms. As farms have grown in size, animal density on these farms has also increased. Increases in size and density allow for greater efficiency. Environmental groups accuse the more-concentrated facilities of creating environmental hazards with their tremendous manure output. However, scholarly sources suggest that environmental hazards from concentrated animal agriculture result only from certain circumstances and do not apply to these operations in general. Farmers in the Northfield area have faced controversy over the environmental impacts of their practices. These farmers defend the environmental benefits of their modern practices and attribute much of the controversy they encounter to uninformed generalizations about hog farming and poor communication between hog farmers and the groups who oppose them.
According to several of the hog farmers I spoke with, changes in the industry illustrate the natural outcome of competition and efficiency. Since profit per hog has shown minimal gains during the past several decades, producers must expand in size and efficiency in order to increase their earnings.
The combination of increased size and density of animals means that producers must deal with larger inputs and outputs for their operations. In particular, the outputs have become a focus for environmental groups. Environmental groups note the enormous manure output of hog operations and question producers capacity to dispose of this waste properly.
The Environmental Impact
According to Norris and Thurlow (1999), the groups concerned about the environment have a valid argument in some instances. Norris and Thurlow note the importance of maintaining sufficient land assimilative capacity around hog production facilities. In other words, hog farmers must have enough land around their operation so that they can evenly dispose of the manure without putting an excessive amount in any single location. Hog manure works as a productive fertilizer and provides much needed nitrogen for corn and soybeans. However, if farmers apply manure in excess of the land and crop’s ability to process the nutrients from the manure, phosphates—one of the types of nutrients in manure—accumulate and may contaminate surface or groundwater. Environmental problems result when a packing plant draws a high concentration of hog producers into an area without enough land upon which to distribute animal manure.
In addition to telling of the potential environmental problems with the increased size and density of hog-raising facilities, Norris and Thurlow tell of the benefits large-scale facilities have on the cost of reducing pollution. For the same reasons large-scale facilities can produce hogs with greater efficiency, they are also more efficient with pollution-reduction measures (Norris and Thurlow, p199).
Norris and Thurlow’s study allows for better understanding of the circumstances and perspectives of the farmers in the Northfield area who raise hogs. In their article, Norris and Thurlow identify the specific circumstances that cause environmental problems within the larger industry. These authors show that the large-scale structure of the hog industry may be prone to cause environmental problems in some situations, but may avoid causing negative environmental impacts as long as these circumstances are avoided.
Farmers who raised hogs in the Northfield area reflected themes within Norris and Thurlow’s work throughout our conversations. Three of the farmers I spoke with raise hogs in indoor confined facilities built within the past ten years. These facilities are known as Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs) according to the terminology used by the USDA. One of the farmers I spoke with raised hogs according to the traditional means.
Each of the farmers who owned a CAFO emphasized the benefits of indoor facilities for the animals and the environment. All of these farmers had raised pigs outdoors before building their new facilities. By keeping pigs inside during the winter, farmers keep the animals more comfortable while reducing the amount of feed necessary to keep them growing at a considerable rate. Consuming less feed means that fewer pounds of corn and soybeans go into producing each pound of meat. In terms of land use and food production, raising hogs in doors allows less farmland to be devoted to each animal.
Regulations
All of the CAFO farmers improved the efficiency of converting feed into meat when they moved their animals indoors. By increasing the efficiency with which feed is converted into meat means that hogs produce less manure per pound of weight gain. The manure that hogs produce drains into a sealed pit below the floor where the hogs live. One of the farmers spoke of the extensive regulatory process involved in constructing the hog pit. Several inspectors evaluated the pit for cracks and weaknesses before the owners put it to use. All of the farmers emphasized the safety of the pit for containing manure. They noted the increased control such pits allow over manure in comparison with outdoor facilities where manure drops straight onto the ground.
While discussing the elaborate regulatory process involved with building their hog facilities, farmers showed no signs of resentment. When questioned if they felt antagonistic toward the government for demanding such thorough regulations, all of the people I interviewed expressed their support and appreciation for the requirements in place. They reminded me that they have to drink out of the wells next to the hog facilities. Rather than feeling resentment toward government requirements, farmers expressed their desire that people would give them credit for fulfilling the demanding criteria to prove the safety of their facilities. Each of the farmers noted that their new facilities were much more regulated and controlled than their previous practices. Based on the elaborate requirements they now have on their facilities, the farmers believed that their new practices represented improvements in environmental stewardship in comparison with outdoor facilities.
Local Controversy
In spite of the farmers’ assurances of the environmental responsibility of their operations, they have faced substantial opposition to their practices from Northfield residents. Northfield residents have mounted campaigns against farmers wishing to develop new facilities. These campaigns have issued personal attacks against the individuals wishing to build the facilities. The farmers who have endured these attacks note that they focus on issues such as water contamination. As mentioned above, farmers must go through extensive requirements and regulations when building their new facilities to ensure that it does not present a threat to water quality. After completion, farmers must continue to test their water from around the base of their facility on a regular basis to check for contamination from manure. From the farmers’ perspective, these regulations and requirements should provide sufficient assurance to citizens that their operation will not threaten water quality.
In the views expressed by farmers, these protests are built more around fear and uninformed concerns than on legitimate arguments. Many of the arguments stem from concerns that citizens may hear about regarding large-scale hog farming in general. Urban residents do not distinguish between the cases when large-scale farms present environmental problems and the cases when responsible farmers wish to undertake new responsible animal-raising practices. Each of the farmers I spoke with talked of distributing the manure from his operation around to neighboring farms to be used as fertilizer. This demonstrates that these farmers indeed possess sufficient land assimilative capacity for their operations. Land assimilation of hog manure was the primary cause of concern in Norris and Thurlow’s article. The farmers added that using hog manure as fertilizer replaces the need for chemical fertilizers, creating an environmental advantage and a way for area farmers to save costs.
Several of the farmers suggested that a few cases in the media cause people who are unfamiliar with agriculture to make sweaping generalizations. Consequently, the farmers expressed difficulty trusting environmental groups who take part in such campaigns.
Contracts and Capital
The farmer who did not raise his hogs in a CAFO had not avoided the new practices because of any beliefs about animal welfare, environmental consequences or continuing with tradition. Rather, he did not wish to commit the necessary capital to build a new indoor facility. Building an indoor confinement facility requires a commitment of several hundred-thousand dollars of capital. One of the farmers I spoke with spent close to $500,000 on building his facility and purchasing the animals and feed to run it. The non-CAFO hog farmer had decided to endure the greater amount of work and the financial difficulty of raising pigs in the way he had raised them for decades, rather than take on the necessary debt burden to move to the new method.
Because of the large capital investments necessary to raise pigs in a CAFO, farmers who have chosen this route cannot abandon their commitment without facing financial difficulties. In fact, dismal hog prices since 1998 have made many new CAFO owners question or regret their decision. According to the understandings of several of the individuals I spoke with, relatively high hog prices and the promise of contracts with meat packers attracted farmers to invest in new hog facilities during the early 1990s. Packers promised to guarantee a decent hog price to farmers who signed contracts with them. The appeal of these contracts attracted a flood of farmers to the industry. In 1998, due to this flood of producers in addition to circumstances beyond the control of national producers, prices for pigs hit rock bottom. Prices came no where close to a level that would allow farmers to make a profit. However, due to their contracts and their immense capital commitments in their new facilities, farmers could not abandon the hog industry and pursue other agricultural routes. This new type of farming has significantly limited the control farmers have over their own operations. Although farmers saw a promise of profitability in the greater efficiency of raising hogs in these new facilities, they have nevertheless encountered financial hard times. Several farmers noted that packers continue to adjust contracts away from the producers’ favor.
The farmers I spoke with take pride in their hog raising operations. Each of them defended with solid arguments the environmental responsibility of raising hogs in CAFOs. These farmers place a high value on animal welfare and environmental health. After all, as one farmer pointed out, "their livelihood depends upon the health of the animals. He added, "Environmental responsibility in hog raising makes economic sense when you're in it for the long term." Consequently, he supports environmental regulations for the sake of enforcing environmental stewardship, but admits that the regulations have not forced many changes in his operation. Since many of the regulations make economic sense, his practice had already undertaken them for the sake of economic efficiency. Hog farmer feel that attacks against their practices are due to generalized condemnations of the hog industry based on a small number of problems that have occured due to farmer irresponsibility. The farmers I spoke with repeatedly affirmed their faith in the integrity and responsibility of the vast majority of hog farmers and farmers in general. Several farmers concluded our interviews with the remarks, "I think farmers as a whole are out there working hard and doing a good job." They admitted that a few "bad apples" exist, but noted that such is the case in any profession. These farmers wanted to receive credit for their diligent work as environmental stewards. They wanted to be evaluated as individuals rather than lumped together with uniformed stereotypes based on a few bad examples. Most importantly, they wanted the opportunity to express their point of view to the public so that people may become more informed about the reality of hog farming.