031033 Hog Operation Backers & Foes at Cross Purposes

AgWeb.com - Those for and against large-scale hog operations are somewhat talking at cross purposes, according to an University of Illinois research project on the subject. The study details the foundations of the opposing arguments and the array of opinion among farmers, people who live near such operations, journalists, and public officials.

"Pro- and anti-large scale swine operations groups are, to some degree, talking at cross-purposes," according to Ann E. Reisner, associate professor of agricultural communications and author of "Pigs and Publics," a study of Illinois public opinion on the topic.

The final reports of Reisner and other researchers associated with the multi-university, interdisciplinary project will be part of the U of I's Dec. 11-12 Pork Industry Conference to be held in Champaign.

The research examined articles from 22 Illinois newspapers in 52 counties as well as surveying farmers, residents of areas near large-scale swine operations, and stakeholders on their reactions to hog farm expansion after a period of media attention had lapsed. The surveys had a 72 percent response rate.

Across Illinois, efforts to block or promote the expansion of hog farms have been in the news over the past several years. Beginning in the 1990s, the large-scale swine operations began to dominate the industry and by 1998, 50 companies controlled 60 percent of the hog inventory in the traditional swine-growing states, according to information Reisner gleaned from another study. The conflicts were often played out before county or local zoning boards.

"Much of the active resistance to large-scale swine farms has been neighbor against neighbor or at least farmer versus community members," said Reisner. "Farmers who favor expansion say it is the only way to save the state's hog industry. Conversely, opponents will contend that the large-scale operations will drive out 'family farm' operations that cannot compete."

Reviewing the comments made newspapers by both proponents and opponents during siting debates, some clear trends emerged from the analysis. "Proponents of the large-scale operations tend to focus on economics first, then the environment, and, finally, legal or regulatory questions," she said. "The proponents believe the large-scale operations make sense economically. Opponents focus first on the environment, raising questions about air and water quality. The second issue is the inverse of the proponents' economic argument. Opponents contend the large-scale operations threaten the small-farm economic structure they advocate. And, they too, focus on legal/regulatory issues."

Advocates of the large-scale operations tended to argue that these units were actually safer environmentally because advanced technologies, more specialized management and newer facilities would be less likely to smell or leak manure into the ground or surface water than older facilities. Opponents taking the environmental grounds indicated fears that large-scale swine operations would threaten the environment with air, water, and soil pollution. Interestingly, once the siting controversies were settled, relatively few newspaper stories about the large-scale operations appeared.

Reisner's research was funded by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR) through its five-year, swine odor and waste management project.

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

E-mail: sflanagan@sprintmail.com