CAFO subsidies no help for rural economies
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, April 3, 2009
(http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/03/cafo-subsidies-no-help-for-rural-economies/)

As reported by the Associated Press, U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., has earmarked a bundle of money — about $250,000 — to Premium Standard Farms on the dubious premise that concentrated animal feeding operations are a boost to the rural economy. PSF plans to use the money to find ways to reduce the amount of hog poop it produces via a dewatering procedure.

I examined the economic benefits issue and quickly learned that CAFOs harm the local economy rather than help it. What Kit “Earmarks” Bond has done is the reverse of what President Barack Obama’s stimulus package is supposed to accomplish.

Retired rural economists Bill Weida and John Ikerd have separately studied rural development, and both have concluded that CAFOs do more harm than good to the rural economy.
For indicators, they cite:

•  The increase in child abuse, as documented by states’ social service agencies, and in particular the “Kids Count” data.
  
•  The increase in spousal abuse from crime statistics.
  
•  The increase in rural crime (burglaries, drive-by shootings, drug deals), drawn from a combination of crime statistics and states’ social service agencies.
  
•  The decrease in property values on lands near CAFOs. County tax assessors have reduced land valuations near CAFOs as much as 30 percent.
  
•  The necessity for local school districts to teach English as a second language, leading to more strain on school budgets.
  
•  The necessity for local retail outlets to hire bilingual clerks, as indicated by want ads and as documented by hiring practices of convenience stores.
  
•  That local banks and savings and loan institutions are purchased by larger entities or close altogether.
  
•  Independent farmers give up hog-rearing, dairy or chicken operations, and this has a “domino” effect. Local businesses — such as banks, hardware stores and implement dealers — dependent upon local farmers, have found their markets greatly diminished.
  
•  The amount of direct and indirect subsidies to CAFOs, as exemplified by the recent Farm Bill and its provisions for providing funds for “waste handling” equipment.
  
•  The few local workers hired by CAFOs and their slaugherhouses and packing plant. Although CAFOs do hire local farmers initially, eventually they rely on “outside” employees. CAFOs are similar to factories, and farmers don’t make very good factory workers.
  
•  The growing numbers of immigrant workers (some agribusinesses have up to 65 percent of workers with Hispanic surnames).
  
•  The burden on the local community to provide social services for a foreign population. Local churches, hospitals and social service organizations have a very difficult time meeting the needs of “strangers in a strange land.” The provision of food, clothing, even such minor matters as bedding, fall upon local organizations.

Any one of these indicators would be problematic, but when all of them are added together, it becomes apparent that CAFOs are an economic disaster for rural communities.

No doubt, a few board members of Tyson, Smithfield, Seaboard and Perdue benefit. No doubt CEOs of ConAgra and Cargill do well, even though their companies’ shares have tanked. But the folks on corporate agribusiness boards and the CEOs don’t live in rural communities that have been decimated by the machinations of their companies.

It is difficult to understand how a procedure to reduce hog poop is in taxpayers’ interests. To make matters worse, Premium Standards Farms, now owned by Smithfield Foods Inc., a publicly traded entity, appealed its tax assessment in Putnam County. How is not paying local taxes good for the economy?

Rural economic benefit? No.

Rural economic development? No.

Progress? No.

Regress? Yes.

What Sen. Bond is doing is giving more money to Wall Street fat cats who have driven our economy into a ditch.