CAFOs and Economic Development

September 4, 2008

CAFOs and Economic DevelopmentSeveral state governors, state colleges and universities, and the US Department of Agriculture promote Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) as a rural economic development tool. But are they?

I set out to find an answer to a simple question: “Are CAFOs economically beneficial?”

The answer, I learned, is equally simple: “NO”.

Realizing that I am entering an area that has traditionally been the stomping grounds of rural economists, I relied heavily on the studies of Bill Weida of Colorado College and John Ikerd of the University of Missouri. Both are economists and both are retired. Retirement has certain benefits. For one thing, it frees retirees from the dictates of the hierarchy at whatever institution employed them. The second benefit is that the retiree is freed up to work on the issues deemed important.

Both Weida and Ikerd have 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 spouse 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 to CAFOs. County tax assessors have reduced land evaluations near CAFOs as much as 30%.
  •  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 bi-lingual 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 go out of hog-rearing, dairy or chicken operations (and this has a “domino” effect). Local businesses – such as banks, hardware stores and implement dealers – once dependent upon local farmers for business, 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. While 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 an immigrant work force (some agribusinesses have up to 65% of workers with Hispanic surnames), and, finally,
  •  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 – blankets, pillows – fall upon local organizations.Any one of these indicators would be problematic, but when all of them are added together, it becomes readily apparent that CAFOs are an economic disaster for rural communities.

No doubt, a few fat-cats on the boards of Tysons, Smithfield, Seaboard benefit. No doubt, that CEOs of ConAgra and Cargill do well. But the folks on corporate agribusiness boards and the CEOs don’t live in rural communities. Indeed, Joe Luter, the CEO of Smithfield – a self-described “family farmer” – lives in a condo on Park Avenue in New York City.

So, while a few of the already-rich get richer, rural communities get poorer. While a few bigwigs vacation for months in Bermuda or a tropical island in the Pacific, rural residents can hardly afford to take a vacation at all.
Economic benefit? No. Economic development? No.

So what are the Governors thinking in promoting CAFOs as a way to benefit rural communities? While my first impulse is to state “They aren’t thinking”, the old adage of “follow the money applies”. Take a look at which business organizations bankroll gubernatorial campaigns. Take a look at the donations flowing in from advocacy groups such as the Farm Bureau, the Pork Producers Association, the Poultry Federation, or the American Dairy Federation.
Who are the Governors listening to? Those with the most money for them.