Pages

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Proposed CAFO Bad for Grant County

The Watertown Public Opinion (darn—registration required!) covers the proposed concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in Kilborn Township up Milbank-way in Grant County. The short version: this CAFO would be good for Riverview Dairy, the Minnesota outfit that wants to crowd 5,700 cows, 300 heifers, and 2,500 calves onto 160 acres, and bad for pretty much everyone else.

Here's why, according to local CAFO opponents Gail Strobl and Joelie Hicks:
  1. Shallow aquifers and tons of manure don't go together.
  2. Small dairies like Strobl's (28–35 cows, a little under 200 acres) are already struggling against competition from big industrial dairies, which make it harder for local dairies to compete and for young farmers to enter the business as independent operators.
  3. Big dairies mean bigger trucks doing bigger damage to county roads. Strobl and Hicks already see increased road wear and tear around the big Victory Farms and Midwest Dairy Institute dairies south of Milbank. Riverview Farms would only bring more expense for the county, to the tune of $76,000 per mile, says Strobl. (And remember, counties are already having trouble paying for road repairs.)
  4. Three words: toxic poop cloud. (O.K., that's my term, not Strobl's or Hicks's.)
More than a few people in Grant County are inclined to agree: 40–50 people showed up at a meeting of CAFO opponents at the Rob and Joelie Hicks home near the proposed Riverview Farms site. (Hey, you try getting that many people to a meeting on a nice summer evening.)

Industrial agriculture is a step in the wrong direction. We need to reverse this trend and empower more small farmers to enter the field, produce more food on a local, sustainable scale, and be the captains of their own destiny. Less dependence on CAFOs and corporate ag means healthier cows, healthier people, and healthier local economies.

4 comments:

  1. Cory, Dude, the family farm is next to dead. Large confinement units are the wave of the future. Everything is computerized. The cows never even have to go outside. Most likely the hired help won't be local. The only ones who will get rich on this deal is the investors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon: Dude, "next to dead"? Ever see The Princess Bride? Miracle Max? I never give up at "mostly dead."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cory, Dude, what happens in 10 more years as our current batch of farmers retire? My guess is that we have yet to see the end of the consolidation of farms. I think we will see far bigger operations than Randall.

    Be aware that there are state efforts to recruit large dairies to SD.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In South Dakota almost all livestock is in some kind of concentrated animal feeding operation- that is some kind of pens or barns with waterers and feed or hay, critters can't eat snow. Most of the older ones, built by family farmers before pollution regulations, are unregulated, unreported and don't keep manure laden runoff on site. They don't have a pit. Much of the nutrients in the manure runs off into streams or soaks into the soil toward the aquifers-depending on the soil under the manure piles. When Grant County had over 10,000 dairy cows scattered across many small farms in the 70's Big Stone Lake was dying from the nutrient load. Is that the price we have to pay for feeding the world with small family farms? Dead Lakes? Grant County now wants the cows back, but with pollution control this time. That might mean some big CAFOs with the latest technology and permits and regulation. Over here in Minnesota the same company allowed the neighboring farmers to invest in the dairy in their backyard. Member of Citizens for Big Stone Lake

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.