An Alternate Vision for Pork Production

John Crabtree
Center for Rural Affairs

In American Agriculture, bigger is better. Increasing size is directly proportional to increasing efficiency. Smaller, independent pork producers simply cannot compete with technologically sophisticated, fully automated, ultra-efficient, industrial hog facilities. These are the myths that have been used to explain the recent rapid industrialization of pork production throughout the United States. The truth is much more complex.

Independent producers face more obstacles than just propaganda that declares their operations obsolete. They must overcome discriminatory pricing practices at the packing plant, practices that favor the largest producers. If they wish to expand or improve their livestock facilities they will encounter lenders who would prefer to lend money to producers building total confinement systems and producing under contract. Independent pork producers who choose to build less capital intensive facilities, such as hoop houses, or who choose to raise hogs without total confinement cannot expect much support from research institutions.

These producers have been left on their own to develop management practices for their operations. In the best tradition of American entrepreneurism they have been quite successful. In a recent study of costs in total confinement systems versus hoop houses (Brumm, Honeyman, et. al.) the total cost of production in these two systems was essentially the same. This outcome is somewhat surprising when one considers the extreme disparity between the amount of research money allocated to study total confinement systems on one hand and hoop houses and other production systems on the other.

Throughout this decade many have heralded the efficiency of total confinement systems, and yet a relatively new and almost unresearched production systems has held its own in comparison. Clearly, a greater research effort is needed to evaluate these systems. If producing quality pork at a competitive price is the goal, then production systems that have demonstrated the ability to achieve that goal should not be overlooked simply because they are more apt to be utilized by smaller, independent producers.

In recent years industrial pork production has created environmental concerns that threaten the peaceful coexistence of pork production and rural communities. Not a day passes without significant news coverage of the threat that manure poses to water quality and to the quality of life in rural America. Certainly the very real threat of major manure spills from earthen lagoons and during the handling of liquid manure from large, total confinement systems has created a very negative public image of industrial pork production. State legislatures across the United States are struggling with regulation of manure handling and storage.

Manure management should not, however, be limited to a discussion of how manure can be stored and handled safely. Manure produced in small, dispersed operations, with proper nutrient management practices, can be viewed as a valuable resource for cropland. The concentration of pork production onto a decreasing number of farms and into facilities of ever-increasing size does not lend itself to proper manure management. Large, industrial hog facilities simply do not have access to enough cropland to distribute their manure at agronomic rates. For this reason alone, our discussions of proper manure management should include the issue of concentration.

Managing manure in harmony with the environment must include an effort to help pork producers find the best way to utilize the manure produced in their facilities. Industrial producers should not be allowed to continue to externalize the costs associated with improper manure management. The all too real cost of the environmental degradation caused by improperly handled and managed manure has been absorbed by taxpayers, giving a real and undue advantage to large-scale producers. Holding those responsible for the problems accountable for the cost, will shift the advantage in cost of production where it should be, to those who can truly raise hogs most efficiently.

Smaller, dispersed operations are in the best position to apply manure safely and at rates that are beneficial to crops. These same operations are also more likely to farm the land which the manure is applied to, giving them an economic incentive to apply the manure appropriately and increasing the efficiency (and profitability) of the entire farm operation.

There is little question that pork production is critical to the economy of much of rural America. Managing manure in harmony with society requires that we look at the impact of livestock production with a broader vision. Given the fact that large-scale, intensive pork production has caused serious environmental concerns throughout much of the United States, do the economic benefits of this shift toward concentrated production outweigh society's concerns? Proponents of industrialization argue that the answer is yes. There are two critically erroneous assumptions in this assessment, however.

The first assumption is that industrial production has a similar or greater economic impact than that of the same level of production by independent producers. A University of Missouri study found that corporate contract production displaced three times as many jobs as created (Ikerd). Further, large, corporate farms have less indirect economic impact than independent producers. A Virginia Tech. study found that independent producers with the same level of production create; 10% more jobs, a 20% larger increase in local retail sales and a 37% larger increase in local per capita income (Thornsbury, et. al.).

The second assumption is that without industrial producers no one will raise hogs. Perhaps, once again, because they would have us believe independent producers cannot raise hogs efficiently enough to compete. On the other hand, corporate hog farms cannot match the work ethic, efficiency, motivation or management skills of independent producers. Given fair access to markets and adequate support from research institutions, small, independent hog producers can not only compete, they can offer the type of hog production that helps our rural communities thrive.

We must therefore accept the tasks ahead and work to shape the future of agriculture by first changing the direction of pork production. Corporate hog farms must be held accountable for the damage they have done and will do to our water, our land and our way of life. Pork producers must accept the challenge and cost of handling manure safely. Manure management policy should reward those operators who succeed in utilizing the nutrient value of manure without damaging the environment. USDA, the land grant colleges, and other public institutions control almost half of all agricultural research. We must hold them accountable to serve the public good and partner with family farmers and rural communities in research and education initiatives that respond to their needs.

The question we face today is whether we will pass to future generations an economic system that provides economic opportunity and a decent quality of life for ordinary people. Or, will we pass to the next generation a system with declining opportunities and little respect for stewardship of the environment and our natural resources. That is the choice. There is not much question that, given the opportunity, most people would choose the former.

To Top