Background changes in agriculture

In the 1940s, the US census recorded over 6 million farms in active cultivation. Forty years later, farm numbers had dropped to fewer than 2 million (Albrecht 1998). At the same time, industrial farms – those with 1,000 or more acres – nearly doubled, from 89,000 in 1935 to 173,000 farms in 1992 (Albrecht 1997). Farmers with very large acreages now control the majority of US farmland. In 1935, at 1.3 percent of all farms, industrial farmers controlled around 29 percent of US farmland; in 1992, industrial farms, 9 percent of all farms, controlled slightly less than two-thirds.

Animal agriculture has also radically changed, particularly – for hogs – from the 1980s onwards. The original technological innovations that allowed farmers to move hogs from pasture to full-time confinement – the detailed elaboration of swine's nutritional requirements and the development of the manure lagoons and other schemes that allowed for efficient waste removal – were developed starting in the 1950s. Farmers began moving to partial and full confinement virtually immediately, and the growth of confinement operations grew steadily over the next several decades. However, after the expansion of Murphy Farms in North Carolina (Thompson 2000) in the 1990s, industrialized hog farms quickly spread to the more traditional hog growing states, including Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois. The growth of these large facilities led to considerable local controversy and protest.

Growth of controversy

Controversy in agriculture is not particularly unusual. From the beginnings of the republic, small farmers have criticized, organized, and protested. As early as the 1780s, small yeoman farmers were organizing to stop farm foreclosures during a severe depression that followed the Revolutionary War. Veteran Daniel Shay' s men, who took up arms to stop creditors and courts by force, wore “sprigs of evergreen in their hats, just as they had done during the Revolution … telling the world that, from where they stood, the war was not over ” (Stock, 41).

In the 1800s, following the Civil War, such organizations as the Grange (Patrons of Husbandry) and the Farmers' Alliance actively protested market issues, including the high costs of transporting goods by railroad. Later organizations – the Farmers' Union, the American Society of Equity, and the Nonpartisan League – also addressed the constant marketing and credit problems of producers. At the heart of both waves of farmer protest was a vision of a more egalitarian rural society where the “small guy” could wrestle control from corporations and the federal government and where small producers were valued for what they made rather than what they could buy (Stock, 75). These farm movements made alliances with urban and other rural (e.g., miners) organizations in the populist movement and later as part of the New Deal, but in essence the progressive farm movement and the urban progressives were joined at the most abstract level. The specific goals and activities of the urban progressives – sanitation, child-labor laws, urban parks, union rights – were distinctly different from rural movement concerns and from farming in general.

In the latter half of the 20 th century, however, farmers more commonly were the focus rather than the source of social movements – first, environmentalists questioned the effects of DDT on the ecosystem. Then animal right s activists questioned the morality of confinement agriculture. But unlike most of the movements of the latter 20 th century, much of the active resistance to large-scale swine farms has been neighbor against neighbor or at least community member versus farmers. Second, similar to the movements of the 19 th century, the resistance to large-scale farms is in part structural – the “big” farmers versus the “little guys.”

However, unlike earlier farm movements of the 18 th and 19 th centuries, national-level social-movement organizations – such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Humane Society of the United States, Sierra Club, and others – also actively engaged in the swine-farm controversy. These national organizations bring 20 th century urban concerns – environment and animal rights – to the debate on large-scale swine facilities (LSSF) and represent potentially powerful allies for activists in small communities.

Review of earlier studies

Analysis of Illinois newspaper coverage in 22 selected counties isolated 41 arguments supporting LSSF and 32 arguments opposing, running across 6 themes: community impact/location, economy, environment, ethics/morals, farm structure, and legal/regulatory. Each major theme has a number of sub-arguments, which are the specific arguments found almost verbatim in the newspaper articles. The arguments used by proponents of LSSF tend to focus on 1) economics, (2) environment, and (3) legal/regulatory (see Table 2). The arguments used by opponents of LSSF tend to cluster around (1) environment (specifically regarding water and air), 2) farm structure (desire and concern for small-scale farms), and (3) legal/regulatory.

However, pro- and anti-LSSF groups are to some degree talking at cross-purposes. Even across similar themes, those in favor of LSSF and those opposed are addressing different sets of concerns (see Tables 2 and 3). A typical example is the series of statements various newspaper articles had about farm structure. Within this argument theme the people who opposed large-scale swine facilities tended to concentrate on large-scale versus small-scale swine farming. The single most frequently made argument in the farm structure theme was that large-scale swine facilities are bad for small-scale farmers (52 percent), clearly the primary concern regarding structural issues voiced in the newspaper articles. An additional 39 percent simply claimed that large-scale swine facilities were not farms at all – or at least not farms in the traditional sense – and therefore should not be treated as such. The remainder of the opposition arguments based on farm structure reasons (9 percent) concerned claims that small-scale hog farms were better than LSSF and that the large operations were not sustainable over the long-term.

The farm-structure arguments voiced by proponents of LSSF barely address the main points of those opposed to the development of the large-scale swine industry. Three-quarters of the farm-structure arguments put forth by proponents dealt with claims that LSSF are better and easier to manage than small-scale operations, that LSSF attract younger farmers, and that the likelihood of problems depends on the skill of the manager rather than the design of the facility. The rest of the proponent arguments in this theme flatly contradict opponent claims by saying that LSSF are really no different from, and are certainly not bad for, small-scale swine farms.

Based on the frequency of arguments in the newspapers, it appears that the most important reasons to switch to large-scale farming were environmental, ethical, and economic. Advocates argued that large-scale swine facilities would be good for the environment, that the more advanced technologies, more specialized management, and newer facilities would, in fact, be less likely than older facilities to emit odors or leak manure into ground or surface water. Proponents also asserted that they held the ethical high ground: farmers have the right to do whatever s/he want on their own land so long as they operate within the current system of rules and regulations. They maintained that LSSF were necessary for the younger generation to stay in hog farming and that those who opposed such facilities were either jealous or did not know anything about these operations. Those who supported LSSF also pointed out that large farms were better business operations, that they were economically good for the community because they created jobs and added to the tax base, and that LSSF benefited the economy in general.

The legal/regulatory argument theme came second in frequency, but these arguments were not reasons why LSSF were better or ought to be allowed; instead they were claims made in reaction to opponents' challenges that the current laws regulating LSSF were inadequate. The most prominent argument in this theme concerned regulations being bad for the swine industry as a whole, including the small-scale farmers whom the opponents were thought to support. Arguments regarding the community impacts from LSSF were the least frequent, suggesting that either proponent could not think of any or this was not an important theme.

Those people who were opposed to new or proposed hog farm expansion, on the other hand, focused primarily on the potential for environmental impacts (see Table 5). The newspaper articles included 1180 claims, almost one-half of all anti-expansion comments, about the risks that large-scale swine facilities posed for the environment, including air, water, and soil pollution.

The second most frequent argument theme was legal/regulatory (see Table 5). Opponents and proponents were diametrically opposed on this point, with opponents of LSSF arguing that more laws were needed to control the large-scale operations, whereas proponents maintained that current laws were quite adequate and any more would be detrimental to the entire industry. The third greatest concern that opponents expressed in the newspapers concerned the threat posed by LSSF to the structure of the swine industry. In particular, they claimed that LSSF are more akin to industrial factories than to agriculture and that small-scale swine operations are better for the community, the economy, and the environment.

In contrast to the arguments articulated in support of LSSF, a distinct theme underlying a variety of comments was that expansion of hog facilities was disruptive and difficult for communities. Collectively, sources were concerned about a variety of impacts including the potential for social disruption from the proposed expansion; that expansion went against traditional values, destroyed the community's history, violated ethics of neighborliness, and made people argue and fight. In addition, they were concerned that the community would have to develop infrastructure to handle the impacts of LSSF such as paying for social services, schools, and health care for migrant workers and cleaning up after spills and abandoned lagoons. Those opposed to LSSF also maintained that large-scale operations had no overall economic benefit because they displaced more jobs than they created, decreased property values, and would make alternative industries, such as tourism, less viable.

Newspapers showed a remarkable consistency with the overall arguments presented. The vast majority of the articles that originated at the community level, however, were about controversies centered on initial sitings. There were relatively few stories dealing with controversies following the building of facilities.

When we looked at newspaper articles, we found that almost all of the articles were written before the hog farms were expanded (or built) or in the very early months of farm operation. Once the LSSF were up and running, by and large, there were relatively few articles about routine hog operation.

Since newspaper articles tended to be written before the expansions, the objections that neighbors, activists, and others raised about the operations were about potential rather than actual problems and theoretical rather than existing benefits. It was quite likely that newspaper sources could describe more – and potentially far more – problems and benefits than neighbors or community members actually would have. The concern that newspaper articles were emphasizing only the first stage of hog-farm expansion led directly to the next phase of the project: a survey of what farmers, residents, and other important stakeholders' thought were the main problems and benefits of LSSF several years after the initial news coverage.

Pigs and Publics

Procedures for selecting each group of respondents

Our goal was to compare what newspapers said with what people in the area believed were actual problems ex post facto, so we kept the 22 newspapers and 52 counties the newspapers covered as the basic units of the survey. We selected as survey respondents members of the major stakeholder groups identified in newspaper articles as involved in local controversies over the building of LSSF: farmers who were building new or expanding swine operations, neighbors of these farmers, zoning board officials, and anti-LSSF activists. We also included one or more journalist(s) from each of the newspapers.

• Farmers The majority of respondents were selected from an Illinois Department of Agriculture list of farmers who filed a permit to construct or expand their operation in 1998 (Illinois Stewardship Alliance). In five cases, no farmer in the selected county had filed a permit. In these cases, local agricultural extension agents were contacted and asked to identify a local farmer who operated a LSSF. A total of 52 farmers were identified.
• Journalists Journalists were selected based on three criteria. When newspaper stories carried a byline, the journalist(s) who wrote articles on the swine facility were identified directly. If no journalist had covered a story, or if the journalist(s) who had covered the story had left the study newspaper, we first asked the newspaper to identify the person who was assigned to the agricultural beat. If the newspaper did not consider agriculture as a beat, the newspaper managing editor was asked to identify which journalist(s) would be “most likely” to be assigned to cover an agricultural story. A total of 21 journalists were identified as eligible respondents.
• Zoning officials These stakeholders were found by contacting officials at the courthouse of the county in which the proposed or existing farm was sited. Here zoning information was available, including zoning ordinances and officials' names. In some less populous counties zoning is not nested in an individual office, but rather is a function of the county board. In these instances the senior-most member of the board was selected. A total of 51 zoning-board officials were identified as eligible respondents.
• ResidentsR esidents were found using plat map information of owners and residents of land within a 1.5-mile radius of the operations of selected farmers (identified earlier). Copies of maps were available in the University of Illinois Library as well as at county assessors' offices. Five residents or neighbors were identified for each facility. Family members, primarily identified as those who shared a last name with the subject farmer, were taken out of the pool of eligible candidates for receiving the surveys. A total of 240 residents were identified as eligible respondents.
• Activists Names of anti-LSSF activists were found through newspaper articles that had covered controversies over facilities. Those who had spoken at town meetings county board meetings or other community meetings or were representatives of groups such as FARM were identified as activists in their community. Not all newspapers identified activists. In this case, for the county (ies ) associated with such a newspaper, no activists were contacted. A total of 31 activists were identified as eligible respondents.

Questionnaire development

We developed the questionnaire items on the importance of the swine industry and potential problems associated with LSSF from the list of problems and benefits that local newspapers had reported. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a small sample of stakeholders and reviewed for accuracy and phraseology by scientists from the University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences. We closely followed Don Dillman's (2000) recommendations for distributing survey instruments, including five total contacts: an initial cover letter prior to mailing the survey instrument, first mailing of instrument, a reminder postcard, second mailing, and a follow-up telephone call. The time period from initial mailing to close was approximately 2 months.

Response rate

We had an extremely high response rate of 72 percent overall from the individuals contacted. Having a high response rate is good, because it indicates that we can be fairly well-assured that the range of responses is typical of what each group surveyed is actually feeling. We have attributed this high response rate to both the high level of civic responsibility of the respondents and to the importance of the question of swine farm expansion to both farmers and those in nearby communities.

We also surveyed roughly a fourth (26 out of 109) of the people who did not respond to see if there was a systematic negative reaction to the survey instrument.² Only two individuals indicated any problem with the content of the questionnaire: one who thought the questionnaire might hurt farmers and another who thought the questionnaire would help.³ The most common answers were split reasonably evenly into three groups: people who thought they had sent the questionnaire in or said they had filled out portions of it, people who were disqualified for a variety of reasons (such as being too ill to fill out the survey), and people who said they were too busy to fulfill the questionnaire. None of these individuals indicated a problem with the content of the survey, although several quite reasonably pointed out that it was very long.

Findings

Overall – as expected – farmers with LSSF were significantly more likely than other groups to consider the swine industry, particularly LSSF, to be an important part of the Illinois economy. Activists held the opposite view: LSSF are not at all important to the state economy and are harmful to the economic well-being of Illinois 's small-scale swine operations. Zoning board officials, journalists, and residents were in between the extremes of farmers and activists, although these three groups tended slightly towards the activist position with respect to the importance of LSSF for Illinois.

Regarding the likelihood of LSSF causing environmental health problems, farmers and activists were again at opposite ends of the spectrum. However, in this case zoning board officials were as likely as farmers not to see any problems, with journalists in close agreement. Residents were notably closer to the activist position on their views of problems stemming from LSSF.

Importance of the swine industry to Illinois economy

Farmers were significantly more likely to agree that LSSF have large overall economic benefits. Eighty-two (82) percent of these farmers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “ large-scale swine facilities bring in far more opportunities to the state than problems”(see Table 1a ). All other stakeholder groups were far less positive that large hog farms were an overall good for Illinois. Zoning board officials and newspaper reporters were most likely to be neutral, residents and activists to most likely disagree with the statement.

Farmers were also significantly more likely than any other group to indicate that rural communities would lose income if hog operations went to other states (see Table 1b). Although the majority of residents, zoning board officials, and journalists all agreed with this statement, residents also believed that LSSF displaced more jobs than they provided (see Table 1c).

The majority of large-scale swine farmers agreed with statements that supported the importance of large-scale swine farms for the Illinois economy (see Table 1d, Table 1e, and over 40% agreement for Table 1f)) but downplayed the negative effects of LSSF facilities for other parts of the Illinois swine industry (see Table 1g –Table 1i). Their nearest neighbors had virtually the exact opposite image of LSSF impact on the state economy. Compared to the farmer group, residents were significantly more likely to believe that LSSF controlled the hog market in Illinois (see Table 1g) and to disagree with the idea that LSSF were the future of the Illinois pork industry (see Table 1d). Neighbors were far more likely to believe that small swine farms cannot compete economically with LSSF (see Table 1h) and far more likely to believe that LSSF have driven farmers into bankruptcy (see Table 1i).

Reported frequency of odor from swine facilities

Farmers and residents strongly disagreed on the frequency of detectable odor emitted from swine facilities (see Table 2). Twenty-seven percent of farmers reported they never detected such odors, whereas only six percent of their neighbors did so. Also, 15 percent of residents reported the odor to be detectable daily, but no farmer agreed with this statement. Activists also had a significantly different perspective of odor than did farmers. But there were essentially no differences between farmers and journalists or zoning board officials.

Stakeholder perceptions of statements of impact of large-scale swine facilities

Farmers and zoning-board members were more likely than not to agree that LSSF are less harmful to the environment and cause less biological damage to the environment, in part because buildings are newer (see Table 3a) and have the latest technology (see Table 3b). There was no significant difference between farmers and zoning-board officials with respect to their view that waste lagoons had not leaked (see Table 3c), but they differed as to whether waste run-off had contaminated nearby streams and rivers (see Table 3d and Table 3e) and polluted drinking water (see Table 3f).

Residents and activists were significantly less likely than farmers to have a positive picture on all questions related to environmental impacts of LSSF. The majority of both residents and activists did not agree that LSSF were less likely to pollute because the buildings were newer (see Table 3a), and more were likely to disagree than to agree with the notion that the newer technology on LSSF would lower the likelihood of a pollution episode (see Table 3b). Residents were significantly less likely than farmers to minimize the environmental effects of LLSF (see Table 3c-3g). So, for example, while over 90 percent of farmers agreed the waste lagoon had not leaked, only 36 percent of residents held the same view (see Table 3c). Along the same lines, although nearly 90 percent of farmers believed that nearby rivers and streams have not been contaminated by waste run-off; only a third of residents thought this was so, with another third indicating they believed that nearby water was being affected (see Table 3d). Residents were significantly more likely than farmers to believe that people have become sick from hog-farm odors, but a substantial minority still agreed that hog odors had not caused sickness in the area (see Table 3g).

The majority in all stakeholder groups recognized that farmers are facing considerable financial constraints, including that farmers need to grow in size of operation in order to provide for children to stay in farming (see Table 3h) and that likewise farmers need to expand in order to stay competitive (see Table 3i). But the majority of residents, activists, and zoning board officials also see LSSF as lowering property values of nearby human housing (see Table 3j).

Modifying the status quo

Only a few respondents in the entire sample population claimed that people in the community actively want LSSF in their area (see Table 4a). While the majority of farmers believe that now that such operations are established, people have come to accept them (see Table 4b), 48 percent of farmers believe that there is still a lot of resistance to LSSF (see Table 4c). Indeed, the farmers – more than any other group of stakeholders – believed that community reaction could affect the success of LSSF (see Table 4d – 4g).

The majority of activists and a substantial minority of residents believe people have not accepted the swine farms once they have been sited (see Table 4c), and that they would actively fight to get rid of these facilities if there were a chance of seeing them ousted (see Table 4g). At the same time, however, residents, activists, zoning board officials, and journalists also largely agreed that there is very little chance of active resistance being ultimately successful (see Table 4d and 4e).

Controversy and large-scale swine facilities

Slightly fewer than half of farmers (48%) and only 42 percent of residents indicated that the building or expansion of LSSF had been controversial in the local area (see Table 5a). Of those who indicated that it had been, the mean level of controversy reported was relatively moderate, approximately midrange between the two extremes of least conflict and most conflict (Table 5b). Most groups (activists excepted) indicated that overt objections to expanding swine operations lasted for less a year (Table 5c).

Farmers, zoning board officials, and reporters were substantially more satisfied with the outcome of the controversy over building LSSF than were either residents or activists (see Table 5d). Furthermore, there were significant differences between residents or activists and farmers regarding level of perceived support for LSSF (see Table 5e). When it came to personal support or opposition to building LSSF, the majority of large-scale swine farmers supported construction of LSSF. Almost as many residents were neutral as were opposed, but only a few (less than 20 percent) supported expansion, whereas the majority of activists opposed it. Zoning board officials and reporters were largely not involved; only a few zoning board officials and no reporters supported expansion of LSSF (see Table 5f).

Activists were the most involved group among the stakeholders (see Table 5g). Ninety-five percent told their families about their feelings about the LSSF. All of them expressed their feelings to the people in town, and over 60 percent of them attended hearings and community meetings and told farmers how they felt. Ten percent went so far as to file a lawsuit (see Table 5g).

The residents, while more passive than the anti-LSSF activists, were a great deal more active than what would generally have been expected in terms of public engagement. The activities that required the least active effort were extremely high in terms of involvement, including telling family (80%), town people (62%), and farmers (42%) how they felt. Relatively high numbers of residents also took additional steps, including attending a community meeting (21%) or participating in public protest (10%) (see Table 5g). A much larger percentage of the farmers attended community meetings, hearings, or helped lobby for bills than did the residents (see Table 5g).

Zoning board members and reporters – as intermediate powerbrokers between farmers and oppositional groups – were the two main groups of stakeholders who were targets of actions opposing or supporting building a LSSF. Almost all zoning officials were the subject/target of letters in local newspapers. And both zoning officials and reporters were approached by family members and people in town expressing their opposition to or support of hog farm expansions through a variety of means – conversation, letters, phone calls (see Table 5h).

Perceived influence of newspaper

Every single person (100 percent) of the sampled residents thought that nearby residents as a group had instigated the controversy connected with building or expanding nearby hog operations. This view was held by the majority of activists, zoning board officials, and reporters. Only farmers as a group pinpointed other points as the start of the conflict. Slightly over a third of the farmers said that opposition was started by people who were new to the community or by a group of new and nearby neighbors (38 percent) (see Table 6a). About a third of all farmers, in fact, blamed newspapers for starting the conflict, while residents and activists leaned toward saying that local newspapers smoothed over conflicts (see Table 6b).

Stakeholder demographics

As expected, the respondents were largely conservative (see Table 7a), married (see Table 7b), male (see Table 7c), parents (see Table 7d), between the ages of 40 and 60 (see Table 7e), who had at least a high-school education (see Table 7f), had lived a long time in the community (see Table 7g), had a good deal of personal background (see Table 7h), friends and acquaintances in agriculture (see Table 7i and Table 7j).

There were some differences among the different groups throughout the demographics (see Tables 7a -j). Reporters were less likely to have been raised on a farm and had somewhat fewer acquaintances and friends with farm backgrounds. They also were slightly less likely to be married, and had fewer children, which was consistent with a relatively high proportion of the group being in the below-30 age category. Reporters also were somewhat more likely to have lived in the community fewer years (under 10), consider themselves independent politically, and have graduated from college, all characteristics which are consistent with reporters as a whole. Activists, as a whole, were relatively more likely to be female, slightly more likely to be new to the community, and more likely to consider themselves independent politically than farmers, residents, or zoning officials. Farmers, zoning board officials, and residents can be reasonably well-described as married men, with over two children, who had lived in the community for a long time and had at least a high-school education. Farmers in particular identified themselves as Republicans. Residents and zoning board officials were more likely to vote for Republicans than candidates in any other party.

Summary

Farmers and residents had significantly different perceptions of the importance of the swine industry to the Illinois economy, of swine farmers' need to grow, and of the potential for LSSF to cause economic or environmental damage, with residents being distinctly less positive than farmers. Nevertheless, a substantive minority, and in some cases a majority, of residents believed the swine industry had a variety of positive economic impacts, and residents largely agreed that farmers need to grow for economic reasons.

Turning more specifically to local controversies over the building or expansion of large hog farms, farmers and residents had essentially identical opinions on the presence, level, and length of controversy, but residents were distinctly less satisfied with and perceived distinctly less support for large-scale operations. In addition, while farmers blamed a range of groups, including newspapers, for starting the opposition to building or expanding existing swine farms, farmers' neighbors uniformly said they (the neighbors) had started the conflict. Residents also were significantly more likely to say that the switch to large-scale farming was a fait accompli, but they were far less satisfied with the presence of the facilities than farmers thought they were. The most dramatic differences between farmers and residents were largely associated with the degree of effect that large-scale swine farms have. Residents reported considerably more days with detectable odors than farmers do, were considerably more likely to believe that there were problems with water pollution harming the environment and drinking water, and distinctly more likely to report loss of value of homes near hog farms.

Hence, the results indicate a reservoir of unhappiness with large-scale hog farms. People living near hog farms saw problems with the facilities and less support for the facilities than did the farmers who run them and a significant minority indicated they would oppose these facilities if given a reasonable chance of succeeding.

References

Albrecht, Don. 1997. “The Changing Structure of U.S. Agriculture: Dualism Out, Industrialism In,” Rural Sociology 62(4):474-490.

Albrecht, Don. 1998. “The Industrial Transformation of Farm Communities: Implications for Family Structure and Socioeconomic Conditions.” Rural Sociology63(1):51-64.

Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method.NewYork : J. Wiley.

Stock, Catherine. 1997. Rural Radicals: From Bacon's Rebellion to theOklahoma City Bombing.Viking Penguin.

Thompson, Michael D. 2000. “This Little Piggy Went to Market: The Commercialization of Hog Production in Eastern North Carolina from William Shay to Wendell Murphy.” Agricultural History 74(2):569-584.

¹ This paper is a condensed version of a larger work summarized in a report (Pigs and Publics) on the SOMR website (www.traill.uiuc.edu/sowm/). The Pigs and Publics Project is part of the Strategic Research Initiative on Swine Odor and Waste Management. This project is supported by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research, the University of Illinois Extension, and the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences Office of Research.

²Systematic negative responses generally indicate a problem with the questions.

³ Specifically, one potential respondent said that he refused to fill out the survey because he “thought it might be a threat to their good neighbor,” while the other said that in reality he had “locked horns” with a large scale facility and he “thought the survey was a trick” from the farmer.

*To view tables, see PDF