Rosendale Farm Study - University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

107 Pages·2011·9.78 MB·English

by  Paul Van Auken

Rosendale
 Dairy
 and
 the
 Rise
 of
 Factory
 Farming
 in
 the
 Fox
 Valley

A
 report
 from
 students
 in
 the
 Rural
 Sociology
 course
 at

University
 of
 Wisconsin
 Oshkosh

Spring
 2010
 Semester

Paul
 Van
 Auken,
 Professor
DISCLAIMER:
 This
 report
 is
 a
 compilation
 of
 work
 conducted
 by
 students
 in
 the
 Rural

Sociology
 course
 at
 University
 of
 Wisconsin
 Oshkosh
 in
 the
 spring
 of
 2010.
 The
 research

upon
 which
 it
 was
 based
 was
 reviewed
 and
 approved
 by
 the
 university’s
 Institutional

Review
 Board
 (IRB)
 and
 the
 proper
 protocol
 for
 conducting
 ethical
 research
 on
 human

subjects
 was
 followed.
 A
 primary
 concern
 for
 the
 IRB
 is
 the
 protection
 of
 interviewee

confidentiality;
 it
 was
 stressed
 to
 students
 that
 they
 be
 diligent
 in
 this
 regard
 and
 it
 seems

as
 though
 they
 were.

Aside
 from
 the
 Introduction
 and
 Afterword,
 all
 of
 the
 material
 contained
 herein
 was

produced
 by
 students
 for
 a
 semester
 project.
 It
 should
 be
 stressed
 that
 this
 report
 is
 the

result
 of
 student
 homework
 assignments
 and
 that
 it
 contain
 opinions
 that
 are
 solely
 those
 of

the
 student;
 all
 opinions
 expressed
 in
 this
 report
 are
 those
 of
 the
 individual
 authors
 and
 are

not
 necessarily
 shared
 by
 the
 professor
 or
 the
 University
 of
 Wisconsin
 Oshkosh.

Similarly,
 each
 author
 was
 responsible
 for
 including
 proper
 citations
 for
 any
 factual

assertions
 made
 herein
 and
 the
 professor
 has
 strongly
 emphasized
 the
 need
 to
 be
 careful

and
 diligent
 in
 this
 regard.
 That
 stated,
 neither
 the
 professor
 nor
 the
 University
 of

Wisconsin
 Oshkosh
 claim
 to
 guarantee
 the
 accuracy
 of
 all
 assertions
 contained
 herein
 and

given
 that
 this
 is
 primarily
 student
 work
 from
 one
 semester
 the
 conclusions
 found
 herein

should
 not
 be
 construed
 as
 generalizable
 knowledge.
 These
 caveats,
 though,
 do
 not
 make

the
 students’
 work
 any
 less
 interesting
 or
 relevant.

  2
Acknowledgments

Student
 Authors

Samuel
 Bennett

Maria
 Bobber

Jennifer
 Drewicz

Amanda
 Enderby

Jeff
 Groleau

Stephanie
 Kopf

Alison
 Kropidlowski

Cassandra
 Kuen

Troy
 Lawson

Patrick
 McHugh

Tashia
 Norton

Kayla
 Oberstadt

Joel
 Ramos

Katlin
 Reyniers

Joel
 Roeker

Bram
 Sanders

Robin
 Speidel

Marybeth
 Volkers

Cover
 photos
 by
 Katlin
 Reyniers

Thanks
 to:

The
 folks
 at
 Rosendale
 Dairy
 for
 the
 tour
 and
 responding
 to
 multiple
 follow
 up
 questions,

the
 folks
 at
 Casa
 ESTHER
 for
 the
 discussion
 and
 refreshments,
 Jerry
 Apps
 and
 Steve
 Apps

for
 giving
 us
 the
 tour
 of
 Roshara,
 Paul
 Dyk
 for
 coming
 to
 campus
 to
 fill
 us
 in
 about
 the
 dairy

industry
 in
 Fond
 du
 Lac
 County,
 and
 all
 of
 the
 people
 who
 were
 willing
 to
 be
 interviewed
 or

otherwise
 provided
 information
 for
 the
 students.
 It
 was
 very
 helpful
 and
 we
 all
 learned
 a

lot.

  3
Table
 of
 Contents

Introduction
 from
 Professor
 ………………………………………………………………
 5

Background
 ………………………………………………………………………………………
 18

Analysis

  Natural
 Capital
 ………………………………………………………………………
  27

  Human
 and
 Cultural
 Capital
 …………………………………………………..
  42

  Political
 and
 Social
 Capital
 ……………………………………………………
  55

  Built
 and
 Financial
 Capital
 ……………………………………………………
  70

Conclusions
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
  79

Afterword
 from
 Professor
 ……………………………………………………………….
  90

References
 ………………………………………………………………………………………

  95

Appendices
 ……………………………………………………………………………………..
  106

  4
Introduction

Paul
 Van
 Auken

This
 report
 is
 based
 on
 a
 project
 carried
 out
 by
 students
 (seventeen
 undergraduates

and
 one
 graduate
 student)
 in
 the
 Rural
 Sociology
 course
 at
 the
 University
 of
 Wisconsin

Oshkosh
 (UWO)
 during
 the
 spring
 2010
 semester.
 Its
 purpose
 was
 to
 study
 the
 impact
 of

modern
 agricultural
 practices
 on
 the
 economy,
 environment,
 and
 communities
 of
 the

Oshkosh
 area,
 with
 a
 particular
 focus
 on
 the
 case
 of
 Rosendale
 Dairy,
 a
 concentrated
 animal

feeding
 operation
 (CAFO)
 located
 about
 twelve
 miles
 from
 the
 UWO
 campus
 in

northwestern
 Fond
 du
 Lac
 County.

The
 research
 was
 designed
 to
 answer
 questions
 related
 to
 the
 impact
 of
 this
 CAFO

one
 year
 into
 its
 expanded
 operation,
 such
 as:
 How
 do
 neighbors
 feel
 about
 the
 CAFO
 being

located
 nearby?
 How
 does
 this
 CAFO
 impact
 and
 compare
 to
 smaller-­‐scale
 local
 dairy

farms?
 What
 is
 the
 economic
 impact
 upon
 the
 Rosendale
 area?
 What
 type
 of
 environmental

impact
 has
 there
 been/what
 is
 the
 potential
 for
 environmental
 problems?

 Along
 with

pursuing
 answers
 to
 such
 questions,
 students
 were
 tasked
 with
 gaining
 an
 understanding

of
 the
 broader
 context
 of
 agriculture
 and
 important
 issues
 affecting
 the
 people
 and

environment
 of
 rural
 communities
 in
 Wisconsin
 and
 the
 U.S.
 overall.
 The
 idea
 behind
 the

project
 was
 to
 increase
 the
 engagement
 of
 students
 in
 learning
 about
 rural
 sociology
 by

making
 them
 active
 participants
 in
 research
 about
 issues
 that
 are
 highly
 relevant
 to
 the

region
 and
 state
 in
 which
 they
 are
 living.1

 Exploring
 the
 rise
 of
 CAFOs
 in
 dairy
 –
 “the

1
 I
 was
 actually
 simultaneously
 studying
 the
 impact
 of
 this
 new
 approach
 to
 this
 particular
 course
 on
 the

engagement
 and
 performance
 of
 my
 students.
 This
 proved
 to
 be
 interesting
 in
 its
 own
 right
 and
 is
 discussed

briefly
 in
 the
 Afterword.

  5
largest
 industry
 in
 Wisconsin,
 employing
 150,000
 people
 and
 contributing
 $26
 billion
 to

the
 state's
 economy”
 (Wisconsin
 Dairy
 Business
 Association
 (DBA)
 2009a:
 para.
 18)
 –

certainly
 seems
 to
 fit
 the
 bill.
 Since
 the
 students
 worked
 hard
 on
 this
 project
 and
 their

results
 are
 interesting,
 I
 thought
 it
 deserved
 to
 be
 shared.

CAFOs
 are
 generally
 defined
 as
 livestock
 operations
 housing
 1,000
 or
 more
 “animal

units”
 –
 which
 equates
 to
 700
 dairy
 cows,
 2,500
 feeder
 pigs,
 or
 55,000
 turkeys
 –
 in
 a

confined
 setting
 (Wisconsin
 Department
 of
 Natural
 Resources
 (DNR)
 (2010).
 Such

operations
 now
 dominate
 the
 nation’s
 animal
 protein
 industry.
 According
 to
 Kirby
 (2010),

“Two
 percent
 of
 U.S.
 livestock
 facilities
 now
 raise
 40
 percent
 of
 all
 animals,
 and
 the

majority
 of
 pigs,
 chickens,
 and
 dairy
 cows
 are
 produced
 inside
 animal
 factories”
 (p.
 xiv).

Figure
 1

Source:
 DNR
 (2010)

According
 to
 the
 DNR
 (2010),
 the
 number
 of
 CAFOs
 in
 Wisconsin
 increased
 from

less
 than
 twenty
 in
 1990
 to
 188
 in
 2010,
 the
 majority
 of
 which
 are
 dairy
 operations
 [see

  6
Figure
 1].

 Over
 this
 period,
 while
 total
 milk
 production
 has
 ebbed
 and
 flowed
 but
 generally

been
 on
 an
 upward
 trajectory,
 prices
 have
 fluctuated
 wildly,
 reaching
 record
 lows
 in
 2009

at
 roughly
 $9
 per
 hundredweight,
 which
 is
 well
 below
 the
 roughly
 $15
 price
 needed
 to

break
 even
 (Burns
 2009).
 This
 instability
 has
 contributed
 to
 the
 sharp
 and
 continual

decline
 in
 the
 number
 of
 dairy
 farms
 in
 Wisconsin;
 the
 state
 has
 lost
 87
 percent
 of
 its
 dairy

farms
 since
 1964,
 and
 its
 roughly
 13,000
 dairy
 farms
 represent
 a
 46
 percent
 decrease
 since

1997
 alone
 (United
 States
 Department
 of
 Agriculture
 (USDA)
 2007,
 DBA
 2009a).
 These

state-­‐level
 changes
 occurred
 during
 a
 period
 of
 dramatic
 restructuring
 in
 U.S.
 agriculture

overall
 (see
 Figure
 2).
 Now,
 while
 the
 average
 dairy
 herd
 size
 in
 Wisconsin
 is
 around
 100

cows,
 CAFOs
 account
 for
 a
 large
 and
 growing
 share
 of
 the
 state’s
 milk
 production;
 farms

with
 500
 or
 more
 cows
 comprised
 less
 than
 2
 percent
 of
 Wisconsin’s
 dairy
 farms
 in
 2007

but
 produced
 over
 one-­‐quarter
 of
 its
 milk
 (USDA
 2007).

 In
 Fond
 du
 Lac
 County,
 the
 sixteen

dairy
 farms
 with
 500
 or
 more
 cows
 now
 house
 over
 40
 percent
 of
 the
 county’s
 cows,
 with

Rosendale
 Dairy’s
 roughly
 8,000
 accounting
 for
 over
 15
 percent
 by
 itself
 (Paul
 Dyk,

personal
 communication,
 February
 22,
 2010).

 While
 the
 pros
 and
 cons
 of
 these
 shifts
 are

hotly
 debated
 in
 Wisconsin
 and
 the
 nation,
 it
 is
 undeniable
 that
 agriculture
 and
 the
 dairy

industry
 in
 particular
 is
 experiencing
 dramatic
 change,
 with
 CAFOs
 as
 perhaps
 the
 most

visible
 symbol
 of
 the
 dawn
 of
 a
 new
 era.

  7
Figure
 2

  8
CAFOs
 are
 required
 to
 obtain
 a
 water
 protection
 permit
 in
 Wisconsin
 because
 of
 the

potential
 impact
 from
 pollution
 posed
 by
 the
 manure
 of
 a
 large
 concentration
 of
 livestock

(DNR
 2010).
 Nationally,
 CAFOs
 “produce
 about
 65
 percent
 of
 the
 manure
 from
 U.S.
 animal

operations,
 or
 about
 300
 million
 tons
 per
 year—more
 than
 double
 the
 amount
 generated

by
 this
 country’s
 entire
 human
 population”
 (Gurian-­‐Sherman
 2008:
 2).
 A
 number
 of

academic
 and
 popular
 works
 have
 been
 produced
 that
 focus
 upon
 or
 discuss
 the
 impact
 of

CAFOs
 (the
 book
 Omnivore’s
 Dilemma
 and
 film
 Food,
 Inc.
 being
 prime
 examples),
 shedding

light
 upon
 myriad
 concerns
 about
 concentration
 in
 agribusiness
 and
 loss
 of
 mid-­‐sized

farms,
 the
 safety
 of
 the
 food
 system,
 treatment
 of
 animals,
 impact
 upon
 property
 values
 and

quality
 of
 life
 for
 nearby
 residents,
 and
 environmental
 concerns
 due
 to
 the
 scale
 of
 such

operations.
 According
 to
 Kirby
 (2010),
 “more
 Americans
 are
 coming
 to
 realize
 that
 the

modern
 production
 of
 food
 –
 especially
 to
 provide
 for
 our
 affluent,
 protein-­‐rich
 diet
 –
 has
 a

direct
 and
 sometimes
 negative
 impact
 on
 the
 environment,
 the
 well-­‐being
 of
 animals,
 rural

communities,
 and
 human
 health
 (p.
 xiii).
 Midkiff
 (2005)
 is
 even
 more
 pointed.
 He
 argues

that,

the
 animals
 that
 provide
 us
 with
 meat,
 milk,
 and
 eggs…we
 have
 turned
 over…to

large
 corporations
 that
 are
 more
 concerned
 about
 profit
 than
 about
 health,
 safety,

taste,
 humane
 treatment
 of
 animals,
 land
 stewardship,
 or
 the
 quality
 of
 rural
 life.
 In

the
 process
 we
 have
 made
 ourselves,
 our
 economy,
 and
 our
 very
 food
 supply

extremely
 vulnerable.
 (P.
 5).

Critics
 –
 including
 scientists,
 consumers,
 grassroots
 community
 groups,
 farmers,

and
 politicians
 –“charge
 that
 the
 only
 way
 CAFO
 production
 can
 be
 profitable
 is
 by
 passing

along,
 or
 ‘externalizing,’
 certain
 costs
 associated
 with
 raising
 so
 many
 animals
 in
 such
 a

small
 space”
 (Kirby
 2010:
 xvi).
 According
 to
 Gurian-­‐Sherman
 (2008),

  9
These
 externalities
 are
 associated
 with
 the
 damage
 caused
 by
 water
 and
 air

pollution
 (along
 with
 cleanup
 and
 prevention),
 the
 costs
 borne
 by
 rural

communities
 (e.g.,
 lower
 property
 values),
 and
 the
 costs
 associated
 with
 excessive

antibiotic
 use
 (e.g.,
 harder-­‐to-­‐treat
 human
 diseases).
 (P.
 1)

The
 safety
 of
 the
 CAFO
 workplace
 and
 the
 importation
 of
 migrant
 workers
 to
 meet
 the

labor
 demands
 of
 industrial
 agriculture
 have
 also
 been
 raised
 as
 important
 concerns,
 as
 has

the
 use
 of
 genetically
 modified
 organisms
 (GMO)
 in
 the
 feed
 of
 CAFO
 operations.
 GMO

soybeans
 now
 account
 for
 90
 percent
 of
 all
 U.S.
 soybeans
 and
 63
 percent
 of
 the
 corn
 crop
 in

the
 U.S.,
 despite
 a
 limited
 understanding
 of
 the
 risks
 associated
 with
 GMO
 and
 more
 than
 a

decade
 of
 genetically
 engineered
 crops
 failing
 to
 provide
 significantly
 greater
 yields

(Gurian-­‐Sherman
 2009).
 According
 to
 Organic
 Valley
 (2010a),
 based
 in
 rural
 Wisconsin

and
 the
 nation’s
 largest
 organic
 cooperative,
 “questionable
 farming
 practices,
 such
 as
 the

use
 of
 GMOs,
 should
 be
 prohibited
 until
 proven
 beyond
 any
 doubt
 to
 be
 safe
 for
 animals,
 the

environment
 and
 people”
 (para.
 10,
 emphasis
 in
 original).
 CAFO
 opponents
 further
 assert

that
 small-­‐mid-­‐sized
 farms
 can
 effectively
 supply
 our
 nation’s
 food,
 particularly
 if
 they

follow
 the
 principles
 of
 organic
 and
 sustainable
 agriculture.
 According
 to
 Organic
 Valley

(2010b),
 for
 example,

At
 a
 time
 when
 megacorporations
 are
 taking
 over
 all
 sectors
 of
 our
 economy,

especially
 farming,
 Organic
 Valley's
 cooperative
 approach
 to
 organic
 agriculture

offers
 struggling
 family
 farmers
 a
 lifeline.
 Defying
 the
 trend
 that
 puts
 219
 small

farmers
 out
 of
 business
 per
 day,
 Organic
 Valley
 farmers
 earned
 over
 25
 percent

more
 than
 their
 conventional
 counterparts
 in
 2004.
 (Para.
 5)

Proponents
 of
 industrial
 agriculture,
 on
 the
 other
 hand,
 argue
 that
 CAFOs
 promote

efficiency,
 the
 production
 of
 inexpensive
 food,
 and
 more
 comfortable
 living
 spaces
 for

livestock.
 According
 to
 the
 Purdue
 Extension
 (2009),
 “agricultural
 methods
 are
 more

efficient,
 produce
 higher
 yields,
 and
 produce
 healthier,
 more
 wholesome
 and
 more

  10