Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

MARK STEIL: MPR's Main Street radio coverage of rural issues is supported by the Blandin Foundation, committed to strengthening communities through grant making, leadership training and convening.

Good afternoon. I'm Mark Steil and welcome back to Comfrey for this special Main Street radio Midday. In this hour, we'll be talking about livestock feedlots. The Minnesota Legislature passed a bill this year to deal with some of the complaints about feedlots. We'll talk about that and also take your calls. Our phone number is 1-800-537-5252, 800-537-5252.

We have two state legislators with us here in the basement of Saint Paul's Catholic Church in Comfrey. Steve Dille is from Dassel and represents Senate District 20. Good afternoon, Steve.

STEVE DILLE: Yes, good afternoon.

MARK STEIL: And we have Gary Kubly from Granite Falls, who represents House District 15b. Good afternoon, Gary.

GARY KUBLY: Good afternoon, Mark. Glad to be here.

MARK STEIL: I should mention that Steve is a Republican and Gary is a DFLer. The debate over large feedlots, especially hog and dairy, has been a major topic of discussion for several years. Before we get into some of the legislative stuff, I'd like to get an opinion from each of you on, do you think the feedlot debate over the next few years will escalate, remain about where it is, or start to recede? Steve Dille?

STEVE DILLE: Part of the thing we did this last session is we funded a large study called a generic environmental impact study to study the livestock industry and its impact socially, economically and environmentally on the state of Minnesota. It'll take about three years to get the results of that study, or at least two years. I believe, after that study is in and after we achieve some new technology, which we're just on the verge of doing right now for odor control, the whole issue is going to subside, but it should be a fairly active issue for the next couple of years.

MARK STEIL: I have to ask you about the odor issue. There have been a lot of talk about odor abatement plans and things that would work. And so far, there doesn't seem to be anything that has really worked well for everybody. Why do you feel that the odor problem issue will be taken care of in the near future?

STEVE DILLE: Across this nation, there is a multi-million dollar effort to solve this problem. And part of the effort is going on right here at the University of Minnesota. A lot of progress has been made. And one area that is particularly encouraging is the use of biofilters.

It's a very cheap method of taking the air from these confinement barns, and from the manure storage facility, that's often underneath these swine barns and routing that air-- rather than straight out in the atmosphere, routing it through a pile of organic material, woodchips, straw compost. And as it passes through this, between 80% and 90% of the odor seems to be removed from the stream. And that's very cheap and very easy to do. As University of Minnesota research underway right now and the report on this, this work is coming out this July. So that's very encouraging.

Plus, there's some more sophisticated technologies that are being used. There's going to be an open house on a swine farm near Raymond next month to demonstrate some brand new technology that appears to be cost-effective. It's a system where the manure is processed. The solids are taken out. The water is treated through an aerobic anaerobic system, and then reused in the swine barn. And that appears to be very effective. So I think we're just on the verge of some real changes.

MARK STEIL: Returning to the original question, state representative Gary Kubly, where do you think the feedlot debate will be in a few years?

GARY KUBLY: Well, Mark, I guess from my perspective, I've tended to take my lead from the residents of my district, I guess. The vast majority of the people that I hear from, I mean, it's an issue that I get mail on every week. I don't think a week has gone by where I don't get that kind of mail. It is an odor issue in Renville County. I think very much an odor issue.

I would say, probably at least one in four of the letters that I receive or the context that I get, sometimes it's a phone call or occasionally an email, they mention environmental concerns as being a part of that, as well. I guess last year, I had sponsored some odor legislation that attempted to address some of that and worked with the MPCA and trying to bring some of those odors under control. It did seem to me that was the largest issue out there.

I guess, I did come out in support of the so-called moratorium that we had this year. I don't think it's a genuine moratorium. A moratorium actually doesn't do anything within an industry. And this bill would have allowed you-- well, say, if you were a swine producer, this bill didn't say that if you wanted 10,000 sows, you couldn't have 10,000 sows. You could still have that number. You just couldn't have them all on the same site.

So it seems to me that it was maybe a slow down. Some people were calling it that. It does seem to me that its primary impetus was to place smaller numbers on one location in order to try and address some of the problems. And I think there would have been some benefits in that for the industry as well, particularly in terms of biosecurity and that kind of thing.

But from my perspective, I guess, I think as long as the problems are there, and particularly as long as the odor problem is there, the problem won't go away. And I've visited with people in the industry and I've told them that, in my opinion, if they would take care of the odor problem, that over half of their opposition would disappear almost overnight. And I believe that. I really think that would be the case.

MARK STEIL: Is there anything out there that you feel confident that odor will be an issue that will be taken care of, will be solved?

GARY KUBLY: Well, I think there are some technologies that certainly look promising in that arena. But there are already some feed additive kinds of things on the market that help quite a bit with odor. I know I've talked to some producers that are using some of that. I know there's a reluctance to add anything more to the cost of production. But it does seem to me that those operations that are utilizing that kind of an additive don't have the same kinds of complaints that other groups do that are not using those additives as well.

So I don't know. I guess, I think, there are some solutions out there. I don't know why those feed additives don't seem to work for everyone. I think the Senate included a ban on lagoons in their legislation. I think that was a good step. I think that will help with the problem for new facilities coming online. I don't know where we're going to go with the facilities that already exist. I think something needs to be done there, too.

It doesn't seem fair to me that people who have lived on a place for 50 years or more should feel like they have to remain in their house all summer long just because of the odors in the air. I guess, those who were opposed to this so-called moratorium would say, well, odor has always been a part of swine production. And that's true.

I mean, I grew up on a farm. We raised about 90 sows a year, which was a fairly large number at that time. We farrowed twice a year, spring and fall. And swine certainly produced waste that has a stink to it. But I think these lagoons are-- it's something else. Again, the odors are almost intolerable for a lot of people.

And people don't have the same sensitivities toward the odors and some of the emissions that are contained in those odors, either. The Minnesota Public Health Department says that people who are real young, people who are real old, or people who have sensitivities to certain components of the odor are probably going to have a different reaction than others. And so when there's not a consistent reaction on a physiological level, then it does seem to me that it compounds the problem because it's not so easy to address.

MARK STEIL: Steve, I'd like to get your reaction to something Gary said. I mean, are there levels of odor from, say, a hog feedlot that can be described as intolerable?

STEVE DILLE: I would certainly say yes. One thing I'd like to correct, though, is that-- or just expand a little bit, Representative Kubly indicated that the Senate had passed a ban on lagoons, and that is only for the swine industry. And that is something that is not being built anymore anyway. There was only two or three of them built last year in the whole state of Minnesota.

And for the cattle producer, especially the large dairy system, it's absolutely crucial that they have this method to store the manure. And it's not such a problem in the cattle industry because those lagoons crossed over and there's not anywhere near the odor problem that you find with a swine system.

But you indicated earlier that there's not a lot of success apparently in controlling odor. Actually, I think there's a lot of progress that's been made just in terms of land application, because we have a system now where you can pump this manure out of a lagoon and you have this long hose that trails along behind the tillage equipment that can go back and forth across the field and incorporate this stuff immediately.

So it's pumped out through the hose and put underground immediately. So the amount of odor that you have during application time at least is much diminished versus the method of putting it on the surface, and then hoping you've got time to get back and incorporate it sometime soon.

MARK STEIL: You're listening to a special Main Street radio, Midday from Comfrey. With us to discuss feedlots, our state senator, Steve Dille and State Representative Gary Kubly. The legislature passed a bill this year. Let's spend just a few minutes looking at that. And Gary, maybe we could start with you. What were the most important parts of that legislation, from your viewpoint?

GARY KUBLY: Well, to me, I think, the ban on new lagoons is a step in the right direction. I do think that Senator Dille is correct in saying that not many of those were permitted for the swine industry. Well, at least the people constructing them have chosen another method of waste containment and it does seem to me, that would be one helpful step.

I think, the piece that we gave to local government units, particularly to County levels of government, that allows the County to be more restrictive in the kinds of permits that they want issued within the bounds of their County is also a step in the right direction. I think a part of this whole debate centers around whether or not people have a right to say what kind of countryside they want to live in. And it seems to me that people who have lived there a long time, again, ought to have something to say about what kind of countryside they live in, and particularly as it impacts their own quality of life.

I've gotten mail from people who live in towns in my district who say that their children come in from playing outdoors in the summertime because the smell is so bad. And that happens with some frequency. They can't sit out on their deck to enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning or a glass of lemonade in the evening because of those odors.

And so I think I'm just convinced that within Renville County, at least, the odor problem is a major one. And I guess, my support of the Moratorium came about primarily because the odor legislation that I had worked on last year, and we had gotten into place, there didn't seem to be anything happening.

MARK STEIL: We'll go into some more of that odor issue in just a few minutes. But I'd like to ask-- get Senator Dille's take on the legislation, first of all. Again, what we're an important part of that?

STEVE DILLE: Well, I think what you're looking for is a summary here of what we actually did. And this particular year, we probably spent more money on the livestock industry to help it in various ways than I can ever remember before in the 12 years that I've been in the legislature. So I'm just going to run down some of the things that we're doing to help the livestock industry.

Now, I'm a pro livestock guy. I'm a veterinarian. I'm a livestock producer myself. I raise hogs and sheep and cattle myself. And I'm interested in protecting, promoting and nurturing this livestock industry. And of course, odor control and solving that issue is an important part of this, but there's many other parts as well.

And in the 1998 legislative session, we did some things that I think are very important to help the livestock industry, not just the big guy, but a lot of things here are for the mid-size to small producer and to help organic producers and the smallest of the small and so forth. But just to run through this, we have found, contrary to public opinion, that the feedlots that are most likely to be out of compliance are the smaller ones, the older smaller ones or mid-sized ones. The larger, newly primitive systems that were engineered properly, generally speaking, are in compliance.

Now, Blue Earth County and other counties have done feedlot inventories, and they have confirmed this. In the case of Blue Earth County, all of the larger systems were in compliance, but about 10% of the small to mid-sized ones, were out of compliance. And I'm talking about systems that are under 300 animal units. So in order to help those smaller systems, we have $11 million that we appropriated this year for grants and low interest loan money to help these smaller producers upgrade their systems so that they meet the new environmental standards.

MARK STEIL: Gary? I'd like to get Gary's reaction to that quickly before we move on with that. Do you agree with that, that it's a small to medium feedlots which causes those problems?

GARY KUBLY: I honestly don't know, Mark. I guess that's one of another reason that I felt it was important to support this so-called moratorium, because we don't really know what kinds of problems are out there. It may be that they're in compliance in terms of what the law now states, but it does seem to me that we had two major spills from lagoons of 100,000 gallons or more just within the past year in Minnesota.

And it does seem to me that as the numbers of those facilities increase, the likelihood of that kind of thing happening is going to increase as well. And I think those are certainly some environmental concerns that need to be addressed. I do think there must be ways of storing the waste that are better than some of the methods that we currently use. I know right up here at Lake Lillian, there's a company that makes an above ground storage facility that would seem to me to address some of those problems. At least if a facility is leaking above the ground, you're going to be aware of it.

So I think we need to look at some of that. But whether-- it's true that the smallest operators are out of compliance. I think it makes a difference on how you raise. Well, let's stay with swine production since we started with that. I think there are ways of raising swine that I think don't pose anywhere near the kinds of problems that these large confinement setups do with the way they store the waste.

And I guess that's been one of my concerns at the legislature is that the state of Minnesota not appear to be giving preference to one form of livestock production. And so I've pushed hard, and Senator Dille knows that. In fact, he was angry with me for a while because of pushing for the low input, low capital intensive kind of production unit, that we fund both of those and let the producer choose rather than pushing only one form of production.

MARK STEIL: OK.

STEVE DILLE: Well, let's just clarify that for a minute. To start with, I was not angry with you for pushing the alternative low input hog production system. It was because you had cut the funding for odor research. And the odor research bill you just made reference to, which had $400,000 in it for odor research, you had cut that out, cut that back by $125,000 to fund something else. And that's the part I wasn't happy with.

GARY KUBLY: Yeah. Well, but if--

STEVE DILLE: Since the odor is a major issue, I didn't like the idea of having the recommendations of the odor task force, which was formed in a bill I had the previous year be cut. So fortunately--

GARY KUBLY: But if we're going to be fair, if we will sign the production, then you've got to fund them both at equal levels and that didn't happen. So I guess I would disagree with you on that, Senator. I guess-- I know that was your bill, but in all fairness, if we're going to promote one style of production over the other, I think that's done in the eyes of the public by funding one at much greater heights than the other form.

MARK STEIL: Let Senator Dille respond to that. Is there a favoritism?

STEVE DILLE: Let's set the record straight. The $400,000 is for odor research on all types of swine systems, not just the big systems, and the alternative swine production research money was also fully funded because we managed to get some of that from the Hudayriat Island project to fully fund that in conference committee last year. And in this year, if I can just continue on with some of this money--

MARK STEIL: We'll take one more point, and then we're going to go to a caller.

STEVE DILLE: All right. Well, we've got $3.3 million that we stuck in the University of Minnesota Hog Research this year for new swine production facilities at Waseca and at Morris. And part of that $3.3 million, almost $300,000 of it, is for low capital cost hog production research at the University of Minnesota.

MARK STEIL: What does that mean exactly?

STEVE DILLE: That means pasture farrowing, raising hogs on dirt, using systems that would require less capital input. It's maybe going back to an older system of swine production. And by the way, just for your information, I am pasture farrowing myself. I pasture farrowing last year 24 gilts on pasture. And I got about 60 of them bread this year. And I can tell you that it's labor intensive and there's all kinds of problems associated with it.

And I think one thing this research is going to show is that, yes, you can make it work, but your labor costs are going to be high, and it's going to be hard to achieve the kind of feed efficiency that you get in a confinement system, a technologically advanced system. And the other problem is, can you produce enough hogs under that system to generate enough family income to feed the family, pay the bank and satisfy other needs in your life.

MARK STEIL: You're listening to a special Main Street radio Midday from Comfrey. Good afternoon, I'm Mark Steil. And with us are State Senator Steve Dille and State Representative Gary Kubly. We're talking about feedlots, and some of the things that are going on in that area.

One thing the legislature also did this year was help or give the authority to local governments to become more active in regulating feedlots. And counties actually have been doing this for several years. And now some townships are also trying to follow that same path. And we have Nancy Barsness with us from New Prairie Township in Pope County, joining us by phone this afternoon. She's a zoning administrator of that township. Good afternoon, Nancy.

NANCY BARSNESS: Good afternoon.

MARK STEIL: What sorts of controls does your township impose on feedlots?

NANCY BARSNESS: Well, we require a conditional use permit for any feedlot over 450 animal units. And our basis for doing that is that allows most of the older techniques or the older-- how the older operations were built would allow any of that. But most of the large confinement systems that we're seeing today-- one barn is about 400 animal units, which equals about 1,000 adult hogs.

And so our township says if you're going to build multiple barns over 400 animal units, we require a conditional use permit, which allows a local forum for our residents to come and ask neighbors to ask questions of the feedlot operator and resolve some of the issues. We require a setback for our township roads. We're road overseers and nobody else is going to protect our township roads if we don't have setbacks and for safety for loading and unloading hogs.

MARK STEIL: Nancy?

NANCY BARSNESS: Yes?

MARK STEIL: You've been taken to court over those controls, is that correct?

NANCY BARSNESS: That's correct. And we've won. We're now at the operator-- feedlot operator has appealed to the appellate court. And so we're in the process of that. We should have a ruling by August, but we feel quite confident on winning that one.

MARK STEIL: May that be a trendsetter for the state if it goes your way?

NANCY BARSNESS: Well, yes, especially through the appellate court at issue. They're maintaining that odor is pollution and the exclusive jurisdiction of the state to regulate. We've never seen where MPCA defines odor as pollution. It's land and water pollution. And we recognize as townships that there has been court cases in the past that have established that townships cannot regulate water quality and the pollution issues associated with water quality, such as manure management, polluting the land that in turn pollute the water.

But a new issue cropped up in which now the feedlot operator and Minnesota pork producers are maintaining that odor is pollution and townships can't have setbacks to regulate that. Well, MPCA, the state has no setbacks. We live in a County that has no County wide zoning, no feedlot ordinances. And so the only forum for hearings is through the township. And the only setback authority is with the township.

MARK STEIL: Nancy, I'd like to ask you also, you've been active on the issue of townships imposing moratoriums on feedlot construction. Are townships doing that?

NANCY BARSNESS: Yeah. There's a number of townships. And understand that these moratoriums, including the state ones that have been talked about earlier today, I've been listening in, are temporary, first of all. And I don't think either representative Kubly or Dille has mentioned that the moratorium on swine lagoons put in by the state will expire June 30th of year 2000. It's a temporary moratorium, as was the proposal for the statewide moratorium, and is so the moratoriums at the township level.

They are put on to protect the planning process. It's only after a township has decided it wants to have local control on controversial developments in the township that they decide whether or not it's necessary to adopt a moratorium to protect the planning process. So they don't do anything in a rush and hurriedly that they'll regret down the road that they can put on a moratorium and then do a good job of studying the issues to decide what kind of zoning ordinance or comprehensive-- or put together a comprehensive plan.

MARK STEIL: OK Nancy, thanks for joining us this afternoon.

NANCY BARSNESS: You're welcome.

MARK STEIL: That was Nancy Barsness from New Prairie Township in Pope County. Senator Dille, reaction, should townships have the authority to control feedlot construction?

STEVE DILLE: I believe they should if the County doesn't. But it's really a complicated business, and I don't really think it's an appropriate function of township government. Generally speaking, I think it's more appropriate for the County to do that. In our 50 states, there's only 13 states left that have township government, and approximately half of those allow for the townships to regulate feedlots.

In our upper Midwest area here, North and South Dakota, townships do not regulate feedlots. Iowa does not have townships anymore. It's a function of the state down there. Wisconsin does allow their townships to regulate feedlots. In Minnesota, I think, it is appropriate for them to do it. They have the authority to impose a moratorium as a County does, and that's one of the reasons I oppose the statewide moratorium.

A lot of these people are hollering for local control, and this is an example where they have local control. They can stop this production at the township level or they stop the feedlots at the township level for up to two and a half years, and at the County level for two years. So between the two of them, they could actually stop feedlot construction for four and a half years, and that's local control. Why should the state stick their nose into their business?

After all, there's a lot of counties out there that have already settled this issue. They've had their moratorium. They've developed their feedlot ordinance. They're ready to move on. They like livestock production. They need livestock production. That's good for the economy. And it's not appropriate for the state to come in on top of that and stop them. So I think it's a very, very clear issue of local control.

And besides that, another thing I'd like to say is that there's over 700 feedlots in this state with over 1,000 animal units and hundreds of those. You don't see any protesters, anybody complaining. The neighbors come and go and they're on good terms. They have the public hearings at the local level, and they may or may not have a crowd of people. But the point is that there's a lot of large systems that are being managed in a way and are being developed out there without the public outcry that you hear in a few cases.

MARK STEIL: If you have a question or comment for us this afternoon, call us at 800-537-5252, 1-800-537-5252. With us at the Saint Paul's Catholic Church in Comfrey, our State Senator Steve Dille and State Representative Gary Kubly. Gary, I'd like to ask you, do you have-- do you believe that feedlots should be limited in size on a particular site as to how many hogs or how many dairy cows should be able to be put on, say, one site?

GARY KUBLY: Yeah. Well, it seems to me, Mark, that-- well, like I mentioned before, when we did the odor legislation that we intended to go a certain direction with that, that would try to limit emissions from those facilities. And I guess, my frustration with that was that nothing seemed to be happening.

Now, there are some things happening now, of course. But part of my reason for supporting this moratorium seemed to me that smaller numbers on a certain site would mean smaller odor problems, that you have fewer numbers on a site, you probably have less of an odor. And certainly if you have the kinds of spills that we have, they wouldn't be as sizable.

It would seem to me that it would offer the operator the added security of knowing that if there was a breach of their biosecurity at one of their facilities-- if you've got 10,000 sows spread around to five different sites, for instance, and you have some kind of a disease that breaks out at one site, well, it's a setback, but you're still in business. If you have one of those diseases break out at a site with you where you have your entire operation located, you're pretty much out of business. So I think there could be some advantages to that. I would still tend to favor the smaller sites for those reasons.

MARK STEIL: Let's go to the phone lines here. We have Elton Redalen, a former state AG commissioner, has called in from Fountain. Good morning, Mr. Redalen.

ELTON REDALEN: Hi. How are you?

MARK STEIL: Just fine.

ELTON REDALEN: I'm fine. You got Steve Dille there in the studio?

STEVE DILLE: Yes. Hi, Elton. Good to hear from you.

ELTON REDALEN: Thank you, Steve. You're doing a good job as usual. And it was nice to hear, Nancy. I remember, Nancy, when I was in the legislature. We didn't always agree, but I always respected her. And so it was nice to hear Nancy again. But I just want to make a comment, then maybe a question.

When I was commissioner of AG, we had several townships that tried to establish ordinance for aerial spraying of potatoes and things like that, and even for spraying-- the DNR for spraying some of their woodland. And so both the DNR and the Department of AG joined with me in that lawsuit. And I forget which County it was, but we did win that.

And I think there's been one other township that tried to establish their own strict regulation and were defeated in court. So while Nancy may win hers, I think it's a little tough, though, for townships to establish those strict regulations. I think it should be the County as Senator Dille has said.

But I guess I'm wondering again, what will happen now with this generic environmental study that's taking place. So you're going to spend $3.5 million for that study. I remember the forestry environmental impact study. And when I was on the EQB board, we had it-- we had that before us. But this is something that's going to cost money and get on the shelf and nothing will come about it. I'll hang up and listen.

MARK STEIL: Thanks for calling in. Senator Dille?

STEVE DILLE: The generic environmental impact study is going to look at all of the research available throughout the world in some of these key questions. Now, I've looked at a lot of research, and I'm absolutely convinced that the MPCA standards for manure storage construction is adequate. There is no threat to the groundwater whatsoever. It's unbelievable how strong those engineering standards are.

There is some threat to surface water because of land application and heavy rains immediately thereafter. And the two spills that Representative Kubly mentioned were not because of an engineering design failure, but because of human error. And of course, all human beings do make mistakes from time to time.

The point is, is that we're going to spend a lot of money on this generic environmental impact study. And although I've looked at a lot of studies that say that the MPCA standards are adequate, this study is going to look at all the research available that's done, that's peer reviewed, appropriate research on all these key questions and come to some kind of conclusion as to where we're at.

MARK STEIL: Will you support-- if they ask for stricter standards, would you be prepared to support that?

STEVE DILLE: Yes, I would, because it would be based on all of the good research that have been done around the world. And we can make some adjustments based on that. And I want to make my decisions based on valid science, sound economics and common sense, and not somebody's emotional outcry.

MARK STEIL: Mr. Redalen brought up a good point. State representative Kubly, will this environmental-- will the generic environmental impact statements sit on the shelf, or will it lead to some doings at the legislature?

GARY KUBLY: Well, I would guess that legislators will take a look at it.

MARK STEIL: I mean, some people have said that the goal of the impact statement is just to delay things and not bring any real action on feedlots.

GARY KUBLY: I don't know that. I mean, hopefully that it's not just a delay tactic. I would hope that we have something good come out of it. I don't think that it would have received the kind of support that it did if we simply thought we were kind of swinging at straw horses or whatever.

But I do think that it was something that there was a lot of support for. There is hope that there will be some direction that comes out of that for Minnesota and for the rest of the nation. I mean, this is a problem, I think, that certainly is not limited to Minnesota. There are several states right around us that have also taken a serious look at how to address the problems that they see with this industry as well.

So I think, it's something that's going on across the country. North Carolina has a genuine moratorium in place. At the present time, they are not permitting anything over 200 sows in the swine industry, which would be 80 animal units. That's a pretty small operation today.

MARK STEIL: Let's go back to the telephones here quickly. We have another caller. Jonathan from Rochester has called in this afternoon. Good afternoon, Jonathan.

JONATHAN: Hi. I hope you can hear me. I'm on a car phone. I have a question and/or comment about health and sewage. Basically, I'm a physician. Other than the fact that certain diseases are carried by animals, rather than humans, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between human excrement and animal excrement. And yet, it seems that the handling of waste is, at least legislatively, a distinction is made.

And what I'm wondering is, let's say you had a community of 10,000 people instead of 10,000 hogs, what sort of requirements might there be on management of that waste that's different from the animals? I mean, certainly if we were talking about-- however many million hogs there are in the country, if we were talking about them in human terms, I think that people would have a different take on-- I mean, no one would want to live next door to 10,000 people that were basically had no septic system. And I'm wondering what the difference is and what the rationale for that is.

MARK STEIL: Yeah. Thanks for calling in. Senator Dille, is there a difference between how the state handles a human waste versus hog waste?

STEVE DILLE: Well, a couple and very important points. Certainly, we can handle animal waste in the same way we handle human sewage, but the cost per pound of livestock produced or per unit would be cost prohibitive. That's one problem. The second one is that you lose a fertilizer value of the manure if you process it as much as you process human sewage. And that manure is a valuable resource.

Minnesota is really manure deficient. We only produce about 20% as much manure as we really need based on the amount of tillable land that we've got. And if you look at just the nitrogen part of it, we probably only produce 14% as much manure as we need. We've got lots of tillable land out here to apply this manure to. And if you process it like we do for human waste, you lose a good chunk of that fertilizer value.

MARK STEIL: State representative Kubly, is there a difference? Is hog manure less strictly regulated than standards for human waste?

GARY KUBLY: Absolutely, Mark. I think that it is. I think one of the problems that we have is that-- my suspicion is that in the future, some of the most contentious issues that we have will deal with groundwater. And if we use the same volume of groundwater to treat animal waste that we use to treat human waste, I suspect those issues would grow exponentially.

MARK STEIL: Would you like to see that happen?

GARY KUBLY: I don't think so. I guess-- it seems to me that there ought to be other ways. In the Far East, there are some waste digesters that are used for both human and animal waste. That's a form of disposal that also allows the production of a methane gas that could be used to heat animal facilities. I don't know what the options are out there. It does seem to me there are definitely differences in how they're handled.

Paul Strandberg, who works for the attorney general's office, has said that if Minnesota had the same number of humans that produced the same amount of waste as animals do, we would have a population of somewhere around 44 million. That's 11 times greater than what we currently have.

STEVE DILLE: Except that's bogus. Those are bogus numbers.

MARK STEIL: Why is that?

STEVE DILLE: Because the human waste is-- there's so much water with it and so many other things that go along with it, that there's a huge volume, and there's-- whereas with swine waste or cattle waste, there's not much volume, but it's very concentrated. So if you actually look at gallons of waste, humans produce just a tremendous amount per person.

MARK STEIL: If you have a question or comment this afternoon, call us at 800-537-5252. You're listening to a special Main Street radio Midday program from Comfrey. And State Senator Steve Dille and State Representative Gary Kubly are our guests as we talk about feedlots. Mike from Edina has called us. Good afternoon, Mike.

MIKE: Hi. Yeah, I'm working up in Edina. I'm actually from Tracy, Minnesota, and I wanted to talk. We had a feedlot put down. Actually, it's a very large scale hog confinement facility. I think that was a technical term for it. And it was put down in Lyon County. And there's more going up there. And the way they decide to site these things are, a bunch of farmers get together and they don't really want to have it on their lot, because it stinks too much. Basically, they don't want to raise their kids around the smell and everything.

So what they do is they get out the plat map and they look and see where is a retired farmer that doesn't-- or where's an abandoned farm where we might own land cheap and around it there's a retired farmer that won't be able to fight us with the smell or anything like that. And then they set it up there. And they just-- once they start-- then they go to MPCA and get the-- well, first, they stack the township board and they get-- they don't tell anybody. Who really pays attention to the township board until later?

MARK STEIL: Mike, if we could shorten this process, you have-- you don't feel that the process by which farmers choose a feedlot site is under strict enough control regulations?

MIKE: Well, I don't think it's strict enough at all. And what the whole deal is, is the public isn't really aware of what's going on at this minute. And the more feedlots that go in, the more opposition is going to build to it. So unless they perfect the odor issue, it's really a doomed technology right now.

MARK STEIL: Let's get some reaction. State Representative Kubly, are the siting processes strict enough?

GARY KUBLY: I haven't really been involved that much in that end of it, Mark. I do know that-- it seems to me that wherever a hog confinement facility is proposed, that there is a fairly large number of local people who come out opposed to it. And I think in Renville County, I still think the odor problem is the primary concern. I keep saying that over and over. In fact, I've even told members who are involved in the industry or people in my district who are involved in the industry, that if they would take care of that, half of their opposition would disappear almost immediately.

MARK STEIL: Let's let Senator Dille--

GARY KUBLY: I don't know if the permitting process is adequate the way it is. I'm just not very well acquainted with that end of it.

MARK STEIL: Senator Dille?

STEVE DILLE: Well, here you are, family farmers trying to get together to cooperate, to put together a sow unit to produce pigs, probably to bring those feeder pigs back to their home farms, to finish them on their home farm. They get together. They try to find a site. They look at the state rules. They look at the County rules. And most counties do have feedlot ordinances right now with setbacks. They've had public meetings. They've figured out what they want to do.

And so there are guidelines and regulations at both levels that these people have to meet. Setbacks, yes, from town setbacks, from churches setbacks, from road setbacks, from neighbors. So, yes, they get the plat book out and they see where they can build this facility.

And because there's multiple owners, there might be 10 or 12 farmers that would go together, each one owning 100 sows, and put together a sow unit where they can produce these pigs in an isolated site, efficiently, best genetics, best nutrition, and take those feeder pigs home to their home farms to finish them elsewhere, which is a very common structure. It's a way to help save the family farm, not destroy it by allowing these family farmers to cooperate together.

And there are rules and guidelines. And I-- maybe some counties need to change them. Maybe they need to upgrade them to accommodate some of the political pressures out there. But I think that it's important for the public to understand that this expansion of the livestock industry that we're seeing in this state is almost entirely being done by family farmers and not this corporate farming thing that keeps getting bantered about.

The exception to that might be the poultry industry. Certainly, part of that expansion is corporate, but almost all of the dairy-- I would say all of the dairy and almost all of the swine production expansion you see here is family farm expansion. And you've got to allow these people to expand if they're going to be able to compete in the 21st century.

MARK STEIL: As you said, many feedlot owners feel that the large operations are the next best step in hog production. And many small farmers have joined these hog producing cooperatives. They say that's the only way they can stay in business. Joining us now by phone is Minnesota Pork Producers president Jim Quackenbush from West Central Minnesota. Good afternoon, Jim.

JIM QUACKENBUSH: Good afternoon, Mark.

MARK STEIL: What is the state of the hog market right now? What sort of price do you receive for your hogs?

JIM QUACKENBUSH: Well, today, the market's up a little bit. It's in the mid 40s.

MARK STEIL: Is that a good price or a bad price?

JIM QUACKENBUSH: That's a price that will allow us to make a living at it.

MARK STEIL: How important is the price of hogs in determining what size operation a farmer looks at?

JIM QUACKENBUSH: Well, certainly, as a farmer and as a businessman, you have to determine what level of income you need to support your family and then, work the numbers to decide how big of an operation you need to supply those dollars.

MARK STEIL: Is there a strength in numbers in hog production, 20 to 30 farmers banding together to put up a large scale feedlot?

JIM QUACKENBUSH: Well, there's a couple of things there. You can capture some efficiencies from size. And also-- and one of the most important aspects of those groups that band together is that they can share information on their own operations where they may be finishing those pigs on their home farms. They can share data. And through that sharing and determining what works for one guy and the other guys try it, they can all improve their production.

MARK STEIL: I'd like to ask you a question that we started the program with actually. Where do you think the feedlot debate will be in five years, more heated, about the same, or less heated than now?

JIM QUACKENBUSH: Well, I expect that as we work through the process, people will come to understand the economies that farmers have to deal with, that farmers will continue to grow in their understanding of the environmental issues that people want us to look at, as well as the public deems important. And as we get those issues debated, I think it, in time, will quiet down.

MARK STEIL: All right. Thanks for joining us this afternoon.

JIM QUACKENBUSH: You're welcome.

MARK STEIL: That was Jim Quackenbush, who is the president of the Minnesota Pork Producers-- of the Minnesota Pork Producers, I mean. He farms with two of his brothers in West Central Minnesota. Let's go right back to the phones. We have another caller. Daniel from Minneapolis is with us. Good afternoon, Daniel.

DANIEL: Good afternoon. Yeah, I actually want to make a comment. Actually, for many years, we had a lot more farmers than there is now. And I've raised cattle and pigs, and there still is the smell out there. So what's the big deal with farmers now grouping up? I'm not saying you want something, a real bad odor, but I mean, what's the difference between now and a few years ago when you had a lot more farmers, a lot more cattle, a lot more pigs?

MARK STEIL: Thanks for calling in. Gary, actually, you brought in some comments, people who have written to you, talking about odor. Maybe that will illuminate the point.

GARY KUBLY: All right. I guess, I have one here from a Renville County farmer. He says, I raised hogs, too, but with pits in your barns and adequate ventilation, there's no reason for a bad odor out here. He said, I get around a lot. I go by some of these large hog buildings and the smell is bad. And he wrote that in all caps with a couple exclamation marks.

And then he felt that, the large confinement units kind of forced the price down for everybody. I'm not saying that's true or false. I'm just saying that that's an opinion that's out there. But he thinks that there should be something done about the odors.

Particularly at the close of his letter, he said, if the governor feels this is good for the economy, maybe they should build them near him, so he could smell it for a while. I mean, the people who put up with that odor day in and day out are really quite adamant about finding a solution for that particular piece of it.

MARK STEIL: Senator Dille, did farmers make a tactical mistake when the first hog feedlot was put up, let's use that, for an example, a large scale one, and the odor obviously probably was pretty bad close by that they didn't recognize that and try to deal with that issue immediately, instead of more or less being forced to deal with it by neighbors and also the regulatory agencies?

STEVE DILLE: Well, we all learn from our experiences. And that's why you're not seeing these open lagoons for hogs anymore. You have a very large surface area out there. There's about 200 different chemicals that cause odor and hog manure. It's very easy for those chemicals to vaporize over that large surface area as a wind blows across it and get into the atmosphere and irritate neighbors.

So we learn as we go. And I think in the long run, those open lagoons for swine are going to have to be either done away with or there'll have to be some new technology where there's a cover put on them and the gas is collected and treated before they're released into the atmosphere. And you can collect those gases and treat them in different ways, maybe putting them through a sprinkler system that would drive the odor molecules out of the stream of air or through a biofilter or some other technology that would remove them.

But what has happened is that almost all the swine barns being constructed now have under the barn manure storage directly under the barn itself. So the manure drops through a slatted floor into the manure storage facility beneath. And this is-- the technology is there now to route that air through a biofilter and take out 80% or 90% of those odor molecules. So I think that we've learned as we've gone. And we're going to have to go back and take some corrective action on some of the older systems that were put up like these open air hog lagoons, because they are clearly a problem.

MARK STEIL: Let's go back to the phone lines. Walter from Stearns County is calling in. Good afternoon, Walter.

WALTER: Good afternoon, sir. How are you?

MARK STEIL: Good.

WALTER: Good. I'd like to thank you for having this conversation with all the politicians on there. Gary, I want to thank you for doing a job down in Renville. We're in Western Stearns County and there was a statement made on the program about-- that most of the counties have manure ordinance or I won't say manure, but regulations governing feedlots in their counties. And I know that not to be true, for a fact.

Stearns County has been working on it for over a year, and we're finally going to get an ordinance regarding the manure management and the feedlot issue in Stearns County. And we are in a litigation right now. We have hog barns that want to go up right in the lake area. And we have had to fight this thing tooth and nail. The people are very upset.

And one thing I hear about, and this is so far fetched-- I do come from a farm background. Back when litter life came into the turkey business, my family was there. Every time you add a chemical, every time you do a filter, every time you do anything to improve something, it costs money and it costs a lot of money.

And most of the pork producers that are coming into the state right now are borrowing money or they're being lured in by a large feed companies, by everyone that can to build their pig barns up here, build their-- they're not a family farm anymore. When you got 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 pigs, that's not a family farm, that turns into a factory. And they're lured in. And what's happening is these people are spending $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 on these barns. Supposedly in so many years, they get to own them like they did in the chicken business years ago.

The problem we have is if they're making debt payment on the buildings and on everything they're putting up, if they're making debt payments on that and the price of pork falls or the technology gets where they have to improve to get rid of odors, and now it's going to take us three years in the state to get an environmental or to see what's going to happen three years down the road, I mean, guys, we're out of control. And I guess that's what I'm saying.

MARK STEIL: OK. Thanks for calling in. Gary Kubly, are we out of control?

GARY KUBLY: Well, I think there are a lot of people, Mark, that feel that we're moving in that direction. And I think the purpose of the slowdown legislation was to take a look at what's out there, to find out what's out there, to find ways that those problems might be addressed, whether those problems are real or perceived. I think-- hopefully, this generic environmental impact study will do something for us, that will give us a direction.

But I guess another reason that a lot of people came out in support of the moratorium was that, yes, it does allow expansion to continue during a period of time when we're saying we don't know what the problems are. And so shouldn't we slow it down until we can at least find out? Well, the legislature this year said that, no, we're not going to do that. And it looks to me like, that's probably where it's going to stay for that period of time.

MARK STEIL: OK. We're going to have to-- we're approaching the end of the program. Senator Dille, closing thoughts, is the industry out of control?

STEVE DILLE: Well, no, it isn't. There are 48 counties that have adopted the state MPCA program, but there's a lot of counties that haven't adopted it, but they have got their own feedlot ordinance. My County, Meeker is one, Renville County is another. I know Stearns County, that the caller just called in about, does not have a feedlot ordinance, but they're on the verge of getting one.

But this business about criticizing farmers that want to try to expand because they're getting money from a feed company or they're getting a contract where they can manage their risk, I think is false. Really, by all this political opposition, we're really contributing to the demise of the family farm, not helping it.

And a person with two finishing barns, two 1,000 head finishing barns, that's just a full-time job even with technology. And so you need to have some size and allow these people to expand. And it's not a big corporate factory farm business like they like to talk about. These are family farmers that are just trying to get a full-time job on the farm so they can earn enough money to feed their families service debt.

MARK STEIL: Thanks. And with that, we're going to have to bring the show to a close. Thanks to State Senator Steve Dille and State Representative Gary Kubly. Thanks also to-- we've been talking about feedlots here, in case you haven't noticed. And thanks also to Tom Christopher of Saint Paul's Catholic Church here in Comfrey for lending us a broadcast from the church basement.

Our engineer in Saint Paul this afternoon has been Randy Johnson here in Comfrey. Rick Hazinski and Cliff Bentley handled the technical side, and Lynette Nyman and Sarah Meyer and Mike McCaul Pengra all in on the production. Executive producers are Kate Smith and Mel Sommer. The Main Street radio team is Leif Enger, Dan Gunderson, Rachel Reabe, Catherine Winter. And in Comfrey, I'm Mark Steele.

A reminder to that, MPR's Main Street radio coverage of rural issues is supported by the Blandin Foundation, committed to strengthening communities through grant making, leadership training and convening.

SPEAKER: Become a member of Minnesota Public Radio today and help us meet our goal of 85,000 members by the end of our fiscal year, June 30th. Please mail in your membership today or call us right now at 1-800-227-2811. Thanks.

MARK STEIL: You're listening to Minnesota Public Radio. It's 80 degrees at KNOW FM, 91.1. Minneapolis Saint Paul. The Twin Cities weather forecast for today calls for mostly sunny skies with a high of 83. Northwest winds at 10 to 15 miles an hour.