Classifieds Business Directory Jobs Real Estate Autos Legal Notices ePubs Subscribe Archives
Today is October 9, 2015
home news sports feature opinionfyi society obits multimedia

Front Page » February 14, 2008 » Opinion » Guest Editorial: Subsidizing manure lagoons
Published 2,794 days ago

Guest Editorial: Subsidizing manure lagoons

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

Minute Man Media

Old MacDonald Incorporated, has a farm, and e-i-e-i-o, it stinks and it pollutes!

Washington is about to pass a humongous farm bill, and there has been wide coverage of the fact that the bulk of crop subsidies provided by the bill go to very large agribusiness operations -with 60 percent of family farmers getting not a dime in crop payments. However, there's another agribusiness subsidy stuck in this whopper of a bill that gets little media coverage. Under the guise of environmental improvement, it provides about $180 million to huge corporate entities that run industrialized hog and cattle operations. These factory farms keep the animals confined, feeding and medicating them in an assembly line process.

Having hundreds of animals crammed into these factory facilities, however, creates a special problem for industrial agriculture: waste. Hogs and cattle defecate and urinate. A lot. What to do with all this excrement? They channel it into lined ponds, called manure lagoons.

In 2002, as these massive-scale livestock operations were spreading across rural America, corporate lobbyists quietly changed a farm conservation program to make them outfits eligible for funding - and to declare that manure lagoons could be paid for as a "conservation measure."

How ironic, since these lagoons are notorious for leaking into groundwater, overflowing into nearby streams, and fouling the air for everyone downwind. The factory operations also are squeezing small, sustainable farmers out of business -- so it's doubly ironic that your and my tax dollars are being used to subsidize them.

Our nation's environmental laws were based for years on the ethical precept that the polluter must pay. Now that's been perverted to the unethical notion that we must subsidize the polluter.

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

Top of Page

February 14, 2008
Recent Opinion
Quick Links
Subscribe via RSS
Related Articles  
Related Stories

Best viewed with Firefox
Get Firefox

© Sun Advocate, 2000-2013. All rights reserved. All material found on this website, unless otherwise specified, is copyright and may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission from the publisher of the Sun Advocate.
Legal Notices & Terms of Use    Privacy Policy    Advertising Info    FAQ    Contact Us
  RSS Feeds    News on Your Site    Staff Information    Submitting Content    About Us