Many Wisconsin farmers believe they have little to gain and a lot to lose from large-scale livestock operations in their neighborhoods, according to the results of a survey by the Program on Agricultural Technology Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Most of the farmers who oppose large-scale livestock production feel it would further erode the status of family farming in Wisconsin, according to an analysis of survey results by PATS researchers Fred Buttel and Douglas Jackson-Smith. These farmers are concerned about the economic and social impacts that livestock expansions would have on their farms and communities.

“A clear majority of Wisconsin farmers are not supportive of efforts to encourage expansion of livestock farms,” the researchers concluded. Only 17 percent of the respondents agreed that hog and poultry expansions should be encouraged in their neighborhoods; 49 percent disagreed and 34 percent weren”t sure. Dairy and beef expansions fared a little better, with 26 percent of the respondents in favor of expansion, 42 percent opposed and 32 percent unsure.

The survey respondents were even less supportive of outside investment in neighborhood livestock operations. Less than 14 percent favored outside investment in cattle or dairy operations; even fewer favored outside money in hog or poultry operations. More than two-thirds did not think that outside investment should be encouraged to expand livestock operations in their neighborhoods.

Farmers saw few community benefits from livestock expansion. Most agreed that expansion would keep farm land from going out of production, but doubted that expansion would help their communities retain their population base, provide quality jobs or economic diversification, or increase their communities” tax bases. Nearly two-thirds did not think that more large farms are needed to increase the competitiveness of Wisconsin agriculture.

Almost 90 percent of the respondents agreed that “maintaining a system of family-operated farms is essential to the future of rural Wisconsin,” and almost three-quarters thought that replacing family farms with large farms using hired labor would be bad for Wisconsin. However, nearly 80 percent agreed that “if the economic situation for farmers continues like it is now, in a few years the family farm will be replaced by large farms run by hired labor.”

“Overall, the results of the study suggest that proponents of large confinement livestock facilities as a means of restoring the status of animal agriculture in Wisconsin still have a ways to go in convincing the average farmer,” Jackson-Smith says.

Non-farm groups often emphasize environmental concerns in their opposition to large-scale livestock operations. However, survey respondents didn”t see a major pollution threat from livestock expansion. Only 23 percent said that expansion would increase pollution, while 37 percent expected no increase in pollution. Still, about two-thirds of the farmers agreed that “it would be better for the environment to have a large number of small livestock producers than to have a few very large producers.” Respondents had little patience with non-farmers who move to farm country and expect silent, odor-free farming. More than three-quarters agreed that “when all is said and done, Wisconsin is a farm state and non-farm people need to get accustomed to the noise and odors associated with livestock.”

PATS researchers conducted a mail survey of 1,100 Wisconsin farmers in 1995. The survey gathered information on farmers” use of various technologies and management practices, and their opinions on farm policy issues.

For a copy of the research report, “Getting Bigger? Wisconsin Farmers” Views on Livestock Expansion,” contact Nancy Carlisle at PATS, 1450 Linden Dr., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1562, phone (608) 265-2908, email carlisle@ssc.wisc.edu