Ben Stout is spending a couple months this fall trying to provide some context to county commissions that may be dealing with contentious ag development issues.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
Ben Stout is spending a couple months this fall trying to provide some context to county commissions that may be dealing with contentious ag development issues.
Stout, an ag development representative with the S.D. Department of Agriculture, met Oct. 3 with Moody County Commissioners.
Stout provided commissioners with livestock and grain figures for Moody County as well as Sioux County in Iowa and Kandyohi County in Minnesota. Stout’s figures showed that though the average size of Moody County’s 513 farms is 496 acres—larger than the average size of farms in the counties he used for comparison—the Iowa and Minnesota counties generally have far more head of dairy cattle, swine and poultry.
“There’s way more livestock in those other places,” Stout said, noting it was information that should be shared with opponents of confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs.
Stout also provided an historical context with figures showing that record highs for livestock numbers in South Dakota were from times with significantly fewer regulations in place to ensure protection of the environment.
According the U.S. Department of Agriculture figures, South Dakota’s record number of dairy cattle was in 1934 with 675,000 head. The 2015 total was 115,000 head.
Other record years and 2015 totals include:
Moody County Commissioners have dealt with requests for a number of CAFOs which often bring out adamant opposition.
Stout’s work, in the ag department’s Division of Agricultural Development, is concerned with the economic benefits and impact of agriculture.
“It’s a tremendous opportunity for rural South Dakota if we do things right,” Stout said of CAFOs.
Stout suggested that commissioners ask CAFO opponents if they have toured the facility that they oppose. Ag producers often offer tours, Stout said. While poultry and swine units may be tougher to tour because of cleanliness restrictions, videos of the facility may be available for a virtual tour.
“It’s hard to get information out when everyone’s upset about something,” Stout said.
