McKnight Column: Feeling your oats?

By James McKnight

In the last four decades, our agricultural system has been focused on boosting corn, soybean, and vegetable production in the United States. To maximize yields, industrial-scale inputs of fertilizer and pesticides have come to dominate production methods.

Unfortunately, as numerous studies have shown, those methods are directly linked to rising levels of nitrates and pesticides measured in groundwater samples throughout the Midwest. (UW-Ext; J. Brand 2021 on nitrates; DATCAP 2022 on pesticides are just two from Wisconsin). Furthermore, research also suggests a strong correlation to negative health effects observed in exposed populations, such as colorectal and thyroid cancers, poor fetal and early childhood development, and endocrine system disruptions. (NIH, 2024)

Another outcome of that system is that most farmers retain less of the actual sales value of the crops they raise than ever before (USDA Statistical Service 2023). Under those market conditions, operations must get larger to maintain financial viability. The way federal subsidies are allocated accelerates that trend. Last year, over 93% of corn and soybean subsidies went to the five percent largest operators. While most individual farm profits declined, profits for processors and distributors increased by $30 billion. (2024 USDA Annual Survey)

Since 2017, Wisconsin has lost 10% of its farms, while on-farm worker numbers declined by a similar amount, even as acreage devoted to corn, soybeans, and vegetables increased. Rural communities, dependent on once numerous family farms that helped support local businesses, have been economically devastated populations decrease.

Increasingly, however, local farmer-led groups, are springing up to change the system. These local groups are developing and promoting different land use strategies, such as regenerative agriculture, that focus on the improvement of natural soil fertility and biome health. Happily, less reliance on expensive chemical fertilizers and pesticides also helps raise profit for mid-level and small farmers.

For example, two new groups, Practical Farmers of Iowa and a Minnesota group, Byron Area Farmers, have recently developed “oat collectives” to promote more oat cropping to replace the traditional corn/soybean rotation that has been so damaging. Regenerative growing methods implemented in these “oat collectives“ has resulted in increased yields and higher quality grain that sells for premium prices. That created new marketing opportunities and attracted grain cleaning operators to locate close by, keeping processing jobs local.

They also tapped into cost-sharing conservation programs to further reduce pollutants in groundwater by adding a rotation of clover after oat harvest. Like oats, clover requires little chemical input compared to commodities, and restores soil fertility naturally, benefitting groundwater quality and restoring plant and animal diversity.

It is an ideal collaboration, combining farmer creativity and knowledge, with taxpayer water quality improvement funds, to develop agriculture that is more beneficial to both parties. USDA has a few programs directed this way, including EQIP programs, but the vast amount of taxpayer funding still drives the corn/soy paradigm that is so destructive.

For taxpayers, redirecting subsidies to programs that improve groundwater quality, benefit rural communities, and raise on-farm profits is one goal. But increasingly, they are also insisting that harmful agricultural practices be moderated, and when negative impacts do result, the cost of remediation is not borne by the community.

In Wisconsin, that trend is evident in county and township efforts to require operating permits for future CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) within their jurisdictions. The agreements are meant to address specific problems associated with CAFO practices. Those include groundwater contamination from poor waste disposal, the spread of infectious diseases from large numbers of confined animals, damage to local roads from heavy truck traffic, increased demands on local firefighting resources, and a decline in surrounding property values.

Operating permits also specify that reasonable legal and expert costs to monitor and enforce compliance with permit standards must be the responsibility of the operator, and proof of financial surety to cover restoration or abandonment costs be provided to ensure that compliance.

Recent events confirm the concerns are legitimate.

On Feb. 5, 2025, a fire at an Ohio CAFO poultry operation required fire departments from six counties to control the massive blaze. In September 2024, a poultry processor in Iowa abruptly went bankrupt, leaving state and federal officials responsible for 2.1 million birds. Taxpayer-subsidized plant facilities and housing built for plant workers were empty by December and the local economy was devastated.

Groundwater pollution from animal waste disposal has been confirmed at numerous CAFO locations in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Porous soils, like those in most of Portage County, are the most prone to this type of contamination, not only in manure but from commercial fertilizer and pesticide applications too.

Currently, CAFOs receive little oversight in Wisconsin because of a lack of resources at the state level. Presently 15 DNR staff members oversee 336 permitted operations in the state. Inspections occur on average every five years, meaning data on waste storage and spreading and fertilization rates on fields are all self-reported. There are currently no CAFO obligations for road repair, infectious disease control, water use, fire protection, or financial surety expenses incurred by local communities.

In January this year, a lawsuit filed against the town of Eureka to stop the implementation of the operation permit was dismissed by a state court, and the right to local control was upheld. To date, nine Wisconsin townships and three counties have passed similar measures. Many other entities, including Portage County, are in early discussions to look at how operations permits might help protect communities and promote responsible agriculture. Like the “oat collective,” there may be a way forward.