Adrian Daily Telegram, MI
01-22-07
Environmental impact depends on how well dairy operators follow the rules
Concerns about large dairies are mostly related to their impact on air and water
quality.
By James Rufus Koren
Vickie Price and Teresa Van Havel both live within about a mile of the Vreba-Hoff
dairy on Dillon Highway in Medina Township. Ask their opinions about the facility,
though, and the answers will be as far apart as east and west — literally.
“When we first moved here, we raised 150 hogs, and it never smelled anywhere
near as bad,” said Price, who has lived on Ingall Highway, southwest of the
dairy’s present location, for 30 years. “You go outside, and then you smell like
manure.”
Van Havel, meanwhile, lives on Munson Highway, east of the dairy, and said she
and her family can smell the facility for about five days out of the year.
“I have no problems with them,” Van Havel said.
Price and Van Havel aren’t the only ones who have different views of how large
dairies affect their surroundings.
For months, environmental groups have been fighting a proposed dairy in Ogden
Township, fearful that it will damage the environment or even put their health at
risk. But supporters of the development say large dairies can be good neighbors
and are constantly looking for new ways to decrease their environmental impact.
Environmental concerns about large dairies are mostly related to their impact on
air and water quality. T.J. Bucholz, communication director for the Michigan
Department of Community Health, said waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations, or CAFOs, is only harmful if not disposed of properly.
“In a perfect world, there shouldn’t be any health risks,” Bucholz said. “But there
are some bad actors who have the potential to negatively impact human health.”
Bacteria, such as E. coli, can pose “extensive human health risk,” Bucholz said,
but noted that he was not aware of any cases of illness related to CAFO pollution
in Michigan.
Air quality
A 2002 study of air quality at CAFOs performed by Iowa State University and
the University of Iowa found that workers in such facilities — especially in hog
and poultry CAFOs — commonly suffer from respiratory problems. But the study
also said those problems do not necessarily translate into a wider health risk for
people living around such facilities.
The study stated that gases, particulates and vapors found inside CAFOs have
different compositions and concentrations from those that leave the facilities.
It concluded that “no specific disease(s) per se among community residents can
be confirmed to arise from a specific chemical, bacteria or aromatic cause,” but
that “CAFO air emissions may constitute a public health hazard.”
Ed Lancaster, an environmental quality analyst with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality’s air quality division, said the state has little to do with
regulating air quality around CAFOs.
“We don’t consider odors from farms to be air pollution,” he said. “We have no
authority to regulate those operations.”
But the DEQ’s water quality bureau does.
Water quality
On Dec. 1, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Water Bureau
sent a notice of noncompliance to Vreba-Hoff, stating that the dairy had
improperly disposed of manure. The notice states that on Nov. 25, manure waste
went through a field tile and into a tributary to Bean Creek.
Field tiles are subterranean drainage canals used to keep fields from getting
waterlogged. Usually made of plastic piping, field tiles drain into ditches or
waterways.
The Nov. 25 incident was not the first time Vreba-Hoff had been cited for letting
manure get into local waterways.
In 2004, the DEQ filed a lawsuit against Vreba-Hoff, alleging more than 25
improper waste discharges, said DEQ spokesman Bob McCann. That lawsuit
was settled with a 2004 consent agreement, and McCann said the dairy has
violated that agreement 16 or 20 times with illegal discharges and other issues.
“We have a long history with these guys,” he said.
But McCann also said the vast majority of CAFOs in Michigan cooperate more
fully with DEQ regulations.
“I think our relationship with most CAFOs is pretty good,” he said. “We try to work
with them if there are any issues that come up. We sent Vreba-Hoff a letter back
in December and asked them to meet with us and talk to us, and they did not
follow up on that. That’s no way to have a cooperative relationship.”
But Cecilia Conway, a Vreba-Hoff partner and spokeswoman, said McCann was
mischaracterizing the situation and that Vreba-Hoff has always cooperated with
the DEQ.
“For Bob to say we’re the only dairy that has had problems, that is very much
untrue,” Conway said. “We’re not the only farm in this situation at this point in
time.”
She also said, while the Vreba-Hoff-operated dairies in Medina Township and
Hillsdale County have not been mismanaged, problems between those dairies
and the state won’t necessarily translate to problems between the state and the
proposed dairy in Ogden.
The dairy in Ogden would be developed by Vreba-Hoff, but owned and operated
by Simon and Jos DeGroot, two brothers from the Netherlands.
“The two can’t really be compared to one another,” she said. “This facility is not
going to be owned and operated by Vreba-Hoff and it will be very much state of
the art in its design.”
Stephen Vander Hoff, who is in charge of manure management for Vreba-Hoff,
said the dairy is working diligently with the DEQ and that dairies are continuing to
improve their environmental issues.
“Ten years ago, Michigan didn’t even have a permitting system,” Vander Hoff
said. “We have rules and regulations to follow. They’re a lot more stringent on
record keeping and implementation of different treatment systems. There has
been phenomenal change just in the past 10 years.”
Dan Busscher, a Vreba-Hoff partner who operates the Vreba-Hoff dairy in
Medina Township, said fears of air and water pollution are unfounded. He lives
across the road from the dairy and gets his water from a well. Conway said the
DeGroots will live close to the Ogden dairy.
“I wouldn’t have built my house that close if I thought the smell would be
unbearable,” Busscher said. “And as far as pollution to the ground water, I have a
well, and I have children.”
Compared to the days of small family dairies, Busscher said, “On a per-cow
basis, there are fewer problems now than we used to have.”
Fewer cows, more milk
In 1944 and 1945, Michigan dairy farms had 985,000 head of dairy cattle, more
than three times the number in 2005, according to the National Agricultural
Statistics Service. But on average, each cow in 2005 produced nearly four times
the milk of its 1945 predecessor.
“The emphasis has been on assuring each cow produces significantly more milk
than it did in the past, and that has the effect of producing significantly more
waste than they did in the past,” said Anne Woiwode, director of the Mackinac
Chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental group that is protesting the
development of the proposed dairy in Ogden.
According to an estimate from Vreba-Hoff, the proposed 5,000-cow dairy would
produce 145,425 gallons of waste — including manure and wash water — per
day.
Manure and wash water from a large dairy is stored in a lagoon. The liquid
mixture of feces, urine, water and sand — sand is used for the cows’ bedding —
is then spread on fields as a fertilizer.
“Ultimately, the manure kind of enhances the healthiness of the land, so it
becomes more productive,” Conway said.
While manure has long been used as a fertilizer, Woiwode said modern dairy
farms and the manure they produce are very different from their forebears. She
called modern manure “toxic waste.”
Previously, “the animals would be grazed and the waste would be deposited in
fields directly or be deposited on hay and produce a product that would be much
more likely to stay on the ground when deposited,” Woiwode said.
Now, the methods and technology are very different.
“When the waste is liquefied, as opposed to being deposited on the ground or
mixed with straw and composting as it’s applied to fields, it’s much more readily
running into the soil, into the ground water or into the field tiles,” Woiwode said.
“It’s not staying where it’s supposed to be.”
But David Munson, chief executive officer of the Lenawee Chamber for Economic
Development, said small, pastoral dairy farms that don’t need manure lagoons
can’t produce as efficiently as large CAFOs, and huge dairies are likely to be
around for a while.
“There’s nothing about the size or the way these dairies are organized that is all
that shocking,” Munson said. “It’s like anything else. Human beings strive for
efficiency. Business drives that and forces that. The market is driving
consolidations.”
Common problems
Greg Merricle, an environmental quality analyst with the DEQ’s water bureau,
said manure draining through field tiles is one of the most common problems for
CAFOs. He also said it’s a difficult problem to avoid.
“It’s a combination of things: management, planning and luck,” he said. “And
that’s part of the problem. You can have what appears to be the right time for
application in every way, shape and form, and then you apply manure and you
find out it wasn’t.”
Manure and commercial fertilizers alike can harm waterways.
“It provides nutrients to plant materials and bacteria,” Merricle said. “Then those
plants and bacteria die, and as they decompose they deplete the water of oxygen
— oxygen that’s necessary for things like fish.”
And CAFOs aren’t the only culprits when it comes to inadvertently dumping
fertilizer in waterways.
“I’ve seen smaller dairies with much bigger problems then larger dairies,”
Merricle said. “I’ve seen farmers who don’t apply manure at all and over-apply
commercial fertilizers. But they get away with it because commercial fertilizers
don’t smell like manure.”
Regardless, CAFOs are supposed to follow Generally Accepted Agricultural
Management Practices, or GAAMPS, one of which prohibits CAFOs from
discharging manure or manure-tainted water from their sites.
“It’s the obligation of agriculture to not contaminate the waters of the state,” said
Bill Bickert, a Michigan State University professor who focuses on dairy manure
management. “Everyone has the expectation that you don’t put your manure in
the creek.”
But, Bickert said, having a CAFO with no discharge might be a practical
impossibility. Even municipal water treatment facilities are allowed to have
discharges, he said.
“When we look at the technology that’s available for managing manure,
unfortunately that has not kept pace with the needs to manage manure in such a
way that we can have zero discharge,” he said. “We’re trying to meet the zero
standard overnight.”
Bicker doesn’t argue that the state regulations are clear, and said some
discharges should result in citations, but also said the system will never prevent
all manure discharges.
“We’ve spent a lot of time coming up with recommendations for minimizing the
impact and minimizing the risk, and that’s really all that we can do,” he said. “The
only way to guarantee that is to not have any manure. No manure means no
animals, and that’s not a practical solution to the problem.”
But more importantly, Bickert said, environmentalists and farmers need to realize
that their agendas are not at total loggerheads, and come together to find some
solutions.
“Both sides on the issue really don’t want a manure pit. They’d both like to find an
alternative to it,” he said. “But instead of working together to find it, you’re more
likely to find them on opposite sides of the manure pit shouting at each other.”
North of the Medina Township dairy, on Medina Road, Chris Morgan said he’s
heard people complain about the smell and the manure, but tries not to think
about it.
“I grew up in the country,” he said, “so I don’t pay too much mind to it.”
Morgan said he doesn’t like the dairy’s presence so close to his home, but that
facilities like it have to be located somewhere.
“Do people like it? No. But is it a necessity? Probably,” he said. “Everyone wants
to get up in the morning and have a glass of milk.”