Iowa State’s research about hog-confinement odor has been in the news recently, but some people question whether ISU has taken the proper focus on the issue of large-scale hog production.

Information gathered this week by the Dean of Agriculture’s office showed more than $1.5 million has been invested in current research of hog confinement issues at ISU.

The research is being conducted by members of the departments of agricultural and biosystems engineering, agronomy, animal science, economics, microbiology and sociology.

David Topel, dean of agriculture, said Iowa State is conducting “a huge amount” of research in the area of hog confinements. He said the research is very broad-based and does not favor either large- or small-scale hog production.

“There’s a considerable amount of research going on at Iowa State,” agreed Dwaine Bundy, professor of agriculture engineering.

Bundy said several departments at ISU are conducting research in the area, including microbiology, animal science, economics, agronomy and the National Soil Tilth Lab. He said the aerospace engineering department has also conducted research in the area of particulate transmissions in the past.

“ISU is looking for solutions to maintain a strong ag outlook in the state,” Bundy said. “In the ag engineering department, we are definitely looking at low-cost solutions, but at the same time we want them to be environmentally friendly from the standpoint of both the producer and the consumer,” he said.

Bundy said his research on odor is not size dependent, so it is not biased toward one side or the other.

“I think [ISU] has a pretty balanced program,” Bundy said. He added, however, that critics will always beg to differ.

One of those critics is Rosemary Paulsen, lifelong resident of Carroll County and chairperson of the Carroll Regional Chapter of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI).

“It seems like [ISU’s] only concern is the odor issue, and they’re working diligently on that,” Paulsen said.

The information provided by Dean Topel’s office included a list of seven studies relating to waste management and air quality and one reference to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, which explores alternative production systems.

Paulsen said she feels that the developments in the odor area are only hiding the problem of environmental waste, and that ISU should be doing more to promote alternative methods of hog production.

Mark Honeyman, associate professor of research and development, said he also believes odor is a secondary concern.

“Odor may be the lightning rod, but the real issue is deeper,” Honeyman said. “It has to do with who owns the pigs … and where the industry is going. That’s what really motivates my research.”

Honeyman is researching three alternative production systems for the Leopold Center — outdoor production, hoop structures, and the deep bedded system.

Honeyman said he believes large-scale production has a negative impact on rural communities.

“I believe that in the long run, it is in Iowa State’s best interest to have many producers in Iowa,” Honeyman said. “Some argue that large-scale production will result in fewer producers.”

John Lawrence, associate professor of agricultural economics, has researched the economic impact of the pork industry.

“Personally, I don’t see it as an either-or issue,” Lawrence said. “I think there’s a middle ground.” He said he thinks ISU should help people make better decisions, not make the decisions for them.

Lawrence said his research found that it is beneficial for communities to have hog production in general. Some ISU research has shown that smaller-scale production is actually more beneficial, however.

The Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, Neb., analyzed data from a study released in January by Daniel Otto, professor of agricultural economics. The Center reported that smaller operations create 21 more jobs and generate almost $35,000 more in annual local revenue with the same amount of production as one large operation.

In Chapter 6 of “Iowa’s Pork Industry — Dollars and Scents,” Otto reported, however, that large-scale production adds to the local tax base and adds “considerable value” to rural areas, without noting that small-scale production is more beneficial.

Michael Duffy, professor of agricultural economics, said he feels ISU should be trying to present options to producers and make sure people know about those options and don’t feel trapped. He used the work of Mark Honeyman and the Leopold Center as an example of beneficial research.

“As a public institution, Iowa State has an obligation to look at and be aware of the non-market aspects of the issue, such as the environmental costs and changes in social structure,” Duffy said. “ISU is doing some good things, but they are also doing some things I wouldn’t be doing.”

Duffy said he is very worried that producers may be losing the option of small-scale production, and implied that the university may have lost focus on the true issue.

“The pendulum has been swinging in the direction of looking at pieces of the problem rather than problem solving,” Duffy said.

Duffy said money will always have a large influence.

“It is important to keep the distinction between public and private,” Duffy said. “Public research should benefit the public, while private research focuses on making money.

“We need to be very cognizant of the distinction, and if money has strings attached, we need to be sure we can live with that and maintain our land-grant status,” Duffy said.

Topel said the university goes through a certain process when determining whether research will benefit the public and not just private industry.

“First, we determine the real needs of the state, and then we set priorities for those needs,” Topel said. “We don’t have enough support to do everything, so we have to do the most critical issues, and we consider this issue very critical,” he said.

ISU supported the USDA Swine Research Facility, a 700-acre farm first proposed in 1992 which was slotted to hold 5,000 to 7,000 hogs near Big Creek Lake. The Department of Natural Resources and many environmentalists had major concerns about the facility and its possible effect on the Big Creek Watershed.

Izola Crispin, a family farmer from Boone County, opposed the facility.

“Our big concern was that we thought ISU is a land-grant college and should be finding new ways to help small-scale farmers,” Crispin said. “[ISU] should be helping Iowa maintain our status as No. 1 in pork production without jeopardizing our status as a livable state,” she said. “We felt that the Big Creek facility would have benefited large industry much more than small farmers.”

Crispin said she thought the health risk posed by the facility was unnecessary.

“The lab on campus is fine, but we felt that there were enough large facilities going up that they didn’t need to build one strictly for [research] purposes,” Crispin said.

Topel said it is important for people to know that ISU was not the lead in the Big Creek project.

“ISU was cooperating with the USDA,” Topel said. “It was important that we be a good partner.”

ISU also seems to have a good relationship with Murphy Family Farms, the largest hog factory corporation in the nation. Some say that having Murphy’s Midwest office at the ISU Research Park is a clear indication of where ISU’s priorities lie.

“My main concern is that Murphy [Family Farms] has their office on ISU property,” Paulsen said. “They say they’re a family farm but they are not; they’re an industrial hog production. Iowa State is a land-grant university and should be concerned with the farmer.”

Paulsen spoke during a Jan. 13 rally outside the Ames Murphy office.

“[Murphy Family Farms] has already destroyed North Carolina, and now we’re accepting them with open arms,” Paulsen said.

No one doubted that the issue has had a large emotional impact on Iowans.

“I think the reason Iowa is in so much turmoil over this issue is because of the strong family farm tradition, of which swine have been the backbone,” Honeyman said. “Other states that don’t have the same heritage and culture as Iowa wouldn’t view these changes as negatively.”

Duffy said community should be a primary focus.

“Some people have this notion that we have to feed the world, but that’s nonsense — we’re feeding the affluent,” Duffy said. “If we destroy Iowa while we’re feeding the affluent, what have we gained?”