There’s some confusion over over just how many hogs the controversial industrial farm near Mount Judea in the Buffalo National River watershed will house in a confined space, and the expected results of that ill-advised enterprise.

Here’s my understanding:

One report filed by C&H Hog Farms says the farm would be raising 2,500 sows. But the permit granted by our state’s guardians of the environment, the Department of Environmental Quality, says in the farm’s notice of intent (and a report prepared by the engineers) that there can be up to another 4,000 offspring weighing under 55 pounds each, for a maximum capacity of 6,503 swine.

Each sow is expected to annually bear 2.5 litters of 11 pigs. The pigs likely will generate about 1.4 cubic feet of daily waste each; the 4,000 or so pigs would generate far more waste than their mothers.

Basic math also tells me that’s a lot more swine than 2,500, along with millions of gallons of their waste to be regularly contained in a pit lagoon and spread on 600-plus acres surrounding tributaries of the Buffalo.

Meanwhile, Cargill, the international corporation that will purchase hogs from this farm, has responded to the concerns of an Oklahoma letter-writer by what strikes me as it saying C&H isn’t Cargill’s farm and everyone should quit debating and co-exist like they do in Oklahoma.

Ed Brocksmith of Tahlequah wrote Cargill to protest its financial support for this concentrated animal feeding operation arising in the national river’s watershed largely underlain by cracked limestone known as karst.

I thought I’d share this revelatory exchange between Mike Martin, director of communications in Cargill’s Wichita, Kan., office and Brocksmith:

“Dear Mr. Brocksmith:

Thank you for contacting Cargill about your concerns related to a new hog farm in Arkansas built by a local family that has farmed the area for many years and resided there for decades. The farm is not owned by Cargill and the permit to build the farm was issued to the family that owns the land. Hogs born on the farm will be harvested by Cargill to produce pork. We share your desire for farming and recreational use of waterways such as the Buffalo National River to successfully co-exist. The farm incorporates modern environmental safeguards not present at older farms in the area. Waste from the hogs will be used as fertilizer, similar to the way commercial fertilizers are spread on croplands throughout the nation.

“Due to older hog farms that have recently ceased operation in the area near the new farm, the net number of hogs in the area, including those on the new farm, will be lower than in the past. Yet, other farms remain in the area. Also, the new hog farm will have 2,500 sows, with the remainder being smaller piglets that will be moved to grow-out facilities once they are weaned. In terms of waste being generated, that is significantly different than 6,500 full-size hogs on the farm. Additionally, the farm family has complied with all regulations and laws, and its engineering firm went well beyond the requirements for the farm’s environmental safeguards.

“There is a considerable amount of misinformation floating around about the farm and its potential impact. The plan for the farm was carefully reviewed by the appropriate government bodies and all required public notifications were made. Both Cargill and the family that owns the hog farm respect the natural resources we use to produce food for Americans. It is those natural resources-soil, water, air and others-which allow us to have the most productive agricultural system in the world to feed Americans and many others outside the U.S. We take seriously the responsibility for proper use of those resources.

“I hope you will agree that agriculture and recreational use of resources, as well as the conservation and preservation of those resources, are capable of co-existing, as they do in Oklahoma where you reside.”

And Brocksmith’s reply:

“Dear Mr. Martin,

Thank you for your reply to my message about the new hog farm near the Buffalo National Scenic River.

“There is a big difference in Oklahoma hog farming and the hog farm in question. Oklahoma hog farms are primarily confined to the western portion of the state. Oklahoma has good rules governing these facilities that are located in wide-open spaces that are not adjacent to nutrient-sensitive waters. On the other hand, the hog farm in question in Arkansas is in an environmentally sensitive area. In fact, it could not be in a less appropriate area of Arkansas.

“In my opinion, there is no way that this new farm cannot harm the Buffalo River. Perhaps not tomorrow or next year, but sooner or later there will be an incident that may damage the Buffalo and … Cargill’s corporate image. Some industrial uses can co-exist with important recreational areas, as you say. However, I would remind you that there are degrees of

industrial activity and the impact industries can potentially have on environmentally sensitive areas. Hog farming appears to me to be one of these incompatible uses.

It is never too late to right a wrong. Cargill should back away from this project while it can do so. Sincerely, Ed Brocksmith.”

———◊———

Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected]. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.com.

Editorial, Pages 19 on 04/20/2013