Tempting as it may be, it's inaccurate to characterize large-swine operations solely as the salvation or downfall for rural areas.

A University of Nebraska study of mega-swine operations' social and economic effects found mixed effects on counties where they are located, said John Allen, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources rural sociologist and the study's co-author.

Allen and David Drozd, an agricultural economics graduate student, reached that conclusion after reviewing 15 years of pork production patterns in six states: Nebraska, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina. The study defined large swine operations as those with 1,000 head or more.

The NU Center for Applied Rural Innovation team compared quality-of-life indicators such as income, taxes, population and jobs in counties with stable pork production to similar counties where production significantly expanded. They gathered data from state scientific and agricultural departments. Analyzing 15 years' information provided a longer-term perspective on the swine operations' growth patterns and socio-economic impacts on counties.

Overall, the multi-state study dispelled the authors' hypothesis that large swine operations would hurt local areas by reducing retail sales, lowering incomes, increasing poverty and driving some hog producers out of business.

Instead, they found retail sales remained competitive in counties with large-scale swine operations while per capita incomes increased and poverty decreased faster than in stable production counties. However, counties with such operations lost more population and had higher property taxes than in stable production counties.

Mega-swine operations also had mixed effects on the number of farm jobs and swine operations. As hog inventories rose, the number of farm jobs fell. All counties studied lost farm jobs during the 15-year period, but counties with mega-swine operations lost farm jobs more slowly. Similarly, all counties lost swine operations, but counties with expanded pork production lost operations more slowly.

The pace of change in Nebraska's swine industry has been slower and the scale of operations smaller than in other states studied, they found.

Overall, trends indicate the number of large-scale operations is growing while the number of operations with fewer than 500 head is falling. For example, Missouri lost nearly 60 percent of swine operations between 1988 and 1996, the highest percentage change among states studied. During the same period, the number of Nebraska hog operations declined 36 percent, the least dramatic change among the six states.

Nebraska's Initiative 300 may be a factor, Allen said. The state constitutional amendment restricts corporate farming or ranching to family farm corporations.

The percentage of Nebraska hogs produced in operations of 1,000 head-plus increased from about 39 percent in 1988 to 54 percent by 1996. During the same period, the percentages in Missouri jumped from nearly 27 percent to 74 percent.

The study shows socio-economic trade-offs policy-makers can weigh in making decisions, Allen said. It's a starting point for community-level research on large-scale swine operations' effects. It's also a model for studying other structural changes in agriculture.

Ag Processing Inc. helped fund the study.

– Molly Klocksin