Several state governors — including our own — promote concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as a rural economic development tool. But are they?

I set out to find an answer to a simple question. That simple question is: Are CAFOs economically beneficial?

The answer, I learned, is equally simple: No.

Realizing that I am entering an area that has traditionally been the stomping grounds of rural economists, I relied heavily on the studies of Bill Weida of Colorado College and John Ikerd of the University of Missouri. Both are rural economists and both are retired. Retirement has certain benefits. For one thing, it frees retirees from the dictates of the hierarchy at whatever institution employed them. The second benefit is that the retiree is freed up to work on the issues deemed important.

Both Weida and Ikerd have studied rural development and both have concluded that CAFOs do more harm than good to the rural economy.

For indicators, they cite:

n The increase in rural crime (burglaries, driveby shootings, drug deals).

n The decrease in property values on lands near CAFOs.

n The necessity (and increased cost) for local school districts to teach English as a Second Language.

n The necessity for local “C-Stores” to hire bilingual clerks.

n The closure of local retail outlets.

n That local banks and savings and loan institutions are purchased by larger entities or close altogether.

n That independent farmers go out of hog-rearing, dairy or chicken operations (and this has a “domino” effect).

n The amount of direct and indirect subsidies to CAFOs.

n The few local workers hired by CAFOs.