The Industry Behind the Quiet
Destruction of the American Heartland
Mystery Meat II:
What Americans may not know is that feed is the primary
source of meat’s growing environmental impact. Demand
for feed crops is driving widespread water contamination
across the country, destroying America’s last native prairies,
and releasing potent greenhouse gases.
For instance, when excess fertilizer and manure wash
o fields that grow feed, they contaminate local drinking
water and create toxic algae blooms that cause vast Dead
Zones that are toxic to aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico,
Chesapeake Bay, and Great Lakes. As demand for meat
grows, America’s last native grassland prairies are being
destroyed to make room for new industrial fields that
exacerbate water pollution across the Heartland and take
aheavy toll on the climate.
While there has been significant research into the vast
environmental and public health impacts of the meat
industry, there has been little exploration of who exactly
is responsible. This investigation attempts to fill that gap
by shedding light on the industries and specific companies
driving meat’s environmental impact in America. We
undertook an in-depth investigation of the supply chains of
America’s largest meat companies. We mapped the meat and
feed companies’ extensive infrastructure, including grain
silos, feed mixing facilities, feedlots, and slaughterhouses,
and overlaid the maps with data showing both natural
grassland clearance for corn and soy, and water nitrate
concentrations linked to fertilizerpollution.
Our research found that these impacts are driven primarily
by the large agribusinesses that comprise America’s meat
industry. At the pinnacle of this concentration of power
is Tyson Foods, America’s largest meat company, which
i For instance, Tyson and its suppliers buy enormous quantities of corn and soy for from grain traders like ADM, Cargill, and Bunge which rely on the meat
companies’ massive purchases for a bulk of their profits.
produces one out of every five pounds of all meat raised in
the United States. Tyson is renowned for pioneering and
consolidating our modern industrial meat system.
The scale and concentration of the meat industry’s market
power means that decisions made at the top shape the entire
industry. Tyson drives the demand for huge quantities of
feed
i
without applying any known sustainability screen to its
purchases – essentially, normalizing a no-questions-asked
approach to the environmental impact of meat production.
The company’s market dominance means that it has
standardized many of the practices and market incentives
contaminating our water and destroying our landscape
today. But it also means that Tyson has the ability to lead
the transformation of America’s agriculture industry to end
these harmfulpractices.
Sustainable, regenerative agriculture is already being
used to produce food with fewer negative impacts. This
report concludes with a roadmap for what companies can
and should do to live up to the environmental and ethical
expectations of their customers – the American public.
With demand for meat projected to rise dramatically and
consumers increasingly concerned about the sustainability
of our food system, the stakes could not be greater.
Meat defines the American diet. In 2015, the average American
ate 211 pounds of meat,
1
and the United States leads the world
in meat production. The scale and environmental impact of
the meat industry is enormous: more than a third of all land
in the continental U.S. is dedicated to growing feed crops and
providing the pastures to raise meat.
2
Our analysis also found Tyson to be the dominant
meat company in all the regions suering the
worst environmental impacts from industrial meat
and feed production – from grassland clearing
in Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas, to manure and
fertilizer pollution pouring into waterways from
theHeartland down to the Gulf states.
3
MYSTERY MEAT II
MAP OF NITRATE LEVELS BY WATERSHEDS, 2016 OVERLAID WITH TYSON AND TOP FEED SUPPLIER FACILITIES
Nitrate contamination is primarily caused by pollution from feed crops.
MAP OF GRASSLAND CONVERSION BY COUNTY, 2016 OVERLAID WITH TYSON AND TOP FEED SUPPLIER FACILITIES
Conversion of grassland, which includes native prairie, is primarily caused by expanding feed crops.
Nitrate Levels by Watershed
Tyson Feed Facilities FDA Medicated Feed Facilities
Tyson Meat Processing Facilities USDA
ADM Grain Processing Facilities ADM
ADM Grain Elevators ADM
ADM Feed Facilities FDA Medicated Feed Facilities
Bunge Grain Elevators Bunge
Cargill Feed Facilities FDA
Cargill Grain Silos Cargill
Cargill Meat Processing Facilities USDA
Major River Natural Earth
Minor Rivers Natural Earth
States Natural Earth
Nitrate Levels by Watershed 2016
0–1.6 mg/l
1.6–4.4 mg/l
4.4–8.6 mg/l
8.6–17.8 mg/l
17.8–32 mg/l EPA Storet; USGS NWIS
Base Map © OpeMapTiles © OpenStreetMap contributers
Grassland Conversion by County
Tyson Feed Facilities FDA Medicated Feed Facilities
Tyson Meat Processing Facilities USDA
ADM Grain Processing Facilities ADM
ADM Grain Elevators ADM
ADM Feed Facilities FDA Medicated Feed Facilities
Bunge Grain Elevators Bunge
Cargill Feed Facilities FDA
Cargill Grain Silos Cargill
Cargill Meat Processing Facilities USDA
Major River Natural Earth
Minor Rivers Natural Earth
States Natural Earth
Grassland Conversion 2007-2016 by County
0–5%
5–10%
10–15%
15–20%
20–25% USDA NASS CDL
Base Map © OpeMapTiles © OpenStreetMap contributers
4
Industry Overview: Factory Farms, Monoculture
Landscapes of Feed, and Consolidation in the Heartland
ii Termed by the industry as Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or popularly called ‘CAFOs’
iii While the boom in corn ethanol production has also become a major demand driver in recent years, about a third of the corn processed in ethanol facilities is sold as animal feed, and the domestic
meat industry remains the single top market for this crop.
The United States is the world’s largest producer of beef
and poultry
2
and the third largest producer of pork.
3
In 2015, the U.S. produced 24 billion pounds of beef, in
addition to 40 and 25 billion pounds of chicken and pork,
respectively.
4
In order to understand the environmental
impacts of producing all of this meat, and to identify the
companies responsible, it is important to understand how
the industry and its supply chains are structured.
Consolidated Control of Industrial Meat
Despite common media depictions of small picturesque
farms, the reality is that just five companies produce most
meat in the United States, under a highly industrialized
and centralized factory-farm system. While most
animals were produced on small farms decades ago,
large, industrial factory farms now control the market:
anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of meat markets are
now controlled by just four companies each, with Tyson
controlling over 20 percent of the chicken, beef and pork
markets.
5
Industrialized farming confines thousands of
hogs, chickens, and cattle in tight factory-like spaces,
ii
and
concentrates corporate control over production standards,
especially for hogs and chickens.
Monocrop Landscapes of Industrial Feed
Raising all of America’s meat animals requires vast
amounts of corn and soy, which are the most widely
grown crops in the United States. The domestic meat
market consumes 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the
U.S. and 40 percent of the corn, and is the biggest single
market for both of these crops.
6
iii
Just four companies
control more than 85 percent of both the corn and soy
processing market in the U.S.
7
The agricultural traders
ADM, Bunge, and Cargill—nicknamed the ABCs of global
agriculture—consistently rank as the top grain processors
in the U.S.
8
These companies are the primary suppliers of
feed grain to the meat industry, and their dominant market
influence shapes the feed supply chain. These companies
have adopted policies to improve the sustainability of raw
materials they source overseas—for example, by forbidding
deforestation for palm oil grown in Southeast Asia—but
have adopted few policies to ensure that feed sourced in
the United States is responsibly grown.
1990
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2026
Billion Bushels
ETHANOL
EXPORTS
FEED AND RESIDUAL USE
U.S. Projected Corn Use by Type through 2026
Tyson Foods
Pilgrim’s Pride
Tyson Foods
JBS USA
Tyson Foods
Smithfield
21%
17%
8%
47%
24%
22%
19%
10%
25%
18%
25%
20%
8%
29%
Sanderson Farms
Perdue Farms
Other
Cargill
National Beef
Other
JBS USA
Hormel
Other
U.S. CHICKEN PRODUCERS
U.S. FED BEEF PACKERS
U.S. PORK PACKERS
Leading U.S. Meat Producers
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service Agricultural Baseline Database.
Source: Tyson Foods, Inc. Investor Presentation May 2017
5
Geographic Concentration – The Midwest
Given the interdependence between the meat and feed
crop industry, it is not surprising that our analysis found
both industries to be primarily concentrated in the same
regions of the American Heartland. Corn and soy are
primarily grown in the aptly-named “Corn Belt” of the
American Heartland, and minimizing transportation costs
associated with meat and feed production is a key strategy
for both industries. As the meat industry has grown,
demand for corn and soy has followed. Our analysis found
that the supply chain—from producing the feed to raising
the animals—and its environmental impacts are most
concentrated in the American Heartland. The impacts are
felt beyond the Midwest however, as pollution flows down
along major rivers until it reaches the Gulf.
The Company Behind the Rise of Industrial Meat
Tyson is America’s largest meat company, controlling
over 20 percent of the chicken, beef, and pork markets
in the U.S. The company is recognized as the pioneer of
the highly concentrated, industrialized meat system that
dominates the industry today—expanding its market share
by buying smaller competitors, and taking control of nearly
all aspects of production, particularly in the poultry and
pork supply chains. Tyson played a key role in the rise of
America’s fast food industry, working directly with major
fast food brands to introduce cheap chicken products, like
McDonald’s “McNuggets” and Burger King’s “Chicken
Tenders,” into Americans’ diets.
9
While most consumers know Tyson by its red and
yellow logo on the packaging of its chicken products, its
other brands include JimmyDean and Aidells sausages,
HillshireFarm lunchmeat and sausages,BallPark hot
dogs,Wright bacon,StateFair corn dogs,Van’s and
GoldenIsland snacks,Sara Leebread, Gallo Salame, and
ChefPierre breakfast pies.
10
Tyson’s website claims it
sells more pepperoni in the U.S. than any other company
11
and is the #2 producer of frozen food.
12
Tyson also sells
beef, pork, and prepared foods to fast food chains, hotels,
healthcare facilities, the military, foodservice distributors,
and grocers.
13
Fifty-three percent of its 2016 sales were
of branded products sold directly to consumers, with
Walmart as its largest single
customer, accounting for 18
percent of sales.
14
Nearly 30
percent of sales were to the food
service industry,
15
which includes
companies such as McDonald’s
and Burger King.
To keep up with orders from
companies like McDonald’s and
Walmart, Tyson slaughters 125,000
head of cattle, 35 million chickens,
and 415,000 hogs
16
every week—nearly equal to the human
population of California
17
To raise all of this meat, Tyson
requires an estimated five million acres of corn—greater
than the size of New Jersey—each year, not to mention
other feed like soybeans, which it buys from the major feed
suppliers.
18
While Tyson isn’t the only company driving the
large-scale environmental problems associated with meat
production, the company’s size, market control, and ability
to shape the industry make its influence over the meat and
feed markets very powerful.
Restaurants
& Retailers
Producers
Traders
Feed
Companies
Meat
Processors
How Animal Feed
Moves through the
Meat Supply Chain
Tyson has come under
investigation by state and
federal governments for abusing
its dominance in the market
to fix prices, inadequately
compensating farmers for raising
the animals it processes, and other
anticompetitive behavior aimed
at boosting corporate profits that
have come at the expense of both
farmers and consumers.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service Agricultural Baseline Database.
Source: Tyson Foods, Inc. Investor Presentation May 2017
MYSTERY MEAT II
6
The Impact: Contaminating Landscapes from the
Heartlandto the Gulf
Fertilizer Pollution from Fields of Feed
iv Excess nitrogen from fertilizer volatizes into the atmosphere to become nitrous oxide, a gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
The manure and fertilizer pollution washing o corn and
soy fields, which are largely used to grow feed, is the leading
cause of water contamination in the country. Nitrogen (N)
and phosphorus (P) are the main nutrients that crops need
to grow, and typically come from manure and chemical
fertilizers applied to fields. However, these nutrients
become a major source of pollution when too much is
applied or fields are improperly managed—washing o into
nearby waterways and emitting potent greenhouse gases.
iv
Pollution washing o crop fields is largely unregulated, and
spraying excess manure onto nearby fields is a common
method of cheap manure disposal for the meat industry,
increasing the industry’s pollution footprint. We use the
common term “fertilizer pollution” to refer to both the manure
and chemical forms of fertilizer pollution washing o feed
crop fields in this report. Although fertilizer pollution is
preventable, the USDA estimates that at least two out of
every three cropland acres fail to meet its best management
practice criteria to prevent fertilizer runo into nearby
waterways. Furthermore, estimates suggest that around 40
percent of fertilizer applied to crops is never absorbed by
plants.
19
Heavy rainfall, soil erosion, and the destruction of
wetlands and grasslands that normally absorb runo are
all factors that encourage manure and chemical fertilizers
applied to fields to end up polluting surrounding waterways.
Nitrate pollution from fertilizer is a leading source of
drinking water contamination across the country, but
disproportionately aects Midwestern states where most
feed crops are grown. Drinking water contaminated by
nitrate pollution is linked to cancer, birth defects, thyroid
problems, as well as a serious condition called Blue Baby
Syndrome, which lowers the amount of oxygen in infants’
blood.
20
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that
high levels of nitrates are found in more than 50 percent of
rural water sources, particularly in Midwestern states, with
20 percent of water unsafe to drink.
21
A recent analysis from
the Environmental Working Group of 2015 public water
utility data found that 7 million Americans are exposed to
unhealthy levels of nitrate contamination in their drinking
water. The chart in Appendix 1 lists those counties where
EPA and USGS data show nitrate concentrations exceed
the federal safe drinking water standard, leaving the cost of
removing excess nitrates to public municipalities.
Meat’s Fertilizer Spill
Fertilizer pollution is also the leading cause of annual
toxic algae blooms that cause waterways across America
to collapse into Dead Zones, which are toxic to marine life
and unhealthy for recreationalists. While fertilizer pollution
starts in the Midwest, it flows down the Mississippi River
until it finally dumps out into the Gulf of Mexico, which
collapses into one of the world’s largest Dead Zones each
year as a direct result. Approximately 1.15 million metric
tons of nitrogen pollution flowed into the Gulf of Mexico
in 2016 alone,
22
which is around 170 percent more pollution
than was dumped into the Gulf by the BP oil spill. While
the BP spill was recognized as a major industry disaster on
a national scale, fertilizer spills into the Gulf every year with
little scrutiny or accountability. This year’s Dead Zone is
projected to be one of the largest ever, due to record levels of
nitrate pollution flowing down the Mississippi River.
23
The EPA calls water pollution from excess nitrogen and
phosphorus “one of America’s most widespread, costly,
and challenging environmental problems.”
24
Current
estimates indicate that two thirds of the coastal rivers
and bays in the United States are moderately to severely
degraded from excess nitrogen pollution.
25
Livestock generate thirteen times more manure than humans in the United State.
However, unlike human waste, livestock manure is generally not treated before it
is released into the surrounding environment. Whereas smaller, diversified farms
are able to spread their manure onto nearby crop fields at volumes where it can be
absorbed, industrialized farms generate manure in such vast quantities that simply
dumping it on nearby crop fields is not a viable option for responsible disposal.
PHOSPHOROUS
NITROGEN
25%
52%
18%
37%
12%
8%
14%
5%
9%
16%
4%
Sources of Nutrients Delivered to the
Gulf of Mexico
According to the USGS, “Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi make up only one-third
of the 31-state Mississippi River drainage area, but contribute more
than 75 percent of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Gulf.
Corn & soybean
crops
Pasture & range
Other
Urban and population-
related sources
Atmosphere
deposition
Natural land
MYSTERY MEAT II
IOWA
TOXIC ALGAE
Polluted runo from manure and
chemical fertilizer causes toxic
algae outbreaks in lakes and
rivers across the country,
contaminating drinking water
and endangering public health.
IOWA, NEBRASKA, KANSAS, MISSOURI
Confined Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs)
produce huge amounts of
animal manure that often
gets dumped on fields and
runs o into streams,
rivers and lakes.
HOG PRODUCTION
Pollution accumulates as it flows
downstream to the Gulf of
Mexico, causing an oceanic Dead
Zone that decimates Gulf
communities, fisheries and
livelihoods every summer. This
year’s Dead Zone is expected to
be among the largest on record.
DEAD ZONE
GULF OF MEXICO
Water Pollution in the
American Heartland
7
Photo: Flickr.com/ eutrophication&hypoxia
Grassland destroyed for feed
crops like corn releases
carbon stored in the soil,
destroys the habitats of
native species, and increases
the risk of fertilizer pollution
in waterways.
GRASSLAND DESTRUCTION
N
I
TR
O
GE
N
&
P
H
O
SP
H
O
R
US
P
O
L
L
UTI ON
ALGA
L
B
L
O
O
M
Toxic algae cloud the water with green,
red or yellow scum, contaminating
drinking water, releasing noxious odors
and sometimes killing fish, and
sickening pets, livestock and people.
HARMFUL ALGAE BLOOMS
Contaminated
water can
make people
and animals ill
Handling
exposed fish
is dangerous
People and
pets risk illness
by entering
contaminated
water
Emits noxious,
unpleasant
fumes
Eating
exposed fish
can cause
illness
People and pets
should avoid all
recreation in
affected waters
DRINK FISH SWIM SMELL EAT HAVE FUN
WARNING! DO NOT:
Livestock manure and excess
fertilizer wash off the land and into
waterways, making agriculture the
single largest source of nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution.
AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
Lakes, rivers and reservoirs are
flooded with excess nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution,
which feed algae.
POLLUTION FLOWS IN
Toxic algae (cyanobacteria) gobble
up excess nitrogen and phosphorus,
and spread throughout waterbodies.
EXPLOSIVE ALGAE GROWTH
Toxic Algae Impacts
Solutions
Creating and maintaining natural
buffers—using trees, shrubs and
other plants—between farmland,
development and waterways can
help filter out excess nitrogen
and phosphorus before they
reach the water.
AQUATIC BUFFERS
Protecting natural grassland
and wetlands from development
can reduce fertilizer pollution,
help to maintain a healthy
environment for fish, wildlife,
and plants, and make it harder
for toxic algae to take hold.
ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION
By planting farmland with cover crops
instead of leaving the land bare between
cash crops, farmers can protect soil from
erosion and absorb excess fertilizer, helping
to keep nutrients out of nearby waterways.
COVER CROPS
The Costs to Taxpayers
Fertilizer pollution aects millions of Americans that
use and rely on waterways. Families, children, farmers,
fishermen, recreationalists and even pets are aected.
Because most of the pollution from crop fields is classified
as unregulated “non-point source” pollution, the cost of
fertilizer pollution is borne by communities and industries
downstream. Each year, Americans are forced to spend
nearly $1 billion on bottled water due to agricultural
nitrate pollution.
31
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) estimates public water treatment costs to remove
nitrates originating from cropland are even higher: $2
billion annually.
32
Earlier this year, the city of Mankato,
MN announced that unprecedented spikes in nitrate
contamination will force the city to tap into the region’s
underground aquifer, which is already overdrawn, or
pay $4 - 5 million to treat the water.
33
Residents of Des
Moines, IA spent $1.5 million in 2015 to remove nitrates
from drinking water in an attempt to make it safe to
drink.
34
The city sued upstream counties over this nitrate
contamination, particularly from the Raccoon Watershed
where Tyson dominates agricultural production. The
lawsuit ultimately failed, and a local journalist who
received a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative work into
agribusiness interests attributes the result to the money
and political influence from the Farm Bureau,
35
which
represents Tyson and other agribusiness interests. More
than 60 Iowa cities and towns have battled high nitrate
levels in their drinking water over the past five years.
36
Cases like these have plagued Midwestern cities and
towns for years, but record acres of corn production in
recent years have worsened water pollution problems.
The American fishing industry is heavily impacted by
fertilizer pollution washing downstream. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
estimates that harmful algal blooms, caused mostly by
fertilizer run o, cost $82 million each year in lost fishing
revenues and additional public health expenditures.
37
Fertilizer Pollution Starts Upstream
8
Prairie Destruction: Expanding the Pollution Frontier
Growing demand for feed crops is behind the destruction of millions of acres of
natural grasslands, including native prairie, in recent years, which have been turned
into industrial corn and soy fields.
38
This conversion is driving fertilizer pollution
into areas normally buered by natural landscapes and has released large amounts
of carbon stored in plants and soil.
The iconic American prairie is one of our nation’s
few remaining native ecosystems. Expansion of
crop fields is driving its destruction at one of the
highest native ecosystem loss rates in the world-
nearly equal to deforestation in Brazil and Southeast
Asia. Rates this high have not been seen since the
Great Dust Bowl here in the U.S.
39
A 2013 Wright
and Wimberly study called recent loss of natural
grasslands “one of the most important land cover/
land use change events in recent U.S. history,”
40
leading U.S. grasslands to be classified as one of
the most threatened biomes in theworld.
41
Stripping grassland landscapes bare and covering them in industrial crop fields
exacerbates fertilizer pollution by removing natural buers and increasing soil
erosion, as depicted in the photos below. For example, a 2016 study that analyzed
the consequences of native ecosystem losses in the Midwest points to a 1200
percent increase in nitrate concentrations in regions of Iowa where Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands were plowed under to plant crops.
42
Our
analysis of grassland conversion to corn and soy found that many of the counties
experiencing the highest conversion rates border the Missouri and Mississippi
rivers, which flow into the Gulf of Mexico, and that USGS water quality data
shows nitrate levels have recently increased in the watersheds just downstream
from these regions.
43
The USGS analysis of national water quality trends released
earlier this year shows high or increasing nitrate concentrations in several of the
regions experiencing the highest rates of natural grassland conversion to corn
and soybean production, such as eastern Nebraska
44
, where nitrate problems
have become so bad that doctors recommend pregnant women only drink bottled
water in some regions.
A recent University of
Wisconsin study estimated
that the recent loss of natural
grassland “could have emitted
as much carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere as 34 coal-
fired power plants operating
for one year — the equivalent
of 28 million more cars on
the road.” This does not even
account for the lost carbon
capture capacity for absorbing
emissions moving forward.
TYSON AND ITS INDUSTRY
PEERS ARE CONSISTENTLY
RANKED AMONG THE BIGGEST
POLLUTERS IN AMERICA.
A report from Environment America
calculated that Tyson generated more
than 55 million tons of manure in 2016.
According to the EPA’s Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI), it dumped 104 million
pounds of pollutants directly into
waterways between 2010-2014, making
it the country’s second largest polluter,
second only to AK Steel. Tyson has
been the subject of multiple lawsuits for
illegally discharging untreated manure
as well as slaughterhouse waste from
its facilities directly into waterways,
where it is flushed downstream. In one
example, the State of Oklahoma filed
a lawsuit alleging that Tyson polluted
drinking water in the Illinois River
Watershed (in Arkansas and Oklahoma)
with excess poultry manure.
26
However,
when Oklahoma Attorney General Scott
Pruitt (now the EPA Administrator)
took over the case, the judge did not
issue a ruling, and Pruitt did not file an
appeal. EWG found that Pruitt received
$21,700 in campaign contributions from
Tyson executives and lawyers during this
time,
27
and that nearly a tenth of Pruitt’s
2010 campaign contributions came from
agricultural interests. These pollution
violations have caught the attention of
investors, and a coalition of investors
has been pushing Tyson since 2015 to
adopt a water stewardship policy to
prevent further pollution incidents, with
supporting votes from other investors
increasing each year.
28
Much of the
pollution from agriculture is unregulated,
however, and the meat industry is actively
involved in lobbying against water
pollution limits. Trade groups, like the
Farm Bureau, that represent industrial
meat production Tyson is associated
with
29
have lobbied in Washington, D.C.,
to eliminate EPA’s clean water rule,
among other environmental safeguards.
30
Grassland Conversion
2007-2016
Railroads Natural Earth
Major Rivers Natural Earth
Grassland Conversion
2007-2016 USDA CDL Cropscape
States Natural Earth
Cropland – 2016
Corn
Soy
Grassland USDA NASS CDL
Base Map © OpeMapTiles © OpenStreetMap contributers
9
MYSTERY MEAT II
10
The destruction of iconic American prairies destroys
the remaining habitat of native species like monarch
butterflies, bees, pheasants, and prairie dogs, whose
habitat has already been shrunk by 150 years of prairie
clearance to serve agriculture. Many of the world’s largest
food and agricultural companies - including ADM, Cargill,
and Bunge - have pledged to protect native ecosystems in
the tropics from expanding crop production.
However the destruction of prairies here at home
remain largely unprotected. The ethanol industry is also
responsible for driving expansion of corn into native
ecosystems. However around a third of the grain entering
ethanol facilities is processed into Dry Distillers Grains
(DDGs) that is sold as animal feed,
45
and the meat industry
remains the biggest buyer of corn and soy.
The Companies Responsible
To find out which companies were driving and expanding
the fertilizer pollution crisis, we mapped the grain silos,
feed facilities, and slaughterhouse facilities of the top
meat and feed companies. We combined that with nitrate
concentration data collected by EPA and USGS sensors
in 2016, as well as with land-cover data from the National
Agricultural Statistics Service Data Layer showing
conversion of grassland to corn and soy between 2007-
2016. While tracing the feed from the slaughterhouse back
to the field is challenging, meat companies tend to source
grains as close to production as possible to minimize
transportation costs. It’s reasonable to assume that the
companies with major facilities located in the Corn Belt
are dominant buyers from the surrounding region.
Images of recently cleared grassland areas from North Dakota, where rates of
grassland conversion to corn and soy are the highest in the country. Stripping
grassland landscapes bare removes natural buers, increases soil erosion, and
exacerbates the risk of fertilizer pollution from crops planted in these areas.
MYSTERY MEAT II
What We Found
We found that Tyson and Smithfield have the heaviest
concentration of meat facilities in those regions
of the country with the highest levels of nitrate
contamination, although Cargill, Hormel, and JBS also
have several facilities in the region. ADM, Bunge, and
Cargill each have a sprawling network of operations in
these same regions, and are the primary feed suppliers for
the surrounding meat companies. We found that Tyson is
the only meat company with major processing facilities in
each of the states listed by the USGS as contributing the
highest levels of pollution to the Gulf.
Iowa, where 65 percent of the state is covered in corn
and soy, is suering the highest concentrations of
nitrate pollution in the country, at levels far exceeding
the federal standard for safe drinking water.
46
The meat
industry is heavily concentrated in this state. Tyson and
Smithfield each have six major pork processing facilities
in Iowa. Tyson appears to be the dominant meat company
in the highly contaminated Raccoon Watershed. Both
Tyson and Smithfield likely source most of their feed
crops locally to grow pigs in their tightly controlled
network of contract farmers. Spraying excess manure on
fields is a common disposal practice among the livestock
industry in Iowa, and local community groups have been
trying for years to restrict the practice due to its polluting
impacts on waterways.
47
Neither company has a policy
against this practice.
Tyson is also the dominant meat producer in the Ozark
Plateau region of northwest Arkansas and Southwest
Missouri. These regions are experiencing elevated nitrate
concentrations and have some of the highest concentrations
of phosphorus contamination rates in the country. In these
areas meat and feed facilities are concentrated near major
rivers that flow into the Mississippi and then directly
into the Gulf of Mexico, where the excess nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution from upstream causes one of the
largest Dead Zones in the world each year.
Our analysis found that Tyson’s top feed suppliers are
behind the bulk of recent natural grassland clearance,
with the network of Cargill and ADM facilities dominating
the market for corn and soy through their network of grain
elevators and feed silos in all the states with the highest
rates of conversion. Cargill and ADM have at least 20 grain
elevators buying corn from regions where grassland loss
rates are highest, and Tyson has four major beef and pork
facilities, including the recent construction of the world’s
largest beef plant, in Nebraska,
48
the state with the highest
rate of grassland loss. JBS, Smithfield, and Cargill have
fewer facilities in these regions.
We found that many of the counties experiencing the
highest rates of grassland clearance border the Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers that flow directly to theGulf. The
expansion of new fields in these areas is likely contributing
to what is projected to be the biggest Dead Zone ever thisyear.
Watershed Name States Nitrate (mg/l) Area SQKM
North Raccoon IA 17.8 6453
Little Sioux IA,MN 17.2 7286
Logan NE 13.6 2744
Upper Iowa IA 16.2 3763
Boone IA 16.7 2361
Middle Iowa IA 11.8 4348
Sulphur Springs Draw NM,TX 10.0 4490
Turkey IA 14.9 4400
Little Nemaha NE 10.5 2312
11
The Path To Cleaner Meat
From feed to slaughter, our analysis found the meat
industry to be the driving force behind some of the
most urgent environmental crises facing our country.
With water pollution worsening, native ecosystems
disappearing, regulations weakening, and consumers
demanding a more sustainable food system, the meat
industry needs to take responsibility for cleaning up the
pollution in its supply chain and leading U.S. agriculture
toward a more sustainable future.
As America’s largest meat company, Tyson’s commercial
power shapes nearly every aspect of our country’s
agriculture- from the crops raised for feed, to the confined
feedlots where animals are fattened before slaughter,
to the policies that regulate the industry. Tyson has
used its prominent role in the supply chain to drive the
industrialization of American meat production, with
little attention paid to the environmental impacts of the
system. Its market dominance and regional influence
means that commitments from Tyson can transform the
entire industry. Public concerns about how industrial
meat is produced has not escaped the company’s notice,
and Tyson’s new CEO has stated in multiple public outlets
that capitalizing on consumer interest in more sustainable
protein will be a core strategy for the company’s future
growth. If this sentiment is sincere, Tyson could play a
pivotal role in transforming our meat and agricultural
systems to reduce pollution and regenerate the landscape
of our country.
While manure and methane emissions from direct
livestock and poultry production are important sources
of pollution, assessments consistently highlight feed
as comprising the dominant bulk of the industry’s
environmental impact- from greenhouse gas emissions
to native ecosystem clearance and water pollution. A
pledge to raise meat on feed grown using sustainable
and regenerative practices that prevent fertilizer runo,
improve soil health, and protect natural landscapes
needs to be a central strategy of the meat industry’s
sustainability eorts.
Recent commitments from a growing number of food
companies like Kellogg’s, General Mills, Walmart,
PepsiCo, and even Tyson’s competitor, Smithfield,
are showing the way forward. These companies have
committed to improve fertilizer and soil-health practices
in their U.S. crop supply chains and have launched
programs and practices that Tyson and other meat
producers can adopt to drive improvements in their
supply chains. The meat industry needs to ensure that
suppliers have the tools, information, and financial
support necessary to implement better practices.
12
Tyson and other meat producers in
the industry should immediately
adopt the following measures:
1
Raise all Meat Using Pollution-
Free Feed: Ensure all animal
feed comes from suppliers with
clear, verifiable policies to prevent
fertilizer pollution from croplands.
v
Animal feed suppliers should verify
all fields they source from are
enrolled in and reporting on nutrient
management systems that prevent
nitrogen and phosphorus runo
into surrounding waterways. Best
practices to achieve pollution-free
feed include:
Ȫ
Prevent erosion: Keeping soil covered,
minimizing its disturbance, and
maintaining natural buers on the
landscape will prevent soil erosion that
drives nitrogen and phosphorus loss and
will naturally enhancing soil nutrients
between plantings. Planting cover
crops is widely considered the single
most important strategy for reducing
fertilizer loss.
49
Conservation tillage
techniques are also a widely recognized
best practice for improving soil health
and fertilizerlosses.
50
Ȫ
Protect, maintain, and restore natural
buers to absorb runo: Planting
buers between fields and waterways,
restoring and protecting grasslands and
wetlands around key watersheds
vi
, and
implementing nutrient reduction and
treatment techniques for tile drainage
systems are critical strategies for
absorbing fertilizer pollution before it
contaminates surrounding waterways.
vii
Ȫ
Use proper fertilizer application
practices: Enroll all fields in precision
application programs that track and
optimize fertilizer application using the
4R method (the right type is applied in
the right places at the right time using
theright rate).
51
However the soil health
practices above for keeping soil covered
are the most important strategies for
reducing fertilizer pollution.
v While fertilizer is the focus of this report, water pollution also stems from pesticide runo into waterways as well, which contaminate drinking water across the Midwest.
vi About 80 percent of the nitrogen pollution in the Gulf originates in the Ohio River and Missisippi River basin, making the junction of these two rivers an important region to target buer restorations
(McLellan et al. 2015. Reducing fertilizer-nitrogen losses from rowcrop landscapes.)
vii The eectiveness of vegetative buers depends on their size, density, and hydrologic conditions within the buer zone, however a review of a wide range of studies found that buers can remove
about 74% of the nitrogen passing through the buer root zone (US EPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Riparian Buer Width, Vegetative Cover, and nitrogen Removal Eective-
ness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. 2005). The USDA NRCS supports U.S. farmers to implement such buer areas through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environ-
mental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
2
Diversify Beyond Corn and
Soy to Include Rotationally
Raised Small Grains:
The inclusion of small grains (oats,
wheat, barley, rye, triticale) in the
feed ration provides multiple benefits.
It supports sustainable farming
practices on corn and soy acres
and can improve animal health and
welfare. Diversifying crop rotations
beyond corn and soy to include
these grains naturally enhances
soil nutrients, and has been shown
to reduce the use of fertilizers and
herbicides, improve soil health, and
increase crop productivity.
52
3
Implement more responsible
manure management: While
the sheer volumes of manure
generated in confined animal feeding
operations make “sustainable manure
management” a bit of a misnomer,
best practices should be adopted
immediately to reduce the worst
pollution impacts. Storing manure in
open lagoons prone to flooding and
leakage is one of the worst industry
practices, as is dumping the manure
onto already saturated fields where is
simply flushes away downstream. The
major meat processors are known to
strictly control almost all aspects of
farmer livestock operations, but the
responsibility for waste management
is often left to the contract farmers,
who often lack the logistical support,
infrastructure, financial means, and
economies of scale to prevent water
pollution from manure runo. Since
farmers and contract growers operate
on small profit margins while the
meat industry reaps billions in profits,
companies like Tyson should provide
incentives and support to farmers and
contract growers to manage manure
more sustainably.
4
Enact a moratorium on
native ecosystem losses:
In response to public concern
about the rapid destruction of tropical
ecosystems for soy and palm oil,
many of the world’s largest food and
agricultural companies have adopted
policies not to source feed crops
from suppliers found destroying
these ecosystems. In response, the
major grain traders ADM, Cargill,
and Bunge that dominate the U.S. and
tropical commodity crop markets
have pledged to close their markets
to suppliers driving deforestation.
The great American prairies
deserve nothing less, and companies
committed to a more sustainable
food system need to adopt policies
to protect our native prairies here in
theU.S.
5
Provide transparent
reporting on progress
towards cleaner meat: To
demonstrate progress, Tyson and
other major meat companies need to
collect and report data that verifies
best practices and shows reductions
in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
runo. Key metrics to track across
sourcing acres include a nitrogen
and phosphorus balance calculation
for fertilizer, acres of cover crop
uptake, adoption of conservation
tillage practices, pounds of manure
stored in open lagoons, restoration of
landscape buers like grasslands and
wetlands. A growing number of tools
and technologies are available to help
companies track their agricultural
practices, and many are already being
utilized by companies and farmers
around the country.
MYSTERY MEAT II
13
14
Endnotes
1 “U.S. Beef and Pork Consumption Projected To Rebound,” U.S. Department
of Agriculture Economic Research Service, February 2016, accessed May 22,
2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/september/us-beef-and-
pork-consumption-projected-to-rebound/.
2 “Animal Products,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Ser-
vice, April 7, 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/
animal-products/.
3 “Hogs & Pork: Overview,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service, October 6, 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/animal-products/hogs-pork/.
4 “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture, May 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, https://www.usda.gov/oce/com-
modity/wasde/latest.pdf.
5 “Strong Today Leading for Tomorrow,” Tyson investor presentation, March
2017, accessed May 22, 2017, http://s1.q4cdn.com/900108309/files/doc_pre-
sentations/2017/03/TSN-Investor-Presentation-March-2017.pdf.
6 USDA Coexistence Fact Sheets: Soybeans,” U.S. Department of Agriculture,
February 2015, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexis-
tence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf.
7 EC0731SR3: Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of
Value Added Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for
Industries: 2007,” U.S. Census Bureau, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31SR13&prod-
Type=table.
8 Longworth, Richard C. “Mega Farmers.” Caught in the Middle: America’s
Heartland in the Age of Globalism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2008, Web, https://
books.google.com/books?id=wqd5J53Oof4C&pg=PT40&lpg=PT40&dq=con-
solidation+grain+elevators+united+states+cargill+adm&source=bl&ots=izsf-
2nVpdh&sig=Zlp1G14bcyFcRxIthEDKZuFjf38&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE-
wiRhZbTxr3UAhWCeT4KHSXmBrg4ChDoAQhXMAc#v=onepage&q=consoli-
dation%20grain%20elevators%20united%20states%20cargill%20adm&f=false;
Hendrickson, Mary, PhD, “The Dynamic State of Agriculture and Food: Possi-
bilities for Rural Development,” at the Farm Credit Administration Symposium,
February 19, 2014, https://www.fca.gov/Download/Symposium14/hendrick-
son19feb2014.pdf.
9 Leonard, Christopher, The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America’s
Food Business, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2015, 94, Print.
10 United States Securities and Exchange Commission, “Form 10-K, Annual Re-
port Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,”
for the fiscal year ending on October 1, 2016, accessed May 22, 2017, http://
s1.q4cdn.com/900108309/files/doc_financials/2016/Annual/TSN-FY16-Form-
10-K.pdf; “Strong Today Leading for Tomorrow,” Tyson investor presentation,
March 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, http://s1.q4cdn.com/900108309/files/
doc_presentations/2017/03/TSN-Investor-Presentation-March-2017.pdf.
11 “Pizza Toppings,” Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017, accessed May 23, 2017, http://www.
tysonfoods.com/loved-brands/pizza-toppings.
12 “Strong Today Leading for Tomorrow,” Tyson investor presentation, March
2017, accessed May 22, 2017, http://s1.q4cdn.com/900108309/files/doc_pre-
sentations/2017/03/TSN-Investor-Presentation-March-2017.pdf.
13 Our Story,” Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, http://www.tyson-
foods.com/our-story.
14 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. “Form 10-K, Annual Re-
port Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,”
for the fiscal year ending on October 1, 2016, accessed May 22, 2017, http://
s1.q4cdn.com/900108309/files/doc_financials/2016/Annual/TSN-FY16-Form-
10-K.pdf.
15 “Webcasts and Presentations,” Tyson Foods Inc., Slide 55 of Investor Pre-
sentation, http://ir.tyson.com/investor-relations/events-and-presentations/
default.aspx.
16 “Tyson Foods, Inc.,” Vault, 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, http://www.vault.com/
company-profiles/food-beverage/tyson-foods,-inc/company-overview.aspx.
17 “Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States,
Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016,” U.S. Census
Bureau, December 2016, accessed May 22, 2017, https://www2.census.gov/
programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2016/state/totals/nst-est2016-01.xlsx.
18 To derive estimate, took number of chickens, cattle, and hogs produced each
week by Tyson, multiplied this total by 52 weeks for an annual estimate, and
then multiplied the total number of animals by the amount of corn required
for each livestock ration (except for chicken where Tyson documented its
annual purchase of 220 million bushels of corn in FY15). “Strong Today Lead-
ing for Tomorrow,” Tyson investor presentation, March 2017, accessed May
22, 2017, http://s1.q4cdn.com/900108309/files/doc_presentations/2017/03/
TSN-Investor-Presentation-March-2017.pdf; “On average, how many pounds of
corn make one pound of beef? Assuming an all-grain diet from background-
Consumers have succeeded in holding the meat industry
accountable for delivering more sustainable meat options,
onissues ranging from animal welfare to antibiotics.
Many of these issues are ones that the industry fought
hard to keep unregulated, until consumers pushed back.
While the industry initially protested, citing everything
from denial of responsibility, impossible costs, to complex
supply chains, consumers ultimately won in holding
their favorite brands responsible for overcoming these
challenges to deliver more sustainable food options.
Mighty Earth has sent letters to more than 35 of the
top companies involved in the U.S. meat supply chain,
including producers and buyers, outlining these concerns
and requesting their response. While this report is
focused on those companiesmost directly responsible
for producing meat and animal feed, trusted supermarket
and restaurant brands that sell meat to consumers also
play a key role in ensuring that suppliers are acting
responsible. Future reports will assess how these brands
are responding. Consumers have a right to know where
their food comes from and how it was produced, and can
improve the system by calling on companies like Tyson to
lead the way towards cleaner meat.
MYSTERY MEAT II
15
ing through to 1,250-pound slaughter weight, I have heard estimates ranging from
6 pounds corn/1 pound beef to 20 pounds corn/1 pound beef. Can you clarify?”
Extension, October 7, 2008, http://articles.extension.org/pages/35850/on-aver-
age-how-many-pounds-of-corn-make-one-pound-of-beef-assuming-an-all-grain-
diet-from-background; Lammers, Peter J., Stender, David R., Honeyman, Mark
S., “Niche Pork Production: Feed Budgets,” Iowa State University, https://www.
ipic.iastate.edu/publications/840.feedbudgets.pdf; Goodwin Jr., H.L., McKenzie,
Andrew, Hamm, Sandra J., “The Broiler-Corn Ratio: Is it an Indicator of Fattened
Broiler Profits?” University of Arkansas, Selected Paper prepared for presentation
at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting Portland,
OR. July 29-August 1, 2007, http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/9746/1/sp-
07go08.pdf.
19 “Using the supply chain to slash fertilizer pollution,” Environmental Defense Fund,
https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/using-supply-chain-slash-fertilizer-pollution.
20 “POURING IT ON: HEALTH EFFECTS OF NITRATE EXPOSURE,” Environmental
Working Group, February 1, 1996, http://www.ewg.org/research/pouring-it/
health-eects-nitrate-exposure; McCasland, Margaret, Trautmann, Nancy M.,
Porter, Keith S., “Nitrate: Health Eects in Drinking Water,” Natural Resources
Cornell Cooperative Extension, http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/
nit-heef-grw85.aspx.
21 Barton, Brooke, Clark, Sarah Elizabeth, “Water & Climate Risks Facing U.S.
Corn Production,” Ceres, June 2014, accessed May 23, 2017, http://docplayer.
net/25362764-Water-climate-risks-facing-u-s-corn-production.html.
22 “Annual Nutrient Flux and Concurrent Streamflow – Updated Through Water Year
2016,” U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, https://toxics.usgs.gov/hypoxia/mississippi/
flux_ests/delivery/Gulf-Annual-2016.xlsx.
23 Turner, R. Eugene, Rabalais, Nancy N., “2017 Forecast: Summer Hypoxic Zone
Size Northern Gulf of Mexico,” Healthy Gulf, http://www.healthygulf.org/sites/
healthygulf.org/files/final_lsu_lumcon_2017_hypoxia_forecast.pdf.
24 “Nutrient Pollution: The Problem,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://
www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/problem.
25 Howarth, Ramakrishna, et al., “Nutrient Management,” Ecosystems and Human
Well-being: Policy Responses, Chapter 9,http://www.millenniumassessment.org/
documents/document.314.aspx.pdf.
26 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. “Form 10-K, Annual Report
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,” for the
fiscal year ending on October 1, 2016, accessed May 22, 2017, http://s1.q4cdn.
com/900108309/files/doc_financials/2016/Annual/TSN-FY16-Form-10-K.pdf.
27 Erbentraut, Joseph, “ Trump’s EPA Pick Went Easy On Industry That Backed Him:
Report,” Hungton Post, January 16, 2017, http://www.hungtonpost.com/entry/
scott-pruitt-poultry-contributions-lawsuit_us_587960bae4b0e58057fee7bd.
28 “Shareholder Resolutions,” Ceres Tools, 2017, http://tools.ceres.org/resources/
tools/resolutions/@@resolutions_s3_view#!/subject=&year=&company=Ty-
son%20Foods%20Inc.&filer=&sector=&status=&memo=&all.
29 “Farm Families,” Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017, accessed May 22, 2017, http://www.ty-
sonfoods.com/our-story/farmers.
30 “National Chicken Council,” Center for Responsive Politics, 2017, accessed
May 23, 2017, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues_spec.
php?id=D000000568&year=2017&spec=ENV; “National Pork Producers Council,”
Center for Responsive Politics, 2017, accessed May 23, 2017, https://www.opense-
crets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000676&year=2016.
31 Ribaudo, Marc. “Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation
Policy,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Septem-
ber 2011, accessed May 23, 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publica-
tions/44918/6767_err127.pdf?v=41056.
32 Ribaudo, Marc. “Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation
Policy,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Septem-
ber 2011, accessed May 23, 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publica-
tions/44918/6767_err127.pdf?v=41056.
33 Mark, “Nitrates rising in Mankato’s drinking wells,” Mankato Free Press, May 28,
2017, http://www.mankatofreepress.com/news/nitrates-rising-in-mankato-s-drink-
ing-wells/article_b3baed98-4253-11e7-9e89-43e32f6b8ca8.html.
34 Brooke, Clark, Sarah Elizabeth. “Water & Climate Risks Facing U.S. Corn Produc-
tion,” Ceres, June 2014, accessed May 23, 2017, http://docplayer.net/25362764-
Water-climate-risks-facing-u-s-corn-production.html.
35 “Art Cullen of The Storm Lake Times, Storm Lake, IA” The Pulitzer Prizes, Cullen
wrote the articles “Farm Bureau County” and “BV is Losing the Public,” http://
www.pulitzer.org/winners/art-cullen.
36 Eller, Donnelle, “High nitrate levels plague 60 Iowa cities, data show, The Des
Moines Register, July 4, 2015, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/
agriculture/2015/07/04/high-nitrates-iowa-cities/29720695/.; Bradley, Eric et
al., “Nitrate in Drinking Water: A Public Health Concern for All Iowans.” Iowa En-
vironmental Council, September 2016, http://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/
File/News%20%26%20Resources/Publications/Nitrate_in_Drinking_Water_Re-
port_ES_Web.pdf.
37 “NOAA’s Ecological Forecasting: Protecting Human Health and Coastal Econo-
mies with Early Warnings,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecoforecasting/noaa-ecoforecasting.pdf.
38 Tyrell, Kelly April, “Plowing prairies for grains: Biofuel crops replace grasslands
nationwide,” University of Wisconsin-Madison News, April 2, 2015, http://news.
wisc.edu/plowing-prairies-for-grains-biofuel-crops-replace-grasslands-nation-
wide/; Wright, Christopher K., Wimberly, Michael C., “Recent land use change in
the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 17, 2013,
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/4134.full.
39 Wright, Christopher K., Wimberly, Michael C., “Recent land use change in the
Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands,” Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 17, 2013,
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/4134.full; Larsen, Ben, “USDA Data: Grass-
lands, Forests Being Converted to Cropland at Alarming Rates,” National Wildlife
Federation, September 18, 2013, https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Me-
dia-Center/News-by-Topic/Wildlife/2013/9-18-13-USDA-Data-Grasslands-Forests-
Being-Converted-to-Cropland-at-Alarming-Rates.aspx.
40 Wright, Christopher K., Wimberly, Michael C., “Recent land use change in the
Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands,” Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 17, 2013,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3593829/.
41 Glaser, A., ed. “America’s Grasslands Conference: Status, Threats, and Opportuni-
ties,” National Wildlife Federation and South Dakota State University, Proceedings
of the 1st Biennial Conference on the Conservation of America’s Grasslands, Au-
gust 15- 17, 2011, Sioux Falls, SD, https://www.nwf.org/pdf/Policy-Solutions/Ameri-
cas%20Grasslands%20Conference%20Proceedings061312.pdf.
42 Morefield, Philip E., LeDuc, Stephen D., Clark, Christopher M., Iovanna, Richard,
“Grasslands, wetlands, and agriculture: the fate of land expiring from the Conser-
vation Reserve Program in the Midwestern United States,” IOP Science, August 31,
2016, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094005.
43 “Water-Quality Changes in the Nation’s Streams and Rivers,” U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, https://nawqatrends.wim.usgs.gov/swtrends/.
44 “Water-Quality Changes in the Nation’s Streams and Rivers,” U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, https://nawqatrends.wim.usgs.gov/swtrends/.
45 “Corn Usage by Segment,” World of Corn, 2016, http://www.worldofcorn.
com/#corn-usage-by-segment.
46 McCasland, Margaret, Trautmann, Nancy M., Porter, Keith S., “Nitrate: Health Ef-
fects in Drinking Water,” Natural Resources Cornell Cooperative Extension, http://
psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85.aspx.
47 “Water, air quality fears conflict with pig farms,” CNBC, February 16, 2015, http://
www.cnbc.com/2015/02/16/water-air-quality-fears-conflict-with-pig-farms.html
; “Clean Water Fight,” Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, http://iowacci.
org/uncategorized/clean-water-fight/.
48 Dreeszen, Dave, “Expansion of Tyson’s Dakota City plant nearing completion,”
Sioux City Journal, March 31, 2013, http://siouxcityjournal.com/special-section/
local/industry/expansion-of-tyson-s-dakota-city-plant-nearing-completion/arti-
cle_aafea3b1-e24a-5c7e-8272-f3e84f7db2bf.html.
49 According to the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS), using cover crops
is the single best practice for reducing both nitrate and phosphorus loss from
agricultural fields, Lillard, Elizabeth, “Cover Your Costs Sustainable Agriculture
Solutions for Cost Eective Water Treatment,” National Wildlife Federation, 2016,
https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Wildlife/A-G/WQ-Benefits_Cover-Your-
Costs_092616.ashx.
50 The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture.
51 What are the 4 Rs,” Nutrient Stewardship, http://www.nutrientstewardship.
com/4rs/; Grady, Barbara, “From Kellogg’s to Unilever, a quiet revolution in sus-
tainable farming,” Green Biz, July 27, 2016, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/
kelloggs-unilever-quiet-revolution-sustainable-farming.
52 Tomer and Lieberman, 2014. Nutrients in soil water under three rotational crop-
ping systems, Iowa, USA. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0167880914000474; Bennett et al., 2012. Meeting the demand for crop produc-
tion: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations.
www.mightyearth.org
Author: Lucia von Reusner,
Mighty Earth
This report was produced with
the generous support of a grant
from the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation. We are also grateful
for the contributions of individuals/
organizations who worked on it,
including Gulf Restoration Network;
Resource Media; Eric Fuchs, Missouri
Rural Water Association; John Rumpler,
Clean Water Program Director for
Environment America.