Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations And Their Impact On Communities

Generated Summary

This document serves as a comprehensive guide to understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and their impacts on communities. It delves into the transformation of livestock farming from family-owned farms to large, corporate-contracted operations, highlighting the increased efficiency and productivity of modern animal agriculture. The study encompasses the definition of CAFOs, distinguishing them from Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) based on animal numbers and waste discharge methods. It examines the historical context of CAFO regulation, including the evolution of permitting processes and the 2003 and 2008 revisions to the CAFO rule. The document explores the potential benefits of CAFOs, such as low-cost meat production and economic contributions, while also emphasizing the significant environmental and health effects associated with these operations. The document further outlines considerations for boards of health, right-to-farm laws, and case studies illustrating community involvement with CAFOs. Ultimately, the document underscores the importance of community action and collaboration with local and state agencies to mitigate the adverse impacts of CAFOs.

Key Findings & Statistics

• Modern farms have become more efficient. Since 1960, milk production has doubled, meat production has tripled, and egg production has quadrupled (Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production, 2009).
• In 1920, a chicken took approximately 16 weeks to reach 2.2 lbs., whereas now they can reach 5 lbs. in 7 weeks (Pew, 2009).
• A feeding operation with 800,000 pigs could produce over 1.6 million tons of waste a year.
• Annually, it is estimated that livestock animals in the U.S. produce each year somewhere between 3 and 20 times more manure than people in the U.S. produce, or as much as 1.2–1.37 billion tons of waste (EPA, 2005).
• Depending on the type and number of animals in the farm, manure production can range between 2,800 tons and 1.6 million tons a year (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2008).
• One study found that 82.8% of those living near and 89.5% of those living far from CAFOs believed that their property values decreased, and 92.2% of those living near and 78.9% of those living far from CAFOs believed the odor from manure was a problem.
• The EPA estimates that 53% of the population relies on groundwater for drinking water, often at much higher rates in rural areas (EPA, 2004).
• States with high concentrations of CAFOs experience on average 20 to 30 serious water quality problems per year as a result of manure management problems (EPA, 2001).
• The EPA passed a rule that exempts all CAFOs from reporting emissions under CERCLA. Only CAFOs that are classified as large are required to report any emission event of 100 pounds of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide or more during a 24-hour period locally or to the state under EPCRA (Michigan State University Extension, n.d.).
• Globally, livestock operations are responsible for approximately 18% of greenhouse gas production and over 7% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (Massey & Ulmer, 2008).
• Manure emits methane and nitrous oxide which are 23 and 300 times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, respectively.
• CAFO odors can be smelled from as much as 5 or 6 miles away, although 3 miles is a more common distance (State Environmental Resource Center, 2004).
• In North Carolina found that the closer children live to a CAFO, the greater the risk of asthma symptoms (Barrett, 2006). Of the 226 schools that were included in the study, 26% stated that there were noticeable odors from CAFOs outdoors, while 8% stated they experience odors from CAFOs inside the schools.
• There is consistent evidence suggesting that factory farms increase asthma in neighboring communities, as indicated by children having higher rates of asthma (Sigurdarson & Kline, 2006; Mirabelli et al., 2006).
• Farm workers can develop acute and chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive airways disease, and interstitial lung disease. Repeated exposure to CAFO emissions can increase the likelihood of respiratory diseases. Occupational asthma, acute and chronic bronchitis, and organic dust toxic syndrome can be as high as 30% in factory farm workers
• The EPA attributes manure management as the fourth leading source of nitrous oxide emissions and the fifth leading source of methane emissions (EPА, 2009).
• One study shows that property value declines can range from a decrease of 6.6% within a 3-mile radius of a CAFO to an 88% decrease within 1/10 of a mile from a CAFO (Dakota Rural Action, 2006).

Other Important Findings

• CAFOs are classified by the type and number of animals they contain, and the way they discharge waste into the water supply.
• The regulations guiding CAFO permits and operations were revised in 2003.
• The current final CAFO rule, which was revised in 2008, requires that only CAFOs which discharge or propose to discharge waste apply for permits.
• When properly managed, located, and monitored, CAFOs can provide a low-cost source of meat, milk, and eggs, due to efficient feeding and housing of animals, increased facility size, and animal specialization.
• CAFO manure contains a variety of potential contaminants.
• When manure is applied too frequently or in too large a quantity to an area, nutrients overwhelm the absorptive capacity of the soil, and either run off or are leached into the groundwater.
• The increased clustering and growth of CAFOs has led to growing environmental problems in many communities.
• Groundwater can be contaminated by CAFOs through runoff from land application of manure, leaching from manure that has been improperly spread on land, or through leaks or breaks in storage or containment units.
• The agriculture sector, including CAFOs, is the leading contributor of pollutants to lakes, rivers, and reservoirs.
• CAFOs emit a complex mixture of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide, as well as volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds (Heederik et al., 2007).
• Ten states use direct regulations to control odors emitted by CAFOs.
• Because CAFOs typically produce malodors, many communities want to monitor emissions and odors.
• The health director in Tewksbury points out that the only laws the board of health is able to regulate the farm under are nuisance laws.
• The board of health has tried to work directly with the pig farm to manage complaints.
• The Tewksbury piggery is technically not classified as a CAFO, though it is believed to be the largest pig farm in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
• Officials in Cerro Gordo County decided to place a moratorium on the construction of new animal feeding operations in that county.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The document does not explicitly mention the methodologies used in the studies cited.
• The data presented primarily focuses on the environmental and health impacts of CAFOs, with limited discussion of economic or social benefits beyond general statements.
• The study is limited by the scope of available studies and data, which may not fully capture the complexity of CAFO impacts.
• The study focuses on specific cases and examples, which may not be fully representative of all CAFOs.
• The document’s reliance on secondary sources, such as reports and studies, introduces the limitations inherent in those sources, including potential biases or methodological constraints.
• The analysis of right-to-farm laws and legal actions is general, without in-depth legal analysis or specific case details.
• The discussion on the regulations and permitting of CAFOs provides an overview, but may not capture the nuances of specific regulations and enforcement practices.
• The assessment of the impact on property values is based on limited data and may not reflect the full range of variables affecting property values in different areas.

Conclusion

The document underscores the multifaceted consequences of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) on communities, extending beyond economic considerations to encompass environmental and public health impacts. The document highlights the transformation in livestock farming, emphasizing the shift from smaller, family-owned farms to large-scale, corporate-contracted operations, and the associated changes in production efficiency and methods. The document underscores that “CAFOs can cause a myriad of environmental and public health problems” and therefore the need for robust monitoring and mitigation efforts is crucial to safeguard the community’s well-being. The importance of “actions that boards of health can and should take” is emphasized, advocating for proactive measures tailored to the local context. Community involvement, alongside collaboration between local and state agencies, is essential to “mitigate the impact that CAFOs or large industrial farms have on the public health of their communities.” The document emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing CAFOs and advocates for the need to ensure proper management and to routinely monitor them to avoid harming surrounding communities. The cases of Tewksbury, Wood County, and Cerro Gordo County illustrate the diverse approaches to managing CAFO-related issues. The document concludes with a strong call to action, emphasizing that “boards of health should take an active role with CAFOs, including collaboration with other state and local agencies, to mitigate the impact that CAFOs or large industrial farms have on the public health of their communities.”