The CAFO Debate
4/8/13
000-58-3664
Abstract
In this paper I discussed the goods and bads of CAFO's so that those whom read the paper can learn and form an opinion from the conclusions that I draw. A full report in APA follows with a Works Cited Sheet.
Background
The argument of concentrated animal feeding operations is centralized around a few core facts. Arguments for the positives provide a strong fight against those that believe CAFO’s have negative effects. I will argue that concentrated animal feeding operations have less positive results, and consequently more negative results.
In just the last 20 years a dramatic change in animal agricultural production in the United States has taken place. These alterations have included; an escalation in size of each separate farm, a progression in the quantity of animals per farm, and a shift towards raising animals inside of barns. Concentrated animal feeding operations, referred to through this paper as CAFOs, “ ‘are operations in which’ animals are kept and raised in confined situations (Lin, 2013).” These operations are not only to raise chickens but could be raising any number of different animals. “CAFOs house large numbers of animals, flush animal wastes into open-air waste pits, and apply partially decomposed wastes to land, releasing pollutants into soil, air, and water” (Mirabelli, et al. 2005, 592). With the large amounts of excrement produced by one of these farm factories is so great that it is very difficult to deal with, or disposed of correctly.
“While modern agricultural systems, including CAFOs, can help reduce the overall environmental impact of livestock and poultry production, the increase in animal concentration in barns has led to an increase in the environmental risk on an individual farm” (Pauly, 2012). Each of these farms, or compounds, produces waste that needs to be disposed of correctly. This is difficult because there is a large quantity of waste produced. Having a large quantity of feces to dispose of makes collecting and disposing complicated, but if this is accomplished by the farmer, a safe, very consistent fertilizer source for the crop growing portion of their farming operation will be produced at no additional cost to the farmer. When a farmer ignores this problem, or has no way to dispose of the feces safely, the farm has the potential to harmfully impact the surrounding water sources.
There are laws in place to help protect those living in surrounding areas. At the state level, water quality is protected through the department’s permit application and approval process (Pauly, 2012). Water pollution, construction, and operating permits are prerequisites for all sizes and sorts of CAFOs. These permits have differences according to number of animals, type of animals, and location. They have a list of very specific necessities to follow and each farm is expected to keep detailed paper work of farm activities and turn them in to the agency for review each year. Restrictions vary from state to state, and this can make a large impact on the economy as well as pollution of the water supply for people close by.
In the scuffle about the CAFO’s, there are two arguable sides. On one side there are those who are against this form of farming with their whole hearts. On the other side, there are people who want nothing more than to run better, faster, factories.
CAFO Risks
There are many strong arguments that people use on this side of the fence. There are many different facts to why people are against CAFOs, but pollution will be the main point touched on in this paper. These arguments are about air quality pollution through many different avenues from toxins, to bacteria, to proven health effects.
Researchers argue that some airborn toxins are a result of CAFOs: “Airborne contaminant emissions emanating from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) include toxic gases and particulates” (Bunton et al. 2007, 305). According to “Monitoring and Modeling of Emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Overview of Methods,” there are many harmful emissions from the standard CAFO. These emissions range from ammonia to harmful bacteria. Ammonia is the easiest thing to test for due to the fact that ninety-five percent of ammonia emissions comes from livestock says Shultze (2011, 148). The problem is when test are done for these emission’s they are done incorrectly, most cases, not tested for at all. The equipment that finds these readings can be expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming according to Bunton (2007, 306). It is difficult for a country to come up with funding to test for safety, emission’s and pollutants, when it is struggling to feed its hungry citizens.
The argument about airborne bacteria starts in the Mid-Atlantic with a new age study by John Hopkins. New studies like this are emerging all over the United States post the clean air act of 1977 (Jacobson et al. 1999). “According to the John Hopkins team, inhalation of airborne bacteria could constitute another exposure pathway” (Barrett, 2005, 116). This is a new realization made by Hopkins, because before this study there were no thoughts by any scientific community that these bacteria could affect humans through simple inhalation (Barrett, 2005). This study took samples of the air in CAFO’s, specifically swine, and tested the bacteria strain. The bacteria were proved to be resistant to common antibiotics, and if contracted by humans, could be more dangerous. Most of the bacteria collected was resistant to more than one antibiotic (Barrett, 2005). The harm this could cause is unimaginable.
Lastly there are many health effects of those whom live in the neighboring lands of CAFO’s. The Lower Saxony Lung Study measured respiratory health effects in neighbors of CAFOs. This is a new ideal because, in the past, farms were not thought to harm those surrounding them. This study shows that “… a high density of CAFOs in the living environment may be a risk factor for poor lung function and wheeze among neighbors (Schulze et al. , 2000, 154).” The results however were not definitive, and “might” and “may be”, were used in concluding statements. This is because when testing the air, water, and health effects of a population there are too many variables to conclude a definite answer. The variable is the part of the experiment or the test that is changed to determine the result of changing it. In a situation like this, there is always room for argument due to the uncontrollable variables.
According to Brehm, “As the numbers of animals in confinement have multiplied, so have the environmental repercussions of concentrated livestock production” (2013, 831). Maribelli has written about many school aged children whom have been observed for testing and has looked at the effects of living in a certain proximity to a CAFO. (2006, 594) In this study it was concluded that even farms at a distance of 40+ miles had was a smell that leaked the distance to the school. If this smell in fact leaked all the way to the school, then so did the bacteria, air pollution, and probably the water pollutions. Having so many schools within range of a CAFO, is a scary revelation for a parent. There can be effects from coming into contact with these contaminants but in many cases the parents are not made aware of the possible contamination's.
Benefits of CAFOs
In terms of price and efficiency there are many positive effects of factory farming. CAFO’s strive to compete, to maximize product, and have positive effects according to preventive measures. (Buttel, 2003) CAFO’s are positive in terms of price reduction through competition. When regulated, CAFO’s can be a benefit to our society. If regulated correctly, societal costs are lower than the societal rewards thus holding a positive place for CAFO’s.
There are two ways to help control the cost of food. According to Buttel these are to regulate the market and market incentives (2003). When CAFOs regulate the market competition, reducing externalities, promoting fairness, and ensuring health and welfare are all results. They make this possible by keeping prices low, to regulate all of the above. The price war is a clear promotion of CAFO’s. This is because the CAFO is able to produce a large amount of meat, on a small area of land, with minimal cost to the consumer. Secondly, market incentives modify the system of price signals in some significant way to encourage producers to take the correct steps to preserve our environment. This can be from soil conservation, to pollution control (Pauly, 2012).
The increase of technology along with particular production systems over the years has led to notable production efficiencies in raising animals, and has given farmers the capability of achieving precise control and management of animal manure and other farm- based nutrients as a fertilizer source on farm land (Pauly, 2012). In this situation, the “run of” of the CAFO is reused in a way that helps the production of food crops. Using fertilizer can double the yield of the crops. This also helps to cut the cost of the food crops because the farmer does not have to purchase the fertilizer. This reduction of the crop price, intern makes the meat price cheaper because the animals eat the crops that are at a lower price. This, like mentioned above, helps to fuel competition and keep prices lower for the consumer.
“The notion that agricultural institutions should maximize the social benefits and reduce the social costs of food and fiber production do not lead to a straightforward public policy formula or even to a straightforward analytical procedure for simultaneous optimization of sustainability and social benefits, however with effort it can be done(Buttel, 2003, 1642).” Brehm proposes two ways to make the factory farm industry have greater benefits than societal cost. “Horizontal consolidation is the merger with or purchase of an entity by its competitor, both of which serve the same market function. Vertical integration is thought to lower the costs of production be-cause it eliminates profit skimming at various stages (Brehm, 2013, 821).” Horizontal consolidation lowers competition through consolidation, and thus the buyer can have a greater impact. By consolidating the competition to only a few competitors, the price will be brought down. Vertical integration cuts out the middle man. With fewer hands in the pot, there is less cost pushed forward to the consumer. Aside from the externalities of pollution and social costs, the increasing size of producers also creates opportunities for special deals with buyers not available to independent producers (Pauly, 2012).
There are also agencies that help to regulate this industry as well as protect the resources, and health effects they may cause. “Three different agencies are charged with enforcing the laws: the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and, to a lesser degree, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)” (Brehm 2013). This means that there are three different checks put into place to help protect this societal cost. There have been changes made according to Nanda, “This is keen awareness of the need to explore effective means, including Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, to maintain, restore, and improve the environment, as well as prevent and deter further environmental deterioration. Thus, new approaches are being examined (2013,362).” Changes are being made according to Centner, there have been many new restrictions patrolled by the different regulatory agencies. This is due to the harmful effects that have been proven to be a result a CAFO (2004, 542). This proves that there are actions being taken to help regulate this industry and protect these citizens. According to these studies by Nanda and Brehm and Centner, these agencies are putting forth effort to make a difference in the harmful effects of these demands of consumers. The consumer demands, in fact, are the reason that we see these CAFO’s because without these mass growth farms, there is no way that the amount of goods, and the desired price, could be produced.
Conclusion
In conclusion I think that there is more evidence that CAFOs are damaging the environment, and those living in areas close to CAFOs, in the studies performed by Bunton, Jacobson, and Barret. I have come to think, in opposition to what I previously believed that CAFO’s are not worth the societal risk provided by them. These risk are taken to merely lower the prices of the product for consumers. When allowing a high societal risk to exist without controversy, the human populous is losing its sights on what is really important.
According to Shultze, there are many emissions that come from these CAFOs that are very harmful (2011, 148), Bunton even takes it a step further and states that these emissions can be toxic (2007, 305). These harmful, toxic emission’s ironically, affect those who are fueling this type of production by purchasing these meats at their local food store. This is possibly due to the fact that the facts about CAFO’s are not readily provided, nor advertised. For example, many Americans simply do not realize, or think about where their meat is really coming from. This is due to the disconnect between the food and the consumer. The consumer only sees is what the producer wants them to see, unless the consumer takes it upon themself to look deeper.
“In the last couple of years types of farming have changed. Small family-owned farms were superseded by industrial farms—the so-called concentrated animal feeding operations. (Schulze et al, 2000,153)” The family farms we think of, in reality are gone. The majestic silos and standalone barns are substituted by buildings that closely resembling warehouses. The flowing open fields of grazing cows and roaming chickens have been replaced by gaudy, cramped, pens with the animals being fed corn and other foods that they are unable to properly digest. These caged animals climb through deep pools of their own feces. Farms are no longer farms is the reality; farms are now factories, they're an industrial processes calculated to capitalize on earnings while still upholding a cover of the classic down-home farming that we have in our minds.
Works Cited
Barrett, J. (2005). Airborne bacteria in cafos. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(2), 116-117.
Brehm, S. (2005). Agriculture and the polluter pays principle. CALIFORNLIAA WR EVIEW, 93, 797-845.
Bunton, B., Lyngbye, M., Thorne, P., O’Shaughnessy, T. P., Fitzsimmon , S., Gering, J., Hoff, S., & Lyngbye, M. (2007). Monitoring and modeling of emissions from concentrated animal feeding. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 303-307.
Buttle, F. (2003). Internalizing the societal costs of agricultural production. Agricultural Ethics, 133, 1636-1664.
Centner, T. J. (2004). New regulations to minimize water impairment from animals rely on management practices. Environment International, 30, 539-545. doi: 10.1016
Lin, D. (2013). What is cafo. Retrieved from animalrights.about.com
Jamason, L., Moon, R., Bicudo, J., Janni, K., Knoll, S., & Surshon, G. (1999). Generic environmental impact statement on animal agriculture: Summary of the literature related to air quality and odor. Retrieved from http://www.mnplan
Mirabelli, M., Wing, S., Marshall, S., & Wilcosky, T. (2005). Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middle-school students to air. Environmental Health Perspective, 14(4), 591-596.
Nanda, V. (2006). Agriculture and the polluter pays principle. HE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, 54, 317-399
Pauly, S. (2012, May 23). Concentrated animal feeding operations. Retrieved from www.dnr.mo.gov
Pearce, J. (2011). A brave new jungle: Factory farming and advocacy in the 21st century. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Form, 21(433), 433-467.
Schulze, A., Praml, G., K¨uchenhoff, H., Nowak, D., R¨ommelt, H., Ehrenstein, V., & van Strien, R. (2000). Effects on pulmonary health of. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 66(3), 146-154.