Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Union of

Concerned
Scientists The Hidden Costs of CAFOs
ISSUE BRIEFING

September 2008 Smart Choices for U.S. Food Production

ver the past several decades, U.S. food • Higher incidence of antibiotic-resistant
O production has taken an unwise and
costly turn. Until recently, food animals
bacteria that make human illnesses harder
to treat
and crops were produced in close proximi- • Diminished quality of life in numerous
ty, frequently on the same farm, in an rural communities
integrated, self-sustaining way that often
• Beef and dairy products that are less
had benefits for farmers and society as a
nutritious than they could be
whole. But animal production has under-
gone a profound transformation that has Fortunately, the United States can make
disrupted this balanced system. Our choice choices that will put production of abundant
of food and agriculture policies has food on a practical and healthy track. The
promoted the rise of massive CAFOs contrast between CAFOs and a more mod-
(confined animal feeding operations) that ern approach to raising cattle, described
crowd many thousands of animals closely here as smart pasture operations (SPOs), is
together in a small space and separate illustrated in the table below. SPOs take
them from crop farming. CAFOs have advantage of both new technologies and
well-documented problems that come natural efficiencies to produce better food—
with high social and economic costs: without many of the costs and problems
• Air and water pollution produced by unman- associated with CAFOs.
ageable mountains and lagoons of manure

CAFOs vs. “Smart Pasture Operations” for Cattle

CAFOs SPOs

• Massive (thousands of animals) • Mid-size (hundreds of animals) or smaller

• Extremely crowded facilities • Less crowded facilities

• Unhealthy conditions lead to excessive • Healthier conditions reduce antibiotic use


antibiotic use and drug-resistant bacteria

• Cattle eat a diet (feed corn and soy) • Cattle eat their normal, digestible diet
they cannot digest properly (vegetation such as grass)

• Feed is usually purchased and • Low-cost feed is produced on site


shipped to the site (in the form of pasture)

• Usually isolated from crop farming • Integrated with crop farming

• Unmanageable concentrations of • Manure is put to immediate use as


untreated manure create air, water fertilizer for crops and pasture,
pollution minimizing pollution
CAFOs CREATE
PROBLEMS BY
IGNORING AND
WORKING AGAINST
VARIOUS NATURAL
SYSTEMS RANGING
FROM SOIL
ECOSYSTEMS TO
ANIMAL DIGESTIVE
SYSTEMS

Crowding in Hog CAFO


Animals in CAFOs are packed tightly together.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Farmsanctuary.com.

A SMARTER CHOICE profitably used as fertilizer. SPOs and CAFOs Uncovered also discusses better
other alternatives to CAFOs illustrate options—more sophisticated and
In general, CAFOs create problems by the kind of modern, sophisticated efficient alternatives for producing
ignoring and working against various approach to animal agriculture that U.S.
natural systems ranging from soil ecosys- decision makers should encourage with
tems to animal digestive systems. By their food-production policy choices.
contrast, the superior SPO approach In CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold
gains cost and other advantages by work- Costs of Confined Animal Feeding
ing with natural systems. For example, Operations, the Union of Concerned
although dairy SPOs produce somewhat Scientists examines these critical choic-
less milk per cow than dairy CAFOs, the es, including the policies that have
SPOs often earn more profit per cow and encouraged the growth of CAFOs and
per farm. imposed enormous costs on our society.
SPOs are only one alternative to This groundbreaking report evaluates,
CAFOs; other approaches can be similar- for the first time, the combined impact
ly efficient while minimizing negative of several types of problems created by
impacts. For example, pigs raised in hoop CAFOs, including the cost of taxpayer
barns (low-cost, easily assembled tunnel- Hog Hoop Barn
subsidies and direct and indirect costs
Hoop barns give pigs straw bedding mate-
shaped structures with natural straw to society (such as environmental and rial and room to move.
bedding) are less crowded than in health damage) that amount to billions Photo credit: Courtesy of North Carolina State
University.
CAFOs, and their manure can be of dollars annually.

2 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS


affordable food—and offers policy
Federal Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
recommendations that can begin to lead Funding for 2006
us toward a modern, healthy, and sustain- National FY2006 Confined Livestock Cost-Share Approved
able food system. The full report is avail-
able at http://www.ucsusa. org/food_and_ Sheep 0%
agriculture/agriculture_impacts/cafos- Swine 13%
Beef 28%
uncovered.html.
Poultry 15%

CAFOs CREATE AVOIDABLE Other 2%


PROBLEMS Dairy 42%

CAFOs can appear to operate efficiently


because they have been allowed to shift
SOURCE: National Resource Conservation Service 2007.
costs onto society as a whole. These
“externalized” costs—summarized
below—hide CAFOs’ true inefficiency. INDIRECT GRAIN SUBSIDIES TO CAFOs
Taxpayer-subsidized feed grain BETWEEN 1997 AND 2005 AMOUNTED
enabled CAFOs to grow and
dominate the market. TO ALMOST $35 BILLION, OR NEARLY

CAFOs have been indirectly supported by $4 BILLION PER YEAR


the federal farm bill, which authorizes
huge taxpayer-funded subsidies for grain
farmers. Until recently, these subsidies con-
tributed to artificially low prices for corn,
soybeans, and other grains, which enabled
CAFOs to grow to extraordinary sizes. But
some food animals are not well suited to
an exclusive diet of feed grains. Cattle, for
example, are healthiest when eating their
natural diet of grass and forage; eating a
grain diet for too long makes these animals
sick. Moreover, grain-fed cattle can pro-
duce less nutritious beef and milk than
their grass-fed counterparts, as UCS docu-
mented in the 2006 report Greener Pastures
(available at http://www.ucsusa.org/food_ CAFO Manure Lagoon
Manure is flushed with water into a lagoon at this North Carolina hog CAFO.
and_agriculture/solutions/smart_pasture_
Photo credit: Courtesy of USDA.
operations/greener-pastures.html).

THE HIDDEN COST OF CAFOs 3


Average Atmospheric Ammonium Ion Concentration 1985-2002
CAFOs are a major contributor to increasing ammonia air pollution.

1985–1987 1990–1992

# #

# #
# #
#
#
# # #
# #
## # # # #
# #
# #
# # # # # #
# # # #
# #
# # # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# #
# # #
# # # #
# # #
# # # # ## #
#
# # # # # # #
# # # # #
# # #
# # #
# #
# #
# # #
# # # #
# # #
# # # # # # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# # # #
# #
#
#
# # #
# # #
# # #
# #
# # #
#
# #
#
#
#
# # #

1995–1997 2000–2002
# #

Average Ammonium Ion Concentration as NH4 (mg/L)


+

SOURCE: National Atmospheric Deposition Program 2003.


0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

CAFOs have not benefited from this Taxpayers pay to clean up CAFO The disposal and cleanup cost for all of
subsidy in recent years, when grain prices waste—yet most CAFO pollution this manure would hobble CAFOs if they
remains.
have been high. But the damage has been had to pay for it themselves. But another
done: indirect grain subsidies to CAFOs CAFOs produce some 300 million tons of program authorized by the federal farm
between 1997 and 2005 amounted to untreated manure each year (about twice bill, the Environmental Quality
almost $35 billion, or nearly $4 billion per as much as is generated by the entire Incentives Program (EQIP), subsidizes
year, serving to entrench the CAFO system. human population of the United States). the cleanup of some CAFO waste.

THE COST TO CLEAN UP THE CONTAMINATED SOIL UNDER EVERY U.S.


HOG AND DAIRY CAFO WOULD APPROACH $4.1 BILLION

4 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS


Extrapolation from the available data
suggests that U.S. CAFOs may have bene-
fited from about $125 million in EQIP
subsidies in 2007. Nevertheless, the pro-
gram prevents only a small fraction of
CAFO pollution (see below).

CAFOs create costly air and water


pollution.

Even with EQIP subsidies, CAFOs do not


effectively manage the enormous amounts
of waste they produce. Manure is often
handled, stored, and disposed of improp- Environmental Damage from CAFOs
erly, resulting in leakage, runoff, and spills Flooding releases hog manure into rural waterways and wells.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Rick Dove, www.doveimaging.com and www.neuseriver.com.
of waste into surface and groundwater.
CAFO manure has contaminated drink-
ing water in many rural areas, caused fish
kills, and contributed to oxygen-depleted
“dead zones” (areas devoid of valuable
marine life) in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Chesapeake Bay, and elsewhere. Ammonia
in manure contributes to air pollution that
causes respiratory disease and acid rain.
Leakage under liquid manure storage
“lagoons” pollutes groundwater with
harmful nitrogen and pathogens, and
some lagoons have even experienced cata-
strophic failures, sending tens of millions
of gallons of untreated waste into streams
and estuaries, killing millions of fish.
Enforcement of environmental laws
against polluting CAFOs has generally
proven inadequate.
The total cost of CAFO pollution to
human health and the environment is dif-
ficult to quantify, but we can get a sense of
the magnitude by assessing some of the
individual costs. For example, CAFOs CAFO Manure Pile
This enormous pile of manure was CAFO-generated.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Factoryfarm.org.

THE HIDDEN COST OF CAFOs 5


U.S. Hog Inventory at CAFOs Has Total U.S. Hog Inventories Have Not
Increased Dramatically Increased as CAFOs Replaced Smaller Farms
80 250,000 80
+ Operations with 2,000+ head
70 75
Operations with 5,000+ head
PERCENT OF TOTAL U.S. INVENTORY

200,000

INVENTORY (MILLION OF HEAD)


60 Operations 70

50 65

OPERATIONS
150,000
40 Inventory
60

30 100,000 55

20 50
50,000
10 45

0 40
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Operations with 5,000+ head were not reported prior to 1996. An operation is any place having one or more hogs on hand at any time during the year.
Source: McBride and Key, 2003, USDA, Economic Research Service, Report No. 818. Source: McBride and Key, 2003, USDA, Economic Research Service, Report No. 818.

Uncovered estimates that the cost to clean and spread their manure on enough bacteria are often more difficult to treat,
up the contaminated soil under every U.S. farmland to reduce both water and leading to longer and more costly hospi-
hog and dairy CAFO would approach air pollution. tal stays, additional lost work and school
$4.1 billion. In addition, the U.S. days, and more deaths.
Antibiotic overuse at CAFOs
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has The National Academy of Sciences has
creates drug-resistant bacteria
estimated that it would cost CAFOs at and raises health care costs. estimated that antibiotic resistance from
least $1.16 billion per year to transport all sources increases U.S. health care costs
An estimated 70 percent of all antibiotics by at least $4 billion annually. The total
and related drugs used in the United societal costs attributable to antibiotic
States are given to food animals to pro- use in animal agriculture are difficult to
mote faster growth and stave off diseases calculate, but are likely to add up to bil-
in highly crowded CAFOs. Often, these lions of dollars.
animals are given the same drugs used to
treat human illness. This massive use of CAFOs harm rural communities.
antibiotics in animals that are not sick
contributes to the development of antibi- CAFOs are sited in rural communities
Dead Fish otic-resistant bacteria such as Salmonella, that bear the brunt of the harm caused
Fish killed by water pollution from
various forms of E. coli, Campylobacter, by these operations, including water con-
CAFO manure.
Photo credit: Rick Dove, www.doveimaging.com and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus taminated by nitrogen and pathogens,
and www.neuseriver.com.
aureus (MRSA). Illnesses caused by such and higher rates of respiratory and other

6 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS


diseases compared with other rural areas. products. Evidence from pig CAFOs
These risks also depress property values shows that the United States produced as
in communities near CAFOs: based on many pigs in the past in smaller opera-
data from Missouri, CAFOs Uncovered tions as it does now in CAFOs.
estimates that property values near U.S. A range of scaled-down operations can
CAFOs have fallen a total of about utilize efficient production methods
$26 billion. while avoiding the negative consequences
of massive CAFOs. Mid-size hog hoop
BETTER OPTIONS barns and pasture-based operations, for
example, are just two approaches that fit
CAFOs are not the only means of ensur- this “just-right” category of alternatives.
ing that the United States can produce Alternative Cattle Production
These operations are typically healthier Well-maintained pasture systems are
sufficient quantities of food at a reason- for the animals and can often produce efficient and safer for the environment
able cost. In fact, there is a growing comparable or even higher profits per than CAFOs.
Photo credit: Courtesy of SARE.
movement among U.S. farmers to unit, at close to the same production
improve efficiency by harnessing natural costs. And when the hidden (or external-
systems rather than working against ized) costs are considered, the compar-
them. More and more meat and dairy isons clearly tilt in favor of these newer
farmers are successfully adopting sophis- approaches.
ticated animal production practices such
Working with natural systems.
as SPOs and hog hoop barns that avoid
most of the costly and dangerous conse-
Managed intensive rotational grazing
quences of CAFOs.
(MIRG) systems for cattle take advantage
“Just right:” employing the of low-cost grasses on well-managed pas-
“Goldilocks principle.” tures that require less maintenance, ener-
gy, pesticides, and water than the feed MANURE, AN
Bigger isn’t always better, as mounting crops on which CAFOs rely. Healthy pas-
problems related to CAFOs illustrate. But UNMANAGEABLE
tures are also less susceptible to erosion
tiny farms aren’t the only alternative and absorb more of the nutrients applied PROBLEM FOR
either. There is growing evidence that to them, thereby contributing less water
modern mid-size operations can compete CAFOs, IS AN ASSET
pollution. And manure, an unmanageable
with CAFOs, even when only the direct problem for CAFOs, is an asset in pas- IN PASTURE-BASED
costs are taken into account. For exam- ture-based and other alternative farming
ple, recent studies by the USDA show FARMING SYSTEMS
systems because it can be used to fertilize
that nearly 40 percent of mid-size animal pasture vegetation or nearby crops. Such
feeding operations are about as cost- systems can and should replace CAFOs in
effective as the average large hog CAFO. the animal production landscape.
These mid-size and smaller operations
can also produce abundant animal

THE HIDDEN COST OF CAFOs 7


NEW POLICIES, BETTER GROUNDED IN BOTH
THE SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS OF ANIMAL
AGRICULTURE, CAN LEAD US TO ABUNDANT
GETTING BACK ON TRACK: FOOD AND EFFICIENT PRODUCTION
Using Policy to Promote
Better Approaches PRACTICES THAT DO NOT CAUSE THE
The price we pay as a society to support
HARM ASSOCIATED WITH CAFOs
CAFOs is much too high. Though the
costs estimated in CAFOs Uncovered are
huge, a more comprehensive accounting ing. In practice, this means that mid-size production practices that will be
would likely show the costs to be even and small operations cannot easily get beneficial to the environment, public
higher—perhaps billions of dollars more their animals slaughtered and health, and rural communities
per year. And the consequences for to market.
New policies, better grounded in both • Strictly enforce antitrust and anti-
human health, the environment, and our
the science and economics of animal competitive practice laws that have
quality of life are grave.
agriculture, can lead us to abundant food been neglected, to prevent processors
If CAFOs are not appreciably more
and efficient production practices that do from undermining mid-size
efficient than small and mid-size farms,
not cause the harm associated with operations
how have they managed to force many
such farms out of the market? The CAFOs. The Union of Concerned
• Revise slaughterhouse regulations to
answers lie largely in misguided, outdated Scientists supports policies that will force
facilitate larger numbers of safe,
government policies that have favored CAFOs to bear the full cost of the prob-
• smaller, geographically dispersed
massive, stand-alone operations. lems they create; level the playing field
processors (in order to better serve
Taxpayer-subsidized grain helped to for smaller, more responsible producers;
small and mid-size animal producers)
entrench CAFOs with inexpensive feed, and encourage modern production prac-
while weak pollution policies have tices. Specifically, we call on the U.S. gov- • Vigorously enforce the Clean Water
allowed CAFOs to shift the burden of ernment to: Act as it pertains to CAFOs, including
their mountains of waste onto the public. improved oversight at the state level
• Eliminate the waste-management
In addition, lax enforcement of antitrust
subsidies that CAFOs now receive • Strengthen regulation under the
laws has given too much power to the
under the federal EQIP program, and Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of
large meat and dairy processors that hold
instead offer pollution-prevention ammonia and other air pollutants
production contracts with CAFOs. As
assistance to small and mid-size farms from CAFOs
these large operations have grown even
bigger, they have wielded a virtual • Substantially increase funding for
monopoly over processing and market- research on modernized animal

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world.

National Headquarters Washington, DC, Office West Coast Office


Two Brattle Square 1825 K Street NW, Suite 800 2397 Shattuck Ave., Suite 203
Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 Washington, DC 20006-1232 Berkeley, CA 94704-1567 Printed on recycled
Phone: (617) 547-5552 Phone: (202) 223-6133 Phone: (510) 843-1872 paper using vegetable-
based inks
Fax: (617) 864-9405 Fax: (202) 223-6162 Fax: (510) 843-3785 © 2008 Union of
Concerned Scientists

Вам также может понравиться