1 / 24

Animal Waste

Animal Waste. David Zilberman EEP 101/ECON 125. Animal Waste Concerns. Manure and wastewater emit nitrogen and phosphorus, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia.

Lucy
Télécharger la présentation

Animal Waste

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Animal Waste David Zilberman EEP 101/ECON 125

  2. Animal Waste Concerns • Manure and wastewater emit nitrogen and phosphorus, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia. • Low levels of dissolved oxygen (anoxia) result in eutrophication and toxic algal blooms which lead to • Outbreaks of microbes (Pfiesteria piscicida) • Kills fish. • Produce pathogens (Cryptosporidium) in drinking water. • Food safety risks when manure is applied to crops. • Ground water contamination by nitrates.

  3. Animal Feeding Operations • Animal feeding operations (AFOs) are agricultural enterprises where animals are raised in confined structures. • Feed is brought to the animals. They do not graze. • There are 450,000 AFOs in the United States. • AFOs are main sources of animal waste pollution. • Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are AFOs regulated as point sources by the EPA. • CAFOs are big (more than 1,000 animals per facility); small AFOs are nonpoint sources.

  4. Basic Statistics on Livestock • The U. S. has a large population of various livestock animals. Some (beef cattle) graze, and disposal of waste per unit of land is controllable. Others are in confined structures, and they are the main source of environmental problems. • Even in the case of beef cattle, there are some pollution problems with grazing, and cattle spends a significant part of their lives in feedlots. • However, the main concerns are with dairies, poultry, and swine.

  5. U.S. Cattle Statistics Rank State All Cattle (1000) 1 Texas 14,300 2 Nebraska 6,650 3 Kansas 6,550 4 Oklahoma 5,450 5 California 4,600 6 Missouri 4,300 7 Iowa 3,750 8 Wisconsin 3,600 9 South Dakota 3,550 10 Colorado 3,100 United States 99,501

  6. Swine 1997 All Hogs Inventory Rank State (1,000 Head) 1 Iowa 14,000 2 North Carolina 9,700 3 Minnesota 5,400 4 Illinois 4,750 5 Indiana 3,800 6 Nebraska 3,550 7 Missouri 3,500 8 Oklahoma 1,640 9 Ohio 1,620 10 Kansas 1,430 United States 59,920

  7. Broiler: A new kind of farming. Mostly contracting

  8. Poultry Rank State Inventory (1,000) 1 Ohio 33,142 2 California 30,500 3 Georgia 29,910 4 Indiana 27,189 5 Pennsylvania 26,920 6 Iowa 25,685 7 Arkansas 23,145 8 Texas 22,700 9 North Carolina 17,175 10 Alabama 16,091 United States 403,495

  9. Other Waste Sources • More than 3 million horses. • 272 million turkeys raised in the U. S. during 2002. • North Carolina, 45.5 million. • Minnesota, 44.0 million • Arkansas, 29.5 million • 2002 Sheep and lamb inventory, 8.10 million head • 2002 Lamb Crop Expected, 4.31 million head • Dogs and cats.

  10. Animal Waste and Pollution • An EPA study (2000) found that agriculture is the leading pollution source, affecting 20% of all assessed rivers and streams in the United States, and AFOs account for 16% of the agricultural pollution in the rivers and streams, without accounting for manure runoff from cropland. • 17 of 37 states in the EPA study (2000) indicate that animal feedlots are one of the top 10 sources for ground water contamination in their states. • A waste lagoon has spilled in recent years. The most notable occurred in North Carolina in 1995. There a 22 million-gallon-spill from an 8-acre lagoon, killing 10 million fish.

  11. The Expansion of North Carolina’s Hog Population • North Carolina's hog population has grown faster, from 2.6 million to 10 million hogs between 1987 to 1997, for a 285% increase in hogs. • The hogs produce a mind-boggling amount of waste: 19 million tons of feces and urine a year, or over 50,000 tons per day. • They cause health and quality-of-life problems for the people who live in the vicinity of factory farms. • Hog waste and the way it is stored harms wetlands, rivers, and coastlines.

  12. From Corn Hog Operations to AFOs • Midwest farmers have grown corn and used much of it to feed their hogs, disposing waste as fertilizers. • Development of cheap fertilizers reduce use of manure as fertilizers. Farmers cannot sell much of it . • Livestock facilities increased application of waste on their land. High waste/acre causes externality. • New management practices, cheap labor, and reduced transportation cost led to migration of production to North Carolina and industrialized production. • They have a large volume of animals and high rate of disposal per acre.

  13. Externalities of Animal Production: Conceptual Analysis • There are two types of externalities: • Runoff and deep percolation that are deterministic. • Random spills. • In both cases there is concern about: • Surface water • Groundwater • Air pollution • Odor • Each type of pollution may be addressed by different types of policies, but there may be some linkages.

  14. Groundwater Contamination • Modeling ground water contamination as a result of excess disposal • a = waste per cow • N = number of cows/acre • Z = waste seepage • = either N * a - C • Or 0 • C is amount absorbed per acre. For example, a cow contri- butes .2 tons of salt per acre Amounts above .3 is leaching C = .3 and a = .2 Z Z=N*a-C N

  15. Alternative Policies • Suppose the social cost of pollution is w dollars per acre. • Policy formation depends on information availability. • If pollution is observable, policies include: • Pollution tax of wZ. • Introduce tradable permits to achieve a regional target of pollution. • If a number of animals and disposal acreage are observable: • Tax of aw for every cow above c/a. So, if w = 100 and n = 5, the tax will be 100*(5-1.5)*.2 =.7*100 = 70. This results in optimality. • Limit on cows per disposal area is an inefficient policy. It may lead to exit of farmers who are efficient but with low acreage. Can be improved by allowing trading of disposal rights. • If only the number of cows is a available—not cow per acre: • First-best outcome is not feasible unless farms are identical. • A tax per cow or a tax on milk can reduce pollution by reducing herd size, but obviously they are inefficient.

  16. Expanding the Disposal Area • The pollution of groundwater is a result of high density of animals per disposal acre. • This can be alleviated by reducing the size of the animal population or increasing disposal acreage. • A subsidy on the use of manure as fertilizers increases the disposal area and reduces disposal per acre as non-livestock operators adopt this activity for the gain. • To be effective, this policy requires monitoring of shipment of waste outside the region and of disposal activities. • If a pollution tax is introduced, and an effective monitoring of shipment and disposal is feasible, then polluting dairymen may sell manure as fertilizers at a discount.

  17. Changes in the Structure of Livestock Production Systems • Traditionally, grain and livestock productions were integrated into one farming system. Farm animals weregrazed on grass or fed on grains produced using animal manure as a fertilizer. • Today, livestock is raised on one farm or in one region while grains are produced on anotherfarm or in a separate region.

  18. Contracting • Most producers who raise livestock neither purchase inputs nor sell outputs in traditional markets. • Instead, theseproducers (known as growers) sign production contracts with intermediary firms (known as integrators). • Production contracts specify that the integrators will provide the growers with production facility specifications and inputs, including genetic materials, feed, and veterinary assistance. • Market contracts, which processors and growers agree on, pre-determined output prices. • Contracting has played a major role in the growth of the U.S. broiler sector. Prior to the 1950s, very little poultry were raised for meat, mostly because meat prices were unstable. • Contracting assures integrators that they have buyers for the feed and growers that they have buyers for their chicken. • More than 90 % of U.S. broilers are currently produced under contract arrangements (USDA, 1996).

  19. Reasons for Contract Production • Reduction of market risks for growers. • Growers have specific knowledge of local conditions • Growers provide financing for production capital, allowing integrators to expand at a faster rate. • Contracting increases the chance to observe behaviors of higher management. • Environmental regulations and enforcement standards. • Only the producers who actually raise livestock are directly liable for damage from the waste residues generated at their production sites. • Assistance programs and local resistance to environmental damage. • Producers can generally qualify as recipients of cost-sharing assistance from the government, while integrators are too large in size to qualify for such assistance.

More Related