Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of 40% of the P load to the lake (Negahban
et al
.,
1993). The appearance of lake-wide algae
blooms led to the imposition of stringent regula-
tions designed to reduce agricultural runoff.
stringency of 19 states for 1994 and 1998, and
found relatively low stringency (averaging 3) in
1994, increasing to 7 (in a 1-10 scale, 1 is the
least stringent and 10 is the most stringent) for
the year 1998. More stringent regulations will
increase the costs of complying with new permit
specifications. One negative of more stringent
regulations is that it increases the appeal of
violations. The more costly compliance, the
greater the incentive to violators from avoid-
ance of costs. Centner and Mullen (2002) sug-
gested that more efforts and resources in
enforcing the existing CAFO regulations may be
more helpful achieving the goal of reducing
pollutants than imposing additional regulations.
Increasing Regulatory Pressure
Increasing public concern about water quality
and increased awareness of the potential impact
of concentrated livestock production have led to
the development and implementation of increas-
ingly stringent environmental regulations. In
the mid-1990s, with increasing animal num-
bers and changing animal production system,
the need to minimize the impacts of Animal Feeding
Operations (AFO) on water quality and public
health led to increased federal attention to
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
regulations (USDA US EPA, 1999; USDA, 2003). The
two primary regulatory approaches used in the
USA are a permit approach focused on actual
or likely polluters, and a more local, water-body-
based approach known as Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) programme (USEPA, 1997, 1999,
2007, 2010; Walker, 2001).
The EPA directly manages the permit pro-
gramme for CAFO in seven of the 50 states; the
others have established their own regulatory
programmes under EPA oversight. Permits are
mandated for large CAFOs and for smaller opera-
tions demonstrating discharge. These permits
include conditions such as Court decisions,
which have made clear that the federal govern-
ment can only require permits of farms actually
discharging; size alone is not sufficient criteria.
Many states, however, continue to determine
permit eligibility primarily on size criteria.
Permit conditions vary by state. Effluent
limits are mandated by 29 states while 37 states
require nutrient management or land applica-
tion plans. Some states require groundwater
monitoring. Regular analysis of manure and
soil, inspections and operator education are
required to varying degrees. Nutrient and land
application plans include best management
practices (BMPs) to be implemented. The nutri-
ent management plan is an enforceable part of
the CAFO permit, so implementation of these
BMPs is mandatory on permitted farms.
Metcalfe (2000) compared the indexes
Nitrogen- versus phosphorus-based
nutrient management plans
One key change in water quality regulations in
the past 5 years is the shift from a primary focus
on N to an increasing focus on P contamination
of surface water. Most permit programmes have
as their foundation nutrient management plans,
farm-specific plans to manage the amount,
form, placement and timing of the application of
nutrients to crops, to provide for crop needs while
minimizing the risk of nutrient losses. These
plans traditionally focus on applying manure to
meet the N needs of crops. When excreted, N and
P are in imbalance in manure relative to crop
needs. Land-application of manure to meet the N
needs of the crop results in the over-application
and accumulation of P in soils increasing the
potential of P losses in runoff and subsequent
eutrophication (Sharpley
et al
., 2000).
Lander
et al
. (1998) estimated excess nutri-
ents from animal feeding operations, defining
excess nutrients as manure nutrients produced
in excess of nutrient needs of local crop, hay
and pasture land. Across the USA, 37 counties
had excess manure N in 1992 but 137 counties
had excess manure P. Using a different predictive
approach, the USDA estimated that in 1997
there were 155 counties with surplus manure N
from CAFOs compared with 337 counties with
excess manure P (USDA, 2001). It is not clear if
the increased number of counties with manure
surplus from the 1992 study to the 1997 study
reflects a real increase in nutrient surplus, differ-
ences in methodology or both.
of
animal manure management regulatory
