J. Anim. Sci. 2005. 83:E13-E17
© 2005 American Society of Animal Science
Interrelationships of animal agriculture, the environment, and rural communities1
M. G. Hogberg*,2,
S. L. Fales
,
F. L. Kirschenmann¶,
M. S. Honeyman*,
J. A. Miranowski
and
P. Lasley
* Departments of Animal Science,
and
Agronomy,
and
Economics,
and
Sociology, and the
and
¶ Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames 50011
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Animal agriculture is closely interrelated to both the natural environment and human systems, including rural communities. Accordingly, changes in animal agriculture can have wide-ranging consequences across many areas. During the past 50 yr, there has been tremendous change in animal agriculture, involving an increase in the size of production units, greater reliance on technology, a corresponding decrease in human labor, increased confinement of animals, and a general trend toward monoculture or specialized production systems. At least in part, these changes were brought about as a consequence of animal science research in nutrition, breeding, reproduction, growth, and so on. A long-term goal for animal scientists has been to increase the biological efficiency of animal-based food production, and the success in reaching this goal has been remarkable, with the time to market, growth rates, milk and egg production, etc., per animal increasing two- to threefold in some cases during the last 50 yr. The increase in the efficiency of animal agriculture has brought about a parallel decrease in food prices. Nonetheless, whereas animal science in one sense has been very successful, new questions or issues have emerged. The scale of animal systems today sometimes concentrates large numbers of animals into smaller areas that cannot handle the resultant animal manure. Stream and ground water pollution is increasingly a concern in some regions. Odor is a nuisance problem that increasingly places neighbors and urban growth in conflict with confinement animal systems. Possibly one of the biggest issues can be stated in terms of sustainability: Can all current food animal production systems continue as they currently exist? Additionally, the decrease in the number of producers has affected rural communities, and in some cases has brought about the demise of small towns. Animal scientists typically contend that they serve the interests of producers and strive to promote practices that are environmentally sound. Bringing about a discussion among animal scientists as to whether these goals are always met, or could be better met, is important if both the industry and our rural communities are to survive and thrive.
Key Words: Animal Agriculture • Environment • Rural Communities
|
Introduction
|
|---|
The face of animal agriculture has changed dramatically during the past 50 yr. Dating back to the development of mixed farming systems during the Middle Ages in Europe, humans, plants, and animals were all integrated to achieve sustainability (Grigg, 1974
). Plants produced food for humans and animals, animals produced food and fiber for humans, and nutrients flowed from humans and animals back to plants to produce more food for humans and animals. As society urbanized, plants still produced food for humans and animals, animals provided food for humans, but only animals recycled nutrients back to the plants. More recently, because of the industrialization and specialization of agriculture, the cycle of plants providing food for animals and humans, animals providing food for humans, and nutrients recycling from humans and animals that replenished the soil decreased as agriculturists came to prefer the convenience, cost, and consistency of nutrients from commercial fertilizer. In many cases, animal production occurred as separate specialized operations, and some facilities were far away from plant production facilities. This change has had a major effect on the structure of animal agriculture, which has focused on improving the efficiency and productivity. Economic viability and profitability have been the primary driving forces that define the current structure. More recently, the values of society have demanded a more sustainable environmental system from animal agriculture. The effect of animal agriculture on rural communities also is being recognized as an important consideration (Honeyman, 1996). In this article, we examine the relationships between animal agriculture, the environment, and rural communities and offer thoughts on how to integrate societal values for the future. We will begin with a discussion of ethics, addressing what is generally considered to be "good" or "bad" with regard to food production systems. We will then discuss current animal agriculture, why it is the way it is, and what effects it has on the environment. Finally, we examine the effects of our systems on rural communities, taking into account both economic and social consequences.
|
Ethics
|
|---|
Ethics is the study of principles that define behavior as right, good, and proper (Josephson, 2002). Since Socrates, the study of moral philosophy has helped humans clarify what is the right thing to do in certain situations. Moral philosophy addresses the ageless question of "how we ought to live and why" (Rachels, 2003). Ethics involves the changing values of society. It is an agreed upon understanding about what is normal. It is important to understand that what is considered "normal" will vary with culture. Why is ethics being applied to food and agriculture? The answer is that ethical behavior has always been an important component of sustainable communities (Anthony, 2004). Traditionally, farmers were accountable to their communities and the land on which they lived. If they failed to produce food, or if their practices resulted in harm to the environment or community, they were held accountable. In today’s industrial agriculture, the ethics of accountability is often eclipsed by economics. Meanwhile, we seem to be facing a much more complex set of ecological circumstances (Kirschenmann, 2004). Animal agriculture, like other sectors of the economy, is organized according to the principles of economics. Asset managers and consumers, who are separated from food production, make decisions about farming practices, leaving some to argue that the restructuring of the food system is challenging the assumed norms of behavior. The reaction to industrialized animal agriculture is that it no longer sustains good relationships, no longer recognizes equitable balance of interests, and no longer promotes trust (Anthony, 2004). Specifically, complaints include the magnitude, intensification, cheap food mentality, and the relocation of the decision-making power of industrial animal agriculture, as well as consumer ignorance and apathy relative to what has happened.
What happens when there is no adherence to a code of ethics? As an erosion of ethics occurs, people begin to cut corners (Lasley, 2003). Rationale and justifications often include "everyone else is doing it." As the application of ethical principles erodes, this results in calls for greater regulation because the trust has been violated. Because there is a lack of trust that people will do what is ethically right, rules, regulations, and laws are sought to force people to "do the right thing" or avoid behavior that may endanger others. With diminished respect, trust, and cooperation, come calls for regulations to monitor behaviors. Those who grew up in the rural, midwestern United States quickly recognize that this is definitely a change in the norm and values of rural communities and farms.
The long-term sustainability of agriculture and the ability to feed the nation’s people is a value held throughout rural America. Attaining this goal requires that animal agriculture must not only be efficient and profitable, but it also must contribute to maintaining the rural community economy, as well as sustain or improve environmental quality. If society perceives that animal agriculture is degrading the environment or leading to the demise of rural communities, then animal agriculture will lose the support and trust of society, resulting in more regulations that attempt to monitor and control the behavior of the industry.
|
Animal Agriculture and the Environment
|
|---|
Animal agriculture, if properly managed, can have a positive, beneficial effect on the environment. Conversely, if mismanaged, it can have a negative effect on the environment. In fact, livestock production and the subsequent application of manure can counteract two major negative effects of crop production: decreasing soil fertility and soil erosion (Baker et al., 1990). Theoretically, maintaining or improving water quality is achievable, with proper agronomic and animal production practices. For animal agriculture, this can be achieved by recycling nutrients back to crop production through proper application of manure to cropland. Minimizing nutrient loss in the system and using phosphorus as a basis for applying manure to cropland will maintain or improve water quality in most situations. Viewing manure as a valuable resource rather than as a waste product to be disposed of is a critical first step in reestablishing the nutrient recycling process. Integrated animal/crop production systems have a financial advantage over specialized operations when crop subsidy payments are not considered (Borts et al., 2004; Flora et al., 2004). The study of Borts et al. (2004) used stochastic budget analysis to compare a diversified swine-grain farm with a cash-grain farm, and showed that the diversified swine-grain farm greatly decreased fertilizer costs by using manure, had shared implement costs, and had more stable grain pricing/costs and thereby less risk. Furthermore, Flora et al. (2004) showed that ruminant production, based on perennial forages, could enhance rather than detract from water quality and decrease nutrient losses from farms. The USDA farm subsidy payments often encourage row cropping on land that is better suited for perennial forage production. Using crop phosphorus needs as the basis for manure application to land will require significantly more land and will be more expensive in areas with limited cropland (Ribaudo et al., 2003). Many specialized, large livestock farms often lack adequate land base for appropriate manure application. Their costs of production may be higher due to the need to haul manure longer distances or the cost of equipment for manure processing facilities. Costs will be lower in the Corn Belt, where cropland is more plentiful, and higher in the mid-Atlantic and South, where cropland may be limited. In the Corn Belt, 70% of the land is in row crop production compared with 20% in the mid-Atlantic region (Ribaudo, 2003). With larger production systems, and in some areas where nutrients produced in the manure far exceed crop needs, land application alone may be insufficient to handle all generated manure economically. Changing the structure of livestock production or adopting alternative technologies to handle manure may be necessary to maintain water and/or air quality standards.
The more challenging environmental standard to meet is air quality because it is difficult to quantify and control. With the emergence of larger livestock operations, there has been an increasing concentration and intensity of odors. There also is a change in the unwillingness of neighbors to accept livestock odors. In a study of rural families, the percentage of people finding odors a nuisance in 1 to 2 d went from 12% to 20% in 3 yr (1992 to 1995; Jolly and Kliebenstein, 1995). The trend is for rural residents to have less tolerance and be more demanding for quality of life. There also is a changing perception of who "owns" or has property rights to clean air, producers or society, which has led some to suggest that payment be made to rural residents who are inconvenienced by odors or who suffer loss of property values due to the amount of odors generated. This seems more prevalent for livestock operators who are new to the community than to locally owned and operated facilities, again relating to the trust factor. Long-term livestock producers with established reputations for protecting the environment and respecting their neighbors are more trusted than newcomers that have often been oblivious to local norms or customs. As livestock operations increase in size, different technologies will be needed to maintain air quality standards. One set of statistics explains why we see more discontent with odors from livestock operations among farmers. According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2002), the percentage of farms with livestock has dropped significantly in the past 50 yr: poultry farms have dropped from 78 to 4.6%, dairy from 68 to 4.3%, and swine from 56 to 3.7%. The most notable drop in the past 10 yr is the percentage of swine farms, which has dropped from 9.9 to 3.7%, whereas poultry farms have remained constant. The percentage of farms with beef has remained constant at approximately 41% for the past 30 yr, which probably is a reflection of the extensive nature of beef production systems. Fewer livestock farms (NASS, 2002), in ever larger units, coupled with more farmers and rural residents without livestock, presents significant challenges on how to ensure the quality of life of both farm and rural nonfarm neighbors.
As the size of livestock operations has grown, so has the environmental risk. Manure, once viewed as a resource to be conserved and used on cropland, is now considered by many a waste disposal problem. As a result, there is a tendency for overapplication of nutrients to the land, volatilization of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide gases, and excessively large lagoons, all which have compromised water supplies and air quality. In the future, we will need to apply technologies that are consistent with the values of society. We also need to direct research efforts to develop systems of animal production that value and preserve natural resources. One solution is to develop performance standards or expected outcomes for environmental quality for the livestock industry. Livestock producers would then know what the water and air quality standards are and would adjust their management and use of technologies to meet those standards. When technologies and management practices are properly used, the effects of animal agriculture on the environment should be neutral. Small livestock facilities that are mismanaged can have a larger negative impact on the environment than properly managed larger facilities. Although there are suspicions that size is the culprit, it seems that the level of management and attention to detail may be more critical than the number of livestock at a site.
|
Animal Agriculture and Rural Communities
|
|---|
Animal agriculture can have a significant effect on rural communities and their vitality. Animal production systems need to fit within the values of rural communities if they are to be accepted. Rural Iowans and farmers (Korsching et al., 2003) indicated that they favor the following: 1) increasing biotechnology research for products from agriculture and uses of biotechnology in agriculture production; 2) increasing local processing of grains and livestock; 3) improving rural infrastructure, such as road, schools, housing; 4) increasing the state emphasis on agriculture exports; 5) diversifying agriculture production to specialty crops; 6) focusing on retention and expansion of existing industries; 7) tax incentives to retain the youth in the state; and 8) focus on economic development by universities. They also were in general agreement on what they did not favor. These items were 1) increasing the population to match growth of surrounding states; 2) developing more racetracks and casinos; and 3) gambling opportunities for tourism.
Rural residents and farmers also were in general agreement on what they viewed as desirable and undesirable development activity. Farmers markets and windmill farms ranked high as desirable development activity. Confinement hog lots ranked low, even below prisons, solid waste landfills, slaughter plants, and sewage treatment plants when considering what people were willing to accept (Korsching et al., 2003). Obviously, the image of confinement swine operations is quite low and may reflect the need to address the issue of trust and how new facilities will be designed and managed in a way that is both socially and ecologically acceptable. It is obvious that the quality of life aspect is important and probably surpasses the economic development advantages if community members perceive that animal production development will degrade their environment and quality of life. The economic development aspects of animal agriculture alone are not sufficient to be construed as a socially acceptable development in the rural communities.
Economically, livestock add greatly to the economic growth and vitality of the community. Livestock production systems add jobs on the farm, at local businesses, and in the community, as well as helping to keep the population stable, which supports local social institutions such as churches and schools. A recent study showed that with a 10% higher share of county income from agricultural production (crop production), there was a 7.7% decrease in county income growth or a $100 per capita lower income (Hayes et al., 2004). Similarly, a 10% growth in livestock receipts resulted in a 0.5% increase in county income or a $77 higher per capita income. Counties with 10% more outdoor recreation amenities in 1990 experienced a $180 higher per capita income in 2001. It is not surprising that counties with recreational facilities have higher incomes, and it is those counties where extra care must be exercised when expanding livestock production. Livestock production systems can have a positive effect on the economic vitality of rural communities, but where major recreational opportunities exist, the livestock systems must be designed and managed in a manner that is compatible with people enjoying recreational activities and their quality of life. Further, the economic impact of a 3,400-sow, farrow-to-finish unit can be significant because it would employ 21 new workers, provide 19 additional indirect jobs, and generate nearly $1 million in new income if locally owned and financed. Moreover, a unit of this size implies 10 additional school age children, provides additional property tax revenues of $27,000, and increases state income tax revenues of $65,000 (Otto et al., 1998).
These studies indicate that properly structured and managed livestock systems can help a rural community to develop and grow. Livestock production can be a source of jobs to retain young people in the community. Additional jobs help to stabilize the local population by contributing to the maintenance of school systems and local businesses and other social institutions. The challenge is to develop systems of livestock production that keep money in the local community, create meaningful, well-paid employment opportunities, and develop the trust of the community that the operations will be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
|
Implications
|
|---|
For animal scientists, these findings have several implications. The decision-making process on farms is becoming more complex. No longer can producers make decision based on production efficiency and profitability alone. Instead, their decisions need to include the impact on the environment and how they contribute to the local community. Animal scientists also need to consider the environmental and community effects of research and management programs. It also is important that animal scientists and livestock producers develop production systems that integrate and respect local community values and consider environmental impacts. There is a need to evaluate, refine, and demonstrate these technologies and create business systems that minimize external costs and effects on society.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
1 Presented at the ASAS Symposium: Ethics and the Cost of Food, St. Louis, MO, July 27, 2004. 
2 Correspondence: 1221 Kildee Hall (phone: 515-294-2160; e-mail: hogberg{at}iastate.edu).
Received for publication August 12, 2004.
Accepted for publication January 28, 2005.
|
Literature Cited
|
|---|
Anthony, R. 2004. Ethics and animal agriculture-two overviews. Presentation at the Sustainable Agriculture Colloquium, spring semester 2004. Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Baker, F. H., F. E. Busby, N. S. Raun, and J. A. Yazman. 1990. The relationships and roles of animals in sustainable agriculture on sustainable farms. Prof. Anim Sci. 6:36–49.
Borts, L., G. May, and J. D. Lawrence. 2004. Diversified versus specialized swine and grain operations. ASL-R1959. ISU Anim. Ind. Rep. Dept. of Anim. Sci., Iowa State University, Ames.
Flora, C., J. R. Black, T. J. Dalton, R. Kershegan, M. Liebman, S. N. Smith, S. S. Sapp, and G. K. White. 2004. Reintegrating crop and livestock enterprises in three northern states. Preliminary Report on USDA-IFAFS Project 2001-52101-11308. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Grigg, D. B., 1974. The Agricultural System of the World: An Evolutionary Approach. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Hayes, D., J. Miranowski, B. Babcock, D. Otto, and D. Monchuk. 2004. Improving economic vitality in rural Iowa: A data-based approach. Committee of 82 Report. Dept. of Econ., Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Honeyman, M. S. 1996. Sustainability issues of U.S. swine production. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1410–1217.[Abstract]
Jolly, R., and J. Kliebenstein. 1995. Economic issues in livestock odor reduction. Pages 163–167 in Proc. New Knowledge in Livest. Odor Solutions Int. Livest. Conf. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Josephson, M. 2002. Making Ethical Decisions. Josephson Inst. of Ethics, Marina del Ray, CA.
Kirschenmann, F. 2004. Ecological mortality: A new ethic for agriculture. In Agroecosystems Analysis. Agronomy Monograph No. 43. Am. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.
Korsching, P., P. Lasley, and D. Roelfs. 2004. Rural Iowa Life Survey 2003 Summary Report. Iowa State Univ. Ext. Bull. PM 1960. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Lasley, P. 2003. Strengthening ethics in agriculture. Presentation to the Iowa Master Farmers. Dept. of Sociology, Iowa State Univ., Ames.
NASS. 2002. Census of Agriculture. Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., USDA, Washington, DC.
Otto, D., P. Orazem, and W. Huffman. 1998. Community and economic impacts of the Iowa hog industry. Iowa Pork Industry-Dollars and Scents. PM 1746. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Rachels, J. 2003. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., New York, NY.
Ribaudo, M. 2003. Managing manure: New Clean Water Act regulations create imperative for livestock producers. Amber Waves, February 2003. Econ. Res. Serv., USDA, Washington, DC.
Ribaudo, M., N. Collehon, M. Aillery, J. Kaplan, R. Johansson, J. Agapoff, L. Christensen, V. Breneman, and M. Peters. 2003. Manure management for water quality: Cost to animal feeding operations of applying manure nutrients to land. Rep. 842, Econ. Res. Serv. USDA, Washington, DC.
Top
Abstract
Introduction
