The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America - Farm Foundation

104
activities, as well as a high level of trust in the safety of their
food supply. There is increasing interest in having reliable
information on production systems and corresponding potential
health and environment impacts.
How a conflict over animal agriculture is handled impacts the
long-term viability of solutions. In the United States, a
proliferation of local ordinances is difficult for animal-related
businesses that operate on a regional, statewide or multi-state
level. Concerns about how variance in local ordinances may
create an unlevel playing field within a state have led some U.S.
states to pre-empt local ordinances relating to zoning, water
quality, nutrient management and odor (Abdalla and Shaffer,
1997; Feedstuffs, 2005). For example, Pennsylvania passed
legislation reducing local government’s authority for nutrient
management and odor management (Beegle and Lanyon, 1994;
Becker et al., 2005). Other states where there has been action to
limit local control and subsequent controversy include Iowa,
Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Missouri (Abdalla
and Shaffer, 1997; Feedstuffs, 2005).
The level of government at which animal agriculture is
regulated has important implications. Who makes decisions and
what factors they consider is affected by where the decision is
located. A mid-1990s review of six states indicates that states
which favored state control were more likely to be pro-animal
agriculture development. Where local control dominated,
attitudes tended to be less friendly to animal agriculture.
It is also clear that in some cases, multiple levels of government
are involved in making decisions about approval of an animal
agriculture facility (Animal Confinement Policy National Task
Force, 1998). While this may be appropriate in some cases, it
can be duplicative and add significant costs and time delays.
At the same time, there may be issues—flies, odors, water
access, property value reductions—where no government
agency has responsibility or even objective information on the
perceived impact. Such “orphaned” issues create the potential
for neighbors and other stakeholders to become frustrated,
and resort to the level of government closest to them for
protection or redress from actual or perceived losses (Abdalla
and Dodd, 2002).
Some researchers have suggested that differences in costs to
producers due to differences in regulatory stringency will lead
to more geographical movement by the industry. In many cases,
this movement will result as operations seek lower costs of
handling manure and odor, such as movement to less populated
areas with drier climates. These regulatory costs must be
balanced against other costs of production, such as feed costs
and transportation costs for livestock, labor and facilities. An
extreme case of geographical movement depicts a “race to the
bottom”—a progressive movement of capital and technology
from areas with relatively high levels of wages, taxation and
regulation to areas with relatively lower levels (Spar and Yoffie,
Environmental Issues
2000). Industry has an incentive to move to where total costs
are lowest. In the animal agriculture context, different levels of
environmental regulation could influence industry to move
across state or provincial borders. Burdensome environmental
regulations in North America may influence the animal
agriculture industry to move between countries or overseas to
areas where regulations are less stringent.
Research in the U.S. swine industry indicates that geographical
shifts in certain animal sectors may have been influenced by
differences in state environmental regulations and the related
compliance costs. One study found that small hog feeding
operations’ location decisions were affected by differential
compliance costs, while large operations’ were not (Metcalfe,
2000). Another study found change in environmental
stringency to be a factor in hog inventory growth (Brewin,
2004). In a study of the dairy industry, results showed more
stringent environmental regulations have a negative effect on
dairy cow numbers and shifts in location from California to
states such as Idaho, New Mexico and Texas (Isik, 2004). The
challenge with all this research is how accurately do the
estimated costs of environmental regulation, particularly
differential costs of new or additional regulation, compare to
actual costs, and how reasonable is it to attribute changes in
livestock numbers and relocation to those differential costs.
These studies also suggest that environmental regulations may
affect choice of location in other ways. The ability of the
environment to assimilate nutrients from manure and other
animal production byproducts into cropping systems or other
uses is expected to be an increasingly important factor in
location decisions. Regions with high animal populations and
low assimilation capacity may use manure for energy
production to lessen the cost of nutrient management.
Additional research with more accurate measures of
environmental regulation compliance costs could help better
determine the role of these costs in geographical movement by
the animal agriculture industry in North America. Such
research can also be used to better design future policy options,
while keeping in mind the dynamic nature of environmental
regulation costs.
Forces of Changes and Their Implications
Nine major forces of change are affecting environmental issues
related to animal agriculture in North America. Each will have
important implications for the industry during the next decade.
1. Concentration and Specialization
Economic forces will continue to consolidate animal
agriculture. The poultry and livestock industry taking advantage
of the economic comparative advantage of a particular region
will continue to expand. These regional clusters form around
economic advantages, such as climate, processors,