Number 50 August 2012 Water and Land Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A U. S. Perspective

The most prominent recent U.S. national policy issue related to livestock, land, and water has been the effect of livestock production on the quality of surface water and groundwater. (Photo from Shutterstock.)

bstract and both regulatory and nonregulatory concerns arise primarily from the large A approaches to addressing the issues. land area used for grazing and produc- Agriculture and society have en- The authors note that livestock and ing feed crops and the forecast that an- tered a critical phase as global popu- poultry production account for nearly other billion tonnes of feed grain will be lation grows in number and income half the value of U.S. agricultural pro- required annually by 2030. Important while availability of land and freshwa- duction, that 45% of U.S. land surface is concerns also arise from the manage- ter for agriculture diminishes. A major used for agricultural activities, and that ment of large volumes of manure and challenge identified by the Food and an estimated 70% of global freshwater from processing wastewater. Agriculture Organization of the United use by humans is for agriculture, includ- Methods of addressing the environ- Nations (FAO) in 2006 was how to dou- ing 38% in the United States. Although mental challenge that were suggested by ble the global production of livestock historical gains in yields of grain and the authors of Livestock’s Long Shadow products during the next few decades livestock products have provided con- included increased efficiency of live- without increasing the environmental sumers with an abundant inexpensive stock production and increased regula- damage caused by livestock production supply of food, food demand is increas- tion and incentives for pollution reduc- and related activities. ing rapidly. For example, global meat tion. In the United States, the amount The authors of this Issue Paper use consumption is predicted to double and of land and feed required to produce a a North American (primarily U.S.) per- overall food consumption to rise by kilogram of animal product has declined spective to examine the livestock, land, 70% by 2050. substantially during the past several and water issues raised by the FAO in a The authors address major wa- decades. United States research, educa- global setting. The authors draw heavily ter use and water quality concerns and tion, policy, and regulation of livestock on published data and literature to look at land use and land degradation concerns production and processing have created current status and trends in physical and that were raised in an FAO publication technological gains, intensification, biological indicators as well as policy titled Livestock’s Long Shadow. Those increased productivity, and decreased

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Grants No. 2010- 38902-20899, No. 2009-38902-20041, No. 2008-38902-19327, and No. 2007-31100-06019/ISU Project No. 413-40-02. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USDA–NIFA or ISU. CAST Issue Paper 50 Task Force Members G. Larry Newton Authors , Department of Engineering, Purdue University, Animal and Dairy Science, Univer- West Lafayette, Indiana sity of Georgia, Tifton John Lory, Department of Plant Kelly D. Zering (Chair) , Depart- John M. Sweeten, Texas AgriLife Sciences, University of Missouri– ment of Agricultural and Resource Research and Extension Center, Texas Columbia Economics, North Carolina State A&M University System, Amarillo University, Raleigh W. F. Owsley, Department of Steven Woodruff, Woodruff & Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Terence J. Centner , Department Howe Environmental Engineering, Auburn, Alabama of Agricultural and Applied Inc., Canton, Georgia Economics, University of Georgia, CAST Liaison Athens Reviewers Deanne Meyer, Extension Special- A. David Scarfe, American Veterinary ist, Department of Animal Science, Jane Frankenberger, Department Medical Association, Schaumburg, University of California–Davis of Agricultural and Biological Illinois

pollution rates. Emerging demands and dant supply of food and protecting the Organization of the United Nations constraints imposed on livestock produc- environment require sustained research, (FAO) report titled Livestock’s Long tion systems can have huge influences development, education, and extension Shadow (LLS) drew attention to envi- as the public looks at the quality of air, programs from universities, government ronmental issues arising from anticipated water, and food. agencies, and the private sector. In this rapid expansion of livestock production. Despite substantial historical techno- paper, the authors outline current chal- The population of the planet is predicted logical and policy achievements reported lenges in agriculture and provide factual to grow from 7 billion to 9.1 billion and in this Issue Paper, the authors identify support for U.S. policymakers and lead- income per capita is predicted to rise by the need for a sustained, integrated re- ers as they invest in continued develop- 150% by 2050 (FAO 2006a). A World search approach to livestock production, ment of technology, management, mar- Bank study predicted that the number manure management, nutrient applica- kets, and policy for livestock production of people in the middle class globally tion, feed crop production, irrigation, and in the context of rapidly growing global will rise by 167% by 2030 (Bussolo, De monitoring and management of soil and demands on resources. Hoyos, and Medvedev 2008). Based on water quality. The authors cite evidence predicted growth in population and in- of declining rates of productivity gains ntroduction come, and based on human propensity to in recent decades. Integrated research, I increase meat, milk, and egg consump- education, and policy will be critical to Livestock production, including tion as income rises, global consump- doubling feed crop and livestock produc- poultry, is an important part of human tion of meat, milk, and eggs is predicted tion while protecting the environment, activity. A primary function of livestock to double by 2050 (FAO 2006a). Annual conserving limited resources, and con- production is to meet human demand consumption of feed grain is predicted straining increases in food prices. for major dietary components, including to grow by one billion tonnes between The experts who compiled this paper high-quality protein, minerals, and vita- 1999/2001 and 2030, and use of con- cover production of beef, dairy, pork, and mins. Livestock constitutes 40% of the centrate feeds will increase faster than poultry, and they provide a look at trends value of global agricultural output and livestock production in developing coun- and new approaches. Some notable ex- more than 50% of that value in devel- tries (FAO 2006a). At current U.S. corn amples of emerging regulatory, non- oped countries (FAO 2006a). Livestock yields, approximately 98 million hect- regulatory, management, and research convert water, plant biomass, and miner- ares (ha) or 2.7 times current U.S. corn approaches are: (1) a focus on policy als into meat, milk, eggs, and other prod- acreage of additional corn production transitions to prevent economic damage ucts. Agriculture is a primary use of land would be required to produce one billion to producers and consumers; (2) environ- and freshwater by humans. Globally, tonnes. mental management programs, including 30% of the land surface is used for agri- The FAO estimate apparently does goal setting, monitoring, and report- culture, including 45% of the land in the not include the required production of ing; (3) the life cycle approach, which United States (FAO 2006a; FAO 2012a; soybeans or other protein sources for provides a comprehensive analysis of USDA–ERS 2007). An estimated 70% animal feed. Consider that a growing hu- effects and a basis for efficient minimiza- of global freshwater use by humans is for man population with an increasing stan- agriculture, including 38% of freshwater tion of these effects; and (4) the systems 1 dard of living will convert agricultural approach, which considers the interde- withdrawals in the United States (FAO land to other uses, will directly consume pendent effects of livestock production 2006a; USGS 2009). more freshwater and energy, will emit decisions on air emissions, water quality, The 2006 Food and Agriculture more pollution, and will demand more public health, the economy, and other 1 The FAO report (FAO 2006a) defines water use environmental protection. In short, how issues. or withdrawals as water removed from a source do people double production of meat, The goals of maintaining an abun- and used for human needs, some of which may be milk, and eggs and increase all food returned to the source.

2 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY production by 70% or more from a di- The purpose of this CAST Issue ing, and feed efficient in comparison to minishing resource base while meeting Paper is to provide a factual overview of global livestock production. The largest ever-greater demands for environmental the relationship between livestock pro- components of the diverse U.S. livestock protection and security of public health? duction and land and water resources in sectors are highly efficient producers of The challenge is enormous. the United States. This paper provides a milk, meat, and eggs for domestic con- The stated intent of LLS was to draw summary of scientific inquiry as well as sumption and export. In contrast to the attention to the need to cut the envi- policy and regulatory aspects of livestock global situation, livestock is no longer ronmental impact of global livestock production and processing as they relate relied on for transportation, draft power, production in half “just to avoid increas- to land and water issues in the United or production of manure for heating fuel ing” the level of environmental damage States. Major points made here include (except recent biogas and poultry lit- as global livestock production doubles that the relationship between livestock ter combustion energy recovery) in the by 2050 (FAO 2006a). The report con- and land and water resources is directly United States. cluded that global livestock production affected by (1) improvements in produc- Cash receipts from the U.S. live- “emerges as one of the top two or three tivity registered through technological stock sectors fell from 48 to 42% of total most significant contributors to the most gains and intensification, (2) improve- farm receipts between 2007 and 2009 as serious environmental problems, at every ments in waste management systems and the price of crops rose sharply (USDA scale from local to global” (FAO 2006a). understanding of pollution processes, 2011). Feed grains for livestock, in- Categories of environmental damage in- and (3) emerging demands on livestock cluding corn used for ethanol and other clude land degradation, climate change production systems to address other industrial uses, constituted another 14.4 and air pollution, water shortage and social goals. Examples of other social (2007) to 17.7% (2009) of U.S. farm water pollution, and loss of biodiversity goals include protection of air quality, cash receipts. Cash receipts from soy- (FAO 2006a). Primary examples of land protection of public health, regulation of bean meal (used primarily for livestock degradation cited are deforestation in the antibiotic use for livestock, protection of feed) are not reported separately, but Amazon and compaction and soil ero- animal welfare, and consumption of lo- soybeans constituted another 8 (2007) to sion because of overgrazing on pasture cally produced foods. 10.6% (2009) of U.S. farm cash receipts. and rangeland, particularly in dry areas. Contrasts are drawn between the sit- United States cash receipts from farming Water erosion of soil is a major form of uation in the United States and the global fell from $288 billion in 2007 to $283 land degradation with particularly large situation described in LLS. Although billion in 2009 and were estimated at effects in Asia and Africa (FAO 2006a). current status in the United States differs $312 billion in 2010 (USDA 2011). Air pollution issues associated with live- markedly from other parts of the world, Livestock production is critical to the stock production are addressed in a sepa- growing global demand will affect U.S. employment, income, and subsistence of rate CAST Issue Paper (CAST 2011). citizens directly through the prices of re- 1.3 billion people, including one billion The livestock sector accounts for sources and food and through domestic of the poorest people on the planet (FAO “over 8% of global human water use, and global environmental effects. This 2006a). Whereas this statement is less mostly for the irrigation of feed crops” paper emphasizes the need for sustained applicable to developed countries, agri- (FAO 2006a). According to LLS, in the research, development, and education to culture—including livestock production United States, 55% of sediment and dramatically increase the productivity of and processing of meat, milk, and eggs— erosion, 37% of pesticide use, 50% of livestock and related systems while de- is an important category of employ- antibiotic use, and a third of the loads creasing resource use and negative envi- ment in rural areas of the United States. of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) into ronmental effects. Animal production directly employed freshwater resources are attributed to 860,800 people in the United States in livestock production. Those claims are omparison of and 2008, representing 41% of total U.S. reviewed in this paper. Although impor- C U.S. employment in agriculture, forestry, and tant on a global scale, issues of biodiver- Global Issues, Status, fishing (USDL–BLS 2010). Dairy prod- uct processing and meat animal slaughter sity are not addressed in this Issue Paper. and rends Previous CAST publications have ad- T and processing are important categories dressed livestock production in relation to Issues related to livestock, land, and of rural manufacturing employment in biodiversity (CAST 1999, 2002, 2009a). water in the United States are compared the United States, directly employing A general conclusion of LLS is that in the following sections to those iden- 127,900 and 490,200 people, respec- “improving the resource use efficiency tified on a global scale (FAO 2006a). tively, in 2010 (USDL–BLS 2011). The of livestock production can reduce en- Status and trends are presented to dem- direct economic effects of livestock pro- vironmental impacts” (FAO 2006a). A onstrate fundamental differences be- duction and processing are multiplied similar conclusion is found for U.S. live- tween global and U.S. issues. when secondary and indirect economic stock production by Bull and colleagues effects are considered. The investment, (2008). Increased “intensification” of U.S. Livestock Production in employment, income, and tax revenue livestock production and increased in- a Global Context that livestock production and processing centives and regulation of global live- provide are critically important to many Livestock production in the United stock production and meat processing rural communities and some states across States is comparable to the LLS charac- activities were proposed to achieve re- the United States (Promar International terization of livestock production in de- source, environmental, and public health 2010). By-products of meat production veloped countries: intensive, high yield- objectives. include tallow and poultry fat. Smaller

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3 but significant components of the U.S. Table 1. U.S. inventory and annual production of livestock and poultry: 1970, 1990, 2008 livestock sectors provide other goods and services such as wool; honey; specialty % of World meat, milk, and eggs; furs; recreation; Year 1970 1990 2008 2008 and companionship. Broilers (young chickens) The inventory of livestock is the number of animals at any point in time. Inventory (billion birds) 0.92 1.33 2.06 11.4% Production is the number of livestock Production (billion birds) 3.24 6.02 9.07 17.7% and/or the weight of livestock, milk, and Production (million tonnes) 3.84 8.67 16.68 21.3% eggs produced during a specific period of time. United States inventory and annual Cattle production of major livestock products Inventory, total (million head) 112.4 95.8 96.7 7.0% are listed in Table 1. Trends and yield characteristics of Production, beef (million head) 39.6 35.3 34.5 11.7% U.S. livestock production are evident in Production, beef (million tonnes) 10.1 10.5 12.2 19.8% Table 1. First, the weight produced and Swine yield (production per animal in inven- tory per year) of meat, milk, and eggs Inventory (million head) 57.05 53.79 65.91 7.0% increased between 1970 and 2008. In Production (million head) 87.05 85.43 112.0 8.5% some instances the number of animals Production (million tonnes) 6.09 6.96 10.46 10.1% in inventory fell (e.g., dairy cows), and in other instances inventory rose (e.g., Turkeys broiler chickens). For each of the spe- Inventory (million head) 116.1 282.4 271.1 47.6% cies listed, U.S. production increased at a greater rate than inventory, indicating Production (million head) 105.5 271.2 260.0 39.2% increased yield. Production (million tonnes) 0.78 2.05 3.38 60.3% A second characteristic of the U.S. livestock sector is high yield in compari- Dairy cows son to the global livestock sector. The Inventory, dairy cows and right column in Table 1 lists 2008 U.S. replacement heifers (million head) 12.00 9.99 9.22 3.7% inventory and production as a percent- Production, milk (million tonnes) 53.1 67.0 86.2 14.9% age of global inventory or production, respectively, based on FAO data. Evident Chicken eggs in that column is that the U.S. share of Inventory, hens kept for egg global production is greater than its share production (million birds) 312.9 270.9 341.9 5.5% of inventory, indicating a greater yield Production, chicken eggs (billion eggs) in the United States than in the global (includes table eggs and broiler eggs) 68.5 68.1 90.2 7.8% sector. Also evident in the right column Production, chicken eggs is the wide range in U.S. share of global (million tonnes) 4.05 4.03 5.34 8.7% production across species: from approxi- mately 9% of eggs and 10% of pig meat Source: FAO 2012b. to 15% of milk, 19 to 21% of beef and chicken meat, and 60% of turkey meat. is a net exporter of feed grains, forage were classified as cropland in 2002 The U.S. livestock and poultry sec- products, and most livestock products (USDA–ERS 2007). Another 237.3 mil- tors supply domestic consumers and (WAOB 2010). Table 3 lists U.S. net ex- lion ha (25.9%) were classified as grass- export markets and are among the few ports and net imports of livestock prod- land, pasture, and range in 2002. The sectors that produced a trade surplus ucts. Dramatic increases in net exports balance of U.S. land area was classified for the United States in 2008. The U.S. of broiler meat and pork are evident be- as forest land (28.8%), special uses (rural Department of Agriculture (USDA) re- tween 1990 and 2006. parks and wildlife areas, roads, etc., ports domestic consumption of meat, The focus of the next section shifts 13.1%), urban (2.6%), and other (10%). milk, and eggs as per capita disappear- to the effects of the livestock sectors on Direct land use for animal production is ance;2 this consumption (shown in Table land and water resources in the United very small with the exception of cattle 2) includes pet food consumed by com- States. grazing on rangelands that have little panion animals. United States broiler alternative commercial use other than meat consumption nearly tripled between U.S. Land Use and Land wildlife habitat. 1970 and 2008, whereas consumption Degradation Associated with The United States occupied 7% of of beef and, to a lesser extent, pork fell the world’s land area, including 8.4% on a per capita basis. The United States Livestock Production in a of the global agricultural area, in 2008 Global Context (FAO 2012c). Within the category of ag- ricultural land, the United States occu- 2 There are 916.2 million ha of land Italicized terms (except genus/species names, pied 12.35% of arable land (suitable for published material titles, and legal case names) are in the 50 states of the United States. defined in the Glossary. Approximately 178.7 million ha (19.5%) producing crops) and 7.1% of permanent

4 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Table 2. U.S. consumption of meat, milk, and eggs (per capita disappearance)a,b Land is also used by livestock opera- tions to receive manure. In 2006, manure 1970 2008 was applied as a fertilizer to 6.3 million Commodity (kilograms [kg]/year [yr]/capita) (kg/yr/capita) ha, which is equivalent to less than 5% of Broiler chicken 16.7 44.1 U.S. planted acres (USDA–ERS 2009). The total included 3.6 million ha of corn Beef 51.9 40.7 and 1.66 million ha of hay and grasses. Pork 33.1 28.9 The United Nations Environmental Turkey 3.7 8.0 Program definition of land degradation describes a loss of resource potential be- Milk 255.8 287.6 cause of processes including soil erosion; Eggs 309 eggs/yr/capita 249 eggs/yr/capita deterioration of the physical, chemical, a biological, and economic characteristics Source: USDA–Economic Research Service (ERS) Livestock Dairy and Poultry historical data of the soil; and long-term loss of natural tables (USDA–ERS 2008). b vegetation (FAO 2006a). Specific forms Carcass weight as opposed to retail weight or boneless retail weight. of land degradation include water ero- sion of soils; desertification including Table 3. U.S. net exports and net imports of livestock productsa,b loss of vegetative cover; and yield reduc- tion because of several factors, including c 1990 2006 soil compaction on cropland. Dregne and Product Net Exports (tonnes) Chou (1994) are cited in LLS stating that Chicken meat 453,600 1,814,000 (10.9%)c 74% of dry lands in North America and 70% globally are degraded. Eswaran, Pork products 18,140 907,200 (8.7%) Lal, and Reich (2001) identified confu- Eggs/Egg products 19,050 49,900 (0.9%) sion over definitions of land degradation and lack of a demonstrated link between Turkey meat 27,220 63,500 (1.9%) measures of land degradation and ob- Net Imports (tonnes) served soil productivity as being among Milk equivalent dairy products 337,500 116,100 (0.1%) the obstacles to effective policy. The evolution of U.S. programs for soil con- Cattle meat and productsd 528,900 586,900 (4.8%) servation and control of land degradation aSource: FAO 2012a. since 1930 was not discussed in LLS. bThese quantities do not include offals, skins and hides, or fat products (except butter). Deforestation is a major issue related to cNumbers in parentheses in 2006 are percentages of U.S. production. livestock production globally, particu- dBoneless beef imports were equivalent to 85 to 110% of this trade deficit (FAO 2012a). larly in South America (FAO 2006a). In contrast, the area of U.S. land in forest increased by 6.88 million ha between meadows and pastures. The United 35.0 million ha were planted with corn in 1987 and 2002 (USDA–ERS 2006) de- States includes 7.5% of the global for- 2009, of which 32.2 million ha were har- spite a dramatic increase in U.S. live- est area, 4.9% of “other” land, and 15% vested for grain and 2.3 million ha were stock production during that period. of the global inland water area, and it is harvested for silage. Sorghum was har- home to less than 5% of the global hu- vested from 2.3 million ha, 96% as grain. U.S. Water Use Issues man population. Oats were planted on 1.4 million ha, with More than 70% of U.S. grassland, 40% harvested as grain. Approximately Associated with Livestock pasture, and range acreage is located in 36% of the U.S. corn supply was used Production in a Global Context the mountain states (Arizona, Colorado, for domestic “feed and residual” and al- An estimated 70% of global fresh- Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, most 40% was used for ethanol as well water use by humans is for agricul- Utah, Wyoming) and southern plains as food, seed, and industrial uses in 2009 ture (FAO 2006a). The livestock sector (Oklahoma, Texas) (USDA–ERS 2007). (WAOB 2010). Approximately 30% of accounts for “over 8% of global hu- Together those regions have approxi- the mass of corn used for ethanol is re- man water use, mostly for the irriga- mately 33% of the U.S. inventory of cat- turned as distillers grain, a residual fed to tion of feed crops,” according to LLS. tle (both on feed and not on concentrated livestock. United States withdrawals of water for feed), so it is clear that stocking rates are In 2009, 31.3 million ha were plant- all purposes were estimated at 1.552 relatively low on the extensive pasture ed with soybeans in the United States, of trillion liters per day in 2005 (USGS and rangelands in those states (USDA– which 30.9 were harvested. Soybeans are 2009). Eighty-five percent of the to- NASS 2011a). crushed, and the oil is extracted for food tal was freshwater. Surface water was A primary use of cropland for animal use. Almost 50% of U.S. soybeans were the source for 80% of all withdrawals. agriculture is to produce grain for dietary crushed domestically and 72% of U.S. Approximately 49% of U.S. withdrawals energy, oilseed meal for protein, and soybean meal supply was fed domesti- was for thermoelectric power generation. hay for ruminants (cattle). The USDA– cally to livestock in 2009 (WAOB 2010). Irrigation accounted for 37% of estimat- National Agricultural Statistics Service Hay was harvested on 24.2 million ha in ed freshwater withdrawals in 2005. An (USDA–NASS 1960–2010) reported 2009. estimated 85% of irrigation withdrawals

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5 was in the 17 western conterminous of intensive animal production and ir- Inspection Service (USDA–FSIS), the states in 2005 (USGS 2009). rigation was provided by Weinheimer Food and Drug Administration, and/or Based on U.S. Geological Survey and colleagues (2007). Water use esti- state food safety/quality inspectors with (USGS) estimates made every five mated for livestock production on the regulatory jurisdiction over these facili- years since 1950, total withdrawals de- Texas High Plains was less than 2% of ties. Changes in federal and state food clined since peaking in 1975 and 1980. total water use in 2000 and is expected safety regulations and/or variations in Withdrawals for irrigation have declined to grow to 2.45% in 2030 and 3.17% in interpretations by local plant inspectors steadily since that time, even though ir- 2060, because of increased confined live- have resulted in significant increases in rigated acreage has increased. Irrigation stock production (+100%) and shrinking water usage in meat, table egg, and milk practices have been adopted to improve irrigation withdrawals due to improved products processing plants. For exam- distribution uniformity and efficiency irrigation water use efficiency or ground- ple, after implementation of the USDA– with a net benefit of less water needed water depletion, even as municipal/in- FSIS’s Hazard Analysis and Critical per unit of crop farmed. Withdrawals for dustrial water use increases. Control Point rule, water use in the poul- domestic and public water supply have In addition to water quantity, water try processing industry increased by an increased steadily, reflecting growth in quality is a U.S. and global issue for estimated 3.8 to 7.6 liters per chicken population and in per capita use. livestock production. Livestock health processed, or an increase of approxi- Livestock farms use water for many problems or below-normal consumption mately 31% (Russell 2003). purposes including may result from substandard quality wa- The sources of water used in meat, • livestock consumption; ter (Weinheimer et al. 2007). Ingestion table egg, and milk products processing of mineral or organic contaminants can facilities include groundwater and sur- • animal comfort through cooling of cause poor performance or nonspecific face water withdrawal and treatment sys- animals and barns; disease conditions. The most common tems as well as municipal water provid- • cooling milk; water quality problems affecting live- ers. The supply water quality for meat, milk, and table egg processing plants • sanitation operations, including stock production include excess salinity must meet applicable standards under the animal hygiene and washdown of and high concentration of minerals, mea- Safe Drinking Water Act, USDA–FSIS facilities; and sured as total dissolved solids (TDSs); high nitrates or nitrites; bacterial contam- sanitation regulations, and/or applicable • collection and transport of wastes. ination; blue-green algae; or accidental state regulations and laws. Intensive cattle feeding facilities may spills of petroleum, pesticides, or fertil- Table 4 provides information on wa- use water for dust control, frost/freeze izers into the water supply. Although the ter usage rates for various meat and table protection, or feed processing. Estimated importance of nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, and egg processing facilities. Water usage U.S. water withdrawal for livestock farm TDSs as factors influencing water quality factors and livestock product processing uses in 2005 was 8,101 million liters for livestock has been recognized, ma- facility production rates for 2000 were per day (USGS 2009). Livestock water jor livestock health problems associated used to estimate the annual volume of withdrawals for all categories were es- with water quality are seldom reported water used by meat and table egg pro- timated at less than 1% (0.61%) of total except in site-specific instances. Water cessing plants. Water usage associated freshwater withdrawals in 2005. Water may serve as a carrier to spread disease with dairy operations is accounted for in withdrawals related to animal agriculture and potentially affect acceptability or the livestock production water usage in- include three categories: the production safety of animal products for human con- formation discussed earlier. operation itself; meat, milk, and egg pro- sumption if pathogens are present and Based on this analysis, the estimat- cessing facilities; and irrigation of crops zoonotic organisms are viable in large ed annual water usage in the meat and used for feed. enough numbers. table egg processing industries account- Water use data for the southeastern Significant quantities of water are ed for less than 0.1% of the total annual United States presented by Newton and used in meat, table egg, and milk prod- freshwater withdrawals in 2005 (USGS colleagues (2003), for example, report- ucts processing operations. Water is used 2009). Other ancillary facilities also use ed that animal agriculture in that area, for washing products; hair and feather water (e.g., broiler hatcheries, feed mills, although a significant water user when removal operations; cleaning and sani- by-products rendering plants, meat fur- compared to urban and suburban use, tizing equipment and facilities; product ther processing plants, etc.); however, was likely not responsible for recent cooling; transport of by-products and water usage in these operations is typi- water shortages. Groundwater was the wastes to by-products recovery systems cally minor compared to water usage in primary source (60%) of the water used and/or wastewater treatment units; and the slaughter plants. There is minimal in livestock operations in 2005 (USGS cooling of mechanical equipment such loss of water across typical meat and 2009). Surface water and, in some in- as compressors, refrigeration units, and egg processing plants, and a majority stances, a municipal water provider or ir- pumps. Adequate water use in meat, egg, of the water used in these operations is rigation district are other sources for live- and milk products processing operations treated and returned to the environment. stock operations. Only minor increases is required to ensure elimination/reduc- Extension and management efforts have in water withdrawals for livestock uses tion of foodborne pathogens and other resulted in many meat and egg process- were reported by U.S. states included in contaminants. ing plants using various treatment sys- both USGS water use studies conducted Water use in meat, table egg, and tems to allow significant reuse of water. in 1995 and 2000 (USGS 2004). milk products processing plants is Irrigation of feed crops was identi- An example of water use in an area controlled by the USDA Food Safety fied by LLS as the primary use of water

6 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Table 4. Estimated annual water use at meat and table egg processing plants

Water Use Range Average/Mean Value Annual Production Tonnes Estimated Annual Water Used in Livestock Type (liters per unit)a,b (liters per unit)a,b LWK or 30 Dozen Cases of Eggsc Processing Operations (Billion liters)d Cattle 3,630–12,518 7,386 20,041,579 148 Calves 3,630–12,518 7,386 162,184 1.2 Hogs 2,028–5,116 3,856 11,643,574 45 Broilers - 10,757 19,128,085 205.8 Turkeys - 5,291 3,112,183 16.5 Table eggs < 2–>7 2.8 198,458,333 0.6 Total 417 LWK—live weight killed aSources: USEPA 2002. For table eggs: Jones and Northcutt 2005; Northcutt, Musgrove, and Jones 2005. Some values are based on wastewater flows but are similar to water usage, as only minor losses of water occur across typical meat and poultry processing plants. bUnits: liters per tonne live weight killed (LWK); for table eggs, liters per 30 dozen case. cSource: USDA–NASS 2008. dDoes not include water usage in meat further processing operations. for livestock production. Irrigated agri- produces a rough estimate of approxi- U.S. Water Pollution Issues culture accounts for 40% of crop pro- mately 9% of U.S. freshwater withdraw- duction and 60% of cereal production als used to produce feed for U.S. live- Associated with Livestock in developing countries (FAO 2006a). stock and poultry. This estimate is biased Production in a Global Context Water is essential for the growth of upward to the extent that feed crops use Water pollution issues associated plants. Rainfall and soil moisture are the less irrigation water per ha than the aver- with livestock and poultry production only sources of water for most agricul- age of all irrigated crops. have been prominent in the United States tural land in the United States. Irrigated Gollehon and Quinby (2006) point during the past few decades. Importance acreage has increased from 10.48 million out that irrigation water use is an eco- of the issues is reflected in revisions of ha in 1949 to 22.78 million ha in 1997 nomic decision that is affected by costs state and federal water pollution regula- and 22.5 million ha in 2002 (Gollehon of water, energy, labor, and irrigation tions pertaining to livestock and poultry, and Quinby 2006). Irrigated area was equipment, as well as the price of crops. in court cases, and in sustained research equivalent to 13% of U.S. cropland in Restrictions on supply because of factors and extension efforts. Water pollution 2002. The U.S. average annual applica- such as source depletion and weather, as issues are inextricably linked to air pol- tion rates of irrigation water declined well as regulatory terms and conditions, lution issues related to livestock and from 0.63 meters (m) in 1969 to 0.51 m affect irrigation water use. CAST Issue poultry (NRC 2003; Rice, Caldwell, and in 2002 (Gollehon and Quinby 2006). Paper 44 (CAST 2009b) provides an in- Humenik 2006; USGAO 2008) in that Gollehon and Quinby (2006) reported depth exposition of water use and related any change to livestock production sys- that 3.93 million ha of corn for grain, issues in the United States. A point made tems may impact both emissions that af- 2.21 million ha of soybeans, and 2.76 in that paper is that growing U.S. popula- fect air and those that affect water. Water million ha of alfalfa hay were irrigated tion and faster-growing global demand pollution issues related to livestock and in 2002. As a percentage of total irri- for food, fiber, and other resource-based poultry are also inextricably linked to gated ha in the United States in 2002, goods and services will place steadily broader watershed-scale pollution control corn grain was 18%, soybeans 10%, and increasing demands on limited freshwa- issues as reflected in total maximum daily alfalfa hay 12%. The irrigated acreage ter resources with acute pressure in some load (TMDL) programs in the United represented approximately 12% of total regions. Water (both irrigated and rain- States. corn acreage, 7% of soybean acreage, fall) may become a limiting factor to in- United States water quality concerns and 28% of alfalfa acreage. creased cereal production in major grain- associated with animal feeding operations A rough estimate of the fraction of producing and exporting areas such as include U.S. irrigation water used for U.S. live- the U.S. Midwest, central China, and an • nutrient enrichment, stock production can be obtained by area of South America (FAO 2006a). summing across crops, the products of In summary, U.S. freshwater with- • oxygen depletion from excess organic share of irrigated acres and share of crop drawals for livestock production and matter, used for U.S. livestock production. That processing are less than 1% of total • turbidity, calculation suggests that approximately withdrawals. Freshwater withdrawals for • pathogens, and 24% of irrigated acreage is used to feed irrigation of crops fed to U.S. livestock U.S. livestock and poultry. Multiplying and poultry are roughly estimated at ap- • pharmacologically active compounds 24% of irrigated acres by 37% of U.S. proximately 9% of total U.S. freshwater (PACs) (Sweeten et al. 2007). freshwater withdrawals for irrigation withdrawals. Constituents in animal manures that may

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7 be detrimental if allowed to discharge to Resources Inventory (NRI) com- FAO data for 2001 (FAO 2006b), LLS surface water include piled by the USDA–Natural Resources attributes 51% of N losses and 52% of P • nutrients, Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS losses from U.S. cropland and 100% of N 2010). The 12.5 tonne/ha average used and P losses from U.S. pasture and range- • organic matter, by LLS is close to the 1992 number listed lands to livestock production. The report • TDSs, by the USDA. The average soil erosion concludes that 33% of N and P loadings to surface water in the United States is at- • pathogens, and rate from U.S. cropland declined steadily from 1982 through 1997 and was listed as tributable to livestock, based on assump- • other potential contaminants (trace 10.75 tonnes/ha in 2007. The NRI report tions that 25% of N applied to fields as elements, PACs, pesticides, and endo- emphasizes that soil erosion rates vary fertilizer and 12% of P applied to fields is crine disruptors) (USEPA 2003). widely by region. Two important aspects lost to surface water. The assumed rates Manure, mortality, wash water, and air- of the NRI assessment are the distinction of transport to water in LLS are attrib- borne emissions from animal operations, between “highly erodible land” and “not uted to Galloway and colleagues (2004) as well as wastes from processing opera- highly erodible land” and the distinction and Carpenter and colleagues (1998). tions, contain the potential pollutants. between land eroding at “above soil loss Carpenter and colleagues (1998) state The pollutants may reach groundwater or tolerable rates” and land eroding at lower that fertilizer N and P losses in runoff are surface water by leaching into the soil or rates. Tolerable rates are defined as those generally less than 5% of the amount ap- surface runoff from animal feeding areas, at which crop productive capacity of the plied and slightly higher for manure N waste storage facilities, and fields receiv- land is not decreased. and P. They also cite Howarth and col- ing waste; inflow into faulty wellheads; A notable trend in the NRI data is leagues (1996) in assuming that total N spills; or deposition from air. that the amount of U.S. cropland eroding and P losses to water, including leach- Globally, LLS states that the live- at above soil loss tolerable rates fell by ing and atmospheric deposition, are 10 to stock sector is “probably the largest sec- 27.6 million ha between 1982 and 2007 40% of the amounts applied on loam and toral source of water pollution.” In the (USDA–NRCS 2010). The NRI report clay soils and 25 to 80% of the amounts United States, LLS estimates livestock is states that 28% of U.S. cropland was applied on sandy soils. responsible for 55% of sediment and ero- eroding at rates above soil loss tolerable Howarth and colleagues (1996) ap- sion, 37% of pesticide use, 50% of antibi- rates in 2007, down from 40% in 1982 plied regression analysis to riverine flux otic use, and a third of the loads of N and (USDA–NRCS 2010). The NRI report estimates for N and P compared to esti- P into freshwater resources. The follow- does not discuss rangeland or grassland mates of human-caused N and P loadings ing section reviews these claims in light other than cropland. Blanco-Canqui in river basins. They state that total esti- of details of LLS and other scientific and and Lal (2008) provide thorough cover- mated N fluxes from rivers are 25% of data sources. age of soil erosion in the United States their estimates of human-caused N load- Livestock’s Long Shadow attributes and around the world. They note that the ings in river basins. They also report a 55% of soil erosion from agricultural United States has the least soil erosion correlation coefficient of 0.1 for changes land in the United States to livestock problem among regions of the world and in estimated riverine N flux per change in production by attributing all pastureland that the most serious problems exist in estimated agricultural and food N load- to the livestock industry and multiplying less developed and densely populated ings in river basins. Additionally, LLS by 2 tonnes/ha/yr, attributing 51 million regions. They identify overgrazing and predicted that losses from cropland make ha of cropland to the livestock industry deforestation as major causes. up 60% of N losses attributed to live- and multiplying by 12.5 tonnes/ha/yr, The marginal contribution of live- stock. These numbers are presented in the and then dividing by an estimate of the stock production to surface water sedi- context of rapidly increasing fertilizer use total erosion from cropland in the United ment pollution either from pasture and and rapidly increasing production of feed States plus the calculated erosion from rangelands or from cropland is not identi- and livestock in Asia and other parts of pastureland. The report also attributes fied by LLS. All erosion from land used the world. As stated by LLS, use of min- 40% of erosion from cropland to the live- in relation to livestock production is eral fertilizers has decreased substantially stock sector and estimates that feed crop simply attributed to livestock and 40% is since 1991 in developed countries and, in production uses 7% of agricultural land in assumed to be transported to water. No North America, N fertilizer use increased the United States. Approximately 40% of estimate is provided regarding whether by 2% and P fertilizer use decreased by the eroded mass, according to LLS, will or not sediment pollution would be de- 20% between 1980 and 2000. end up in water resources without spe- creased if livestock production was low- Thirty-seven percent of U.S. pesticide cific reference. The report cites Uri and ered or, if so, by what proportion. use for agriculture and associated water Lewis (1998) in stating that 90% of U.S. Pollution of surface water with N pollution is attributed to livestock produc- cropland is losing soil at a rate greater compounds (nitrate in particular) and P tion by LLS. The report cites USDA– than it is regenerating soil and that agri- has been and continues to be an important NASS (2001) and USDA–ERS (2002), culture is the leading cause of impairment issue in the United States. Eutrophication stating that 3 tonnes of pesticides were of water resources by sediments. The re- and hypoxia caused in part by nutrients applied per 1,000 ha of corn plus 1 tonne port cites USDA–NASS (2001), which is from crop production have altered major per 1,000 ha of soybeans in 2001, repre- Agricultural Chemical Use, and the FAO rivers and coastal waters, including the senting 37% of total agricultural use of 2006 database as sources (FAO 2006a). Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico herbicides and insecticides, which in turn The primary source for soil erosion (Turner and Rabalais 2003). Citing is 70 to 80% (USDA–NASS 2001) of data in the United States is the National Carpenter and colleagues (1998) and the United States’ use of pesticides. The

8 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 37% figure was down from 47% in 1991 tions of livestock and poultry production lished and nutrient trading programs may (FAO 2006a). The FAO estimate includes in some regions and the associated con- be established to reallocate discharge all U.S. corn and soybean production, of centration of manure to be land applied rights within a watershed (Stephenson which less than half is used to support (USDA–ERS 2001). Livestock produc- and Shabman 2011). U.S. livestock production. tion has been concentrating into fewer The comparison or substitution of PS The nontherapeutic use of antibiot- and larger farms, and the farms have con- and NPS discharges in affecting water ics in livestock production is another is- centrated in regions close to feed mills quality is challenging. Sweeping assump- sue associated with livestock and water. and processing facilities. Increased spe- tions were made by LLS about what frac- Public health experts have advocated cialization of livestock and poultry farms tion of nutrients in fertilizer applied to decreased nontherapeutic use of antibi- also contributes to fewer farms owning cropland or manure deposited on pasture otics in livestock production to limit an- sufficient crop acreage to receive the (both NPSs) would reach surface water. tibiotic resistance (Becker 2010). A few manure produced, so manure transport is True PS discharges are easily measured studies suggest that water contaminated required. United States issues related to for nutrient/pollutant content at the outfall with animal manure could contribute to manure management also include risk of into the stream. The substitution of a pre- antibiotic resistance (Sapkota et al. 2007). environmental damage because of spills dicted effect of NPS changes for a known Legislators have introduced bills in the from manure storage facilities. effect of PS changes has been a challenge U.S. Congress for the phased elimination Osterberg and Wallinga (2004) are for basinwide nutrient trading programs. of nontherapeutic use of some antibiot- cited by LLS as an example of the fre- Modeling PS and NPS effects on water ics used as animal growth promoters quency of manure spills. Liquid or slurry quality has been the focus of a major re- (Centner 2008a). Comparative studies in forms of manure are more prone to spills search effort in the United States (Munoz- Europe analyzing resistant-bacteria levels than dry forms of manure, although Carpena et al. 2006). Considerable chal- after a ban of animal antibiotics show a flooding can result in stored dry manure lenges remain regarding quantification significant decline in resistance (Emborg entering surface water as well. Storage of the contribution of specific NPSs to et al. 2003). Other studies find increased of manure for up to six months or a year surface water pollution and, therefore, the prevalence of pathogens in herds not treat- is necessary because best management benefit of various conservation measures ed with antibiotics (Gebreyes et al. 2008). practices (BMPs) include that manure at those sources (SWCS 2006; Tomer and Scientists continue to study whether or not may only be applied to cropland be- Locke 2011). this use of antibiotics may contribute to fore crop planting or immediately after antibiotic resistance and whether or not it harvest or applied to land used for hay is a net benefit to human health. only while the crop is growing and when U.S. Approaches to Water pollution from livestock ma- weather and soil conditions present mini- Addressing Issues nure is an important issue in the United mum risk of runoff. This is in stark con- The preceding sections described sta- States and globally. Estimations by LLS trast to most large municipal waste treat- tus and trends in the poultry and livestock are that in the United States in 1995, ap- ment plants that discharge treated water sectors and related land and water issues proximately 12% of the N applied to continuously into streams and have only in the United States with comparisons to cropland and 100% of the N applied to a few days of emergency storage capac- the global situation. Issues presented in pastureland came from manure, for a to- ity. In contrast to general concerns arising preceding sections relate to livestock and tal of 22% of the estimated N applied to from regional concentrations of live- poultry use of land and water, land degra- agricultural land. The report did not pro- stock and poultry and reports of manure dation, and water pollution. The follow- vide a similar analysis for P. The report spills, actual effects of livestock manure ing sections present U.S. approaches to states that the use of manure as a fertil- on water quality may vary widely across the issues raised. izer should be encouraged in that mineral specific watersheds with differing topog- Numerous strategies for decreased fertilizers are replaced and manure N is in raphy, soils, land use and land cover, and water use, mitigation and prevention of an organic form that releases nitrate to the climate. Therefore, an important research water pollution, decreased land degrada- plant through time, potentially decreas- focus is pollutant movement through tion, and more efficient use of land are ing N losses. The report also stresses the varying terrain such as karst structures suggested in LLS. These strategy sugges- need for careful management of manure (Hakk et al. 2009). tions include to limit pollution in the form of N, P, met- United States water pollution issues als such as copper and zinc, pathogens, related to livestock production are com- • improving irrigation efficiency; organic material related to biochemical ponents of broader water quality issues • increasing water productivity; oxygen demand (BOD), and compounds defined for various watersheds. Examples • improving waste management; that affect endocrine systems. The ef- include the issue of hypoxia in the Gulf fects of manure on the environment and of Mexico (USEPA 2011a) and ongo- • better diet formulation; methods of managing manure to mini- ing efforts to decrease pollution in the • use of enzymes; Chesapeake Bay. The watershed-wide mize environmental effects have been • improved manure collection, storage, effort to lower nutrient concentrations in major focuses of research and education treatment, and utilization; in the United States (LPELC 2011; Rice, surface water focuses attention on both Caldwell, and Humenik 2006). point sources (PSs) and nonpoint sources • improved land management; United States water pollution issues (NPSs) of pollutants. Programs to de- • adapted grazing systems; related to livestock and poultry include crease pollutant loading include TMDL, • range improvement; concerns arising from the high concentra- in which a cap on total loading is estab-

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9 • improved timing of grazing period; public lands in western states has drawn Whereas the laws may adversely affect • improved livestock distribution; and considerable attention (Donahue 2005). property rights of nearby property own- Congress first regulated these lands un- ers, legislatures felt this was needed to • use of conservation buffers (FAO der the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, and support agricultural land uses and busi- 2006a). subsequent legislation has attempted to ness activities important to their econo- Food and Agriculture Organization refer- balance and reconcile competing inter- mies. A few legislatures have enacted ences for these strategies are primarily ests. Less than 3% of U.S. beef producers right-to-farm provisions against future U.S. sources, including LPES (2005) and (2,000 ranchers) make use of the public nuisances. The denigration of neighbor- Mosley and colleagues (1997). lands (Nicoll 2006). Firms desiring to ex- ing property rights proffered by one of The U.S. approach to addressing the tract minerals and oil and gas pose addi- these provisions may be so great that land and water issues related to livestock tional perceived threats to the ecology of it operates to effect a regulatory taking production is an integration of issue- these lands (VanAsselt and Layke 2006). (Bormann v. Board of Supervisors 1998; driven research; education and outreach; Controversy about the management of Centner 2006). Clear allocation of prop- establishment of BMPs and professional these lands for recreational, environmen- erty rights and responsibilities for land standards; and policy development that tal, and commercial uses has challenged use has been an important characteristic includes expert support, financial incen- policymakers. Ranchers have sought to of the development of agriculture and tives for change, and performance-based maintain low grazing fees to allow them environmental protection in the United regulation. The outcomes of this ap- to continue commercial grazing on those States. proach generally have been steady in- lands (CAST 1996). Others argue that Past and projected losses of agricul- creases in productivity of the livestock regulatory provisions often favor graz- tural land in the United States have been (and feed crops) sectors, correspond- ing at the expense of alternative public addressed by various programs and laws ing reductions in resource use per unit benefits from rangeland restoration, water with mixed results. State governments at- of livestock and poultry product, and quality improvement, biological diversity, tempted to support continued agricultural steady reductions in pollutants generated and/or habitat protection (Feller 2004). production through preferential agricultur- as issues are identified and addressed. Environmental and recreational inter- al assessment laws and other techniques Specific aspects of the U.S. approach and est groups continue to challenge federal (Kline and Wichelns 1996; Lockeretz resulting outcomes are presented in the regulatory action as being contrary to 1989). Preferential agricultural assessment following sections. statutory mandates (Blancett v. U.S. BLM relies on governmental direction to value 2006; Oregon v. BLM 2005). farmland at its (lower) use value rather U.S. Approaches to Land Well-managed grazing can serve an than fair market value for the purposes of important function in sustaining range- ad valorem taxation. Preferential assess- Use and Prevention of Land lands by controlling invasive species such ment laws may simply slow the rate of Degradation as musk thistle, cheatgrass, broomweed, farmland loss rather than provide per- United States approaches to land juniper, and mesquite (CAST 1996). manent retention of land as undeveloped use and prevention of land degradation Ongoing research at state universities and open space. Other laws use conserva- have emphasized the aforementioned government agencies and establishment tion easements, but lack of public access integration of research, education and of grazing BMPs supported by govern- to protected lands may decrease public outreach, BMPs, policy development, ment-employed extension educators amenities (Johnston and Duke 2007). and regulation. A variety of approach- contribute to improved productive use of Agricultural conservation pensions and es have been applied across the diverse rangelands, land conservation, and provi- rights of first refusal have been proposed types of agricultural land in the United sion of ecological services (CAST 1996, as more appropriate techniques to pre- States. Rangeland in the western United 2002; Mosley et al. 1997; Skaggs 2008). serve farmland (Duke and Lynch 2007). States constitutes more than 40% of Use of other agricultural land for Use of cropland is not heavily regu- U.S. agricultural land (calculated from livestock production may be less man- lated, but farmers are responsible for ef- USDA–ERS 2007). The U.S. govern- aged directly by the U.S. government, al- fects of some of their actions on neigh- ment owns approximately 50% of the though state governments impose site re- boring property. Although cropland land area in the 11 western conterminous quirements for larger livestock operations management is not the focus of this pa- states (plus 66% of Alaska) (U.S. Census (IDNR n.d.). Use of land for livestock per, it is important to note that sustained Bureau 2005), including 106 million ha production is also affected by nuisance research, education, extension, and policy of rangeland in the eleven western con- law and right-to-farm laws imposed by development have resulted in the dra- terminous states (CAST 1996; Skaggs state and local governments. Right-to- matic reductions in soil erosion discussed 2008). Skaggs (2008) cites estimates that farm laws, also known as anti-nuisance earlier (USDA–NRCS 2010), whereas nearly half of U.S. rangeland is owned by legislation, have been enacted by all crop yields have increased dramatically either the United States or state or local states and nine Canadian provinces to (USDA–NASS 2011b). governments. help agricultural producers and in many In contrast to most U.S. agricul- cases other deserving property owners U.S. Approaches to Water ture, governments have a direct role in (Kalmakoff 1999). The laws support the Use and Protection of Water management of vast areas of rangelands retention of farmland by precluding nui- Quality in Relation to Livestock through ownership and the issuance of sance lawsuits against those agricultural leases for grazing and other uses (CAST property uses in existence before new Production 1996; Skaggs 2008). Management of nearby land uses (Centner 2000, 2005). Water use is regulated to varying

10 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY degrees by states and water districts in the in exchange for payments. In 2011, 10.48 through the USDA–National Institute of United States. Although direct use of wa- million ha were enrolled in the CRP Food and Agriculture (USDA–NIFA3). ter for livestock and poultry production (USDA–FSA 2011). A critical realization Examples of research and extension top- and processing represents less than one underlying the success of the CRP was ics include percent of U.S. freshwater withdrawals that a very high proportion of erosion was • design of animal housing facilities (USGS 2009; calculations described pre- occurring on a small proportion of land. to simplify capture and removal of viously), any use of water is contentious The United States’ approaches to manure; in some locations at some points in time decreasing water pollution from manure (Newton et al. 2003). Water use has long management and pasture management • design of manure storage and manure been an issue in the arid western United include the previously described integrat- treatment facilities to limit pollution States and is an ongoing issue for the ed approach with a substantial regulatory and nuisance; livestock sector (Weinheimer et al. 2007). component. Modifications to the Clean • design and operation of land applica- Access rights and cost of extraction (well Water Act in 1972 established effluent tion systems for manure and treatment construction and pumping) may limit the limitations for numerous industries, in- effluents to enhance plant production use of groundwater from diminishing cluding concentrated animal feeding op- and limit pollution; and resources such as the Ogalalla aquifer. erations (CAFOs), to protect the chemi- • management of livestock on pastures Competing demands from a growing cal, physical, and biological integrity of to limit pollution, conserve pasture human population are likely to further surface waters within the country. United plant and soil health, and enhance decrease surface water availability for States and state regulatory, research, ex- livestock production (Bull et al. 2008; agriculture from resources such as the tension, and educational programs were Mosley et al. 1997; Rice, Caldwell, Colorado River (CAST 2009b). Water developed and continue to be improved and Humenik 2006). supply issues may become acute for ir- to minimize discharges of pollutants from rigated agriculture in some parts of the livestock operations to surface waters. Resulting BMPs and professional stan- western states and are emerging in areas The United States uses a federal permit- dards are maintained by the USDA– of rapidly growing human population in ting system, with delegation of authority NRCS (USDA–NRCS 2011), state the eastern states. Sustained research and to states, to safeguard water resources. extension services, and professional orga- extension programs have contributed to Legal challenges to the Environmental nizations such as the ASABE. more efficient use of water in livestock Protection Agency (EPA) and state gov- Research and extension work on pol- and poultry operations and in irrigated ernments have resulted in orders to take lution prevention is inextricably linked agriculture (Gollehon and Quinby 2006). additional action to decrease pollution to research and extension programs on The United States’ approaches to de- and have struck down terms of proposed livestock and poultry production. For creasing water pollution associated with rules in some instances. example, recent work has enabled the ad- livestock and poultry production pri- The discharge of wastewater and wa- dition of the enzyme phytase to the feed marily focus on management of manure terborne pollutants from processing and of monogastric animals (poultry and pigs) and land application. Cropland used to from large CAFOs is governed by regula- to allow them to use the P contained in produce livestock feed was the larg- tions promulgated under the Clean Water grain as phytate (Angel et al. 2006). This est source of some pollutants associated Act (USC 2008; USCFR 2008; USEPA innovation has decreased the quantity with livestock production (N, P, pesti- 2008). The act adopts the basic rule that of supplemental P required in the ani- cides, sediments), as estimated by LLS. unpermitted discharges of pollutants into mals’ diets, decreased the amount of P The report stated that U.S. use of N and navigable waters are not allowed. A per- excreted by the animals, and increased P fertilizer and the use of pesticides have mitting system authorizes discharges of the proportion of soluble P in the ex- been declining and that soil erosion has limited amounts of pollutants from PSs creta. Complementary work evaluated declined dramatically. Improved efficien- under the National Pollutant Discharge the effects on P loss from fields of the cy of input use and soil conservation have Elimination System (NPDES) program. increased proportion of soluble P (Penn et occurred as yields increased dramatically Under this program, most states have the al. 2004). because of a range of successful research authority to issue NPDES permits. For A large body of work supports BMPs and extension programs, both public and livestock and poultry farms not defined in land application of manure (Bull et al. private. Among the innovations are genet- as CAFOs, PS regulations require adop- 2008; Mosley et al. 1997; Rice, Caldwell, ic improvement of the crops, development tion of BMPs to qualify for storm water and Humenik 2006). Criteria for land of more effective and less toxic pesticides, exemptions. application evolve as pollution concerns no-tillage and low-tillage cropping sys- Best management practices are gen- change through time. A long-standing tems, and precision agriculture. erally based on research and extension criterion limits manure application rates The conservation compliance provi- program experience and on related stan- to meet the N needs of the growing crops sions of the Food Security Act of 1985 dards published by the USDA–NRCS with plant available N. Concern over P were instrumental in decreasing erosion. and the American Society of Agricultural in surface water led to the more recent One way was through the establishment and Biological Engineers (ASABE). criterion of limiting P accumulation in of the Conservation Reserve Program Research, demonstration, and evalua- soils receiving manure. That criterion (CRP) (Uri 2001). Under the CRP, farm- tions of BMPs and similar practices are ers can bid to have portions of their land conducted by the USDA–Agricultural 3 NIFA was previously the Cooperative State leased for 10 to 15 years to the U.S. gov- Research Service and the national net- Research, Education, and Extension Service ernment for approved conservation uses work of land-grant universities linked (CSREES).

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11 spurred development of indexes of P con- v. Department of Environmental Quality (POTWs)—regulated under federal, centration and P loss assessment tools. 2008). Some states adopted permitting state, and/or local indirect discharge Livestock and Poultry Environmental requirements considerably more stringent programs Stewardship programs describe nutri- than those specified in the Clean Water In 2002 the U.S. EPA promulgated ent balance criteria for livestock farms Act. revised federal ELGs for the meat and (LPES 2010). On October 21, 2008, the U.S. EPA poultry products (MPP) PS category, The regulatory dimension of the U.S. issued the revised NPDES permit and which established minimum federal approach to limiting water pollution from effluent limitations guideline (ELG) standards for treatment of wastewater livestock and poultry production is cen- regulations for CAFOs in response to the from meat and poultry processing plants, tered on the national NPDES program. Waterkeeper decision (USEPA 2008). further processing plants, and render- The NPDES permitting provisions gov- The new CAFO regulations establish var- ing plants that discharge to surface wa- erning CAFOs prohibit any discharges ious regulatory permitting and reporting ter. Wastewater discharges from many from their animal confinement area, ma- requirements for CAFOs, including de- facilities subject to these regulations are nure storage area, raw-materials storage velopment and implementation of NMPs commonly treated to a much higher de- area, and waste containment areas except and other BMPs. One of the more im- gree than is required under the new MPP under extreme storm conditions, usually portant findings in theWaterkeeper court ELGs because of more stringent dis- defined as the 25-year, 24-hour storm decision pertained to the requirement to charge permit requirements. event. The remaining potential source of apply for a CAFO NPDES permit; such Storm water discharges from meat, water pollutants from CAFOs arises from a requirement could not be based on the poultry, egg, and milk products and by- the application of manure to land. The potential to discharge and must rather be products processing plants (i.e., manufac- federal CAFO regulations require appli- based on an actual discharge. This ruling turing operations) and ancillary facilities cation of manure in accordance with site- was important for dry litter poultry opera- (i.e., feed mills, cold storage facilities, specific nutrient management practices tions, as an actual discharge from these further processing plants, etc.) are also to ensure appropriate agricultural use operations is unlikely because both the generally regulated under federal and of the nutrients. A nutrient management animal and stored waste materials are not state NPDES permitting programs for plan (NMP) is used to meet this require- typically exposed to rainfall. The court storm water discharges associated with ment. The NMP must include application also confirmed that precipitation-related industrial activities. These programs re- rates for manure applied to land under discharges from agricultural areas where quire development and implementation the ownership or operational control of animal wastes are applied in a manner of site-specific storm water pollution pre- the CAFO to minimize P and N transport for “appropriate agricultural utilization” vention plans, routine sampling of storm from the field to surface waters in com- qualify as “agricultural storm water” and water discharges, regulatory reporting pliance with the technical standards for are excluded from regulation as a PS dis- and compliance with applicable discharge nutrient management. The land applica- charge (i.e., these areas are exempt from limitations, and other conditions. tion of manure by CAFOs with approved regulatory permitting) (USEPA 2007). Because of the high levels of pol- NPDES permits may result in allowed Information on the specific animal lutants in wastewater from processing discharges that qualify under the agricul- feeding operations (AFOs) regulated un- plants, pretreatment is commonly re- tural storm water discharge exemption. der the new CAFO rule can be found on quired before the wastewater arrives at The federal CAFO regulations define the U.S. EPA website (USEPA 2011b). a municipal treatment facility, called a agricultural storm water discharges to in- More information on the CAFO rule POTW. Under federal regulations, pro- clude any manure from land areas under can also be found on the U.S. EPA site cessing facilities are prohibited from in- the control of a CAFO where the manure (USEPA–NPDES 2011). troducing pollutants that “pass through” has otherwise been applied in accordance Meat, egg, and milk product and by- or “interfere” with the operation of the with site-specific nutrient management product processing plants are generally POTW (USCFR 2008). Pollutants that practices that ensure appropriate agricul- considered manufacturing operations, and “pass through” a POTW would cause a tural use of the nutrients (USCFR 2008). wastewater discharge from these facili- violation of the POTW’s NPDES permit. Controversy has existed as to require- ties is typically regulated under the Clean Pollutants that “interfere” with a POTW’s ments involving regulatory review of Water Act and by various federal, state, operations would inhibit or disrupt a pro- NMPs. Administrative burdens of ap- and local regulatory programs related to cess or operation to cause a violation of proving individual permits led the U.S. water pollution control. Regulatory per- the POTW’s permit. The federal regula- EPA to adopt regulations that allow for mits are generally required for facilities tions set forth limitations for BOD, total general permits that cover multiple facili- that discharge to the following: suspended solids, oil and gas, pH, fecal ties in a geographical area. Many states • Surface water—regulated under fed- coliform, ammonia (NH3) as N, total N, adopted general permits for CAFOs in- eral and/or state NPDES permitting total P, and chemical oxygen demand in volving a formal acceptance of permitting programs wastewater discharges from processing terms elaborated in an approved general • Groundwater—regulated under facilities. Given these pretreatment regu- permit that allows dischargers to be au- lations, wastewater from meat processing thorized to discharge through a “notice federal and/or state NPDES, Land Application System, Underground facilities does not impose excessive costs of intent.” Interested parties sought the on POTWs. Most PS dischargers pose a requirement that states’ NMPs and no- Injection Control, and other permit- ting programs risk of spills of untreated or undertreated tices of intent should be made available wastewater during floods or because of to the public (Centner 2008b; Sierra Club • Publicly owned treatment works failure of equipment, transport systems,

12 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY or containment facilities. State enforce- ment agencies typically maintain public records of such spills. Although significant progress has been made in improving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, much more work is needed to restore and protect those waters (USEPA–OW 2002a).

Productivity Growth and “Intensification” of U.S. Livestock and Crop Production As shown earlier, significant im- provements in U.S. yields (product per unit inventory) of animal products are Figure 1. United States yields of corn and soybeans (tonnes/ha) (USDA–NASS 2011b). evident in Table 1. Gains in U.S. crop yields are evident in USDA data: average U.S. corn yields exceeded 6.277 tonnes broiler chickens on a 2001 diet achieved should be considered index values4 based per ha for the first time in 1978 and ex- a 37 to 66% reduction in the mass of feed on the reported data because some mi- ceeded 9.415 tonnes per ha for the first consumed per mass of broiler produced nor types of livestock are excluded from time in 2004 (USDA–NASS 2011b) (see when compared to 1957 type birds on the calculations used to allocate agricul- Figure 1). The 2009 average U.S. corn a 1957 diet. The 37% improvement oc- tural land area to the various food animal yield was estimated at 10.294 tonnes per curred when the 1957 bird was lighter species. ha (WAOB 2010), and current genetic de- and older than the 2001 bird, whereas the The estimates in Table 5 illustrate velopments promise further rapid gains in 66% reduction occurred when the 1957 reductions of 42 to 66% over 42 years yield and declines in N and water needed bird was of equal weight and much older in the agricultural land area needed to per tonne produced. Technological im- than the 2001 bird. Nitrogen fertilizer ap- produce feed for a unit of meat, milk, or provement, increased adoption of exist- plied per ha of corn in the United States eggs in North America. The U.S. chicken ing technology, and improved manage- rose from 143.5 kg in 1978 to 156.9 kg in meat industry required about a third of ment and organization of agricultural and 2010 (an increase of 9%) (USDA–ERS the agricultural land in 2003 that it did food production systems coincided with 2011), whereas corn yields increased by in 1961 to produce a unit of product. In improved efficiency and decreased costs 51% (USDA–NASS 2011b). These data 1955 it took 70 days to produce a 1.4-kg of animal products (Key and McBride indicate that the N fertilizer applied per 2007). tonne of corn harvested fell by 27.7% 4 One of the factors that has been excluded and that Resource requirements per unit of over the 32-year period. Similarly, P fer- makes the required acreages an index rather than tilizer applied per ha of corn fell from a hard number is that not all animals have been animal product have fallen significantly included. Excluded animals include equines, sheep over time. For example, mass of feed 76.2 kg in 1978 to 67.3 kg in 2010: -13% and goats, ducks, fish, and others. Equines may be an consumed per mass of egg produced fell per ha and -41% per tonne harvested especially important factor, as there are limited data by 32% between 1960 and 2001 (Arthur (USDA–ERS 2011). on the total grazing land devoted to horses and total The combined effects of crop yield grains fed to horses. Horses and mules are important and Albers 2003). Fix and colleagues historically as the support of draft animals was one (2010) found a 45% improvement in the gains and animal productivity gains of the largest uses of feed (Jennings 1943) before the ratio of lean gain to feed consumed when are examined in Table 5 and Figure 2. almost universal adoption of machine power. The comparing 2005 genetic type pigs on a Methods for calculating the estimated transition to machine power released large areas of changes over time in animal productiv- land that could then be devoted to the support of food- 2005 diet to 1980 type pigs on a 1980 producing animals. This transition occurred before the diet. Havenstein, Ferket, and Qureshi ity per ha of land (Table 5) are reported period in Table 5. There were four million horses in (2003a) found that 2001 genetic type in Appendix A. The numbers in Table 5 the United States in 2007 (USDA–NASS 2007).

Table 5. Change in the livestock productivity of North American agricultural land 1961–2003 Year % change Kilograms/Hectare Index 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 1961–2003 Chicken meat, kg/ha 564 751 1,101 1,458 1,817 1,682 198 Pig meat (+lard), kg/ha 307 387 536 636 735 746 143 Turkey meat, kg/ha 400 447 646 905 1,286 1,568 291 Hen eggs (in shell), kg/ha 587 750 1,015 1,269 1,530 1,599 173 Cattle meat, kg/ha 30 39 41 43 50 52 72 Cow milk (whole, fresh), kg/ha 542 669 775 925 1,112 1,228 126

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13 from now through 2050, then 68% more broiler meat could be produced with- out any increase in the quantity of inputs consumed. Genetic and dietary improvements contributed significantly to the gains in TFP. Feed conversion (FC) is the quan- tity of feed required to produce one unit of product in which case product can be eggs, meat, wool, or milk. As FC improves, less feed is required per unit output, less farmland is required to grow feed inputs, and fewer nutrients are ex- creted in manure. Improvements in animal productivity not only decrease the amount of land re- quired but can directly decrease the quan- tity of nutrients excreted. Logically, if a certain quantity of nutrients (a) is retained in a unit mass of product and the quan- Figure 2. Index of U.S. land required per unit produced (approximately ha/tonne) tity of nutrients consumed to produce that (Note: Calculated from FAO and USDA data. Cattle land includes range unit of product falls from (b) to (c, which and is plotted on left axis. All others are plotted on right axis.) is < b), then the quantity of nutrients returned to the environment as waste is reduced from (b-a) to (c-a). Furthermore, chicken that required 2.85 kg of feed per industry supplies approximately 16% the proportional reduction in waste is kg of gain, whereas in 2006 it took 49 of U.S. beef production. The number of greater than the proportional reduc- days to produce a 2.45-kg chicken that milk cows in North America is less than tion in feed intake ([c-a]/[b-a]commodities, most of this area is pared to 1967. Note that if a similar rate ing pollution from animal production. grazing land, which is not suitable for production of of growth in TFP could be maintained other foods or for feed use by pigs or poultry. Genetic changes, along with changes in

14 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Textbox 1. Disaggregating Gains in structure of several of the animal sectors to evaluate effects of changes in animal Broiler Productivity. have accompanied adoption of improved production systems on resource use and technology and accelerated the pace of profits, environmental emissions, use of Quantitative genetics have been improvement in genetic stocks and other manure as fertilizer, and optimal design used in poultry breeding to develop aspects of production technology and of facilities and policy. broiler lines that have increased management (Key and McBride 2007; An emerging approach to manure growth rate and improved feed Key, McBride, and Mosheim 2008). management is the use of markets for conversion (FC). Optimized broiler Dramatic productivity gains are attrib- manure. Traditionally in the United production based on the improved utable to a very successful sustained States, manure has been applied on land growth traits results in decreased research, development, and education owned by the same farm that owned the time necessary for animals to reach effort by U.S. land-grant universities and livestock. As farms have increased in size heavier market weight. U.S. and state Departments of Agriculture and specialization, manure is frequently The Athens-Canadian Randombred in collaboration with a vigorous and di- applied to land on farms other than those Control (ACRBC) was established verse private sector (Alston, Beddow, and housing the livestock. Manure is com- in 1957 by scientists at Agriculture Pardey 2009; Bergeron 2010; Fix 2007). monly transported from areas with excess Canada and has been maintained. manure nutrients to areas where these The production traits of the ACRBC Challenges and Emerging nutrients are deficient. Several states have strain were evaluated in 1991 and established financial and other assistance determined to be unchanged from Approaches to Prevention of programs for the relocation of animal 1957. This allowed comparison Pollution from Livestock manure to areas deficient in nutrients between old genetic lines (1957) and A range of research challenges re- (Oklahoma State University Extension new genetic lines (2001) to evalu- mains for U.S. animal agriculture in rela- 2011). Commercial fertilizer is a nascent ate FC and growth rate (Havenstein, tion to use and effects on land and water market for manure. For example, the Ferket, and Qureshi 2003a), carcass resources. New approaches are emerging Perdue AgriRecycle, LLC, plant located composition and yield (Havenstein, to manage the effects of animal agricul- in Delaware accepts poultry litter from Ferket, and Qureshi 2003b), and im- ture on land and water resources. farms in the Delmarva area and pellet- mune response (Cheema, Qureshi, Producer profit is an enduring motive izes this material to produce bulk fertil- and Havenstein 2003). Animals re- for modifying animal production sys- izer products as well as specialty fertilizer ceived appropriate feeding regimens, tems. Impetus for change also arises from products for use in turf and horticultural and numerous production traits were those seeking decreased environmental industries. studied. The Ross 308 broiler (a cur- emissions, stronger animal welfare stan- Renewable energy is an emerging rent genetic line in 2001) on the 2001 dards, and increased potential profit from market for manure and litter. Fibrominn, feed was estimated to have reached conserving and using crop nutrients and a subsidiary of Fibrowatt, LLC, opened 1,815 grams BW (body weight) at 32 energy in manure. Increased profit arises a power production facility in Minnesota d (days) of age with an FC of 1.47, from reductions in the value of inputs that uses turkey litter and other agri- whereas the ACRBC on the 1957 used per unit value of product and may cultural biomass as renewable fuel. feed would not have reached that include changes to genetics, diet, hous- Anaerobic digestion of manure has been BW until 101 d of age with an FC of ing, feeding, watering, ventilation, vet- used to produce biogas for centuries. 4.42. The decreased market age and Microbial digestion of organic carbon improved FC would require far less erinary medical care, waste management, and the management and organization of under anaerobic conditions yields a mix feed input (and associated land to of gases (referred to as biogas) includ- grow the feed) to produce a kilogram animal production systems. A number of ing 55 to 70% methane with the balance of meat. The authors attributed 85% research challenges relate to the manage- being primarily carbon dioxide and trace of the growth improvement to genet- ment of exhaust air from animal housing ics and 15% to nutrition (Havenstein, facilities and feedlots as well as the man- amounts of hydrogen sulfide and NH3. Ferket, and Qureshi 2003a). Com- agement of mortality and manure at the Recent interest in renewable energy and parisons of carcass weights of the farms and the application of manure to greenhouse gas mitigation has increased Ross 308 on the 2001 diet versus land to fertilize crops. interest, incentives, and investment in the ACRBC on the 1957 diet showed Recent sharp increases in the prices anaerobic digester systems on U.S. and they were 6.0, 5.9, 5.2, and 4.6 times and global demand for N and P fertilizers Canadian livestock farms. The biogas can heavier than the ACRBC at 43, 57, and energy have increased the potential be burned for heating or burned in a gen- 71, and 85 d of age, respectively. value of nutrients and energy in manure. erator set to produce electricity. Biogas Changes in animal diets (e.g., the use of also may be scrubbed and pressurized for distillers grains) and the use of additives injection into natural gas lines or for use (e.g., phytase) (Angel et al. 2006) oc- in vehicles that run on compressed gas. diet, housing, veterinary medical care, cur regularly and affect the quantity and The AgSTAR program (USEPA 2011c) and management, resulted in increased composition of manure; the subsequent has supported development and installa- efficiency of production of meat, milk, chemical and biological transformations tion of biogas technologies for decades. and eggs, requiring less feed per unit of manure; and, therefore, the air emis- Pathogen concentration and total solids of product (Arthur and Albers 2003; sions, losses to water, pathogen con- are usually decreased in anaerobic sys- Fix et al. 2010; Havenstein, Ferket, and centrations, and performance as a crop tems (Bull et al. 2008; Rice, Caldwell, Qureshi 2003a, 2003b). Changes in the fertilizer. Ongoing research is required and Humenik 2006), whereas other

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15 nutrients (P and salts) remain in the di- sources of nutrients found in streams, tion systems. When U.S. livestock sectors gester effluent for use as fertilizer. rivers, and lakes is a persistent problem consisted of more than a million relative- Manure as excreted is between 75 in efforts to improve water quality in ly small operations, the cost of regula- and 90% water, depending on the spe- the United States. The National Water tory oversight was daunting, particularly cies of animal. The addition of bedding Quality Inventory reports rely on state in comparison to the potential environ- material and evaporation of water during reports of the sources of pollutants that mental damage that any single opera- storage may produce a more concentrat- impair water quality. The 2004 report tion might cause. The rational approach ed form of manure with “as removed” (USEPA–OW 2009) says that state data for managing effects from numerous moisture content as low as 30% for tur- should not be used for comparisons be- highly dispersed livestock operations key litter. The use of anaerobic treatment tween states or within states over time is to rely on education and implemen- systems to digest solids, the settling of because the information in state reports tation of BMPs and complaint-driven solids to the bottom of storage facili- is highly variable from state to state and enforcement. ties, and the accumulation of rainwater in from one reporting period to the next As larger livestock operations have open storage facilities may increase water (USGS 2010). For example, the percent- emerged and as social demands for en- content to 99.6% of the “as removed” age of assessed lake hectares reported as vironmental protection have escalated, mass in swine lagoon surface liquid “not clean enough to support designated increased regulation and permitting has (ASABE 2005). The costs of storing, uses” jumped from 47% in 2002 to 64% been enacted. The Clean Water Act of transporting, and land applying manure in 2004, based solely on results of new 1972 introduced permitting requirements and manure treatment products are highly monitoring for mercury in fish and water for the largest AFOs, which were subject conditional on their form. Those costs, in Minnesota. to more stringent regulatory conditions as a proportion of the fertilizer or energy Numerous studies related to land ap- than smaller concerns. Operations using value of manure constituents, are highly plication of manure and surface water liquid manure handling systems were conditional on the composition of the effects have measured concentrations viewed as a greater risk to water qual- manure or treatment product. A remain- and flows at the field edge. Studies have ity and so are subjected to more stringent ing challenge is to improve efficiency of demonstrated the benefits of vegetative requirements than dry manure handling systems to separate solids and nutrients buffers in decreasing the flow of con- operations. The U.S. regulatory approach from water in manure to allow more ef- taminants into surface water (Zhang et sought to eliminate direct discharges ficient storage, handling, transport, and al. 2010). Much of the watershed-scale from livestock operations except under use of manure components. Other market information about contaminant move- relatively uncommon storm conditions. approaches to livestock, land, and water ment from livestock operations to surface For example, the 25-year 24-hour storm issues include basinwide markets for re- water, however, is based on predictive was used as an engineering design crite- ductions in nutrient discharges associated models rather than direct measurement. rion and a BMP threshold. with TMDL programs. This problem was addressed by a Blue Incentives to adopt BMPs are im- A remaining research challenge in Ribbon Panel of the Soil and Water portant elements of policy. The USDA– the United States is the lack of specific Conservation Society (SWCS) evaluat- NRCS administers several programs to information about the effect of land ap- ing the Conservation Effects Assessment encourage environmentally sound be- plication of manure on water quality. Program. Their report to the USDA havior by livestock producers and other Numerous studies have assessed water (SWCS 2006) included the follow- farmers. Examples include the following quality in the United States, yet many ing statement: “The most important and USDA–NRCS programs: questions remain regarding the specific troubling missing piece is the absence of • Conservation Compliance (i.e., sources and causes of reported water plans for on-the-ground monitoring of “Swampbuster” and “Sodbuster”) quality impairment conditions in a num- change in the environmental indicators ber of water bodies across the country. and outcomes conservation programs and • Conservation Reserve Program Modifications to the Clean Water Act in activities are intended to improve.” • Environmental Quality Incentives 1972 decreased allowable discharges of Although the USGS and other agen- Program pollutants to U.S. waters. Public and pri- cies monitor stream water quality, their As livestock sectors shift to fewer vate investments were made to decrease ability to monitor effects of sources that operations that are larger in size, exist- discharges of pollutants from PSs. By do not discharge directly into streams ing CAFO regulations affect a greater 1987, it was argued that the primary con- is minimal. The SWCS report recom- proportion of overall manure produc- cerns related to pollutants entering waters mended that 1% of conservation funding tion. Beginning in the 1990s, rules and of the United States from PSs had been for each program be allocated to monitor- regulations governing livestock opera- addressed, leaving NPS pollution, which ing the effects of that program. Ongoing tions under the Clean Water Act were originates from many diffuse sources, research is needed to monitor changes revised, spurred in part by assessments as a major concern. The U.S. EPA stated in water quality through time and across that NPSs were major sources of pol- that “pollution from urban and agricul- watersheds as land use changes (including lution. The ongoing shift to large-scale tural land that is transported by precipita- land application of manure) within water- dairy farms and the rapid shift to large- tion and runoff (called nonpoint source sheds (see also Tomer and Locke 2011). scale pig farms beginning around 1988 or NPS pollution) is the leading source of The U.S. regulatory and manage- also changed expectations for the regula- pollution” in the United States (USEPA– ment approaches to controlling effects of tory system. Revised regulations have OW 2002b). livestock on the environment are con- resulted in greater safety margins in The lack of information about stantly evolving with livestock produc- manure management system design,

16 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY greater expectations and oversight of the poultry farms. The data and information rent grower participation in this program management of manure nutrients applied acquired in the NAEMS program will be is approaching 100%. Agricultural exten- to land, and integration of multiple envi- used to develop databases that could form sion programs across the United States ronmental and public health concerns into the basis for future air permitting and/or have been assisting livestock producers in the design of manure handling systems emission control programs for applicable developing NMPs (LPELC 2008). (IDNR n.d.; USDA–NRCS 2011; USEPA AFOs as well as better prediction of air Livestock product processors are 2008). Discourse during the revision emissions from a wide variety of live- adopting advanced management pro- of rules under the Clean Water Act and stock production operations. grams to minimize environmental ef- subsequent review of pertinent federal Systems analysis of sustainable fects. Examples include water reuse air quality regulations revealed that an livestock production methods is another under USDA–FSIS regulations that al- integrated approach to managing environ- emerging research and education ap- low reuse of refurbished water in various mental effects of livestock operations is proach. The USDA–NIFA Research operations at meat and poultry process- emerging (NRC 2003). Committee S-1032 is an example of col- ing plants. For example, the Smithfield New approaches to designing and laboration among land-grant university Packing Company’s plant in Tar Heel, managing livestock operations are emerg- faculty, USDA researchers, and others North Carolina, is currently reusing 25 ing in the United States with evolving to analyze and model the complex sys- to 30% of the water it employs. Several livestock sector structure and direct com- tems involved in livestock production. meat processing facilities have joined munication among environmental and Understanding the interaction of ani- the U.S. EPA’s National Environmental public health advocates, regulators and mals, feed, housing, manure management Performance Track Program, which lawmakers, researchers and educators, systems, water, energy, and weather as drives environmental excellence by en- and livestock producers. Research and well as pathological, environmental, and couraging facilities with strong environ- design of livestock production systems in other variables in a commercial produc- mental records to go above and beyond the United States are shifting toward life tion setting is the challenge being ad- their minimum legal requirements. cycle approaches to analysis of resource dressed by the S-1032 group. Another Some meat, table egg, and milk prod- use and emissions. Standards for life example of systems-oriented research is ucts production companies have adopted cycle analysis (LCA) are published by the work conducted at North Carolina environmental sustainability programs the International Standards Organization State University under an agreement and annual environmental reporting. A (ISO 14040) and by the U.S. LCA data- among the Attorney General of North number of these companies issue annual base at the National Renewable Energy Carolina, Smithfield Foods, and others reports documenting their efforts related Laboratory. Livestock organizations in (NCSU n.d.). This work included three to sustainability, regulatory compliance, the United States initiated LCAs of their linked analyses of a number of alterna- resource use, water use, and projects im- sectors (e.g., dairy, eggs, and swine). tive manure management systems for plemented to decrease their environmen- The LCA approach is being accom- swine farms in North Carolina: technical tal and carbon footprints. panied by “process-based modeling” of performance of the manure management Livestock sector environmental livestock production activities. Process- system, environmental emissions from awards programs are another example of based modeling incorporates research- the system, and economic implications of emerging approaches. For example, the based information on specific biological, the system. U.S. Poultry and Egg Association estab- chemical, physical, and energy processes Innovations are emerging in the man- lished the Clean Water Award to recog- that occur in livestock production into a agement of livestock operations. Various nize outstanding wastewater treatment broader model of resource use, outputs livestock production and processing fa- facilities operated by poultry companies produced, and emissions to the environ- cilities and associated companies have and the Family Farm Environmental ment. Process-based modeling allows implemented comprehensive environ- Excellence Award to recognize exempla- checks and balances on observed partial mental management systems (EMSs). An ry environmental stewardship by fam- data and allows more credible interpola- EMS establishes processes and practices ily farmers engaged in poultry and egg tive and extrapolative predictions of vari- that enable an organization to decrease production. The American Meat Institute ables of interest. Life cycle analysis and environmental impacts and increase op- instituted the MAPS 4-Tier Recognition process-based modeling are information- erating efficiency. International Standards Awards to recognize member company intensive activities enabled by sustained Organization 14000 provides guidelines dedication to continuous environmental investment in measurement and model- for third-party auditing and certification improvement through development and ing of specific processes on livestock and of EMS programs. Smithfield Foods, implementation of EMSs. poultry farms. Inc., secured ISO 14000 certification of Stakeholder-based approaches to pol- An example of a cooperative research their EMS program for the company, in- icy development are emerging in animal program to inform policy is the U.S. EPA cluding its owned AFOs. production and land and water resources consent agreement with several nation- The chicken industry implemented policy development in the United States. al livestock and poultry organizations a voluntary program for administering Two criteria emerge. First, does the to conduct the National Air Emissions nutrient management plans at chicken new equilibrium or status created by the Monitoring Study (NAEMS) at an ar- grower operations. In 2002 the National proposed policy change result in an in- ray of AFOs to measure concentrations Chicken Council (NCC) reported to the creased overall welfare of society? In oth- of air pollutants of concern and calcu- U.S. EPA that 75% of chicken growers er words, does it make at least one person late emission rates. Participating entities had NMPs in place; a representative with better off without making someone worse include representative dairy, swine, and the NCC recently reported that the cur- off? Second, does the transition from the

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17 current status to the status created by the other nutrients to the diets of consumers on 10%, and alfalfa hay on 12%. The ir- policy change result in no individual or in the United States and other countries. rigated acreage represented about 12% of community being made worse off? This Livestock products generate almost half total corn acreage, 7% of soybean acre- criterion generally implies that those en- of the cash receipts of U.S. agriculture age, and 28% of alfalfa acreage. A crude tities bearing the costs of transition are and constitute a critical component of estimate is that 9% of U.S. freshwater compensated by those entities receiving the food supply for U.S. consumers and withdrawals is used to irrigate feed crops the benefits of transition. Certainly, these a significant component of net exports. for animal agriculture. criteria are not adopted in law nor even Livestock, primarily cattle, graze the 26% The most prominent recent U.S. na- adhered to uniformly. Nonetheless, the of U.S. land classified as range, pasture, tional policy issue related to livestock, result of political and legal contests along and grassland—land that is generally not land, and water has been directed toward with increased direct communication suitable for crop production. Livestock, the effect of livestock production on the among stakeholders and integration with including poultry, also consume feed quality of surface water and groundwater. issue-oriented research supports more grains such as corn and oilseed meal such Concerns include the pollution of water consensus-like policy development (NRC as soybean meal. with nutrients, pathogens, pharmacologi- 2003; Zering 2010). Less than 20% of U.S. land area is cally active compounds, excess organic The primary challenge facing U.S. classified as cropland. Less than 20% matter, and turbidity. Potential pollu- and global animal production systems of U.S. cropland is planted to corn, and tion sources include areas occupied by is to sustain the rate of improvement in about 36% of corn grain was used for do- animals, manure storage and treatment plant and animal productivity and in envi- mestic livestock feed in 2009. Similarly, activities, runoff and leaching from land ronmental protection observed during the approximately 17.5% of U.S. cropland receiving manure as a fertilizer source, past several decades. Pingali and Heisey was planted to soybeans, and soybean mortality storage and disposal facilities, (1999) are cited in LLS stating that the meal from about 36% of soybean produc- deposition of airborne materials emit- productivity of wheat and rice in lowland tion was fed to livestock in the United ted by livestock operations, cropland and Asia has been growing at a very slow States in 2009. Residuals from corn used pastures, and waste from animal product pace since 1991. Alston, Beddow, and for ethanol production (dried distill- processing operations. Pardey (2009) highlighted strong positive ers grains and solubles) are also fed to United States regulation of livestock rates of return on past investments in ag- livestock. Combined, the area of land production to protect water quality was ricultural research, but they noted declin- required to produce corn, soybean meal, included in the Clean Water Act of 1972. ing investment and declining rates of pro- and distillers grain residuals for U.S. ani- A major revision of EPA rules that regu- ductivity gains in recent years. This Issue mal agriculture is crudely estimated at late livestock operations under the Clean Paper illustrates that past investments in 16% of U.S. cropland or approximately Water Act was initiated in 1993 and is be- an integrated program of research, exten- 7% of total U.S. agricultural land. ing implemented after a lengthy process sion, education, and policy development Very little land is used to house live- of EPA rule making and a series of court contributed to significant declines both stock in the United States. Land near challenges. The regulatory approach in- in the quantity of resources used per unit livestock production operations is also cludes permitting requirements for opera- of production and in pollution per unit of used to receive manure as a crop fertilizer tions in the largest size categories and less production. How will this effort and the and soil amendment. Whereas deforesta- stringent requirements for smaller opera- resulting gains be sustained as global de- tion is a livestock-related issue in some tions. Discharges to surface water from mand for animal products doubles during countries, the area of U.S. land in forests livestock production operations are gen- the next few decades? increased by 6.9 million ha between 1987 erally prohibited except for storm water In summary, new approaches are and 2002, despite dramatic increases in runoff from cropland receiving manure emerging in research and development, livestock production. Analysis of changes as a crop fertilizer. Manure from live- education, management, and regulation between 1961 and 2003 in the land area stock farms is applied to less than 5% of and policy pertaining to livestock opera- required per unit of animal product in the planted acres in the United States, but tions in the United States. Direct com- North America illustrated sharp declines the potential harm from manure entering munication among interested parties and for beef (40%), pork (59%), milk (61%), streams has resulted in a sustained effort shared understanding of the issues, data, eggs (63%), broilers (66%), and turkeys to limit runoff. and uncertainties are shaping a more (75%). An established, productive research collaborative, research-based, compre- Livestock operations, including and education program evaluates live- hensive approach to minimizing the ef- poultry, accounted for approximately stock production and manure manage- fects of livestock production on limited 0.61% of freshwater withdrawals in the ment practices and provides critical resources, environmental attributes, and United States in 2005. Livestock product information, assistance, and BMPs for public health. Sustaining historical rates processing facilities were estimated to livestock producers across the coun- of improvement in agricultural produc- consume about 0.1% of U.S. freshwater try. Water discharges by large livestock tivity, environmental protection, and re- withdrawals in 2005. Crop irrigation was product processing operations are strictly source conservation is a major challenge. the second-largest component of U.S. regulated under the Clean Water Act and freshwater withdrawals at 37%, with 85% associated regulations pertaining to man- of irrigation withdrawals occurring in the ufacturing operations. Summary 17 western conterminous states in 2005. New approaches are emerging in the Livestock production provides an Approximately 13% of U.S. cropland United States for managing effects of abundant, diverse, and relatively inexpen- was irrigated in 2002. Corn grain was livestock production on limited natu- sive supply of high-quality protein and planted on 18% of irrigated ha, soybeans ral resources, environmental attributes,

18 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and public health. Formal management United States compete in global markets the pressure to develop agricultural land programs including goal setting, rou- for resources, goods, and services. The for other purposes is growing with popu- tine monitoring, and regular reporting area of land and supply of freshwater lation and income in many locations. The have been adopted by various operations. available for agriculture are expected to protection of farmland and the capacity to Some of these programs, such as EMSs, decline in the United States and glob- sustain food production and the provision are audited by third parties and comply ally as a growing population uses limited of ecological and aesthetic services is a with ISO standards. Another emerging resources for other purposes. An accom- policy issue of growing importance. concept is the life cycle approach to anal- panying trend is that people will demand The high standard of living enjoyed ysis and management of livestock pro- greater protection of the environment, by people in developed countries and the duction. A related emerging approach is ecosystems, and public health as income subsistence of people in less developed the use of systems analysis by researchers rises. Other social trends, such as in- countries are due in no small part to the to understand the interactions within live- creased standards of animal welfare and steady increase in agricultural produc- stock production systems and optimize restricted use of antibiotics, will directly tivity during the past several decades. complex systems to minimize effects on constrain animal production systems. Modest sustained investment in U.S. limited natural resources, environmental United States policy issues linked to research and education enabled more attributes, and public health. The systems animal production are related to global food to be produced from declining sup- approach is critical to addressing the in- issues but differ in focus and order of plies of natural resources while decreas- terdependent effects of livestock produc- prominence. Social preference for pro- ing the rates of soil erosion and pollution. tion decisions on air emissions, water tection of water and air quality, pub- The awareness that a new commitment quality, the use of land and water, public lic health, and animal welfare has been is needed to increase agricultural pro- health, various social issues, the supply of a prominent national policy issue in ductivity gains over the next forty years food, and the economic welfare of people the United States and most developed and further decrease the environmental and communities. countries for the past few decades and is effects of agriculture has been created by Progress has been made in improving expected to continue growing in impor- LLS and other reports. A 70% increase water quality since passage of the Clean tance. A modest but significant invest- in the quantity of food needed, including Water Act in 1972. Focus shifted to NPSs ment has been made in research to better a 100% increase in animal products and of pollution in the 1980s. Agricultural understand the causes, rates, fate and 907,200,000 tonnes of additional feed activities, including crop production and transport, and effects of emissions from grain per year, from a constantly declin- land application of manure, are among animal production systems. Such infor- ing resource base while meeting ever NPSs of nutrients and other pollutants mation is critical to the design of effi- higher standards of protection of environ- listed in water quality inventory reports. cient policy to minimize negative impacts mental attributes, public health, and other Notable in several reports is the fact that without imposing unnecessary damage social preferences requires a tremendous there has been very little measurement on on consumers, producers, other individu- increase in agricultural productivity. a watershed scale of the marginal effects als, and communities. Sustained research Policy to create that productivity growth of both different NPSs of pollutants and and education efforts are required to fur- in both plant and animal systems and various conservation practices. Vegetative ther decrease the environmental effects of in related environmental protection and buffers have proved effective in eliminat- animal production systems, even as pro- resource conservation systems is criti- ing or decreasing the release rates of pol- duction increases to meet domestic and cal. Policy to ensure access to resources lutants into surface water. global demand. and education and timely distribution of Global and domestic trends will Several issues take on a more re- food to the poorest people on the planet is frame policy issues for the next few de- gional focus in the United States, al- needed to prevent disaster. cades. A major global trend identified by though they are common globally. The LLS is that a 30% increase in global pop- use of freshwater to irrigate crops and for Appendix A. Methods ulation by 2050 and a 150% increase in animal production competes with direct income per capita will result in demand consumption by people and with the use Used to Calculate for 70% more food, including 100% to sustain specific aquatic populations igures in able more meat and similar increases in milk in California, other parts of the western F T 5 This appendix describes the calcu- and egg production. Competing demand states, and some regions in the eastern lation of numbers presented in Table for feed grains and oilseeds is expected to United States. The sale or loss of water 5, which shows historic changes in the rise sharply—for exports, as global popu- supply has caused some once agricultur- land required for production by selected lation and income rise, and for biofuels, ally productive land to be abandoned. animal sectors in North America. Data as global biofuel consumption continues Rising human demand for water is in- were obtained from the FAOSTAT da- to rise. Population, income, and con- creasing the pressure for further abandon- tabase (FAO 2012b), crop acreage and sumption may grow less rapidly in devel- ment of agriculturally productive hectares yields from ResourceSTAT (FAO 2012c), oped countries such as the United States in arid regions. Whole communities are and feed use of grains (including barley, and more rapidly in developing countries. affected when agriculture ceases. The buckwheat, corn, millet, mixed grains, Demand will continue to grow for natural potential for the changing climate to oats, rapeseed, rye, sorghum, soybeans, resources including land; water; minerals decrease rainfall in primary feed-grain and wheat) and animal production (in- such as P; and energy, including coal, pe- growing regions poses additional water cluding cattle, pig, sheep, and poultry troleum, uranium, and renewable energy. resource challenges for agriculture. populations; animal products; meat, milk, Consumers in developing countries Farmland preservation is an estab- and eggs) from the ProdSTAT database and developed countries such as the lished program in the United States, but

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19 (FAO 2012b). Imported feeds were con- land and rangeland other than cropland Eutrophication. The process by which verted to domestic acres using domestic and woodland pastured” in that the FAO a body of water becomes enriched in yields. Reported grain wastage was added was possibly reflecting allocation of dissolved nutrients that stimulate the proportionally to feed use. public grazing lands. The FAO does not growth of aquatic plant life, usually For pigs and poultry, corn feed units report acreage used for silage and hay. resulting in the depletion of dissolved (CFUs) (Byerly 1975; Jennings 1943) Acreages for corn and sorghum silages oxygen. used per 100 pounds of product (Byerly and forages plus all hay (USDA–NASS Feed and residual. A USDA term that 1975; Jennings 1943; USDA 1994, 2000, 1960–2010), relative to “meadows and describes the quantity of grain fed to 2008) were plotted with missing values pastures,” were used to calculate North livestock or consumed for some pur- approximated from trend lines. Table egg American silage and hay (based on the pose other than the food and industrial weight was assumed to be 24 ounces per U.S. percentages). use categories specified by the USDA. dozen. United States feed required (CFU) Byerly (1975) presented data for Hypoxia. A deficiency of oxygen. was assumed for all North America. Corn the utilization of CFUs from grazing for Karst structures. Irregular limestone feed unit requirements were calculated various kinds of animals for the years regions with sinks, underground per unit of live weight gain and per unit 1941 through 1973. The percentages of streams, and caverns. meat production (carcass weight) using the yearly totals were calculated for milk U.S. weights (USDA–NASS 1960, 1970, cows and feedlot cattle plus other cattle Nonpoint source. An unidentifiable 1980, 1990, 2000 [for red meat]; USDA– (used as the token for beef cattle). These source of pollution. NASS 1980, 1990, 2000 [for poultry]). derived data were plotted and extended Per capita disappearance. A USDA United States lard production was con- as trend lines to cover the various years term that describes the quantity of a verted to carcass weight using yields in the data. Resulting percentages were commodity that was consumed, wast- presented by Zeigler (1962) and added to used to allocate grazing land acreage to ed, or otherwise acquired by consum- carcass weight. cattle meat production and cow milk pro- ers divided by the number of people in Consumption of various feed grains duction. Silage acreage was allocated as the country. was converted to corn equivalents 100% minus the grazing percentage al- Phytase. An enzyme that allows poultry and total feed requirement calculated. location; that is, if milk production used and other monogastric animals to use Arbitrarily, this amount was decreased by 25% of the grazing land in a given year, more phosphorus contained in corn. 10% to account for the inclusion of fats then it was allocated 75% of the silage Point source. An identifiable confined and other by-products in feed (a crude acreage for that year. Hay acreage was source from which a pollutant is dis- estimate, especially across time). Total arbitrarily allocated 50% for milk and charged or emitted. feed required was divided by the over- 50% for cattle meat. The acreage alloca- Regulatory taking. A situation in which all average per acre yield of the mixed tions for feed grains, grazing, silage, and a government regulates a property to feed grains to create the estimate of the hay were summed for each commodity to such a degree that the regulation ef- acres required to produce each animal estimate the total acreage used to produce fectively amounts to an exercise of the product. Acreage and animal production that commodity. Results in Table 5 reflect government’s eminent domain power were used to calculate weight per acre the fact that land use for cattle meat and without actually divesting the proper- and acres per weight ratios for chicken cow milk are changed to include FAO ty’s owner of title to the property. meat, pig meat, turkey meat, and eggs. grazing land area plus USDA (and other) Calculated values for amounts in this reported silage and hay acreage. Thus Right-to-farm laws. Laws that support and the previous paragraph were subse- land use may be overstated. Similarly, the retention of farmland by preclud- quently converted to metric (International inclusion of grain wastage may overstate ing nuisance lawsuits against those System of Units) units. land requirements in Table 5. agricultural property uses in existence The effect of grazing and forage, for before new nearby land uses. which average production and feed value lossary Total factor productivity. The ratio of estimates are extremely difficult, compli- G an index of aggregate output to an in- Ad valorem taxation. A tax based on the cated the estimation of ruminant land re- dex of aggregate input (Capalbo and value of real estate or personal proper- quirements. Calculations were performed Antle 1988). ty. It is more common than a tax based in three steps: allocation of feed grains, Zoonotic. Communicable from animals on the quantity of an item, such as allocation of grazing, and allocation of to humans under natural conditions. cents per kilogram, regardless of price. harvested forage. Yearly use of feed grains for milk Conterminous. Enclosed within one cows, all beef cattle, and sheep and lambs common boundary. Literature Cited (USDA 1994, 2000, 2008) and popula- Effluent limitations guideline. Alston, J., J. Beddow, and P. Pardey. 2009. Ag- tion numbers for dairy cattle and beef Guidelines and standards established ricultural research, productivity, and food cattle were used to allocate the feed grain by the EPA for different nonmunici- prices in the long run. Science 325:1209–1210. pal (i.e., industrial) categories. These American Society of Agricultural and Biologi- acreage not assigned to poultry and pigs. cal Engineers (ASABE). 2005. Manure The FAOSTAT land use numbers for guidelines are developed based on the Production and Characteristics. ASAE “permanent meadows and pastures” ex- degree of pollutant reduction attain- D384.2. ASABE, St. Joseph, Michigan. ceeded USDA (2007) acreage for “crop- able by an industrial category through Angel, R., W. W. Saylor, A. D. Mitchell, W. land used only for pasture or grazing” the application of pollutant control Powers, and T. J. Applegate. 2006. Ef- plus “woodland pastured” plus “pasture- technologies (USEPA–NPDES 2007). fect of dietary phosphorus, phytase, and

20 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 25-hydroxycholecalciferol on broiler 1215–1238. carcass composition, and meat quality chicken bone mineralization, litter phos- Cheema, M. A., M. A. Qureshi, and G. B. Haven- traits of commercial pigs representative of phorus, and processing yields. Poultry Sci stein. 2003. A comparison of the immune 1980 and 2005 genetic types when reared 85:1200–1211. response of a 2001 commercial broiler with on 1980 and 2005 representative feeding Arthur, J. A. and G. A. A. Albers. 2003. Industrial a 1957 randombred broiler strain when fed programs. M.S. thesis, North Carolina State perspective on problems and issues associ- representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. University, Raleigh. ated with poultry breeding. In W. M. Muir Poult Sci 82:1519–1529. Fix, J. S., J. P. Cassady, E. van Heugten, D. J. and S. E. Aggrey (eds.). Poultry Genetics Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Hanson, and M. T. See. 2010. Differences Breeding and Technology. CABI Publish- (CAST). 1996. Grazing on Public Lands. in lean growth performance of pigs sampled ing, Cambridge, Massachusetts. CAST Task Force Report R129. CAST, from 1980 and 2005 commercial swine Becker, G. S. 2010. Antibiotic Use in Agri- Ames, Iowa. fed 1980 and 2005 representative feeding culture: Background and Legislation. Council for Agricultural Science and Technol- programs. Livest Sci 128:108–114. Congressional Research Service Report for ogy (CAST). 1999. Benefits of Biodiversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Congress, 7-5700, January. CAST Task Force Report R133. CAST, Nations (FAO). 2006a. Livestock’s Long Bergeron, L. 2010. High yield agriculture slows Ames, Iowa. Shadow. FAO, Rome, ftp://ftp.fao.org/ pace of global warming say Stanford Council for Agricultural Science and Technology decrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701eOO.pdf (21 researchers. Stanford Report. Stanford Uni- (CAST). 2002. Environmental Impacts of October 2010) versity, Stanford, California, http://news. Livestock on U.S. Grazing Lands. CAST Food and Agriculture Organization of the United stanford.edu/news/2010/june/agriculture- Issue Paper IP22. CAST, Ames, Iowa. Nations (FAO). 2006b. FAO statistical da- global-warming-061410.html (9 March 2012) Council for Agricultural Science and Technology tabases. Rome, http://faostat.fao.org/default. Blancett v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, (CAST). 2009a. The Endangered Species aspx (9 March 2012) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12872 (2006). Act: Interfacing with Agricultural and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Blanco-Canqui, H. and R. Lal. 2008. Principles Natural Ecosystems. CAST Commentary Nations (FAO). 2012a. FAOSTAT. TradeS- of Soil Conservation and Management. QTA2009-2. CAST, Ames, Iowa. TAT, http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Council for Agricultural Science and Technol- aspx (26 March 2012) Bormann v. Board of Supervisors, 584 N.W. 2d ogy (CAST). 2009b. Water, People, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 309 (Iowa 1998). Future: Water Availability for Agriculture in Nations (FAO). 2012b. FAOSTAT. Prod- Bull, L. S., D. Meyer, J. M. Rice, and O. Sim- the United States. CAST Issue Paper IP44. STAT, http://faostat.fao.org/site/399/default. mons. 2008. Recent changes in food animal CAST, Ames, Iowa. aspx (26 March 2012) production and impacts on animal waste Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Food and Agriculture Organization of the United management. Report of the PEW Commis- (CAST). 2011. Air Issues Associated with Nations (FAO). 2012c. FAOSTAT. Re- sion on Industrial Farm Animal Production, Animal Agriculture: A North American Per- sourceSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/site/348/ http://www.ncifap.org/bin/u/v/PCIFAP_ spective. CAST Issue Paper IP47. CAST, default.aspx (26 March 2012) FW_FINAL1.pdf (9 March 2012) Ames, Iowa. Galloway, J. N., F. J. Dentener, D. G. Capone, E. Bussolo, M., R. E. De Hoyos, and D. Medvedev. Donahue, D. L. 2005. Western grazing: The W. Boyer, R. W. Howarth, S. P. Seitzinger, 2008. Is the developing world catching up? capture of grass, ground, and government. G. P. Asner, C. C. Cleveland, P. A. Green, Global convergence and national rising Environ Law 35:721–806. E. A. Holland, D. M. Karl, A. F. Michaels, dispersion. World Bank Policy Research Dregne, H. E. and N. T. Chou. 1994. Global J. H. Porter, A. R. Townsend, and C. J. Working Paper No. 4733. desertification dimensions and costs. In H. Vorosmarty. 2004. Nitrogen cycles: Past, Byerly, T. C. 1975. Feed use in beef production: E. Dregne (ed.). Degradation and Restora- present, and future. Biogeochemistry A review. J Anim Sci 41:921–932. tion of Arid Lands. Texas Tech University, 70:153–226. Capalbo, S. M. and J. M. Antle (eds.). 1988. Lubbock, Texas. Gebreyes, W., P. Bahnson, J. Funk, J. McKean, Agricultural Productivity: Measurement Duke, J. M. and L. Lynch. 2007. Gauging sup- and P. Patchanee. 2008. Seroprevalence of and Explanation. Johns Hopkins University port for innovative farmland preservation Trichinella, Toxoplasma, and Salmonella in Press, Washington, D.C. techniques. Pol Sci 40:123–155. antimicrobial-free and conventional swine Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, Emborg, H.-D., J. S. Andersen, A. M. Seyfarth, production systems. Foodborne Pathog Dis R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley, and V. H. S. R. Andersen, J. Boel, and H. C. Wegener. 5 (2): 199–203. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface 2003. Relations between the occurrence of Gollehon, N. and W. Quinby. 2006. Irrigation re- waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol resistance to antimicrobial growth promot- sources and water costs. Chapter 2.1. In K. Appl 8 (3): 559–568. ers among Enterococcus faecium isolated Wiebe and N. Gollehon (eds.). Agricultural Centner, T. J. 2000. Anti-nuisance legisla- from broilers and broiler meat. Int J Food Resources and Environmental Indicators, tion: Can the derogation of common law Microbiol 84:273–284. 2006 edition/EIB-16. USDA–Economic nuisance be a taking? Environ Law Rep Eswaran, H., R. Lal, and P. F. Reich. 2001. Research Service. 30:10253–10260. Land degradation: An overview. In E. M. Hakk, H., F. X. M. Casey, Z. Fan, and G. L. Centner, T. J. 2005. Governmental and unconsti- Bridges, I. D. Hannam, L. R. Oldeman, Larsen. 2009. A review of the fate of tutional takings: When do right to farm laws F. W. T. Pening de Vries, S. J. Scherr, and manure-borne, land-applied hormones. In go too far. Boston Coll Environ Aff Law Rev S. Sompatpanit (eds.). Responses to Land K. L. Henderson and J. R. Coats (eds.). 33:87–148. Degradation. Proceedings of the Second Veterinary Pharmaceuticals in the Environ- Centner, T. J. 2006. Nuisances from animal International Conference on Land Deg- ment. American Chemical Society. feeding operations: Reconciling agricultural radation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, and M. A. production and neighboring property rights. Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi, India, Qureshi. 2003a. Growth, livability, and feed Drake J Agric Law 11:2–23. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/ conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers Centner, T. J. 2008a. Regulating the use of land-degradation-overview.html (9 March when fed representative 1957 and 2001 non-therapeutic antibiotics in food animals. 2012) broiler diets. Poult Sci 82:1500–1508. Georgetown Intl Environ Law Rev 21:1–36. Feller, J. M. 2004. Ride ’em cowboy: A critical Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, and M. A. Centner, T. J. 2008b. Courts and the EPA look at BLM’s proposed new grazing regu- Qureshi. 2003b. Carcass composition and interpret NPDES general permit require- lations. Environ Law 34:1123–1142. yield of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed ments for CAFOs. Environ Law 38 (2008): Fix, J. 2007. Differences in growth performance, representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets.

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21 Poult Sci 82:1509–1518. MacDonald, J. M. and W. D. McBride. 2009. ing_papers/pdf/EWP%2099_03.pdf (9 Howarth, R. W., G. Billen, D. Swaney, A. The Transformation of U.S. Livestock March 2012) Townsend, N. Jaworski, K. Lajtha, J. A. Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks. Promar International. 2010. Animal Agriculture Downing, R. Elmgren, N. Caraco, T. Jor- USDA–ERS EIB 43. January. 46 pp. Economic Analysis: 1999–2009. A report dan, F. Berendse, J. Freney, V. Kudeyarov, Mosley, J. C., P. S. Cook, A. J. Griffis, and J. prepared for the United Soybean Board, P. Murdoch, and Z. Zhao-Liang. 1996. O’Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for Manag- http://unitedsoybean.org/images/uploads/ Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine N ing Cattle Grazing in Riparian Areas to multimedia/National_Animal_Agricul- and P fluxes for the drainages to the North Protect Water Quality: Review of Research ture_Economic_Analysis_2010.pdf (9 Atlantic Ocean: Natural and human influ- and Best Management Practices Policy. March 2012) ences. Biogeochemistry 35:75–139. Report No. 15, Policy Analysis Group Rice, J. M., D. Caldwell, and F. Humenik (eds.). Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Report Series, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and 2006. Animal Agriculture and the Environ- n.d. Master Matrix, http://www.iowadnr. Range Policy Analysis Group. ment. National Center for Manure and gov/environment/LandStewardship/ Munoz-Carpena, R., G. Vellidis, A. Shirmo- Animal Waste Management White Papers. AnimalFeedingOperations/Confinements/ hammadi, and W. W. Wallender. 2006. ASABE, St. Joseph, Michigan. 776 pp. ConstructionRequirements/Permitted/Mas- Evaluation of modeling tools for TMDL Russell, S. 2003. Water usage has increased due terMatrix.aspx (9 March 2012) development and implementation. T ASABE to HACCP. Poult Times, Supp—Process Jennings, R. D. 1943. Feed Consumption by 49 (4): 961–965. Furth Process (October 27). Livestock, 1910–41. United States Depart- National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Air Sapkota, A., F. C. Curriero, K. E. Gibson, and ment of Agriculture Circular No. 670. Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: K. J. Schwab. 2007. Antibiotic-resistant Washington, D.C. 57 pp. Current Knowledge, Future Needs. The Na- enterococci and fecal indicators in surface Johnston, R. J. and J. M. Duke. 2007. Willing- tional Academies Press, Washington, D.C. water and groundwater impacted by a con- ness to pay for agricultural land preserva- Newton, G. L., J. F. Baker, C. R. Dove, J. K. centrated swine feeding operation. Environ tion and policy process attributes: Does Bernard, M. D. McCranie, V. J. Boken, D. Health Perspec 115:1040–1045. the method matter. Am J Agric Econ L. Thomas, and G. Hoogenboom. 2003. Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter v. Department of 89:1098–1115. Agricultural water use associated with Environmental Quality, 747 N.W. 2d 321 Jones, D. R. and J. K. Northcutt. 2005. A survey animal production systems in Georgia. In (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). of practices in shell egg processing facili- K. J. Hatcher (ed.). Proceedings Georgia Skaggs, R. 2008. Ecosystem services and west- ties and water use. Int J Poult Sci 4 (10): Water Resources Conference, http://www. ern U.S. rangelands. Choices 23 (2): 37–41. 734–736. gwri.gatech.edu/uploads/proceedings/2003/ Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS). Kalmakoff, J. J. 1999. “The right to farm”: A Newton%20et%20al.pdf (9 March 2012) 2006. Final Report from the Blue Ribbon survey of farm practices protection legisla- Nicoll, S. 2006. The death of rangeland reform. J Panel Conducting an External Review of tion in Canada. Saskatchewan Law Rev Environ Law Litig 21:47–111. the US Department of Agriculture Conser- 62:225–268. North Carolina State University. n.d. Waste vation Effects Assessment Project. Soil and Key, N. and W. McBride. 2007. The Chang- Management Programs, http://www.cals. Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. ing Economics of U.S. Hog Production. ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/ Stephenson, K. and L. Shabman. 2011. Rhetoric Economic Research Report No. 52. USDA smithfieldsite.htm (9 March 2012) and reality of water quality trading and Economic Research Service. 38 pp. Northcutt, J. K., M. T. Musgrove, and D. R. the potential for market-like reform. J Am Key, N., W. McBride, and R. Mosheim. 2008. Jones. 2005. Chemical analyses of com- Water Resour As 47 (1): 15–28. Decomposition of total factor productivity mercial shell egg wash water. J Appl Poult Sweeten, J. M., B. Auvermann, S. Mukhtar, change in the U.S. hog industry. J Agric Res 14:289–295. N. A. Cole, R. DeOtte, D. B. Parker, B. Appl Econ 40 (1, April): 137–149. Oklahoma State University Extension. 2011. Weinheimer, K. D. Casey, C. B. Parnell, Kline, J. and D. Wichelns. 1996. Public prefer- Oklahoma Litter Market, http://www.ok- R. Todd, B. Shaw, and J. Upadhyay. 2007. ences regarding the goals of farmland pres- littermarket.org/incentives.asp (9 March 2012) Natural resource management: Air quality, ervation programs. Land Econ 72:538–549. Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Bureau water quality, and manure management. Pp. Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning of Land Management, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23–46. In Proceedings High Plains Live- Center (LPELC). 2008. Manure Manage- 43518 (2005). stock 2027 Conference: Shaping the Future ment Planner Software, http://www.exten- Osterberg, D. and D. Wallinga. 2004. Determi- of Food Animal Production. Texas AgriLife sion.org/mediawiki/files/4/4c/08decflyer.pdf nants of rural health. Am J Public Health Research and Extension Center, Amarillo, (9 March 2012) 94 (10). Texas, and West Texas A&M University, Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Penn, C. J., G. Mullins, L. Zelazny, J. Warren, Canyon, Texas. Center (LPELC). 2011. Animal Manure and J. McGrath. 2004. Surface runoff losses Tomer, M. and M. Locke. 2011. The challenge Management. University of Minne- of phosphorus from Virginia soils amended of documenting water quality benefits of sota Extension, http://www.extension.org/ with turkey manure using phytase and high conservation practices: A review of USDA animal+manure+management (9 March 2012) available phosphorus corn diets. J Environ ARS’s Conservation Effects Assessment Livestock and Poultry Environmental Steward- Qual 33:1431–1439. Project watershed studies. Water Sci Tech- ship (LPES). 2005. Livestock and Poultry Perrin, R. K. and K. D. Zering. 1993. Rates and nol 64 (1): 300–310. Environmental Stewardship (LPES) Cur- sources of productivity gains in the U.S. Turner, R. E. and N. N. Rabalais. 2003. Link- riculum: Startseite, http://www.lpes.org/ (9 broiler industry, 1957–1991. J Agr Resour ing landscape and water quality in the March 2012) Econ 18 (2): 307. Paper presented at the Mississippi River basin for 200 years. Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stew- Western Agricultural Economics Association Bioscience 53:563–572. ardship (LPES). 2010. Livestock and meetings, July, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Uri, N. D. 2001. A note on soil erosion and its Poultry Environmental Stewardship (LPES) Pingali, P. L. and P. W. Heisey. 1999. Cereal environmental consequences in the United Curriculum: Mission, http://www.lpes. crop productivity in developing countries: States. Water, Air, Soil Pollut 129:181–197. org/?s=programs (9 March 2012) Past trends and future prospects. CIMMYT Uri, N. D. and J. A. Lewis. 1998. The dynamics Lockeretz, W. 1989. Secondary effects on working paper 99-03. International Maize of soil erosion in US agriculture. Sci Total midwestern agriculture of metropolitan and Wheat Improvement Center (CIM- Environ 218 (1): 45–58. development and decreases in farmland. MYT), http://apps.cimmyt.org/Research/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Statistical Abstract of Land Econ 65:205–216. Economics/map/research_results/work- the United States 2004–2005, http://www.

22 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib. for the Final Revisions to the National (9 March 2012) cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System U.S. Code (USC). 2008. Title 33, Sections 1314, do?documentID=1047 (9 March 2012) Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for 13117, 1361. U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (USCFR). cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). December. 2008. Title 40, Parts 122, 412, 403, 432. 1980, 1990, 2000. Poultry Production U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994, and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell. (USEPA). 2003. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 2000, 2008. Agricultural Statistics, http:// edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo. 123, and 412. National pollutant discharge www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Sta- do?documentID=1130 (9 March 2012) elimination system permit regulation and tistics/index.asp (9 March 2012) U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- effluent limitation guidelines and standards U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). for concentrated animal feeding operations The Census of Agriculture, http://www. 1994. Agricultural Statistics 1994, http:// (CAFOs); Final rule. Fed Regis 38 (29): agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index. www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Sta- 7176–7274. asp (13 March 2012) tistics/agr4all.pdf (26 March 2012) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- (USEPA). 2007. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, and Farm Income and Costs: Farm Sector cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). 412. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037; FLR-8738- Income Forecast, http://www.ers.usda. 2001. Agricultural Chemical Use. 9; RIN 2040-AE80. gov/briefing/farmincome/data/cr_t3.pdf (9 U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March 2012) cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). (USEPA). 2008. Revised national pollutant U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic 2007. The Census of Agriculture: 2007 discharge elimination system permit regula- Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2001. Census Publications, http://www.agcensus. tion and effluent limitations guidelines for Confined Animal Production and Manure usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/ concentrated animal feeding operations in Nutrients. Agriculture Information Bulletin Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Wash- response to the Waterkeeper decision. Fed No. 771. June. ington/st53_1_029_031.pdf (9 March 2012) Regis 73 (225), http://www.epa.gov/npdes/ U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- regulations/cafo_final_rule_preamble2008. Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2002. cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). pdf (9 March 2012) Adoption and pesticide use. In Adoption 2008. Agricultural Statistics 1994, 2000, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of Bioengineered Crops. Agricultural 2008, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/ (USEPA). 2011a. Mississippi River Gulf Economic Report No. (AER810), http:// Ag_Statistics/index.asp (9 March 2012) of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER810/ U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/ (9 March 2012) cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS) named/msbasin/index.cfm (9 March 2012) U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic 2010. Agricultural Statistics 2010, http:// U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2006. www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Sta- (USEPA). 2011b. Effluent Guidelines: Major Uses of Land in the United States, tistics/2010/2010.pdf (26 March 2012) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 2002. Economic Information Bulletin No. U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Industry, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ (EIB-14). May. Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA– guide/cafo (9 March 2012) U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic NASS). 2011a. Cattle, http://usda.mannlib. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2007. cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo. (USEPA). 2011c. AgSTAR, an EPA Partner- Summary Tables: Major Uses of Land in do?documentID=1017 (9 March 2012) ship Program, http://www.epa.gov/agstar (9 the United States, 2002, http://www.ers. U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- March 2012) usda.gov/Data/MajorLandUses/MLUsum- cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–National marytables.pdf (9 March 2012) 2011b. Crop Production: Historical Track Pollutant Discharge Elimination System U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Records. April. 220 pp. (USEPA–NPDES). 2007. Effluent Limita- Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural tions Guidelines and Standards, http:// Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook. Resources Conservation Service (USDA– cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/techbasedpermitting/ LDP-M-172. October 17. NRCS). 2010. National Resources Inven- effguide.cfm (15 June 2012) U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic tory: Soil Erosion on Cropland 2007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–National Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2009. Ma- http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System nure Use for Fertilizer and Energy. Report detail/national/technical/nra/nri/results/ (USEPA–NPDES). 2011. Animal Feeding to Congress. AP037. June. ?&cid=stelprdb1041887 (9 March 2012) Operations, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural home.cfm?program_id=7 (9 March 2012) Research Service (USDA–ERS). 2011. Resources Conservation Service (USDA– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Office of Data Sets: Fertilizer Use and Price, http:// NRCS). 2011. National Handbook of Con- Water (USEPA–OW). 2002a. Water Quality www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/ (9 servation Practices. H_450_NHCP_TOC, Conditions in the United States—A Profile March 2012) http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS. from the 2000 National Water Quality U.S. Department of Agriculture–Farm Service aspx?hid=22299 (9 March 2012) Inventory. EPA-841-F-02-003. August. Agency (USDA–FSA). 2011. Conserva- U.S. Department of Labor–Bureau of Labor Sta- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Office tion Reserve Program: Monthly Summary. tistics (USDL–BLS). 2010. Career Guide of Water (USEPA–OW). 2002b. National March. 25 pp. to Industries, 2010–2011 Edition: Agriculture, Water Quality Inventory—2000 Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agri- Forestry, and Fishing, http://www.bls.gov/ EPA-841-R-02-001. August. cultural Statistics Service (USDA–NASS). oco/cg/cgs001.htm (9 March 2012) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Of- 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. Index of / U.S. Department of Labor–Bureau of Labor fice of Water (USEPA–OW). 2009. usda/nass/LiveSlau, http://usda.mannlib. Statistics (USDL–BLS). 2011. Data- National Water Quality Inventory: Report cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo. bases, Tables, and Calculators by Sub- to Congress—2004 Reporting Cycle. EPA- do?documentID=1097 (9 March 2012) ject: Employment, http://www.bls.gov/ 841-R-08-001. January. U.S. Department of Agriculture–National data/#employment (9 March 2012) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Esti- Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mated Use of Water in the United States in NASS). 1960–2010. Crop Production (USEPA). 2002. Development Document 2000. USGS Circular 1268.

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 23 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Esti- programs for swine over 25 years. North Demand Estimates. ISSN: 1554–9089, mated Use of Water in the United States in Carolina State University Extension Swine http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/ 2005. USGS Circular 1344. Husbandry. Swine News 32 (11, Novem- wasde/latest/pdf (21 October 2010) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. Nutrients ber): 1–3. Zeigler, P. T. 1962. The Meat We Eat. The Inter- in the Nation’s Streams and Groundwater, Weinheimer, B., T. H. Marek, R. N. Clark, J. state Printers and Publishers, Inc., Danville, 1992–2004. USGS Circular 1350. M. Sweeten, S. Amosson, and D. Topliff. Illinois. U.S. Government Accountability Office (US- 2007. Water for livestock and agriculture: Zering, K. 2010. Economics of implement- GAO). 2008. Concentrated Animal Feeding Availability and conservation. Pp. 57–70. ing new waste treatment technologies. In Operations: EPA Needs More Information In Proceedings, National Poultry and Animal and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Waste Management Conference, Greens- Air and Water Quality from Pollutants of . Texas AgriLife boro, North Carolina, 27 October. Concern. GAO-08-944. September. Research and Extension Center, Amarillo, Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, R. Dahlgren, and VanAsselt, W. and C. Layke. 2006. Protecting the Texas, and West Texas A&M University, M. Eitzel. 2010. A review of vegetated best of the West. Iss Sci Technol 22:43–52. Canyon, Texas. buffers and a meta-analysis of their efficacy van Heugten, E. 2009. Environmental impact World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB). in reducing nonpoint source pollution. J of improvements in genetics and feeding 2010. World Agricultural Supply and Environ Qual 39:76–84.

CAST Member Societies, Companies, and Nonprofit Organizations AMERICAN ACADEMY OF VETERINARY AND COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY/AMERICAN BOARD OF VETERINARY TOXICOLOGY n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AVIAN PATHOLOGISTS n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF BOVINE PRACTITIONERS n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PESTICIDE SAFETY EDUCATORS n AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SECTION OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, & RESOURCES–AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT n AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION n AMERICAN MEAT SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS n AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION n AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT SOCIETY n CHS FOUNDATION n COUNCIL OF ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATORS n CROPLIFE AMERICA n DUPONT PIONEER n ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH n IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION n MONSANTO n NATIONAL PORK BOARD n NORTH CENTRAL WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n NOVUS INTERNATIONAL, INC. n POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n SOCIETY FOR IN VITRO BIOLOGY n SOCIETY OF NEMATOLOGISTS n SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. n THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE n THE SAMUEL ROBERTS NOBLE FOUNDATION n UNITED SOYBEAN BOARD n WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA n WESTERN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE n WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, A LAND O’LAKES COMPANY The mission of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private sector, and the public. CAST is a nonprofit organization composed of scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board is composed of representatives of the scientific societies, commercial companies, nonprofit or trade organizations, and a Board of Directors. CAST was established in 1972 asaresultof meeting sponsored in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. ISSN 1070-0021

Additional copies of this Issue Paper are available from CAST. Linda M. Chimenti, Chief Operating Officer. http://www.cast-science.org.

Citation: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2012. Water and Land Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A U.S. Perspective. Issue Paper 50. CAST, Ames, Iowa.

24 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY