Factory Farm Nation: 2015 Edition

8/9/2019 Factory Farm Nation: 2015 Edition

1/50

Factory Farm Nation2015 EDITION


2/50

Food & Water Watch before people, and advocate for a democracy that improves people’s lives and protects our environment. foodandwaterwatch.org .

Los Angeles, California

3000 S. Robertson Boulevard

Suite 255

Los Angeles, CA 90034

(323) 843-8450

Oakland, California

1814 Franklin Street

Suite 1100

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 922-0720

Colorado

1740 High Street

Denver, CO 80218

(720) 449-7505

Florida

1044 NE 15th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304

(954) 372-1881

Illinois

811 W. Evergreen AvenueSuite 401

Chicago, IL 60642

(773) 796-6088

Iowa

505 Fifth AvenueSuite 818

Des Moines, IA 50309

(515) 344-4834

Maine

533 Congress StreetPortland, ME 04101

(207) 619-5845

Maryland

3121 St. Paul StreetSuite 28

Baltimore, MD 21218

(410) 394-7650

Michigan

2727 Second Avenue

Suite 136

Detroit, MI 48201-2654

(313) 486-1356

New Jersey

100 Bayard Street

Suite 202

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

(732) 839-0860

New Mexico

7804 Pan American

East Freeway NE #2

Albuquerque, NM 87109

(505) 633-7366

New York

68 Jay Street

Suite 713

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718) 943-9085

North Carolina

801 Gilbert Street

Suite 204

Durham, NC 27701

(919) 794-6380

Ohio

103 William H. Taft Road

Cincinnati, OH 45219

(513) 394-6257

Oregon

917 SW Oak Street

Suite 404

Portland, OR 97205

(971) 266-4528

Pennsylvania

1501 Cherry Street

Second Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(267) 428-1903

1616 P Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036(202) 683-2500

About Food & Water Watch

Copyright © May 2015 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved.

This report can be viewed or downloaded at foodandwaterwatch.org.


3/50

Execuive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Inroducion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Pork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chicken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Bad Policy Driving he Growh of Facory Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The High Cos o Low-Priced Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Weak Environmenal Regulaion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

The High Cos of Facory Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Waer Polluion and Manure Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Air Polluion and Odors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Impac on Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Impac on Communiies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Impac on Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Impac on Public Healh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Impac on Animal Welare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Endnoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Factory Farm Nation2015 EDITION


4/50

2 Food & Water Watch • foodandwaterwatch.org

Executive SummaryOver he las wo decades, small- and medium-scale

arms raising livesock have given way o acory arms

ha conine housands o cows, hogs and chickens in

ighly packed aciliies. Farmers have adoped acory

arming pracices largely a he behes o he larges

meapackers, pork processors, poulry companies and

dairy processors. The larges o hese agribusinesses are

pracically monopolies, conrolling wha consumers ge o

ea, wha hey pay or groceries and wha prices armers

receive or heir livesock.

This unchecked agribusiness power, along wih misguided

arm policies, have pressed livesock producers o become

signiicanly larger and o adop more-inensive pracices.

Despie ballooning in size, many livesock producers are

jus squeezing by inancially, because he real price o bee

catle, hogs and milk has been alling or decades.

These inensive mehods come wih a hos o environ-menal and public healh impacs ha are borne by

consumers and communiies. Facory arms produce

millions o gallons o manure ha can spill ino waerways

rom leaking sorage lagoons or ields where manure

is over-applied o soil. Manure generaes hazardous air

polluans and conains conaminans ha can endanger

human healh. Neighbors o hese animal acories, as

well as he workers in hem, ofen suffer inensely rom

overwhelming odors and relaed headaches, nausea and

oher long-erm healh effecs.

Even people housands o miles away rom hese

aciliies are no immune o heir impacs. Thousands o

animals crowded ino aciliies are vulnerable o disease.

Consumers eaing he dairy, egg and mea producs rom

acory arms can be exposed inadverenly o oodborne

baceria such as E. coli and Salmonella , as well as o he

public healh consequences o unchecked anibioics use.

And ye, despie all o he well-documened problems and

healh risks relaed o his ype o indusrialized produc-ion, he number and concenraion o acory arms in he

Unied Saes coninues o increase.

Key Findings

Beween 1997 and 2012, here was an economic and

geographic shif in how and where ood animals are

raised in he Unied Saes. Even jus a ew decades ago,

small- and medium-sized dairy, catle and hog arms were

dispersed across he counry. Today, hese operaions are

disappearing. The remaining operaions are primarily

large-scale acory arms ha are concenraed in speciic

regions, saes and even counies, where housands o

animals on each arm can produce more sewage han

mos large ciies, overwhelming he capaciy o rural

communiies o cope wih he environmenal and public

healh burdens.

Food & Waer Wach analyzed U.S. Deparmen o

Agriculure (USDA) Census of Agriculure daa rom 1997,

2002, 2007 and 2012 or bee catle, hogs, dairy catle,

broiler mea chickens and egg-laying operaions.1 In his

repor, and in our accompanying online map (www.aco-ryarmmap.org), we deine acory arms as operaions

wih more han 500 bee catle (eedlos only), 1,000 hogs,

500 dairy cows, 100,000 egg-laying chickens and 500,000

broiler chickens (sold annually), he larges size caegories

ha he USDA recognizes in is survey. (See he mehod-

ology in he appendix or a more deailed descripion o

Food & Waer Wach’s daa analysis.)

Key indings rom Food & Waer Wach’s analysis include:

• The oal number of livesock on he larges

facory farms rose by 20 percen beween 2002and 2012. The number o livesock unis on acory

arms increased rom 23.7 million in 2002 o 28.5

million in 2012.2 “Livesock unis” is a way o measure

differen kinds o animals on he same scale based

on heir weigh — one bee catle is he equivalen o

approximaely wo-hirds o a dairy cow, eigh hogs or

our hundred chickens.3

Beef cattle: 500 head on feed (feedlot)

Dairy: 500 cows

Hogs: 1,000 head

Broiler chickens: 500,000 sold annually

Egg-laying chickens: 100,000

What Is a Factory Farm?


5/50

Factory Farm Nation: 2015 Edition 3

• These facory-farmed livesock produced 369million ons of manure in 2012 , abou 13 imes as

much as he sewage produced by he enire U.S. popu-

laion. This 13.8 billion cubic ee o manure is enough

o ill he Dallas Cowboys sadium 133 imes.4 Unlike

sewage produced in ciies, he manure on acory

arms does no undergo any wasewaer reamen.

• The number of dairy cows on facory farms

doubled, and he average-sized dairy facory

farm increased by half, beween 1997 and 2012.

The number o dairy cows on acory arms rose 120.9

percen rom 2.5 million cows in 1997 o 5.6 millionin 2012, he equivalen o adding 550 acory-armed

dairy cows every day or 15 years. The average size

o dairy acory arms grew by hal (49.1 percen),

rom 1,114 cows in 1997 o 1,661 in 2012. In nine saes

— Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho,

Texas, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada — he average

size was more han 2,000 cows in 2012.

• The number of beef catle on feedlos rose

5 percen from 2002 o 2012. Feedlo size grew

even as he 2012 drough reduced oal catle

numbers. The number o bee catle on operaions

wih a leas 500 head grew rom 11.6 million in 2002

o 12.1 million in 2012 — adding abou 157 bee catle

every day or 10 years.5 Texas, Nebraska and Kansas

all had more han 2 million bee catle on eedlos in

2012. The 2012 drough reduced he oal number o

bee catle on eedlos naionwide, bu he average

eedlo size increased by 13.7 percen over ive years,

rom 3,800 in 2007 o more han 4,300 in 2012.

• The number of hogs on facory farms increasedby more han one-hird, and he average farm

size swelled nearly 70 percen from 1997 o 2012.

The number o hogs on acory arms grew by 37.1

percen — rom 46.1 million in 1997 o 63.2 million in

2012 — he equivalen o adding 3,100 hogs o acory

arms every day or he pas 15 years. The average

size o a hog acory arm increased 68.4 percen, rom

3,600 hogs in 1997 o nearly 6,100 in 2012.

• The number of broiler chickens on facory farms

rose nearly 80 percen from 1997 o 2012, o more

han 1 billion. The number o broiler chickens raisedon acory arms rose 79.9 percen rom 583.3 million

in 1997 o 1.05 billion in 2012 — abou hree birds or

every person in he Unied Saes.6 The growh in

indusrial broiler producion added 85,000 chickens o

acory arms every day over he pas 15 years. The

average size o U.S. broiler chicken operaions rose

by 5.9 percen, rom 157,000 in 1997 o 166,000 birds

in 2012. The average size in Caliornia and Nebraska

exceeded 500,000 birds in 2012.

• The number of egg-laying hens on facory farms

increased by nearly one quarer from 1997 o

2012, o 269 million. The number o egg-producing

layer hens increased 24.8 percen, rom 215.7 million in

1997 o 269.3 million in 2012. Nearly hal (49.3 percen)

o he egg-laying hens in 2012 were in he op-ive egg-

producing saes: Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Caliornia and

Texas. The average size o egg operaions has grown by

74.2 percen over 15 years, rising rom 399,000 in 1997

o more han 695,000 in 2012.


6/50


The incredible growh o acory arming is due o hree

key acors. Firs, unchecked mergers and acquisiions

beween he larges meapacking, poulry processing

and dairy companies creaed an inensely consolidaed

landscape where a ew gian agribusinesses exer remen-

dous pressure on livesock producers o become larger

and more inensive. Second, lax environmenal rules and

lackluser enorcemen allowed acory arms o grow o

exraordinary sizes wihou having o properly manage heoverwhelming amoun o manure hey creae. And inally,

or much o he pas 15 years, misguided arm policy

encouraged over-producion o commodiy crops such as

corn and soybeans, which ariicially depressed he price

o livesock eed and creaed an indirec subsidy o acory

arm operaions. Alhough crop prices rose in recen years,

in 2014 he USDA projeced ha prices would decline or

several years, and he pace o acory arm consrucion

has increased o ake advanage o expeced cheaper eed

prices in coming years.

The combinaion o hese rends has eroded rural econo-

mies, driven independen producers ou o business and

allowed he larges livesock operaions o dominae animal

agriculure in he Unied Saes. The manure rom hese

acory arm operaions pollues he environmen and

endangers public healh. Crowded condiions leave animals

suscepible o disease, drive he overuse o anibioics and

can mean ha ood saey problems on even a ew acory

arms can end up in everyone’s rerigeraor.

The sakes are high or he uure o livesock producion.

Because governmen a all levels has made decisions ha

conribued o he rise o acory arms, all levels o govern-

men mus be involved in changing policies and enorcing

exising laws o rein in his indusry.

Food & Waer Wach recommends:

• The U.S. Environmenal Proecion Agency (EPA) and

saes should esablish a moraorium on he consruc-

ion o new acory arms and on he expansion o

exising aciliies.

• The EPA mus implemen and enorce appropriae

environmenal rules o preven acory arm polluion.

• The Deparmen o Jusice mus preven he coninued

consolidaion o he meapacking and poulry, egg and

dairy processing indusries and revisi he mergers ha

i already has approved o ensure ha armers ge air

prices or heir livesock.

• Congress mus resore sensible commodiy programs

ha do no prioriize he producion o ariicially

cheap livesock eed over air prices o crop armers.• The Food and Drug Adminisraion (FDA) mus

prohibi non-herapeuic use o anibioics and oher

livesock reamens ha aciliae acory arming a

he expense o public healh.

• The USDA mus enorce and srenghen livesock

markeing and conrac regulaions o allow indepen-

den livesock producers access o air markes.

• Sae environmenal auhoriies mus sep up heir

permiting and enorcemen o waer and air polluion

regulaions on acory arms.


7/50


Introduction

The signiican growh in indusrial-scale, acory-armed

livesock has conribued o a hos o environmenal,

public healh, economic, ood saey and animal welare

problems. Thousands o animals in one locaion can

generae millions o ons o manure annually, which

pollues waer and air and can have healh repercussions

or neighbors and nearby communiies. Consumers in

disan markes also eel he impacs, hrough eiher

oodborne illness oubreaks, oher public healh risks or

he loss o regional ood sysems. Even mos producers

are no beneiing rom his sysem o producion because

hey are no geting paid much or he livesock ha hey

raise.

The rise o acory arming was no acciden. I resuled

rom public policy choices driven by big agribusinesses,

especially meapackers and processors ha dominae

he criical seps in he ood chain beween livesock

producers and consumers. The silos and genle meadowspicured on he labels o he ood ha mos Americans

buy have litle relaion o how ha ood is acually

produced. Mos o he pork, bee, poulry, dairy and eggs

produced in he Unied Saes come rom large-scale,

conined livesock operaions.

These animals produce remendous amouns o manure.

Food & Waer Wach esimaes ha he livesock and

poulry on he larges acory arms in 2012 produced 369

million ons o manure — almos 13 imes more han he

312 million people in he Unied Saes.7

This 13.8 billion

cubic ee o manure is enough o ill he Dallas Cowboys

sadium 133 imes.8 Unlike he household wase produced

in an overwhelming majoriy o U.S. communiies, which

have municipal sewer sysems, he manure and wase

rom livesock operaions is unreaed. Insead, acory

arm wase is sored in manure pis or lagoons, and

ulimaely i is applied o arm ields as erilizer. As he

Wisconsin Sae Journal noed, “[u]nlike ciies, which rea

heir wase, mos o he large arms dispose o manure hesame way armers disposed o i in he Middle Ages — by

spreading i on ields as erilizer.”9

Small, diversiied arms ha raise animals as well as

oher crops have always used manure as erilizer wihou

polluing waer. The difference wih acory arms is scale.

They produce so much wase in one place ha i mus be

applied o land in quaniies ha exceed he soil’s abiliy

o incorporae i. The vas quaniies o manure can — and

do — make heir way ino he local environmen, where

hey pollue air and waer. Manure conains nirogen,phosphorus and ofen baceria ha can impac he envi-

ronmen and human healh. Manure lagoons leak, and

armers over-apply manure o heir ields, which allows

he wase o seep ino local sreams and groundwaer.

Residenial drinking wells can be conaminaed wih

dangerous baceria ha can sicken neighbors, and he

runoff can damage he ecological balance o sreams and

rivers. In some cases, manure spills ha reach waerways

can kill aquaic lie.

Large quaniies o decomposing manure don’ jus sink,

hey can be a healh hazard as well. Noxious gas emis-

sions rom manure holding anks and lagoons — including

hydrogen sulide, ammonia and mehane — can cause skin

rashes, breahing problems, and headaches, and long-erm

exposure can lead o neurological problems. For children,

senior ciizens and aduls wih oher healh problems,

exposure o hese umes can cause even more problems.

Indusrial livesock operaions also can creae public

healh hazards in oher ways. The aciliies are over-

crowded and sressul o animals, making i easy or

disease o spread. When housands o bee catle arepacked ino eedlos ull o manure, baceria can ge on

heir hides and hen ino slaugherhouses. Conaminaion

on even one seer can conaminae housands o pounds

o mea inside a slaugherhouse. In 2010, he crowded,

unsaniary condiions a wo Iowa egg companies caused

a recall o more han hal a billion poenially Salmonella -

ained eggs and was linked o illness in nearly 1,500

people.10


8/50


Facory arms can creae public healh concerns beyondoodborne illness. Because over-crowded animals are

suscepible o inecion and disease, mos indusrial

livesock aciliies rea he animals wih low levels o

anibioics o ry o preven illness and compensae or

sressul condiions. By creaing an ideal breeding ground

or anibioic-resisan baceria, he overuse o anibioics

on acory arms can reduce he effeciveness o anibi-

oics or human paiens. The eed used or livesock can

also inroduce public healh hreas. For decades, broiler

chickens received arsenic-based eed addiives o promoe

pinker lesh and aser growh, and bee catle coninue obe ed wih animal byproducs, which increases he risk o

mad cow disease.

These unhealhy condiions and addiives no only pose

hreas o he environmen and public healh, hey also

are derimenal o he animals hemselves. Mos acory-

armed hogs and chickens have no access o he oudoors

and never see dayligh. Bee catle and dairy cows spend

ime ouside, bu hey are crammed ono eedlos wih

no access o pasure or grass. The lack o oudoor access,

inabiliy o express naural behaviors or graze, healhproblems and sress caused by producion pracices, and

breeding designed o maximize weigh gain or egg and

milk producion ake a oll on animal welare.

Nor have mos armers beneied rom he shif o

acory arming. The number o dairy, hog and bee catle

producers in America has declined sharply over he las 20

years as he meapacking, processing and dairy indusries

have driven armers o increase in scale. Mos armers

barely break even. In 2012, more han hal o armers los

money on heir arming operaions.11 The iny handul o

companies ha dominaes each livesock secor exers

remendous conrol over he prices ha armers receive,

and hese companies micromanage he day-o-day opera-

ions o many arms. The real price ha armers receive

or livesock has rended seadily downward or he las

wo decades.

The rapid ransormaion o livesock producion rom

hundreds o housands o independen armers wih

reasonably sized operaions o a ew housand mega-

arms did no happen naurally. Facory arming was

aciliaed by hree policy changes pushed by he larges

agribusinesses: 1) Farm Bills rom he mid-1990s hrough

mid-2000s ariicially lowered he cos o crops desined

or livesock eed, 2) he EPA ignored acory arm pollu-

ion and 3) he Deparmen o Jusice allowed he larges

meapackers o merge ino a virual monopoly.

Since he 1980s, U.S. arm policy has encouraged heoverproducion o corn, soybeans and oher crops used

or livesock eed. For mos o he pas quarer cenury,

his overproducion made he cos o eed ariicially

low — below he cos i ook o raise he crops. Permi-

ing crop prices o all below heir cos o producion and

hen paying armers some o he difference wih axpayer

dollars indirecly subsidizes acory arms, meapackers

and ood processors. Ariicially low commodiy prices

encouraged livesock producers o buy eed raher han

pasure heir livesock or grow heir own eed crops. Since

producers no longer needed land or pasure or eed crops

and eed coss were low, i became economically easible

o conine large numbers o animals ogeher in acory

arm aciliies wihou an enormous amoun o land.

Crop prices rose in 2008 when bad weaher coincided wih

increased demand rom overseas consumers and biouel

plans ha absorbed more o U.S. crop producion.12 Wall

Sree invesmen banks acceleraed he price increases

and volailiy as speculaors increasingly viewed arm

producion as an asse class.13 Prices generally remained

high, bu volaile, beween 2008 and 2012.14 By 2014, cropprices began o all again and were projeced o remain

lower or he oreseeable uure.15 The orecas o a

long-erm, low-priced eed environmen has encouraged

a resurgence o acory arm consrucion or hogs and

broiler chickens.16

The environmenal oversigh o acory arms is disjoined

oohless and almos non-exisen. Weak oversigh o

wase disposal, a major expense in livesock operaions,


9/50


reduces he coss o acory arming and encourages he

developmen o larger operaions. Alhough he EPA is

asked wih regulaing acory arms, i has done litle

o nohing o conrol he environmenal damage caused

by acory arms. Atemps o require adequae oversigh

have been blocked repeaedly by he livesock indusry,

which has opposed any saeguards or oversigh o acory

arm polluans.

While hese wo policies reduced he major operaing

coss o acory arming — eed and manure disposal —

he growing rend oward consolidaion wihin he mea-

packing, poulry and dairy indusries cemened acory

arming as he dominan model o livesock producion.

Over he pas wo decades, a wave o mergers and acqui-

siions has concenraed he livesock secors ino he

hands o jus a ew dominan companies. These power-

houses employ heavy-handed acics, abusive conrac

erms and manipulaive pracices ha minimize he prices

hey pay or livesock. In many cases, he companiesencourage or require armers o increase he scale o heir

operaions, or he companies will no buy heir livesock

a all.

The resul o hese rends converging is clear: mos

animals raised or ood in he Unied Saes are raised on

acory arms, and, over he pas decade, acory arms

have become bigger and more concenraed in cerain

regions o he counry.

DairyIn recen years, small and mid-sized dairy arms have

been disappearing and are being replaced by dairy acory

arms ha now dominae milk producion. Beween 1997

and 2012, he Unied Saes los nearly hal is dairy arms

(52,750 arms, or abou 3,500 arms per year on average),

bu because he remaining arms added more cows, oal

milk producion has acually increased by nearly a hird.17

Consolidaion in he dairy processing indusry has driven

boh he loss o arms and he rise o dairy acory arms.

Up unil he 1990s, medium-sized luid milk processors

were local businesses ha bough milk rom local dairyarms and supplied local consumers and reailers.18 Now, a

handul o companies buys he majoriy o milk, increas-

ingly rom indusrial mega-dairy arms, and processes i

ino dairy producs and processed ood ingrediens. The

larges milk processing company, Dean Foods, conrols

over a hird (36 percen) o he naion’s luid milk supply.19

While Dean Foods is he mos common source o milk

in he dairy case, consumers migh no see a Dean label

because he milk is markeed under more han 55 regional

brands, including Garelick, Ala Dena and Fieldcres.20

Consumers a he dairy case see amiliar labels ha hey

have long associaed wih local or regional companies, bu

he company behind many o he labels is Dean.

Increasing Size

Food & Waer Wach’s analysis o he USDA Census of

Agriculure daa ound ha he number o cows on acory

arms wih over 500 head more han doubled rom 2.5

million in 1997 o 5.5 million in 2012.21 (See Figure 1.)

Abou 3.0 million dairy cows were added o acory arm

operaions over 15 years — abou 555 addiional cows

every day.

The rise o he acory arm dairy indusry has been more

pronounced in wesern saes and has ransormed he

naional dairy landscape over he pas decade. Food &

Waer Wach ound ha alhough radiional dairy saes

like Wisconsin and New York added more han 550,000dairy cows o heir larges operaions over 15 years, hese

saes were oupaced by he size and growh o dairy

acory arms in wesern saes. In 2012, here were more

han 2.9 million cows on dairy acory arms in Caliornia,

Idaho, Texas and New Mexico. The emergence o wesern

dairy acory arms has conribued o he decline o local

dairy arms in he Souheas, Norheas, Upper Midwes

and pars o he Midwes.

Figure 1 • Number of Dairy Cows on

Factory Farms (in millions)

1997 2002 2007 2012

2.51

3.74

4.86

5.55

SOURCE: FOOD & WATER WATCH ANALYSIS OF USDA DATA.


10/50


Food & Waer Wach ound ha he average size o dairy

acory arms increased by hal over he decade, rising

rom 1,114 head in 1997 o 1,661 head in 2012. Many

saes have higher average-sized dairy acory arms. The

average-sized dairy acory arms in Kansas, Oklahoma,

New Mexico, Arizona and Idaho conained more han

2,500 cows. (See Figure 2.)

Manure Overload

Small dairy arms generae less manure han acory

arms; hey usually apply ha manure o cropland, or

i is incorporaed ino pasure as cows graze. Because

big dairies generae ar more manure han hey can use

as erilizer, hey mus eiher sore i in gian lagoons

or apply i o cropland a excessive raes, where i can

leach ino groundwaer and run off ino nearby rivers and

sreams.

The larges dairy acory arm counies produce as much

unreaed dairy wase as he sewage produced in major

American meropolian areas (which goes o wasewaer

reamen plans). (See Table 1.) The more han 485,000

dairy cows on dairy acory arms in Tulare Couny, Cali-

Top Dairy Factory FarmCounties

Dairy Cows onFactory Farms

Human PopulationSewage Equivalent

(millions)Comparable Metropolitan Area

California/Tulare 485,938 107.6 5 x New York City

California/Merced 268,656 59.5 10 x Philadelphia

Idaho/Gooding 173,870 38.5 10 x Seattle

California/Stanislaus 165,740 36.7Chicago + Dallas + Washington, DC + Miami + Atlanta +

Minneapolis-St. Paul

California/Kings 165,623 36.7 New York City + Los Angeles + San Diego

California/Kern 128,302 28.4 10 x Tampa-St. Petersburg

California/Fresno 109,195 24.2 10 x Pittsburgh

Arizona/Maricopa 107,537 23.8 10 x Charlotte, NC

California/San Joaquin 104,298 23.1 New York City + San Diego

Washington/Yakima 97,718 21.6 6 x Seattle

California/San Bernardino 82,031 18.2 3 x Philadelphia

New Mexico/Chaves 75,941 16.8 Los Angeles + San Diego

NOTE: comparison is to the population of the entire greater metropolitan area, not only the city population.

TABLE 1 • Top Dairy Factory Farm Counties and Human Sewage Equivalent

Figure 2 • Average Size of Dairy Factory Farms

United States Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico Arizona Idaho

1 , 1

1 4

1 ,

2 8 9

1 ,

4 8 1

1 ,

6 6 1

1997 2002 2007 2012

2 ,

4 6 9

3 ,

3 4 6

3 ,

5 9 6 4

, 5 3 9

2 , 7

8 2

2 ,

3 3 7

2 ,

4 1 4

3 ,

0 7 8

1 ,

8 7 0 2

, 2 5 2

2 ,

3 7 6

2 ,

8 9 2

1 ,

4 5 1

1 ,

8 3 7

2 ,

6 9 4

2 , 7

8 4

1 ,

2 7 0

1 , 7

1 9

2 , 1

2 3

2 ,

6 2 6



11/50


ornia produce ive imes as much wase as he populaion

in he greaer New York Ciy meropolian area.22 The

nearly 268,000 dairy cows in Merced Couny, Caliornia

produce abou 10 imes as much wase as he populaion

o he enire meropolian area o Philadelphia.

Beef Over he pas decade, large-scale indusrial eedlos ha

aten bee catle prior o slaugher came o dominaehe enire catle indusry. These eedlos buy rom small

or mid-sized ranches ha raise young catle and hen

“inish” catle o marke weigh. Even in 2012, nearly hal

(46 percen) o all bee catle were raised on 665,000 arms

and ranches wih ewer han 100 head o cows.23 Bu mos

o hese catle ulimaely end up on eedlos beore hey

go o he slaugherhouse.

These eedlos have goten much larger and ofen parner

wih or are owned by meapackers. Unil he mid-1960s,

mos eedlos were small, amily-owned operaions hahandled ewer han 1,000 head. They markeed mos o

he naion’s bee catle.24 Now, he larges bee eedlos

inish he vas majoriy o bee catle. In 2012, he larges

607 eedlos (1.8 percen) each inished more han 32,000

catle and markeed more han hree quarers (76.5

percen) o bee catle.25

Increasing Size

Food & Waer Wach ound ha he number o bee catle

on eedlos larger han 500 head grew by 5.0 percen —

rom more han 11.5 million in 2002 o 12.1 million in 2012— adding abou 157 bee catle every day or 10 years.26

(See Table 2.) Catle on he larges eedlos declined rom

2007 o 2012 because persisen drough and high eed

prices reduced he number o catle and orced some

eedlos o close.27 Noneheless, ive saes wih he larges

invenories o bee catle on he bigges eedlos all had

more han 950,000 acory-armed bee catle. Combined,

hese ive saes (Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado

and Iowa) held 9.3 million head o bee catle on eedlos

in 2012 — more han hree ourhs (77.0 percen) o all

acory-armed bee catle in he counry.

The naional average or bee eedlo size was over 4,300

head in 2012, 13.7 percen higher han 2007 despie he

drough and high eed prices. In many saes, he average

eedlo size increased signiicanly, and in ive saes

(Arizona, Caliornia, Texas, Washingon and Oklahoma),

he average eedlo size was larger han 18,000 head, riple

he naional average.

Mos catle eedlos are locaed in rural counies, bu he

large number o catle in hese areas produces he same

amoun o wase as some o America’s larges ciies. The

manure rom catle eedlos is sored on sie unil i is

State2002 2007 2012

Head of Cattle

Texas 2,644,450 2,993,215 2,738,120

Nebraska 2,173,979 2,512,659 2,481,426

Kansas 2,223,850 2,566,734 2,180,082

Colorado 1,062,357 1,102,792 992,007

Iowa 606,648 1,178,958 953,728

United States 11,555,300 13,528,205 12,130,113

TABLE 2 • Top Factory Farm Feedlot Inventory

Top Factory FarmBeef Feedlot Counties

Beef Cattle onFeedlots

Human Population SewageEquivalent (millions)

Comparable Metropolitan Area

California/Imperial 340,548 34.3 2 x Los Angeles + San Francisco-Oakland + Sacramento

Kansas/Haskell 330,882 33.3 10 x St. Louis + 2 x Kansas CityTexas/Deaf Smith 328,196 33.0 3 x Dallas + 2 x Houston

Texas/Castro 292,440 29.4 2 x Dallas + 2 x Houston + San Antonio

Nebraska/Cuming 248,710 25.0 28 x Omaha

Colorado/Weld 243,345 24.5 9 x Denver

Iowa/Sioux 240,469 24.2 40 x Des Moines

Texas/Parmer 219,040 22.1 3 x Houston + 2 x Austin

Texas/Hartley 216,215 21.8 4 x San Antonio + Dallas + Houston

Texas/Hansford 209,947 21.1 3 x Houston + San Antonio

TABLE 3 • Top Factory Farmed Beef Feedlot Counties and Human Sewage Equivalent


12/50


13/50


PorkHog arms have grown dramaically, wih housands o

hogs packed ino coninemen barns. In many regions,

here are only one or wo pork packers, so hog producers

have ew poenial buyers or heir hogs. This economic

pressure has led many hog producers o ollow he mea

indusry’s manra o “ge big or ge ou.”37 In less han wo

decades, he number o hog arms declined by 70 percen,

rom more han 240,000 in 1992 o ewer han 70,000 in

2007.38 The number o arms coninued o drop o under

56,000 arms in 2012.39

Despie he collapse in he number o arms, he number

o hogs grew as he scale o he remaining opera-

ions exploded. (See Figure 3.) Wha makes he rise o

acory arms in he hog indusry so noeworhy is ha

i happened recenly and quickly. In 1992, less han a

hird o hogs were raised on arms wih more han 2,000

animals.40 By 2012, 97.4 percen o hogs were raised on

operaions wih more han 2,000 hogs.41 (See Figure 4.)

The decline in he number o arms and he explosion in

he size o hog operaions was driven by consolidaion in

he pork packing and processing indusry. Since he 1990s,

a wave o mergers has signiicanly increased consolida-

ion in he pork packing indusry. In 1995, he op our

pork packers slaughered less han hal o he hogs (46

percen), bu by 2012 he op our irms slaughered nearly

wo hirds o he hogs.42 These companies pressed armers

o ener ino conracs o raise hogs owned by he packers

or o commi o selling o a speciic packer long beore he

hogs are ready o be slaughered.

In 1993, almos all hogs (87 percen) were sold a aucion

o pork packers or processors. By 2013, nearly all (93

percen) hogs were conrolled well beore he ime o

slaugher by he pork packers, eiher because hey

owned he hogs (29 percen) or because hey alreadyhad conraced o buy he hogs (64 percen).43 The use o

hese conrac arrangemens depresses he price o hogs.

Average hog prices were $81 per hundredweigh beween

1989 and 1993 (in 2014 dollars), when mos hogs were no

under conrac. During he 2010 o 2014 period, average

hog prices were $68 per hundredweigh, nearly 20 percen

less.44

Increasing Size

Food & Waer Wach ound ha he number o hogs on

acory arms wih more han 1,000 head grew by morehan a hird (37.1 percen), rom 46.1 million in 1997 o

63.2 million in 2012, alhough he growh slowed as eed

prices increased afer 2008. (See Figure 3.) The addiion o

17.1 million hogs over 15 years pu 3,100 more hogs ono

acory arms every day . The decline in eed prices afer

2012 has encouraged a resurgence in hog acory arm

consrucion. During 2013 and 2014, Iowa armers have

applied o build 700 new hog aciliies, six imes he level

Figure 3 • Number of Hogs on U.S.Factory Farms (in millions)

1997 2002 2007 2012

46.1

52.4

62.9 63.2

Figure 4 • Share of Hogs on OperationsLarger Than 2,000 Head

1992

2004

2007

2012

30%

80%

95%

97%

SOURCE: FOOD & WATER WATCH ANALYSIS OF USDA DATA. SOURCE: USDA.


14/50


ive years earlier when eed was more expensive, and

oher Midwesern saes have seen similar hog acory

arm building booms.45

The ive larges saes or acory-armed hogs (Iowa,

Norh Carolina, Minnesoa, Illinois and Indiana) represen

abou 70 percen o all acory-armed hogs. (See Figure 5.)

They have held his ranking since 1997, bu he mos rapid

growh has been in he Midwes. The number o hogs onacory arms in Iowa nearly doubled (a 93 percen increase)

beween 1997 and 2012, and in Minnesoa, he number

surged 76 percen. In conras, alhough Norh Carolina

has mainained he second-place ranking or he number

o acory-armed hogs, his number has allen rom is

peak o 10 million in 2007, and now here are ewer acory

armed hogs in he sae han in 1997, in par due o sae

laws limiing he consrucion o new manure sysems.46

Food & Waer Wach ound ha he average hog acory

arm size increased by 68.4 percen over a decade, rising

rom 3,612 hogs per arm in 1997 o 6,081 in 2012. (SeeFigure 6.) The larges hog acory arms were no in he

saes wih he larges number o hogs, bu in saes

where hog producion was limied largely o a ew coun-

ies wih enormous operaions. Eigh saes averaged more

han 10,000 hogs per acory arm, and Uah acory hog

arms had more han 65,000 hogs — 10 imes he naional

average.

Manure Overload

Much o U.S. hog producion is concenraed in he

grain- and soybean-producing Midwes. The remendous

amoun o manure produced on hog acory arms is

sored in lagoons and applied — ofen over-applied — o

cropland. In he upper Midwes, where armland reezes

solid during he winer, manure applied o rozen ields

Top Factory Farm Hog Counties Hog InventoryHuman Population Sewage

Equivalent (millions)Comparable Metropolitan Area

North Carolina/Sampson 1,854,471 32.3 14 x Charlotte

North Carolina/Duplin 1,725,305 30.1 25 x Raleigh

Oklahoma/Texas 1,204,135 21.0 3 x Dallas

Iowa/Sioux 1,134,262 19.8 33 x Des Moines

Iowa/Washington 972,291 17.0 65 x Cedar Rapids

Minnesota/Martin 797,305 13.9 4 x Minneapolis-St. Paul

Iowa/Plymouth 722,227 12.6 21 x Des Moines

Iowa/Hardin 714,373 12.5 Chicago + St. Louis

Iowa/Lyon 698,205 12.2 14 x Omaha

North Carolina/Bladen 650,537 11.3 5 x Charlotte

TABLE 4 • Top Factory Farm Hog Counties and Human Sewage Equivalent

Figure 5 • Top Factory Farm Hog States

1997 2002 2007 2012

N u m b e r o f H o g s

( i n m i l l i o n s )

Iowa

North Carolina

Minnesota

Illinois

Indiana

10.2

9.5

4.2

3.2

2.8

13.3

9.8

5.5

3.4

2.8

17.9

10.1

7.1

3.9

3.3

19.7

8.9

7.3

4.5

3.5

Figure 6 • Average Size of U.S. Factory Hog Farms

1997 2002 2007 2012

6,081

5,144

4,406

3,612

SOURCE – FIGURES 5 AND 6: FOOD & WATER WATCH ANALYSIS OF USDA DATA.


15/50


canno be absorbed, so i runs off ino local waers.

When manure sorage lagoons spill or leak, or i manure

is over-applied on armland, i easily can end up in local

waerways.

In 2012, eigheen U.S. counies held more han hal a

million hogs on acory arms. These counies effecively

generaed he same amoun o unreaed manure as he

volume o sewage ha eners he wasewaer reamenplans o some o America’s larges ciies. The more han

1.8 million hogs in Sampson Couny, Norh Carolina

generaed 14 imes as much wase as he enire Charlote

meropolian area, and he million-plus hogs in Sioux

Couny, Iowa produced 33 imes as much wase as Des

Moines.47

ChickenChicken mea comes rom billions o chickens raised on

housands o broiler chicken operaions, where armers

raise birds on conrac or he ew poulry processingcompanies ha dominae he indusry. This means ha

he companies own he chickens and pay armers o

raise hem. Under hese conracs, he companies make

managemen decisions such as eed and chick delivery

scheduling, and hey lock armers ino conracs ha

prohibi he armers rom selling chickens o anyone else.

The scale o chicken arms has grown rapidly, as growers

ry o eke ou a living by increasing he volume o birds

hey produce on conrac. The median-sized chicken

operaion increased by 21 percen in a decade, rising rom

520,000 birds annually in 2002 o 628,000 birds in 2011.48

Increasing Size

Food & Waer Wach ound ha in 2012, here were over

1 billion broiler chickens on large arms in he Unied

Saes a any one ime — more han hree birds or each

person in he counry.49 The number o broiler chickens

increased by 79.9 percen over 15 years, rising rom 583.3

million in 1997 o 1.05 billion in 2012, adding abou 3,500

chickens every hour. (See Figure 7.) The number o broiler

chickens declined slighly (by 4.0 percen) rom 2007 o

2012 as a resul o higher eed prices.50 As eed prices

subsequenly moderaed and began o all, more new

chicken houses were being buil in poulry regions like he

Easern Shore o he Chesapeake Bay.51

Broiler producion is concenraed largely in Souheasernsaes and is even more concenraed wihin saes ino

localized clusers.52 In 2012, more han hal o broilers were

raised in Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and

Texas. (See Table 5.) In Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas,

he number o broilers nearly doubled beween 1997 and

2012. The concenraion o broiler operaions means ha

21 saes have no large-scale broiler producion a all.

The average size o U.S. broiler operaions rose rom

abou 156,000 chickens in 1997 and 2002 o abou 166,000

chickens in 2007 and 2012. These igures represen he

average number o birds housed in aciliies a any one

ime. Over he course o a year, 911,000 broilers would

have passed hrough he average operaion in 2012, in

ive-and-a-hal locks ha each sayed on he arm or

roughly seven weeks. In he saes wih he larges opera-

State1997 2002 2007 2012

Inventory in Millions of Chickens

Georgia 111.5 148.8 204.9 170.9

Arkansas 58.8 84.2 133.8 116.3

Alabama 68.3 99.5 107.6 110.1

Mississippi 51.8 75.4 110.3 102.4

Texas 46.7 77.9 90.4 92.8

United States 583.3 829.1 1,093.2 1,048.9

TABLE 5 • Top Broiler Factory Farm States

Figure 7 • Broiler Chickens on Factory Farms

583,251,810

829,138,930

1,093,189,481 1,049,274,995

1997 2002 2007 2012



16/50


ions, hese operaions are considerably larger han he

naional average — our saes averaged broiler locks in

excess o 200,000 birds a any one ime.53 (See Figure 8.) In

2012, he average broiler operaion invenory in Caliornia

exceeded 1.7 million birds.

Litter Overload

Alhough he poulry companies own he chickens and he

eed ha goes ino hem, he conrac armers are respon-

sible or he managemen o he manure. Poulry liter

— chicken manure and manure-laden bedding (usually rice

hulls or sraw) — is sored on arms, where i is applied o

armland as erilizer. In many dense poulry-producion

areas, he volume o poulry liter grealy exceeds he

erilizer need and capaciy o nearby armland. Wih so

many birds and so much manure, he accumulaed liter

can pose a signiican environmenal risk.

Even hough chickens are small and produce less manure

han catle or hogs, he sheer number o broilers in many

rural counies produces as much unreaed manure as

he sewage oupu o some major and mid-sized mero-

polian areas. (See Table 6.) The more han 18 millionbroiler chickens on acory arms in Shelby Couny, Texas

produce abou as much wase as he populaion o he

enire Dallas-For Worh meropolian area. The 17.8

million broilers in Fresno Couny, Caliornia produce six

imes as much wase as he populaion o he Fresno

mero area.

Top Factory Farm BroilerCounties

Number of ChickensHuman Population Sewage

Equivalent (millions)Comparable Metropolitan Area

Texas/Shelby 18,907,120 6.4 Dallas

California/Fresno 17,877,062 6.0 6 x FresnoArkansas/Benton 16,958,946 5.7 8 x Little Rock

Texas/Nacogdoches 14,323,576 4.8 2 x San Antonio

Georgia/Franklin 13,436,316 4.5 2 x Charlotte

Missouri/Barry 12,164,827 4.1 2 x Kansas City

Delaware/Sussex 11,744,313 3.9 Baltimore + Wilmington

Virginia/Rockingham 11,553,334 3.9 3 x Richmond

Arkansas/Washington 11,258,460 3.8 5 x Little Rock

Mississippi/Smith 10,729,243 3.6 6 x Jackson, MS

TABLE 6 • Top Factory Farm Broiler Counties and Human Sewage Equivalent

Figure 8 • Average Broiler Factory Farm Size in States with Largest Operations

Texas

Oregon

Ohio

Nebraska

California

1997

2002

2007

2012

180,867

186,895 199,622 190,981

138,198 156,424 178,239 245,455

324,799 219,679 240,360 358,519

90,909 318,975 513,448 515,767

621,551 1,276,934 1,416,818 1,787,706



17/50


EggsEggs also are produced in large-scale operaions, wih

hundreds o housands o layer hens held in each aciliy.

A handul o irms owns muliple arms or conracs wih

a number o large layer operaions, he majoriy o which

house heir birds in small cages ha are sacked rom

loor o ceiling. In 2013, only 11.3 percen o layer hens

were in cage-ree houses on arms wih a leas 30,000

birds.71 In 2014, he larges our irms conrolled nearly onehird (30.3 percen) o he hens ha lay he eggs ha mos

Americans ea.72 When a ew irms dominae he marke-

place, he major players can collude and manipulae prices

and drive pracices ha are more inensive and larger

scale. In 2009, some o he larges egg companies were

implicaed in a scheme o manipulae he price o eggs

a he grocery sore by allegedly colluding o ariicially

reduce egg producion and drive up reail prices.73

Contract Abuse

The broiler industry is the most “vertically integrated” segment in agriculture — a system where companiesown and control every step of the supply chain. Over the past 20 years, as larger companies acquired smaller,

regional processors and cooperatives, it has become increasingly concentrated. Over the past 30 years, the

percent) of broilers.54

These companies control the entire chicken meat production chain: operating hatcheries and specialized feed

mills, contracting with growers to raise the chickens for them and running processing plants.55 Production

contracts exist for almost all types of livestock, but the broiler industry is unique in the near-universal use of

production contracts.56 Under these contracts, the companies deliver chicks and feed to the farmers (referred

to in the industry as “contract growers”), tell them how to raise the chickens and collect the birds when they

have reached their full weight.57 The farmers don’t own the chickens. These production contracts pay the

growers for raising the birds, not for the actual chickens.58

The transformation of chicken farmers from independent producers to subcontractors of the poultry compa-

nies began more than 50 years ago.59

its grip on contract poultry growers through unfair and often abusive “take-it-or-leave-it” contracts. 60 About

half of growers have only one or two processors located near enough to get contracts, so they have little

61

are dependent on the companies to maintain new deliveries of birds, and thus income. 62

term loans on their broiler houses.63

upgrades to broiler houses and other equipment to secure contracts.64 New broiler houses are extraordinarily

expensive, often costing upward of $1 million for the four houses that most growers use.65 Although proces-

sors require these new investments, their contracts do not pay more to the farmers, who must repay the

loans required to make the upgrades.66 Nor do growers who make

upgrades receive guaranteed long-term contracts that ensure

67 Even after growers made the

required investments, some integrators have cancelled contracts.68

Many contract poultry growers barely break even, as the prices that

growers receive for broilers have been falling steadily, while the

mandated upgrade investments can mire growers in debt. In 2011,

the average farm business income was $12,700 for poultry opera-

tions with one or two houses and $35,500 for farms with three or

four houses.69 These meager earnings can barely make a dent in the

debt from poultry house upgrades. For example, Alabama poultry

growers lost money during 10 of the 15 years from 1995 to 2009,

the most recent year for which data are available.70


18/50


The number o egg-producing layer hens increased by

one ourh (24.8 percen) over 15 years, rising rom 215.7

million in 1997 o 269.3 million in 2012. (See Figure 9.)

Because each hen can lay abou 260 eggs a year, he

addiional 53.5 million hens added since 1997 produced

an addiional 19 billion eggs.74 In oal, he layer hen lock

produced an esimaed 70 billion eggs in 2012 — enough

or every person o ea 220 eggs every year.

Egg producion is concenraed in only a ew saes. Jus

under hal he hens in 2012 were locaed in he op ive

saes: 50.6 million in Iowa, 24.1 million in Ohio,

23.7 million in Indiana, 18.0 million in Caliornia and

16.1 million in Texas. Ten saes had no indusrial-scale

layer operaions a all in 2012.

Increasing Size

The average size o layer operaions increased by

74.2 percen rom 399,000 in 1997 o more han 695,000 in

2012. (See Figure 10.) The six saes wih he larges layer

operaions in 2012 (Missouri, Florida, Michigan, Iowa,

Maine and Wisconsin) all averaged more han 1 million

hens per arm. (See Figure 11.) These operaions were boh

Figure 9 • Factory Farmed Egg-Laying Hens(in millions)

1997 2002 2007 2012

269.3266.5252.7

215.7

Figure 11. Average Size of Egg Factory Farms in States with Largest Layer Operations

Wisconsin

Maine

Iowa

Michigan

Florida

Missouri

1997

2002

2007

2012

406,508 712,898 719,932 1,030,324

Figure 10 • Average Size ofFactory Farm Layer Operations

1997 2002 2007 2012

695,743

614,133

507,454

399,467

1,472,012507,454 614,133 1,158,496

466,856 808,031 1,279,344 1,266,349

335,596 520,819 875,700 1,365,133

607,712 872,764 1,620,507 1,466,008

526,010 1,067,162 1,389,450 2,032,038

SOURCE: FOOD & WATER WATCH ANALYSIS OF USDA DATA. SOURCE: FOOD & WATER WATCH ANALYSIS OF USDA DATA.



19/50


considerably larger han he naional average and grew

much aser over he 15-year period (only Maine declined

rom is 1997 high).

Litter Overload

Large layer aciliies generae remendous volumes o

manure and manure-ained liter. Some operaions have

been ound o violae environmenal rules. The millions

o layer hens packed ino some counies can produce as

much liter as he sewage rom major meropolian areas.

The layer hens in Mercer Couny, Ohio produce as much

wase as he populaions o he Cleveland, Cincinnai,

Columbus and Dayon meropolian areas combined. (See

Table 7.)

Bad Policy Driving theGrowth of Factory FarmsIndusrial-scale livesock producion emerged over he

pas quarer cenury, bu i has acceleraed rapidly overhe pas decade. Beween 2002 and 2012, abou 4.7

million livesock unis were added o America’s larges

livesock operaions. The number o acory-armed dairy

cows, bee catle, hogs, broiler chickens and layer hens

all increased, and he average size o mos operaions

grew signiicanly. Alhough he number o bee catle on

eedlos and broiler chickens declined modesly beween

2007 and 2012 because o high eed prices and a persisen

large-scale drough, he general rend over he pas 15

years was or more livesock o all ypes o be packed ono

larger acory arms, concenraed in speciic regions ohe counry.

This growh was no due o a superior business model

or o some breakhrough in efficiency; i was aciliaed

by poor public policy. The wo larges coss o indusrial

livesock producion — eed and manure managemen —

have been ariicially reduced by ederal policies. Feed has

been sold a exremely low prices, ofen below he cos

o producion, or much o he pas 15 years, as a resul

o arm programs ha promoe overproducion o corn

and soybeans. Alhough eed prices rose sharply afer2008 and remained high and volaile hrough 2012, prices

were expeced o all in 2015 and o remain low or he

oreseeable uure, encouraging a renewed acory arm

building spree. And while his was happening, ederal

and sae environmenal auhoriies urned a blind eye o

he growing polluion rom acory arms, allowing bad

managemen pracices o become he indusry sandard.

These policy changes allowed livesock operaions o

balloon in size, and he shif was cemened by rapid

consolidaion in he meapacking and livesock processingindusries.75 (See Figure 12.) Over he pas 30 years, regula-

ors approved a wave o mergers beween he larges irms

in he bee, pork, poulry, egg and dairy secors. Their

concenraed marke power allowed he bigges irms o

exer remendous leverage over armers. They could lower

he prices hey paid o armers because here were so ew

irms o bid or livesock. The big irms also pressed armers

o ener conracs — ofen wih unair erms and prices —

ha reduced meapackers’ need o buy animals on he open

marke, such as a livesock aucions. As armers received

less or each seer, hog, chicken or gallon o milk, heyadded more livesock on acory arms o ry o recoup heir

losses rom low prices wih increased volume.

Top Factory FarmEgg Counties

Number of Layer Hens

HumanPopulation

SewageEquivalent(millions)

Comparable Metropolitan Area

Ohio/Mercer 15,003,845 7.2 Cleveland + Cincinnati + Columbus + Dayton

Iowa/Sioux 7,598,093 3.7 6 x Des MoinesIndiana/Jay 6,556,487 3.2 Indianapolis + Gary + Lafayette

Pennsylvania/Lancaster 4,898,157 2.4 Pittsburgh

Ohio/Darke 3,914,047 1.9 Columbus

Iowa/Hancock 3,799,046 1.8 3 x Des Moines

Iowa/Wright 3,799,046 1.8 3 x Des Moines

California/Merced 3,488,943 1.7 Fresno + Stockton

Indiana/Dubois 3,278,243 1.6 8 x Lafayette

Mississippi/Smith 10,729,243 3.6 6 x Jackson, MS

TABLE 7 • Top Factory Farm Egg Counties and Human Sewage Equivalent


20/50


The High Cost of Low-Priced Feed

Tradiionally, mos armers raised livesock on pasure and

also grew he eed hey needed o susain heir animals

over he winer. Farmers coninued o pasure and culi-

vae eed or heir animals because, prior o he 1990s,

buying eed was expensive. Facory arms, however, mus

purchase enough grain o eed he housands o animals

ha hey keep a each sie. Over he pas 20 years,

changes o ederal arm policy have largely promoed he

overproducion o eed crops such as corn and soybeans,

which drove prices down rom he lae 1990s hrough he

lae 2000s. This reducion in eed price was an indirec

subsidy or acory arm operaors.

The 1996 Farm Bill, called he Freedom o Farm Ac,

marked he end o policies designed o sabilize arm

prices. I eliminaed he requiremens o keep some land

idle as a way o manage supply and preven overproduc-ion. Insead, armers could plan crops on as much land

as hey waned. Addiionally, he governmen eliminaed

reserves o grain, allowing all he grain produced ono he

marke a once, which can drive prices down. Even he

sysem o loans o armers was reworked. Farmers could

no longer orei a porion o heir crops o he govern-

men as repaymen or heir loans i crop prices ell below

he cos o producion. Farmers insead sold heir enire

crop, urher looding he marke and prices.

As a resul o his drasic increase in producion and

iming o sales, crop prices plunged. Beween 1996 and1997, real corn prices dropped by 28 percen.76 (See Figure

13.) The crop price ree all coninued or years. By 1999,

he real price o corn was 50.0 percen below 1996 levels,

and he soybean price was down by 40.9 percen. As

prices ell, armers planed addiional acres o ry o make

up or heir los income, which hen caused more supply

and urher price drops. The Freedom o Farm Ac hus

became known in arm counry as “Freedom o Fail.”

To quell criicism afer prices collapsed, Congress auho-

rized emergency paymens o armers ha reached$20 billion in 1999.77 However, hese paymens could no

make up or he decline in prices. Even wih he paymens

U.S. ne arm income declined by 16.5 percen rom 1996

o 2001.78 In he 2002 Farm Bill, Congress voed o make

hese “emergency” paymens permanen.

The 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills coninued o replace supply

and price managemen policies ha had characerized

ederal arm policy since he 1930s wih income suppors

designed o compensae or low prices generaed by

overproducion. Insead o programs ha could pu a

brake on collapsing prices, governmen paymens make

up he difference beween he low price ha agribusiness

pays armers or crops, and he armers’ cos o sowing,

growing, harvesing and ransporing he crops. Permi-

ing crop prices o all below heir producion coss and

hen paying armers some o he difference wih axpayer

dollars indirecly subsidizes discouned commodiy

purchases by meapackers, acory arms and ood proces-

sors.

Figure 12 • Market Share of Top Four Firms

$7

Figure 13 • Real Price of Corn and Soybeans($/Bu. in 2014 dollars)

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Corn

Soybeans

1996 Farm Bill signed

$14

85%

Beef Packing Hog Packing

Poultry Processing Layer Hens

64%

57%

30%

SOURCE:USDA GIPSA; USDA ERS; WATT EGG INDUSTRY .

SOURCE:USDA NASS; BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.


21/50


Grain and oilseed prices rose sharply in 2008 and

remained higher han in he prior decade unil he passage

o he 2014 Farm Bill. Climae change-driven weaher

disrupions and drough, he increased demand or crop-

based biouels and sronger consumer buying power in

rapidly indusrializing developing counries esablished he

oundaion or he 2008 price spike, which was acceleraed

by Wall Sree invesmen irms ha sared o view arm

producion as a new invesmen vehicle.79

Crop prices generally remained volaile bu high beween

2008 and 2012.80 The 2014 Farm Bill was enaced in his

high-price environmen, allowing Congress o urher

weaken he arm saey ne and o se he sage or a

poenial replay o he meldown afer he 1996 Farm Bill.

The 2014 Farm Bill shifed emphasis urher rom he

radiional arm programs ino subsidized, privae crop

insurance ha proecs armers rom declining yields bu

no declining prices.81

These policies driving overproducion o he main ingre-diens in animal eed saved indusrial livesock producers

billions o dollars when crop prices declined. Unil 2007,

when commodiy prices began o rise, acory arms could

acually buy eed on he marke a a price lower han wha

he grain cos o produce. A 2007 Tufs Universiy sudy

ound ha acory arms saved $34.8 billion beween 1997

and 2005 because hey were able o buy eed a below-

producion cos.82 This indirec subsidy has been a key

elemen o he so-called efficiency o acory arming.

When commodiy prices rose in 2007 and 2008, mea-packers, indusrial eedlos and poulry processors saw

signiican drops in proi as he cos o heir major inpu

— eed — sared o rise. By 2014, crop prices began o all

again and were projeced o remain low or he oresee-

able uure.83 The orecas o a long-erm, low-priced eed

environmen has encouraged a resurgence o acory arm

consrucion or hogs and broiler chickens.84

Weak Environmental Regulation

Weak environmenal oversigh reduces he cos o running

acory-armed livesock operaions. Municipal sewersysems mus rea he wasewaer ha is discharged ino

waerways, and acories canno simply pump ammonia

and hydrogen sulide gas ou heir smokesacks wihou

some kind o reamen. Alhough acory arms pay he

cos o soring manure in lagoons and spraying wase

on heir ields, he weak environmenal oversigh o how

manure is ulimaely disposed o allows remendous

environmenal and public healh burdens o be pu on

communiies surrounding acory arms.

Water Pollution

The Clean Waer Ac (CWA), passed in 1972, gave he EPA

he auhoriy o regulae any eniy discharging polluion

ino naional waerways, including Concenraed AnimalFeeding Operaions (CAFOs), he official governmen

erminology or acory arms. The CWA se a srong

and simple sandard ha polluing is illegal and ha he

naional goal is zero discharge o polluion ino our public

waerways.85 Shor o acually achieving zero discharge,

he CWA se limis on discharges. The EPA has consid-

ered CAFOs a “poin source” o waer polluion since he

1970s,86 bu i iniially ocused is effors on indusrial sies

and sewage reamen plans, leaving CAFOs virually

unregulaed or years.87

The EPA, or a sae agency under he EPA’s auhoriy, ses

“speciic limis and condiions” on how CAFOs discharge

wase ino local bodies o waer.88 The mos recen EPA

regulaions or CAFOs, released in 2008, have signiican

weaknesses. One o he mos criical is ha he rules

allow individual CAFO operaors o deermine i hey

discharge or inend o discharge and hus wheher hey

should apply or a permi.89 According o a 2003 U.S.

Governmen Accounabiliy Office (GAO) repor, however,

“EPA officials believe ha mos large operaions eiherdischarge or have a poenial o discharge animal wase o

surace waers and should have discharge permis.”90

Ye, according o an EPA ile rom 2011, an esimaed

41 percen (approximaely 7,600 ou o 18,500) o eligible

CAFOs acually had discharge permis. A he sae level,

he esimaed number o permited CAFOs ranges rom

zero o 100 percen. Thireen saes repored permiting

ewer han 10 percen o heir esimaed CAFOs, including


22/50


saes wih large numbers o aciliies such as Iowa,

Illinois, Norh Carolina, Arkansas and Oklahoma.91 Even

worse, o he 38 saes ha issue permis o CAFOs, heir

regulaions vary widely, wih some saes sill no meeing

he EPA’s rules rom a decade ago.92

Jus as worrisome as he inconsisen permiting is he

lack o inormaion ha he EPA possesses abou CAFOs.

Neiher he EPA nor any oher ederal agency collecscomprehensive daa on he number o CAFOs or heir

size or locaion. Wihou ha inormaion, he EPA simply

canno regulae CAFOs effecively.93 In 2013, a coaliion

o environmenal, consumer and communiy groups iled

sui agains he EPA over he agency’s ailure o creae an

accurae, publicly available daabase o all CAFOs in he

Unied Saes.94 As o spring 2015, a decision in he case

was pending.

The debae over he EPA’s daa collecion grew even more

inense when, in 2013, he American Farm Bureau Federa-

ion and he Naional Pork Producers Council iled alawsui agains he agency o ry o block i rom releasing

daa relaed o acory arms and heir polluion under he

Freedom o Inormaion Ac (FOIA). The case was based

on he indusry’s claim ha inormaion abou acory

arms — such as business names and addresses — should

be privae and shielded rom public view.95 The indusry

groups sued he EPA afer he agency released acory

arm daa in response o FOIA requess iled afer he

agency wihdrew a rule ha would have colleced basic

inormaion abou he locaion o acory arms.

The EPA responded o indusry criicism abou he release

o inormaion under FOIA by recalling all o he daa

ha i had already released and replacing i wih heavily

redaced daa.96 Afer several environmenal and commu-

niy organizaions were allowed o inervene in he case,

a judge dismissed he indusry lawsui in early 2015.97

The indusry groups wased no ime in appealing he

dismissal, and, in he spring o 2015, he case was headed

o a higher cour.98

Subsidizing Pollution Cleanup

The main coss o acory arms are wha goes in — eed

— and wha comes ou — manure and oher livesock

wase. Bu as he number o animals on acory arms

has ballooned, ederal and sae environmenal officials

largely have ignored he growing polluion burden on rura

communiies, waerways and aquaic ecosysems.

The USDA offers a direc subsidy o acory arms under

he Environmenal Qaliy Incenives Program (EIP). The

2002 Farm Bill dedicaed 60 percen o program unding

o livesock operaions, including manure managemen

sysems.107 Taxpayers paid $179 million beween 2003

and 2007 o cover manure managemen coss jus or

indusrial dairy and hog operaions under EIP.108 The

mos recen Farm Bill increased he maximum paymen

or EIP rom $300,000 o $450,000 per conrac, allowing

or larger indusrial-scale projecs o be covered under he

program.109

EPA Oversight of State Permit ProgramsIowa and Illinois, two states with more than 1,450 factory hog farms and cattle feedlots,99 have such failed

permitting systems that the EPA intervened to try to correct the course of permitting factory farms in these

states.

Iowa:

handling of CAFO discharges in Iowa.100 The EPA’s preliminary report found that in nearly half of cases it

reviewed, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) either “failed to act or did not follow its enforce-

ment policy” in cases of permit violations. Additionally, Iowa DNR did not enforce adequate penalties against

CAFOs for violations, nor was it consistent in requiring permits.101

In 2013, the EPA and Iowa DNR reachedan agreement.102

groups continue to report slow progress in meeting the agreement.103

Illinois: The Illinois Citizens for Clean Air & Water petitioned the EPA to remove Illinois’ authority to manage

its permit program in 2008. The EPA found that Illinois’ program did not “meet minimum thresholds for an

adequate program,” failing in several measures.104 In 2013, the EPA and the Illinois EPA agreed to prioritize

issuing permits to previously unpermitted CAFOs that may have been in violation of the Clean Water Act.105

The initial report declared that Illinois needed to “develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory of CAFOs

and evaluate their regulatory status,” an ironic recommendation when the EPA fails to do so nationally.106


23/50


24/50


Even small amouns o pahogenic baceria in drinking

waer can lead o disease.127 For example, in 2006, an early

haw leached E. coli and baceria rom he 260 million

gallons o manure produced by 41,000 dairy cows in Brown

Couny, Wisconsin. I pollued more han 100 nearby

wells.128 Residens o he own o Morrison, Wisconsin

suffered rom chronic diarrhea, somach illnesses and ear

inecions, and one household ha esed is ap waer

ound E. coli , coliorm baceria and oher conaminansassociaed wih livesock manure.129 In 2014, liquid manure

rom a 4,000-cow dairy arm in New York conaminaed

six residenial waer wells wih E. coli .130

Air Pollution and Odors

Facory arms can release signiican volumes o oxic

chemicals ino he air. Decomposing manure releases

ammonia and hydrogen sulide gases in concenraions

ha are poenially harmul o nearby residens.131 The

GAO repored ha soring large quaniies o livesock

manure on acory arms could cause emissions o “unsae

quaniies” o ammonia, hydrogen sulide and pariculae

mater.132

Overexposure o hydrogen sulide can cause dizziness,

nausea, headaches, respiraory ailure, hypoxia and evendeah.133 Facory arm hydrogen sulide releases have

conribued o excess diagnoses o respiraory and diges-

ive disurbances; workers in acory arm aciliies experi-

ence high levels o ashma-like sympoms, bronchiis and

oher respiraory diseases.134 In liquid manure holding pis,

releases o hydrogen sulide can exceed lehal levels when

wase rom he lagoons is agiaed prior o being pumped

ou o he aciliy.135

A Fine MessMy wife and I have lived on the Door Peninsula in the same neighborhood for 36 years. It is the thumb on

Wisconsin that sticks out into Lake Michigan. Door County is billed as the “Cape Cod” of the Midwest, with

On the morning of September 16, 2014, we learned that the dairy farm a quarter mile west of us had a

large farm within a week in the county.

The days following the spill demonstrated how inept, ill-equipped and incompetent various county depart-

ments and state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources were in dealing with the spill. It took

the county health department eight days after the spill to notify residents that we should take precautionssuch as testing wells and buying bottled water to drink. One week after the spill, and following some rain

-

stream of the mess headed their way.

A simple check valve in the manure system that would have prevented the whole mess was reportedly

manure systems. To date, no county employees have been held accountable for their role in these incidents,

including the poorly designed system and the failure to enforce compliance with required nutrient manage-

-

cial hit in the aftermath of this spill — paying for personnel to supervise the cleanup, the cost of testing

well water and the impact on tourism and other costs of the further degradation of state waters by all this

– John Bobbe

Executive Director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing, Inc. , an organic grain and

livestock marketing cooperative with members in 19 states


25/50


One 1,500-cow dairy in Minnesoa released so much

hydrogen sulide gas in 2008 ha he sae evacu-

aed nearby residens and declared he dairy a public

healh hazard.136 Alhough residens had complained

abou odors rom he dairy or years, he Minnesoa

Polluion Conrol Agency did no insall a monior o

measure emissions unil he spring o 2008.137 Emis-

sions levels remained high hroughou he summer.

Tha Ocober, he Minnesoa Deparmen o Healhdeclared he Excel Dairy a public healh hazard, he

irs ime ha Minnesoa declared a large livesock

operaion a public healh risk.138

Exposure o a variey o polluans rom acory arms

can lead o lung problems such as irriaion and

impaired breahing.139 Children exposed o acory

arm polluans ace higher likelihood o having

ashma or aking medicaion or wheezing.140 Workers

a hog aciliies experience more bronchiis and

ashma han average.141

In addiion o he healh risks, acory arm odors

diminish he qualiy o lie or neighbors who can

no longer hang heir laundry ou o dry, picnic in

heir yards, si on heir porches or even open heir

windows. Odors rom acory arms have been associ-

aed wih physical sympoms such as headaches,

eye irriaion and nausea.142 In Norh Carolina, hog

acory arms are mos ofen locaed in lower-income,

minoriy communiies, disproporionaely affecing

hose wih he leas abiliy o sand up o adverse

condiions imposed by neighboring aciliies.143

In 2010, a Missouri jury awarded $11 million o neigh-

bors o Premium Sandard Farms who complained o

odors rom he 1.8 million hogs produced annually on

he company’s Missouri operaions.144 The signiican

nuisance o living near he overwhelming sench o

acory arms even erodes he inancial healh o he

aciliies’ neighbors. A 2008 sudy o house sales in

Iowa ound ha homes wihin hree miles or down-

wind o a acory arm received lower prices when

selling heir homes.145

Impact on Farmers

The consolidaion o economic power in he mea

indusry harms he livelihoods o independen,

medium-size and smaller armers and slaugher-

house workers. As acory arms increase in number,

research shows ha rural employmen and income

decline. A 2003 sudy o nearly 2,250 rural counies

Too Much Manure:Spills, Foam, and Explosive Bubbles

Storing vast quantities of manure, whether liquid in

lagoons or solid in piles, creates the opportunity for

spills. These spills can unleash thousands or even

hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste that

contaminates drinking water, kills wildlife and ruins

recreational activities. Manure storage also presents

unique hazards for regulators and communities to

manage.

Overwhelming Spills

Nebraska: In 2012, a beef feedlot housing 83,000

cows agreed to pay a $145,000 civil penalty for 13

violations for spills that released a total of 140 milliongallons.146 That works out to only a dollar for almost

every 1,000 gallons spilled.

Minnesota: In 2013, a dairy farm spilled approxi-

mately 1 million gallons of manure from a football- 147

Wisconsin: 2013 was the worst year for manure spills

in the state in seven years, with over a million gallons

spilled. One farm’s manure digester alone discharged300,000 gallons directly into a local creek.148

Health Concerns

Maryland: In 2009, a 1,000-cow Frederick County,

Maryland dairy operation reimbursed the county and

a local city $254,900 for providing emergency water

supplies, testing and other costs af ter a 576,000

gallon manure spill in 2008 polluted the town’s water 149

Michigan: In 2014, an estimated 20 million gallon

lagoon released an unknown amount of raw manure

that polluted a local creek, leading to a health advi-

sory to avoid any contact with the water.150

Fish Kills and Environmental Damage

Iowa: Manure discharges from Summit Dairy in

O’Brien County polluted a 28-mile length of a stream

-

ment of Natural Resources estimates the value of the 151 A trench built to drain

water from a construction site at the dairy exacer-

bated the problem.152

Minnesota: In 2009, a 250,000 to 300,000 gallon

manure spill from a 660-head Pipestone County,

Minnesota dairy leaked into a tributary after a pipe

(continued on next page)


26/50


weekend after heightened levels of fecal coliform bacteria were found in the park’s waters.153

Wisconsin: In 2014, a dairy farm accidentally released 50,000 gallons of manure into a local stream that

-

ment of Natural Resources, the environmental damage was extensive.154

Idaho: In 2010, the EPA ordered a Grand View feedlot containing between 30,000 and 65,000 head of beef

cattle to cease discharging fecal bacteria-contaminated water from its stock watering system into a tributaryof the Snake River. The EPA noted that the feedlot “discharges a tremendous volume of contaminated water

into a river already impaired by bacteria and nutrient pollution.”155

Iowa:

156

Virginia: In 2010, the EPA ordered a 100,000 broiler chicken operation to cease discharging pollutants fromlarge piles of uncovered chicken manure that were leaching nitrogen and phosphorus into a tributary of the

Shenandoah River.157

Unique Hazards

Manure Lagoon Bubble: In 2010, at a 1,650-cow Randolph County, Indiana dairy operation, a manure lagoon

158 The manure bubbles were large enough to be seen from satellite photos, but the operator, who had declared

159 After the county shut down local

roads and banned school buses from the surrounding area because of the risk posed by potential noxious

160

Manure Foam: Manure foaming is an unpredictable, and as yet unpreventable, process in which bubbles

form in manure, creating an unusual “thick, mucous consistency.” The manure foam bubbles contain

harm people and animals. Attempts to treat manure foam in hog facilities have had mixed success.161 In

Minnesota alone since 2009, foaming manure conditions on at least 20 hog factory farms have caused

162

building. A study of hog farms in Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois found that 25 percent of the surveyed farms

had foam in their manure pits. Researchers are still investigating the causes of manure foam and strategiesto manage it safely.163

Natural Disasters: In 1999, Hurricane Floyd

lagoons and caused 3 of them to burst,

which led to the release of millions of gallons

-

ters. Approximately 30,500 hogs, 2.1 million

chickens and 737,000 turkeys drowned.164

Manure Digester Explosions: Some farms

use anaerobic digesters to store manure

and generate energy from the methane gasthat manure releases as it decomposes.

can lead to problems.165 In Wisconsin, a

faulty 1.25 million gallon dairy farm manure

digester was linked to manure spills and

a major explosion.166 A methane leak on

another dairy farm digester in Oregon

167

( Too Much Manure continued from page 23)


27/50


28/50


New York’s dairy indusry has seen a similar ransiion,

losing 65 percen o is dairy arms beween 1982 and

2007, while he average herd size doubled. A 2012 sudy

o wo New York counies revealed an inverse correlaion

beween dairy arm sizes and real median household

income levels, real oal personal incomes and he number

o small businesses.176 (See Figure 18.) Beween 1982 and

2007, S. Lawrence Couny saw he loss o 77 percen o

is dairy arms, while is remaining dairy arms grew 183percen larger. In conras, Yaes Couny, which doubled

is number o dairy arms, mainained a low number o

cows per arm. Yaes Couny experienced beter economic

indicaors over ha ime period compared o S. Lawrence

Couny, including a iveold increase in small businesses.177

Impact on Communities

Wih all o he harmul environmenal, social, economic

and public healh impacs o acory arming, i comes as

no surprise ha ciizens and communiies near acory

arms have atemped o igh back agains he spread o

hese aciliies. Some municipaliies and counies have ried

zoning resricions and siing requiremens or new acory

arms, while ohers have ried o preven corporae and

oreign ownership o arms. However, in many pars o he

counry, agribusiness has been able o exer considerable

inluence, and sae legislaures have aced on behal o

corporae agriculure by aking conrol away rom local

governmens and handing i over o sae agencies ha are

heavily inluenced by acory arming ineress.

In Ohio, proponens o indusrial livesock producion

launched an offensive in 2009 designed o wres oversigh

o livesock operaions rom sae agriculural and environ-

menal agencies and shif i o a commission ha could be

easily dominaed by special ineress represening acory

arms. In 2009, a reerendum backed by major agribusiness

ineress, including he Ohio Farm Bureau and he Ohio

Pork Producers Council,178 changed he Ohio sae consiu-

ion by esablishing an appoined Livesock Care San-dards Board ha would have unchecked power o esablish

sandards or livesock and poulry in he sae. Because

agribusinesses ouraised he criics o he reerendum by

more han 50 o 1, he iniiaive passed and successully

provided he indusry wih a way o regulae isel.179

In 2005, he Pennsylvania legislaure essenially eliminaed

local conrol o agriculure when i passed he Agriculural,

Communiies and Rural Environmen Ac, a bill ha

allowed he sae’s atorney general o sue municipali-

ies on behal o acory arm owners i local ordinances“resriced” agriculural operaions or ownership.180

Also in 2005, Indiana governor Mich Daniels announced

his inenion o double pork producion in he sae by

2025.181 Wih minimal public inpu, Governor Daniels and

his new Deparmen o Agriculure quickly esablished

rules o increase he number o acory arms in he

sae.182 T

Factory Farm Nation: 2015 Edition

Documents

Transcript of Factory Farm Nation: 2015 Edition