The Manure Hits the Land: Economic and Environmental Implications When Land Application of Nutrients Is Constrained

Kaplan, Jonathan D.; Johansson, Robert; Peters, Mark

doi:10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00611.x

Cited by 50 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Farmers are widely believed to apply more fertilizer than absolutely needed to meet yield goals (Beegle, Carton, and Bailey 2000) due to factors ranging from risk aversion to scheduling rigidities to the costliness of acquiring information about soil nutrient status (see Sheriff 2005 for a review). As of 2002, 27 U.S. states required livestock producers to develop manure management plans (Kaplan, Johansson, and Peters 2004). Nationally, the recent EPA Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) rule requires all large animal operations to prepare NMPs as a component of applications for water pollution discharge permits (EPA 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biases in Nutrient Management Planning

Lawley¹,

Lichtenberg²,

Parker³

2008

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrient management planning is seen as a means of improving efficiency and reducing environmental problems, however, these gains may not be realized if plans overstate fertilizer requirements. Using data from a survey of Maryland farmers, we find that nutrient management planning was adopted more frequently by larger operations raising grain or cattle, but not by those on more environmentally sensitive land. Independent consultants and fertilizer dealers were more likely to recommend increases in fertilizer use, consistent with fears about bias. Farmers preparing their own plans were more likely to recommend decreases in fertilizer use, suggesting the presence of hidden information. (JEL Q53, Q18) Land Economics N February 2009 N 85 (1): 186-200

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biases in Nutrient Management Planning

Lawley¹,

Lichtenberg²,

Parker³

2008

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When competition for spreadable cropland is 92 introduced in the regional analysis, the costs increase to 40−50% of the total net returns, not 93 including the offsetting savings from replacing commercial fertilizers (Ribaudo et al 2003). 94 Kaplan et al (2004) utilize a sector model to evaluate regional adjustments in production and 95 prices when CAFOs are required to meet nutrient standards. Whether the secondary price effects 96 are sufficient to offset the compliance costs depends on crop producers' WTAM.…”

Section: Jel Classification Code: Q53 Q58 21mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Inefficient Are Nutrient Application Limits? A Dynamic Analysis of Groundwater Nitrate Pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Wang

Baerenklau²

2014

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4Animal waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) is a significant 5 contributor to nitrate contamination of groundwater. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative policies for controlling nitrate pollution at the field and farm level, this article 7 implements a structural dynamic model of a representative CAFO. The model accounts for herd 8 management, manure handling systems, crop rotations, water sources, irrigation systems, waste 9 disposal options, and pollutant emissions. Results show that the standard approach of limiting the 10 amount of animal waste that may be applied to fields reduces net farm income by more than 25% 11 whereas the most cost-effective emission-based policies reduce income only marginally. This 12 motivates greater consideration for nonpoint source pollution control policies that target 13 estimated emissions. Furthermore price instruments are shown to slightly outperform quantity 14 instruments under conditions that are typical of CAFOs. The results also show that adoption of 15 alternative technologies and practices is crucial for cost-effective abatement, and demonstrate the 16 importance of accounting for the spatial heterogeneity of both irrigation water and salinity when 17 designing policy mechanisms for nitrate pollution control. 18Key words: CAFO, animal waste, nitrate, salinity, groundwater, dynamic optimization, pollution 19 control policy 20 JEL Classification code: Q53, Q58 21The growing world population, together with globally converging diets, has fueled the 22 sustained rise in demand for food of animal origin. Between 1964-66 and 1997-99, the human 23 2 population roughly doubled, while the number of domestic animals tripled (FAO 2003). In the 24 U.S., the national average stocking density for dairy operations increased from 57 to 139 head 25 per farm from 1992 to 2009 (USDA 2010). The situation is particularly noticeable in California. 26California has been the nation's leading dairy state since 1993. As of 2009, the average size of a 27 dairy herd in the state was 1055 cows, much higher than the national average level (CDFA 28 2010). For Kern County, one of the five leading dairy counties in the state, the average number 29 of cows in a dairy operation is up to 3190 (CDFA 2010). Higher farm incomes due to economies 30 of scale will likely sustain the trend toward larger and more concentrated animal feeding 31 operations (CAFOs). 32Another significant and concurrent change throughout the world has been land use 33 transformation. For the U.S. agricultural sector specifically, changes have taken place in 34 cropping patterns with the total amount of crop land relatively stable (Lubowski et al. 2006). In 35 California, more than 1.2 million acres of land for field crops has been converted to vineyards, 36 vegetables, and orchards in the past three decades (Cooley et al. 2009). Consolidation combined 37 with the deceasing acreage for field crops lead to less land available for animal waste disposal. In 38 addition, animal waste, esp...

show abstract

“…It also becomes necessary to haul the manure longer distances from dairy locations. Work by Kaplan et al (2004) indicated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) land application restrictions increased production costs, creating unintended consequences on the costs of production and the rural economy. Other work by Feinerman et al (2004) suggested that while nitrogen and phosphorus regulatory standards for manure application achieved the environmental goal, these standards resulted in 5-15% welfare losses without considering the non-market value of benefits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%