CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
explains how misguided federal farm policies have encouraged the growth
of massive CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) by shifting
billions of dollars in environmental, health, and economic costs to
taxpayers and communities. As a result, CAFOs now produce most of the
nation's beef, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs, even though there are
more sophisticated and efficient farms in operation.
Instead of favoring CAFOs, the report recommends that government
policies provide incentives for modern production methods that benefit
the environment, public health, and rural communities. The report also
shows that several smart alternative production methods can offer meat
and dairy at costs comparable to CAFO products.
Viable modern alternatives
Although there is
evidence that confinement operations smaller than CAFOs can be
cost-effective and produce ample animal products, studies also suggest
that sophisticated alternative means of producing animal products hold
even greater promise. For example, hog hoop barns, open-air structures
with curved roofs, in which hogs are allowed to "nest" in straw
bedding, are healthier for the animals and much smaller than CAFOs.
They can produce comparable or even higher profits per unit at close to
the same price. UCS analysis
has also found benefits to human health and the environment from
raising beef cattle on “smart pasture operations.” These operations
feed animals a grass diet, requiring less maintenance and energy than
the feed crops (such as corn and soybeans) on which CAFOs rely. Smart
pasture operations, hog hoop barns, and other alternative agriculture
methods succeed by working with nature, rather than against it.
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture can help level
the playing field for smart pasture operations, hoop barns, and other
sustainable agricultural operations by embracing the following sweeping
policy changes:
Enforcement of antitrust and
anti-competitive laws to prevent huge meat and poultry processors from
dominating the production industry and shutting out smaller producers
Lax enforcement has enabled large processors to concentrate and
leverage their vast market power over livestock producers, often in the
form of production contracts and animal ownership. This can limit
market access for independent smaller producers, since the large
majority of livestock are either owned by processors or acquired under
contract—and processors typically do not contract with smaller
producers. Federal government watchdogs have stated that the agency
responsible for ensuring that markets function properly for smaller
producers is not up to the task.
Allocation of research dollars to methods of animal
agriculture that benefit the environment, public health, and rural
communities, especially smaller alternatives to CAFOs
Additional research is needed for alternative agriculture, including
optimizing pasture crops and livestock rotations for high productivity
and the ability to make alternative feed and forage more efficient.
There is also a need for continuing improvements in livestock breeds.
Current livestock have been bred specifically for a lifetime spent in a
CAFO environment. Alternative production methods will need animals that
are more suited for the pasture, with traits like high productivity
under differing environmental conditions and disease resistance.
Reduction of payments to CAFOs from agricultural conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Where direct government subsidies favor CAFOs over other ways of
raising livestock, they may also discourage otherwise viable
alternatives. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was
originally intended to help small and medium-sized livestock farms
address pollution issues and prevent environmental harm. CAFOs were
explicitly forbidden from receiving this funding. In 2002, however, the
program was radically changed to make CAFOs a major funding recipient,
and prioritized problems that only CAFOs would have, such as waste
storage and manure transportation. UCS has estimated that CAFOs have
received $100 million in annual pollution prevention payments from EQIP
in recent years. This program was meant to encourage good stewardship
of environmental resources, not mitigate the avoidable problems
inherent to CAFOs.
Updating of slaughterhouse regulations to afford smaller, alternative producers better access to markets
Smaller meat producers have a difficult time getting their products
slaughtered and to market due to the concentration of power in the
processing industry. This limited access of small and medium-sized
producers to slaughterhouses is exacerbated by USDA inspection
requirements. With the exception of small chicken producers in many
states that sell directly to consumers, health inspections are
necessary for marketing, and federal inspections are required for sales
across state lines. Access to regulator-approved facilities is
therefore needed to ensure broad market access. In other words,
problems gaining access to processors not only hinders producers’
ability to slaughter their animals, but also may restrict their ability
to market their products. The resulting bottleneck between producer and
consumer can reduce the viability of smaller and alternative producers
even when their products may be competitive based on production costs.
To read more about the ill-advised policies that created CAFOs, and
the new policies to replace them with more sustainable, environmentally
friendly production methods, read CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.