Impact of environmental safeguards on the livestock sector

Gary Vocke

Impact of Environmental Safeguards on the Livestock Sector

Abstract: Geographical concentration of high-intensity livestock production has created regions with surplus manure in several West European countries. Manure disposal in these regions sometimes pollutes public water supplies. Reducing livestock concentrations would minimize the risk of pollution, but also lower farm incomes. To reduce the pollution risk while allowing regional concentrations of high-intensity livestock production to continue, governments are experimenting with change in manure management and cropping practices. This article examines related legislation in three European countries.

Keywords: Livestock production, manure management, nitrates, water pollution.

Livestock production contributes more than half of the total value of agricultural output in many West European countries (table 1). The geographical concentration of livestock operations in some regions is so high that their production of manure exceeds what is environmentally safe to apply on the land. When manure applications (and manufactured fertilizers as well) exceed crop requirements, excess nutrients such as nitrogen may enter public water supplies.

Table : Table 1 - Livestock production is more important and more concentrated in the Netherlands than elsewhere in Western Europe

                    Value of livestock        Index of
                      production as        concentration of
Country              percent of total    livestock production
                       agriculture       compared to U.S. 1/
Netherlands                 78                  18
Belgium-Luxembourg          73                   9
West Germany                69                   4
Denmark                     69                   3
United Kingdom              64                   3
France                      52                   2
Italy                       37                   2
United States               47                   1

1/ The index is calculated in two steps. The concentration of livestock production is measured as the total weight of meat and eggs produced per hectare of arable land. Comparison with the United States is made by dividing each country's concentration by U.S. concentration. The result for the United States is 1. The value of 18 for the Netherlands, for example, shows that livestock production per hectare is 18 times more concentrated than in the United States.

Source. (14)

The risk of pollution was much lower before World War II, when farmers' reliance on their own crops to feed livestock limited the number of livestock per unit of production. Animal production changed, however, with the introduction of confinement livestock production technology in the 1960's. This led to larger, more specialized livestock operations that often fed grains grown on other farms, and sometimes in other countries. One indication of the trend to larger operations is the fact that in the European Community (EC) the total number of hogs marketed per farm is increasing for larger operations, but declining for small ones (fig. 1). Because of economies of size, this trend will likely continue. A recent study of modern swine production technology found substantial economies of size up to 10,000 head (the largest considered) (16). In addition to these trends, total livestock numbers in the EC have increased as production rose to meet rising demand for meat, dairy, egg, and other products. Because this expansion of livestock production has not occurred evenly, large differences now exist between European countries (table 1) and among regions within countries. Regional concentrations of livestock raise the risk of animal pollution, especially by nitrogen

The risk of pollution is high because nitrogen is easily converted to gaseous forms that escape into the atmosphere and are leached from the soil into ground water. Such atmospheric pollution contributes to formation of acid rain. Nitrogen pollution of public water supplies is a health concern because of the risk of stomach cancer and blue baby syndrome (methaemoglobinemia), a respiratory problem. The risk is more theoretical for stomach cancer than it is for blue baby syndrome. Nitrogen in food or water may produce nitrosamines in the stomach, which can cause cancer in animals.

Blue baby syndrome occurs only in babies under 3 months of age. Excess nitrogen can result in a baby's blood taking up nitrogen instead of oxygen, causing respiratory failure. Its occurrence is rare because parents can provide denitrified water during the 3 months the child is at risk. In the United Kingdom (UK), there have been 14 cases in the last 35 years, all associated with well water contaminated with nitrates over 100 parts per million (ppm) (9). The last reported case in Britain was in 1972 (1). Nitrogen pollution is also an ecological concern. The loss of nitrogen to the atmosphere while in storage or after spreading on the field contributes to acid rain. Surface water enriched with too much nitrogen has excessive plant and algae growth, which in turn deprives other plants and fish of the oxygen, light, and space they require.

Regional Concentration Leads

To Nitrogen Pollution

Severe manure disposal problems occur in a few regions of Western Europe because of high livestock density These regions have public water supplies that cannot meet the EC standard for potable water of 50 mg of nitrate per liter, 50 ppm (9). Countries with problem areas include the following:

Netherlands. The southern Netherlands has the highest intensity of livestock production, 2-3 times greater than the national average (11). Total manure production in the Netherlands is estimated to be 95 million tons, of which 15 million is surplus where it is produced (1). This very high intensity results in more manure than can be applied to the land without risks of nitrate leaching. Ammonia released from manure is also a problem. Recently, 70 percent of the country's nitrogen-related acid rain was attributed to agriculture (1).

Belgium. Belgium's situation is similar to that of the Netherlands. Total manure production is estimated to be 41 million tons, of which 8 million is surplus (1).

Germany. In the western part of Germany, Lower Saxony has nitrogen pollution problems because the region has a high density of livestock farms. The concentration of livestock production in specialized units was encouraged in East Germany as a matter of policy, leading to problems yet to be resolved.

Denmark. Many of Denmark's lakes and marine waters have unacceptably high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Agriculture has been held responsible for most of the nitrate pollution, while phosphorus pollution is mostly attributed to urban waste water. Uncontrolled spreading of pig manure causes most of the agricultural pollution (9).

United Kingdom. In the UK, a few watersheds have high concentrations of nitrates in public water supplies. For 1987-89, the agricultural pollution sources were: slurry manure (28 percent), silence effluent (25 percent), and dirty water (19 percent) (14).

France. One province of France, Brittany, has 40 percent of the country's intensive livestock operations. This region supplies half of France's pig production and one-third of poultry production. Brittany is also France's leading dairy region. This concentration of livestock production has led to water pollution problems in recent years. In the early 1980's, public water supplies in only one region of Brittany showed nitrate levels above the EC standard. Now there are 5 more regions exceeding the EC standard of 50 mg of nitrate per liter, and 21 others above 40 mg (11). Italy. The Po Valley in Italy has a nitrate pollution problem because of the concentration of intensive livestock production.

Clean-up Versus Prevention:

The Options

There are many options to provide low-nitrate water (fig. 2), each having a different cost, and different people bearing the cost. This section presents policy alternatives to reducing livestock production.

Reduce nitrogen concentration after pollution. The options to reduce nitrate concentration of polluted water include blending of high- and low-nitrate water and/or chemical treatment. Blending is usually the cheapest way of reducing nitrate concentration in polluted water. Chemical denitrification is more expensive.

Prevent nitrogen pollution. The options to limit nitrogen pollution following manure disposal include: limiting the quantity of manure applied on the land, immediately incorporating the manure into the soil, applying the manure only in the spring and summer, and growing fall crops. There is also the possibility of limiting use of manufactured fertilizer.

Optimum nutrient requirements for major crops are well known. Excessive application of manure and manufactured fertilizers (table 2) is subject to leaching. Land disposal of manure adds considerable nitrogen to the land (table 3), since most of the nutrients in feed go to manure. For example, about 70 percent of the nitrogen in the feed consumed by dairy cows, swine, and layers is excreted (2). Broilers are more efficient: only about half of the nitrogen in their feed ends up in manure.

Table : Table 2 - Average optimum nitrogen application for different crops in long-term field trials

Crop             Clay soil   Sandy soil
                         Kg N/ha
Potatoes          215         190
Sugarbeet         130         170
Wheat             125         170
Barley/oats/rye    90         105
Silage corn       200         150

Source: (6).

Table : Table 3 - Number of livestock units producing manure equivalent to one mature cow

Nutrient   Cattle   Pigs   Laying hens   Broilers
               Units
Nitrogen     1       8         176         546
Phosphorus   1       5          53         272
Potassium    1      16         278         893

Notes: 1. Kilograms of nutrients from one cow, annually: nitrogen, 89; phosphorus, 18; potassium, 85. 2. Per pig unit, 2.2 animals raised per year. 3. One hen per year. 4. Per broilers raised per year. Source: (6). The method of land disposal of manure into the soil reduces the risk of surface-water runoff into waterways. This is important because the subsequent breakdown of organic material in manure by microorganisms in the waterways requires oxygen. If there is too much organic material, the microorganisms will use up the water's oxygen and fish will die. Immediately incorporating manure into the soil also reduces nitrogen losses to the atmosphere. In one study, nitrogen losses during the first 3 days after spreading were 17 times greater without incorporation than with incorporation (8).

Nitrate leaching occurs mainly from fall to spring. Farmers can therefore reduce this seasonal leaching with fall crops. Growing plants take up water and nitrogen, thus reducing leaching. Autumn crops sown in mid-August can take up more than 100 kg of nitrogen per hectare (ha) (8). Nitrogen uptake by crops sown in early September is 50-100 kg per ha, while crops sown in mid-September take up only 10-60 kg per ha.

A Watershed Study of the Tradeoffs

The tradeoffs between public and private agricultural costs of using the options (fig. 3) of reducing versus preventing nitrate pollution were evaluated in a feasibility study of a UK watershed with high nitrogen concentration in the water (10). For this particular watershed, it was found that the lowest total cost option to provide low-nitrate water for the public is to dilute high-nitrate water with readily available low-nitrate water and to use some chemical treatment (fig. 3), neither cost being borne by the farmers who polluted the water. Thus, they have no financial incentive to reduce pollution. Relying only on chemical treatment to reduce nitrate concentration raises costs (shown to the left of the blending and chemical treatment option in fig. 3).

The lowest total cost option to provide low-nitrate water that places costs on farmers combines some land use control with limits on manure and fertilizer applications. Some blending, however, is still needed to keep total costs down. Although public treatment costs fall compared with relying totally on blending and chemical treatment to reduce nitrate concentrations, this option has public policing costs to ensure farmer compliance. A more costly agricultural-control option converts those croplands most critical to water quality to forests to reduce nitrogen concentration in the water. Some blending is still used. The cost to agriculture rises with this forestry option. Because it is easy to check for trees, public policing costs fall. The watershed study also considered an option controlling agricultural practices to such an extent that blending is not needed to achieve low-nitrate concentration in the public water supply. Total costs are highest with this option.

The level and distribution of public and private costs calculated for this watershed cannot be generalized to every watershed with a nitrate pollution problem because the agriculture will vary, as well as the hydrology of the watershed. In addition, some watersheds may not have the option of blending if low-nitrate water is not readily available.

Legislation in Three Countries

To Prevent Nitrogen Pollution

The regional concentrations of livestock production in the UK and Denmark, in contrast to the Netherlands, are typically low enough to allow safe land disposal of manure, if appropriate farming practices are followed. The UK generally uses voluntary guidelines while Denmark has mandatory regulations. Some regions of the Netherlands have such a high livestock density that the manure produced exceeds the recycling capacity of the land.

United Kingdom. In the UK, control of agricultural practices to reduce the risk of water pollutions voluntary. However, UK water protection legislation makes it illegal to discharge polluting matter into water, whether deliberately of accidentally (5). And public water authorities regulate the regular discharge of polluting matter, either directly to water or to land where there is a risk of polluting public supplies. UK water authorities consider that recycling manure to land to provide nutrients for crops is not the same as discharging material. Thus, any water pollution that occurs with the spreading of manure on the land is considered deliberate or accidental pollution. For some time, the UK has had a Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water. This is only a guide for farmers, and infractions will not create criminal or civil liability (14). However, failure to comply could be taken into account in any legal proceedings occasioned by deliberate or accidental pollution. The Code states that the spreading of manure should not exceed 250 kg/ha/year of total nitrogen applied. (For nitrogen produced by various types of livestock, see table 3). The Code further states that manure should not go on cropland after harvest if this land will be bare over the winter. To assist farmers in following this guideline, the UK Government has a grant program that covers half the cost of constructing the needed manure storage facilities (3). Such facilities will allow safe storage of manure through the fall and winter.

The Code also encourages the growing of cover crops in fields which would otherwise be bare during autumn and winter. The Code also states that there should not be autumn applications of manufactured nitrogen fertilizer, even to autumn-planted cereals.

In selected watersheds where water supplies have too high nitrate concentrations, 5-year demonstration projects for the control of manure and fertilizer use have recently been established. In these "nitrate sensitive areas," participating farmers will be compensated for income losses from adopting practices that go beyond good agricultural practices in the Code. Additional payments are made if farmers convert cropland to unfertilized, ungrazed grass, or to trees. When there is intensive livestock production in these areas, farmers are compensated for manure storage and manure transport, if needed.

So far, 60 percent of the farmers in these areas have agreed to participate. If not enough farmers volunteer to participate so that nitrate pollution is reduced, legislation allows public authorities to force compliance (7).

Denmark. Since the 1960's, the number of cows in the country has dropped by 40 percent while the number of pigs increased by almost 50 percent, changing cropping patterns and agriculture's impact on the environment (13). Temporary grass and fodder area was cut almost in half as cropland shifted to annual crops. Until 1989, 60 percent of these annual crops were planted in the spring and about 20 percent were winter crops planted in the autumn. Thus, most cropland was not covered by fall vegetation, raising the risk of nitrogen leaching.

Farmers and legislators believe that the manufactured fertilizers used to grow these annual crops are not a significant source of nitrogen pollution. Nitrogen pollution in Denmark is primarily due to inadequate handling of manure (13). Danish law requires farmers to prepare fertilization plans accounting for the application of both manure and manufactured fertilizers to be sure they will not cause pollution (11). To assist farmers in following the law, national farm organizations have selected 700 soil sampling sites to monitor soil nitrate levels and nitrate leaching. This sampling measures nitrate leaching from different soils under different management practices, information that helps farmers prepare their plans and is useful in the country's longrun assessment of the effectiveness of animal waste management.

Danish law also requires that 65 percent of the cropland of each farm must have fall vegetation to reduce the risk of nitrate leaching. Public authorities verify that farmers are meeting this crop cover requirement, and that they have appropriate crop fertilization plans.

Danish legislation also governs manure disposal (13). First, the law establishes maximum livestock concentrations per ha of land for manure disposal. If a farm exceeds this limit, the surplus manure is to be applied on neighboring farms. However, because manure cannot be applied with the same precision as manufactured fertilizer, there are problems in finding other farms to take surplus manure.

The law also requires that manure spread on bare fields must be plowed into the soil within 12 hours of application. Further, manure may not be spread on frozen or snow-covered land. This winter prohibition means that farmers must be able to store manure through the winter months. To this end, Danish legislation requires on-farm manure storage capacity equal to 9 months of manure production. To assist its farmers, the Danish Government covers up to 40 percent of the cost of constructing storage facilities (5).

Netherlands. Since 1971, it has been illegal to dispose of manure directly into surface waters (19). In 1984, to stop further increases of manure surpluses, pig and poultry farmers were no longer allowed to increase the size of their operations. Current law is phasing in increasingly stricter limits on manure spread per ha, according to soil type and crop grown. This legislation will be fully implemented by 2000. In addition, legislation also specifies that manure cannot go on cropland from harvest until November 1 and on grassland from October 1 to December 1.

Because the intensity of livestock production is so great in the Netherlands (table 1), the Dutch have a unique program of transporting surplus manure to manure-deficit regions of the country. The goal of this program is to allow Dutch farmers to continue their high-density livestock production. However, manure will not be transported great distances by the private sector because the nutrient content of manure is very low compared with manufactured fertilizers.

To overcome this problem, the Netherlands has a transport subsidy for shipments above 100 km for poultry manure and 50 km for any other type (17). For the transporter to be eligible for the subsidy, the livestock farmer must have paid a levy of $.53 per cubic meter ([m.sup.3]) of poultry slurry manure and $.90 for other manure. There is an increasing schedule of subsidy by hauling distance. The poultry manure subsidy is $1.20 per [m.sup.3] up to 150 km, then it is raised to $2.20. Because other manures have lower nutrient concentrations, their subsidy is higher; $1.05 per [m.sup.3] for distances up to 100 km, $2.70 up to 150 km, and $3.70 above 150 km.

In addition to manure transport in the country, the Netherlands is experimenting with exporting it (after water removal and pelleting of the remaining solids). (The Dutch fertilizer industry already exports manufactured nitrogen fertilizer.) A state-subsidized pilot plant for manure processing is never expected to make a profit. The goal, as with the program to subsidize manure transport, is to ensure the survival of Dutch livestock farmers in those regions with the highest densities of livestock production.

The Dutch are also looking at other ways to handle their surplus manure. For example, there are experiments treating cattle manure with nitrous acid to neutralize ammonia and reduce acid rain problems (18). Since 1988, the Netherlands has been taxing livestock feed manufacturers to finance this and other research, as well as advisory services to farmers (11).

In addition to these general activities, the Dutch Government now has a program to strictly control land use near wellheads, almost 5 percent of the country's land area. The Government wants the municipal water authorities to purchase land nearest the wellhead and take it out of agricultural use. Water authorities have been able to purchase this land because provincial restrictions on the farmers to limit pollution are very severe. On land farther away, the water companies must compensate farmers for losses if farming practices are more limited than elsewhere. If livestock production is so great that there is surplus manure in the area, the water companies will pay farmers to transport it out of the wellhead area. If a provincial levy on water consumption has not been imposed to cover these costs, the water companies can raise consumer water rates. This wellhead protection program is to be reviewed in 1994. If it has not been effective, farmers, in the wellhead area will be required to reduce livestock numbers (7).

Conclusion

The economics of modern confinement technology are shifting livestock production into highly specialized operations increasingly separate from crop production. When such operations become geographically concentrated there can be adverse environmental consequences, including unacceptably high concentrations of nitrogen in public water supplies. This environmental consequence has put European livestock production at a crossroads.

The situation varies but is at its extreme in the Netherlands, where some areas have surplus manure (that is, no more manure can be safely put on the land no matter what adjustments are made to agricultural practices and the manure must be transported elsewhere or livestock density must be reduced).

Those countries or areas having high-nitrate water but not surplus manure have more options. If agricultural practices are sufficiently changed, public water supplies can be protected. Here countries are experimenting with various strategies.

The main issue is, who should bear the cost, beginning with the question of whether and to what extent the water should be allowed to become polluted. It might be cheaper for society to treat the high-nitrate water than to greatly change farming practices in an effort to reduce pollution.

If farming practices are to be changed, it must be decided if farmer participation is to be voluntary or compulsory. Incentives can encourage voluntary participation. The voluntary demonstration projects in the UK face a key question: will their cost be too high to extend to large areas of the country?

If the programs require farmer participation, compensation becomes an issue. Regulation without compensation, that is, the "polluter pays" principle, will make production uneconomical relative to production in unregulated areas or countries. This policy is, in effect, on of relocating livestock production.

References

[1.] Agra Europe, February 1, 1991.

[2.] Bertrand, R. A. and N. R. Bulley. Manure Management

Guidelines. Ministry of Agriculture, Province of British

Columbia. 1985.

[3.] Brown, D. "Farmers' Efforts To Cut Pollution Told."

The Daily Telegraph, November 2, 1990.

[4.] Commission of the European Communities. The

Agricultural Situation in the Community. Various issues.

Brussels.

[5.] Hardwick, D. C. "Planning Guidelines and Legislation."

Pig Housing and the Environment. British Society of

Animal Production Occasional Publication Number 11.

Edited by A. T. Smith and T. L. J. Lawrence. 1987.

[6.] Kolender, G. J. "Limits to the Spreading of Animal Excrement

on Agricultural Land." In J.C. Brogan (ed.),

Nitrogen Losses and Surface Run-Off From

Landspreading of Manures. 1981.

[7.] Manale, Andrew Paul. "European Community

Programs to Control Nitrate Emissions from Agricultural

Activities: An Evaluation of Their State of Implementation

and Effectiveness." Report to the

German Marshall Fund of the United States, January

1991, to be published in International Environmental

Reporter (Washington).

[8.] Neeteson, J. J. and W. P. Wadman. "Ammonia

Volatization and Nitrate Leaching After Animal Manure

Application to Agricultural Crops." Agricultural and

Food Processing Wastes. Proceedings of the Sixth International

Symposium on Agricultural and Food

Processing Wastes. American Society of Agricultural

Engineers Publication 05-90. St. Joseph, Michigan.

1990.

[9.] "Nitrates: a question of time?" Water Quality International,

No. 1 (1987).

[10.] "Nitrates: meeting the challenge." Fertilizer International,

No. 259 (March 1988).

[11.] Rainelli, P. "Intensive Animal Husbandry and Management

of Animal Manure." Agricultural and Environmental

Policies. Paris: OECD, 1989.

[12.] Saull, Mike: "Nitrates in Soil and Water." The New

Scientist, September 15, 1990.

[13.] Skriver, K. "Agricultural and environment in Denmark:

problems, measures and legislation." In R. Calvet

(ed.), Nitrates-Agriculture-Eau. Proceedings of an international

symposium organized by the Institut National

Agronomique Paris-Grignon, in Paris, November 7-8,

1990. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique,

1990.

[14.] United Kingdom Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food, Welsh Office Agriculture Department. Code of

Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water.

January 1991.

[15.] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. World Agriculture: Trends and Indicators,

1970-89. Statistical Bulletin No. 815. Washington,

D.C., 1990.

[16.] Van Arsdall, R.N. and K.E. Nelson. Economics of Size

in Hog Production. ERS, USDA. Technical Bulletin

No. 1712. 1985.

[17.] Van Boheemen, P.J.M. "Extent, effects and tackling of

a regional manure surplus; a case-study for a Dutch

region." In H. G. v.d. Meer, et al. (eds.), Animal

Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops. Netherlands:

1987.

[18.] Van de Krol, Ronald. "Farmers in a much sweat."

Financial Times. January 9, 1991.

[19.] Wadman, W.P., et al. "Value of animal manures: changes

in perception." In H. G. v.d. Meer, et al. (eds.),

Animal Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops.

Netherlands: 1987.

PHOTO : Figure 1 More Pigs Marketed from Large Farms; Fewer from Small Units

PHOTO : Figure 2 How To Provide the Public With Low-Nitrate Water

PHOTO : Figure 3 Costs Vary To Control Nitrate in UK Watershed

COPYRIGHT 1991 Superintendent Of Documents
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group