Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:47:16.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expanding regulatory requirements for poultry producers in the United States to curb water pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

T.J. Centner
T.J. Centner
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 313 Conner Hall, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Due to public demands for enhanced water quality, American poultry producers are being subjected to increased regulation by both the federal and state governments. Under the authority of the US Clean Water Act, concentrated animal feeding operations, including some poultry producers, must secure a discharge permit and adopt comprehensive nutrient management plans. State regulations concerning the closure of operations are also affecting producers. Depending on the state regulation, private insurance, guarantees, surety bonds, letters of credit, or payments may be required. A few states and a proposed federal regulation seek to expand the operations covered by discharge permits. Under this concept, co-permitting regulations would hold integrators responsible for permit violations. With these proposals, the poultry industry is presented with a number of opportunities to help structure regulations that help achieve improved water quality while preserving the economic viability of producers' business enterprises.

Keywords

closureconcentrated animal feeding operationenvironmentintegratornutrient planningproducerregulationwater quality
Type
Regional Reports
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 559 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almeida, J.P. (1998) Nonpoint source pollution and Chesapeake Bay Pfiesteria blooms: the chickens come home to roost. Georgia Law Review 32: 1195–1225.Google Scholar
Buchanan, D. and Hoke, K. (2001) Buckeye Egg Farm settles lawsuit with Licking County neighbors. Columbus Business First, Columbus, Ohio, December 7.Google Scholar
Castle, E.N. (1998) Agricultural Industrialization in the American Countryside. Henry, A.Wallace Institute, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
Centner, T.J. (2000) Animal feeding operations: encouraging sustainable nutrient usage rather than restraining and proscribing activities. Land Use Policy 17 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centner, T.J. (2001) Evolving policies to regulate pollution from animal feeding operations. Environmental Management 28: 599–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of the European Communities (1991) Council directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Document 391L0676.Google Scholar
DeBoer, I.J.M., Van Der Togt, P.L., Grossman, M. and Kwakkel, R.P. (2000) Nutrient flows for poultry production in The Netherlands. Poultry Science 79 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faucette, B. (2001) Georgia builds poultry litter composting infrastructure. Biocycle 42 23–26.Google Scholar
Forster, J. (2000) Forget windmills, here comes turkey power. Business Week, Oct. 2, 170.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office (1995) Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues. GAO/RCED-95-200BR, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Georgia Compiled Rules & Regulations (1999) Rule 391–3–6–. 20(11).Google Scholar
Gillay, D.R. (2000) Oklahoma's Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Act: balancing the interests of landowners with the exponential growth of the hog industry. Tulsa Law Journal 35: 627–649.Google Scholar
Grossman, M.R. (1994) Agriculture and the environment in the United States. The American Journal of Comparative Law 1994: 291–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, C. (2001) Delmarva hen waste heads west. The Baltimore Sun, July 10 , 1A.Google Scholar
Hartliep, E.N. (2001) Federal and Pacific Northwest state water laws pertaining to dairies. Idaho Law Review 37: 681–711.Google Scholar
Higgs, B., Johnston, A.E., Salter, J.L. and Dawson, C.J. (2000) Some aspects of achieving sustainable phosphorus use in agriculture. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooda, P.S., Edwards, A.C., Anderson, H.A. and Miller, A. (2000). A review of water quality concerns in livestock farming areas. The Science of the Total Environment 250 143–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated (1999). Chapter 510, section 77/17.Google Scholar
Innes, R. (1999) Regulating livestock waste: an economic perspective. Choices 2nd Quarter: 14–19.Google Scholar
Iowa Administrative Code (2000) Rule 567–65.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iowa Code (1999) Sections 455J.1 through 455J.9.Google Scholar
Jongbloed, A.W., Lenis, N.P. and Mroz, Z. (1997) Impact of nutrition on reduction of environmental pollution by pigs: an overview of recent research. The Veterinary Quarterly 19 130–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kentucky Administrative Regulations (2001) Title 401,5:074.Google Scholar
Kudva, I.T., Blanch, K. and Hovde, C.J. (1998) Analysis of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 survival in ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64: 3166–3174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuipers, A., Mandersloot, F. and Zom, R.L.G. (1999). An approach to nutrient management on dairy farms. Journal of Animal Science 77 Supp. 284–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Letson, D. and Gollehon, N. (1996) Confined animal production and the manure problem. Choices 3d Quarter: 18–24.Google Scholar
McKenna, M.A.J. (2000) E. coli danger high for months? Ontario town battling bacteria, fear. The Atlanta Constitution, May 30, A1.Google Scholar
McMurry, S.W., Coyne, M.S. and Perfect, E. (1998) Fecal coliform transport through intact soil blocks amended with poultry manure. Journal of Environmental Quality 27: 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchione, M. (1998) Judge reduces crypto claims against city. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 14, 1.Google Scholar
Maryland Department of the Environment (2001a) Department moves ahead with poultry integrator permit. MD Environment, 5: 4 & 12, August.Google Scholar
Maryland Department of the Environment (2001b) MDE announces final determination in poultry industry integrator permit. Baltimore, Maryland, News Release, July 18, www.mde.state.md.us/press/nr_mde-010718.html.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, M. (2000) State legislation regulating animal manure management. Review of Agricultural Economics 22 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. (2000). Dairying and the environment. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 1419–1427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, P.A. Jr., Daniel, T.C., Sharpley, A.N. and Wood, C.W. (1995) Poultry manure management: environmentally sound options. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50: 321–327.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Defense Council (1998) America's Animal Factories, Chapter 17: North Carolina.Google Scholar
Neeteson, J.J. (2000). Nitrogen and phosphorus management on Dutch dairy farms: legislation and strategies employed to meet the regulations. Biology and Fertility of Soils 30 566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2000) State files action against Buckeye Egg Farm for fly nuisance. Columbus, Ohio, February 28.Google Scholar
Oklahoma Administrative Code (1999) Title 35, sections 17–3–1 to 17–3–30.Google Scholar
Oklahoma Statutes (1998) Title 2, section 9–205.3a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, T. (1999) Fighting corporate pigs: citizen action and feedlot regulation in Minnesota. Minnesota Law Review 83: 1893–1926.Google Scholar
Parker, D. (2000) Controlling agricultural nonpoint water pollution: costs of implementing the Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998. Agricultural Economics 24: 23–31.Google Scholar
Roelle, C.M. (2000) Pork pollution, and priorities: integrator liability in North Carolina. Wake Forest Law Review 35: 1055–1077.Google Scholar
Sharpley, A. (1999) Agricultural phosphorus, water quality, and poultry production: are they compatible? Poultry Science 78: 660–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharpley, A., Foy, R. and Withers, P. (2000) Practical and innovative measures for the control of agricultural phosphorus losses to water: an overview. Journal of Environmenta1 Quality 29 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K.A., Charles, D.R. and Moorhouse, D. (2000) Nitrogen excretion by farm livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters, part 2: pigs and poultry. Bioresource Technology 71: 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K.A. and Frost, J.P. (2000) Nitrogen excretion by farm livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters, part 1: cattle and sheep. Bioresource Technology 71: 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.J. (2000) A guide to permitting confined animal feeding operations in Wyoming. Land and Water Law Review 35: 339–353.Google Scholar
Smothers, R. (1995) Spill puts a spotlight on a powerful industry. New York Times, June 30, A10.Google Scholar
Trabada-Crende, F. and Vinten, J.A. (1998) Assessing the effects of land management and catchment hydrology on well water quality in a designated nitrate vulnerable zone. Agricultural Sysrems 57: 523–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Us Department of Agriculture (1990) Field Office Technical Guide, National Handbook of Conservation Practices. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Us Department of Agriculture (2000) Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning Technical Guide. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Us Department of Agriculture (2001) Agricultural Statistics 2001, pp. VIII–31, VIII–40, VIII–43, VIII–47.Google Scholar
Us Environmental Protection Agency (2000b) The Quality of our Nation–s Water: 1998. Office of Water, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Us Environmental Protection Agency (2001) National pollutant discharge elimination system permit regulation and effluent limitations guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations: proposed regulation. Federal Register 66 2960–3145.Google Scholar
Us Code Annotated (2001)Title 33, sections 1311, 1313,1342, and 1362.Google Scholar
Us Code of Federal Regulations (2001)Title 40, part 122.Google Scholar
Withers, P.J.A. and Jarvis, S.C. (1998) Mitigation options for diffuse phosphorus loss to water. Soil Use and Managemenr 14: 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar