Concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)
A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is a large-scale industrial farm specifically designed for raising animals to produce meat, eggs, or milk. These operations emerged in response to the growing consumer demand for animal products, allowing for high-density farming that maximizes output in limited space and time. However, CAFOs are subjects of contention due to various concerns, including animal welfare, environmental pollution, and their economic impact on local communities. Critics highlight the often poor living conditions for the animals, significant waste management issues, and the potential contamination of local water supplies from concentrated waste. Additionally, there are debates about the economic benefits CAFOs bring, with some arguing that they create low-wage jobs while undermining local farms. Supporters of CAFOs claim that their efficiency in production meets consumer demand while allowing more land to remain available for other uses. Regulatory measures have been implemented to address some of these issues, although enforcement and effectiveness remain points of debate. The dialogue surrounding CAFOs is further fueled by activism and representation in popular culture, reflecting broader societal concerns about food production practices and their implications for health and the environment.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)
A concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO, is a large industrial animal farm. CAFOs typically host animals for their meat, eggs, or milk. They rose to meet the consumer demands of growing populations and are capable of producing large quantities of a product with a relatively small amount of space and time. CAFOs are highly controversial, however. Detractors criticize the conditions in which the animals are raised, the waste and pollution that are emitted, and the economic effects on local farms and communities. The facilities are usually extremely dense, packing large amounts of animals and machinery into confined spaces. The waste the animals produce is often piped out of the facility for disposal, and the concentrated amount of waste coming from one source has raised concerns about contaminating local water supplies.
Brief History
In the early twentieth century, meat, eggs, and dairy were provided mostly by private family farms. These farmers raised their animals with practices that had been well established for generations. In the mid-twentieth century, agriculture made substantial advancements in several fields. Biologists learned more about the biochemistry of livestock animals, and pharmaceutical companies developed drugs that greatly increased the animals' growth and development rates. With the help of technology and new techniques, animals could produce more milk and eggs, grow larger, and even reach maturity faster. Farmers also could obtain and sort products from the animals more quickly than with traditional methods. Most farmers, however, could not afford the new technology.
Later, wealthy businesses and individuals began investing in the technology. They created livestock-raising industrial complexes. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, these complexes became a prominent form of farming. Industrial facilities for poultry became commonplace as early as the 1950s. It took longer to develop facilities that could accommodate larger animals, such as pigs and cows, but they too were frequently raised that way by the late twentieth century.
In 1972, the US federal government passed the Clean Water Act, a series of amendments to 1948's Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The new act pointed out the potential hazards that large farming facilities posed to local water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led efforts to regulate these facilities. As a result, industrial farm complexes received the official labels of AFO (animal feeding operation) and CAFO in 1976.
As a way to maintain standards for CAFOs, the federal government established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES. The government later determined that individual states could establish their own guidelines for CAFOs, as long as those guidelines were as strict as, or stricter than, NPDES.
CAFOs were regulated under this system for the remainder of the twentieth century. As CAFOs became more common, their effect on the environment and economy concerned increasing amounts of citizens. In the 1990s, numerous calls were made to change and update regulations. The EPA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) worked together to create new regulations, which took effect in 2003. The new regulations acknowledged that CAFOs' waste was damaging surrounding areas and required CAFOs to have buffer zones to keep them away from residents and protected areas.
Impact
CAFO and AFO are specific designations. An AFO is a farm intended to raise animals for their edible by-products and host them for more than forty-five days per year. To qualify as a CAFO, the facility must hold more than one thousand animal units during that time. The EPA considers an animal unit to be 1,000 pounds (454 kilograms). Even if facilities do not contain that many animal units, they can be considered CAFOs if they dispose of animal waste in a river, a stream, or some other waterway.
CAFOs have been a source of controversy on multiple fronts. One subject of debate is their economic impact. CAFO supporters argue that they bring thousands of jobs into the communities in which they are built. Opponents say that the jobs offer low pay and often require employees to work in poor, sometimes dangerous, conditions. According to CAFO opponents, the industry intrudes upon locally owned farms and other businesses in the area. Most of the profits go to the corporation that owns the CAFO, which may be located far from the community in question. The nature of these corporations also has drawn suspicion from opponents. Many CAFOs that violate regulations are not penalized, and opponents say that is because corporate owners have too much influence over the government that is supposed to regulate them.
Animal rights groups have shown strong opposition to CAFOs since the concept first emerged. While many animal rights groups do not oppose the idea of raising livestock for the purpose of providing meat to humans, they say that animals deserve basic humane treatment while they are alive, such as the opportunity to graze and roam naturally. To most animal rights groups, the confinement of CAFOs qualifies as animal cruelty. On this subject, CAFO supporters argue that people will always demand meat, and CAFOs are extremely efficient at meeting that demand. CAFOs' ability to raise such a large number of animals on a relatively small amount of land leaves more land free for other animals. CAFO supporters have frequently maintained that sources have exaggerated the treatment of animals within the facilities.
Environmentalists, citizens, and representatives of communities near CAFOs have expressed concern over the waste they produce. Most of the regulations surrounding CAFOs over the years have involved the amount of waste they put into local water supplies, and numerous reports have detailed how dangerous CAFOs can be to nearby citizens. CAFO opponents also argue that while the potential for contaminated water and health hazards has been publicized for decades, air pollution is something that has escaped regulation. The amount of machinery required to house, feed, and process such large numbers of animals is massive and contributes much air pollution. CAFO supporters say the industry is under intense regulation already, which is enough to prevent these dangers.
Criticism of CAFOs extends into popular culture. The 2016 film Okja is a darkly humorous satire that harshly criticizes the motives and actions of the corporations that run CAFOs. CAFOs also have appeared as the settings for multiple twenty-first-century police procedural shows. During the early 2020s, activists and some scientists raised concerns that the animals in CAFOs were at risk of spreading deadly diseases to humans, particularly poultry flocks and dairy cattle. To combat this, farmers increased their efforts to limit the exposure of their animals to wild animals that may carry pathogens.
Bibliography
"Animal Feeding Operations." USDA, 1 May 2024, www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Bergquist, Lee. "Massive Dairy Farms and Locals Debate: Can Manure from So Many Cattle Be Safely Spread on the Land?" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 21 Apr. 2017, www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/21/wisconsins-massive-milk-operations-local-residents-collide/100423944/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.
"Food Biosecurity: Flyways, Flocks, CAFOs and Avian Flu." American Society for Microbiology, 23 July 2024, asm.org/articles/2024/july/food-biosecurity-flyways,-flocks,-cafos-and-avian. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Hribar, Carrie, and Mark Schultz. Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities. National Association of Local Boards on Health, 2010.
Ikerd, John. "The Concentrated Animal Feeding Controversy, a Question of Sound Science." University of Missouri, web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Jeff%20City%20Catholic-%20CAFO%20Controversy.htm. Accessed 21 Oct. 2016.
Imhoff, Daniel. CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Earth Aware Editions, 2010.
Lynch, James Q. "Norris Calls for New CAFO Moratorium, Stricter Regulations," Courier, 2 Nov. 2017, wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/norris-calls-for-new-cafo-moratorium-stricter-regulations/article‗494f015f-030a-5799-91f3-d312d3cdf779.html. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.
"Okja." IMDb, www.imdb.com/title/tt3967856/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.
Pomplun, Gillian. "Viroqua Township Residents Question Benefits of Proposed Hog Slaughtering Plant." SW News, 8 Nov. 2017, www.swnews4u.com/section/1/article/36416/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.