A Stakeholder Analysis Framework for Measuring the Impacts ...

A Stakeholder Analysis Framework for Measuring the Impacts of Swine Waste Management in North Carolina

REPORT FOR THE NC POLICY COLLABORATORY

2020

1

ABOUT NCGROWTH

NCGROWTH is an EDA University Center housed at UNC Chapel Hill’s Kenan Institute for Private

Enterprise that helps businesses and communities create good jobs and equitable opportunities through applied research and technical assistance. With a passionate staff and a dynamic pool of graduate student analysts, we partner with businesses, communities, governments and other organizations to tackle outcome-based economic development and entrepreneurship projects. NCGrowth is funded by the Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, US Economic Development Administration, US Department of Agriculture, Z Smith Reynolds Foundation, the SunTrust Foundation, and the NC Policy Collaboratory. Learn more at www.NCGrowth.unc.edu.

http://www.ncgrowth.unc.edu/

2

AUTHORS

Sophie Kelmenson Sophie Kelmenson is a PhD candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC Chapel Hill. As an Analyst with NCGrowth she works on projects related to economic development and swine waste management. Elsewhere, she has researched food systems planning research, rural and coastal economic development, climate change adaptation, and natural resource management.

Carolyn Fryberger, MCRP Carolyn is the Assistant Director of Economic Development for NCGrowth-SmartUp at UNC Chapel Hill’s Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise. In this role she leads economic development research and client projects across North and South Carolina. She works with local government and community clients to develop and pursue strategies addressing downtown revitalization, business retention and expansion, and economic development planning. She has conducted research on swine waste management in North Carolina and its implications for economic development since 2014. Carolyn holds a Master of City and Regional Planning from UNC Chapel Hill with a specialization in Economic Development.

Andrew Meeker Andrew is a recent graduate of the masters program in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC. As a geospatial analyst with NCGrowth, Andrew focused on geospatial analysis of industrialized swine operations in North Carolina, and the design of accompanying maps. He is interested in climate change adaptation, natural resource management, environmental systems, and design.

3

Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Stakeholder Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Growers: Contract famers who own and manage a Swine CAFO ............................................................. 5

Farm Workers: Anyone who works at a swine CAFO but does not have ownership ............................... 6

Neighbors: Residents within two miles or less of one or more swine CAFOs .......................................... 7

Host Communities: Communities in which swine CAFOs reside .............................................................. 8

Downstream Communities ..................................................................................................................... 12

Industry: Pork integrator companies ...................................................................................................... 13

State of North Carolina: Government agencies at the state and local level and taxpayers ................... 14

Appendix – Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 26

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Studies show that large-scale confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) swine farms impact water and air quality, leading to negative human health impacts. Prior research by NCGrowth indicates that these farms also have a negative impact on surrounding property values and economic development prospects. This report summarizes known impacts by stakeholder group in North Carolina resulting from current and evolving swine waste management systems on CAFOs. The stakeholders included in this report are: growers, farm workers, individuals living near CAFOs, host communities of CAFOs, downstream communities from CAFOs, the swine industry, and government agencies in North Carolina. This stakeholder analysis provides a framework that can be used in future analysis to quantify benefits and costs to these stakeholders as alternative waste management systems and other policy options are considered.

Table 1. List of stakeholders and their definitions

Stakeholder Name Definition

Growers Contract famers who own and manage a swine CAFO, are generally responsible for the operational risks and resulting animal waste, and are paid by integrators according to animal weight gain.

Farm Workers Anyone who works at a swine CAFO but does not have ownership.

Neighbors Residents living within two miles or less of one or more swine CAFOs.

Host Communities Communities in which swine CAFOs reside.

Downstream Communities Communities connected to CAFOs by river systems.

Pork Industry The pork industry, defined broadly as the economic interests of the industry, with particular attention to the large integrator companies that own hogs that growers manage.

State of North Carolina The government of the state of North Carolina and its stakeholders, taxpayers.

This report is a series of summaries of the types of impacts that are relevant for each stakeholder group; it draws from a literature review of documented and measured impacts in peer-reviewed literature, grey literature, and newspaper coverage of the impacts of swine CAFOs in North Carolina and, to a limited extent, elsewhere in the United States. To learn more about how impacts were identified and measured, refer to the description of literature in the appendix. Each summary is designed to support interested parties and policy makers in understanding the different impacts of current swine CAFO practices, and begin to chart existing concerns that may be alleviated through changes in policy going forward. This report is also accompanied by a series of maps further exploring the geospatial impacts of topics covered here. That report, “Impacts of Swine Waste Management in North Carolina: A Geospatial Analysis,” includes 17 maps an figures further detailing the demographic and environmental dimensions of swine waste management impacts in North Carolina. This report arrives in the midst of debate about what should happen with the pork industry, particularly with respect to regulating swine manure lagoons and the development of waste-to-energy systems. For farm workers, neighbors to CAFOs, host communities, and downstream communities, the literature is clear that there are risks to human health and well-being posed by the current waste management system. We include a discussion of alternate waste-to-energy management systems in the pork industry section, as these systems offer a potential additional revenue stream to offset the costs of changing the

5

management system to deal with some or all of the negative impacts. However, the development of waste-to-energy systems intersects with both the efforts to address environmental justice issues and statewide politics, and this debate should be understood within the context of these larger considerations.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

Growers: Contract famers who own and manage a Swine CAFO

Health Growers may be exposed to a number of health concerns if they are actively involved in operations or live on the farm. Growers are considered “high risk” for acquiring diseases from animals1 Although the specific causal agents for infection are difficult to isolate, hazards result from “air-associated contaminants” (gases and vapors, nonbiologic aerosols, and bioaerosols) and “waste-associated contaminants” (infectious agents, antimicrobial resistance, nutrients). These hazards can result in negative health impacts – Donham et al. (2007) note over 70 peer-reviewed journal articles establishing negative health effects due to the confinement environment on swine producers regarding respiratory health issues due to poor air quality containing hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, particulate matter, and endotoxins.2

Community Relations Managing waste from swine CAFOs can create tensions between growers and their communities. The most common swine waste management approach releases odors, airborne pathogens, and pollution that negatively impact the surrounding community, challenging relationships between the grower and the community.3 Additionally, nuisance lawsuits targeting corporate integrators and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) may contribute to increased tensions between growers and the community. If a lagoon breaches or overflows during a storm, the grower may be concerned about damage to the farm, and widespread swine waste pollution further straining relations between growers and community members.4,5

Economics The North Carolina swine CAFO industry is set up so that growers are typically contracted by companies called integrators to raise integrator-owned swine on contracted growers’ operations, and are paid according to animal weight gain. The contract growers shoulder the risks for the swine – they are liable for animal deaths that occur regularly – and bear the responsibility for their waste. Therefore, growers have an economic interest in how swine waste is managed. First, they may wish to invest in different waste management technologies, which exist and have been shown to be effective at mitigating risks, to alleviate financial risks associated with swine waste management or to avoid cleanup costs after severe weather – growers are responsible for protecting their property or paying a waste management violation fine. (Broader clean-up burdens fall on the public or the environment). These technologies exist and have been shown to be effective at mitigating risks.6 Second, there may be financial gains to alternative waste management systems, such as by creating biogas that can be used as natural gas and be used to generate electricity or other fuels, or through other byproducts that can be sold.7 However, few farms have been able to individually invest in and/or maintain expensive biogas infrastructure that meet the “environmentally superior” requirements, in part due to prohibitive upfront costs and because these criteria require additional waste management techniques and technologies beyond simply methane capture in order to adequately meet EST criteria.8

6

Third, based on interviews with swine growers, the costs to close and remediate a swine waste lagoon are often unachievable without outside help due to the intensive and costly remediation required. Growers may want state or federal support, or to participate in buyout programs that allow the growers to close swine farms located in the 100-year floodplain and create conservation easements instead.9 The buyout program is in its fifth round of funding since 2000, the first four rounds supported forty-three of the 138 producers who applied for funds.10 After Hurricane Floyd in 1999, the first round used $18.7 million to purchase 42 operations; 34 of those operations would have likely flooded again during Hurricane Matthew in 2016.

Farm Workers: Anyone who works at a swine CAFO but does not have ownership

Health Farmworkers (who may also be neighbors, community members, or downstream neighbors but for which those impacts will be analyzed separately) primarily experience health impacts from swine CAFOs. Studies have shown these workers have significantly more symptoms of chronic bronchitis and asthma, and more missed work days than control populations. Documented symptoms include wheezing, coughing, sinusitis, fever, chest tightness, nasal irritation, phlegm, throat irritation, and sneezing.11 Some farmworkers report headaches and joint and muscle pain.12 Lung function may be lower for farmworkers. Chronic respiratory symptoms are associated with the number of hours worked each day and the number of pigs per barn.13 Working on a swine CAFO is associated with exposure to air-associated contaminants, including toxic gasses, particulates, and odor,14 although the impacts are difficult to isolate.15 Over 70 papers establish negative health effects for swine CAFO workers due to exposure to air containing hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, particulate matter, and endotoxins.16 The first type of airborne risks derives from gasses and vapors, which include ammonia, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and methane. Lagoons holding manure release a high concentration of all of these. A second risk factor are nonbiologic aerosols such as dust from feed, skin cells, hair, and dried feces. A third risk factor are bioaerosols that contain endotoxins, bacteria, and fungi; these can be present in dust, and are in fact more stable on dust.17 A fourth exposure risk is for antibiotic resistance to E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Enterococcus, and Staphylococcus aureus, which has been found among industrial swine operation workers and their children in North Carolina.18

Ammonia irritates eyes, skin, mucous membranes, and upper respiratory functioning.19 Exposure to hydrogen sulfide on swine farms is associated with CNS transitory symptoms.20 Nonbiologic aerosols have led to high levels of phlegm production and pulmonary inflammation; chronic exposure may lead to bronchitis or asthma.21 Bioaerosols can cause respiratory issues such as coughing, excessive phlegm, and wheezing, as well as pulmonary impairment, malaise, and fever.22 One study found that exposure and pulmonary function correlations were highest after six years of cumulative exposure, with dust and ammonia being the strongest predictors of response.23 Workers using dust masks experienced lower rates of chronic and work-related respiratory symptoms related to bioaerosols than those without masks, but workers using dust masks who already experience respiratory symptoms did not have better lung function than those without.24 Further, dust from swine CAFOs ranges in size, making certified dust masks 3-25% less effective than advertised.25

Exposure to manure, urine, saliva, tissue, or contaminated water or soil are associated with microbial

pathogens that can pass to humans even if the animal has no symptoms of sickness.

7

Economics Farmworkers also have an economic interest in swine waste management because, it may affect their job security in the long term.

Neighbors: Residents within two miles or less26 of one or more swine CAFOs

Health Residents living within a two-mile radius or less of a swine CAFO may experience health impacts from their proximity to the farm. Respiratory and gastrointestinal issues, headaches, runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea, burning eyes, mucous membrane irritation are documented issues for residents living near swine operations compared to those that do not, and are associated with similar risks of farm workers.27 Since 2014, more than 500 residents living near CAFOs have joined 26 nuisance lawsuits in federal court against Smithfield foods, a meat-processing company and subsidiary of the largest pork company in the world, WH Group of China. Five lawsuits have been successful thus far.28

Surface Water There are risks specifically from surface water contamination. Contamination of surface water intensifies when CAFO sprayfields cannot absorb all the waste applied to them, and excess waste runs into the waterways.29 Contact or proximity to manure, urine, and animal tissues from swine are associated with bacteria, viruses, and protozoa that may cause human illness, even when the pigs are not displaying symptoms of illness.30 Fecal coliforms, e.Coli and Enterococcus, excessive nutrients (such as nitrogen), microbial pathogens, and pharmaceuticals have also been found in surface water near CAFOs. Excessive nitrates in the water can cause methemoglobinemia (blue-baby syndrome), and reproductive health effects such as central nervous system development defects and miscarriages.31 Assessing exposure in community-based studies is difficult, however.1 Using methods similar to human waste management is a possible avenue to manage this risk.32 Contamination is exacerbated if a swine manure lagoon breaches or overflows during a storm, releasing 100 million fecal coliform bacteria per gram of waste,33 and causing eutrophication, fish kills, and pathogen loads.

Soil and Groundwater Evidence of health impacts from soil and groundwater contamination near CAFOS is less established, but excessive nutrient and microbial loading on regional ground and surface waters has been documented.34 In areas with silty, clay soil, up to 3% of microbes may be drained away from the soil and into water sources; this effect is increased by rain. Infectious organisms found in swine waste are able to survive and travel through the groundwater in this process.35 Drinking water contamination from moderate to severe seepage losses from swine lagoons was found in North Carolina.36 A voluntary NC Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources program found that 22% of wells had nitrate levels that exceeded adverse effect levels.37 Finally, high levels of zinc inhibit copper and iron absorption in humans and may cause anemia and kidney damage. 38

1 Exposure assessment is often difficult or nonexistent in community-based studies. Thu et al. (1997) did not measure exposure but assumed that residents living near hog operations were more exposed then residents further away. Schiffman et al. (1995) asked respondents to record survey responses when they smelled odor but there was no independent evaluation of airborne emissions. Community-based studies also suffer from small sample sizes, small number of facilities evaluated, and lack of comparability of the evaluated exposures. Thu et al. (1997) and Wing and Wolf (2000) examined relatively small clusters of individuals in close proximity to a facility of interest, and persons near only one exposure unit were evaluated (i.e., one swine CAFO). Health effects may differ as a function of management systems, facility size, and local factors affecting exposure pathways.

8

Air Quality Odor from lagoons and sprayfields also impacts neighbors. While difficult to measure,39 objective measures of environmental determinants of odor exist and document negative impacts.40 Odor is linked to disruptions in daily activities,41 negative impacts on human health (see table)42 and declines in quality of life.43 Air quality is also impacted by CAFOS, through toxic gasses and particulates emissions, and due to the heavy truck traffic from to and from swine farms.44 Table 2. Health Impacts related to swine CAFO odors

Symptoms

higher rates of depression, mental health issues, sleep disturbances, and fatigue45

increased stress, short-term blood pressure increases and chronic hypertension, decreased immune function46

Impaired neurobehavioral functions and pulmonary functions47

increased wheezing; upper respiratory health concerns, decreased lung function, cardiovascular ailments, premature death48

increased rates of diarrhea; digestive health issues49

irritation of the eye, nose, and throat, and inflammation50

Economics Proximity to swine CAFOS has economic impacts. Several papers document decreased property values due to nearby swine CAFOS, with the most reliable study finding decreases in property values of approximately $0.52/hog, $5,200 dollars, or 8.2% per house in Craven County, North Carolina.51 A separate analysis of nine North Carolina counties found that “the aggregate value of increasing water quality through a 10% or 50% reduction in odor was $5.1 million and $33.8 million, respectively. This represents an average of less than $300 per property, but annualized over 30 years with 5% interest results in $330,000 and $2.2 million annually.” 52 Neighbors also benefit from proximity to swine farms through employment opportunities in the industry, and local taxes paid by farms and industry operations. The results of the property value analyses suggest though that through improvements in waste management additional economic benefit could be captured.

Host Communities: Communities in which swine CAFOs reside Host communities may be at risk for many of the impacts documented in the section on Neighbor Impacts, in part because they include the neighbors described in the previous section, but the impacts may be more varied across the larger community.

Surface Water The literature documents a wide range of important factors for differences in surface water at the community level, including: seasonal fluctuations, streamflow conditions, instream conditions, and land cover type, soil drainage class, and CAFO specific variables.53 Studies of water quality in North Carolina found 40% of samples collected near CAFOs exceeded state and federal guidelines for fecal coliforms, 23% exceeded standards for E. coli, and 61% exceeded standards for Enterococcus. In addition, the presence of the swine-specific microbes were over two times more prevalent downstream than upstream of swine

9

CAFOs, and up to three times more prevalent after a large storm.54 See the discussion in the Neighbors section of this report for more detail.

Air Quality At the community level, hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, and odor are major air pollutants.55 The EPA recently signed an amendment to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) that exempts farms from the requirement of reporting animal waste related air emissions of hazardous substances to local officials.56 With respect to odor at the community level, there is evidence of increased asthma symptoms among children attending schools where odors were documented at least twice monthly.57 (See Farmworker and Neighbor sections for more.)

Health There are generalized health impacts without clear mechanisms. In North Carolina zip codes with more than 215 hogs/kilometer2, the odds of experiencing anemia (1.50 times), kidney disease (1.31 times), septicemia (2.30 times), and tuberculosis (2.22 times) were greater than communities without swine CAFOs. Communities in zip codes with any swine CAFOs had higher rates of all-cause mortality, infant mortality, mortality of patients with multimorbidity, mortality from anemia, kidney disease, tuberculosis, and septicemia, and higher rates of Emergency Room visits and hospital admissions for low birth weight infants than the residents residing in communities without swine CAFOs.58

Economics With respect to economic impacts, in addition to lower property values, there is the associated risk for the community of decreased (lost) property taxes.59 Although one paper found that public economic benefits of CAFOs for farms and affected households outweighed the costs of negative impacts,60 a different paper found that consolidated agricultural operations yield less positive economic outcomes than having many small operations in a region.61 See the Table 3. below for a more detailed breakdown of the studies on the impact of CAFOs on property values.

10

Table 3. Summary of Papers Assessing Property Value Impacts from Swine CAFOs PAPER DESCRIPTION FINDINGS LIMITATIONS

Palmquist et al. (1997) 237 sales transactions over eighteen months in nine counties in southeast North Carolina in a hedonic regression model examining the impact of swine CAFOs on housing values

9% decrease in home price, depending on the number of swine and distance from the home, and a home value decrease of 4.75% with the construction of a new swine operation located within a half mile of the property

Does not address sample selection bias, particularly with respect to non-rural and non-residential observations. The paper does not use precise locations of swine farms, and instead aggregates approximate distances to farms into three categories: 0–1/2mile, 1/2 to 1mile, and 1–2mile from each of the 237 housing observations. The paper assumed that no impacts occurred beyond two miles and that impacts occurred uniformly within a distance, which is inconsistent with other models examining impacts to water and air quality more directly. Characteristics of the swine farm and wind direction were not incorporated into the model.

Ready and Abdalla (2005) Analyzed home sales (8,090) over five years for 71 livestock operations. Using log-linear functional form in a two-stage least squares estimation

Decrease in value of homes within half a mile of a swine facility of 4%, but limited impacts beyond one mile or due to wind direction

Did not account for spatial autocorrelation.

Herriges et al. (2005) In this paper, 550 livestock facilities within a five county region in Iowa, and 1,145 “arms-length” house sales were analyzed. GIS locations of farms and wind direction are included in their analysis.

Moderately sized operations with over 250,000 live weight pounds of animals may cause a 26% decline in property values in Iowa that are within a quarter of a mile of a swine operation. This paper found a moderate-size livestock operation (250,000 live weight pounds) can cause 26% reduction in property value in Iowa if the property is downwind and 1/4 of a mile away from the facility

Did not address spatial autocorrelation

Kim, & Goldsmith (2009) Spatial hedonic model to assess monetary harm (decreased property values) in response to CAFOs, looking at spatial dependence in property values, addressing many of the spatial autocorrelation issues identified in the earlier papers. This paper combined assessed properties and sale prices, including location and descriptive information with general neighborhood indicators and swine operation and location data. The properties assessed are in Craven County North Carolina because of the strong presence of the pork industry (n=26 farms and 85,000 pigs), the heterogeneous land uses (with n=25,684 home values), and the availability of data on these two trends.

Spatial autocorrelation was found in the form of spatial lag dependence; when this is taken into account, the average impact on a property value is a decrease of ~$0.52/hog, ~$5,200 dollars, or ~8.2% per house in property values. The magnitude of spatial autoregressive parameter was about 0.2 for the 1-mile distance band, meaning 1/5th of the house value could be explained by the values of neighboring houses

Palmquist et al. (1997), Ready and Abdalla (2005), Herriges et al. (2005) all estimated the impact of swine CAFOs on property values using hedonic regression, however these papers did not correct for spatial autocorrelation that is theorized to impact estimation efficiency

Kim, Goldsmith, & Thomas (2010)

The examines property value decreases from proximity to swine CAFOs, estimates public costs and benefits from farms in Craven County, North Carolina,

Using IMPLAN, found that the swine industry contributed $27.1 million in economic impact

With respect to the IMPLAN analysis, not all the benefits

11

and develops per pig estimates of the net benefits that inform a policy framework for better aligning costs and benefits.

($319/hog) in output and 337 jobs in employment.

Found that homes within 1.75 miles of a farm lose value. The impact on median house value of $63,520, modeled with 10,000 hogs, decreased in the following increments: at 0.75 miles decreased by $6,2676 (10%); at 1.00 miles decreased by $5,200 (8%); at 1.25 miles decreased by $3,360 (5%); at 1.50 miles decreased by $2,300 (4%); and at 1.75 miles decreased by $1,811 (3%).

An example policy they offer is to distribute taxes from farms to homeowners.

from hog production will remain in the county.

Did not describe whether/how spatial autocorrelation was handled.

The policy framework is not a measure of social welfare.

Donham et al. (2007) This paper is a literature review summarizing the discussion that a working group developed on the public health impacts of swine CAFOs on rural communities. The authors recommend a stricter permitting process, different waste management strategies, limited animal density within a watershed, requiring environmental impact assessments, and increasing local control of farm regulations.

Not a research paper.

There is also evidence that improving surface water quality, reducing ambient particulate matter, and decreasing nitrogen in groundwater (all problems associated with swine CAFOs) may each yield economic benefits.

Addressing air and water quality issues caused by CAFOs may yield economic gains by increasing recreational activity.62 One conservative model of a 10% reduction in water loadings estimated a $1.5 million gain in consumer surplus, which, while not relevant at the individual level, is useful for local and state governments. Economic gains from increased air quality could accrue by avoiding health costs. One model estimated $38 million to $189 million in benefits per year for a 10% and 50% reduction in ammonia emissions in eastern North Carolina, respectively, primarily based on avoided deaths.63 The aggregate benefit of completely removing swine loadings from the eastern North Carolina region from sprayfields or air deposition could be between $116,000 and $152,000 annually.64 With respect to ground water, the most commonly referred to economic assessment of nitrogen in drinking water in North Carolina found that eliminating nitrogen exposure from nearby farms in drinking water would not substantially decrease nitrogen in drinking water.65

Storms The environmental impacts of hosting swine CAFOs is underscored by the fact that if a swine manure lagoon breaches or overflows during a storm, eutrophication, fish kills, and pathogen loads will result in

12

downstream water bodies.66 Smaller storms, or basically any rain event, lead to smaller but more regular polluting events from farm or sprayfield surface runoff.

Downstream Communities Communities downstream from CAFOs are broadly defined as those that are connected to CAFOs by in river and stream systems and are situated after a CAFO location when following the current. Cumulative impacts may accrue or disperse in different ways based on proximity, geography, and other factors.

Runoff Water runoff due to high applications of swine waste on fields may lead to negative health impacts for downstream communities. Experiments documenting upstream and downstream surface water quality near swine CAFOs confirm the presence of high levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, and Enterococcus that frequently exceed federal and state recreational water quality guidelines.67 These ultra high levels were confirmed both upstream and downstream of CAFOs – higher downstream – in part because none of the testing sites were completely upstream of all other CAFOs. Inadequate waste management can lead to excessive nutrient, microbial , and pharmaceuticals loads from swine waste accumulating in streams and other water bodies.68 Spraying may be associated with algal blooms and water quality issues.69 Algal blooms may kill fish, limit recreation opportunities, create odor problems, and may limit drinking water supplies.70

Storms These risks can be exacerbated by storms, particularly hurricanes. Prior to storms, swine operations lower the level of liquid in the manure lagoons to decrease the risk of overflowing by increasing the amount of manure sprayed onto sprayfields. This may have a twofold impact: first, heightened levels of emissions in the air due to increased spraying may result. Second, the higher levels of manure on the fields immediately before a large storm event may lead to an increase in direct discharge, seepage, or runoff into the waterways. The Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy nonprofit that monitors swine lagoon operations documented thousands of acres of sprayfields receiving additional manure prior to Hurricane Matthew in 2016.71 This practice is contradictory to strict permitting regulations.72 During storms, manure lagoons may overflow or break, contaminating surface water enough that there is evidence that households in North Carolina are willing to pay for waste management programs that decrease the risk of future spills.73 During Hurricane Florence in 2018, thirty pig manure lagoons in NC flooded; another twenty-one had floodwater flowing into lagoons and mixing with waste; seventy-five lagoons were full or nearly full; and six lagoons experienced structural damage due to rain and flooding.74 News outlets, citing the NCDEQ, reported that between 77-130 lagoons released pig waste into the environment or were considered as having a high probability to do so before the storm ended.75 News coverage reported more than 7 million gallons of swine waste escaped from two lagoons in Duplin and Sampson counties during the storm, and flowed into the South and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. The losses from Hurricane Florence to the pork industry were estimated to total $661,100.76 Farms must dispose of animal carcasses that result from flooding or a lack of access to animals during a storm event. Failure to properly do this (for example by burying animals in mass graves as happened after Hurricane Floyd) can lead to serious public health concerns. Growers are responsible for this action; but, if not done properly, taxpayers may be responsible for cleaning up. Hurricane Florence

13

resulted in approximately 5,500 swine carcasses77 while Hurricane Matthew led to 2,800 carcasses78 and Hurricane Floyd led to 20,000 carcasses.79

Industry: Pork integrator companies In addition to the health concerns, tensions between grower and the community, and the economic interests outlined in the grower section, the industry has economic interests in using certain waste management strategies.

Legal Costs The integrator companies that contract growers to raise hogs do not own the waste produced by those hogs; however, these companies play a big role in endorsing the technology systems that growers end up using. Indeed, in what has become a contentious issue in North Carolina, residents living near swine CAFOs have successfully sued several subsidiaries of major pork industry integrators.80 Investing in alternative waste management strategies may lessen legal costs accrued by the industry and improve community relations.

Storms The industry also accrues costs from damages due to a major storm event. The N.C. Department of Agriculture found that the pork industry lost $661,100 after hurricane Florence, with 5,500 animal deaths and 42 compromised lagoons. It is estimated that 60 farms are still located in the 100-year floodplain, however when the 500-year floodplain is included nearly 200 farms are situated at significant risk to flooding.81 For more information on this impact see the maps presented in “Impacts of Swine Waste Management in North Carolina: A Geospatial Analysis” which accompanies this stakeholder analysis report.

Regulation Interest in alternative waste management strategies arose through the 2004 “Smithfield Agreement” between North Carolina Attorney General, Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms, and Frontline Growers, requiring that any newly permitted farms deploy waste management systems that use “environmentally superior technology” (EST) that must be “technically, operationally, and economically feasible” and meet specified performance standards. These standards require that discharge of animal waste to surface waters and groundwater through direct discharge, seepage, or runoff must be eliminated; atmospheric emissions of ammonia must be substantially eliminated; odor detectable beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land on which the swine farm is located must be substantially eliminated; disease-transmitting vectors and airborne pathogens must be substantially eliminated; and finally, nutrient and heavy metal contamination of soil and groundwater must be substantially eliminated.82 These guidelines are therefore useful in understanding the industry motivations for shifting production practices. In 2009, a follow up report found five (of 18) technologies met the performance standards and one that that addressed the entire waste stream.83 The report also found that the costs of retrofitting swine farms with these technologies, annualized over ten years, amounted to between $90 and $400 per 1,000 lbs. of steady state live weight swine. Efforts to identify both effective and cost-efficient technologies have been mixed,84 but a few effective options have been identified.85

14

Economics Although upgrading or replacing swine manure management systems requires a capital investment, policies incentivizing voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions by creating carbon credits may offset these costs. One study estimated that the implementation of the one EST technology that treats the entire waste stream led to a 96.9% reduction in emissions, from 4,972 tons of CO2 equivalents to 153 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.2 In addition, the dollar value of implementing this project was $19,106 per year using Chicago Climate Exchange trading values of US $4/t CO2, which translates to an economic benefit of $1.75 per finished pig.86 Another study showed increased sales of hogs after implementing a solids separation, nitrification/denitrification and phosphorous removal/disinfection system.87 Smithfield, a subsidiary of the largest pork company in the world, has already invested in biogas production as an alternative waste management system that generates revenue.88

State of North Carolina: Government agencies at the state and local level and taxpayers

Storms The state provides funds for cleanup of breached or overflowing swine waste lagoons. There is little direct research on the extent of the impacts that result from storms or large spills, nor is there much documentation of the dispersion of government funds for cleaning up a breach or spill. Anecdotal evidence suggests that breaches and spills cause algal blooms that lead to fish kills and limit recreation, as a limited example.89 The 1995 and 1999 hurricane events and their respective cleanup efforts lent energy to the reforms outlined in the Smithfield Agreement and the moratorium on the construction of new manure lagoons, which is still in place, despite efforts of the pork industry to lift certain rules regarding manure management.90 Breaches and spills continue to cause concern during storms, and there is evidence that residents are interested in more effective waste management programs that reduce the risk of lagoon spills.91 A specialist at the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at N.C. State noted that cleanup and response costs are borne by the general public, with funds coming from FEMA, the state’s taxpayer-funded Division of Soil and Water Conservation and the DEQ, as well as local church and school groups. There is also a buyout program for at risk farms; after Hurricane Floyd in 1999, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services implemented a program to buy out swine farms in the 100-year flood plain. The program has had four phases of buyouts, and a fifth one is ongoing.92 Over the first four rounds, 138 growers applied for buyouts and forty-three farms were purchased with $18,669,500 provided to the Division of Soil & Water Conservation by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund Board of Trustees, which receives an appropriation from the legislature to issue grants to local governments, state agencies, and conservation nonprofits to address water pollution issues.93 These forty-three farms encompass a production capacity of 60,550 hogs in the floodplain and 106 animal waste lagoons – their purchase will create 1,218 acres of conservation easements.94 For phase five of the buyout program, the state will spend an additional $2.5 million from the Regional Conservation Partnership Program grant from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.95

2 This paper uses the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) methodology to calculate reductions, which allows for the consideration of aerobic components in addition to anaerobic digesters and flaring that are the focus of the other approved method for quantification of GHG emission reduction in animal manure systems.

15

Health There may be additional health costs and risks borne at the state level due to the potential for CAFOs to increase infectious disease epidemics and antibiotic resistance,96 heightened ammonia levels at the regional (multistate) level arising from swine, sheep, goat, and horse operations, 97 and health risks from swine manure lagoon breaches that impact water quality,98 all of which suggest that state level policy will be required to address these potential health risks and costs. In 2019 the pork industry supported a North Carolina senate bill to restrict certain records on swine farms and to allow for waste-to-energy equipment on farms to capture gas from lagoons as long as farms do not add hogs, among other policy changes. Thus far the state has already modified 21 permits to allow for biogas collection since 2011. Critics of placing swine-to-energy systems on farms express concerns that this may circumvent the 2007 moratorium on new permits for open-air waste pits at swine farms without adequately addressing all waste management issues; that it may make the waste lagoon and sprayfield system more permanent through increased infrastructure investment rather than phasing this system out as was promised; and will not adequately address concerns regarding sustainability or food system production processes.99 Since 1996, the livestock and meat processing industry contributed over $2 million to political campaigns and candidates, with the largest donors being the North Carolina Farm Bureau, the North Carolina Pork Council, and Smithfield Foods.100 Other considerations state and local governments may want to account for include: lost tax revenue from decreased property values near swine CAFOs, lost economic investment due to the state’s reputation for environmental waste issues, the perceived risk of the industry leaving if further regulations are placed on the operations, and the opportunity for the state to become a leader in addressing concerns associated with swine waste management.

Further Reading and Geospatial Analysis For further detail on how impacts were identified and measured for this report, refer to the extended literature review in the appendix. This report is also accompanied by a series of maps further exploring the geospatial impacts of topics covered here. That report, “Impacts of Swine Waste Management in North Carolina: A Geospatial Analysis,” includes 17 maps an figures further detailing the demographic and environmental dimensions of swine waste management impacts in North Carolina.

1 Cole, D., Todd, L., & Wing, S. (2000). Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations and Public Health: A Review of Occupational and Community Health Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(8), 685–699.

2 Donham, K. J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J. L., Hodne, C., Thu, K. M., & Thome, P. S. (2007). Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Health Perspectives, 115(2), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836

3 Roman, C. (2018, November 12). Clearing the air: The hog farm lawsuits. WECT News. Retrieved from https://www.wect.com/2018/11/12/clearing-air-hog-farm-lawsuits/

A million tons of feces and an unbearable stench: Life near industrial pig farms. (2017, September 20). The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/20/north-carolina-hog-industry-pig-farms

Jury awards $473.5 million to neighbors who sued Smithfield over hog waste. (2018, August 03). WRAL. Retrieved from https://www.wral.com/third-hog-trial-to-jury-plaintiffs-ask-for-millions/17743873/

Blythe, A. (2018, June 29). Jury awards more than $25 million to Duplin County couple in hog-farm case. The News & Observer. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article214096384.html

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article214096384.html

16

Buford, T. (2019, March 09). A Hog Waste Agreement Lacked Teeth, and Some North Carolinians Say They're Left

to Suffer. Pro Publica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/a-hog-waste-agreement-lacked-teeth-and-some-north-carolinians-say-left-to-suffer

4 Roman, C. (2018, November 12). Clearing the air: The hog farm lawsuits. Retrieved from https://www.wect.com/2018/11/12/clearing-air-hog-farm-lawsuits/

A million tons of feces and an unbearable stench: Life near industrial pig farms. (2017, September 20). Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/20/north-carolina-hog-industry-pig-farms

Wral. (2018, August 03). Jury awards $473.5 million to neighbors who sued Smithfield over hog waste. Retrieved from https://www.wral.com/third-hog-trial-to-jury-plaintiffs-ask-for-millions/17743873/

Blythe, A. (n.d.). Jury awards more than $25 million to Duplin County couple in hog-farm case. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article214096384.html

Buford, T. (2019, March 09). A Hog Waste Agreement Lacked Teeth, and Some North Carolinians Say They're Left to Suffer. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/a-hog-waste-agreement-lacked-teeth-and-some-north-carolinians-say-left-to-suffer

5 Bethea, C. (2018, September 30). Could Smithfield Foods Have Prevented the "Rivers of Hog Waste" in North Carolina After Florence? The New Yorker Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/could-smithfield-foods-have-prevented-the-rivers-of-hog-waste-in-north-carolina-after-florence


Xu, J., Adair, C., & Deshusses, M. (2016). Performance evaluation of a full-scale innovative swine waste-to-energy system. Bioresource Technology, 216, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.089

Vanotti, M., Szogi, A., Millner, P., & Loughrin, J. (2009). Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresource Technology, 100, 5406–5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.019

7 Fryberger, C. (2014). The Renewable Energy Opportunity in Duplin County. NCGrowth. Retrieved from http://www.ncgrowth.unc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/RenewableEnergy_DuplinCounty_Fryberger.pdf Williams, C. (2009). Development of environmentally superior technologies in the US and policy. Bioresource Technology, 100, 5512–5518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.067


Williams, C. (2009). Development of environmentally superior technologies in the US and policy. Bioresource Technology, 100, 5512–5518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.067

9 North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. (n.d.). Swine Floodplain Buyout. Retrieved from https://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/easementprograms/SwineFloodplainBuyout.html

What's next for proven, but underfunded hog farm buyout program after Florence? (2018, October 04). NC Policy Watch. Retrieved from http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2018/10/04/whats-next-for-proven-but-underfunded-hog-farm-buyout-program-after-florence/

Kendrick, J. (2018, April 18). NC secures funding to continue voluntary program to close hog farms located in 100-year floodplain. NC Pork Council. Retrieved from https://www.ncpork.org/nc-secures-funding-continue-voluntary-program-close-hog-farms-located-100-year-floodplain/


11 Donham, K., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R., & Belin, L. (1989). Environmental and health studies of farm workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal Industrial Medicine 46:31-37.

Olson, D., & Bark, S. (1996). Health hazards affecting the animal confinement farm worker. Workplace Health & Safety: Promoting Environments Conducive to Well-Being and Productivity, 44, 198-204

12 Heederik, D., Brouwer, R., Biersteker, K., & Boleij, J.S.M. (1991) Relationship of airborne endotoxin and bacteria levels in pig farms with the lung function and respiratory symptoms of growers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 62, 595-601.grower

13 Zejda, J., Hurst, T., Barber, E., Rhodes, C., & Dosman, J. (1993). Respiratory health status in swine producers using respiratory protective devices. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 23, 743-750

https://www.propublica.org/article/a-hog-waste-agreement-lacked-teeth-and-some-north-carolinians-say-left-to-suffer


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/could-smithfield-foods-have-prevented-the-rivers-of-hog-waste-in-north-carolina-after-florence




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.019



17

Donham, K., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R., & Belin, L. (1989). Environmental and health studies of farm

workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 46, 31-37. Olson, D. & Bark, S. (1996). Health hazards affecting the animal confinement farm worker. Workplace Health &

Safety: Promoting Environments Conducive to Well-Being and Productivity, 44, 198-204 Von Essen, S., Scheppers, L., Robbins, R., & Donham, K. (1998) Respiratory tract inflammation in swine

confinement workers studied using induced sputum and exhaled nitric oxide. Clinical Toxicology, 36, 557-565. Donham, K., Reynolds, S., Whitten, P., Merchant, J., Burmeister, L., & Popendorf, W. (1995). Respiratory

dysfunction in swine production facility workers: dose-response relationships of environmental exposures and pulmonary function. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27,405-418.

Cole, D., Todd, L., & Wing, S. (2000). Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations and Public Health: A Review of Occupational and Community Health Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(8), 685–699.

14 Bunton, B., O’Shaughnessy, P., Fitzsimmons, S., Gering, J., Hoff, S., Lyngbye, M., Thorne, P., Wasson, J., Thome, P., Wasson, J., & Werner, M. (2007). Monitoring and Modeling of Emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Overview of Methods. Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8838

Aneja, V., Chauhan, J., & Walker, J. (2000). Characterization of atmospheric ammonia emissions from swine waste storage and treatment lagoons. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(D9), 11535–11545.

Szogi, A., Vanotti, M., & Stansbery, A. (2006). Reduction of ammonia emissions from treated anaerobic swine lagoons. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 49(1), 217–225.

Loughrin, J., Szogi, A., & Vanotti, M. (2006). Reduction of malodorous compounds from a treated swine anaerobic lagoon. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(1), 194–199.

Sobsey, M., Khatib, L., Hill, V., Alocilja, E., & Pillai, S., (2001). Pathogens in animal wastes and the impacts of waste management practices on their survival, transport and fate. In: White Papers on animal agriculture and the environment. MidWest Plan Service (MWPS), Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (Chapter 17).


Cox, C. (1995) Stability of airborne microbes and allergens. In: Bioaerosols Handbook (Cox, C. & Wathes, C. eds). London: Lewis Publishers, 77-99.

16 Donham, K., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J., Hodne, C., Thu, K., & Thome, P. (2007). Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836

17 Cox, C. (1995) Stability of airborne microbes and allergens. In: Bioaerosols Handbook (Cox, C. & Wathes, C. eds). London: Lewis Publishers, 77-99.


18 Nadimpalli, M., Rinsky, J., Wing, S., Hall, D., Stewart, J., Larsen, J., Nachman, K., Love, D., Pierce, E., Pisanic, N., Strelitz, J., Harduar-Morano, L. & Heaney, C. (2015). Persistence of livestock-associated antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among industrial hog operation workers in North Carolina over 14 days. Occupupational & Environmental Medicine, 72, 90–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102095

Moore, J., Madden, R., Kerr, J., Wilson, T., & Murphy, P. (1996). Erythromycin-resistant thermophilic Campylobacter species isolated from pigs. Vetrinary Record, 138, 306-307.

Mathew, A., Saxton, A., Upchurch, W., & Chattin, S. (1999). Multiple antibiotic resistance patterns of Escherichia coli isolates from swine farms. AppIied Environmental Microbiology, 65, 2770-2772.

Douwes, J. & Heederick, D. (1997) Epidemiologic investigations of endotoxins. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 3(suppl), S26-S31

Nijsten, R., London, N., Van Den Bogaard, A., & Stobberingh, E. (1994). Resistance in faecal Escherichia coli isolated from pig- growers and abattoir workers. Epidemiology & Infection, 113, 45-52.

Hatcher, S., Rhodes, S., Stewart, J., Silbergeld, E., Pisanic, N., Larsen, J., Jiang, S., Krosche, A., Hall, D., Carroll, K., & Heaney, C. (2017). The Prevalence of Antibiotic-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Carriage among Industrial Hog Operation Workers, Community Residents, and Children Living in Their Households: North Carolina, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125, 560–569.

Khanna T., Friendship, R., Dewey, C., & Weese, J. (2008). Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in pigs and pig farmers. Veterinary Microbiology, 128(3–4), 298–303.

https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8838


18

Price, L., Stegger, M., Hasman, H., Aziz, M., Larsen, J., Andersen, P., Pearson, T., Waters, A., Foster, J., Schupp, J.,

Gillece, J., Driebe, E., Liu, C., Springer, B., Zdovc, I., Battisti, A., Franco, A., Zmudzki, J., Schwarz, S., Butaye, P., Jouy, E., Pomba, C., Porrero, M., Ruimy, R., Smith, T., Robinson, D., Weese, J., Arriola, C., Yu, F., Laurent, F., Keim, P., Skov, R., & Aarestrup, F. (2012). Staphylococcus aureus CC398: host adaptation and emergence of methicillin resistance in livestock. mBio; 3:pii: e00305–11. http://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00305-11.

Smith, T., Male, M., Harper, A., Kroeger, J., Tinkler, G., Moritz, E., Capuano, A., Herwaldt, L., Diekema, D. (2009). Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aureus (MRSA) strain ST398 is present in midwestern U.S. swine and swine workers. PLoS One, 4(1), e4258, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004258.

Van den Broek, I., Van Cleef, B., Haenen, B., Broens, E., Van der Wolf, P., Van den Broek, M., Huijsdens, X., Kluytmans, J., Van de Giessen, A., & Tiemersma, E. (2009). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in people living and working in pig farms. Epidemioogy & Infection, 137(5), 700–708. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268808001507farmer


20 National Research Council. (2003). Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10586.


Eduard, W., Pearce, N., & Douwes, J. (2009). Chronic bronchitis, COPD, and lung function in growers: The role of biological agents. Chest. 136:716–725.

22 Mathew, A., Saxton, A., Upchurch, W., & Chattin, S. (1999). Multiple antibiotic resistance patterns of Escherichia coli isolates from swine farms. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 65, 2770-2772.

Nijsten, R., London, N., Van Den Bogaard, A., & Stobberingh, E. (1994). Resistance in faecal Escherichia coli isolated from pig-farmers and abattoir workers. Epidemiology & Infection, 113, 45-52.

23 Donham, K., Reynolds, S., Whitten, P., Merchant, J., Burmeister, L., & Popendorf, W. (1995). Respiratory dysfunction in swine production facility workers: dose-response relationships of environmental exposures and pulmonary function. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27, 405-418.

24 Zejda, J., Hurst, T., Barber, E., Rhodes, C., & Dosman, J. (1993). Respiratory health status in swine producers using respiratory protective devices. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 23, 743-750.

25 Pickrell, J., Heber, A., Murphy, J., Henry, S., May, M., Nolan, D., Gearhart, S., Cederber, B., Oehme, F., & Schonewels, D. (1995). Total and respirable dust in swine confinement buildings: the benefit of respiratory protective masks and effect of recirculated air. Veterinary & Human Toxicology, 37(5), 430-435

26 Wing, S., Horton, R., Marshall, S., Thu, K., Tajik, M., Schinasi, L., & Schiffman, S. (2008). Air Pollution and Odor in Communities Near Industrial Swine Operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1362–1368.


Wing, S. & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of life among Eastern North Carolina Residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238.

28 Dalesio, E. (2019, March 08). Pork giant Smithfield Foods loses another neighbors' lawsuit. AP News. Retrieved from https://www.apnews.com/19d67514e57846c3b724b81987c28765.

Buford, T. (2019, March 09). A Hog Waste Agreement Lacked Teeth, and Some North Carolinians Say They're Left to Suffer. Pro Publica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/a-hog-waste-agreement-lacked-teeth-and-some-north-carolinians-say-left-to-suffer

29 Christenson, E. (2015). Using Remote Sensing To Calculate Plant Available Nitrogen From Industrial Hog CAFOs. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 

30 NC State University. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior Technologies per Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General, Smithfield Foods , Premium Standard Farms , and Frontline Farmers.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, I., & U.S. Geological Survey, I. (2015). Surface-Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds of the North Carolina Coastal Plain Associated with Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5080/pdf/sir2015-5080.pdf

https://www.apnews.com/19d67514e57846c3b724b81987c28765

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5080/pdf/sir2015-5080.pdf

19

Heaney, et al. (2015); Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer, P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thome, P. S., & Wichman, M.

(2007). Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality. Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 308–312. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839))

31 Fan, A. & Steinberg ,V. (1996). Health implications of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water: an update on methemoglobine-mia occurrence and reproductive and developmental toxicity. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 23, 35-43.

Johnson, C. & Kross, B. (1990). Continuing importance of nitrate contamination of groundwater and wells in rural areas. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 18, 449-456.

32 Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer, P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thome, P., & Wichman, M. (2007). Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2): 308–312. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839

33 Crane, S., Moore, J., Grismer, M., & Miner, J. (1983). Bacterial pollution from agricultural sources: a review. Transactions - American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 26, 858-866.

Hill, V., & Sobsey, M. (1998). Microbial indicator reductions in alternative treatment systems for swine wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 38(12), 119-112.

Kearney, T., Larkin, M., Frost, J., & Levitt, P. (1993). Survival of pathogenic bacteria during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of animal waste. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 75, 215-219

Smallbeck, D. & Bromel, M. (1975). Bacterial analysis and land disposal of farm waste lagoon waters. In: Third international Symposium on Livestock Wastes, April 21-24, 1975 at the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 318-321.


Research Triangle Institute.(2003). “Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste Management Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment.” Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix c-RTI.pdf




38 McLaughlin, M., Brooks, J., & Adeli, A. (2009). Characterization of Selected Nutrients and Bacteria from Anaerobic Swine Manure Lagoons on Sow, Nursery, and Finisher Farms in the Mid-South USA. Journal of Environmental Quality, 38(6), 2422-30. http://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0468


Homes, M., Heber, A., Wu, C., Clark, L., Grant, R., Zimmerman, N., Hill, M., Strobel, B., Peugh, M., & Jones, D. (1996). Viability of bioaerosols produced from a swine facility. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations, 7-9 February 1996, Kansas City, Missouri. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 127-131.

Reynolds, S., Donham, K., Whitten, P., Merchant, J., Burmeister, L., & Popendorf, W. (1996). Longitudinal evaluation of dose-response relationships for environmental exposures and pulmonary function in swine production workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 33-40.

Schiffman, S., Miller, E., Suggs, M., & Graham, B. (1995). The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Research Bulletin, 17, 369-375. http://doi.org/10.1016/0361-9230(95)00015-1


Donham, K., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J., Hodne, C., Thu, K., & Thome, P. (2007). Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836


20

Thu, K., Donham, K., Ziegenhorn, R., Reynolds, S., Thorne, P., Subramanian, P., Whitten, P., & Stookesberry, J.

(1997). A control study of the physical and mental health of residents living near a large-scale swine operation. Journal of Agricutural Safety and Health, 3, 13-26.

Wing, S. & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of life among Eastern North Carolina Residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238.

Bullers, S. (2005). Environmental stressors, perceived control, and health: the case of residents near large-scale hog farms in eastern North Carolina. Human Ecology, 33, 1-16.


42 (Rumsey et al. (2012; 2014)). Aneja et al. (2008); 2009; Erisman et al. 2008) find other air pollutants from livestock operations

43 Quality of life, as indicated by the number of times residents could not open their windows or go outside even in nice weather, was similar in the control and the community in the vicinity of the cattle operation but greatly

reduced among residents near the hog operation. Wing, S., & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of life among Eastern North

Carolina Residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637983/pdf/envhper00304-00

44 Bunton, et al. (2007) document airborne emissions from CAFOs that include toxic gases, particulates, and odor. Ammonia is classified as a major pollutant on the regional (multistate)scale. Hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, and odor classified as major pollutants at the local scale. (National Research Council Ad Hoc Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, Committee on Animal Nutrition 2003; Bunton, et al. (2007)) However, they indicate that there are a variety of methods for measuring these emissions, with varying costs, precision, accuracy, portability, maintenance, and long-term requirements. Differences in technology influence whether and how these methods may assess the spatial extent of airborne emissions and/or the time over which those emissions are present. 45 Donham, K., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J., Hodne, C., Thu, K., & Thome, P. (2007). Community Health and

Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836


Williams, M. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior Technologies per Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General , Smithfield Foods , Premium Standard Farms , and Frontline Farmers. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm


Schiffman, S., Studwell, C., Landerman, L., Berman, K., & Sundy, J. (2005). Symptomatic effects of exposure to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), 567-576

46 Wing, S. & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of life among Eastern North Carolina Residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238


Avery, R., Wing, S., Marshall, S., & Schiffman, S. (2004). Odor from industrial hog operations and suppression of mucosal immune function neighbors. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal, 59, 101-1.


Kilburn, K. (2012). Human impairment from living near confined animal (hog) feeding operations. Journal of Environmental Public Health. http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/565690.

Williams, M. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior Technologies per Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General , Smithfield Foods , Premium Standard Farms , and

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637983/pdf/envhper00304-00

http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/565690

21

Frontline Farmers. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm

47 Kravchenko, J. (2016). The effects of hog farms waste on human health. NC BREATHE Conference. Talk presented at 2016 NC BREATHE Conference, Charlotte, NC. Retrieved from https://cleanaircarolina.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BREATHE-2016-Breakout-CAFO-PPT-Kravchenko-4-8-16.pdf

48Mirabelli, M., Wing, S., Marshall, S., & Wilcosky, T. (2006). Asthma symptoms among adolescents who attend public schools that are located near confined swine feeding operations. Pediatrics, 118(1), e66-e75.



Schinasi, L., Horton, R., Guidry, V., Wing, S., Marshall, S., & Morland, K. (2001) Air pollution, lung function, and physical symptoms in communities near concentrated swine feeding operations. Epidemiology, 22(2):208-215.



49 Wing, S. & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of life among Eastern North Carolina Residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238.

Donham, K. J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J. L., Hodne, C., Thu, K. M., & Thome, P. S. (2007). Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Health Perspectives, 115(2), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836



50Research Triangle Institute. (2003). “Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste Management Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment.” Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix c-RTI.pdf

Schiffman, S., Sattely Miller E., Suggs, M., Graham, B. (1995). The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Research Bulletin 17, 369-375.


51 Williams, M. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior Technologies per Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General , Smithfield Foods , Premium Standard Farms , and Frontline Farmers. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm

Kim, J., Goldsmith, P., & Thomas, M. (2010). Economic impact and public costs of confined animal feeding operations at the parcel level of Craven County, North Carolina. Agriculture and Human Values, 27, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9193-x

Kim, J., & Goldsmith, P. (2009). A Spatial Hedonic Approach to Assess the Impact of Swine Production on Residential Property Values. Environmental Resource Economics, 42, 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9221-0

Palmquist, R., Roka, F., & Vukina, T. (1997). Hog Operations, Environmental Effects, and Residential Property Values. Land Economics, 73, 114-124. http://doi.org/10.2307/3147081

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9221-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9221-0

22

Ready, R., & Abdalla, C. (2005). The amenity and disamenity impacts of agriculture: estimates from a hedonic

pricing model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 314-326. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00724.x

Herriges, J., Secchi, S., & Babcock, B. (2005). Living with hogs in Iowa: the impact of livestock facilities on rural residential property values. Land Economics, 81(4), 530-545.

52 Research Triangle Institute.(2003). “Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste Management Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment.” Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix c-RTI.pdf.

53 Harden, S.L., 2015, Surface-water quality in agricultural watersheds of the North Carolina Coastal Plain associated with concentrated animal feeding operations: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5080, 55 p., 7 apps., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155080

Heaney, C., Myers, K., Wing, S., Hall, D., & Stewart, J. (2015). Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations. Sci Total Environ, 511, 676–683. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.062

54 Heaney, C., Myers, K., Wing, S., Hall, D., & Stewart, J. (2015). Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations. Sci Total Environ, 511, 676–683. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.062

55 National Research Council. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10586.

Bunton, B., O’Shaughnessy, P., Fitzsimmons, S., Gering, J., Hoff, S., Lyngbye, M., Thorne, P., Wasson, J., Thome, P., Wasson, J., & Werner, M. (2007). Monitoring and Modeling of Emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Overview of Methods. Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8838

56 EPA: Factory Farms Don't Need to Report Emissions. (2019, July 10). Civil Eats. Retrieved from https://civileats.com/2019/07/02/epa-factory-farms-dont-need-to-report-emissions/

57 Mirabelli, M., Wing, S., Marshall, S., & Wilcosky, T. (2006). Asthma symptoms among adolescents who attend public schools that are located near confined swine feeding operations, Pediatrics 118(1): e66-e75

58 Kravchenko, J., Rhew, S. H., Akushevich, I., Agarwal, P., & Lyerly, H. (2018). Mortality and Health Outcomes in North Carolina Communities Located in Close Proximity to Hog Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations. North Carolina Medical Journal, 79(5), 278–288. http://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.5.278 59 Kim, J., Goldsmith, P., & Thomas, M. (2010). Economic impact and public costs of confined animal feeding

operations at the parcel level of Craven County, North Carolina. Agriculture and Human Values, 27, 29–42. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9193-x

60 Kim, J., Goldsmith, P., & Thomas, M. (2010). Economic impact and public costs of confined animal feeding operations at the parcel level of Craven County, North Carolina. Agriculture and Human Values, 27, 29–42. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9193-x

61 Donham, K., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J., Hodne, C., Thu, K., & Thome, P. (2007). Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 317–320. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836

62 Research Triangle Institute.(2003). “Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste Management Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment.” Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix c-RTI.pdf

Phaneuf, D. (2002). “A Random Utility Model for Total Maximum Daily Loads: Estimating the Benefits of Watershed-based Ambient Water Quality Improvements.” Water Resources Research, 38(11), 36(1)-36(11).




http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155080

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.062



http://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.5.278

/Users/matthewshunt/Desktop/10.1007/s10460-009-9193-x

/Users/matthewshunt/Desktop/10.1007/s10460-009-9193-x

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix%20c-RTI.pdf

23

66 Crane, S., Moore, J., Grismer, M., & Miner, J. (1983). Bacterial pollution from agricultural sources: a review. Trans

ASAE, 26, 858-866. Hill, V., & Sobsey, M. (1998). Microbial indicator reductions in alternative treatment systems for swine wastewater.

Water Sci Tech, 38, 119-122. Kearney, T., Larkin, M., Frost, J., & Levett, P. (1993). Survival of pathogenic bacteria during mesophilic anaerobic

digestion of animal waste. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 75, 215-219. Smallbeck, D., & Bromel, M. (1975). Bacterial analysis and land disposal of farm waste lagoon waters. In: Third

International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, 21-24 April 1975, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. St. Joseph, MI:American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 318-321.

67 Heaney, C., Myers, K., Wing, S., Hall, D., & Stewart, J. (2015). Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations. Sci Total Environ, 511: 676–683. http:/doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.062

68 Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer, P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thome, P., & Wichman, M. (2007). Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 308–312. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839


70 NC DEQ. (n.d.). Algal Blooms. Retrieved from https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/ecosystems-branch/algal-blooms

71 Rundquist, S. (2016, November 4). Exposing fields of filth: After Hurricane, First Detailed Look at Flooding of Feces-Laden N.C. Factory Farms. The Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from The Environmental Working Group: https://www.ewg.org/research/exposing-fields-filth-hurricane-matthew#ref2

72 NC DEQ. (n.d.) Animal Feeding Operation Permits. Retrieved from:https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/animal-feeding-operation-permits/permits

73Mansfield, C., & Smith, V. (2002). “Tradeoff at the Trough: TMDL’s and the Evolving Status of Water Quality Policy.” In Recent Advances in Environmental Economics, (List, J. & de Zeeuw, A. eds.). Cheltenhen, UK: Edward Elgar.

74 NC DEQ. (2016, October 19). State environmental inspectors to test water quality near swine farms. Retrieved from https://deq.nc.gov/press-release/state-environmental-inspectors-test-water-quality-near-swine-farms

75 Pierre-Louis, K. (2018, September 19). “Lagoons of pig waste are overflowing after Florence. Yes, that's as nasty as it sounds.” WRAL.com. Retreived from: https://www.wral.com/lagoons-of-pig-waste-are-overflowing-after-florence-yes-that-s-as-nasty-as-it-sounds-/17858205/

76 Rundquist, S. (November 4, 2016) Exposing Fields of Filth: After Hurricane, first detailed look at flooding of feces-laden N.C. factory farms. Environmental Working Group. Retreived from: https://www.ewg.org/research/exposing-fields-filth-hurricane-matthew

77 Byrne, K. (n.d.). Here's why the price of pork won't increase following Florence's impact in North Carolina. Accuweather. Retrieved from: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/heres-why-the-price-of-pork-likely-wont-increase-following-florences-impact-in-north-carolina/70006252

Robertson, G., & Dalesio, E. (2018, September 21). Hurricane Florence could cost Carolina farms billions in damage. PBS.org. Retrieved from: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/hurricane-florence-could-cost-carolina-farms-billions-in-damage

78 Brian Long spokesperson for the North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA); Charles, D. (2016, November 4). Manure Happens, Especially When Hog Farms Flood. Retrieved from The Salt: NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/11/04/500701098/manure-happens-especially-when-hog-farms-flood

79 Rundquist, S. (November 4, 2016) Exposing Fields of Filth: After Hurricane, first detailed look at flooding of feces-laden N.C. factory farms. Environmental Working Group. Retreived from: https://www.ewg.org/research/exposing-fields-filth-hurricane-matthew

80 Fifth North Carolina Nuisance Case Lands Another Blow to Pig Farmers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.porkbusiness.com/article/fifth-north-carolina-nuisance-case-lands-another-blow-pig-growers


https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/animal-feeding-operation-permits/permits

https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/animal-feeding-operation-permits/permits

https://deq.nc.gov/press-release/state-environmental-inspectors-test-water-quality-near-swine-farms

https://www.ewg.org/research/exposing-fields-filth-hurricane-matthew

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/hurricane-florence-could-cost-

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/11/04/500701098/manure-happens-especially-when-hog-farms-flood

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/11/04/500701098/manure-happens-especially-when-hog-farms-flood


24

81 Here’s Why the Price of Pork Likely Won’t Increase Following Florence Impact in North Carolina. (n.d.). Retreived from: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/heres-why-the-price-of-pork-likely-wont-increase-following-florences-impact-in-north-carolina/70006252 82 Williams, M. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior Technologies per

Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General , Smithfield Foods , Premium Standard Farms , and Frontline Growers. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm

83 Williams, M. (2009). Development of environmentally superior technologies in the US and policy. Bioresource Technology, 100, 5512–5518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.067

84 Xu, J., Adair, C., & Deshusses, M. (2016). Performance evaluation of a full-scale innovative swine waste-to-energy system. Bioresource Technology, 216, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.089

85 Vanotti, M., Szogi, A., Millner, P., & Loughrin, J. (2009). Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresource Technology, 100, 5406–5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.019.

86 Vanotti, M., Szogi, A., & Vives, C. (2007). Greenhouse gas emission reduction and environmental quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste treatment systems in swine farms. Waste Management, 28, 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.034

87 Vanotti, M., Szogi, A., Millner, P., & Loughrin, J. (2009). Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresource Technology, 100, 5406–5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.019.

88 Smithfield Foods. (2019, June 11). Smithfield Foods Marches Forward with Renewable Energy Projects. Retrieved from https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/06/11/1867018/0/en/Smithfield-Foods-Marches-Forward-with-Renewable-Energy-Projects.html

Bethea, C. (2018, September 30). Could Smithfield Foods Have Prevented the "Rivers of Hog Waste" in North Carolina After Florence? The New Yorker Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/could-smithfield-foods-have-prevented-the-rivers-of-hog-waste-in-north-carolina-after-florence

89 Williams, M. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior Technologies per Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General, Smithfield Foods , Premium Standard Farms , and Frontline Farmers. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm

90 Xu, J., Charles, A., & Deshusses, M. (2016). Performance evaluation of a full-scale innovative swine waste-to-energy system. Bioresource Technology, 216, 494-502.


91 Mansfield, C. & Smith, V.K. (2002). Tradeoff at the Trough: TMDL’s and the Evolving Status of Water Quality Policy. In Recent Advances in Environmental Economics. (List, J. & de Zeeuw, A. eds.). Cheltenhen, UK: Edward Elgar.


93 Rundquist (2016); 12, O. (2018, October 12). North Carolina floodplain swine buyout program continues. Retrieved from https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/farm-operations/north-carolina-floodplain-swine-buyout-program-continues

94 Update on the Program to Acquire Conservation Easements on Swine Operations In the 100-Year Floodplain (CWMTF Contracts 1999F-006, 2001A-406A, 2004A-412, and 2007-411) North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/easementprograms/SwineFloodplainBuyout.html

95 North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/easementprograms/SwineFloodplainBuyout.html

96 Gilchrist, M., Greko, C., Wallinga, D., Beran, G., Riley, D., & Thorne, P. (2007). The Potential Role of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 313–316. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8837

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/heres-why-the-price-of-pork-likely-wont-increase-following-florences-impact-in-north-carolina/70006252


25

97 National Research Council. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future

Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10586. Bunton, B., O’Shaughnessy, P., Fitzsimmons, S., Gering, J., Hoff, S., Lyngbye, M., Thorne, P., Wasson, J., Thome, P.,

Wasson, J., & Werner, M. (2007). Monitoring and Modeling of Emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Overview of Methods. Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8838


Byrne, K. (n.d.). Here's why the price of pork won't increase following Florence's impact in North Carolina. Accuweather. Retrieved from: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/heres-why-the-price-of-pork-likely-wont-increase-following-florences-impact-in-north-carolina/70006252

99 Bonner, L. (n.d.). NC senators want to shield some hog farm records from public view. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article230990263.html;

2019's Factory Farm Laws: The Good, The Bad, And The Manure Pile. (2019, June 25). Retrieved from https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/2019s-factory-farm-laws-good-bad-and-manure-pile


Iowa State University. (2002). Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study. Retrieved from https://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy/CAFO_final2-14.pdf

100 Buford, T. (2019, March 09). A Hog Waste Agreement Lacked Teeth, and Some North Carolinians Say They're Left to Suffer. Propublica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/a-hog-waste-agreement-lacked-teeth-and-some-north-carolinians-say-left-to-suffer


https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article230990263.html




26

APPENDIX – LITERATURE REVIEW

Contents Surface Water and Ground Water Impacts ................................................................................................ 27

Air Quality Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Antibiotic resistance ................................................................................................................................... 31

Human Health Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 33

Hurricanes/Storm impacts .......................................................................................................................... 34

Economic Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 36

Environmentally Superior Technologies ..................................................................................................... 39

Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 42

27

This literature review summarizes research on impacts that have been documented and/or measured

regarding the impacts of swine CAFOs in North Carolina and, to a limited extent, elsewhere in the United

States, relying on peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as newspaper coverage.

Surface Water and Ground Water Impacts Swine CAFOs impact surface water through direct discharge, seepage, or runoff. Specifically fecal

coliforms, e. Coli and Enterococcus, excessive nutrients (such as nitrogen), microbial pathogens, and

pharmaceuticals have all been found in surface water as a result of the presence of swine CAFOs nearby

(NC State Report, 2004; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, & U.S. Geological Survey, 2015; Heaney, Myers, Wing,

Hall, & Stewart, 2015; Burkholder, et al., 2007). Specifically, manure, urine, and animal tissues from

swine are all associated with bacteria, viruses, and protozoa that may cause human illness, even when

the swine do not display symptoms of illness. Organisms found in swine intestinal tracts include:

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, yersinia enterocolitica, salmonella, streptococcus suis, and hepatitus E

virus. These can be passed from pig to human through contact with pig saliva, fecal waste, or

contaminated media, such as water or soil. Urine and tissues may contain Leptospira or Brucella bacteria

(Cole et al, 2000).

Contamination of surface and ground water occurs through a few different pathways. Manure from

swine CAFOs is flushed out of facilities with water and stored in large pits in the ground, called “lagoons”

(Barker, 1996). Over time, manure from lagoons is spread onto fields, called “sprayfields”, to disburse

the waste and allow for decomposition. The first pathway for harmful inputs into surface and/or ground

water is through lagoon leaks, overflows, or otherwise direct contributions of manure into waterways.

Cole, Todd, & Wing (2000) found that lagoon breaks resulted in the release of millions of gallons of

animal wastes directly into surface water, resulting in eutrophication, fish kills, and high environmental

pathogen loads.

A second pathway for harmful inputs into surface and ground water may arise if too much manure is

sprayed onto a field, creating a risk that the soil and cover crop may not adequately break down and

absorb the manure, leaving behind effluent that may then instead travel into waterways as seepage or

runoff. The amount of manure sprayed onto sprayfields is managed by the North Carolina Department

of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Farms must have nutrient management plans (NMPs) that balance

plant available nitrogen (PAN) so that the estimated portion of nitrogen that remains available for crops

to use after irrigation is absorbed. However, Christenson (2015) found that the appropriate level varies

based on whether the area assessment used the point location of a sprayfield or a centroid location for

the CAFO. Christenson’s study examined all 485 CAFOs in Duplin County, North Carolina, by

incorporating remote sensing data of annual PAN for crops on sprayfields. Christensen used sub-

watershed scales (a departure from the other studies in this review that use watershed level analyses),

and examined levels over four years (2010-2014). This study found that NMPs overestimated the

available acreage for spraying manure, and therefore increased the likelihood that negative impacts to

surface water might arise due to over-spraying. Burkholder, et al. (2007) suggested implementing

methods to manage this risk to surface water similar to how human waste is managed, and monitoring

private wells.

28

Ground water and soil may be affected by the presence of swine CAFOs. Sackett et al. (2015) found that

waste water treatment plants, agricultural areas where human sewage is applied to land, and farms with

CAFOs were associated with contributions of estrogenic compounds being discharged into ground

water. Brooks (2009) documented high levels of zinc in soil and groundwater near swine CAFOs, which is

known to inhibit copper and iron absorption in humans leading to anemia and kidney damage. Cole,

Todd, & Wing (2000) noted that less research exists on impacts to soil and ground water, and Williams

et al. (2003) confirmed this; however, in several states, excessive nutrient and microbial loading on

regional ground and surface waters have been documented. Cole et al. (2000) also noted the lack of

regulations for land application for hog waste, even though there is effective regulation for land

application of human waste, and that the microbial content of water runoff from agricultural land often

exceeds federally mandated concentrations for recreational water. Specifically, in areas with silty, clay

soil, up to 3% of microbes may drain away from the soil and into water sources; this effect is increased

by rain. Infectious organisms found in swine waste are able to survive and travel through the

groundwater in this process, creating public health risks (Cole et al., 2000). Other studies of ground

water (Cole, Todd, & Wing, 2000) found moderate to severe seepage losses from swine lagoons in Iowa

and North Carolina, leading to contamination of drinking water. A voluntary program through the NC

Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources found that 22% of wells had nitrate levels

that exceeded adverse effect levels (Cole, Todd, & Wing, 2000).

Other papers documented to excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorous that leaked from swine

manure into water, which can cause methemoglobinemia (blue-baby syndrome) (Fan & Steinberg, 1996)

and central nervous system developmental defects and miscarriages (Fan & Steinberg, 1996; Johnson &

Kross 1990).

Measuring Water Quality Methods for measuring the surface water quality are complex due to the large number of variables that

may influence whether and the extent to which manure impacts surface water. Typically, water samples

are taken and analyzed in a lab for relevant substances; however, the location, frequency, and duration

of sampling varies across studies and may lead to divergent findings. A report by the U.S. Department of

the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey (2015) found that water quality varies in response to seasonal

changes in climate, the amount of streamflow, and instream biotic and abiotic processes. Together

these variables yielded a wide range of impacts on the nutrient level in different watersheds.

One study took bimonthly samples from June 2012 to April 2013 at 54 primary watershed study sites,

and added 23 additional sites located within 9 of 54 watersheds in the final round of samples (U.S. Dept.

of the Interior, & U.S. Geological Survey, 2015). This approach of monitoring an entire watershed is

supported by previous research (Burkholder, et al., 2007). The study compared the water quality in

three categories of stream watersheds: those without any CAFOs (n=18), those with swine CAFOs

(n=18), and those with swine and poultry CAFOs (n=18). The following variables controlled for water

quality conditions: land cover type, soil drainage class, and number of CAFO facilities, barns, animals,

and total weight of swine. Researchers collected data on water temperature, conductance, pH levels,

and dissolved oxygen in the field, and measured major ions, nutrients, and stable isotopes in the lab.

Using ANOVA and multiple-comparison statistical tests, the authors analyzed relationships between

background water quality issues (in those watersheds without CAFOs) and “manure-influenced site

groups” with classification tree analysis. Swine barn density, percentage of wetlands, and total acres of

sprayfields influenced whether water quality suffered due to the presence of a CAFO. Those watersheds

29

with CAFOs that had less wetland acreage and/or either higher swine barn density or larger total

sprayfield acres had lower water quality. When barn density or sprayfield acreage was lower or more

wetlands were present, water quality was higher.

To deal with concerns that water quality issues from swine CAFOs might be confounded with other

sources of pollution, Heaney, Myers, Wing, Hall, & Stewart (2015) collected weekly upstream and

downstream water samples over six months (187 samples) near CAFO sprayfields and measured levels

of fecal coliforms E. coli and Enterococcus as well as swine-specific microbes as source markers. (The

authors also took monthly samples for the remainder of the year to control for seasonal trends.) The

authors used conditional fixed-effects linear regression models and t-statistics to compare

concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria with NCDEQ and US EPA guidelines. After generating a

proportion of samples exceeding the guidelines, the authors conducted exact chi-square tests. Two

microbial swine-specific markers, called Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac, improved the ability to identify fecal

coliform contamination from swine farms. The results were somewhat confounded by the fact that

some “upstream” sampling locations were actually downstream of other swine CAFOs not in the study.

Possibly as a result, fecal indicator bacteria were found at high levels both upstream and downstream of

CAFOs, with 40% of samples exceeding state and federal guidelines for fecal coliforms, 23% exceeding

the standards for E. coli, and 61% exceeding the standards for Enterocccus. However, the presence of

the swine-specific microbes were 2.47 and 2.3 times more prevalent downstream than upstream of

swine CAFOs. In addition, swine specific microbes were 2.87 and 3.36 times more prevalent after a

larger than average rainstorm had occurred in the previous 48 hours.

Air Quality Impacts Similar to surface water, a range of emissions from swine CAFOs have been found in the air, including

toxic gasses, particulates, and odor (Bunton, et al., 2007; Aneja et al., 2000; Szogi et al., 2006; 2009;

Loughrin et al., 2006; Sobsey et al., 2001). Cole, Todd, & Wing, (2000) grouped airborne risk factors into

three types. The first is gasses and vapors, which include ammonia, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide,

and methane. Lagoons holding manure release a high concentration of these. The second type of risk

factors are nonbiologic aerosols such as dust from feed, skin cells, hair, and dried feces. The third type of

risk factors are bioaerosols that contain endotoxins, bacteria, and fungi; these can be present in dust,

and are more stable on dust (Cox, 1995).

The health impacts from these risk factors are substantial. Donham, Wing, Osterberg, Flora, Hodne, Thu,

& Thome (2007) noted over 70 published papers establishing negative health effects due to

confinement environment on swine producers regarding respiratory health issues due to poor air quality

containing hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, particulate matter, and endotoxins. These effects often could

not be isolated directly to a specific substance, instead occurring in combination or compounding one

another (Cox, 1995). All of these may impact respiratory health negatively. Ammonia irritates eyes, skin,

mucous membranes, and upper respiratory functioning (Cole, et al. 2000). Nonbiologic aerosols have led

to high levels of phlegm production and pulmonary inflammation; chronic exposure may lead to

bronchitis or asthma (Cole et al., 2000). Dust from swine CAFOs also ranges widely in size, meaning that

certified dust masks were less effective than advertised with penetration levels higher by 2-23% (Pickrell

et al. 1995), with impacts on respiratory health. Workers using dust masks experienced lower rates of

chronic and work-related respiratory symptoms than those without masks, but workers using dust

masks who already experienced respiratory symptoms did not have better lung function than those

30

without (Zejda, Hurst, Barber, Rhodes, Dosman, 1993). Bioaerosols can also cause respiratory issues

such as coughing, excessive phlegm, and wheezing, as well as pulmonary impairment, malaise, and fever

(Mathew, Saxton, Upchurch, Chattin, 1999; Douwes & Heederick, 1995; Nijsten, London, Van Den

Bogaard, Stobberingh, 1994). Donham, Reynolds, Whitten, Merchant, Burmeister, Popendorf, (1995)

found that exposure and pulmonary function correlations were highest after six years of cumulative

exposure, with dust and ammonia being the strongest predictors of response.

With respect to odor, a substantial literature documents the negative impacts on communities living

near swine farms. Odor was linked to higher rates of depression, mental health issues, sleep

disturbances, and fatigue (Schiffman et al, 1995; Donham, et al. 2007; Cole et al., 2000); higher rates of

stress and short-term blood pressure increases (Wing et al, 2000; Cole et al., 2000); decreased immune

function due to stress (Avery et al, 2004; Donham, et al. 2007); higher rates of wheezing (Mirabelli et al.,

2006); increased rates of diarrhea (Wing & Wolf, 2000) and digestive health issues (Donham, et al.

2007); upper respiratory health concerns (Donham, et al. 2007); and increased asthma symptoms

among children attending schools where odors were documented at least twice monthly (Mirabelli et al,

2006). The interaction between ammonia, other gasses, and fine particles has also been linked to lung

function, cardiovascular ailments, and premature death (Research Triangle Institute, 2003); and

irritation of the eye, nose, and throat, and inflammation (Cole, Todd, & Wing, 2000).

Measuring Air Quality While many studies document the negative impacts on farmers, others examine the impacts on nearby

communities. Methods for measuring impacts on air quality varied due to differences in the costs,

precision, accuracy, portability, and durability of the technologies needed to take air quality samples

(Bunton, et al., 2007). Differences in technology influenced whether and how these methods assessed

the spatial extent of airborne emissions and/or the time over which those emissions were present.

These differences are summarized for the remainder of the paragraph. Direct-reading instruments are

accurate, expensive, and can measure emissions over time but not across wide spaces, while time-

integrating samplers are inexpensive but less accurate, and can cover broad areas to assess broader

spatial trends. Plume dispersion models examine emissions across space by incorporating weather data

over time. This method has with three measurement challenges: whether there are several sources of a

contamination, identifying the emissions rate from each source, and finding the rate of degradation and

deposition of gases downwind from the source. A review of the use of this model found varying levels of

agreement between emission levels and human description of the strength of odor. Spatial interpolation

(such as kriging) creates models based on time-integrated samplers (Bunton, et al., 2007).

Ammonia is classified as a major pollutant to air quality with impacts at a regional (multistate) level.

(National Research Council Ad Hoc Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations,

Committee on Animal Nutrition 2003; Bunton, et al., 2007). The U.S. EPA estimated that swine, sheep,

goats, and horses contribute 17.5% of ammonia at the national level. Particles (such as dust) may act as

carriers for microorganisms and endotoxins, adsorbed gases and vapors such as ammonia, and a variety

of compounds that contribute to odor (Bunton, et al., 2007). Paulot et al, (2014) found that ammonia

from CAFOs contributes to particulate matter formation. Kravchenko (n.d.) found a correlation between

levels of ammonia from ground monitors and the number of hogs in hog operation facilities, but no

association between disease-specific mortality and the poultry or beef facilities in North Carolina.

Lagoon temperature, air temperature, and experimental conditions were important factors in a multiple

regression analysis assessing the level of ammonia emissions from swine CAFOs compared to

31

conventional farming emissions (NC State, 2004). Similarly, humidity, temperature, and oxygen effected

concentrations of bioaerosols (Cole, Todd, & Wing, 2000). Cole et al. (2000) also noted that most studies

found correlations between contaminants and lung function or respiratory health impacts, irritation,

and flu like symptoms. Endotoxins and ammonia were most often correlated with lung function and

symptoms followed by dust.

These correlations make it challenging to link exposure to symptoms, in part because exposure levels

are measured on a given day and compared with symptoms of a lung function test, but measurements

of contaminant levels vary across space, over the course of the day, week, and season, which makes

assessing short term measurements against long term health patterns difficult. Sampling design is

important in this research because an area sample of the air may not adequately reflect an individual’s

exposure levels. Further, endotoxins levels vary based on how samples are collected, measured, and

stored (Douwes, Heederick, 1997; Milton, Wypij, Kriebel, Walters, Hammond, Evans, 1996; Jacobs,

1997).

Hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, and odor were major pollutants at the local scale (National

Research Council Ad Hoc Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, Committee on

Animal Nutrition 2003; Bunton, et al., 2007). While methods for measuring particles are more

established (for example by testing the efficacy of face masks on preventing particle inhalation), odor is

hard to measure because it is a mixture of free and particle bound compounds, and because there is not

a clear correlation between certain concentrations of compounds and human response to the odor.

However, Wing, Horton, Marshall, Thu, Tajik, Schinasi, & Schiffman (2008) developed objective

measures of environmental determinants of odor. The authors assessed 101 nonsmoking individuals

living within 1.5 miles of a swine operation over two years in eastern North Carolina. The use of a 1.5-

mile buffer is consistent with other literature noting a 1-2 mile impact radius. Study participants

documented symptoms twice daily over a two-week period; this data was combined with

meteorological conditions and hydrogen sulfide and particulate matter monitoring data in the

respondents’ neighborhoods. Mixed models assessed odor variance between and within people and

neighborhoods. Odor was related to temperature, particulate matter levels, hydrogen sulfide levels, and

wind speeds. Respondents indicated that odor was present on over half of the study days, and that the

presence of odor increased the odds of changing an individual’s daily activities. NC State researchers

used a Eulerian-Lagrangian model to simulate odor dispersion, and found negative impacts on human

health as well as property values (NC State University, 2004).

Homes et al. (1996) measured the distance that bioaerosols travel by monitoring them inside and up to

300 meters outside a swine facility. Most air samples detected bacteria, but at 300 meters the

concentrations were four to ten times lower than at five meters from the house. Reynolds et al. (1997)

took air samples at 60 meters away from swine operations and at a control farm, and analyzed air

samples for ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, dust, and endotoxins. The air by the swine operations had

0.086 to 0.214 ppm of ammonia higher than at the control farm. Concentrations of ammonia were

higher downwind than upwind, and much higher than the control farm. Concentrations of dust,

endotoxins, and hydrogen sulfide were not detectable.

Antibiotic resistance Antibiotic resistance is another health concern. Nadimpalli, et al. (2015) looked at the prevalence of S.

aureus, a staphylococcus bacterium, as well as a drug resistant strain of the same bacteria, and a multi-

32

drug resistant strain, in industrial hog operation (IHO) workers in North Carolina. The study took samples

from workers’ (n=22) nasal carriages over 14 days. Similar to the water sample studies, the study

distinguished between bacteria that traveled among people through community interactions and

bacterial carriage that transferred from livestock to humans. The authors found that 45.5% of the

workers were persistent carriers of livestock associated bacterial strains, even after 96 hours away from

work. To analyze the statistical significance of this finding, the authors calculated proportions of

persistent, intermittent, and non-carriers for each outcome (strain), over fourteen days. Crude odds-

ratios estimated associations between demographic, behavioral, and work-related risk factors and

carriage rates. The sample size was too small for conditional fixed effects logistic regression analysis to

estimate within-person effects of time off from work.

Hatcher, et al. (2017) examined the presence of the same strains: S. aureus, antibiotic-resistant

Staphylococcus aureus (ABRSA), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)), and multidrug-resistant S.

aureus (MDRSA), this time looking at transmission rates in adults working in IHOs and transmission rates

to children living with them (n=198 worker-child household pairs and 202 community referent (CR)

pairs) in the top hog producing counties in North Carolina (Duplin, Sampson, Bladen, Wayne, Robeson,

Greene, Pender, Lenoir, Jones, and Columbus). The study confirmed that ABR S. aureus can be

transmitted between pigs and people through contact (Khanna et al. 2008; Price et al. 2012; Smith et al.

2009; van den Broek et al. 2009). After taking samples of nasal passages, the authors conducted several

analyses. First, they compared distributions of demographic characteristics and potential risk factors

among each group (IHO or CR for adults and children). They also calculated the prevalence of S. aureus

nasal carriage outcomes for each group. For outcomes with adequate sample sizes (5 or more

participants), they calculated the prevalence ratios and confidence intervals comparing nasal carriage

prevalence for each outcome in IHO versus CR groups among adults and children. They also examined

potential confounding covariates within strata. Confounding variables included educational attainment

(a proxy for socioeconomic status), the number of individuals in the household, and household pet

ownership. Race/ethnicity and sex were not included as covariates due to treatment group imbalances

on these variables. They also noted recent antibiotic use, gym attendance, contact sports, smoking, and

use of childcare as uncommon but potential confounders. The resulting estimates of prevalence ratios

with a 95% confidence interval examined whether IHO characteristics and/or work activities were

associated with S. aureus nasal carriage outcomes of IHO children. This study faced a challenge in that

IHO and CR groups were distinct on age, race, gender, the presence of health insurance, general health

practices, and other important factors. The authors did not account for factors that were community

related - for example the fact that those communities all had exposure to hog operations, and many

children attended school in the same place, making community level effects difficult to isolate. In other

studies, community level effects of nasal carriage rates have been observed. It is also possible that nasal

passage is only one, or not the correct site, to assess how transference happens. Despite these

challenges, children under seven years old living with IHO workers were more likely to carry ABR S.

aureus intra-nasally, particularly MRSA and MDRSA, than children living in CR households. This

prevalence was high relative to normal rates; however, this is one of the few studies to look at

prevalence in healthy children, making it hard to understand the generalizability of this finding. These

findings were surprising because, even though IHO workers had more livestock associated strains, for

children, transmission was associated more with human interaction than livestock associations.

33

Human Health Impacts This section focuses specifically on the connection between hog CAFOs and human health outcomes

that cannot be attributed directly to water or air quality issues. Potential impacted groups include hog

farm workers, residents immediately proximate to farms, and users of ground and surface water in

broader surrounding regions.

Kravchenko et al. (2018) examined life expectancy in North Carolina communities, comparing those

living in zip codes with hog CAFOs to those living in zip codes without them, as well as in zip codes with

more than 215 hogs per km2. The paper examined rates of anemia, kidney disease, infectious diseases,

and low birth weight, which have been associated with hog CAFOs previously. The paper compared

“cause-specific age-adjusted rates”, odds ratios (ORs) of events in multivariable analyses, and the

changes of ORs relative to distance from hog CAFOs. In zip codes with more than 215hogs per km2,

mortality ORs were 1.50 for anemia (P < 0.0001), 1.31 for kidney disease (P < 0.0001), 2.30 for

septicemia (P < 0.0001), and 2.22 for tuberculosis (P = 0.0061). North Carolina communities in zip codes

with hog CAFOs and in zip codes with greater than 215 hogs per km2 both had higher rates of all-cause

mortality, infant mortality, mortality of patients with multimorbidity, mortality from anemia, kidney

disease, tuberculosis, and septicemia, and higher rates of emergency room visits and hospital

admissions for low birth weight infants than the residents in the control group. This paper did not

establish causality with exposures from hog CAFOs.

Wing and Wolf (2000) examined the prevalence of health issues in communities near swine operations.

The researchers identified three block groups in eastern North Carolina with similar demographic and

economic characteristics to use for comparison. Block groups were identified by combining the 1998 list

of intensive livestock operations provided by the NC Division of Water Quality from 1998, and census

block group data from 1990. Researchers identified 500 households living near livestock operations and

conducted interviews with 50 participants in each of three communities: one with a hog operation with

600 animals (1 lagoon); one community with a cattle operation with 300 animals (2 lagoons); and a third

community without livestock. Interview participants were asked about symptoms identified by previous

studies, symptoms identified by community residents, and symptoms not believed to be related to

evaluate possibility that residents might over-report symptoms if they had a strong bias against CAFOs.

Differences in symptoms were calculated by comparing the average number of episodes experienced

over the last six months for each symptom. Additionally, adjusted mean differences were calculated

with linear regression to control for sex, age, smoker status, and employment outside the home, and

where livestock type was the main explanatory variable. The average number of episodes of some

symptoms was similar in all communities; however, certain respiratory and gastrointestinal problems

and mucous membrane irritation were elevated among residents in the vicinity of the hog operation.

Residents in the vicinity of the hog operation reported increased occurrences of headaches, runny nose,

sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea, and burning eyes compared to residents of the community

without intensive livestock operations. Finally, quality of life, indicated by the number of times residents

could not open their windows or go outside even in nice weather, was similar in the control and the

community in the vicinity of the cattle operation but greatly reduced among residents near the hog

operation.

Cole, Todd, & Wing, (2000) reviewed the literature on the impacts of CAFOs on human health. With respect to air-associated contaminants, they documented impacts on: respiratory health for swine workers, the concentration of contaminants in the air of swine houses, symptoms in workers and

34

contaminant concentrations in air, and the residents living adjacent to swine CAFOs. The authors explained further:

“Although the variety of adverse health effects associated with working at a swine CAFO is well documented, it is not clear which agents or mixtures are responsible for the symptoms. For example, health effects have been positively correlated with individual contaminants such as ammonia, dust, and endotoxins, as well as combinations of these. Work practices have also been associated with symptoms seen in workers, such as the types and methods of feeding the animals, the use of wood shavings for animal bedding, and the use of disinfectants.” (686).

Measuring Human Health Community based research designs were utilized in the Kravchenko et al. (2018) and Wing and Wolf

(2000) studies. Community based studies have been critiqued by some authors (for assuming that

residents living near swine operations are necessarily exposed to contaminants more than other

residents living further away (Cole et al. 2000; Thu et al., 1997). Another study asked respondents to

record each odor instance, but independent monitoring of air was not recorded (Schiffman et al. 1995).

These studies have also been critiqued for their small sample sizes, limited geographic scope of analysis,

and generalizability issues. Thu et al (1997) and Wing and Wolf (2000) examined clusters of individuals in

proximity to one swine facility, whereas health effects may vary based on the technologies used on the

farm, the size of the farm, and other local factors (Cole et al, 2000).

Hurricanes/Storm impacts Swine manure lagoons may be at risk to overflow and/or breach during major storms, particularly

hurricanes. A spill in Onslow County in 1995 and the wide scale breaches in 1999 during Hurricane Floyd

demonstrated the substantial risk to water quality during storms (Williams et al. 2003). However, there

is a lack of substantial research on the risks that result from hurricanes or storms damaging swine waste

lagoons.

During Hurricane Floyd in 1999, dozens of lagoons were flooded, causing the containing walls of swine

waste lagoons to fail in six cases. Waste that escaped ended up in estuaries, and was blamed for algae

blooms and fish kills (Byrne, n.d.). After Hurricane Floyd, a program to buy out hog farms in the flood

plain led to the closure of 42 hog farms and 103 manure lagoons. Further, a moratorium on the

construction of new manure lagoons was instituted, which is still in place as of January, 2020 (Charles,

2016; Williams et al, 2003). According to a communication between the NCDA and the Environmental

Working group, the buyout of 42 farms cost North Carolina $18.6 million. This funding came from the NC

Clean Water Management Trust Fund, which receives an appropriation from the legislature to issue

grants to local governments, state agencies, and conservation nonprofits to address water pollution

issues (Rundquist, 2016). The buyout program also closed an additional 230 out-of-service lagoons with

grants from the N.C. Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation” (NC Pork Council, 2018).

Storm impacts exacerbate the impacts on water quality during normal operations, but there is little

direct research on the extent of the impacts that result from storms or large spills, nor is there much

literature on the costs of cleaning up after a breach or spill. The 1995 and 1999 events lent energy to the

reforms outlined in the Smithfield Agreement. Breaches and spills have continued to be a concern

during storms, and there is evidence that residents are interested in more effective waste management

programs that reduce the risk of lagoon spills (Mansfield and Smith, 2002). One specialist at the

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at N.C. State noted that cleanup and response

costs are borne by the general public, with funds coming from FEMA, the state’s taxpayer-funded

35

Division of Soil and Water Conservation and the DEQ, as well as local church and school groups.

However, the specialist pointed out that there needed to be better ways to compensate farmers for the

cost of upgrading waste-treatment systems so that these costs may not arise in the first place (Bethea,

2018)

During Hurricane Matthew in 2016, fourteen lagoons were inundated (NC DEQ, n.d.), and ten pig farms

with approximately thirty-nine barns were partially submerged under water. Marla Sink, spokesperson

for the NC DEQ told NPR that flood waters caused a small break in the walls of two different manure

lagoons at a single hog farm in Green County during Hurricane Matthew. The result of those breaks or

the cost to clean up the leak were not disclosed (Charles, 2016). Other groups noted that thirty-six

factory farms along the Neuse, Black, and Cape Fear rivers were flooded, leading to concerns about

widespread water contamination (Rundquist, 2016). Interestingly, of the forty-two farms that were

bought out after Hurricane Floyd, the NC Pork Lobbying Group has indicated that thirty-four of those

farms likely would have flooded again in Hurricane Matthew had they not been bought out (NC Pork

Council, 2018).

During Hurricane Florence in 2018, thirty pig manure lagoons in North Carolina flooded; another twenty-

one had floodwater flowing into lagoons and mixing with waste; seventy-five lagoons were full or nearly

full; and six lagoons experienced structural damage due to rain and flooding (NC DEQ, n.d.). A local news

outlet, citing the DEQ, reported that seventy-seven lagoons released pig waste into the environment or

were considered as having a high probability to do so before the storm ended (Pierre-Louis, 2018).The

New Yorker Magazine reported that more than seven million gallons of hog waste escaped from two

lagoons in Duplin and Sampson counties during the storm, and waste flowed into the South River and

Northeast Cape Fear River. The article also cited the DEQ, but reported more than 130 lagoons as at risk

of releasing effluent into waterways. The losses from Hurricane Florence to the pork industry were

estimated to total $661,100 (NCDA).

After Florence, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service awarded $2.49 million dollars to the

NCDA&CS’ Division of Soil and Water Conservation for additional buyouts. According the NC Pork

website, a lobbying group for the pork industry in North Carolina, the industry secured additional funds

to support this program, making the available funding total $5 million dollars for another round of

voluntary buyouts of hog farms in the flood plain (NC Pork Council, 2018). To qualify for this new round

of buyouts, hog farms must be within the 100-year floodplain and must have been in operation on

October 8th, 2016 or must have resumed operation between October 8th, 2016 and September 14th,

2018. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation will rank the offers received from farmers for buyouts

to maximize the total water quality benefits associated with the use of these funds. Offers will be ranked

based on the offered price of the easement (relative to size), susceptibility of flooding, structural

integrity of the lagoon, and downstream water uses. The land will become conservation easements, but

remain under farmer ownership, and may be used for row crops, planting trees, and other low-intensity

agricultural activities that do not involve animal agriculture. Famers must consent to restore all buffers

along streams and ditches to accept easement offers.

One option for decreasing this risk is by implementing alternative swine manure management systems.

In response to the concerns raised during Hurricane Florence (2018), Smithfield’s director of renewables

went on the record in the aftermath of the hurricane indicating that they have spent significant

resources looking into digesters as a way to manage this risk while generating electricity or natural gas.

36

Digesters would mitigate the risk by reducing odors and decomposing some of the nutrients in swine

waste, and do a better job of containing the waste in the event of a storm, as well as create a source of

renewable energy that could create another stream of income for the digester owners, but does not

resolve all concerns with hog waste. There are still concerns about storm flooding and safe management

of hog waste, as well as the proper arrangement for farmers to benefit from the arrangement.

Smithfield has also indicated the firm was considering relocating farms away from flood prone areas

(Bethea, 2018).

Another impact of hurricanes is that, prior to a storm, swine operations try to lower the level of liquid in

the manure lagoons to decrease the risk of overflowing. However, the method to lower the lagoon

levels is increased spraying of manure onto sprayfields. This may have a twofold impact: first,

heightened levels of emissions in the air due to increased spraying may result. Second, the higher levels

of manure on the fields immediately before a large storm event may lead to an increase in direct

discharge, seepage, or runoff into the waterways. Immediately after storms, although not necessarily

directly attributed to swine operations, algal blooms and other water quality issues have been identified

(Williams et al 2003). Algal blooms may kill fish, limit recreation opportunities create odor problems, and

may limit water supplies (NCDEQ, n.d.). The Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy

nonprofit that monitors swine lagoon operations, particularly in the aftermath of hurricanes,

documented thousands of acres of sprayfields receiving additional manure prior to Hurricane Matthew

(Rundquist, 2016).

During and after a storm event, animals die as a result of flooding and/or because operators are unable

to access animals and care for them during the storm. The farmers are responsible for disposing of dead

animals, but failure to properly do this (for example by burying animals in mass graves as they did after

Hurricane Floyd) can lead to serious public health concerns. The NCDEQ outlined the appropriate

method for handling this situation. The costs of disposing of dead animals is not publicly available. While

farmers are responsible for this action, if not done properly, taxpayers may be responsible for

addressing the resulting public health risks. After Hurricane Florence in 2018, approximately 5,500 hogs

needed to be disposed of (Accuweather; Robertson & Dalesio, 2018). During Hurricane Matthew, Brian

Long, spokesperson for the North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA), estimated that 2800

swine were killed (Charles, 2016). During Hurricane Floyd, approximately 20,000 hogs died (Rundquist,

2016).

Economic Considerations Donham et al. (2007) noted the substantial evidence in the literature indicating that consolidated

agricultural operations lead to less positive economic outcomes than having many small operations in a

region. This is consistent with the opinion that large corporations will not circulate as much income

through local economies than smaller firms because headquarters are often outside of the local context.

Others examined the impact of swine operations on property values. Abeles-Allison and Connor (1990),

Hamed et al. (1999), Herriges et al (2005), Palmquist et al (1997) all found that property values

decreased when CAFOs exist in a community.

Palmquist et al. (1997) used 237 sales transactions over eighteen months in nine counties in southeast

North Carolina in a hedonic regression model examining the impact of swine CAFOs on housing values.

They found a 9% decrease in home price, depending on the number of hogs and distance from the

37

home, and a 4.7% decrease in home values with the construction of a new hog operation located within

a half mile of the property. This paper did not address sample selection bias, particularly with respect to

non-rural and non-residential observations. The paper also did not use precise locations of hog farms,

and instead aggregated approximate distances to farms into three categories: between zero and a half

mile, between a half mile and a mile, and between one and two miles from each of the 237 housing

observations. The paper assumed that no impacts occurred beyond two miles and that impacts occurred

uniformly within a distance band, which is inconsistent with other models examining impacts to water

and air quality more directly. Further, characteristics of the hog farm and wind direction were not

incorporated into the model.

In 2003, Williams et al. modeled the effect of a 10% and 50% reduction in odor from hog farms (through

the assumption that a 10% or 50% reduction in swine would lead to linear reductions in odor) on

property values. They used a hedonic property value model and regressed housing price data on

property attributes, including the size of hog operation and distance and direction to hog farms, to

estimate price effects associated with those two explanatory variables. Using housing prices in nine

counties in Southeast North Carolina (Duplin, Johnston, Lenoir, Onslow, Pender, Pitt, Sampson, and

Wayne counties), the authors identified rural residential properties with GIS and analyzed only those

properties that were smaller than 10 acres and were within two miles of a hog farm. Then they added

data about hog farm locations and sizes. The authors found that the aggregate value of increasing water

quality through a 10% or 50% reduction in odor was $5.1 million and $33.8 million, respectively. This

represents an average of less than $300 per property, but annualized over 30 years with 5% interest

results in $330,000 and $2.2 million annually. Limitations for this paper include: the confidence intervals

for estimates in this study were very wide, farm size was a proxy for odor amount, and the possibility of

spatial autocorrelation. No direct measure of odor was included, nor was wind taken into account.

Finally, this model estimated marginal changes in property values but was unable to estimate changes in

the entire housing market that might result from changes in hog waste management policies or

technologies.

Ready and Abdalla (2005) analyzed a larger number of home sales (8,090) over a longer time period (five

years) with a larger number of livestock operations (71). Using log-linear functional form in a two-stage

least squares estimation, the authors found a decrease in value of homes within half a mile of a swine

facility of 4%, but limited impacts beyond one mile or due to wind direction. They did not account for

spatial autocorrelation.

Herriges et al. (2005) used GIS locations of farms and included wind direction in their analysis, but did

not address spatial autocorrelation. In this paper, 550 livestock facilities within a five-county region in

Iowa, and 1,145 “arms-length” house sales were analyzed. The authors found that moderately sized

operations with over 250,000 live weight pounds of animals may cause a 26% decline in property values

in Iowa that were within a quarter of a mile of a swine operation. This paper found that two of the

variables related to swine operations were significant: distance within 1.5 miles of the facility is 25% of

those that are within a quarter of a mile.

Kim, & Goldsmith (2009) used a spatial hedonic model to assess monetary harm (decreased property

values) in response to CAFOs, looking at spatial dependence in property values, addressing many of the

spatial autocorrelation issues identified in the earlier papers. Spatial autocorrelation was found in the

form of spatial lag dependence; when this was taken into account, the average impact on a property

38

value is a decrease of approximately $0.52 per hog, $5,200 dollars, or 8.2% per house in property values.

The magnitude of spatial autoregressive parameter was about 0.2 for the 1-mile distance band, meaning

one fifth of the house value could be explained by the values of neighboring houses. This paper

combined assessed properties and sale prices, including location and descriptive information with

general neighborhood indicators and hog operation and location data. The properties assessed were in

Craven County North Carolina because of the strong presence of the swine industry (n=26 farms and

85,000 pigs), the heterogeneous land uses (with n=25,684 home values), and the availability of data on

these two trends. Kim and Goldsmith (2009) also provided an analysis that improved upon previous

studies investigating the impacts of swine operations on property values. Palmquist et al. (1997), Ready

and Abdalla (2005), and Herriges et al. (2005) all estimated the impact of swine CAFOs on property

values using hedonic regression, however these papers did not correct for spatial autocorrelation that is

theorized to impact estimation efficiency.

Williams et al. (2003) also recognized the potential for decreased water quality to impact recreational

activities, which in turn may have economic ramifications. To explore this possibility, the authors

combined data on recreation behavior available from the state of North Carolina and site-specific water

quality data, through another model they developed regarding water quality impacts due to swine

operations emissions. The authors used recreation demand modeling to estimate individuals’ implicit

willingness to pay for improved water quality. This model was an adaptation of Phaneuf’s (2002) model

with North Carolina’s Water Resources Research Institute that used a random utility maximization

(RUM) model. Using the rates of visitation as observation of recreation site choice, the model explained

this choice based on available alternatives and their characteristics (site access and environmental and

amenity aspects of the site) as well as the price of direct travel and the time required to reach the site.

Water quality was another important aspect of the site characteristics that were theorized to determine

choice, and therefore a decrease in water quality would lead to less recreational activity at a given site.

A conditional indirect utility function quantified the benefit to an individual for selecting a particular site,

and the authors used a multinomial logit to predict site choice based on site characteristic. For the

scenario most accepted by the authors, “the results support[ed] the hypothesis that water quality

matters in the choice of recreation site.” They find a gain in per-trip consumer surplus ranging between

$0.28-$0.48 for a 10% reduction in water loadings, and a range of $1.52-$2.80 for a 50% reduction in

water loadings. To generalize this to a population, authors must estimate the total number of trips taken

in NC each year, the proportion of trips that occur within areas of interest, and relevant trip-taking

population in the state, in order to estimate number of trips and then multiply that by the consumer

surplus estimate. They found that a 10% loading reduction has a $1.5 million (with 95 percent

confidence interval of $1.1 to $1.9 million), while a 50% reduction in loadings amounts to $8.7million

($5.9-$11.9 million) in gains in consumer surplus. Limitations of this paper include that it only

accounted for recreation benefits and only for existing users of recreation – it did not estimate whether

or not new people would use the parks once quality was improved. It did not take into account

increased trips once quality is improved. All of these indicate an underestimation of benefits.

Additionally, these types of improvements are often not funded at the individual level. While these

estimates are helpful for a government to consider, they did not measure either direct benefits to the

community through tourism, quality of life, or other truly quantifiable gains to the community.

Williams et al. (2003) assessed the impact of a reduction in ammonia emissions (which are expected to

reduce ambient levels of fine particulate matter) on adverse health effects of fine particulate matter.

39

First, they estimated the reduced rate of health impacts that would likely result from reduced

exposures. To do this, the authors adapted an EPA model of fine particulate matter on health, which

identified possible health outcomes and the concentration response function associated with it (the

change in annual incidence of the health outcome using an estimated coefficient from the epidemiology

literature on relevant populations and baseline incidence rates), and drew on the dollar values of

avoided health outcomes per case. The EPA used cost of illness estimates when WTP (willingness to pay)

estimates were not available, which captured avoided health expenditures and/or lost earnings but not

the value of avoided pain and suffering. Using these results, they combined these estimates of WTP with

modeled estimates of incidence rates for health outcomes at the county level. They used a model of

county level ambient fine particulate matter to model a reduction from hog farms and therefore

incidence rates, and then estimated WTP by consumers to avoid those negative impacts. The authors

found that the largest incidence reductions were for acute conditions like lower respiratory symptoms

but the total value of those cases was a small proportion of the total benefits of a reduction. Premature

deaths were reduced by six per year for the 10% reduction and thirty-two per year for the 50%

reduction, and these saves were a large majority of the benefits. The total estimate of health-related

benefits summed to $38 million and $189 million per year respectively for each reduction scenario. The

limitations in these models made these estimates more descriptive. There was uncertainty about the

value of avoided mortality, which represented a majority of the benefits accrued. While the EPA

accepted $6-7 million per premature death avoided, the literature used a range of $4-9 million. Another

issue regards whether fine particulate matter from hog farms was different than other fine particulate

matter, which was used to generate the estimates that Williams et al. adapted. Finally, the health issues

identified here may not be the full range of health issues.

A third economic analysis embedded in the Williams et al. (2003) report regards the gains from a

potential reduction in nitrogen in groundwater, which leads to costly health impacts. To analyze this, the

authors adopted a finding that the average household is willing to pay $2 per year (in 2002 dollars) for

each 1 mg/L reduction in nitrate levels below the 10 mg/L threshold. Further they assumed that an

average household in North Carolina (with 2.5 people) meant that 800,000 households use groundwater

in North Carolina. They combined this with well-depth data, and found that 28% of households have

wells with depths of less than 50 feet (the threshold for nitrogen infiltration into ground water found by

Williams et al. through regression analysis in an earlier analysis). The authors found a small but

statistically significant effect of CAFOs on nitrogen levels in well water in North Carolina for wells that

are less than 50 feet deep, so this was used as the subset of wells that were analyzed. The authors

estimated that by eliminating nitrogen from nearby farms from drinking water, little would change with

respect to overall levels of nitrate in drinking water. The authors therefore concluded that the economic

impacts of nitrogen emissions in groundwater would be low. Specifically, they found that the annual

benefit of eliminating swine farm related nitrogen would be between $0.52 and $0.68 per affected

household. The aggregate annual benefit of completely removing swine loadings from the eastern North

Carolina region from sprayfields or air deposition could be between $116,000 and $152,000.

Environmentally Superior Technologies Environmentally Superior Technologies (EST), outlined in the “Smithfield Agreement” between North

Carolina Attorney General, Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms, and Frontline Farmers (NC State

University, 2004) must be “technically, operationally, and economically feasible” and meet the specified

Performance Standards. These standards require that discharge of animal waste to surface waters and

40

groundwater through direct discharge, seepage, or runoff be eliminated; atmospheric emissions of

ammonia must be substantially eliminated; odor detectable beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land

on which the swine farm is located must be substantially eliminated; disease-transmitting vectors and

airborne pathogens must be substantially eliminated; and finally, nutrient and heavy metal

contamination of soil and groundwater must be substantially eliminated. These guidelines are therefore

useful in understanding the industry motivations for shifting production practices.

In 2009, Williams published a follow-up, peer-reviewed paper that reviewed the results of the ongoing

research initiative to develop superior swine manure management approaches. The paper reviewed the

ability of technologies to meet the outlined performance standards, and found that five were able to do

so: a solids separation/nitrification–denitrification/soluble phosphorus removal system; a thermophilic

anaerobic digester system; a centralized composting system; a gasification system; and a fluidized bed

combustion system. The analysis assessed the economic feasibility as well, and found that the costs of

retrofitting swine farms with these technologies, annualized over ten years, amounted to between $90

and $400 per 1,000 lbs. of steady state live weight swine. Efforts to reduce the costs of these

technologies has been successful. The paper concluded with a discussion of policy providing institutional

incentives to use superior technologies (Williams, 2009).

Others tested various alternate technologies to meet these standards and deal with swine manure.

Vanotti, Szogi, Millner, & Loughrin (2009) tested a solids separation, nitrification/denitrification and

phosphorous removal/disinfection system at a full-scale, 5145-head swine farm over 15 months (3

production cycles). The system removed 98% percent of suspended solids, 97% of ammonia, 95% of

phosphorous, 99% of copper and zinc, 99.9% odors, and 99.99% of pathogens – it met the

environmentally superior standards established in The Smithfield Agreement, and at a third of the cost

of previous formulations of this technology. There were also added benefits to this approach: hog sales

increased by 5.6%. Xu, Adair, & Deshusses (2016) monitored a full-scale swine waste-to-energy system,

which used a 7600 m3 anaerobic digester, a 65-kW microturbine, and a 4200 m3 aeration basin, on a

commercial swine farm with 8640 heads of swine. The authors measured a 92% reduction in chemical

oxygen demand, 95% of the biological oxygen demand, 77% of the total nitrogen, and 82% of the total

phosphorous that would have gone into a hog manure lagoon. This system produced 64% of the

maximum theoretical amount, which the authors argued left room for improvement.

Although upgrading or replacing swine manure management systems involves a potential for substantial

capital investment, policies incentivizing voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions have created

carbon credits that may offset these costs for some alternative technologies. Vanotti, Szogi, & Vives,

(2007) estimated the greenhouse gas emission reductions that would result from shifting from

anaerobic lagoon manure management systems to the aerobic technology developed by the Supersoil

project in Clinton, North Carolina. Of the eighteen technologies outlined as opportunities in the Williams

(2005) report on Environmentally Superior Technologies, only five demonstrated capacity to meet the

performance standards, and only one of those technologies addressed the entire waste stream. The

Supersoil Project uses that technology, which includes both liquid–solid separation and aerobic

processes to treat both the separated liquid and solids (liquid–solid separation, then treatment of the

separated liquid using aerobic biological nitrogen removal, chemical disinfection and soluble

phosphorous removal using lime. Treatment of solids involved aerobic composting on a 4350-head full

scale swine operation. Data was collected on methane emissions from decomposing manure under

anaerobic conditions and nitrous oxide emissions during storage and handling of manure, and the

41

difference between those emissions before and after the implementation of the new technology was

measured. The authors measured a 96.9% reduction in emissions, from 4972 tons of CO2 equivalents to

153 tons of CO2 equivalents per year. The authors estimated that the dollar value of implementing this

project was $19,106 per year using Chicago Climate Exchange trading values of US $4 per ton of CO2,

which translated to an economic benefit of $1.75 per finished pig. This economic gain may offset some

or all of the cost of replacing anaerobic swine manure lagoons with environmentally superior

technologies.

42

WORKS CITED Abeles-Allison, M. & Connor, L. 1990. “An Analysis of Local Benefits and Costs of Michigan Hog

Operations Experiencing Environmental Conflicts,” Agricultural Economics Report #536, Department

of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Aneja, V., Chauhan, J., & Walker, J. (2000). Characterization of atmospheric ammonia emissions from

swine waste storage and treatment lagoons. Journal of Geophysical Research 105 (D9), 11535–

11545.

Avery, R., Wing. S., Marshall, S., & Schiffman, S. (2004). Perceived odor from industrial hog operations

and suppression of mucosal immune function in nearby residents. Archives of Environmental Health

59:101-1

Barker, J. (1996). Lagoon design and management for livestock waste treatment and storage. North

Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pub. No. EBAE 103-183.

Bethea, C. (2018, September 30). The New Yorker. Could Smithfield Foods Have Prevented the “Rivers of

Hog Waste” in North Carolina After Florence? Retrieved from:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/could-smithfield-foods-have-prevented-the-rivers-

of-hog-waste-in-north-carolina-after-florence

Bunton, B., O’Shaughnessy, P., Fitzsimmons, S., Gering, J., Hoff, S., Lyngbye, M., Thorne, P., Wasson, J., &

Werner, M. (2007). Monitoring and Modeling of Emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations: Overview of Methods. Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 303–307.


Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer, P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thome, P. S., & Wichman, M. (2007).

Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality. Environmental

Health Perspectives, 115(2), 308–312. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839

Byrne, K. (n.d.). Here's why the price of pork won't increase following Florence's impact in North

Carolina. Accuweather. Retrieved from: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/heres-

why-the-price-of-pork-likely-wont-increase-following-florences-impact-in-north-carolina/70006252

Charles, D. (2016, November 4). Manure Happens, Especially When Hog Farms Flood. The Salt: NPR

Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/11/04/500701098/manure-happens-

especially-when-hog-farms-flood

Christenson, E. (2015). Using Remote Sensing To Calculate Plant Available Nitrogen From Industrial Hog

CAFOs. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.

Cole, D., Todd, L., & Wing, S. (2000). Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations and Public Health: A

Review of Occupational and Community Health Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(8),

685–699. Retrieved from http://epnetl.niehs.nih.gov/docs/200/108p685-699cok/abstract.html

Cox C. (1995) “Stability of airborne microbes and allergens”. In: Bioaerosols Handbook (Cox, C., Wathes,

C., eds). London: Lewis Publishers, 77-99.

Donham, K., Reynolds, S., Whitten, P., Merchant J, Burmeister, L., & Popendorf, W. (1995). Respiratory

dysfunction in swine production facility workers: dose-response relationships of environmental

exposures and pulmonary function. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 27:405-418.

Donham, K., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R., & Belin, L. (1989). Environmental and health studies

of farm workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal Industrial Medicine 46:31-

37.




http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839



43

Donham, K., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J., Hodne, C., Thu, K., & Thome, P. (2007). Community Health

and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding. Health Perspectives, 115(2),

317–320. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836

Douwes, J., & Heederick, D. (1997) Epidemiologic investigations of endotoxins. International Journal of

Occupational Environmental Health 3(suppl):S26-S31.

Fan, A., & Steinberg, V. (1996). Health implications of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water: an update on

methemoglobine-mia occurrence and reproductive and developmental toxicity. Regulatory

Toxicology Pharmacology 23:35-43.

Gilchrist, M., Greko, C., Wallinga, D., Beran, G., Riley, D., & Thorne, P. (2007). The Potential Role of

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance.

Health Perspectives, 115(2), 313–316. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8837

Hamed, M., Johnson, T., & Miller, K. (1999). The impacts of animal feeding operations on rural land

values. Presented to the Saline County Study Steering Committee. May 1999. Outreach and

Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

Hatcher, S., Rhodes, S., Stewart, J., Silbergeld, E., Pisanic, N., Larsen, J., Jiang, S., Krosche, A., Hall, D.,

Carroll, K., & Heaney, C. (2017). The Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal

Carriage among Industrial Hog Operation Workers, Community Residents, and Children Living in

Their Households: North Carolina, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125, 560–569.

https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP35

Heaney, C., Myers, K., Wing, S., Hall, D., & Stewart, J. (2015). Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface

water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations. Science of the Total Environment,

511, 676–683. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.062

Heederik, D., Brouwer, R., Biersteker, K., Boleij, J. (1991). Relationship of airborne endotoxin and

bacteria levels in pig farms with the lung function and respiratory symptoms of farmers.

International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health 62:595-601.

Herriges, J., Secchi, S., & Babcock, B. (2005) Living with hogs in Iowa: the impact of livestock facilities on

rural residential property values. Land Econ 81(4):530–545

Homes, M., Heber, A., Wu, C., Clark, L., Grant, R., Zimmerman, N., Hill, M., Strobel, B., Peugh, M., &

Jones, D. (1996). Viability of bioaerosols produced from a swine facility. In: Proceedings of the

International Conference on Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations, 7-9 February 1996, Kansas

City, Missouri. Ames, IA:Iowa State University, 127-131.

Jacobs, R. (1997). Environmental monitoring of endotoxins. International Journal of Occupational

Environmental Health 3:S37-S41.

Johnson, C., Kross, B. (1990). Continuing importance of nitrate contamination of groundwater and wells

in rural areas. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 18:449-456.

Kravchenko, J. (2016). The effects of hog farms waste on human health. NC BREATHE Conference. TALK

PRESENTED AT 2016 NC BREATHE Conference, Charlotte, NC. Retrieved from

https://cleanaircarolina.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BREATHE-2016-Breakout-CAFO-PPT-

Kravchenko-4-8-16.pdf

Kravchenko, J., Rhew, S. H., Akushevich, I., Agarwal, P., & Lyerly, H. (2018). Mortality and Health

Outcomes in North Carolina Communities Located in Close Proximity to Hog Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations. North Carolina Medical Journal, 79(5), 278–288.

http://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.5.278



https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP35


https://cleanaircarolina.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BREATHE-2016-Breakout-CAFO-PPT-Kravchenko-4-8-16.pdf

https://cleanaircarolina.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BREATHE-2016-Breakout-CAFO-PPT-Kravchenko-4-8-16.pdf

http://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.5.278

44

Kim, J., & Goldsmith, P. (2009). A Spatial Hedonic Approach to Assess the Impact of Swine Production on

Residential Property Values. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 509–534.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9221-0.

Loughrin, J., Szogi, A., & Vanotti, M. (2006). Reduction of malodorous compounds from a treated swine

anaerobic lagoon. Journal of Environmental Quality 35 (1), 194–199.

Mathew, A., Saxton, A., Upchurch, W., & Chattin, S. (1999). Multiple antibiotic resistance patterns of

Escherichia coli isolates from swine farms. AppIied Environmental Microbiology 65:2770-2772.

Mirabelli, M., Wing, S., Marshall, S., & Wilcosky T. (2006). Asthma symptoms among adolescents who

attend public schools that are located near confined swine feeding operations, Pediatrics

118(1):e66-e75.

Milton, D., Wypij, D., Kriebel, D., Walters, M., Hammond, S., & Evans, J. (1996). Endotoxin exposure-

response in a fiberglass manufacturing facility. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29:3-13.

Moore, J., Madden, R., Kerr, J., Wilson, T., & Murphy, P. (1996). Erythromycin-resistant thermophilic

Campylobacter species isolated from pigs. Vet Rec 138:306-307.

Nadimpalli, M., Rinsky, J., Wing, S., Hall, D., Stewart, J., Larsen, J., Nachman, K., Love, D., Pierce, E.,

Pisanic, N., Strelitz, J., Harduar-Morano, L. & Heaney, C. (2015). Persistence of livestock-associated

antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among industrial hog operation workers in North Carolina

over 14 days. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 72, 90-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-

2014-102095

NC Pork Council. (2018, September 11). Hurricane Matthew impact was minimal for our industry, and

buyout program continues. NC Pork Council. Retrieved from: https://www.ncpork.org/buyout/

Nijsten, R., London, N., Van Den Bogaard, A., & Stobberingh, E. (1994). Resistance in faecal Escherichia

coli isolated from pig- farmers and abattoir workers. Epidemiology & Infection, 113, 45-52.

Olson, D., & Bark, S. (1996). Health hazards affecting the animal confinement farm worker. Workplace

Health & Safety: Promoting Environments Conducive to Well-Being and Productivity, 44, 198-204.

Palmquist, R., Roka, F., & Vukina, T. (1997) Hog operations, environmental effects, and residential

property values. Land Econ 73:114–124. doi:10.2307/3147081.

Pickrell, J., Heber, A., Murphy, J., Henry, S., May, M., Nolan, D., Gearhart, S., Cederber, B., Oehme, F., &

Schonewels, D. (1995). Total and respirable dust in swine confinement buildings: the benefit of

respiratory protective masks and effect of recirculated air. Veterinary & Human Toxicology, 37(5),

430-435.

Pierre-Louis, K. (2018, September 19). WRAL.com. Lagoons of pig waste are overflowing after Florence.

Yes, that's as nasty as it sounds. Retrieved from: https://www.wral.com/lagoons-of-pig-waste-are-

overflowing-after-florence-yes-that-s-as-nasty-as-it-sounds-/17858205/

Research Triangle Institute. (2003). “Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste

Management Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment.”

Retrieved from

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix c-RTI.pdf

Reynolds, S., Donham, K., Whitten, P., Merchant, J., Burmeister, L., & Popendorf, W. (1996). Longitudinal

evaluation of dose-response relationships for environmental exposures and pulmonary function in

swine production workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 33-40.

Robertson, G., & Dalesio, E. (2018, September 21). Hurricane Florence could cost Carolina farms billions

in damage. PBS.org. Retrieved from: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/hurricane-florence-

could-cost-carolina-farms-billions-in-damage

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9221-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102095

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102095


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/hurricane-florence-could-cost-carolina-farms-billions-in-damage

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/hurricane-florence-could-cost-carolina-farms-billions-in-damage

45

Rundquist, S. (November 4, 2016) Exposing Fields of Filth: After Hurricane, first detailed look at flooding

of feces-laden N.C. factory farms. Environmental Working Group. Retreived from:


Sackett, D., Pow, C., Rubino, M., Aday, D., Cope, W., Kullman, S., Rice, A., Kwak, T. & Law, M. (2015).

Sources of endocrine-disrupting compounds in North Carolina waterways: A geographic information

systems approach. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(2), 437–445.

https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2797

Schiffman SS, Sattely Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG. (1995). The effect of environmental odors

emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Res Bull

17:369-375

Sobsey, M.D., Khatib, L.A., Hill, V.R., Alocilja, E., Pillai, S., (2001). Pathogens in animal wastes and the

impacts of waste management practices on their survival, transport and fate. In: White Papers on

animal agriculture and the environment. MidWest Plan Service (MWPS), Iowa State University,

Ames, Iowa (Chapter 17).

Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., Stansbery, A.E., (2006). Reduction of ammonia emissions from treated

anaerobic swine lagoons. Transactions of the ASABE 49 (1), 217–225.

Thu K, Donham K, Ziegenhorn R, Reynolds S, Thorne P, Subramanian P, Whitten P, Stookesberry J.

(1997). A control study of the physical and mental health of residents living near a large-scale

swine operation. J Agric Safety and Health 3:13-26

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, I., & U.S. Geological Survey, I. (2015). Surface-Water Quality in Agricultural

Watersheds of the North Carolina Coastal Plain Associated with Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5080/pdf/sir2015-5080.pdf

Vanotti, M. B., Szogi, A. A., Millner, P. D., & Loughrin, J. H. (2009). Development of a second-generation

environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresource

Technology, 100, 5406–5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.019

Vanotti, M. B., Szogi, A. A., & Vives, C. A. (2007). Greenhouse gas emission reduction and environmental

quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste treatment systems in swine farms.

Waste Management, 28, 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.034

Von Essen S, Scheppers L, Robbins R, Donham K. (1998) Respiratory tract inflammation in swine

confinement workers studied using induced sputum and exhaled nitric oxide. Clin Toxicol 36:557-

565.

Williams, C., Murray, B. C., Van Houtven, G. L., Deerhake, M. E., Randall Dodd, M. C., Michael Lowry, M.

I., … Jeffrey Coburn, M. B. (2003). Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste

Management Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment Final

Report Prepared for Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste Management

Technologies in No. Retrieved from

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/phase1report04/appendix c-RTI.pdf

Williams, M. (2004). Progress of identifying and installing potential Environmentally Superior

Technologies per Agreements between the North Carolina Attorney General, Smithfield Foods ,

Premium Standard Farms , and Frontline Farmers. Retrieved from

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm

Williams, C. M. (2009). Development of environmentally superior technologies in the US and policy.

Bioresource Technology, 100, 5512–5518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.067


https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2797


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.034


https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/smithfieldsite.htm


46

Wing, S., & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of life among Eastern

North Carolina Residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238. Retrieved from


Wing, S., Horton, R. A., Marshall, S. W., Thu, K., Tajik, M., Schinasi, L., & Schiffman, S. S. (2008). Air

Pollution and Odor in Communities Near Industrial Swine Operations. Environmental Health

Perspectives, 116(10), 1362–1368. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11250

Xu, J., Adair, C. W., & Deshusses, M. A. (2016). Performance evaluation of a full-scale innovative swine

waste-to-energy system. Bioresource Technology, 216, 494–502.


Zejda JE, Hurst TS, Barber EM, Rhodes C, Dosman JA. (1993). Respiratory health status in swine

producers using respiratory protective devices. Am J Ind Med 23:743-750




A Stakeholder Analysis Framework for Measuring the Impacts ...

Documents

Transcript of A Stakeholder Analysis Framework for Measuring the Impacts ...