IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v20y1998i2p348-364..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confined Animal Production and Groundwater Protection

Author

Listed:
  • David Letson
  • Noel Gollehon
  • Catherine Kascak
  • Vincent Breneman
  • Carlyle Mose

Abstract

Our national screening model considers agricultural practices, hydrologie vulnerability, and groundwater use to identify areas that might need in-depth study to determine whether agricultural manure use contributes to groundwater quality problems. Economic efficiency dictates that, at the margin, the benefits of reducing manure nitrogen loadings to groundwater should be at least as great as the costs. However, efficiency on a national scale is complicated by the variability of costs and benefits across groundwater basins. National mandates are unlikely to be efficient, except as minimal protection. Case-by-case approaches can provide efficient additional protection as needed, but they have substantial information requirements. The high cost of site-specific data on water use, values, and hydrologic settings demands that the cases examined be selected with care. We focus on the threat of manure to groundwater use for three reasons. First, manure nutrient loadings might be on the rise because of ongoing structural changes in animal production. Second, prevention in some cases is the most economic response to threats or incidents of contamination. Replacement costs for the provision of bottled water or other alternatives are often higher than the cost of preserving existing groundwater resources. Third, the 1996 Federal Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR) authorizes $1.3 billion for environmental and conservation improvements, at least half of which must go to animal production. FAIR also mandates that the spending maximize environmental benefits per dollar. Clearly, groundwater protection is a candidate for such spending.

Suggested Citation

  • David Letson & Noel Gollehon & Catherine Kascak & Vincent Breneman & Carlyle Mose, 1998. "Confined Animal Production and Groundwater Protection," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(2), pages 348-364.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:20:y:1998:i:2:p:348-364.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1349994
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Terence centner, 2004. "Developing institutions to encourage the use of animal wastes as production inputs," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(4), pages 367-375, January.
    2. Centner, Terence J. & Mullen, Jeffrey D., 2004. "Regulatory Responses to Potential Pollutants from Animal Feeding Operations: Opting Out of Costly Permitting Regulations," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 287-295, August.
    3. Parker, Doug, 2000. "Controlling agricultural nonpoint water pollution: costs of implementing the Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 23-31, December.
    4. Jeffrey D. Mullen & Terrence J. Centner, 2004. "Impacts of Adjusting Environmental Regulations When Enforcement Authority Is Diffuse: Confined Animal Feeding Operations and Environmental Quality," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 209-219.
    5. Schuck, Eric C., 2005. "On-farm Manure Storage Adoption Rates: the Roles of Herd Size, Spreading Acreage and Cost-share Programs," CAFRI: Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, issue 6, pages 1-14, May.
    6. Janne Antero Helin, 2014. "Reducing nutrient loads from dairy farms: a bioeconomic model with endogenous feeding and land use," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 167-184, March.
    7. Schuck, Eric C. & Birchall, Scott, 2001. "Manure Bmp Adoption Among North Dakota Animal Feed Operations," 2001 Annual Meeting, July 8-11, 2001, Logan, Utah 36046, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Lazo, Jeffrey K. & Waldman, Donald M. & Ottem, Thomas D. & Wheeler, William J., 2003. "Benefits Of Reducing Domestic Well Nitrate Contamination From Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: A National Model Of Groundwater Contamination," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22143, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:20:y:1998:i:2:p:348-364.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.