BUTLER/CUNNINGHAM

This page provides an introduction to the issue of CAFOs in Alabama. Other pages provide statements from researchers or from local people involved with the issue.

This site will change from time to time. Basic organization will remain constant.

click here to contact Mike Polioudakis, site developer

polioej@acesag.auburn.edu

Level 3

Selection of Similar Pages

Auburn University maintains a vigorous program in animal waste management through their Extension Service (see button at left). Of special interest on this site are the programs for vendors and the training program (which includes a detailed map of the training sites and times). The URL (internet address) for the Alabama Animal Wastem Management page is:

www.aces.edu/dept/aawm

The Southern Regional Water Quality Program allows various ways to track waterways that might have been affected by AFOs or CAFOs. Their site has many features and is best visited directly (see button). The URL is

http://srwqis.tamu.edu

It is not the purpose of this page to evaluate the kindness or unkindness of treating animals in this manner. Most animals in CAFOs do not suffer in the sense of enduring pain. They have plenty to eat of a balanced diet. They are prevented from fighting. Most AFOs and CAFOs are fairly clean and disease free. However, some people might object to raising animals in close confinement without much movement even if the animals do not suffer pain and are clean. Likewise, a person could object to AFOs and CAFOs on the grounds that they polluted the water or air even if he felt that the animals were well treated. It is best to separate environmental issues from animal welfare issues so as to be clear and objective on both. On this page, we can only consider the effects of AFOs and CAFOs on the water, air and people around them. The Sierra Club has consistently reviewed CAFOs (mostly negatively) in both respects (see button).

The direct for CAFOs URL is www.sierraclub.com/factorfarms/

Or, from www.sierraclub.com, click on "Issues", then "More Issues", then on "Factory Farms"

Animal raising was a prominent part of the traditional culture of the White people who settled the South, including Alabama, from Europe. Although it is not generally recognized, pig raising was probably the most important type of animal husbandry in England and Scotland from where many Southerners migrated. Thus there is considerable precedence for raising animals and for raising them in large numbers in pens.

Traditionally, northeastern Alabama did not have large farms or plantations. Instead, because of the hilly terrain and sandy soil, it had many small farms and a dense population of indendent farmers. These farmers traditionally raised animals.

After World War II, the improved electrical generating capacity of the US, from such places as the TVA and the Columbia River, allowed chemical fertilizers to be manufactured cheaply, and to be manufactured in the exact specifications needed for particular applications. This production contributed to the efficiency of Americn farming and its ability to feed many people cheaply. It may also have been one contributing factor to the decline in small farms, who could not compete with large farms in the management of chemicals; and it created unforseen environmental problems among some successful farmers themselves.

Cheap chemcial fertilizers undercut the market for natural fertilizers from animal wastes. Transportation costs have decreased steadily over the last few decades but the decreases have not been able to make it worthwhile to haul natural animal waste fertilizers over very long distances. Usually the maximum viable distance is a hundered miles or so depending on the quality of the fertilizer and the needs of the target area. This limitation would not matter as long as most animals were raised in a dispersed pattern, near where their waste could be used as fertilizer.

When farming declined in the 50s and 60s, the small farms of northeastern Alabama were especially hard hit. While they could not grow row crops profitably anymore, they could raise animals on a larger scale, especially if they got initial financial help from banks, the government and meat processing companies. Many farmers in northeastern Alabama turned to this alternative. Meat processing companies were happy to see the animal growing industry concentrated into a few geographical areas because it was easier to supply the farmers, collect the product, and oversee the operations.

Even if the soil in northeastern Alabama were well suited to the application of animal waste fertilizer, it could not possibly accept all the hog and chicken manure that is now generated there. In fact, about three times as much waste now is generated there as could be used in all of Alabama - if it were worthwhile shipping the waste around the state. Most of the manure now sits in mounds or pits, or is processed through artificial ponds (called "lagoons").

A similar situation exists for the AFO and CAFO industry around the US. The places where animals are raised have become locally concentrated and have become geographically separated from the places where animal wastes could be used as fertilizer. If the animal wastes could be shipped all around the US, then agriculture might be able to absorb them, especially modern forms of some agriculture that emphasize "natural" techniques, but it is too expensive now to ship animal wastes that way.

It would take only a very small increase in the price of meat to provide the funds to convert natural wastes and make it profitable to ship them considerably longer distances. But the modern meat industry devloped by being able to provide Americans with the cheapest meat in the world, and the industry continues to run on small profit margins in all sectors. No one sector, such as the growers, feel comfortable allowing their costs to increase so as to be able to fund the market-based disposal of the wastes as fertilizers.

Moreover, the situation hardly could have developed in a worse environmental area for this kind of problem than northeastern Alabama - but that is just where AFOs and CAFOs are likely to spring up because of the dense populations and poor farming conditions. The poor sandy soil cannot receive the growing backlog of wastes. A well managed AFO or CAFO does not smell badly but a poorly managed one, or even one with a small problem that is not attended to rapidly, can smell quite badly. The people who own or operatate AFOs and CAFOs do not seem to notice or mind the odor, but often their neighbors who do not raise animals notice the odor and mind quite a bit. The neighbors often find much to object to about AFOs and CAFOs besides the odor, in particular the conditions in which the animals are raised and the extent to which AFOs and CAFOs actually adhere to the regulations.

Nearly all of the dense rural population use septic tanks. Many of the septic systems are old, and few are inspected. Both animal and human wastes leak into the groundwater and waterway, and carry far. Most of the problem streams on the ADEM 303D list are in northeastern Alabama. It has not been determined yet whether animal or human wastes are most repsonsible for the water pollution, and it may be impossible to determine as long as AFOs and CAFOs remain a point of contention between the people in northeastern Alabama and people elsewhere, and among the people in northeastern Alabama themselves.

If the market structure for converting and transporting animal waste fertilizers in the US were to change, then the local environmental-social problems in northeastern Alabama would likely improve considerably on their own. But since that is not likely to happen on a large scale soon, it may be up to regulators, farmers and neighbors to solve the problems.