Return to U.S.Hog home page
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
http://www.farmprogress.com/frmp/articleDetail/0,1494,7402+45,00.html
Long-awaited Study of Animal Agriculture and Air Quality
is Released
Rod Swoboda
The study group's full 10-chapter report and an executive summary are
available online at environmental health sciences research center
http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm
For a printed publication, contact Deb Venzke at (319) 335-9647 or via
e-mail at debra-venzke@uiowa.edu.
A new joint report from a team of scientists at The University of Iowa and Iowa State University recommends that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources develop ambient air-quality standards for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Iowa.
The long-awaited report was released Feb. 8, 2002, to members of the Iowa Legislature, which is debating livestock regulations this session.
While stating that no specific diseases among community residents can be linked to air emissions from confinement livestock operations, the report states that "emissions may constitute a public health hazard and that precautions should be taken to minimize … exposures arising from CAFOs."
The study group recommended standards for measuring hydrogen sulfide and ammonia at the CAFO property line and at a residence or public use area, and provided two opinions on the regulation of odors.
Report is based on best science available
"The report is based upon the best science available to ensure that rural ambient air is as free of risk as possible in order to protect health and the quality of life at the highest possible level," according to James Merchant. He is a medical doctor and a professor of public health. He is dean of the College of Public Health at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa.
Richard Ross, ISU professor of veterinary medicine and former dean of the ISU College of Agriculture in Ames, agrees with that statement. Merchant and Ross together chaired the joint study group.
The report was developed by the universities at the request of Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Vilsack wrote a letter to officials of the two universities in June 2001, asking for the help of scientists who are experts in this field.
"I am writing to request the cooperation and assistance of your universities in addressing this divisive issue in rural Iowa," Vilsack said in the letter he sent last summer. "The issue relates to the public health impacts of air quality surrounding confined animal feeding operations. I have heard arguments and received evidence on both sides of this issue, and I believe it is time to get an Iowa answer to this problem and solve it once and for all."
Odors from confinements should be regulated
The report, as released Feb. 8, 2002, states that hydrogen sulfide and
ammonia have been measured near livestock operations in concentrations
that could be harmful to humans. Both substances are pulmonary irritants.
Odors arising from concentrated animal feeding operations were reported to be associated with increased eye and respiratory symptoms by rural residents living near the facilities, the report states.
The report recommends to Jeff Vonk, chief of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, that odors from livestock confinements such as big hog operations should be addressed and regulated.
Besides air quality, the study group also was asked to address other emerging issues related to CAFOs. The report identified water quality, worker health, antibiotic resistance, "greenhouse gas" emissions, socioeconomic impacts on rural communities, and livestock epidemic and disposal issues. The study group also outlined policy strategies to improve the siting of new confinement facilities.
The study group reported on technologies and management strategies that are currently available to producers to reduce emissions. These include strategies related to housing ventilation, manure storage and handling.
The study group's full 10-chapter report and an executive summary are available online at environmental health sciences research center http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm For a printed publication, contact Deb Venzke at (319) 335-9647 or via e-mail at debra-venzke@uiowa.edu.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Human Health Issues Associated with the Hog Industry
by Melva Okun
Environmental Resource Program, School of Public Health
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
January 1999
http://checc.sph.unc.edu/rooms/library/docs/hogs/hogs_hhealth.html
Contents
Introduction
Section One: Air Quality
physical effects for hog ILO workers
physical effects for hog ILO neighbors
hog ILO odors
NC studies of mental health
effect
NC vs. Iowa psychological
findings
Effect of odors on asthmatics
Section Two: Groundwater Contamination
nitrates and drinking water
NC well testing program
methemoglobin
exposure to high nitrates and possible link to reproductive
difficulties
waterborne diseases and well water contamination
cancer and the need for more research
community concerns about groundwater contamination
from hog operations
Section Three: Surface Water Health Issues
physician petition in support of hog moratorium
in Craven Co.
Pfiesteria: a potential marker of polluted waters
Vibrio vulnificus
Section Four: Infectious Disease
worker exposure to infectious agents
increased virulence in Salmonella
prophylatic use of antibiotics
other swine tract pathogens
swine or Spanish flu of 1918
hog as mixing vessel for avian and human viruses
Section Five: Wholistic View of Human Impacts
Recommendations
Conclusions
References
How to Order a Printed Copy of This Document
http://checc.sph.unc.edu/rooms/library/docs/hogs/hogs_hhealth.html
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate
Property Values
The Appraisal Journal, July, 2001
by John Kilpatrick of Mundy and Associates
Mundy and Associates are the leading real estate appraisal and
stigma analysis folks in the US. The study, entitled "Concentrated
Animal
Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values" finds that property
located next to a CAFO is devalued by 50% to 90%. It finds, as
other
studies have, that value loss is an inverse function of distance, that
newer, nicer residences lose more value, and a that value loss is a
function
of property use. The study says that a farm that located close
to a CAFO will
"lose value due to diminished productivity and comparative marketability
to
other farm lands."
The report goes on the say that "when appraising a property
located proximate to a CAFO, the appraiser needs to consider seven
issues:"
1. Type of property
2. Distance to CAFO
3. Physical manifestations--i.e., bad
air quality, insects, etc.
4. Engineering/scientific testing of
air quality
5. Impacts on property use
6. Marketability evidence--time on market
of comparable properties
7. Impact on highest and best use.
Read the full report Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values
........................................................................................................................................................................................
Potential Health Effects of Odor From Animal Operations, Wastewater
Treatment, and Recycling of Byproducts
This website is a summary of the report by Susan Schiffman, Duke
University and Dr. John Walker, US EPA, lead authors -- which was published
in the November 2000 Journal of AgroMedicine.
http://www.penweb.org/issues/sludge/health-odor.htm
( POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF ODORS FROM CAFOS, etc)
Susan S. Schiffman, PhD, Duke University, NC
John M. Walker, PhD, US EPA, Office of Water (sludge office)
Pam Dalton, PhD
Tyler S. Lorig, PhD
James H. Raymer, PhD
Dennis Shusterman, MD
C. Mike Williams, PhD
ABSTRACT. Complaints of health symptoms from ambient odors have become
More frequent in communities with confined animal facilities, wastewater
treatment plants, AND BIOSOLIDS RECYCLING OPERATIONS.
The most frequently reported health complaints include eye, nose, and
throat
irritation, headache, nausea, diarrhea, hoarseness, sore throat, cough,
chest tightness, nasal congestion, palpitations, shortness of breath,
stress, drowsiness, and alterations in mood.
Typically, these symptoms occur at the time of exposure and remit after
a
short period of time. However, for sensitive individuals such as asthmatic
patients, exposure to odors may induce health symptoms that persist
for
longer periods of time as well as aggravate existing medical conditions.
A workshop was held at Duke University on April 16-17, 1998 cosponsored
by
Duke University, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) to
assess
the current state of knowledge regarding the health effects of ambient
odors.
This report summarizes the conclusions from the Workshop regarding the
potential mechanisms responsible for health symptoms from ambient odors.
Methods for validation of health symptoms, presence of odor, and efficacy
of
odor management techniques are described as well.
PAGES 57 - 58 - FINAL COMMENTS
Our current state of knowledge clearly suggests that it is possible
for
odorous emissions from animal operations, wastewater treatment and
recycling
of biosolids to have an impact on physical health.
The most frequently reported symptoms attributed to odors include eye,nose,
and throat irritation, headache, nausea, hoarseness, cough, nasal
congestion, palpitations, shortness of breath, stress, drowsiness,
and
alterations in mood.
Many of these symptoms (especially irritation, headache, hoarseness,
cough,
nasal congestion, and shortness of breath) can be caused by stimulation
of
the trigeminal nerve in the nose at elevated levels of odorous VOCs.
Co-pollutants in an odorous plume may also play a role. A genetic basis
for
some odor aversions may be the basis for complains from unpleasant
but
nonirritating odors; unpleasant odors have been shown to activate different
brain areas than pleasant ones.
(Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery
Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com
Website: http://www.HaworthPress.com
............................................................................................................................................................................................
Copyright © 2001, HealthGate Data Corp. All Rights Reserved.
NLM Database Document. Please read the disclaimer
http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/docs/ilo.pdf
TI: Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of
life among eastern North Carolina residents.
AU: Wing_S; Wolf_S
SO: Environ Health Perspect, 200003, 108: 3, 233-8
IS: 0091-6765
LA: ENG
MJ: (none)
MH: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Animal; Case-Control Studies;
Cattle; Comparative Study; Female; Health Surveys; Human; Male; Middle
Age; North Carolina; Poverty | Psychology; Questionnaires; Support, U.S.
Gov't, P.H.S.; Air Pollution | Adverse Effects; Animal Husbandry | Statistics
and Numerical Data; Blacks | Psychology; Environmental Exposure | Adverse
Effects; Environmental Health | Statistics and Numerical Data; Health Status;
Quality of Life; Residence Characteristics | Statistics and Numerical Data;
Rural Health | Statistics and Numerical Data; Swine;
DT: JOURNAL ARTICLE
PC: UNITED STATES
AB: People who live near industrial swine operations have reported
decreased health and quality of life. To investigate these issues, we surveyed
residents of three rural communities, one in the vicinity of an approximately
6,000-head hog operation, one in the vicinity of two intensive cattle operations,
and a third rural agricultural area without livestock operations that use
liquid waste management systems. Trained interviewers obtained information
about health symptoms and reduced quality of life during the previous 6
months. We completed 155 interviews, with a refusal rate of 14%. Community
differences in the mean number of episodes were compared with adjustment
for age, sex, smoking, and employment status. The average number of episodes
of many symptoms was similar in the three 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 as compared to residents of the community with no intensive livestock
operations. 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. Respiratory
and mucous membrane effects were consistent with the results of studies
of occupational exposures among swine confinement-house workers and previous
findings for neighbors of intensive swine operations. Long-term physical
and mental health impacts could not be investigated in this study.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
http://www.medline.ingenta.com/medline/Start?token=011312f57e4a263c63507e6a5f687a33507d646760664f3d24227a7336535570464c58383f3e4f3d2922237a72537c4b655223703f772c3a76752a407b592439465d3e706c70502a4a59253821532c3a46633b76677028557b6d5f2d344235204f56486b34384a4975597c244242352b65737e763c49337c6546244038425b47635d7e70672450dedd7
Copyright © 2001, HealthGate Data Corp. All Rights Reserved.
NLM Database Document. Please read the disclaimer
TI: A field study on downwind odor transport
from swine facilities.
AU: Zhu_J; Li_X
SO: J Environ Sci Health B, 200003, 35: 2, 245-58
IS: 0360-1234
LA: ENG
MJ: (none)
MH: Animal; Environmental Monitoring; Wind; Agriculture; Manure;
Odors; Refuse Disposal; Swine;
DT: JOURNAL ARTICLE
PC: UNITED STATES
AB: This paper presents field data to illustrate the characteristics
of downwind odor dispersion. A total of eight swine facilities were studied
in this project and power functions were found to be an appropriate description
of the pattern of downwind odor transport for both swine buildings and
manure storage lagoons and tanks. The coefficients of correlation for the
power regressions ranged from 0.75-0.87. It was found that swine buildings
have the potential of generating more odor than manure storage facilities
such as lagoons and tanks and thus could be the major odor sources causing
downwind odor nuisance. Therefore, to maintain the building clean should
be highly recommended as swine producers' best management practice. For
earthen basins, the odor strength was reduced by 80% at about 250-meter
distance from the source. While for the swine building, a 50% of reduction
in odor strength was observed at the same distance. The study did not show
any advantages of using lagoons over concrete (or steel) manure tanks in
terms of reducing downwind odor concentrations. Land application of manure
did not cause persistent downwind odor problems.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma
Contamination of drinking water. Five hog farms in Kingfisher
and Major counties were sanctioned by the EPA.
EPA ties hog farms to bad water
2001-06-11 [June 11, 2001]
http://www.oklahoman.com/
OPPONENTS of concentrated animal feeding operations have finally obtained the evidence they need to support claims of serious water pollution from large hog farms.
For several years the anti-hog farm activists claimed the large feeding operations were polluting groundwater in Oklahoma, but they could not prove it. On Thursday the federal Environmental Protection Agency claimed that groundwater in two Oklahoma counties is contaminated by high levels of nitrates and that the source is factory hog operations linked to Seaboard Farms.
The industry immediately cried foul, claiming the timing of the EPA's announcement was not coincidental. It came just when Gov. Frank Keating was considering a bill to make it harder to stop the proliferation of concentrated animal feeding operations. Thursday, Keating said he welcomed the EPA's intervention.
Five hog farms in Kingfisher and Major counties were sanctioned by the EPA. An agency official said it marked the first time "that we have seen elevated nitrate concentrations in drinking water that can be directly linked to hog operations and their lagoons."
This is a serious claim and one that deserves the full attention of state agriculture and environmental officials. At the same time, there's no reason for panic. Most of Seaboard's operations are farther west, in the Panhandle. There, soil types are different than they are in the two affected counties. Also, the two counties generally receive more rainfall than the Panhandle.
Overall, Seaboard has been a good corporate citizen, reviving the economy of Guymon, its Oklahoma headquarters, and surrounding areas. And it's possible, although unlikely, that the nitrate contamination is not related to the hog farms.
The contamination problem may be further evidence that large hog farms are not suitable for most of Oklahoma. In the areas where groundwater contamination has not been established, there remains the problem of odor from the hog lagoons. Seaboard and similar companies will be under increasing scrutiny from activists and regulators.
While such scrutiny is necessary to preserve the environment, we urge
regulators and citizens not to overreact to Thursday's news. More evidence
is needed before concluding that concentrated animal feeding operations
do more harm than good when their economic benefit is weighed against the
potential for pollution.
..................................................................................................................................................................................