Problem Context
For some time now the market share of smaller-scale farms has been on a consistent decline while the agriculture market has begun to shift to large scale farming operations (factory farms or similar Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). There are several factors that contribute to this continuous shift. Some of these factors include the average cost of production per unit which favors large scale operations, and the technological advances used to standardize production in larger settings. As a result, smaller farms are put at a competitive disadvantage and are subject to lower profitability. Unfortunately, as the number of factory farms grows so too does the amount of agricultural pollution. Particularly, the detrimental effects of these operations on water and air quality are cause for concern. This increased awareness of large scale pollution has led to advocacy for small farm product consumption. The way these large-scale operations are defying environmental ethics demands attention from both the policy makers and the citizens.
Behavior Over Time
One of the continuing trends associated with CAFOs is the use of manure lagoons to store excess waste. Not only does this have the potential to affect water quality as a result of runoff, but air quality too is adversely affected. “For example, a typical five-acre hog waste lagoon releases 15-30 tons of ammonia into the air annually.” http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04042/600r04042.pdf. Excess manure nutrient production increased substantially between 1982 and 1997 with the most significant increases occurring in regions having large-scale livestock and poultry operations. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib43/eib43.pdf. With the market shifting toward larger operations and the decline in small scale agriculture, pollution control is becoming a bigger problem than ever before. Policy makers have to revise previous policies to account for these new issues and make decisions about new policies that will be sustainable and effective.
Policies Now in Place or Under Consideration
“In 2003, EPA introduced revised Clean Water Act regulations to protect surface waters from nutrients from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The regulations require CAFOs to follow a nutrient management plan to minimize nitrogen and phosphorus runoff to surface water. Those plans will specify the application rate for nutrients that must be followed when applying manure to land (the primary disposal method).” Ammonia emission programs have also been considered in order to protect air quality; these are not in widespread enforcement when compared to other policies. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September05/Features/ImprovingAirandWater.htm
Issues and Concerns with the Current Situation or Policies
Although the EPA has introduced revised regulations to control manure application, this can prove costly to farmers due to the fact that they will have to find more land to get rid of manure in order to meet these regulations. As a result farmers turn to the use of the aforementioned uncovered manure lagoons for storage of excess manure. This in turn increases ammonia emissions. However, with the possible regulation of ammonia emissions, this would force the farmers to spread more manure on the lands (increasing nitrogen content) and this would defeat the purpose of water protection policies in place. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September05/Features/ImprovingAirandWater.htm
Study Purpose and Questions to be Addressed
It is the goal of this study to formulate a model describing the behavior over time that has led to the progressive emergence of pollution issues associated with factory farms. In addition to this, it is a goal to model some of the regulatory policies in place and describe how these policies interact with each other as a result of their respective enforcement. Questions to be answered include: Are the policies in place effective in regulating these pollution issues? What does the behavior of the system suggest about future agricultural pollution problems and the associated advocacy for small farm products?
Dynamic Hypothesis
Intended Consequence
This loop represents the water quality control policy implemented by the EPA in 2003. The intention is to reduce the amount of water pollution associated with excessive manure spreading (as a result of runoff) and is aimed specifically at regulating the large scale farming sector. As shown in the loop, the amount of pollution associated with these large scale operations heightens water quality awareness and enforcement of manure spreading regulations. As a result the increased effectiveness of the manure spreading policy decreases the amount of agricultural pollution. This loop represents a balancing feedback in that the EPA is continously trying to keep excessive manure distribution in check through policy enforcement.
Unintended Consequence
This second loop is a representation of the unintended consequence associated with the implementation of an ammonia control policy used to regulate air quality. The air quality issue stems from the use of the formerly discussed manure lagoons. While this policy may be helpful in regulating air quality, it forces farmers to unload these lagoons and spread more manure. In turn, this essentially conflicts with the water control policy in place which is intended to regulate manure distribution. As can be seen in the diagram, the amount of pollution also increases awarness regarding air quality which in turn increases enforcement of ammonia regulations. However, as the effectiveness of this policy increases, the effectiveness of the water control policy decreases. As a result, the amount of pollution is higher than it would have been had both policies been effective and this institutes reinforcing feedback.
Other Relevant Dynamics
This final loop (B2) represents an other relevant dynamic of the system that contributes to the amount of agricultural pollution. Specifically, it represents the emergence of large scale farming operations which are a result of small scale farms exiting the agricultural market due to decreased profitability. Added, it is a representation of how large scale pollution leads to advocacy of small farm product consumption in order to deter said large scale pollution. Referring to the diagram, as pollution levels increase, so too does small farm advocacy and this has a negative effect on the market share of factory farms. As the trend carries out, small farms become more profitable and gain more market share ultimately reducing the amount of pollution resulting from large scale operations.
When referring to loop dominance in this system, it would seem that the policy control loops would constantly dominate as long as pollution is an issue. However, once there was realization that the ammonia control policy was having an adverse effect on the existing water policy, the dominance of this loop would likely subside until a solution is reached. In reference to loop B2, its level and timeframe of dominance would be dependent on the amount of agricultural pollution and associated problems at any given time.
The model has answered the questions proposed in the study purpose. Using the model, it is evident that the policies in place would be effective if they were implemented independently, but when enforced together overall effectiveness is decreased as they somewhat cancel each other out. As for the second question, agricultural pollution problems associated with large scale farming operations will continue to be a problem as smaller farms are squeezed out of the market. However, if the trend for small farm advocacy continues and there is increased consumption of their products, it looks as though large scale pollution could be decreased over time.
On a side note, I felt that there could be delays associated with virtually every causal link in the diagram. As opposed to littering the model with delay marks and making it more complicated I decided to let the reader infer the delays for themselves. I'm not sure if this is the right or wrong way to approach this.
