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.
I think the author has described the Problem Context very succinctly. Good job on getting the point across in 6 sentences.
ReplyDeleteIn the Behavior Over Time section, Martin lists two very important drivers of the issue with the environmental and antibiotic elements. However, it does seem that some mention of how the farms got to be so big should be addressed. Why did the public demand drive the growth? If any of these problems are to be addressed then the market forces will need to be included because we all know 'money talks'.
In the Policies and Issues and Concerns sections, the author again lays out the important issues including the fact that the federal government is strongly influenced by the Agribusiness lobbying.
I like the fact that Martin has left the Study Purpose open-ended. He has chosen to let the 'cards fall where they may' due to unknown surprises in the causal relationships. I think it keeps the interest of the reader and acknowledges the fact that there are some hidden factors. I do wonder if this is proper procedure for this process though?
Martin,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important problem, and occupies an increasingly dominant role in the public consciousness. Good topic are to work in.
Some suggestions.
1. BACKGROUND AND BEHAVIOR OVER TIME: It appears that the facts you state here (and elsewhere) largely come from websites run by advocacy groups. These facts may be true, but you need to provide data from reputable sources and site those sources (USDA, peer-reviewed research, etc). You make some claims in these section that are critical to justifying this project and defining the scope of your work. Hence, you need to provide strong, reputable sources. You argue that factory farming is not good for human health or the environment. That may be so, but the data you provide are not convincing. There is a reason that these farms have emerged and dominated the landscape. It might be good to provide data to show that this has happened.
2. POLICIES AND ISSUES: It appears that you are focuses on polices aimed at curbing pollution and human health concerns, correct? Your issues focus mostly on there being loopholes in the laws. If that is the problem, then a system dynamics study is not needed. The loopholes just need to be fixed.
3. STUDY PURPOSE: If the purpose is to lift awareness, then a SD study is not needed. Instead, you could just write an advocacy paper or make a documentary (like Food, Inc!). I think you need to rethink the way you've framed the problem you want to address to that a SD study would be useful. That is, focus on a problem that, in order to solve, you would need to understand how things have evolved over time and what the dynamics are behind that evolution.
For example - You could do a study to explore why the small, family farm has almost disappeared from the agricultural economy. Then you could seek to explain the dynamics behind that decline. You could explore whether those dynamics are good for the consumer and the environment. Make sense?
Based on feedback, I have significantly revised my problem articulation and edited the original post. I omitted the food quality angle presented in the original blog in order to narrow the scope of the study.
ReplyDeleteAfter talking with Dr. Deaton, I have once again revised my problem articulation. I have focused more on the pollution problem and associated policies as the main topic of discussion as opposed to the dynamics behind the emergence of large scale farming. In the end I included the latter aspect as the "other relevant dynamic" in the system.
ReplyDeleteMartin, I am curious about the ammonia pollution issue. You mentioned the release of 15-30 tons of ammonia a year, but i was wondering if this is due to the lagoon itself or just the natural breakdown of the manure. Would this happen anyway even if it wasn't in a lagoon? I assume it wouldn't or the would be no reason to have an ammonia regulation, as we can't really control how much animals poop. In either case, it seems like the main issue here is what kind of pollution do we want to deal with. Fact #1, we love meat. Fact #2, our love for meat drives us to farm animals, which leads to poop. Fact #3 Poop is typically recycyled. It is the form of recycling that determines the pollution. Spreading it on the ground leads to runoff and nutrient issues and putting it in lagoons leads to (depending on the answer to the first part of my post) ammonia pollution. When the manure is spread on the fields after being in a lagoon, i assume it still has runoff potential, so maybe instead of regulating poop, would a potential solution be to promote actions that make farmers more aware, like mandatory classes on waste runoff and how managment can benefit the farmer rather than waste managment plans that require a 3rd party? ( i have a relative that has done water runoff plans for people, and it seems to me from speaking to him that the plans aren't very efficitive in actually making physical change happen)
ReplyDeletePerhaps the mandatory classes could serve to heighten awareness, but I agree with what you said at the end. I'm not sure that it would result in any significant changes. An alternative to the regulation(s) mentioned in this problem could be to mandate the number of livestock in accordance with the amount of land owned. However, I can see that this too would be costly to farmers as they would have to find more land in order to increase their herd and in turn achieve a higher profit. On the other hand, enforcing stiffer penalties for ammonia pollution may make the farmers reduce their herds themselves in order to meet the regulations. However, this too could have a negative impact on the meat market and possibly drive meat prices higher due to the decreased supply or convince some farmers to get out of the business altogether. There are a lot of variables, both active and latent, present in this overall system (going far beyond the boundaries of my study). Maybe the awareness idea would be a good place to start though if it was widespread and as you suggested, mandatory. Perhaps different classes could be offered to the different specific sectors (poultry, dairy, etc.) to cater to varying interests.
ReplyDeleteGood job...good discussion.
ReplyDeleteMartin...This is a significant step forward from the first draft problem articulation. Also, your discussion of the dynamic hypothesis does just what I would hope. You walk the reader through the dynamics and give a clear overview of how these dynamics work together to create a problem. I like that you explicitly discussed loop dominance, as well. Very well done!
Suggestions: Rob's point about the the differences in emissions from a lagoon vs spreading ought to be addressed. Any critical reader would be left wondering if the problem you raise is a moot point...that the lagoons are just a red herring, and that the emissions problem is the same regardless of disposal method. If that were true, then your argument about competing policies breaks down. I expect that a lagoon DOES emit more methane than the same amount of manure spread on the ground (since the spread manure is incorporated into the soil and some of the nitrogen ends up in the soil). You should clarify this so that the reader is not left wondering whether there is a foundational logical error in your analysis.
Finally, the 2nd policy (using lagoons) also has intended consequences (i.e. to lower emissions or pollution). But you don't show that on the CLD.
You make a passing comment about delays. True, there are several sources of delays here. However, I think that your B2 loop has the longest delays, mostly because it involves a fundamental restructuring of the farming supply chain (toward smaller farmers) that would likely take a generation or more to play out. The other loops can very from year to year, depending on farmer practices.
There is much more to model here...well beyond the scope of this pilot effort (i.e. market forces driving development of megafarms, etc). You've done a good job with what you chose to tackle.