It is hard to generalize and state that one type of farm does a "better" job of managing nutrients than some other type of farm. How do we define "better"? One study (Lory et al., 2004)* showed that larger swine operations spent both less time and less money per animal unit to spread manure. Thus, there are economies of scale associated with manure management on hog operations. That is one measure of "better" for some people.
Our study also showed a weak trend that larger operations had less land per animal unit. A USDA study by Gollehon et al.** (2001, ERS AIB-772, June) used USDA statistics to show larger operations have less land for manure management. Less land has the potential to be a barrier to optimum use of manure nutrients and may not be "better."
Large operations typically have staff dedicated to handle manure management and environmental issues on their farm. Although we do not have a study on this topic, it may be that larger operations have an advantage over smaller operations in accommodating changes in regulations because they have more technical expertise and have people dedicated to tracking these issues.
In Missouri, the largest operations have much higher levels of regulatory scrutiny. This high level of oversight means they have a high level of compliance with Missouri's regulatory requirements. In many cases, they exceed those requirements. There are many small operations that follow the rules, but there are more opportunities for a smaller operation to slip through the cracks and not follow all the rules.
Resources:
* Lory et al., 2004, An Assessment of Nitrogen-Based Manure Application Rates on 39 U.S. Swine Operations," Journal of Environmental Quality 33:1106-1113.
** Gollehon, Noel, Margriet Caswell, Marc Ribaudo, Robert Kellogg, Charles Lander, and David Letson. 2001. Confined Animal Production and
Manure Nutrients. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. AIB-772. June.
Author: John Lory, University of Missouri
