Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:40:11.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mitigating the Compliance Cost of a Phosphorus-Based Swine Manure Management Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Crystal Yap ,
Ken Foster ,
Paul Preckel ,
Otto Doering  and
Brian Richert
Crystal Yap
Affiliation:
Millville, UT
Ken Foster
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
Paul Preckel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
Otto Doering
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
Brian Richert
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Regulatory changes by federal and state agencies portend a switch from nitrogen-based livestock manure disposal policies to phosphorus-based policies. This paper estimates the compliance costs of such a policy change for a hypothetical hog-grain farm in North Central Indiana. The farm includes 1,500 acres of cropland and has the capacity to raise 11,970 grow-finish hogs annually. The farm model also has the potential to produce four different crops on six different land types. A nonlinear math-programming model was developed to determine the optimal mix of management activities for a phosphorus-based regulation. The model allows mitigation of compliance costs via the choice between four different pig diets, three alternative methods of manure disposal, changes in timing of manure application, and crop pattern adjustments. This analysis concludes that the new regulation will result in a decrease in whole-farm returns above variable costs, the use of phytase enzyme in pig diets, and an increase in wheat acreage. The model also reveals that it is optimal for the farmer to hire a custom hauler to assist in application of manure in an effort to reduce the degree to which available field days constrain farming activities and land application of manure. The estimated cost to the farmer, as a result of the policy change, ranges between $0.56 and $21.74 per unit of pig production capacity.

Keywords

environmental policymanure managementpork productionQ18
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 23 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boland, M.A., Preckel, P.V., and Foster, K.A.. “Economic Analysis of Phosphorus Reducing Technologies in Pork Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(1998):468–82.Google Scholar
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meeraus, A.. GAMS: A User's Guide. Redwood City, CA: The Scientific Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Cromwell, G.L., Coffey, R.D., Parker, G.R., and Monegue, H.J.. “Phytase (NatuphosTM) Improves Phytate Phosphorus Utilization in Corn Soybean Meal for Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 71 (1993b):165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, G.L., Stahly, T.S., Coffey, R.D., Monegue, H.J., and Randolph, J.H.. “Efficacy of Phytase in Improving the Bioavailability of Phosphorus in Soybean Meal and Corn-Soybean Meal Diets for Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 71(1993a):1831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doster, D.H., Dobbins, C.L., Patrick, G.F., Davis, T.D., and Preckel, P.V.. Purdue PC-LP Farm Plan B-96 Crop Input Form. Lafayette, W., IN: Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, July 1997.Google Scholar
Fleming, R.A., Babcock, B.A., and Wang, E.. “Resource or Waste? The Economics of Swine Manure Storage and Management.” Review of Agricultural Economics 20(1998):96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, K.A., Hurt, C., and Hale, J.. Positioning Your Pork Operation for the 21 Century. Lafayette, W., IN: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, ID-210, 1995.Google Scholar
Jongbloed, A.W., Mroz, Z., and Kemme, P.A.. “The Effect of Supplementary Apergillus Niger Phytase in Diets for Pigs on Concentration and Apparent Digestibility of Dry Matter, Total Phosphorus, and Phytic Acid in Different Sections of the Alimentary Tract.” Journal of Animal Science 70(1992):1159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knabe, D., and O'Quinn, P.. “Use of Natuphos® Phytase in Swine Diets: Growth, Carcass and Meat Sensory Evaluation.” Paper presented at BASF Symposium, 1996 Carolina Swine Nutrition Conference, Raleigh, NC, Nov. 12, 1996.Google Scholar
Kornegay, E.T. “Natuphos® Phytase in Swine Diets: Digestibility, Bone and Carcass Characteristics.” Paper presented at BASF Symposium, 1996 Carolina Swine Nutrition Conference, Raleigh, NC, Nov. 12, 1996.Google Scholar
Lei, X.B., Khu, P.K., Miller, E.R., Yokoyama, M.T., and Ullrey, D.E.. “Supplementing Corn Soybean Meal Diets with Microbial Phytase Maximum Phytate Phosphorus Utilization by Weaning Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 71(1993):3368–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, R.E. “Manure Distribution Cost Analyzer.” Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 1998.Google Scholar
Massey, R.E., and Krishna, V.S.R.. “The Effect of Manure Application Costs on a Nebraska Feed-lot.” Paper presented at the 1995 Nebraska Economics & Business Association Annual Meeting, Wayne, NE, November 1995.Google Scholar
McKnight, W.E “Phytase Technical Specifications and Properties.” Paper presented at BASF Symposium, 1996 Carolina Swine Nutrition Conference, Raleigh, NC, Nov. 12, 1996.Google Scholar
Pratt, S., Jones, R., and Jones, C.A.. Livestock and the Environment: A National Pilot Project; Expanding the Focus. Stephenville, TX: Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research, Pub. No. PR-9603, 1997.Google Scholar
Purdue University Cooperative Extension. Swine Manure Management Planning. Lafayette, W., IN: Purdue Cooperative Extension Service Pub. No. ID-205, 1994.Google Scholar
Schmit, T.M., and Knoblauch, W.A.. “The Impact of Nutrient Loading Restrictions on Dairy Farm Profitability.” Journal of Dairy Science 78(1995):1267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnitkey, G.D., and Miranda, M.J.. “The Impact of Pollution Controls on Livestock-Crop Producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18(1993):25–36.Google Scholar
Simons, P.C.M.Verstegh, H.A.J., Jongbloed, A.W., Kemme, P.A., Slump, P., Bos, K.D., Wolters, M.G.E., Beudeker, R.F., and Verschoor, G.J.. “Improvement of P Availability by Microbial Phytase in Broilers and Pigs.” British Journal of Nutrition 64(1990):525–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sims, J.T., Simard, R.R., and Joern, B.C.. “Phosphorus Loss in Agricultural Drainage: Historical Perspective and Current Research.” Journal of Environmental Quality 27(1998):277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, A.L., Patterson, J.A., Adeola, O.L., Richert, B.T., Kelly, D.T., Nielson, J., Heber, A.J., and Kephart, K.B.. “Amino Acids and Mineral Manipulation in Pig Diets to Reduce Nitrogen and Odors in Pig Manure.” Purdue University Swine Day Report, West Lafayette, IN, 1998b.Google Scholar
Sutton, A.L., Patterson, J.A., Kelly, D.T., Nielson, J., Jones, D.D., Heber, A.J., Kephart, K.B., and Bogus, E.. “Addition of Carbohydrates to Low Crude Protein Pig Diets to Reduce Manure Nitrogen Excretion and Odors.” Purdue University Swine Day Report, West Lafayette, IN, 1998a.Google Scholar