Agronomy Journal Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Agron J 91:883-888 (1999)
© 1999 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Welsh, R.
Right arrow Articles by Hubbell, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Welsh, R.
Right arrow Articles by Hubbell, B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Welsh, R.
Right arrow Articles by Hubbell, B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Pollution
Right arrow Animal Waste
Agronomy Journal 91:883-888 (1999)
© 1999 American Society of Agronomy

FORUM

Contract Hog Production and Environmental Management in the Southern United States

Rick Welsha and Bryan Hubbellb

a Henry A. Wallace Inst. for Alternative Agriculture, 9200 Edmonston Rd., Ste. 117, Greenbelt, MD 20770-1551 USA
b Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, Durham, NC USA

hawiaa{at}access.digex.net

The 1980s and 1990s have witnessed substantial changes in the U.S. swine industry. The industry structure has shifted from relatively large numbers of hog (Sus scrofa) farm operators producing for open markets to fewer and larger farm operators raising hogs under contracts for intermediary firms or meatpackers. This shift has resulted in debates over whether the movement from independent to contract hog production has proven beneficial or detrimental for manure management and pollution control. To shed light on these debates, we surveyed by mail independent and contract hog producers in the southern USA and gathered data on the structure of their farms, their opinions on environmental issues in the hog industry, and their manure management strategies. The survey results indicate that contract producers maintain higher animal units per hectare and spread the hog manure over smaller areas than do independents. However, contract producers also realize they are pushing the adsorptive capacity of their farms and adopt ameliorating and monitoring technologies at higher rates than independent producers. We conclude that market structure is an important determinant of farm structure and environmental management regime, and that adoption of pollution control technologies is not equivalent to environmental performance.

Abbreviations: AEU, animal equivalent unit




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
M. R. McLaughlin, T. E. Fairbrother, and D. E. Rowe
Forage Yield and Nutrient Uptake of Warm-Season Annual Grasses in a Swine Effluent Spray Field
Agron. J., November 1, 2004; 96(6): 1516 - 1522.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
G. E. Brink, D. E. Rowe, K. R. Sistani, and A. Adeli
Bermudagrass Cultivar Response to Swine Effluent Application
Agron. J., May 1, 2003; 95(3): 597 - 601.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1999 by the American Society of Agronomy.