Factory Farming and Environmental Policy

Shelby Fredrick, Environmental Studies Program, California State University

Monterey Bay

Figures 1 & 2. Hog and cattle confined feeding operations (Images from National Resource Defense
Council (2019) and Sentiment Media (n.d))

Introduction

Animal agricultural practices have undergone dramatic changes in the past several decades, with
small farms being substituted for factory farms often termed as concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFO) (Merkel, 2006). Pollution from CAFOs is a growing concern as the number
of operations continues to rise across the United States. CAFOs contribute to a major portion of
the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released into the atmosphere that worsen the effects of
global climate change. GHG emissions amplify the greenhouse effect – the exchange between
incoming and outgoing solar radiation in the atmosphere – by trapping outgoing radiation in
Earth’s atmosphere and warming the planet (Lallanila, 2018). Two-thirds of animal agricultural
emissions comes from ruminant livestock such as cows and hogs that use bacteria in their gut to
ferment their foods. This fermentation process produces methane which is then released by
ruminants through belching or flatulence (Friedman et al., 2018). Soil and water contamination
from agricultural runoff and leachates are other areas of concern among many stakeholders.
Nutrients and other various contaminants from untreated manure have been linked to health
complications in humans and other animals (Merkel, 2006).

Emissions from industrial livestock production will continue to contribute greatly to climate
change and its impacts if not mitigated properly and in a timely manner. Impacts from climate
change include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, food insecurity, heat stress on humans and
other animals, freshwater availability, waterborne illnesses, and poor air quality (NOAA, 2019).
There are many stakeholders involved in the issue of CAFO pollution and regulation, some of
which are farmers, environmentalists, and government agencies. Conflicting interests between
stakeholders have led to overall weak environmental regulation for CAFOs. To combat the issue
of global climate change and safeguard future generations of humans from hazardous
environmental byproducts, animal agriculture should undergo practical changes in waste
management and seek to reduce GHG emissions from livestock operations. This essay seeks to
analyze different policies to address CAFO pollution and emissions while considering the
perspectives of the involved stakeholders. This analysis will result in policy recommendations
that introduce effective and implementable solutions to the issue at hand.

Brief Historical Background

Farms were typically small to midsize when the United States was founded, and farm animals
had free range on farmers’ lands (Kutzer, 2020). Fencing in livestock animals was not common
practice until the late 1800s. More than a century later in the late 1920s the first CAFOs were
established when poultry became the first industrial-scale livestock animal. They remained as the
only industrialized livestock until the 1970s when pig and cattle farming began to shift to
industrial farming operations. Today, about 94% of all livestock raised for human consumption
are raised in CAFOs (Kutzer, 2020).

Scientific Background

Two of the primary livestock raised in CAFOs are hogs and cattle. Hogs in these facilities spend
their entire lives within building walls and they are generally fed a diet that consists of soybeans
and grain (Hristov et al., 2011). Typically, the waste product from the swine is washed out with
water, collected, and then stored in an anaerobic environment. This is usually either a pit below
the building floor, a deep basin, or a lagoon. After remaining under these conditions for some
time, the manure is then used as fertilizer on land (Hristov et al., 2011). Cattle lots are similar in
terms of confinement, although the cattle are generally corralled outdoors. These corrals or pens
have unpaved dirt on which cattle excretions accumulate over time. Manure that is not well
consolidated by hoof pressure or machinery is subject to being picked up by winds or cattle
movement, becoming then a source of air pollution around livestock feeding operations. These
confinement facilities can create highly offensive smells for nearby residents or people who drive
by. Many individuals claim that the odors associated with CAFOs have negative effects on their
quality of life and even their physical health (Von Essen et al., 2005). Ammonia emissions from
feeding operations contribute largely to air and water pollution. Ammonia is primarily present in
livestock operations from dietary nitrates in cattle waste and can lead to formation of aerosols,
water eutrophication, low visibility, and soil acidification. Aerosols and dust particles are
examples of fine particulate matter, which has been linked to many adverse health effects,
particularly respiratory complications (Hristov et al., 2011).

The World Health Organization monitors the effects of particulate matter on human health and
have found that particulate matter has more adverse health impacts than any other air pollutant,
even in low concentrations (World Health Organization, 2013). Fine particulate matter, such as
ammonia emissions from livestock production, are more volatile because upon inhalation it can
reach the peripheral areas of the bronchioles and inhibit gas exchange within the lungs (Hristov
et al., 2011). The health impacts strictly from livestock odor, while more difficult to accurately
measure, should not be overlooked either. A study conducted in North Carolina tested residents
living near hog farms used the profile of mood states psychological testing tool – which rates
distinct mood states through written or online forums – to study the moods of individuals living
near livestock operations. The results of this study indicated that individuals living near swine
facilities reported substantially more depression, anger, tension, fatigue, confusion, and less
verve than the control subjects; and that neighborhood exposure to hog odors could explain these
behavioral differences (Von Essen et al., 2005).

Animal operations in the U.S. also produce approximately 500 million tons of manure annually,
which is three times the quantity produced by the entire human population of the U.S. (Merkel,
2006). Livestock manure is not treated but is stored in lagoons or pits and then later spread onto
the land as fertilizer. Nutrients and other contaminants in the fertilizer can leach into
groundwater or runoff into water bodies, compromising the health of water supplies for humans
and other animals. Decomposing manure can release toxic chemicals such as ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide which has been shown to have detrimental health effects on humans –
particularly agricultural workers and individuals living near facilities– such as bronchitis,
respiratory disease, declined lung function, sinusitis, and even premature death (Merkel, 2006).

Livestock operations contribute to a large fraction of the greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions
released into the atmosphere. In 2018 in the United States, 10% of total GHG emissions come
from the agricultural sector and 42% of those emissions come from animal agriculture (EPA,
n.d). These emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, exacerbating global climate change
(Phetteplace et al., 2001). Methane is the primary GHG produced by livestock operations
followed by carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is notorious for its heat trapping
potential; however, methane’s global warming potential is about 56 times greater than that of
carbon dioxide over a 20-year period (IPCC, n.d). Cattle are ruminant animals, which means they
have multi-chambered stomachs. The rumen is the first stomach in multi-chamber animals, and
houses a variety of ciliate protozoa, anaerobic bacteria and archaea, and anaerobic fungi.
Methane is produced in these microbial communities by methanogenic archaea – which convert
hydrogen and carbon dioxide produced by ciliate protozoa, anaerobic fungi and bacteria – into
methane (Tapio et al., 2017). After methane is produced by these microbial communities during
digestion, it is released into the atmosphere through livestock’s belching and flatulence, which
exacerbates the greenhouse effect (Phetteplace et al., 2001).

Policy
Federal policies to regulate CAFOs in the United States are often ineffective or non-existent. For
example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) to regulate discharges through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
However, farm owners’ exemptions from public record disclosures has led to the EPA not
knowing where all the CAFOs are and therefore has led to an inability to monitor all existing
livestock operations (Gustin, 2016). In 2013, environmental groups used the Freedom of
Information Act to request information from the EPA on the status of the agency's CAFO
monitoring program. Following this request, a federal appeals court ruled that the EPA violated
CAFO owners’ privacy. This led to many exemptions from public records disclosures, which has
prevented the EPA from properly regulating all CAFOs. In 2003, the EPA ruled that all CAFOs
must apply for permits to discharge unless they could prove there was no potential to pollute,
which was followed by arguments from the livestock industry that the CWA only authorized the
EPA to require permits if there was a real discharge, not a potential one.

In 2008, the EPA attempted another rule that required CAFOs to apply for permits if they
discharge pollutants “or propose to discharge”. This ruling was met by opposition from both
environmentalists and the livestock industry. Environmentalists claimed that the rule gave too
much discretion to CAFO operators to decide whether they pollute or not. The livestock industry
again argued that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate potential or proposed
discharges, only actual discharges. The EPA’s “reporting rule” -- which required CAFOs to
submit basic information to acquire discharge permits -- is ultimately what led to the livestock
industry claiming that their privacy had been violated. Livestock operators claim that their
privacy is especially violated because many of them live on the farms with their families.
However, environmental groups have argued that because CAFOs pose major environmental
risks, they should not be able to operate in the shadows; and that the choice to live where you
conduct business should not keep the public from receiving basic information about the air and
water quality that affects their lives (Gustin, 2016).

Like the Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act (CAA), is another piece of federal environmental
legislation that fails to regulate CAFOs. The CAA is intended to prevent and monitor air
pollution at the federal level (Merkel, 2006). However, air pollutants from CAFOs have not been
regulated under the CAA or any federal legislation. Rather, the EPA has negotiated a different
policy option with the livestock industry called an administrative consent agreement (ACO)
which upon signing, gives CAFO operators immunity from any past or future CAA violations.
Oftentimes regulations are weak enough that paying a citation for polluting is cheaper than
obtaining a regulatory permit. Ultimately, lobbying from CAFO proponents and EPA funding
cutbacks have made government regulation of emissions and pollution from animal facilities
weak (Merkel, 2006).

Stakeholder Perspectives
Stakeholders involved in this issue often have conflicting values which makes enacting
environmental regulations on CAFOs an often-arduous task. Table 1 represents different types of
stakeholders involved in animal feeding operation issues, as well as specific examples for each
stakeholder type. Stakeholder value typologies are values that each stakeholder might assign to
nature. Table 1 tells us what each stakeholder's values might contribute to animal agriculture
issues and what their primary concerns might be.

Table 1. Examples of stakeholders and stakeholder values

Stakeholder group Representative Stakeholder Value What does the What are the
and representatives Examples Typology stakeholder concerns of the
value stakeholder?
contribute?

Environmentalists Food and Water Scientific/ecologistic -Advocate for -Prioritizing economics

Watch   tighter over environment
Moralistic environmental -Human health
Center for   regulation around concerns
Biological   agriculture -animals treated
Diversity -Raise awareness unethically
-Public health
policies
-Animal rights

Government agencies Environmental Utilitarian or -Legislation for -Public health

Protection Agency moralistic environmental concerns
(EPA) regulations -Conservation
ecologistic-scientific -Academic -Creating legislation
knowledge that will pass

Farmers/associations National Utilitarian -Opposition to -Regulations create

Cattlemen's Beef agricultural financial burdens or
Association regulation lifestyle changes
-Greatest output -Economic
National Pork for least input  concerns/remaining
Producers -Information on competitive
Council the alleged health
benefits on
consuming beef

Farmer & Farmer Association Perspective

Many farmers and farmer’s associations have a major stake in the livestock production industry.
Groups that represent these stakeholders include the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC)
and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). These organization’s values regarding
the environment are primarily utilitarian, meaning they often benefit from the exploitation or
practical use of the land and its resources (Kellert, 1996). The NPPC advocates for sensible
federal regulations and upholds export market opportunities for the pork industry. Ultimately, the
NPPC fights to protect the livelihoods of pork producers (National Pork Producers Council, n.d).
Similarly, the NCBA fights for the rights of cattle producers in Congress, in courts, and at the
White House. This is exemplified in the NCBA’s battle against the Green New Deal proposed by
U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). NCBA
is actively demanding to know how regulations under this plan might affect cattlemen and
farmers economically and in their personal practices (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,
n.d). They do not demand to know, however, the potential positive environmental impacts of the
Green New Deal as an environmentalist might. In this battle, the NCBA is representing the
utilitarian values of the beef industry by working to protect the practical use of the land without
expressing much concern for the environment, explicitly or not.

Environmentalist Perspective

Environmentalist groups such as Food and Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity
often hold moralistic or ecologistic values toward the environment, and therefore fight for
environmental protection through advocating for stricter environmental regulations (Food and
Water Watch, 2017). These environmental groups hold concerns for the health of fragile
ecosystems impacted by livestock pollution, as well as its impacts on human health. In March of
2017, the Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, and 35 other environmental
advocacy groups filed a petition against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that asks
the agency to revise the regulations of the Clean Water Act for CAFOs. They claim that current
regulations fail to stop pollution from CAFOs due to loopholes that allow CAFO operators to
avert proper permitting. The EPA holds a broad view of what is defined as agricultural
stormwater, which is exempted from regulation. This has led to the disintegration of the rule that
defines CAFOs as point sources of pollution. The petition requests that this loophole be
eliminated. It also asks that the EPA improve permits by mandating pollution monitoring and
reporting, limiting waste disposal to safeguard water quality, and by regulating a broader range
of pollutants from CAFOs such as pharmaceuticals and heavy metals that are often found in
industrial livestock runoff (Food and Water Watch, 2017).

Government Perspective

Despite their mission statement which claims to “protect human health and the environment”
(EPA, n.d), the government’s economic values often lead to the EPA’s failure to regulate factory
farms (Gustin, 2016). While the EPA is intended to regulate pollution and safeguard the
environment, the current administration is reluctant to regulate agriculture due to governmental
priorities to stimulate the economy in the short-term. In recent decades, the EPA has exempted
poultry operations from reporting leaks of hazardous pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide. They have also exempted large livestock operations from reporting pollutant leaks that
should technically be regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) also referred to as the Superfund Law (Gustin,
2016). In this manner, the EPA under the Trump administration represents mostly utilitarian
values toward nature, which has led to weak environmental regulation in the agricultural sector.

Policy Options
There are various potential policy options that could target emissions and pollution from animal
agriculture. However, this paper will focus on analyzing just three policy options by evaluating
each option based on a set of criteria for success in reducing the environmental impacts of animal
agriculture. The first policy option is for the federal government to implement stricter regulations
under existing federal legislation. The second option is for farmers to utilize anaerobic digesters
to help break down manure and reduce methane emissions. And the third policy option is to
continue research on diet changes for livestock that would reduce methane production, and then
to mandate those diet changes. The set of criteria that each policy should meet to be effective in
reducing agricultural impacts are as follows: reduction of GHG emissions, reduction of water
pollution, reduction of risk to human health, and financial and logistical feasibility. Table 2
represents the rankings of each policy based on the set of criteria.

Table 2. Evaluation of policy alternatives

Criteria Policy option 1: Policy Option 2: Policy Option 3:

Use existing Anaerobic Diet changes for

legislation to digesters livestock that
regulate CAFOs reduce methane
production

1. Reduce GHG +++ +++ +++

emissions

2. Reduce water +++ +++ ---

pollution

3. Human health +/- +/- +/-

4. Financially & --- +/- +/-

logistically feasible

Key: +++ (strong) +/- (medium) --- (weak)

Discussion

Policy Option 1: Federal legislation

Major federal environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Water
Act (CWA) largely fail to regulate the emissions and contaminants from animal operations,
including CAFOs. Non-compliance to existing, minimal regulation is widespread and
negotiations have made it cheaper for farm owners to pay a fine for polluting than to comply
with environmental codes (Merkel, 2006). Setting minimum federal standard limits for GHG
emissions, water contaminants, and other harmful pollutants – while using EPA authority under
the CWA and CAA to require farmers to monitor their pollution and submit compliance – would
help reduce GHG emissions, reduce water pollution, and therefore reduce risk to human health.
However, due to the nature of conflict in political landscapes, this policy option might have too
long of a roll out before any potential change is seen. Current EPA budget and staffing cuts make
this policy less financially feasible, and lobbying and partisan conflicts in government (Merkel,
2006) make this policy less logistically feasible to mandate.

Policy Option 2: Anaerobic digesters

Anaerobic digestion, also known as biogas recovery, is a process where in the case of CAFOs,
animal waste is broken down by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen and converted into
biogas, which can be a potential energy source for farmers This can dramatically reduce
methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide emissions (Shih et al., 2008) ordinarily emitted by the
breakdown of manure in open lagoons. This component would help in meeting the first criteria
listed in table 1: Reduce GHG emissions. This policy option meets criteria two (reduce water
pollution) because the process of anaerobic digestion removes harmful contaminants such as
phosphorus and other heavy metals from waste products (Green Coast, 2018). The reduction in
GHG emissions and water contamination means that the risk to human health is minimized,
thereby meeting the third criteria of the policy evaluation.

Anaerobic digesters are initially expensive, and it is only recommended that farms with more
than 300 livestock animals invest in a digester to be economically feasible. However, the biogas
created is a steady source of renewable energy that would cut energy costs for farm owners
(Green Coast, 2018), and they can earn a percentage of sales from the electricity produced by the
digester (Wozniacka, 2020). In California, farmers are partnering with developers in renewable
energy such as California Bioenergy LLC (CalBio), who apply for public funding for anaerobic
digesters and operate the equipment for the farmers. These kinds of partnerships and public
funding mean no major financial investment for farmers and less operating responsibility. While
digester projects are often reliant on large sums of public funding and there is debate whether
this is how public funds should be spent, CalBio claims that the public investment on digesters is
worth the significant benefits of GHG emissions reduction and improved water quality
(Wozniacka, 2020). Even still, widescale anaerobic digester implementation is not very
financially feasible without more funding to programs such as CalBio and AgSTAR – which also
facilitates the implementation of biogas recovery systems in the U.S. (EPA, n.d).

Policy Option 3: Change in livestock diets

Livestock diet solutions to reduce the production of methane in the gut has great potential to
reduce GHG emissions from livestock. One study found that by incorporating just two percent of
seaweed into a cow’s diet, methane production was reduced by 98%. The most effective seaweed
is a red seaweed called Asparagopsis armata. This red seaweed contains bromoform, which
prevents the enzymes in the gut of ruminant livestock from producing methane during digestion
(Grist, 2019). This dramatic reduction in methane production satisfies the first criteria of
reducing GHG emissions; however, it does not target water contamination so criteria two is not
met by this policy. Reduction in risk to human health is only moderate because while emissions
are cut, there is still potential for exposure to water contaminants and other air pollutants from
manure. Seaweed cultivation does not require freshwater, land, or fertilizer to grow (Grist, 2019)
so it can be a financially feasible option, however the type of seaweed useful for cattle is not
domestically available yet (Grist, 2019), making this policy option less logistically feasible.

Recommendation

Based on the evaluation of the three policies and the four criteria, I recommend a combination of
policy options two and three. It is my recommendation that programs such as AgSTAR and
CalBio receive more funding and support to help establish anaerobic digesters at livestock
facilities around the country. I also recommend that continued research be done into the effects
of diet changes in reducing methane production. I recommend a combination of the two policies
because they complement each other by performing strongly where the other falters. While diet
changes may not directly reduce water contamination, manure sequestration by anaerobic
digesters does. While anaerobic digesters only trap methane emissions from manure, not animal
belching and flatulence, diet changes could eliminate livestock methane emissions at the source.
Accumulating the resources (e.g. large quantities of seaweed) needed for policy three could be
logistically challenging; however, seaweed grows at a relatively fast rate and production does not
require valuable resources such as the land and water that grain does (Grist, 2019). These factors
could offset the initial investment of seaweed production. Technological and financial
investment of public funds would be required for policy two to be successful, but the quick
return on investment from reduced GHG emissions, improved water quality, and minimized odor
from manure could significantly beneficial and be cause for public support. Money saved on
electricity costs, money earned from energy generation, and assistance with operating the
digesters might be incentive enough for many farmers to also support this option.

Stricter government regulation under the CWA and CAA has the potential to reduce emissions,
eliminate sources of contamination and requires less technological investment. However, the
process of advocating for an improved EPA, amending the legislation, and implementing
regulations and monitoring is too lengthy when quick action is needed to reduce GHG emissions
and curb climate change. Not only this, but many CAFO operators are opposed to federal
regulations and the costs required to comply with environmental regulations. Therefore, the
combination of policy options two and three might have greater potential to dramatically reduce
emissions and eliminate other sources of pollution from CAFOs. Anaerobic digestors have a
more personal incentive for farmers and puts them ahead of emission reduction targets, so they
might not have to comply with state laws or be strictly regulated by the federal government
(Wozniacka, 2020). Seaweeds’ quick growth rate and minimal resources needed to harvest,
implies that this policy could be implemented in a timely manner. Public support for this policy
option might be greater than federal regulation because of its relative simplicity and dramatic
impacts on reducing methane emissions. One of the only more effective options would be for
humans to discontinue the overconsumption of meat and dairy products, so that CAFOs need not
even exist. Until humans can make that change, public funding should continue to be allocated
toward these two policy options to make them more logistically and financially feasible to
implement.

Conclusion

Anaerobic digesters and livestock diet changes as combined policy options have the potential to
drastically reduce GHG emissions, prevent water pollution, and ground contamination. In this
way, these policy options may safeguard future generations of humans by eliminating hazardous
environmental byproducts from CAFOs and reducing the impacts of global climate change that
threaten the health and safety of humanity. While American culture continues to revolve around
heavy meat and dairy consumption, we must find an effective strategy to reduce GHG emissions
and water contamination. Anaerobic digesters and methane reducing animal diets can be
sustainable alternatives to current CAFO practices for protecting environmental and human
health.

Literature Cited

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AgSTAR. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar-

accomplishments

Environmental Protection Agency (n.d). Returning EPA to its core mission. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/home/returning-epa-its-core-mission

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Food & Water Watch. (2017). Dozens of advocacy groups challenge EPA on factory farm pollution.
Retrieved from https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/dozens-advocacy-groups-challenge-epa-
factory-farm-pollution

Friedman, L., Pierre-Louis, K., Sengupta, S. (2018). The meat question, by the numbers. The New York
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html

Green Coast. (2018). Facts about anaerobic digesters: what are the pros and cons? Retrieved from
https://greencoast.org/facts-about-anaerobic-digesters/
Gustin, G. (2016, November 28). EPA’s failure to regulate factory farm pollution draws new scrutiny.
Insideclimate News. Retrieved from https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112016/epa-regulate-factory-
farm-emissions-pollution

Hristov, A. N. (2011). Contribution of ammonia emitted from livestock to atmospheric fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) in the United States. Journal of dairy science, 94(6), 3130-3136. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-
3681

Kellert, Stephen. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Kutzer, K. (2020). Student project: factory farming: overview. Retrieved from

https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/c.php?g=452979&p=3094147

Lallanila, M. (2018). What is the greenhouse effect? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/37743-

greenhouse-effect.html

Merkel, M.M. (2006, September 11). EPA and state failures to regulate CAFOs under federal
environmental laws. Outline of Remarks Prepared for the National Commission on Industrial Farm
Animal Production Meeting. [PDF]. Available from
http://environmentalintegrity.org/pdf/publications/EPA_State_Failures_Regulate_CAFO.pdf

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. (n.d). Policy. Retrieved from https://www.ncba.org/policy.aspx

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2019). Climate Change Impacts. Retrieved from:
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate-education-resources/climate-change-
impacts

National Pork Producers Council. (n.d). What does NPPC do for pork producers? Retrieved from
https://nppc.org/

Phetteplace, H. W., Johnson, D. E., & Seidl, A. F. (2001). Greenhouse gas emissions from simulated beef
and dairy livestock systems in the United States. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 60(1-3), 99-102.
Retrieved from doi: 10.1023/A:1012657230589

Shih, J., Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., & Siikamäki, J. (2008). Air Emissions of Ammonia and Methane from
Livestock Operations: Valuation and Policy Options. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 58(9), 1117-1129. Available from doi: 10.3155/1047-3289.58.9.1117

Tapio, I., Snelling, T. J., Strozzi, F., & Wallace, R. J. (2017). The ruminal microbiome associated with
methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 8(1), 7. doi:
10.1186/s40104-017-0141-0

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d). Global warming potentials (IPCC
second assessment report). Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-
reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/greenhouse-gas-data-unfccc/global-warming-potentials
Von Essen, S. G., & Auvermann, B. W. (2005). Health effects from breathing air near CAFOs for feeder
cattle or hogs. Journal of Agromedicine, 10(4), 55-64. doi: 10.1300/J096v10n04_08

Walrath, R. (2019, November 3). The answer to climate-killing cow farts may come from the sea. Grist.
Available from https://grist.org/article/the-answer-to-climate-killing-cow-farts-may-come-from-the-sea/

World Health Organization. (2013). Health effects of particulate matter. World Health Organization
regional office for Europe. [PDF]. Retrieved from
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulate-matter-final-
Eng.pdf

Wozniacka, G. (2020, April 24). Are dairy digesters the renewable energy answer or a ‘false solution’ to
climate change? Civil Eats. Available from https://civileats.com/2020/04/24/are-dairy-digesters-the-
renewable-energy-answer-or-a-false-solution-to-climate-change/?
utm_source=Verified+CE+list&utm_campaign=ee107f5377-
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_7_3_2018_8_13_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aae5e4a315-
ee107f5377-294315301