This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 1107–1110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Pig pandemic: Industrial hog farming in eastern Mexico

Alexandra G. Ponette-González a,∗ , Matthew Fry b
a
University of Texas at Austin, Department of Geography and the Environment, 1 University Station, Mailcode A3100, Austin, TX 78712, USA
b
Washington University in St. Louis, Department of Anthropology & Environmental Studies Program, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1114, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Industrial hog farming is an increasingly important land use in Mexico. Despite the known public health
Received 28 September 2009 and environmental risks associated with this factory-style model of production, hog concentrated ani-
Received in revised form 19 February 2010 mal feeding operations (CAFOs) remain unregulated. Legal standards regarding the establishment and
Accepted 28 February 2010
operation of swine CAFOs are lacking at municipal, regional, and federal levels. There are currently no
restrictions on the size, concentration, or geographic location of operations, and public notice to surround-
Keywords:
ing and downstream communities is generally not required. These lax environmental standards facilitate
Concentrated animal feeding operations
swine CAFO expansion in regions such as the Perote Valley, with potential for negative long-term impacts
(CAFOs)
Environmental standards
on public health, community well-being, water resources, ecosystems, and climate.
Globalization © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Hogs
Industrial agriculture
Mexico
Swine flu

Spotlight on Mexico’s swine industry
Swine concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
emerged in the early 1970s following a wave of technological
innovations in the fields of genetics (e.g., artificial insemination),
nutrition (e.g., improved feed quality), medicine (e.g., antibiotics),
and management (e.g., automated feeding systems). A major
hallmark of this livestock-raising system was the movement of
large numbers of animals from pastures and open-air lots into
confined spaces with no grass or vegetation for grazing, hence the
term “factory farm”. In the U.S., adoption of these technologies
paralleled significant structural changes in the hog industry (Thu,
2009). Between 1975 and 2008, the number of U.S. swine farms
declined by ∼90%, from ∼690,000 to ∼73,000, while the total hog
inventory grew from 50 to 66 million head (USDA NASS). This
concentration of hogs onto fewer farms, in turn, culminated in a
fivefold increase in average hog operation size (945 head in 1992
to 4616 head in 2004; Key and McBride, 2007). By 2008, 130 farms
with >50,000 head controlled 56% of the U.S. hog inventory (USDA
NASS).
Over the previous four decades, Mexico’s swine industry has
experienced similar changes, although on a relatively smaller
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 799 5877.
E-mail addresses: alexandra.ponette@gmail.com (A.G. Ponette-González),
mfry@artsci.wustl.edu (M. Fry).
scale. “Technologically-advanced” operations account for ∼57%,
while small commercial and traditional backyard systems repre-
sent 15% and 28% of national hog production, respectively (cited in
Batres-Marquez et al., 2006). In addition, industrial swine farming
is expanding into nontraditional areas. Historically concentrated
in the states of Sonora and Jalisco (Fig. 1), where 38% of Mex-
ico’s hogs were raised in 2008, hog CAFOs can now be found in
Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, and Veracruz. Many, but not all, opera-
tions are vertically integrated; they are owned by firms involved
in every stage of the production process, from hog-raising to the
packaging, sale, and distribution of pork products. The current
trend toward consolidation and vertical integration in the Mexican
hog sector (Batres-Marquez et al., 2006) is due in part to eco-
nomic crises, volatile feed grain prices, and competition with U.S.
imports (Hernández and Maya, 2002). These factors drive small and
medium-scale producers to exit the hog industry, thereby favor-
ing larger over smaller operations (USDA-ERS, 1999; Pérez-Espejo,
2006). By opening the door to joint ventures between U.S. and Mex-
ican companies, the North American Free Trade Agreement has also
contributed to the proliferation of large-scale hog farms in Mexico
(USDA-ERS, 1999).
The shift to industrial swine production has not been with-
out challenges. In May 2009, allegations that swine flu (H1N1)
originated on hog farms near La Gloria, Veracruz (Fig. 1), put the
spotlight on problems faced by Mexico’s industrializing hog sector,
primarily disease control, waste management, and environmental
pollution (Martínez, 2009). Most importantly, the H1N1 outbreak

0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.02.007
 Author's personal copy

1108 A.G. Ponette-González, M. Fry / Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 1107–1110

Fig. 1. (A) State-level hog production in Mexico, 2008. (B) Production districts in central Veracruz State, with 2008 live hog production per district reported in tons and as a
percentage of total state production. CAFOs are concentrated in the northern Perote Valley, Veracruz State, and in the adjoining state of Puebla. (C) 2008 live hog production
in Perote municipality, part of Coatepec District, reported in tons and as a percentage of total state production. Perote municipality represents 59% of Coatepec district’s
total live hog production and 17% of total state production. CAFOs and populated areas are highlighted. Data from Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera, SIAP
(http://www.siap.gob.mx/).

renewed debates over CAFO effects on human health and environ-
ment and drew attention to the rapid and uncontrolled growth
of CAFOs in Mexico, which is facilitated by weak environmental
governance. Here, we examine hog farming in the Perote Valley,
Veracruz, and argue that CAFO expansion must be curtailed via new
legislation and policies regulating the Mexican hog sector. Other-
wise, technological solutions developed to mitigate the negative
impacts of industrial hog farming on public health, communities,
ecosystems, water resources, and climate run the risk of being
unsuccessful.
The setting: Perote Valley, eastern Mexico
lagoons. In fiscal year 2008, GCM maintained 56,000 sows and
raised 950,000 hogs in the Perote Valley, making GCM Mexico’s
biggest hog producer (Smithfield Foods, 2009).
The highest concentration of swine farms is northwest of Per-
ote, the valley’s largest urban population center (Fig. 1). Here, 29
hog units are spatially clustered in an area ∼150 km2 . The nearest
operation is a mere 2 km distant from the city’s perimeter. Assum-
ing an average turnover rate of three hog generations per year
(range = 2.4–3.4) and six pigs per litter (range = 6–13; Spellman and
Whiting, 2007), at any given time Perote’s adjacent swine popu-
lation outnumbers its human population of 34,658 by more than
5:1.

Since a joint venture between Granjas Carroll de México (GCM)
and U.S.-based Smithfield Foods established the first hog farm
in the Perote Valley in 1994, residents of this region have wit-
nessed the dramatic expansion of intensive hog production in
their vicinity. Currently, 16 farms that specialize in farrow-to-
finish operations, where hogs are raised from birth and fattened
to slaughter weight, are scattered across the valley. The typical
farm consists of at least one “unit” for farrowing (i.e., birthing), one
for nursing, and/or another for finishing (i.e., fattening), with any
given unit comprising as many as 18 hog houses and two waste
Symptoms of a sick industry: health, community, and
environmental impacts
These figures are worrisome given the documented negative
impacts of swine CAFOs on public health, community well-being,
and the environment. Numerous papers and several reviews
already have been published on these topics (e.g., Thu and
Durrenberger, 1998; Mallin, 2000; Iowa State University and the
University of Iowa, 2002; Donham et al., 2007). Therefore, we
briefly summarize findings pertinent to the grievances voiced by
 Author's personal copy
A.G. Ponette-González, M. Fry / Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 1107–1110
Perote Valley residents in regards to swine CAFOs: increased inci-
dence of health problems among farm workers and neighboring
populations, water table decline, and water and air pollution from
nearby operations (Casanova and Díaz, 2009).
Various studies show that ammonia (NH3 ), hydrogen sulfide
(H2 S), bioaerosols, particulate matter, and nuisance odors emit-
ted from industrial hog facilities have myriad physical and mental
health effects on factory workers and neighboring communities
(for a recent review, see Donham et al., 2007). According to
one estimate, 25% of U.S. workers in concentrated animal feed-
ing operations suffer from chronic bronchitis (Merchant et al.,
2002). Although it can prove difficult to establish the health effects
of CAFOs on surrounding populations, Wilson and Serre (2007)
demonstrated that rural communities <2 km from clustered hog
operations could be exposed to ammonia levels up to 40 times
greater than average ambient concentrations. Furthermore, in a
study conducted in eastern North Carolina, households <3.2 km
from a 6000 head hog operation experienced elevated rates of
upper respiratory illness, gastrointestinal symptoms, and eye and
skin irritation compared with households near cattle operations
or no livestock operations at all (Wing and Wolf, 2000). While we
know of no such statistics for the Perote Valley, it is certainly pos-
sible that some of the health problems (e.g., respiratory) reported
by CAFO employees and inhabitants of the region are linked to hog
waste pollution.
Publicly available data on the contribution of Perote’s hog indus-
try to surface and groundwater pollution are also scarce (but see
Olguín et al., 2004), making it difficult to ascertain claims by the
National Water Commission and GCM that the Perote-Zalayeta
aquifer remains unaffected by hog production (Morales, 2009).
However, intensive hog operations generally require large amounts
of water for drinking, washing, and sanitizing. Olguín et al. (2004)
estimate that water use on Veracruz hog farms ranges from 18
to 26 l per pig unit (i.e., 100 kg live weight per day). This water
consumption rate is particularly problematic in semiarid regions,
such as Perote, where rainfall amounts to as little as 480 mm yr−1 .
Indeed, reports suggest that water levels in the Perote-Zalayeta
aquifer have declined precipitously—180 mm yr−1 —since the intro-
duction of swine farms in 1994 (Méndez and Timoteo, 2009).
Hog waste lagoons that rupture, leak, or overflow are also major
point sources of nutrients (e.g., N, P), pollutants, and pathogens
to rivers and estuaries (Mallin and Cahoon, 2003). Lagoon over-
flows following hurricanes can cause fish kills and algal blooms
downstream from hog-growing regions (Burkholder et al., 1997).
Hog waste is an equally pervasive non-point source of agricultural
pollution (Carpenter et al., 1998). When hog manure is applied to
fields, contaminants enter water bodies via surface and subsur-
face runoff and groundwater infiltration (Mallin and Cahoon, 2003).
Effects on air quality are yet another concern. Ammonia volatiliza-
tion from waste lagoons may result in enhanced N deposition to
surrounding ecosystems (Walker et al., 2000) and increase levels
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Aneja et al., 2008).
Paying to pollute
In Mexico, rapid and unregulated CAFO expansion continues
unabated due to weak environmental governance. As in the U.S.,
many industrial hog facilities are located near low-income commu-
nities with little social capital or political power (Wing and Wolf,
2000), which is needed to challenge powerful corporate interests
and thwart the spread of factory hog farms in rural areas. For exam-
ple, in the Perote Valley, complaints filed by residents of several
communities regarding hog pollution date back to at least 2004.
In response to complaints, government environmental authorities
1109
inspected GCM-run farms in 2006, and, although they reported sev-
eral issues of concern (Gaceta Parlamentaria, 2006), no formal fines
or penalties resulted. Residents near North Carolina’s hog farms
faced similar obstacles in the early 1980s when hog CAFOs under-
went major expansion there (Morgan, 1998). Unlike Perote, public
scrutiny eventually resulted in a moratorium on CAFO expansion
and new legislation.
Absent or weak legislation coupled with lack of enforcement
further hinder the ability of local, state, and federal Mexican author-
ities to stem pollution from CAFOs. Mexico currently has the
lowest environmental standards on intensive livestock produc-
tion in North America. Two federal standards on residual water
discharge exist in Mexico, however these standards are general
and do not contain technical provisions dealing specifically with
CAFOs. Nitrogen and phosphorous inputs, for instance, are not
regulated when manure and wastewater are utilized to fertilize
agricultural fields (Pérez-Espejo, 1999). One standard adopts a
“polluter-pays” approach to non-compliance, which reduces incen-
tives to lower water use and prevent pollution. For example, for
most hog producers, paying wastewater fines (US$600–40,000;
Speir et al., 2003) is far cheaper than the purchasing costs asso-
ciated with advanced wastewater treatment systems. There is
also little incentive to acquire biodigester equipment for methane
capture ($150,000–500,000; Lokey, 2009). This bodes poorly for
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects involving methane
destruction on hog farms in Mexico, which represent 56% of the
country’s CDM projects and 49% of Mexico’s projected emissions
reductions by 2012 (Lokey, 2009).
At the regional level, standards for construction and operating
permits and public notice vary, but there are currently no limits
on the size, geographic concentration, and location of hog CAFOs.
Setback distances between hog farms, human populations, water-
courses, or sensitive ecosystems are not required (Speir et al., 2003).
Oversight and enforcement of these weak regional standards are
ultimately expected to occur at the municipal level. As a result of
this mix and match of regulations, incentives abound for companies
to secure favorable operating conditions with little or no regard for
their potential impact on communities and the environment.
New technologies or new solutions?
The negative externalities arising from industrialized hog pro-
duction in Perote, Veracruz, are considerable, and, in our view,
outweigh economic benefits to the region. Industrialized hog-
raising facilities represent lost income for local hog producers and
offer relatively few income opportunities for residents. Further-
more, due to the highly mechanized nature of the industry, few
workers are needed and salaries paid are typically lower than aver-
age (Otto et al., 1998). Because they generate excessive waste,
swine CAFOs may incur economic losses through impacts on down-
stream fish populations and drinking water supply. Intensive hog
farming in headwater areas also undermines efforts to improve
regional water quantity and quality through Veracruz’s Payments
for Hydrological Environmental Services Program, in which mil-
lions of dollars already are invested.
For these reasons, it is urgent that new policies and legislation be
created to regulate the establishment and operation of hog CAFOs
in Mexico. First and foremost, more transparency regarding CAFO
development plans is essential. At a minimum, surrounding and
downstream communities should receive public notice in order to
facilitate oversight and compliance with existing environmental
standards. Information on potential impacts should also be made
publicly available. Second, we suggest that restrictions be placed
on the size, density, and location of farms within any given water-
 Author's personal copy
1110 A.G. Ponette-González, M. Fry / Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 1107–1110
shed to reduce the risks to water quality and public health. It is
imperative that setback distances from settlements, major water-
courses, and sensitive recharge areas be determined. Third, fines
for effluent discharge into waterways as well as for lagoon rup-
ture or leakage should be raised to reflect local and regional costs
of water pollution. However, higher fines may give hog produc-
ers incentive to avoid fines by spraying and applying hog waste to
fields. It is therefore important to control the timing and extent of
manure applications to fields and to levy fines for excessive use
of this method. Finally, government authorities should consider
using positive economic incentives (e.g., rebates) to encourage the
adoption of alternative waste management plans, and/or advanced
on-farm technologies for wastewater treatment, methane capture,
or reduced water use. Combined, such actions would likely have
long-term social, economic, and environmental benefits by reduc-
ing public exposure to contaminants, lowering water-treatment
costs, and decreasing nutrient and pollutant inputs to the envi-
ronment.
Acknowledgement
We thank Francesca D’Agrosa and an anonymous reviewer for
their valuable comments on this manuscript.
References
Aneja, V.P., Schlesinger, W.H., Erisman, J.W., 2008. Farming pollution. Nat. Geosci. 1,
409–411.
Batres-Marquez, S.P., Clemens, R., Jensen, H.H., 2006. The changing structure of pork
trade, production, and processing in Mexico. MATRIC Briefing Paper 06-MBP.
Burkholder, J.M., Mallin, M.A., Glasgow Jr., H.B., Larsen, L.M., McIver, M.R., Shank,
G.C., Deamer-Melia, N., Briley, D.S., Springer, J., Touchette, B.W., Hannon, E.K.,
1997. Impacts to a coastal river and estuary from rupture of a large swine waste
holding lagoon. J. Environ. Qual. 26, 1451–1466.
Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.L., Howarth, R.W., Sharpley, A.N., Smith, V.H.,
1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol.
Appl. 8, 559–568.
Casanova, F., Díaz, M.A. (dirs), 2009. Pueblos Unidos: swine flu ground zero in Mex-
ico. Chiapas Media Project. DVD.
Donham, K.J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J.L., Hodne, C., Thu, K.M., Thorne, P.S.,
2007. Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated
animal feeding operations. Environ. Health Persp. 115, 317–320.
Gaceta Parlamentaria, 2006. Año IX, número 1969, viernes 17 de marzo.
Hernández, M.M., Maya, A.C., 2002. Globalization and pork raising in Mexico: the
challenges of integration in the world market. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 10, 25–31.
Iowa State University and The University of Iowa Study Group, 2002. Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study. The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Key, N., McBride, W., 2007. The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production, ERR-52.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Lokey, E., 2009. The status and future of methane destruction projects in Mexico.
Renew. Energ. 34, 566–569.
Mallin, M.A., 2000. Impacts of industrial animal production on rivers and estuaries.
Am. Scientist 88, 26–37.
Mallin, M.A., Cahoon, L.B., 2003. Industrialized animal production — a major source
of nutrient and microbial pollution to aquatic ecosystems. Popul. Environ. 24,
369–385.
Martínez, R., 2009. La negra historia de Granjas Carroll. http://www.proceso.
com.mx/noticias articulo.php?articulo=68504.
Méndez, E., Timoteo, A., 2009. Documentó Conagua contaminación provocada por
Carroll; luego cedió a presiones y lo negó. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/
05/06/index.php?section=politica&article=016n1pol.
Merchant, J., Kline, J., Donham, K.J., Bundy, D.S., Hodne, C.J., 2002. Human health
effects. In: Iowa State University and The University of Iowa Study Group (Eds.),
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study. The University of
Iowa, Iowa City, pp. 121–145.
Morales, R., 2009. Monitorea Conagua manto acuífero de Perote. La Agencia Infor-
mativa IMAGEN del Golfo. http://www.imagendelgolfo.com.mx.
Morgan, R., 1998. Legal and political injustices of industrial swine production in
North Carolina. In: Thu, K.M., Durrenberger, E.P. (Eds.), Pigs, Profits, and Rural
Communities. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 138–144.
Olguín, E.J., Sánchez, G., Mercado, G., 2004. Cleaner production and environmen-
tally sound biotechnology for the prevention of upstream nutrient pollution
in the Mexican coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Ocean. Coast Manage. 47, 641–
670.
Otto, D., Orazem, P., Huffman, W., 1998. Community and Economic Impacts of the
Iowa Hog Industry Iowa’s Pork Industry – Dollars and Scents. Iowa State Uni-
versity, Ames, pp. 25–28.
Pérez-Espejo, R., 1999. Porcicultura intensiva y medio ambiente en México. World
Anim. Rev. 92, 15–24.
Pérez-Espejo, R., 2006. Granjas Porcina y Medio Ambiente: Contaminación del Agua
en La Piedad, Michoacán. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Instituto
de Investigaciones Económicas, Mexico, D.F.
Smithfield Foods, 2009. http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/our company/our family/
GranjasCarroll.aspx.
Speir, J., Bowden, M.A., Ervin, D., McElfish, J., Pérez-Espejo, R., 2003. Comparative
standards for intensive livestock operations in Canada, Mexico and the United
States. In: Presented at the Second North American Symposium on Assess-
ing the Environmental Effects of Trade of the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation, Mexico City, Mexico, March 25–26, www.cec.org/symposium/
papers.cfm?varlan=english.
Spellman, F.R., Whiting, N.E., 2007. Environmental Management of Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Thu, K.M., 2009. The centralization of food systems and political power. Cult. Agric.
31, 13–18.
Thu, K.M., Durrenberger, E.P. (Eds.), 1998. Pigs, Profits, and Rural Communities. State
University of New York Press, Albany.
USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service), 1999.
Mexico’s Pork Industry Structure Shifting to Large Operations in the 1990s.
Agricultural Outlook. Washington, DC.
USDA NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service).
http://www.nass.usda.gov/.
Walker, J.T., Aneja, V.P., Dickey, D.A., 2000. Atmospheric transport and wet deposi-
tion of ammonium in North Carolina. Atmos. Environ. 34, 3407–3418.
Wilson, S.M., Serre, M.L., 2007. Examination of atmospheric ammonia levels near
hog CAFOs, homes, and schools in Eastern North Carolina. Atmos. Environ. 41,
4977–4987.
Wing, S., Wolf, S., 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of
life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ. Health Persp. 108,
233–238.