Pollution and Industrial
Poultry Production in America

Cover photos, from left: David Harp, Robert Bennett/AGStock Images, David Harp
Chesapeake Bay Bridge: Michael Lutzky/The Washington Post/Getty Images

July 27, 2011

Chicken, once a distant third to beef and pork, is
now the most popular meat in the United States.
The average American eats almost 84 poundsof chicken a year, more than twice the amounteaten in 1970.
The American poultry industry has matched thischange in appetite with an exponential increasein production. In 2007, for instance, 8.9 billion
chickens were raised and sold as food in the
United States, a jump of more than 1,400 percent
since 1950. At the same time, chicken farms
have mushroomed in size; by 2006, a typicaloperation produced an average of 605,000 birds
in vast buildings of 20,000 square feet or more.
Meanwhile, the number of individual farms raisingchickens for food has plummeted by 98 percent
in just over half a century. This transformationof the industry has been accompanied by anenvironmental challenge: In many cases, theselarge poultry farms pose major pollution problems
for regional communities.
The Pew Environment Group’s new report,“Big Chicken: Pollution and Industrial Poultry
Production in America,” describes how theindustrialization and consolidation of the poultry
business have concentrated production in what
is now known as the Broiler Belt. In this area,
which extends from eastern Texas through the

Joshua S. Reichert
Managing Director
Pew Environment Group

www.PewEnvironment.org

southeastern United States and north to Maryland
and Delaware, chickens outnumber people by asmuch as 400 to 1.
The waste produced by these concentrated
poultry operations raises serious concerns about
treatment and disposal, particularly along theshores of the largest estuary system in the UnitedStates, the Chesapeake Bay. The 523 million
chickens produced each year in just Maryland
and Delaware generate roughly 42 million cubicfeet of chicken waste—enough to fill the domeof the U.S. Capitol about 50 times, or almost
once a week.
Traditionally, farmers have managed this manureby spreading it on fields. But the combinationof industrial-level production and the diminishingamount of cropland in these two states has
resulted in more manure than crops can use, andthe excess flows untreated into the streams andrivers that feed into the Chesapeake.
“Big Chicken” examines 50 years of data to takea fresh look at industrial poultry production andto make policy recommendations for managing
chicken waste to mitigate its toll on our land andwater. For more information about this serious
problem, I encourage you to visit us at www.
PewEnvironment.org/BigChicken.

The Pew Campaign to Reform Industrial Animal Agriculture
Joshua S. Reichert, Managing Director, Pew Environment Group
Karen Steuer, Director, Government Relations, Pew Environment Group
Velma Smith, Officer, Government Relations, Pew Environment Group
Robert Martin, Senior Officer, Reforming Industrial Animal Agriculture
Julie Janovsky, Manager, Reforming Industrial Animal Agriculture
Micaela Fischer, Senior Associate, Reforming Industrial Animal Agriculture

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our many Pew Environment Group colleagues who contributed to this report:
Adam Enatsky, Carol Hutchinson, Elizabeth Jennings, Alicia LaPorte, Jonathan Meyers, Jessica O’Neal,
Mallory Shelter, Amanda Teuscher, Jerry Tyson and Liz Visser. We also thank Juan Thomassie for graphics
and Albert Berces for report design. We owe special thanks to our colleague Pete Janhunen and to
Jamie Shor for their assistance with communications.

Source Information
Broiler numbers and acreage were taken fromthe U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of
Agriculture, a five-year survey of American farms.
Data were gathered from the most recent Census
of Agriculture (2007) and from 2002, 1997, 1992,
1987, 1982 and 1978, for each state and for each
Maryland and Delaware county. For a historicalperspective, Pew also gathered data at the statelevel from the 1950 Census of Agriculture. For eachstate and county, data were gathered from eachof the censuses under the following categories:
Broilers and Other Meat-Type Chickens Sold;
Broiler Operations With Sales; and Total Cropland,
which includes cropland harvested, croplandused only for pasture or grazing, cropland idle orused for cover crops or soil improvement but notharvested and not pastured or grazed, croplandon which all crops failed or were abandoned, andcropland in cultivated summer fallow.
In some instances, USDA does not disclose thenumber of operations with sales at the state and/or county level so as not to identify individual
farms within an area. This absence of data does
not signify that the state or county is not apotential home to broilers or broiler operations.
States or counties in which these data were notdisclosed are not represented on the relevantmaps, however.
State population data cited in the report are takenfrom the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census.

The Pew Environment Group
The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nongovernmentalorganization that works globally to establish pragmatic, science-based policies that protect our oceans,preserve our wildlands and promote clean energy.

© The Pew Environment Group | Washington, D.C. | www.PewEnvironment.org
July 2011

BIG CHICKEN
Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

CONTENTS
Overview
More Chickens, Fewer Farms
A Frenzy of Consolidation
Diminishing Options for Contract Growers
Bigger and Faster
Geographic Consolidation
Big Chicken, Big Waste
The Chesapeake Bay—Front and Center
Conclusion and Recommendations
Endnotes
Glossary

01
03
04
05
06
08
09
15
22
24
28

01
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Overview
In nuggets, wings or strips, destined for the grillor cooked in the store, chicken is an American
favorite. According to the American Meat Institute,chicken has become the No. 1 source of meat
consumed by Americans, surpassing beef andpork by a significant margin.1
This shift in demand has been accompanied
by a major change in how and where chickens
are produced in the United States. As poultry
consumption has grown, the number ofbusinesses that raise the animals has dropped
significantly, and the nature and geography ofthose operations have also changed.

In just over 50 years, the number of chickens
produced annually in the United States has
increased by more than 1,400 percent while
the number of farms producing those birds has
dropped by 98 percent. In 2011, a historicallysmall number of operations, controlled by evenfewer meat processing companies, known as
integrators, dominates the production of Americanchicken. The size of individual operations hasgrown just as dramatically, and now the typicalbroiler chicken—a chicken raised for its meat—comes from a facility that produces more than
600,000 birds a year. These large-scale operations
occupy a limited geographic area known as the

U.S. Per Capita Meat Consumption
100
90

Chicken80

POUNDS

70

Beef

60
50

Pork

40
30
20

Turkey

10
0
1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

Source: USDA Economic Research Center, Food Availability Data System, Feb. 1, 2010.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm#mtpcc.

www.PewEnvironment.org

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

02
Big Chicken

Photo: David Harp

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America» Broiler chickens on the Delmarva Peninsula often spend their short lives in cavernous buildings.

American Broiler Belt. In many instances, theypose difficult environmental challenges for nearby
and downstream communities.
Industrial poultry operations generally disposeof broiler waste by spreading it on open fields
or cropland. However, many of them have little
cropland associated with their facilities. As aresult, an increasing number of farms andcounties have more manure than can be usedby local crops, and pollution problems occur
when excess nutrients from manure are washed
off the land and into local streams, rivers andother bodies of water. Nowhere has this problem
of concentrated poultry production and manureassociated pollution become more evident thanin the Chesapeake Bay region.
The poultry industry has evolved into a
streamlined system of industrial mass production.
But the requirements for responsible waste
treatment and disposal have not kept pace,
and today’s 600,000-bird production factories
continue to be regulated like the small family
farms they no longer resemble. Unless theinadequate policies and practices that govern
industrial poultry production are reformed,
environmental challenges will grow as broiler
production continues to rise.
The Pew Campaign to Reform Industrial Animal
Agriculture recommends the following changes:• Caps on total animal density.
• Shared financial and legal responsibility forproper waste management between farmers
and corporate integrators.
• Monitoring and regulation of waste transported
off concentrated animal feeding operation(CAFO) sites.
• A requirement that all medium and large CAFOs
obtain Clean Water Act permits.
Industrial poultry production presents a host ofconcerns not addressed in this report. These
include the overuse of antibiotics, pollution
caused by egg production, air quality problems
and the relationship between large corporations
and contract farmers. The Pew Charitable Trusts
will examine some of these issues in future reports.

The Pew Environment Group03
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

More
Chicken,Fewer Farms
During the early part of the 20th century, chickens
were raised on small farms throughout the UnitedStates, and their meat was principally a byproductof the egg industry. However, production of broilers—
young chickens raised specifically for meat—nearly
tripled between 1940 and 1945,2 in part because
poultry, unlike beef, pork, veal and lamb, was notrationed during World War II. The availability ofchicken encouraged consumption, as did researchand technology developments that allowed theemerging broiler industry to expand rapidly.3

Photo: Jane Thomas

As the industry took hold, independent feedmills, hatcheries, producers and butchering

plants traded with one another in a systemof open, often local markets. Farmers raisingchickens for meat would sell to those who offered
the best prices. In 1950, more than 1.6 million
farms spread across the country were growing
chickens for American consumers. By 2007, fully
98 percent of those chicken farms were gone,
despite the fact that Americans were consuming
even more chicken—more than 85 pounds perperson per year, according to the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (USDA).4 Over that same period,
broiler sales jumped by 8 billion birds, or morethan 1,400 percent.

» These poultry houses are a short distance from the Chester River on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

www.PewEnvironment.org

04
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

A FRENZYOF CONSOLIDATIONAs commercial opportunities for chicken meatsales expanded, the structure of the industry
began to change. By the early 1940s, a few feeddealers who wanted to broaden the market began
extending credit to farmers raising chickens andthen accepting payment when the birds were soldto processing plants. These types of arrangements
marked the beginning of a consolidation process
in which a single entity gained control overvarious aspects of poultry production. In the earlyyears of this “vertical integration,” feed store
owners held a level of control at the front end ofpoultry production. A short time later, the meat
processing companies took control further along
the production chain. Today known as integrators,
such companies now control virtually all aspectsof the business, from breeding of chicks, throughprocessing and retailing, and often transporting awide range of poultry products to grocery storesand restaurants.
In the past, as now, an integrator would attempt
to ensure a supply of chickens sufficient to keep
larger and larger processing plants running close
to or at capacity. But rather than raising thechickens, integrators contracted with individual
growers to manage their flocks.

Photo: David Harp

By the mid-1950s, the broiler industry had
transformed from an open-market system to
one that would come to define industrial animal
production: extensive vertical integration, based
almost exclusively on contracts with farmers
for raising the birds.5 According to the USDA,
95 percent of broiler producers in 1950 wereindependent; five years later, the number of
independent growers had plummeted, accounting
for only 10 percent of broiler production. At thatpoint, 88 percent of broilers were produced
under contract, and 2 percent were produced incompany-owned broiler facilities.6
In pursuit of further efficiencies and profits,
integrators engaged in a frenzy of consolidation
throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Many of the
independent poultry-producing businesses closed
or were bought out by the integrators. Theselarger entities could coordinate production
at each stage to avoid either overproduction
or shortages and could purchase medicine,
equipment and other supplies at bulk discounts.

» Chickens are processed for market
at a Delaware plant.

The Pew Environment Group

05
Big Chicken

Photo: David Harp

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America» Newly hatched chickens don’t yet fill a Delmarva poultry house. As they grow, they will fill it wall to wall.

Diminishing
for Contract
Options Growers
Today, integrators generally breed their own
chickens, not only to achieve the desired levelof quality and characteristics that allow rapid
weight gain with minimal feed, but also to
produce birds of a uniform size that can be
slaughtered, packaged and processed by machinerather than individually cut and prepared. The
integrator chooses when to deliver chicks to acontract grower and when to collect grown birds
for delivery to a processing facility.
Contracts between the integrators and individual
growers typically specify that the integrators provide
the chicks, the feed and veterinary services as wellas other management direction. The growers provide
the labor and chicken houses built to integrators’
specifications and generally are responsible forwater and fuel for heating, management of manure,and disposal of other waste, including dead birds.7

www.PewEnvironment.org

Under common contract terms, the grower
does not own or sell the birds and is not paid
on a straightforward measure of weight andquality. Instead, the grower is paid for services
and must follow the integrator’s directions as
stipulated in the contract and provided by the
integrator’s field staff. Although the grower
may hold a mortgage on poultry houses in
the range of a quarter million dollars or more,
the contract frequently lasts only as long as
it takes to raise a flock of chickens—in somecases, a matter of weeks.8 Numerous integratorscompete for broiler sales in the national retailfood and restaurant market, but one firm often
will dominate a growing region or territory.
Growers rarely receive multiple competitive
contract offers.9

06
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

BIGGER AND FASTER
In just over 50 years, the number of chickens
produced annually in the United States has
increased by more than 8 billion birds—a 1,400
percent increase—while the number of broiler
farms has plummeted from more than 1.6 million
in 1950 to just over 27,000 in 2007, a 98 percent

decline. These seemingly conflicting statistics
result from the shifting of poultry production
from traditional farms to an industrialized systemof processing plants served by massive growing
operations that produce not only more chickens,but bigger chickens at a faster rate.

U.S. Broiler Farms: What They Produce
1950

1978

1987

1997

2007

Farms10

1,636,705

31,74327,64527,73727,091Chickens

581,038,865

3,062,154,490

4,361,975,630

7,366,526,456

8,914,828,122

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture

Numbers of Broiler Chickens Per State—1950 and 2007

1950

Unknown

under 200,000,000

2007

200,000,000 to 399,999,999

400,000,000 to 599,999,999

600,000,000 to 799,999,999

800,000,000 and over

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture

The Pew Environment Group07
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Percentage of Broiler Operations by Size—1987 and 2007
90%
80%

1987

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

Operations with:

10%

500,000 broilers or more

0%300,000 to 499,999

DelawareArkansas

MarylandGeorgia90%

200,000 to 299,999
100,000 to 199,999

80%

60,000 to 99,999

2007

70%
60%
50%

» The size ofindividual broiler
operations has
soared in recent
decades in the
United States.

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

DelawareArkansas

MarylandToday, the number of birds raised by a single
industrial poultry operation is staggering.
According to a USDA report, the typical broiler
in 2006 came from an operation that produced
about 605,000 birds a year, compared with anoperation producing 300,000 birds a year in 1987.
The same report noted that whereas a typicalchicken house built in the 1960s was about
12,750 square feet, newer houses average morethan 20,000 square feet, and large houses built
in 2005 and 2006 were larger still—up to 36,000
square feet. Increasingly, individual growers
rely on multiple houses, and many carry large

www.PewEnvironment.org

Georgia

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture

mortgages to pay for the initial investment andto finance upgrades required by new contracts.11
With the development of these large-scaleconcentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
barnyards have virtually disappeared, and manyof today’s broiler operations have little land
associated with them, other than land for the
chicken houses and access roads. A 2009 USDA
report noted that one-third of modern broiler
operations have no associated cropland.12 This
lack of associated cropland can have a profound
impact on pollution and waste management.

08
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Geographic
Consolidation
As vertical integration of broiler production
was developing in the early 1950s, the poultry
industry began to form a distinctive geographic
footprint. Development of poultry regions was
driven by a desire to limit the transportation
costs for chicks, feed and live broilers13 and,according to some agricultural historians, by acultural acceptance of the evolving contracting
practices in some areas.14 By the late 20th century,
most broiler farms were under contract to a single
nearby processor.15 Today, virtually all commercial
broiler production is carried out under contract,
generally within 25 to 35 miles of processing
and feed mills.16
The Delmarva Peninsula on the Eastern Shore of
the Chesapeake Bay, with its proximity to large
markets in New York and Philadelphia, became
one of the first major poultry centers.17 During
World War II, the poultry facilities in this sliceof Delaware, Maryland and Virginia focused on
feeding the troops, so the industry began togrow and consolidate elsewhere. In the Southernstates, cotton-weary land, a ready supply of lowwage workers, a history of sharecropping and alandscape of small, privately owned parcels ofland made the region prime for contract broiler
production.18 Thus developed the Broiler Belt,an area extending from eastern Texas throughArkansas, Alabama, Georgia and much of theSoutheast and north to Maryland and Delaware.
Today, the Broiler Belt has areas where chickens
far outnumber people. Delaware, for example,
produces roughly 270 chickens per person;
Mississippi, 275; and Arkansas, 400.

State

2007 Broilers(sales in head)

Percent of
U.S. Total

Georgia

1,398,912,031

16%

Arkansas

1,171,556,369

13%

Alabama

1,016,230,625

11%

Mississippi

823,427,574

9%North Carolina

781,416,896

9%

Texas

616,299,999

7%

Kentucky

309,769,263

3%Maryland

296,373,113

3%

California

280,512,754

3%Missouri279,937,641

3%

Virginia

249,184,367

3%Delaware

246,098,878

3%Oklahoma

242,228,335

3%South Carolina

236,209,584

3%Tennessee

206,132,684

2%

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture

The Pew Environment Group09
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

BIG

CHICKEN,

BIG

WASTE

The geographic consolidation of the broilerindustry, which is more pronounced in certain
regions of the Broiler Belt, such as northern
Georgia, northern Alabama, eastern Marylandand southern Delaware, has advantages for meat
processors but also carries a serious downside.
As the USDA noted in a 2003 report, “Evergrowing numbers of animals per farm and peracre have increased the risk of water pollution.”19

As broiler production increases, so does the
production of the industry’s major waste product:chicken manure. Broiler litter—the mix of manureand bedding taken out of broiler houses—must
be disposed of. Although possible uses for thelitter, from biofuel to cattle feed,20 have been
explored over the years, the majority is still
handled as it was decades ago: It is spread on
farm fields to enrich soil and fertilize crops.21

The pollution problem has its roots in a simple
combination of biology, geography and arithmetic.

High in nutrients needed by crops, particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus, broiler litter can be

Photo: Robert Bennett

Continued on Page 11» Chicken manure is piled in a field in Sussex County, Del., where it will be spread as fertilizer for crops.

www.PewEnvironment.org

10
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Nutrients inthe Water: Too Much of a Good Thing
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus cycle naturally
through the environment in various forms and—at theright levels in the right places—help sustain plant andanimal life. They can cause serious degradation of water
resources, however, when excessive amounts enter lakes,
rivers, estuaries and other bodies of water.
Excess nutrients in water set off a chain reaction called
eutrophication that starts with acceleration of algae growthand can lead to serious loss of aquatic life, beach closures,shellfish contamination and dramatic seasonal dead zones.
The algae may be noxious or even toxic, and its presenceon the water surface can block sunlight and lead to loss ofimportant underwater grasses that provide habitat for fish
and other organisms. The algae’s decomposition, in turn,uses up oxygen needed to sustain aquatic life.
Dissolved oxygen is one important measure of the health ofa water body. If oxygen levels drop too low, fish, crabs andother living things will be affected, experiencing growthor reproductive impairments or even death. The problems
with low dissolved oxygen can be most pronounced indeeper waters and often occur during summer months,
at the same time that shallow waters become too warm
for some species. The amount of nutrients reaching U.S.
waters has increased dramatically over the past 50 years.27

OxygenIllustration: Berces Design

ExcessNutrients

Low
Oxygen» Excess nutrients in chicken manure can run off farm fields into the water, leading toalgae growth, oxygen depletion and loss of aquatic life.

The Pew Environment Group11

Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Continued From Page 9

an effective fertilizer. But when overused, poorly
managed or inappropriately timed, the nutrientsin poultry manure can cause significant water
quality problems.
All livestock manure contains nitrogen andphosphorus, but poultry manure often has
a higher nutrient content than other types ofmanure, and those nutrients may not be present
in the proportions needed by crops. Broiler litter
frequently contains phosphorus and nitrogen insimilar ratios,22 but many crops require far lessphosphorus than nitrogen. When farmers follow
long-standing practices and apply broiler litter
based on a crop’s nitrogen needs, they overapply phosphorus.
For many years, agricultural experts suggested thatsuch overapplication was not a serious problem,
because phosphorus moves into water mainly
by being attached to sediment. Effective erosion
control practices, they reasoned, could keep excess
phosphorus on the land. After years of studying
the movement of nutrients in the environment,
however, scientists now know that a buildup ofexcess phosphorus in the soil can eventually resultin additional phosphorus release into water.23

Depending upon soil and other environmental
factors, some practices employed to keep
nutrients from running off the land in rainstorms
simply route those pollutants into groundwaterand from there to receiving streams.24 Research
indicates that this may be the case in certain
coastal areas, including the Chesapeake Bay
region, where nearly half of the nitrogen flowing
into the bay from nontidal streams comesfrom groundwater, and where well monitoringshows increasing levels of nitrates in deeper
groundwater.25 In 2011, the National Academyof Sciences noted that soil phosphorus on theDelmarva Peninsula is an order of magnitude
greater than what crops need.26 This “legacy
phosphorus” associated with broiler litter
application, warned the report authors, can mean
trouble for the bay for years to come.

Out of Balance
Compared with commercial fertilizers, nutrientrich litter can be a less expensive alternative for
fertilizing cropland or turf, but its management
has proven to be particularly challenging. As
a result, broiler litter in the Broiler Belt is a

Number of Broiler Chickens Per Acre of Cropland—1950 and 2007

1950

Unknown

2007

under 25

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture

www.PewEnvironment.org

25 to 49

50 to 99

100 to 199

200 and over

12
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

product in serious oversupply, in many instances
becoming a liability rather than an asset.28 Still,individual growers—not the large, well-capitalized
integrators—remain primarily responsible formanaging the litter and its disposal.29
Broiler and manure production on the Delmarva
Peninsula is a case in point. Although the Delmarva
is no longer the country’s top broiler producing
region, Delmarva growers raise large numbers ofbroilers and produce massive amounts of waste
in smaller areas with limited cropland than dotheir southern counterparts.

Density of Broiler Chickens Per
Acre of Cropland on Delmarva, 2007

MD

NJ
DE

The density of chickens in Maryland and Delaware
is strikingly high. In 2009, the two states produced
523.4 million broilers—6 percent of the entire
country’s production on less than 0.5 percent
of its landmass.30 Assuming that 1,000 broilers
produce roughly 81 cubic feet of litter,31 the 2009broiler population for the two states generated
over 42 million cubic feet of litter—enough to fill
the U.S. Capitol dome nearly 50 times.32
Looking more specifically at cropland, wheremuch of the manure will go, the disparity appears
even greater. Delaware is on the extreme endof this scale with a reported 423,773 acresof cropland and 246.1 million broilers sold in
2007, or 581 chickens per acre of cropland. By
comparison, Arkansas, with 8.4 million acres ofcropland, produced 1.2 billion broilers in 2007,or about 140 chickens per acre of cropland.

Unintended Consequences
Rough calculations of per-acre manure volume
are not necessarily indicative of pollution issues,
but agricultural experts have warned of a growing
problem of excess manure.
In 2000, the USDA published an extensive
analysis of trends in the generation of livestock
manure, determining levels of “excess manure”
nutrients at the farm and county levels.33 This
analysis covered the years from 1982 to 1997,
and while it has not been updated with the mostrecent agricultural census data, even at that timeit raised serious concerns about the unintended
consequences of agricultural consolidation.

VA
Under 50
50 to 124
125 to 249
250 to 499
over 500

The USDA report showed that small and mediumsize livestock farms were being “replaced bylarge operations at a steady rate,” that livestock
populations had become “more spatiallyconcentrated in high-production areas” andthat poultry had the highest densities compared

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture

The Pew Environment Group13

Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Excess Nutrients: Where They Come From

7%
15%

Poultry

5%
16%

Feedlot Beef

60%

18%

Swine

61%

18%

Dairy

NitrogenSource: USDA

with all livestock for all years. The analysis also
showed a “dramatic increase” in poultry density
between 1982 and 1997. More importantly,
the report linked the spatial concentration to“increased problems with the use and disposalof animal waste” and found that such problems
had become more widespread with the shift to
fewer but larger livestock operations.
With access to data on farm animal numbers,
information on manure characteristics and more
specific information on types of cropland, the
USDA researchers analyzed the nutrient needsof local crops. That approach allowed them toestimate the ability of farmland to effectively
utilize the manure nutrients. They found thatan increasing number of farms and counties
had more manure than could be used by local
crops, and of the 1.5 billion pounds of excess
nutrients found on farms, more than half wereassociated with poultry.34
As the USDA pointed out, poultry manure generally
contains two to four times more nutrients than is
contained in manure of other livestock types,35
and 40 percent of U.S. broiler production occurs
on farms without any crop acreage.36 In fact, thewww.PewEnvironment.org

Phosphorus

USDA said, the poultry sector, which accounts for
only 15 percent of the total number of confined
animal operations, produces the most total
nutrients of any livestock sector.37

Poultry and Pollution
Nutrients are found not only in broiler litter andother livestock manure, but also in commercial
fertilizers, municipal wastewater discharges,
storm water and even runoff from forested land.
As a result, the question of how much pollution
is directly tied to animal manure, let alone broiler
litter, is not easy to answer. Although it is clearthat no one to date has a definitive estimate ofpoultry’s share of pollution, it is also clear thatmajor poultry-producing regions show evidenceof water quality impacts.
In Georgia, for example, University of Georgia
researchers found in 2002 that 13 counties in thestate had excess phosphorus in the soil. Of those,
10 were areas where poultry was concentrated.38
Less than a decade earlier, only four counties had
been identified as having excess phosphorus. A
1999 study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

14
Big Chicken

Photo: David Harp

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America» Chicken houses and soybean crops share space on a farm on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

found high levels of phosphorus in Georgia’s WestFork Little River, again in areas with intensive
poultry production.39
Another area where broiler growth andconcentration have been accompanied by waterpollution problems lies in northwestern Arkansas
and eastern Oklahoma. In the Eucha and Spavinaw
watersheds within this poultry-rich region, nearly
44 million chickens were produced in roughly
2,450 chicken houses in 2010.40 Here as elsewhere,
the waste disposal practice has been for broiler
litter to be spread on cropland. Over time, this led
to major problems with algal blooms, which in turndegraded drinking water supplies. When voluntarymeasures to curb out-of-control nutrient pollution
failed, Tulsa and its Metropolitan Utility Authority,
which supplies drinking water to Tulsa and morethan a dozen other cities, went to court for relief.41

With strong evidence of water problems linked
to overapplication of poultry manure on area
cropland, the city and the utility were able to reacha settlement that altered common practices.42
Today, new requirements for nutrient management
planning have been put in place in the watershed,including lower limits on the amount ofphosphorus that may be applied to the land,along with a court-supervised program of soil
testing and monitoring as well as tracking ofmanure shipments. Because excess nutrients had
already built up in the environment, however,water quality has not improved to the extent
anticipated.43 In fact, in 2005, the Oklahoma
attorney general sued 14 Arkansas poultry
companies seeking compensation for damage
to the Illinois River.44

The Pew Environment Group15

Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

The Chesapeake Bay

FRONT and CENTER

On the eastern edge of the Broiler Belt, problems
with overapplication of manure and the buildup
of pollutants in the environment have come tothe fore in a tense public debate.
Seven states, the District of Columbia and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) areworking together to restore the Chesapeake
Bay with a precedent-setting but controversial“pollution diet” for the nation’s largest estuary.
The livestock industry, including the poultry
industry, is arguing against a recent uptick in
the pace of cleanup efforts and the involvementof federal regulators in protecting the bay.

Despite a prolonged and wide-ranging cleanup
effort, nutrient reduction goals have not beenreached, and the bay still shows the effects
of excess nutrients. An analysis of biologicalmonitoring data indicates that more than half ofthe streams in the watershed are rated as “poor”
or “very poor,” bereft of snails, insects and otherlow-level organisms critical to a healthy aquatic

Photo: Paul Souders/PhotoLibraryMore than two decades ago, scientists recognizedthat dramatic reductions in the discharge ofnutrients and sediment would be required tostem the loss of Chesapeake Bay resources
such as rockfish, blue crabs and oysters and toreverse a trend of increasingly large seasonaldead zones. Scientists studying the bay also
determined the dissolved oxygen levels required
to sustain its living resources, with specific goals
set for different areas, such as fish spawning andnursery locations, open water and shellfish areas.

» Annapolis, Md., is a popular gateway to the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary.

www.PewEnvironment.org

16
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America» The red color in the map below indicates the portions of the Chesapeake Bay withlow dissolved oxygen levels in summertime.

Dissolved Oxygen (June - September, 2008 - 2010)
Percent of Goal Achieved (3 Year Analysis)

Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership

C&D Canal

Baltimore#

Upper Chester River

Washington

Upper Potomac
River

Anacostia
River Upper#
PatuxentRiver

Upper Choptank
River

Western
BranchUpper Nanticoke River

MiddlePatuxentRiver# Salisbury

Wicomico River
Upper Pocomoke River

Upper Rappahannock River

Middle Pocomoke River
Upper Mattaponi
River
Lower
MattaponiRiver

Upper Pamunkey River

Richmond#

Percent of Goal Achieved

Lower
PamunkeyRiver

Upper James RiverAll Uses, Summer Period
0% – 50%
51% – 75%
76% – 90%91% – 99%

Appomattox River

100% (PASS)
No Data

#

0
0

12.5

25
12.5

Western
BranchElizabeth River Southern

50 Kilometers
25

Created by HW, 03/09/11

50 MilesEastern
BranchElizabeth
Branch River
Elizabeth River

Lynnhaven River
Nor folk
Lafayette River
Source: U.S. Geological Survey#

UTM Zone 18N, NAD 83

The Pew Environment Group17

Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

environment.45 In 2009, the percentage of tidal
tributaries and bay segments meeting dissolved
oxygen goals was under 12 percent.46 (The redcolor in the map on the opposite page indicates the
portions of the Chesapeake Bay with low dissolved
oxygen levels in summertime from 2008 to 2010.)
Agriculture is by no means solely responsible forall of the bay’s problems, but despite years ofvoluntary and taxpayer-subsidized programs tocurb farm-generated pollution, agriculture remains
a significant source of the bay’s nutrients.47 In
May 2010, the EPA reported that an estimated
19 percent of excess nitrogen and 26 percent
of excess phosphorus were directly linked toanimal manure in the watershed.48 Because there
is no comprehensive water quality monitoring
for runoff from manured cropland, the specificestimates, generated by a sophisticated andwidely reviewed bay model, are subject tosome debate, but one conclusion remains clear:
Agriculture, particularly animal agriculture, will
have to do more to protect the bay.
According to a new USDA report, the vast
majority of bay cropland fertilized with manure
is not being managed properly to reduce theloss of manure nutrients to the environment.49
This report, assessing the impact of agriculturalconservation practices, found that roughly 38
percent of cropland in the watershed is fertilizedwith manure and that those acres have, on
average, twice the nitrogen runoff of acres not
being fertilized with manure. The same report also
found that phosphorus losses were particularlyhigh for cropland receiving manure.
An analysis of nutrient trends in the bay by the
USGS shows modest yearly declines in nutrientsoverall but increasing levels of nutrients along
two river segments, including the Choptank on
Maryland’s Eastern Shore.50 This river, which runs
through the Delmarva poultry region, showsincreasing levels of nitrogen, which may be

www.PewEnvironment.org

attributable in part to the leaching of manurepollutants into groundwater that feeds the river.
Such a buildup in the groundwater could deliverpollutants to rivers and streams for years tocome, as occurred in other areas, such as the
Suwannee River Basin of Florida.51

A Lagging Regulatory Response
In theory, large livestock facilities have been
regulated under the Clean Water Act for more thana quarter of a century. In practice, the regulatory
impact of the law on the broiler industry and its
enormous waste generation has been minimal at
best, even in sensitive watersheds such as the
Chesapeake Bay.
The modern-day Clean Water Act is widely
credited with helping achieve dramatic reductions
in water pollution across the country. Although
the 1972 law’s ambitious goals of “zero discharge”
and “fishable, swimmable waters” have not beenachieved in many areas, the quality of U.S. waters
has improved dramatically from the days before
the law, when fish kills were commonplace andan oil slick floating on Ohio’s Cuyahoga Riverburst into flames.52
Many environmental policy analysts say the
workhorse of the Clean Water Act has been the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit program, the section of the lawthat requires permitting or licensing of discrete or“point sources” of pollution.53 Those permits, which
may include specific limits on the concentrationof pollutants associated with a facility, frequently
compel the use of certain cleanup or control
technologies and foster application of whatamounts to good housekeeping practices toprevent violations of permit terms.
There is also broad agreement, echoed forcefully
in a recent report from federal and state water
regulators,54 that the law’s approach to diffuse or

18
Big Chicken

Photo: David Harp

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America» Populations of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay
have suffered from pollution related to sediments
and nutrients flowing into the bay.

“non-point” pollution sources, such as croplandrunoff, has been far less effective. In many bodies
of water, uncontrolled non-point pollution now
dominates pollutant flows and remains theprimary obstacle to cleanup.
Although the law designates CAFOs as point
sources, it also specifically exempts “agricultural
stormwater” from the permitting requirements. In
essence, then, large livestock operations havebeen given a unique and arguably ineffective dual
regulatory status: regulated as point sources for
waste in broiler houses and storage areas, but
treated differently when that same waste runs
off the cropland where it is applied.
In the mid-1970s, the EPA, in keeping with theapproach used for other pollution sources, issued
industry-specific regulations for CAFOs. These
rules addressed leaks and spills from the storageof liquid manures in production areas but did not
address management of manure used to fertilize
crops. They also specifically excluded poultry
facilities, such as most broiler operations, thatmanage and store manure in a dry state.

In 2003, the EPA issued regulations to cover
dry-manure broiler operations and move toward
addressing the issues of land application ofmanures. Finalized in 2008, the regulations
called for permitting of large dry-manure broiler
operations and other CAFOs and, for the firsttime, set requirements for land application ofmanure generated by those facilities. Growers,
but not integrators, were required to address
management of animal production areas, properly
handle the storage of both wet and dry manure
and, again for the first time, develop and follow
nutrient management plans to control the loss ofnitrogen and phosphorus from the fields where
manure was applied. The latter requirement
applied only to land “under the control” of thepermit holder, and manure that left the facility
was not subject to the permit requirements.
Implementation of the rule has been less thanseamless. The EPA has no nationwide inventoryof CAFO operations,55 and court rulings havecomplicated efforts to ensure that all operations
likely to create water quality problems are, likemany other businesses managing waste, coveredby permits.56 The National Chicken Council, severalof the large integrators and others have resisted
efforts to require Clean Water Act permits or place
new restrictions on land application of manure.
Today, it is unclear just how many facilities will
actually be subject to enforceable permits.

Multiple Strategies, Modest Results
Over the years, a variety of other efforts outside
the Clean Water Act have been put in place todeal with pollution from poultry operations andother CAFOs.
Virginia, for example, passed legislation in 1999
requiring poultry operations with more than
20,000 broilers to acquire special state permits
and implement nutrient management plans for

The Pew Environment Group19

Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

manure application.57 Those plans were to be
based on crop needs for phosphorus rather than
the traditional and more permissive approach of
nitrogen-based application rates. Virginia’s broiler
litter transport incentive program now subsidizes
the movement of modest amounts of broiler litter
outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed.58
In Maryland, a broader state transport assistanceprogram covers a variety of livestock manures andprovides special assistance to poultry growers
in four lower Eastern Shore counties on theDelmarva.59 Funding for the Maryland program
derives in part from general appropriations andcontributions from integrator companies.60

In 1997, after an outbreak of the toxic marineorganism Pfiesteria killed thousands of fish andsickened several watermen and others,62 Maryland
took action to address the excess nutrients thatappeared to be a catalyst for the costly episode.
The Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act
requires nearly all manure users to develop plans
for the appropriate use of nutrients.63 Recent
reports from the state indicate a high level ofcompliance with the initial submittal requirements
but noncompliance related to updating andimplementing the plans.64 Delaware followed suitwith plan requirements in 1999, phasing in the
mandate for plans from 2002 to 2007.65
In these bay states and elsewhere, many
individual farmers have also taken voluntaryaction to control pollution. Many rely on federal

Photo: David Harp

Delaware, likewise, uses federal and statefunding along with money from some integrators
to move manure out of certain areas that lacksufficient cropland. In 2009, the program, whichcost approximately $850,000, subsidized therelocation of roughly 65,000 tons of manurefrom operations that could not use the waste
as fertilizer.61 About 15 percent of the program
costs were picked up by the poultry integrators.

» Chickens are caught to be placed in cages for transport to a processing facility in Delaware.

www.PewEnvironment.org

20
Big Chicken

Photo: David Harp

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America» Chicken litter is removed from a poultry house. Most chicken litter is used as fertilizer on cropland.

funding to build manure storage sheds, plant
cover crops, retire highly erodible lands andcreate vegetative buffers between fertilized
fields and water courses. All of those efforts,
without question, have made useful incremental
improvements, but they have not achieved thedramatic reductions in nutrients long hoped for.
As the report of the EPA’s state and federal
Nutrient Innovations Task Group noted in 2009,
livestock agricultural practices remain one of thelargest sources of nutrient pollution nationwide.66

The Pew Environment Group21
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

Time for a New Approach
The problems of manure management are not
new—they have evolved alongside a growing
industry that now occupies pockets of thenation’s Broiler Belt with intense production.
Associated problems have been seen for decades
in areas from the Illinois River to the Chesapeake
Bay, and during that time, policymakers havelooked for practical solutions but often met harshresistance from the poultry industry. The resultof that tension is chicken production that has
outpaced environmental management.

In our view, these striking deficiencies point
to the fundamental and unresolved issue: toomuch manure in too small an area, a problem
that appears to be growing across the Broiler
Belt. It will only worsen if USDA projections for
growth in poultry production are accurate andif regulatory controls do not catch up. The Pew
Environment Group believes that the time to meetthat challenge is now, and the place to begin
is an area where there is a deep understandingof water resource threats, a long-standing
commitment to restoration, and a history ofmulti-agency cooperation. The Chesapeake Bay
should be priority number one.

Photo: David Harp

For the Chesapeake, in particular, the USDA’s
recent assessment report may be the mosttelling. Despite a multitude of programs and morethan two decades of education, the USDA findsthat essentially every acre of farmland in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed fertilized with animal
manure requires better management.67 According

to the report, manure was applied to crops at
the wrong time on roughly 84 percent of acreage.
The rate of manure application, according to
the USDA, was inappropriate on approximately
70 percent of the acreage for nitrogen and 81
percent for phosphorus.

» A pond near a chicken operation on Maryland’s Eastern Shore is covered with algae, a problem
in many areas because of excess nutrients.
www.PewEnvironment.org

22
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Today’s poultry industry has evolved into asystem of streamlined manufacturing, processing
and sales, allowing for mass production. This
concentrated production has led to a chronic andgrowing problem of excess manure that, if left
unsolved, will continue to cause deteriorationof the Chesapeake Bay and its surrounding
communities. Some approaches, including
subsidizing transport of broiler litter, haveaddressed the symptoms of these problems but
do not offer a permanent solution.
Poultry processors can no longer hide behind
the image of the family farm when it comesto regulatory action. A new vision is needed to
guide industrial animal agriculture in reforming
its practices, respecting the environment andoverhauling its relationship with contract
growers. To prevent further degradation of
the Chesapeake Bay watershed and to ensure
progress on restoring the bay’s ecosystem, thePew Campaign to Reform Industrial Animal
Agriculture recommends the following:1

There must be a balance between waste
generated by CAFOs and the amount of croplandavailable for its disposal. The pollution issues
raised by regional concentration clearly
indicate that, in areas of extreme density(such as the Delmarva Peninsula), caps on
total animal density should be part of thesolution in the absence of new programs to
manage the manure in ways other than simple
land application.

2

Industrialanimal agriculture, particularly the
broiler industry on the Delmarva Peninsula,should bear its share of the responsibility
for nutrient pollution reduction, assuming
the financial and legal obligations of proper
waste management. To achieve this, growers
and integrators should assume responsibility
for adhering to carefully crafted and effective
Clean Water Act permits.

The Pew Environment Group23
Big Chicken

Photo: David Harp

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

3The EPA and the states should develop apermit program for management of manuretransported of f CAFO sites. The permit
program should include careful coordinationand monitoring across watersheds when morethan one state is involved.

4T o prevent unintended and unmanaged pollutant
discharges from CAFOs, the bay states should
require all large and medium-size operations
to obtain Clean Water Act permits. States in
the Chesapeake watershed and the EPA should
proceed with the existing cleanup agreement
and timeline. Congress should continue to fully
fund the cleanup program and reject efforts tostymie the process.

www.PewEnvironment.org

Finally, Pew urges that regulations applied toindustrial animal agriculture in the Chesapeake
Bay region be considered for application
to this industry nationwide. By leveling theregulatory playing field, public officials can put
a stop to the industry’s often-repeated threat
to move operations to states with minimum
pollution safeguards. These threats serve only
to undermine efforts to protect water supplies
and rural communities, and to force elected
officials and policymakers to establish “race tothe bottom” standards that benefit no one.

24
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

ENDNOTES	The American Meat Institute fact sheet. 2009. U.S. Meat and Poultry Production & Consumption: An Overview. www.meatami.com/ht/a/
GetDocumentAction/i/48781.

1	All statistics on number of farm operations, poultry inventory and broiler sales, unless otherwise noted, were gathered and derived from the National
Agricultural Statistics Service’s Census of Agriculture from various years. www.agcensus.usda.gov.

2	MMartinez, S.W. April 1999. Vertical Coordination in the Pork and Broiler Industries: Implications for Pork and Chicken Products. Agricultural Economic
Report No. 777. USDA Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer777/aer777.pdf.

3	MacDonald, J.M. 2008. The Economic Organization of U.S. Broiler Production. Economic Information Bulletin No. 38. USDA Economic Research Service.
www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB38/EIB38.pdf.

4	Boyd, W., and M.J. Watts. 1997. “Agro-Industrial Just-in-Time: The chicken industry and postwar American capitalism.” In Globalising Food: Agrarian
questions and global restructuring. D. Goodman and M. Watts (eds.). http://tiny.cc/62qxn.

5	Martinez. Vertical Coordination.

6	Martinez, S.W. 2002. Vertical Coordination of Marketing Systems: Lessons From the Poultry, Egg and Pork Industries. USDA Economic Research Service.
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer807/aer807.pdf.
For additional discussion of poultry contracting practices, see, for example:
MacDonald, J., et al. November 2004. Contracts, Markets and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Agricultural Commodities. Agricultural
Economic Report No. 837. USDA Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer837/aer837.pdf.
Ollinger, M., et al. 2005. Structural Change in the Meat, Poultry, Dairy and Grain Processing Industries. Economic Research Report No. 3. USDA Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err3/err3.pdf.
Dicks, M.R. 2010. “Concentration and Competition in the Poultry Industry.” Presented at the Department of Justice and USDA joint public workshop
on competition and regulatory issues in agriculture, Normal, Ala. www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/016/AGW-15685-a.pdf.

7	Hamilton, N.D. 2002. “Broiler Contracting in the United States—A Current Contract Analysis Addressing Legal Issues and Grower Concerns.” 7 Drake
Journal of Agricultural Law 43. www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/hamilton_broiler.pdf. And MacDonald, J.M., and W.D. McBride. 2009.
The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture Scale, Efficiency and Risks. Economic Information Bulletin No. 43. USDA Economic Research Service.
www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB43/EIB43.pdf.

8	Key, N., and J.M. MacDonald. 2008. “Local Monopsony Power in the Market for Broilers? Evidence From a Farm Survey.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6073/2/sp08ke30.pdf.

9	Numbers indicate broiler chickens sold and farms with broiler chicken sales, taken from the USDA Census of Agriculture through 2007. Census information: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_001_001.pdf.

10	MacDonald, J.M. 2008. The Economic Organization of U.S. Broiler Production. Economic Information Bulletin No. 38. USDA Economic Research Service.
www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB38/EIB38.pdf.

11	MacDonald, J.M., and W.D. McBride. 2009. The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture Scale, Efficiency and Risks. Economic Information Bulletin
No. 43. USDA Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB43/EIB43.pdf.

12	Boyd, W. 2001. “Making Meat: Science, Technology and American Poultry Production.” Technology and Culture 42(4). http://birdflubook.com/resources/
boyd631.pdf.

13	See, for example:

14		 Striffler, S. 2005. Chicken: The Dangerous Transformation of America’s Favorite Food. Yale University Press.
		 Gisolfi, M.R. 2006. “From Crop Lien to Contract Farming: The Roots of Agribusiness in the American South, 1929-1939.” Agricultural History 80(2).
www.jstor.org/stable/3744805.
		 Weinberg, C. 2003. Big Dixie Chicken Goes Global: Exports and the Rise of the North Georgia Poultry Industry. Business and Economic History OnLine. Vol. 1 www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2003/Weinberg.pdf.
	Dimitri, C., E.C. Jaenicke and A.B. Effland. 2009. “Why Did Contracts Supplant the Cash Market in the Broiler Industry? An Economic Analysis Featuring
Technological Innovation and Institutional Response.” Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 7(1). www.bepress.com/jafio/vol7/iss1/art9.

15

The Pew Environment Group25
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

ENDNOTES	Cunningham, D.L. 2009. “Guide for Prospective Contract Broiler Producers,” University of Georgia, College of Agricultural Science and Environmental
Sciences Bulletin 1167. www.caes.uga.edu/Publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=6271.

16

	Weinberg. Big Dixie Chicken.

17	Gisolfi, “From Crop Lien to Contract Farming.” And Boyd, “Making Meat.”18

	Ribaudo, M., et al. 2003. Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land. Agricultural Economic Report No. 824. USDA Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer824/aer824.pdf.

19	See, for example:

20

		 Perera, R., et al. 2010. Potential of Using Poultry Litter as a Feedstock for Energy Production. Louisiana Forest Products Development Center. Working
Paper #88. www.lfpdc.lsu.edu/publications/working_papers/wp88.pdf.
		 Paudel, K.P., and C.S. McIntosh. 2000. “Economics of Poultry Litter Utilization and Optimal Environmental Policy for Phosphorus Disposal inGeorgia” (presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Lexington, Ky.). http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/23813/1/s00-03.pdf.
		 Baranyai, V., and S. Bradley. 2008. Turning Chesapeake Bay Watershed Poultry Manure and Litter into Energy: An Analysis of the Impediments andthe Feasibility of Implementing Energy Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Order to Improve Water Quality. Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_17018.pdf.
	Pelletier, B.A., J. Pease and D. Kenyon. 2001. Economic Analysis of Virginia Poultry Litter Transportation. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/mirrors/vaes/01-1.pdf. And Ribaudo. Manure Management for Water Quality.

21

22

See, for example:

		 Kovzelove, C., T. Simpson and R. Korcak. 2010. Quantification and Implications of Surplus Phosphorus and Manure in Major Animal Production
Regions of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Water Stewardship. http://waterstewardshipinc.org/downloads/P_PAPER_FINAL_2-9-10.pdf.
		 “Phosphorus versus Nitrogen Manure Management.” Agronomy Guide. Penn State University College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension.
http://extension.psu.edu/agronomy-guide/cm/sec2/sec29a.
	Sharpley, A., and R. Sheffield. 2001. “Phosphorus Management: Bridging the Interface Between Agriculture and Environment.” In USDA/EPA Livestock
Environmental Stewardship Handbook. www.p2pays.org/ref/42/41277/Lesson34/34_Phosphorus_Management.html. And National Research Councilof the National Academies. 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and
Implementation. http://laboratoryequipment.com/uploadedFiles/Resources/Technology_Reports/NRC%20Chesapeake%20Bay%20Report_PREPUB.pdf.

23	See for example:

24

		 Sharpley and Sheffield. “Phosphorus Management;		 Gollehon, N., et al. 2001. Confined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients, Agriculture Information Bulletin. USDA Economic Research Service,
Resource Economics Division. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib771/aib771.pdf.
	Phillips, S.W., and B.D. Lindsey. 2003. “The Influence of Ground Water on Nitrogen Delivery to the Chesapeake Bay.” USGS Fact Sheet FS-091-03.
http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/fs-091-03/html/index.html. And Goldman, E. 2005. “From Farm to Bay: Nitrogen’s Underground Passage.” In
Chesapeake Quarterly 4(1). Maryland Sea Grant College.

25	National Research Council of the National Academies. 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluationof Program Strategies and Implementation. http://laboratoryequipment.com/uploadedFiles/Resources/Technology_Reports/NRC%20Chesapeake%20
Bay%20Report_PREPUB.pdf.

26

	State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group. 2009. An Urgent Call to Action: Report of the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group. www.epa.gov/
waterscience/criteria/nutrient/nitgreport.pdf.

27	Young, K.B., et al. 2005. “How Far Can Poultry Litter Go? Cost Efficiency of New Technologies to Transport Litter to Fertilize Distant Crops.” http://arkansaswater.org/319/pdf/03-900%20Litter%20Bank%20How%20Far%20Can%20Poultry%20Litter%20Go.pdf.

28

www.PewEnvironment.org

26
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

ENDNOTES	See, for example:

29		 Matthews, S.F. “Ag Production Contracts: Freedom to Contract, Public & Private Goods.” Missouri Agricultural Law Center. http://aglaw.missouri.edu/
ag_production_contracts.htm#manure%20liability.
		 Goodwin, H.L., J. Hipp and J. Wimberly. 2000. “Off-Farm Litter Management and Third-Party Enterprises.” Winrock International. www.winrock.org/
us_programs/files/Off-Farm%20Litter%20Management%20report.pdf.
		 Sinclair, W.N., and N.E. Horewitch. 2010. “Who Rules the Roost? CWA Liability After Md. Ruling.” Beveridge & Diamond. www.bdlaw.com/assets/
attachments/260.pdf.
		 Piermattei, W. 2010. “Clinic Wins Key Ruling in Chesapeake Bay Pollution Lawsuit Against Poultry Industry.” Environmental Law at Maryland. University of Maryland School of Law. No. 30, www.law.umaryland.edu/programs/environment/documents/F10_Newsletter.pdf.
	Delmarva Poultry Industry fact sheets. 2009. “Facts About Delaware’s Broiler Chicken Industry” and “Facts about Maryland’s Broiler Chicken Industry.”
www.dpichicken.org/faq_facts/docs/factsde2009.doc and www.dpichicken.org/faq_facts/docs/factsmd2009.doc.

30

	Maryland Cooperative Extension. 1990. “Structures for Broiler Litter Manure Storage.” Fact Sheet 416. http://extension.umd.edu/publications/pdfs/
fs416.pdf.

31	According to Gang, communications manager for the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, the volume of the Capitol dome is about 850,000 cubic feet. http://host.
madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_442ebd8c-928d-5029-abc6-51cd964744c0.html.

32	Kellogg, R.L., et. al. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for
the United States. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Economic Research Service. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/pubs/manntr.pdf.

33

34

Kellogg. Manure Nutrients.

	Gollehon, Confined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients.

35	MacDonald, J.M., et al. 2009. Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy: Report to Congress. USDA Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP037/AP037.pdf.

36

	Ribaudo. Manure Management for Water Quality.

37	Unger, H. Nov. 24, 2002. “Polluting Chickens: Health Threat Grows From Tons of Manure.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

38

	Frick, E.A., and G.R. Buell. 1999. “Relation of Land Use to Nutrient and Suspended-Sediment Concentrations, Loads and Yields in the Upper Chattahoochee River Basin, Georgia, 1993-1998.” Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
publications/pdf/1999fricknbuell.pdf.

39

	USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Jan. 11, 2011. “Illinois River Sub-Basin and Eucha-Spavinaw Lake Watershed Initiative.” www.ar.nrcs.
usda.gov/programs/illinois_spavinaw_initiative.html.

40

	Lassek, P.J. Dec. 10, 2001. “Lawsuit filed against poultry industry, Arkansas town.” Associated Press.

41	Fisher, J.B., et al. 2009. “The History of Poultry Waste Contamination in the Illinois River Watershed as Determined from Sediment Cores Collectedfrom Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir.” Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Environmental Science and Technology. www.lithochim.com/documents/ISEST01%20Paper.pdf. U.S. EPA. Watershed Central Wiki. 2006. City of Tulsa’s Comprehensive Watershed Management Approach. https://wiki.
epa.gov/watershed2/index.php/City_of_Tulsa_Comprehensive_Watershed_Management_Approach. And U. S. Water News Online. 2001. “Study finds
chicken waste will continue to pollute Tulsa taps.”

42	DeLaune, P.B., et al. 2006. “The Eucha/Spavinaw phosphorus index: A court mandated index for litter management.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61(2). https://engineering.purdue.edu/~ichaubey/Pubs/PB%20DeLaune_ESPI.pdf.

43	Barnes, S. June 14, 2005. “Oklahoma: Lawsuit on Pollution From Poultry.” New York Times.

44

	U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program. Health of Freshwater Streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. www.chesapeakebay.net/status_streamhealth.
aspx?menuitem=50423.

45

	Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. Bay Barometer: A health and restoration assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_50513.pdf.

46	See, for example:

47

		 Chesapeake Bay Program. Bay Barometer.
	U.S. EPA. May 12, 2010. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. www.epa.gov/nps/chesbay502/pdf/chesbay_guidance-all.pdf.

48

The Pew Environment Group27
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

ENDNOTES	USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake
Bay Region. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceap/chesapeake_bay/index.html.

49

	U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Monitoring Water-Quality Changes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. http://chesapeake.usgs.gov/featuremonitoringwaterqualitychanges.html. And Blankenship, K. 2010. “New USGS method improves ability to track nutrients flowing into Bay: Streamflow
monitoring reveals unsettling data about effectiveness of actions taken on the land.”Chesapeake Bay Journal. www.bayjournal.com/newsite/article.
cfm?article=3950.

50

	Katz, B.G., et al. 1999. Sources and Chronology of Nitrate Contamination in Spring Waters, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. USGS. Water-Resources
Investigation Report 99-4252. http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/wri99_4252_katz.pdf. Katz, B.G., and R. S. DeHan. The Suwannee River Basin
Pilot Study: Issues for Watershed Management in Florida. USGS Fact Sheet FS-080-96. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-080-96/FS-080-96.pdf. And
Woods, C. 2001. “Florida research targets rising nitrates in Suwannee River Basin.” Southeast Farms Press. http://southeastfarmpress.com/
florida-research-targets-rising-nitrates-suwannee-river-basin.

51	See, for example, “NOW” with Bill Moyers. Dec. 20, 2002, Science and Health: Troubled Waters—A Brief History of the Clean Water Act. www.pbs.
org/now/science/cleanwater.html.

52	See for example:

53

		 Houck, O.A. 2002. The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy and Implementation.
		 Powers, A. “The Current Controversy Regarding TMLDS: Contemporary Perspectives; ‘TMDLS and Pollutant Trading’ ” (2003). Pace Law Faculty Publications. Paper 193. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/193.
		 Boyd, J. 2000. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules. Discussion Paper 00-12. Resources for the
Future. www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-00-12.pdf.
		 Birkeland, S. 2001. “EPA’s TMDL Program.” Ecology Law Quarterly 28(2). www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/birkeland_tmdl.pdf.
		 Murchison, K.M. 2005. “Learning From More Than Five-and-a-Half Decades of Federal Water Pollution Control Legislation: Twenty Lessons for the
Future.” 32 B.C. s 527. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol32/iss3/4.
Urgent Call to Action.

54

	Government Accountability Office. 2008. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More Information and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water Quality from Pollutants of Concern. GAO-08-944. www.gao.gov/new.items/d08944.pdf.

55

	Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency. 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005) and National Pork Producers Council et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 08-61093 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011).

56

	Pelletier et al. Virginia Poultry Litter Transportation.

57

	Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. November 2010. Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia on the Virginia
Water Quality Improvement Fund and the Cooperative Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf38885
2570f9006f1299/417b54be6be72ac5852575c9006adfd2/$FILE/RD322.pdf.

58

	“Maryland’s Manure Transport Program. Maryland Department of Agriculture, Office of Resource Conservation. Undated. www.mda.state.md.us/pdf/
manuretransport.pdf.

59

60

Agriculture Cost Share program’s 2009 annual report. www.mda.state.md.us/pdf/macsar09.pdf.

	Delaware Nutrient Management Commission’s 2009 report. http://dda.delaware.gov/nutrients/forms/2009/2009_NM_AR.pdf.

61

	“Poultry waste suspected as catalyst for killer microorganism.” Aug. 10, 1997. Associated Press.

62	Maryland Department of Agriculture. “Nutrient Management.” Undated. www.mda.state.md.us/resource_conservation/nutrient_management/index.php.

63	Maryland Department of Agriculture. Maryland Nutrient Management Program: 2010 Annual Report. http://www.mda.state.md.us/pdf/nmar10.pdf.

64

	“Nutrient management program enters mandatory compliance phase.” Associated Press. July 15, 2002.

65

	Urgent Call to Action.

66

	USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake
Bay Region. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceap/chesapeake_bay/CB_summary.pdf

67

www.PewEnvironment.org

28
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

GLOSSARY
Agricultural storm water: For regulating
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines
agricultural storm water as a precipitation-related
discharge of manure, litter or process wastewaterfrom land areas under the control of a CAFO,
where the manure has otherwise been applied
according to a site-specific nutrient management
plan that ensures appropriate agricultural use of
the associated nutrients.
Algal bloom: A rapid increase in the growth ofplantlike organisms in a freshwater or marine
environment. Impacts may vary, with someblooms causing serious environmental damage
and threatening public health.
Broiler Belt: A geographic area in the UnitedStates with a high concentration of broiler chicken
production, currently extending from eastern Texas
through Arkansas, Alabama and Georgia and much of
the Southeast and north to Maryland and Delaware.
Broiler chicken: Young chickens, sometimes calledfryers, raised primarily for meat production.
Broiler house: The structure in which broiler
chickens are raised.
Broiler litter: A form of poultry waste taken fromthe floors of broiler houses that includes a layerof bedding material such as wood shavings, straw,
sand or sawdust mixed with spilled feed, feathers,
manure and urine. “Cake,” the top layer of broiler
litter, is generally removed after every flock; fullhouse litter cleanouts may be done periodically,sometimes yearly.
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs):
For purposes of Clean Water Act implementation,
the EPA uses two important definitions:• Animal feeding operations (AFOs) confine animals
for 45 days or more in a 12-month period inan area that does not produce grass or othervegetation during the normal growing season.

• Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
are a small subset of AFOs, with distinctions
based primarily on size and pollution discharges.
Only CAFOs are subject to regulation as point
sources under the Clean Water Act.
• A broiler operation is considered large, andtherefore regulated as a CAFO, if it has a capacityof 30,000 birds or more and uses liquid manure
management, or if it has a capacity of 125,000
birds or more and uses dry manure management.
Medium-size facilities may be regulated as CAFOs
depending upon their design, operation andmanagement. Smaller facilities are regulated
on a case-by-case basis if regulators determinethat a pollution problem exists.
Contract grower or grower: In the context of thisreport, a person who agrees to grow broilers
for an integrator. Generally, the grower provides
labor, housing and equipment. The grower may
also supply power and heat and may care for the
broilers according to the integrator’s specification.
The contract grower does not own the poultry but
is usually responsible for management of manureand dead birds.
Dead zone: An area of water that cannot support
aquatic life because oxygen is absent or at avery low level.
Delmarva Peninsula: The area where partsof Delaware (three counties), Maryland (ninecounties) and Virginia (two counties) converge
between the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake
Bay. Maryland’s portion of this area is also referred
to as its Eastern Shore.
Eutrophication: A process in which a body of water
becomes enriched with a high concentration ofnutrients, especially phosphates and nitrogen.
These nutrients promote the growth of algae; as thealgae die and decompose, high levels of organic
matter deplete the water of available oxygen.
The Pew Environment Group29
Big Chicken

Pollution and Industrial Poultry Production in America

GLOSSARY
Geographic concentration: In the context of thisreport, the location and number of broiler growing
operations and related facilities, such as breeding
operations, feed mills and processing plants,
within a geographic area.
Groundwater: The water below the earth’s
surface that is found within the pore spaces andcracks between particles of soil, sand, graveland bedrock.
Grower: See contract grower.
Integrator: Commonly refers to the poultryprocessing companies that have financial interestsand decision-making power over multiple phasesof the poultry production process. See vertical
integration.
Nitrates and nitrites: Nitrogen-oxygen moleculesthat nitrogen can create in water. High levels of
nitrates in drinking water can pose a serious
threat to the health of humans, particularly
infants. See also nitrogen.
Nitrogen: A nonmetallic element that is essential
to life and moves through the environment in
a complex cycle, transforming into a numberof chemical forms, including organic nitrogen,ammonium, nitrite, nitrate and nitrogen gas.
Nitrogen is critical to plant growth, but excess
nitrogen in water can contribute to algal blooms,
unhealthy levels of nitrates in drinking water andother water-quality problems.
Non-point source pollution: Under the Clean Water
Act, water pollution that originates from diffuse
sources. Non-point source pollution is oftencaused when rain or snow-fed runoff picks up
natural and human-made pollutants (including
those from agricultural activities) and deposits
them in lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters
and groundwater.

www.PewEnvironment.org

NPDES permits: Permits issued according to EPA’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) program, which was authorized by the
Clean Water Act and prohibits the discharge ofpoint source pollution into U.S. waters except incompliance with a special permit issued by EPA,a state or a tribal government.
Phosphorus: An element essential for biologicallife and critical to plant growth. Found in theearth, water and all living organisms, phosphorus
cycles through the environment and in excess
amounts can cause eutrophication in freshwaterand marine environments.
Point source pollution: Under the Clean Water
Act, pollution from any confined and discrete
conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, well, CAFO
or vessel, from which pollutants are or may bedischarged. The term does not include agricultural
stormwater discharges and return flows from
irrigated agriculture.
Poultry: In the context of this report, broiler chickens.
Processor: A business that manages and operates
a plant that slaughters and eviscerates poultry
and often performs other functions of production,
processing and marketing.
Vertical integration: �In the context of this report,
coordination or ownership by a single entity of
production, processing, marketing and distribution.
In broiler production, it involves contracting for“grow-out” services to raise flocks of chicks toprocessing weight. Many poultry companies
are vertically integrated across the full rangeof broiler production phases and own breeder
flocks, hatcheries, feed mills and processing plants.
Ancillary services such as building and equipment
supplies, transportation, fuel and financing may
also be affiliated with the operation.

Philadelphia, Pa. 19103

Washington, D.C. 20004

215-575-9050

202-552-2000

www.PewEnvironment.org