Megan Kresse, Jesse Margraf

Federal regulations in relation to animal outputs are practically nonexistent. There are no regulations dealing with how manure is disposed of, and there are very vague terms for what is considered "humane" in relation to the slaughter of animals. The only factor contributing to an animal product, such as meat, as being labeled as organic is based on the feed it eats; if the animal eats organic feed, it is deemed organic. Looking at outputs from these organic animals - such as manure, animal waste, and meat, from the slaughter process - we devised additional regulations - new standards for organic dealing with animal outputs.

ISSUE: Animal Manure - There are no regulations in place for disposal and management of animal waste in relation to "organic" animals.

Would you eat food labeled "organic" knowing that the waste produced by these animals is contaminating local waterways & contributing to other environmental problems?

Below, issues will be discussed related to storage, water quality testing, and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, that we will in turn suggest new standards for organic.

STORAGE:

Multiple problems arise with improper management of manure, an organic animal by-product "waste" (USDA, 1995).

• Degrade water quality
  • Excess nutrients
    • Eutrophication - excess nutrients in water leads to algal blooms that block sunlight and cause dead zones, or areas facing oxygen depletion
• Destabilize stream banks
• Disease-causing microorganisms
• Non-point source pollution
• Nitrogen
  • Acid Rain - Soil acidification
• Poor air quality
  • Methane emissions - Greenhouse gas
    • Climate Change

The amount of manure produced depends on farm size, confinement, animal type, climate, feed ration, animal age, health status of animal, etc (USDA, 1995).

How much manure can be realistically managed and collected?

90-95% (USDA, 1995).

While a majority of manure can be stored and effectively managed, an additional 5-10% of manure is left, leaving farmers unsure of what to do with it. This is especially problematic on larger farms.

6 Functions of Manure Management Systems: Production, collection, storage, treatment, transfer, & utilization (USDA, 1995).

Manure Management System Options:

• Earthen pit; concrete pit; large tank; roofed building; covered dry stack; liquid/slurry systems; solid manure storage; composting; etc. (EPA, 2009; NRCS, 2009).

It is important to have the proper planning and installation of a manure management system in place.

PROPOSAL:

*Same standards for every state

• Small [300 acres and below]
  • 2 Main Options:
    • Store - Create a temporary holding area to store and compost the manure.
    • Spread - After composting, the manure can be removed from storage and spread onto fields
• Large [300 + acres]
  • Storage areas - Compost and transport it out; sell and/or ship it
    • Too much effort to spread that amount of waste back onto large fields, especially without proper equipment. Even if this is done, there is likely to be excess manure on the largest of farms.

*Numbers based on average farm sizes (Dunckel, 2013).

WATER QUALITY

There are no regulations that currently exist in relation to manure and local water quality.

When excess nutrients enter water systems, such as from manure, algal blooms can occur. This is known as eutrophication - where sunlight is blocked causing fish and plants to die in these oxygen-depleted dead zones (USDA, 1995).

Grazing animals are likely to drop manure into local streams and waterways (USDA, 1995). Considering this, grazing animals should be fenced off and kept a certain distance from the streams with hopes to prevent manure contaminating the water.

Without proper manure storage, runoff and erosion of manure into the water is possible (USDA, 1995). Runoff and erosion can additionally occur if the manure is placed back on the fields as a fertilizer.

PROPOSAL:

Grazing animals should be kept at least 50 feet away from the closest water sources. Fencing should be placed at this distance to prevent animals from wandering off into the stream and creating droppings. Animals can be provided with other water sources such as tubs and buckets for them to drink and bathe in.

Additionally, local water tests, on a monthly basis, should be performed and data should be reported to the EPA. On a typical pH scale ranging from 1-14, stream water should be relatively neutral at a pH of 6.5-8.5. In addition to pH, nutrients present, and their levels, should be included on the report. Even if animals are fenced off, runoff and erosion are possible. This is why the water testing should still occur, as to make sure large amount of nutrients are not being washed into the local waterways.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Storage facilities are not 100% effective for dealing with manure. Large storage units are capable of producing high levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) (EPA, 2009).

Greenhouse gases contribute to the "greenhouse effect" which deals with the trapping of light radiation from the sun in the earth's atmosphere. This causes a "blanket-effect," trapping heat within the earth's atmosphere and contributing to climate change.

A previous proposal, which never seemed to be enacted, required that facilities are required to report when they emit 25,000 metric tons or more of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) a year - expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (EPA, 2009).

PROPOSAL:

To change this proposal, reporting GHG emissions at any level should be required. If you own or operate a farm and are therefore dealing with manure, reporting data on a yearly basis to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will keep farmers conscientious about how they are impacting the environment which may influence them to become more sustainable in their practices.

To calculate GHG emissions: type of manure management system, average number of animals, amount of manure, and additional factors need to be considered (EPA, 2009).

If the GHG emissions that are reported reach past a certain quantity, such as above 30,000 metric tons of GHGs, consequences such as a fine could be set in place, that would increase dependent on how much over this quantity a facility is emitting. This would encourage people to limit the facility GHG output, and if they were to go over, encourage them to stay just a little over rather than continuing production and not caring about a fine that wouldn't increase.

ISSUE: The regulations in place for "humane slaughter" are ignored and are passed through loopholes.

Would you eat meat that states it's sustainable and organic when the animals were treated cruelly and killed under terrible conditions?

What is humane about killing animals we have no need to harm at all?

How "Humane" is Defined

There is no legal definition of "humane" so essentially any meat production company can create their own definition.

Animal Welfare Approved does not allow debeaking, but considers castration and ear notching without pain relief "humane."

American Humane Certified permits debeaking, but does not allow ear notching and requires anesthesia for castration of some animals.

How "Humane Slaughter" is Defined

Under a 23 year-old federal law, "Humane slaughter" means that farm animals are supposed to be "stunned" (rendered unconscious or insensible to pain) before their throats are slit (USDA, 2014).

Although, the result of ineffective stunning is that millions of animals are shot multiple times and/or have their throats slit while fully conscious.

Loopholes

Federal inspectors have gone on record stating that, due to inspection loopholes developed in collusion with the meat industry, they are virtually powerless to enforce humane slaughter laws.

The government took no action against a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that included chopping hooves off live cattle.

Which Animals These Laws "Protect"

There are no humane slaughter laws at all protecting birds, chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, and others so they can be killed by whatever method the producer prefers, including having their throats slit while they are still fully conscious (CR 2014).

PROPOSAL:

Temple Grandin, an American professor of animal science at Colorado State University, consultant to the livestock industry on animal behavior and autism spokesperson. She has become a leading advocate for autistic communities and has also written books and provided consultation on the humane treatment of animals (Grandin 2007).

To start, Dr. Grandin states that for the best overall animal welfare, both the stunning method and the methods used to handle and restrain the animals should be evaluated as a whole system (Grandin 2007).

There needs to be research to validate the efficiency of different types of stunning methods.

Each farm should be responsible in putting together an assessment of welfare, such as numerical scoring of the percentage of animals stunned incorrectly, percentage vocalizing, percentage falling during handling, and percentage moved with an electric prod. This is important so that not only the slaughterhouses know but also the general public knows.

The other thing is putting cameras around the facility. There should be nothing private about the procedure and should be always on and accessible. Remote video auditing by auditors over the internet is recommended to prevent the problem of bad practices occurring when auditors are absent.

Putting machinery in place which reflects Grandin's research. For example the hug machine, also known as a hug box is a deep-pressure device designed to calm hypersensitive animals and hold them in place when they get stunned.

References

Dunckel, M. (2013). Small, medium, large - Does farm size really matter? Michigan State

University. Retrieved from https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/small_medium_large_does_farm_size_really_matter

Consumer Reports [CR]. (2014). Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW. Retrieved from

http://greenerchoices.org/2016/11/16/awa-label-review/

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2009). Manure management systems. Retrieved from

https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/documents/cafo_ air-emissions-epa-manure_management_systems.pdf

Grandin, Temple. (2007). Making Slaughterhouses more Humane for Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep. Retrieved from

https://www.grandin.com/references/making.slaughterhouses.more.humane.html

Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. (2009). Manure storage. Retrieved from

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1167352.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]. (1995). Animal manure management. Retrieved from

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/technical/nra/rca/?cid=nrcs143_014211

United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]. (2014). Examination of animals prior to slaughter;

use of humane methods. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2HtQzav