LINCOLN, Neb. — Heavy environmental regulations have slowed the growth of large hog farms, while they actually helped some smaller operations in the top 10 hog-producing states, according to the findings in a new study authored by two University of Nebraska-Lincoln agricultural economists.

"Industry shifts to greater total inventory in large farms have been in spite of, not because of, increasing environmental stringency," wrote Azzeddine Azzam and Karina Schoengold with other colleagues in the study, recently published in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, which also included Gibson Nene of the University of Minnesota-Duluth.

But if the rules include an increase in operating expenses, such as requiring manure used as fertilizer to be spread more thinly, the authors wrote, "it might be more cost-effective to reduce the number of hogs. "For regulators who are concerned about both environmental quality and the protection of small family farms, environmental regulation does not seem to adversely affect the viability of such operations."

According to the study, "hog farms have become fewer and larger in recent decades, even as federal and state environmental regulations governing them have become stricter." Since 1976, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been subject to environmental regulations.

Enacted under the Clean Water Act, federal regulations require these large confinement operations and some medium-sized ones that discharge pollutants to obtain a permit and to develop a plan for manure storage and disposal.

Many states, however, have adopted additional regulations stricter than those imposed by the U.S. EPA, which include zoning restrictions to limit where hog confinement facilities can be built; larger buffer zones from nearby residences; and construction and operating permits and odor control requirements.

Farms with fewer than 2,500 hogs are exempt from state and federal regulation. Because small farms did not have the expense of complying with environmental requirements, they benefited from prices pushed upward because of the smaller supply produced by regulated large confinement operations, the study showed.

Moreover, the authors found between 1995-2005, the actual inventory of small hog farms declined by 61 percent, the actual inventory of large hog farms increased by 95 percent and the actual total hog inventory of all farms combined increased by 9 percent.

"Absent environmental regulation, the inventory of small hog farms would have declined by 69 percent, the inventory of large farms would have increased by 121 percent and the inventory of all farms combined would have increased by 17 percent," the study added.

"However, the impact of environmental regulations on large confinement operations depends on the nature of the rules," Azzam said. "Some rules can encourage growth while others inhibit it; for example, if a farmer is required to incur a large fixed cost such as an expensive manure treatment system, it might be profitable to increase the number of hogs in the operation."

Eldon McAfee, an attorney with Beving, Swanson & Forrest, P.C. in Des Moines, who represents the Iowa Pork Producers Assoc. and specializes in agricultural law, said the study’s conclusions are of particular interest because "it confirms that the claims of opponents to pork production, about environmental regulations in Iowa, are without merit.

"The study covered 1994 through 2006 – a period of time during which Iowa pork producers saw the enactment of three major state environmental regulation laws, along with numerous Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rules," he said. "The Iowa Pork Producers Association supports environmental regulations that actually protect and improve the environment, and that are reasonable for all pork producers."