Concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)

A concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO, is a large industrial animal farm. CAFOs typically host animals for their meat, eggs, or milk. They rose to meet the consumer demands of growing populations and are capable of producing large quantities of a product with a relatively small amount of space and time. CAFOs are highly controversial, however. Detractors criticize the conditions in which the animals are raised, the waste and pollution that are emitted, and the economic effects on local farms and communities. The facilities are usually extremely dense, packing large amounts of animals and machinery into confined spaces. The waste the animals produce is often piped out of the facility for disposal, and the concentrated amount of waste coming from one source has raised concerns about contaminating local water supplies.

Brief History

In the early twentieth century, meat, eggs, and dairy were provided mostly by private family farms. These farmers raised their animals with practices that had been well established for generations. In the mid-twentieth century, agriculture made substantial advancements in several fields. Biologists learned more about the biochemistry of livestock animals, and pharmaceutical companies developed drugs that greatly increased the animals’ growth and development rates. With the help of technology and new techniques, animals could produce more milk and eggs, grow larger, and even reach maturity faster. Farmers also could obtain and sort products from the animals more quickly than with traditional methods. Most farmers, however, could not afford the new technology.

Later, wealthy businesses and individuals began investing in the technology. They created livestock-raising industrial complexes. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, these complexes became a prominent form of farming. Industrial facilities for poultry became commonplace as early as the 1950s. It took longer to develop facilities that could accommodate larger animals, such as pigs and cows, but they too were frequently raised that way by the late twentieth century.

In 1972, the US federal government passed the Clean Water Act, a series of amendments to 1948’s Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The new act pointed out the potential hazards that large farming facilities posed to local water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led efforts to regulate these facilities. As a result, federal regulations defined animal feeding operation (AFO) and concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in 1976.

As a way to maintain standards for CAFOs, the federal government established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES. The government later allowed many states to issue their own NPDES permits for CAFOs under EPA-authorized programs.

CAFOs were regulated under this system for the remainder of the twentieth century. As CAFOs became more common, their effect on the environment and economy concerned increasing amounts of citizens. In the 1990s, numerous calls were made to change and update regulations. The EPA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) worked together to create new regulations, which took effect in 2003. The new regulations revised CAFO permitting requirements and required CAFOs to manage manure effectively to protect water quality.

Impact

CAFO and AFO are specific designations. An AFO is a farm intended to raise animals for their edible by-products and to house them for more than forty-five days per year. To qualify as a CAFO, the facility must meet the EPA’s size thresholds for the type and number of animals it confines or be designated as a CAFO because of its pollution risk. The large concentration of animals and their waste can produce air pollutants that may be carried into the surrounding environment by ventilation systems and other air currents.

CAFOs have been a source of controversy on multiple fronts. One subject of debate is their economic impact. CAFO supporters argue that they bring thousands of jobs into the communities in which they are built. Opponents say that the jobs offer low pay and often require employees to work in poor, sometimes dangerous, conditions. According to CAFO opponents, the industry intrudes upon locally owned farms and other businesses in the area. Most of the profits go to the corporation that owns the CAFO, which may be located far from the community in question. The nature of these corporations also has drawn suspicion from opponents. Many CAFOs that violate regulations are not penalized, and opponents say that is because corporate owners have too much influence over the government that is supposed to regulate them.

Animal rights groups have shown strong opposition to CAFOs since the concept first emerged. While many animal rights groups do not oppose the idea of raising livestock for the purpose of providing meat to humans, they say that animals deserve basic humane treatment while they are alive, such as the opportunity to graze and roam naturally. To most animal rights groups, the confinement of CAFOs qualifies as animal cruelty. On this subject, CAFO supporters argue that people will always demand meat, and CAFOs are extremely efficient at meeting that demand. CAFOs’ ability to raise such a large number of animals on a relatively small amount of land leaves more land free for other animals. CAFO supporters have frequently maintained that sources have exaggerated the treatment of animals within the facilities.

Environmentalists, citizens, and representatives of communities near CAFOs have expressed concern over the waste they produce. Some researchers and environmental groups also have raised concerns about methane emissions from livestock production because methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Most of the regulations surrounding CAFOs over the years have involved the amount of waste they put into local water supplies, and numerous reports have detailed how dangerous CAFOs can be to nearby citizens. CAFO opponents also argue that while the potential for contaminated water and health hazards has been publicized for decades, air pollution is something that has escaped regulation. Animal housing, manure storage, and waste-management systems can contribute to air pollution around CAFOs. CAFO supporters say the industry is under intense regulation already, which is enough to prevent these dangers.

Criticism of CAFOs extends into popular culture. The 2016 film Okja is a darkly humorous satire that harshly criticizes the motives and actions of the corporations that run CAFOs. CAFOs also have appeared as the settings for multiple twenty-first-century police procedural shows. During the 2020s, activists and some scientists raised concerns that the animals in CAFOs could spread deadly diseases to humans, particularly poultry flocks and dairy cattle. To combat this, farmers increased their efforts to limit their animals’ exposure to wild animals that may carry pathogens.

Bibliography

“Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs).” United States Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos. Accessed 30 May 2026.

“Food Biosecurity: Flyways, Flocks, CAFOs and Avian Flu.” American Society for Microbiology, 9 Dec. 2025, asm.org/articles/2024/july/food-biosecurity-flyways,-flocks,-cafos-and-avian. Accessed 30 May 2026.

Hribar, Carrie, and Mark Schultz. Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities. National Association of Local Boards of Health, 2010.

Imhoff, Daniel. CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Earth Aware Editions, 2010.

“Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed 30 May 2026.

“Okja.” IMDb, 2017, www.imdb.com/title/tt3967856/. Accessed 30 May 2026.

Pomplun, Gillian. “Viroqua Township Residents Question Benefits of Proposed Hog Slaughtering Plant.” SWNews4U.com, 9 Nov. 2017, www.swnews4u.com/section/1/article/36416/. Accessed 30 May 2026.