Free Printable Bank Account Register

Complaints associated with animal feeding facilities as reported to Ohio local health departments, 2006-2008.


Agriculture is an important industry in Ohio, contributing more
than $73 billion and comprising 13% of the state’s economy.
Although the amount of land devoted to agriculture has decreased 3.7% in
just five years (U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agriculture
Statistics Survey [USDA-NASS], 2009), the number of animals on Ohio
farms has increased by 948,820 animals, nearly a 2% increase (USDA-NASS,
2009). Two types of animal feeding facilities (AFFs) are required to be
permitted in Ohio: concentrated animal feeding facilities (CAFFs) and
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

CAFFs are regulated by the Ohio Department of Agriculture (

) due
to the

1. The act of restricting or the state of being restricted in movement.

2. Lying-in.

 of animals for 45 or more consecutive days and are
defined by the number, i.e., mega, large, medium, and small, and type of
animals housed. All mega and large facilities must obtain permits to
install as well as permits to operate. Medium and small facilities could
also require a permit if they have been found to discharge

 directly into U.S. waters (Ohio Department of Agriculture [ODA], 2007).
CAFFs are inspected no less than twice each year by ODA.

CAFOs are regulated by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OEPA On Earth Peace Assembly  
). They are similar to CAFFs in that they confine animals for 45 or
more days. They are also classified by size and species categories (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [U.S.
 eicosapentaenoic acid.

eicosapentaenoic acid See acid, eicosapentaenoic.

], 2011). CAFOs, however, are
considered significant contributors of pollutants and are required to
obtain a National

Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.
 Discharge Elimination Permit (Ohio

Department of Natural Resources

Ohio State University
 main campus at Columbus; land-grant and state supported; coeducational; chartered 1870, opened 1873 as Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, renamed 1878. There are also campuses at Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Newark.
 Extension, & Ohio Livestock Coalition, 2003). These facilities are
inspected by OEPA no less than once every five years.


AFF American FactFinder
AFF Accelerated Free Fall  
 can be determined to be a


Slang a café

Noun 1. caff – informal British term for a cafe
cafe, coffee bar, coffee shop, coffeehouse – a small restaurant where drinks and snacks are sold
 and thus subject to ODA rules
and regulations; a

, which is subject to OEPA rules and regulation;
or both a CAFF and a CAFO, which must abide by both ODA and OEPAs rules
and regulations. At the time of our study in 2009, Ohio contained 176
ODA-permitted CAFFs, of which seven were also considered a CAFO. Eight
additional AFFs were CAFOs only.
According to

1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of:

2. In keeping with:

 estimates from the
Livestock Environmental Permitting Program at ODA, permitted livestock
facilities house about 90% of Ohio’s layers (i.e., egg-producing
poultry) (ODA, 2007). No more than 30% of dairy animals and less than
10% of all other poultry and livestock are housed in permitted

AFFs of any size can greatly benefit the surrounding community by
adding revenue to the local economy and jobs. According to a 2002
survey, in two Ohio counties, Paulding and
Van Wert
 , city (1990 pop. 10,891), seat of Van Wert co., NW Ohio, near the Ind. line, in a rich grain-farming area; inc. 1848. Fabricated metal products, electronic equipment, cheeses, and machinery are made there.
, seven large dairies
contributed 83 jobs and $23 million to the local economy, purchased the
majority of their corn and all of their
  or  , succulent, moist feed made by storing a green crop in a silo. The crop most used for silage is corn; others are sorghum, sunflowers, legumes, and grass.
 from local farming
operations, and signed tax increments to contribute to the local economy
(Roe et al., 2004).

Although livestock production is important to the Ohio economy,
AFFs are a controversial topic. Many nearby residents fear the health
and nuisance implications of these facilities. One concern pertains to
the increased potential for
zoonotic disease

 (Cole, Todd, & Wing,
Iowa State University

, 2002; Saenz, Hethcote, & Grey, 2002).
Another concern is water contamination. It has been shown that overflow
 term used in the United States to refer to excreta of animals, with or without added bedding; also called barnyard manure. In other countries the term often refers to any material used to fertilize the soil.
 lagoons and manure

 from fields can result in fish
kills (Ohio History Central, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2009). Air contamination
and odor are also potential issues. Residents who live near an AFF can
be at increased risk for headaches,

Wheezing is a high-pitched whistling sound associated with labored breathing.

Wheezing occurs when a child or adult tries to breathe deeply through air passages that are narrowed or filled with mucus as a
, coughing, and other
respiratory issues (Cole et al., 2000; Donham et al., 2007; Sigurdarson
& Kline, 2006; Villeneuve, Ali, Challacombe, & Hebert, 2009;
Wing & Wolf, 2000). These symptoms were reported as being much more
severe than those who did not live near an AFF (Wing & Wolf, 2000).
Noise is also a common concern (Smith, 2004).

To determine if any factual basis exists for these concerns in the
state, the Ohio Department of Health’s Zoonotic Disease Program
conducted a survey to identify the most
common nuisance

 and health
complaints reported to local health departments. Special attention was
given to the characteristics of the complaints by size and type of
operation, source of the complaint, and if the issue was resolved. In
particular, we wanted to determine if any adverse health events were
associated with a resident living near an AFF. To provide a broader
perspective, information was collected not just about permitted and
nonpermitted livestock feeding facilities, but about nonlivestock AFF
complaints as well.

Materials and Methods

Survey Development

A questionnaire was developed to quantify and qualify the
complaints regarding AFFs for the years 2006-2008. The survey instrument
was developed with the assistance of the Ohio Department of Health, ODA,
OEPA, and The Ohio State University’s Veterinary Public Health
Program. The 52-item questionnaire queried the local health departments
about complaints for the aforementioned years and collected more
specific details associated with complaints that occurred during 2008
only. Definitions specific to this survey were also developed for
various types of AFFs and types of complaints. The definitions can be
found in Table 1.

 Medtalk The spread of a pernicious process–eg, CA, acute infection Oncology Metastasis, see there

The questions were entered into the online survey Web site Survey
Monkey. An e-mail explaining the objectives and purpose of our study was
sent to the health commissioner of all 130 local health departments in
Ohio as of April 20, 2009. Attached to the e-mail were the survey
definitions and instructions, a link to the survey, and a printable copy
of the questionnaire. The health commissioner was asked to either
complete the questionnaire or forward it to the appropriate person
within their department. Data collection took place between April 20,
2009, and June 15, 2009.

Data Collection and Analysis

All data were imported into a
Microsoft Excel

Information was organized based on item, response, and local health
department to allow comparisons between counties. Information from other
sources, such as county and farm

, were also entered into
the spreadsheet. Four local health departments were contacted to obtain
further information about health complaints they received to ascertain
if they appeared to be valid or were medically confirmed.

A formal statistical analysis was not conducted because the data
were primarily descriptive and a statistical model such as
 Analysis of variance, see there
not be particularly informative. In addition, accurate denominators for
the number of nonpermitted AFFs in Ohio were not available.


General Information From 2006 to 2008

A response rate of 96.9% was achieved. Among the local health
departments who did not respond, all were city health departments and
none had CAFFs or CAFOs in their jurisdiction.

The local health departments were asked if they had received any
nuisance or health complaints for 2006-2008. Most local health
departments (67% [84/125]) reported that they received no complaints
about AFFs during 2006-2008. Many of these local health departments were
those located in cities or urban areas. No further information was
obtained from these 84 local health departments.

Almost 30% (37/125) of local health departments reported having
received at least one nuisance or health complaint and 3.2% (4/125)
reported having received both a nuisance and health complaint. Local
health departments were also asked to report whether or not the health
complaints they had received could be validated. The definition of
“valid” was left to the discretion of the local health
department. The majority of local health departments, 81% (33/41),
reported that they had not received valid health complaints for the
years 2006-2008. Two local health departments (4.9%, 2/41) reported
having received at least one valid health complaint during 2006-2008 and
the remaining six local health departments (15%, 6/41) indicated that
they were not aware if their local health department received any valid
health complaints.

To determine which complaints were most common, local health
departments that received complaints were asked to estimate the average
number of complaints received each year for the period 2006-2008 (Table
2). Thirty-eight local health departments responded to this section of
the questionnaire. The most common complaints reported were


Medicine. the absence of the sense of smell; olfactory anesthesia. Also called anosphrasia. — anosmic, adj.


bad breath; an unpleasant odor emanating from the mouth.
, with
79% (30/38) of local health departments having received between one and
nine odor complaints and 7.9% (3/38) of local health departments having
10 or more odor complaints each year. Complaints
relating to
 relate prep

 relate prep → ,  
storage and field application were also common, with 76% (29/38) of
local health departments reporting having received between one and nine
complaints. Eight percent (3/38) received 10 or more complaints per

According to almost half of the local health departments (47%,
18/38), dead animal complaints were the easiest to resolve, with only
5.3% (2/38) of local health departments reporting that these complaints
were difficult to resolve. Odor complaints were the most difficult
complaints to resolve with 53% (20/38) of local health departments
choosing this option.

The local health departments who reported a complaint were asked if
the complaints were from residents who recently moved near an existing
AFF Thirty-six percent (15/41) reported that the complaints were from
residents who had lived near a facility for at least two years while 20%
(8/41) reported that most complaints were from residents who lived near
an existing facility for less than two years.

Detailed Complaints for 2008

Local health departments were asked to report detailed information
about each complaint that was received by their office for 2008 only.
They were asked to report the month of the complaint, the complaint
source, the production type and facility type of the AFF involved, the
cause or nature of the complaint, the issue or impact of the complaint,
and the outcome of the complaint. In total, 70 complaints were received
by 18 local health departments in 2008.

The most common month for receipt of a complaint was April,
accounting for 21% (15/70) of the complaints, followed by August, with
11% (8/70) of the complaints. Residents living adjacent to an AFF
accounted for over half (53% [37/70]) of the complaints, followed by
other community members who reported 19% (13/70) of the complaints.

The facility type that garnered the most complaints were other
animal feeding facilities (OAFFs), with 34% (24/70) of the total. This
was followed by nonpermitted CAFFs (13%, 9/70), permitted CAFFs (8.6%,
6/70), and pastured, nonconfined animals (4.3%, 3/70). CAFOs were not
the target of any complaints reported to local health departments. The
facility type was unknown in 40% (28/70) of the complaints. Of the six
complaints about permitted CAFFs in 2008, 33% (2/6) were found not to be
a nuisance or health risk. Similarly, 33% (2/6) were corrected after
local health department intervention. One out of six (1.7%) of the
complaints were corrected when referred to another agency and another
1.7% (1/6) resolved complaints on their own without any local health
department intervention.

The production types that received the most complaints were
 name for any of the cloven-hoofed mammals of the family Suidae, native to the Old World. A swine has a rather long, mobile snout, a heavy, relatively short-legged body, a thick, bristly hide, and a small tail.
 facilities with 14% (10/70) of complaints and commercial dog
1. A shelter for a dog.

2. A pack of dogs, especially hounds. See Synonyms at flock1.

3. An establishment where dogs are bred, trained, or boarded.

 with 8.6% (6/70) of complaints. These were followed by bovine-dairy and
poultry-layer (7.1% each, 5/70), poultry-broiler (5.7%, 4/70),
bovine-beef and sheep and goats (2.9% each, 2/70), and zoo animals
(1.4%, 1/70). Unknown production types accounted for 10% (7/70) of
complaints. In 40% (28/70) of the complaints, the production type was
not assessed or provided by the local health department.

When evaluating the most common cause of a complaint, live animals
and solid manure were cited most often with each receiving 14% (10/70)
of complaints. These were followed by complaints about liquid manure and
dead animals with 12% (8/70) of complaints each, flies (7.1%, 5/70),
unknown causes (4.3%, 3/70), other causes not listed (2.9%, 2/70), and
barns and buildings (1.4%, 1/70). Pastured animals, processing and
rendering, other vectors, rodents, and vehicles were not reported by any
local health departments.

The most common reason for a complaint was air quality or odor
outside the home, accounting for 57% (40/70) of complaints. Surface
water contamination was the second most common issue, generating 11%
(8/70) of the complaints, followed by
 /non·spe·cif·ic/ ()
1. not due to any single known cause.

2. not directed against a particular agent, but rather having a general effect.


 pollution (7.1%,
5/70), air quality and odor inside the home, unknown reasons (4.3% each,
3/70), and quality of life and other reasons not listed (2.9% each,
2/70). Human illness, animal illness, animal neglect, noise, property
soil contamination

, and groundwater contamination were each
mentioned once (1.4%). Community illness, property damage, and wildlife
issues were not deemed by any local health departments as a reason for a

Because odor was the most common complaint, this was examined in
more detail. Forty-three local health departments reported that odor
complaints occurred during 2008. Of these, swine facilities were most
often identified as the source (14%, 6/43), followed by commercial dog
kennels (9.3%, 4/43). “Other” production types not listed were
the subject of 42% (18/43) of the complaints.

Regarding facility types, OAFFs received the most odor complaints
with 28% (12/43) of the complaints, followed by nonpermitted facilities
with 16% (7/43) of the complaints. Permitted CAFFs and pastured animals
accounted for 4.7% (2/43) of the complaints each. The most common month
for odor complaints was August with 19% (8/43) of the complaints,
followed by April (16% [7/43]).

Four of the complaints were about an adverse health event. On
further investigation of the health complaint, two local health
departments reported that the health complaints were not valid and one
local health department reported that the complaints were against a
proposed but not an existing facility. The fourth local health
department reported in error as on review no health complaints
associated with an AFF were logged for 2008. Therefore no complaints
about adverse health events were associated with an AFF validated by
local health departments in 2008 as reported in our study.

The most common outcome was that the targeted facility corrected
the reason for the complaint following local health department
investigation. This occurred for 41% (29/70) of the complaints. The
second most common outcome was that the situation was determined to not
be a nuisance or health complaint and therefore required no local health
department intervention (29%, 20/70). Seven complaints (10%, 7/70) were
referred to another agency such as the Soil and Water Conservation
District, the local extension office, or other applicable agencies and
were then resolved. In five instances each (7.1%) the situation resolved
without local health department intervention or the outcome was unknown.
The situation continued to be an ongoing issue in four instances (5.7%).


A multitude of studies have been conducted about environmental and
health issues associated with AFFs (Cole et al., 2000; Donham et al.,
2007; Sigurdarson & Kline, 2006; Villeneuve et al., 2009). Public
concerns about adverse health and environmental hazards have heightened
as farms have become larger and animals more concentrated. Our survey
was the first in Ohio to identify and quantify nuisance and health
complaints associated with AFFs. All sizes and species of animal
facilities were included so a comparison could be made to determine if
larger livestock confinement operations generate more health and
nuisance complaints than other facilities. Local health departments were
chosen because their jurisdictions cover the entire state and they are
mandated to address all types of nuisance complaints. Local health
departments are frequently contacted by residents with environmental or
health complaints. They also have trained and registered sanitarians who
have the expertise to investigate and validate health and environmental
impacts. Ohio is an ideal state to perform such a survey since it is
diverse, containing both highly urban and agricultural areas with many
areas of overlap.

An important finding from the survey was that during 2006 to 2008
local health departments reported few valid adverse human health events
associated with any AFF Environmental nuisance events, though, were
reported. Complaints about odors, manure storage and application, and
dead animals were most frequently reported to local health departments.
This was followed by surface water pollution and increased fly and
insect populations. All such events do have the potential to result in
an adverse human health event. To prevent a nuisance from becoming an
adverse health event or environmental hazard, a mechanism for
investigation and abatement actions, when necessary, will continue to be

The survey also showed that permitted facilities (either CAFFs or
CAFOs) in Ohio were not the major contributors of health or nuisance
complaints received by local health departments. More complaints were
associated with nonpermitted or nonlivestock AFFs. By contrast, only 184
permitted CAFFs and CAFOs are present in Ohio and they house only a
fraction of Ohio’s total livestock population other than poultry
layers. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the relative proportion of
complaints between permitted and nonpermitted AFFs without having
denominators for the number of facilities and animals in nonpermitted
facilities. Also, absolute numbers do not take into account the impact
of an event. CAFOs and CAFFs by virtue of size may have a greater
potential to negatively impact the health and quality of life of
residents living around them. This is well recognized by the agriculture
industry. Permitted facilities are required to have plans to minimize
environmental nuisance issues and they are inspected regularly to ensure
that plans are being followed. Voluntary standards, recommendations, and
planning tools to address manure, vectors, and air quality have been
suggested for nonpermitted production facilities (Iowa State University,
2007) as well.

Our survey also challenged a commonly held belief that the people
who were most likely to complain were people who recently moved into
agricultural areas. The findings of our survey suggest that this was not
the case as residents who lived near a facility more than two years
registered twice as many complaints as those who lived there less than
two years. The more detailed survey of complaints in 2008 found that
residents living adjacent or within one-half mile of the facility were
more likely to register a complaint than any outside entity.

Although the ranking of complaint by issue was slightly different
in the 2008 survey than the three-year survey, air quality and odor,
water contamination, and manure continued to be primary concerns. Swine
operations generated the most complaints, followed closely by commercial
dog kennels, and less frequently, by dairy and poultry-layer operations.
That the number of complaints from commercial dog kennels was second
only to swine operations was a novel observation. It suggests that
focusing only on complaints associated with livestock feeding facilities
may lack perspective as OAFFs may also be responsible for causing
nuisance and health complaints in Ohio. A seasonal peak of complaints
occurred in April followed by August, which were likely associated with
key months for land application of livestock manure and other
agricultural activities.

Our study had several limitations. This was a retrospective survey
and many local health departments did not keep information on all
aspects of nuisance complaints and their information was not organized
for easy retrieval. As a result, many “unknown” and
“other” responses were encountered. In particular, in the 2008
survey, 40% of the nuisances were listed as “other” under
species-based production types. A more exhaustive listing is needed to
identify what production facilities were missed. In particular,

 facilities should have been an option. Also, a prospective study would
have yielded much better information because local health departments
would have known what data to collect.

Although the local health department response rate was high, it was
found that other agencies, such as the Soil and Water Conservation
District, the local extension office, or Department of Agriculture also
receive and respond to complaints about AFFs. It was noted in the
analysis that many local health departments automatically refer
agricultural complaints to another agency (or other applicable agencies)
and thus did not include the complaint in their nuisance logs.
Therefore, the number of actual complaints received throughout Ohio is
probably much higher than reported here. A more comprehensive picture of
the quantification of nuisance and health complaints would require
merging local health department complaints with reports from other
agencies. To improve response, identify trends, and avoid duplication of
efforts, Ohio could create and maintain a
v. cen·tral·ized, cen·tral·iz·ing, cen·tral·iz·es
1. To draw into or toward a center; consolidate.

 database reporting
system. Although such a database would be valuable for all involved
parties, the costs of the program may be
   also pro·hib·i·to·ry
1. Prohibiting; forbidding:



Overall, the results of this survey show that local health
departments do receive health and nuisance complaints regarding AFFs.
Our study showed that larger permitted facilities, often referred to as
“mega farms,” are not responsible for the majority of these
complaints. Local health departments could not confirm adverse human
health events associated with living near an AFF in 2008. Most nuisance
complaints are resolved with local health department or some other
agency intervention. A future prospective survey of local health
departments, with modifications of the survey tool, could better compare
health and nuisance complaints between permitted and nonpermitted
livestock facilities and compare complaints between livestock and
nonlivestock facilities.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the following staff from
the ODA: Mr. Kevin Elder, director of ODA’s Livestock Environmental
Permitting Program for his assistance in understanding the farm
permitting process; and both Beverly Byrum,
 Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.

Doctor of Veterinary Medicine


Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
, PhD, director of the
Animal Disease and Diagnostic Laboratory, and Tony Forshey, DVM, state

 /vet·er·i·nar·i·an/ () a person trained and authorized to practice veterinary medicine and surgery; a doctor of veterinary medicine.

, Animal Industry, for their input into developing the
survey tool.

Corresponding Author: Kathleen Smith, State Public Health
Veterinarian, 8995 E. Main St., Building 22, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068.


Cole, D., Todd, L., & Wing, S. (2000). Concentrated swine
feeding operations and public health: A review of occupational and
community health effects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(8),

Donham, K., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J.L., Hodne, C., &
Thu, K.M. (2007). Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding
concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 115(2), 317-320.

Iowa State University. (2007). Air management practices assessment
tool. Retrieved from

Ohio Department of Agriculture. (2005). Fact sheet: Concentrated
animal feeding facility size changed from animal unit definition to
small, medium, large, and major. Reynoldsburg, Ohio: Author.

Ohio Department of Agriculture. (2007). Fact sheet: Livestock
environmental permitting program. Reynoldsburg, Ohio: Author.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of
Agriculture, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio State University
Extension, & Ohio Livestock Coalition (Eds.). (2003). Guidelines for
livestock operations. Reynoldsburg, Ohio: Ohio Department of

Ohio History Central,
Ohio Historical Society

. (2005).
 see horse chestnut.


Any of about 13 trees and shrubs of the genus Aesculus (family Hippocastanaceae), native to North America, southeastern Europe, and eastern Asia.
farm. Retrieved from


Roe, B.E., Bowen, N., Kleinschmidt, A., Heffelfinger, K., Davis,
G.A., Fleming, R.D., Langham, T., Lopshire, J.N., & Stockman, M.
(2004). Economic and fiscal impacts: A case study of seven recently
constructed dairies in Van Wert County and Paulding County, Ohio, 2004.
Retrieved from

Saenz, R.A., Hethcote, H.W., & Grey, G.C. (2006).
v. con·fined, con·fin·ing, con·fines
1. To keep within bounds; restrict:  See Synonyms at limit.
 animal feeding operations as amplifiers of
 or  acute, highly contagious disease caused by a virus; formerly known as the grippe. There are three types of the virus, designated A, B, and C, but only types A and B cause more serious contagious infections.
. Vector Borne

Zoonotic Diseases

Diseases caused by infectious agents that can be transmitted between (or are shared by) animals and humans. This can include transmission through the bite of an insect, such as a mosquito.

Mentioned in: West Nile Virus
, 6(4), 338-346.

Sigurdarson, S.T., & Kline, J.N. (2006). School proximity to
concentrated animal feeding operations and prevalence of asthma in
students. Chest–Official Publication of the American College of Chest
Physicians, 129(6), 1486-1491.

Smith, D. (2004). Hearing loss protection for agricultural workers.
AgriLife Extension, Texas A&M System. Retrieved from http://

U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agriculture Statistics
Survey. (2009). 2007 census of agriculture (Vol. 1). Retrieved from

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Potential
environmental impacts of animal feeding operations. Retrieved from

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Regulatory
definitions of large CAFOs, medium CAFOs, and small CAFOs. Retrieved

Villeneuve, P., Ali, A., Challacombe, L., & Hebert, S. (2009).
Intensive hog farming operations and self-reported health among nearby
rural residents in Ottawa, Canada.

 Public Health, 9, 330.

Wing, S., & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive livestock operations,
health, and quality of life among
eastern North Carolina

Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233-238.

Sara M.
1. The following day:

2. The time immediately subsequent to a particular event.

3. Archaic The morning.

College of Public Health

The Ohio State University

Jeanette O’Quin, MPH-VPH, DVM

College of
Veterinary Medicine
 diagnosis and treatment of diseases of animals. An early interest in animal diseases is found in ancient Greek writings on medicine. Veterinary medicine began to achieve the stature of a science with the organization of the first school in the

The Ohio State University

Armando E. Hoet, DVM, PhD, DACVPM

College of Veterinary Medicine

College of Public Health

The Ohio State University

J. R. Wilkins III, DrPH

College of Public Health

The Ohio State University

Fred DeGraves, DVM, PhD

Ogden College of Science

and Engineering

Western Kentucky University


Kathleen A. Smith, MPH, DVM, RS

Zoonotic Disease Program

Ohio Department of Health

Table 1

Definitions Established for 2006-2008 Animal Feeding Facility Survey

Affirmation                  Definition

Animal feeding facility      Any operation that raises animals,
  (AFF)                      regardless of size and means of
                             confinement, for food or fiber
Concentrated animal          AFF that is regulated by the Ohio
  feeding operation (CAFO)   Environmental Protection Agency and is
                             required to have a National Pollutant
                             Discharge Elimination Permit due to the
                             discharge of pollutants into U.S.
                             waters and the confinement of animals
                             (Ohio Department of Agriculture [ODA],
Concentrated animal          AFF that is regulated by the Ohio
  feeding facility (CAFF)    Department of Agriculture and is
                             required to obtain a permit to install
                             and operate due to the confinement of
                             animals (ODA, 2005)
Nonpermitted concentrated    AFF that confines 25 or more adult
  animal feeding facility    animals but that does not require a
                             permit to operate due to not meeting
                             the requirements for a CAFO or CAFF
Other animal feeding         AFF that houses fewer than 25 animals
  facility                   but that is not considered a
                             recreational farming operation
Confined/confinement         Housing animals for 45 days or more in
                             a 12-month period; the ground the
                             animals are housed on is not used to
                             grow any type of vegetation during the
                             normal growing season (ODA, 2005)
Nuisance complaint           Any complaint against any AFF that does
                             not immediately involve a threat to
                             human health
Health complaint             Any complaint against any AFF that does
                             immediately involve a threat to human
Production type              Bovine-beef, bovine-dairy,
                             poultry-broilers, poultry-layers,
                             poultry-turkeys, sheep/goats, swine,
                             kennel (dog, commercial), deer
                             (farmed), ducks/geese, exotic/zoo,
                             wildlife, other animal facility not
                             listed, unknown

Table 2

Number of Complaints Per Year and Ease of Resolution of Complaints
Regarding Any Animal Feeding Facility as reported by 38 Ohio Local
Health Departments for 2006-2008

Complaint                    Average Number of Complaints Per Year

                             [greater than       1-9          None
                             or equal to]10

Odors                           7.9% (3)      78.9% (30)   13.2% (5)
Manure application/storage      7.9% (3)      76.3% (29)   15.8% (6)
Dead animals                     0% (0)       76.3% (29)   23.7% (9)
Surface water pollution          0% (0)       71.1% (27)   28.9% (11)
Increase in fly and             2.6% (1)      65.8% (25)   31.6% (12)
  insect population
Air quality                      0% (0)       52.6% (20)   47.4% (18)
Well water contamination         0% (0)       44.7% (17)   55.3% (21)
Respiratory illness in           0% (0)       15.8% (6)    84.2% (32)
Nonrespiratory illness           0% (0)       13.2% (5)    86.8% (33)
  in humans

Complaint                           Ease of Resolution

                              Neutral     Very Easy      Easy

Odors                                      0% (0)     15.8% (6)
Manure application/storage   15.8% (6)     0% (0)     28.9% (11)
Dead animals                 23.7% (9)     0% (0)     47.4% (18)
Surface water pollution      23.7% (9)     0% (0)     23.7% (9)
Increase in fly and          31.6% (12)    0% (0)     18.4% (7)
  insect population          23.7% (9)
Air quality                                0% (0)      7.9% (3)
Well water contamination     18.4% (7)     0% (0)     18.4% (7)
Respiratory illness in       10.5% (4)    5.3% (2)      0% (0)
  humans                      7.9% (3)
Nonrespiratory illness                    5.3% (2)      0% (0)
  in humans                   5.3% (2)

Complaint                            Ease of Resolution

                             Difficult      Very         N/A

Odors                        39.5% (15)   13.2% (5)   15.8% (6)
Manure application/storage   23.7% (9)    7.9% (3)    15.8% (6)
Dead animals                  5.3% (2)     0% (0)     23.7% (9)
Surface water pollution      10.5% (4)    5.3% (2)    28.9% (11)
Increase in fly and          21.2% (8)    5.3% (2)    31.6% (12)
  insect population
Air quality                  18.4% (7)    10.5% (4)   44.7% (17)
Well water contamination     10.5% (4)    2.6% (1)    57.9% (22)
Respiratory illness in        2.6% (1)    5.3% (2)    78.9% (30)
Nonrespiratory illness        5.3% (2)    5.3% (2)    78.9% (30)
  in humans