The fragrance of livestock means money, unless your nose is bothered by the richness in the air, then you are likely to define it as an odor, and an objectionable one at that. The recent trend to concentrate livestock operations has created skirmishes in many areas, from legal and public relations battles, to guerilla-type warfare. At issue is a livestock operators right to raise and sell livestock, which goes as far as someone’s nose which gets bent out of shape by the odor of nature. Beyond the mudslinging, what has been happening with property values, tax assessments, and other local laws that are constantly being challenged by both sides of the livestock issue?

Economists Ann Ulmer and Ray Massey at the University of Missouri poured over lawsuits, tax and land value actions, and other documents that might give a hint about the impact of an animal feeding operation (AFO) on neighboring property owners. Whether you are the smeller or the smellee the Ulmer and Massey research, will give you a hint about some precedents being established in livestock country.

The Ulmer and Massey research found that the impact of the livestock operations was limited to nearby property, and while a major caused a reduction in property value, a contrasting case indicated that values increased because the number of workers at the operation caused an increased demand for housing, subsequently raising its value. While several cases resulted in no change in property value, one study found the local economic impact of the operation outweighed the negative impact on real estate values.

Your distance from the facility has a direct impact on whether you are really affected by the livestock operations, according to the Missouri economists. For example, an Iowa study found negative impact only for homes downwind of the livestock operation. Pennsylvania and North Carolina studies found impact for everyone within a circle around the operation, but the longer the radius, the less the impact. In Colorado and Pennsylvania, the impact depends on the type of operation, and while swine and poultry vied for the worst, beef and dairy were less objectionable.

Ulmer and Massey report confusing conflicts with several studies about the degree of impact of the livestock operations. Larger facilities were not seen as bad because they were probably newer, had better technology, and better management. While all operations had some impact, one study found that a new operation joining others in the same vicinity would have a less objectionable impact. Another study found that the more animals, the more objectionable the animal feeding operation was.

Two studies examined by the Missouri economists looked at the impact of management practices on nearby residential vales. They found that an operation with a good conservation program impacted the area less, than one without a conservation plan. Similarly, some Iowa research found that the operations which had a lesser impact on land values were also the ones with better management of manure storage, land application, and site selection of the operation.

It was earlier noted that one study concluded there were significant economic benefits to the animal feeding operation, that the negative impact on home values was overshadowed. However they note that a Nebraska resident was able to get a reduction on his tax bill because of the nearby livestock operation, which he, himself owned.

Summary:
The perennial battle between livestock operators and residential home owners has been the subject of extensive study, but with little consensus. While it is a given that property values may decline, those impacts could be restricted by distance from the facility, direction from the facility, and how many animals were in the facility.