Feed, processing capacity, population density versus animal density, and environmental capacities are the four different dimensions of livestock location and growth potential analyzed for Indiana. These four dimensions provide livestock producers, government officials, and livestock associations a valuable perspective on the constraints that could limit Indiana’s livestock growth potential. Comparisons among 21 states on these dimensions indicated that Indiana is a second choice of states for livestock growth; Kansas and Iowa are the only first choices. Indiana’s strength in the state comparison is its ability to assimilate the phosphorus produced by livestock and commercial phosphorus. As environmental regulations continue to tighten and shift from nitrogen to phosphorus based application standards for manure, the ability to assimilate phosphorus will continue to be one of Indiana’s strengths, along with its abundance of feed and swine processing capacity. Population density is the key dimension that is a disadvantage for Indiana. Within the state of Indiana, the West Central district has key advantages compared to other districts of the state. This district has an abundance of feed, the second lowest population density in the state, and excess phosphorus assimilation capacity. This district does not have processing capacity for any species, but the adjoining districts do have adequate processing capacity. Overall, the results show that Indiana has the potential to grow the livestock sector. However, there will be constraints such as population density that require more in-depth study to determine how to address this potential limitation on growth.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics in its series Working Papers with number
06-06.