Justine McGrath (Animal Science) & Stephanie Lam (Animal Science)

Humans have coexisted with wildlife for centuries. Sometimes this relationship is beneficial, while at other times the struggle for power or resources leaves a species extinct. Cultures build on encounters and experiences they have shared with animals to create an emotional lens through which the animals are viewed. We argue that public perceptions and cultural biases partially influence the manner in which humans regulate wildlife populations. Specifically, we chose to look at the wolf as compared to the wild horse from both a sociological and scientific standpoint. As wolf and horse populations increase, they present unique problems for the ranchers, farmers, and landowners whom they are encroaching upon.

Symbolic Background: Wolves

Of all predators in North America, none is more controversial than the wolf. Public attitudes regarding these creatures span emotional extremes; they are loved by many conservationists and those who deeply value the cyclical nature of existence, and are often hated by those whose livelihoods or beliefs are challenged by the presence of a powerful predator (Peterson, 2005). This is not to say that a large number of people do not fall somewhere in between. However, the overall sentiment about wolves in both North America and Europe is negative, even among those who have never come close to contact with them (Stekert, 1999). Why do we as a culture hold such a hatred for wolves?

A large part of the answer to this question lies with the deep-rooted symbolism in our folklore.  Throughout history, international legends describe wolves in very different ways. The Cheyenne warriors were made strong and skillful because of their kinship with the wolf, and in Nordic culture it was believed that a great wolf would swallow the world and the gods, giving birth to a new clean world. They are generally negatively portrayed in European folklore. When European settlers came to North America, they carried their legends with them, and founded communities around their beliefs (Stekert, 1999).

Northwestern Minnesota, a hot-spot for wolf reintroduction, consists of many deep-rooted rural communities that share cultural norms and values. For those places settled by European immigrants, “attitudes that preserve remnant traits of an area’s founding and settling pattern generally are highly regarded in the community” (Chavez, 2005, p. 524). Remnant traits would in part refer to the settlement’s attitude towards wolves, as well as a utilitarian attitude towards life shared by residents. Utilitarians do not value things that are not beneficial to the whole. Therefore, through a utilitarian lens, wolves are a hindrance because they offer nothing advantageous to a rural farmer (Chavez, 2005, p. 524).

Current public perception of the wild wolf is largely a subconscious result of the stories and language we use every day. It is safe to assume that we, and a vast majority of children across the world, knew from a young age exactly who the villain was in “Little Red Riding Hood,” which portrays the character of the wolf as a cunning glutton who eats the innocent grandmother. In “The Three Little Pigs,” the angry, aggressive wolf consumes two of the peaceful pigs, who are trying to live a quiet life. Targeted media villainizes the wolf as well. For instance, in the movie “Beauty and the Beast”, Belle and her faithful horse Philippe are chased to the brink of death by a ravenous pack of wolves. In our early years, we learn these very subtle cultural biases that continue to grow and deepen their roots as we age. We hear and use phrases such as ‘crying wolf’, ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’, ‘a wolf at the door’, and ‘he’s a real wolf with women’. Current children’s media villainizes the wolf as well. For instance, in the movie “Beauty and the Beast”, Belle and her faithful horse are chased to the brink of death by a ravenous pack of wolves. Peterson (2005) explains in his writings that all of these stories and phrases that we perpetuate without much conscious thought depict the wolf as dangerous, sometimes foolish, and always threatening, both physically and sexually. In contrast, livestock are often viewed as naïve and innocent (p. 1).

In the article “Attitudes of Rural Landowners Toward Wolves in Northwestern Minnesota,” authors Chavez, Gese, and Krannich (2005) document a study they conducted concerning perceptions of wolves among differing categories of landowners. They surveyed two groups of people in Minnesota: those living within active wolf territory, and those living outside of wolf territory. When the authors asked if wolves should be allowed in northern Minnesota “even if they do not disturb livestock often (p. 523),” members of both groups responded between neutral and negative on an attitude scale. They also found that both groups generally felt that “wolves were causing unacceptable levels of damage in northwestern Minnesota’s livestock industry” (p.523)

Though this is a location specific survey, it is representative of a large population of the west who live in close proximity to wolf ranges. It is interesting to note that, according to the authors, residents who had not lived within an active wolf range for 100 years still felt that wolves were inflicting unacceptable damage to livestock farms. In conclusion, Chavez, Gese, and Krannich (2005) attribute the consistently negative results with long-present cultural bias among livestock owners, even if these owners had never had any personal experience with wolves (p.524). It must be acknowledged that since the authors sent surveys out to residents and asked for them to be sent back, the results may have been obtained under volunteer bias, in which only those who felt strongly about the situation sent the surveys back, and therefore the results may be skewed.

The main emotion that founds our attitudes towards wolves is fear. Fear of a predator, a mythological miscreant, a killer, and, largely, fear of the unknown. The famous image of the wolf’s silhouette against the moon, its howl sending chills downs our spines, represents a power that we may not know how to interpret, and so we are afraid. Our upbringing makes it easy to fear the wolf, and fear in turn can manifest itself in anger, aggression, and retaliation. We believe that fear as an innate emotional response is directly integrated into how we as humans perceive and consequently manage wolf populations.

Symbolic Background: Horses

            At the opposite end of the emotional spectrum lies the horse. Domestication of horses 6,000 years ago laid a foundation for generations of humans to build a relationship upon. They were used for agriculture, hunting, transportation, and recreation; they stood beside men during wars that helped pave the road for industrialization. Thus, many societies view horses as a symbol of power, status, and freedom. As animal science majors at the University of Massachusetts and avid riders, we find that riding horses with our peers offers us a sense of freedom from worry and restraint. This is a feeling shared by many who have the opportunity to ride. Throughout history, one could mount a horse to escape from danger. Power is the ability of a horse to pull a carriage or a plow.  Often, status is portrayed when one sits upon a horse, most notably in military settings. These three of universal concepts of power, status, and freedom are fundamental to how humans perceive horses (Garcon et al., 2012, p. 6).

In fairytales, Prince Charming rescues the princess on a mighty steed; during wars, the leader of an army rides into battle on his trusted mount. For Native Americans, tribes with more horses won more battles and gained more territory (Garcon et al., 2012, p. 6). All these ideas impact the way that we view horses. We spoke to a number of people on the University of Massachusetts campus who were not studying animal related fields and had no daily contact with horses, so their opinions were not biased due to their majors or careers. The majority of the interviewees described horses, both feral and domesticated, in a positive manner. Jagruti Rana described them as, “…pretty, unique animals that aren’t seen on a normal day basis” (J. Rana, personal communication, November 28, 2012). Rachel Swaniger illustrated them as “… beautiful animals. They seem fairly graceful and groomed well and nice and clean” (R. Swaniger, personal communication, November 28, 2012). When we asked what horses symbolize to her, Audrey Coulter stated, “Horses symbolize freedom and the mythical American west. I think of horses as good” (A. Coulter, personal communication, November 29, 2012).

Wolves Kill Livestock … But What is the Problem With Horses?

The effects of feral horse overpopulation in America are evident in the west, mainly in areas of Nevada and the surrounding states. As non-native creatures that were introduced to North America during the Spanish conquests, feral horses can be labeled as an invasive species.  In general, the presence of an invasive species in an ecosystem creates harsh competition for resources with native animals. In this case, there is a struggle amongst horses, elk, and cattle for enough grazing land, since their diets consist of the same plant variety. When the three are present in the same area, the result is overuse of the land and soil erosion (USDA, 2001, p. 7). According to Sharma (1997), author of the article “Assessing the impact of overgrazing on soil erosion in arid regions at a range of spatial scales”, 41 times the amount of soil was lost in areas subjected to heavy grazing as compared to those under light grazing, most likely due to ungulates churning up the earth, which is then carried away by water runoff (p. 122). The domino effect of competition for vegetation, overgrazing, and soil erosion will quicken the deterioration of the land because it leaves little time for the land to replenish itself before the animals need to graze again.

Water availability is another complicating factor brought about by the overpopulation of horses. Richard Miller (1983), a wildlife specialist, wrote about an event that would take place at several areas where wells were located. At any one time, up to 100 horses would surround a well, completely blocking access from his herd of pronghorns. The cattle had to wait until a number of the horses left, allowing enough space for them to squeeze over to the edge of the well for a drink (p. 197). Insufficient water sources force feral horses into public territory, creating conflicts between horses and humans. Wild horses seeking water sources gain access to public water tanks, much to the dismay of residents whose hard earned money was invested in their construction. This is a common complaint of those living in ranch–land communities (Pitt, 1985, p. 511).

Methods of Regulation: Wolves

With their reintroduction into the Rocky Mountain region of the United States, wolves have established populations that continue to grow, forcing them towards rural farm land. This creates problems for farmers whose livestock is preyed upon. Currently, lethal methods are most commonly used to control the wolf population. These methods include shooting (both on site if they are on a farmers land, or during open hunting season) and trapping, which often has a fatal conclusion for the captured animal. Why do we resort to lethal methods for controlling impeding wolf populations? You may say the answer is simple: wolves kill our livestock, so we permanently remove the problem animals; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. However, if we as a society take a moment to step back and examine wolf depredation from a scientific standpoint, we may realize that our knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive.

In the journal article “Effectiveness of Lethal, Directed Wolf-Depredation Control in Minnesota,” authors Harper, Paul, Mech, and Weisberg (2008) found that not only did killing more wolves fail to lower the number of depredations the following year; it actually increased the number of depredations carried out by wolves from the same pack the next year. Harper et al. hypothesize that the pack-mates of the slain wolves had already learned to prey on livestock, and with vital members of their pack removed, were forced to depend more heavily on livestock as a food source for survival (p. 782).

In an attempt to steer away from lethal methods of control, recent studies such as the one by Hawley, Gehring, Schultz, Rossler, and Wydeven in their publication “Assessment of Shock Collars as Nonlethal Management for Wolves in Wisconsin” observe the behavior of wolves accessorized with shock collars. If the collared wolf entered a specified area, it would trigger a shock. Each area was surrounded by a ‘detection zone’ where the wolf’s presence would be recorded, but no shock would be administered. The authors found that in general, the shock collars deterred the wolves from entering a specific site, even fourteen days after the collar was removed. Hawley et al. observed that while they had the collars on, and after a few encounters with the ‘live shocking’ areas, wolves tended to keep to the heavily wooded, low human density areas of their territory. They also noted that the treatment of the wolves in the shock area altered their behavior in the detection zone, where they were not shocked, in that the wolves visited both areas less frequently. The authors suggest that, with the development of technology, large scale farmers can benefit from this method. If the livestock pasture is established as a shock zone, this would mean the detection zone could act as a ‘buffer area’ around the pasture, deterring the wolves from even coming into the area (p. 523-24). We believe that we can build upon this idea for possibly an even more effective use of this technology, which we will discuss shortly.

Methods of Regulation: Horses

Since the boom in the population of free-roaming horses, two current methods to control and lower their numbers to a sustainable level involve the placement of corralled horses in a nationwide adoption program, and humane destruction of old and unhealthy individuals. In the latter method, adopted animals are not to be used for processing into commercial products unless permitted by the Secretary of the Interior. (Elizondo et al., 2011, p. 7). Due to the excess number of corralled horses placed in long and short-term holding pens, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had to find a method to downsize the numbers of captured horses to allow enough room for more horses in future round-ups. “The most recent amendment to the Wild Horse and Burro Act in December 2004 through Public Law No. 108-447 allows the BLM to ‘sell’ excess wild horses and burros if the animal is more than ten years of age or if it has been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times” (Elizondo et al., 2011, p. 9). The difference between adopted horses and sold horses is their fate. People who adopt horses will be analyzed for one year before given ownership, whereas sold horses are permitted to be processed.

On an online restaurant blog, Inside Scoop, Paolo Lucchesi explained how horsemeat became taboo in the United States. In 2006, the government banned funding for inspection of horse slaughter houses. As a result, the market for horse meat slowly declined.   In 2011, President Barack Obama legalized slaughterhouses in the U.S. because “in [an annual] report …, the Government Accountability Office documented an increase in horse neglect and abuse since slaughtering ended and found that by 2010 nearly 138,000 horses were being sent annually to Mexico and Canada for slaughter” (Murphy, 2012, para. 8). Horses shipped to Mexico experience more stress and worse treatment due to the far drive to slaughterhouses. The purpose of legalizing this policy in the U.S. is to hopefully provide regulated procedures when transporting and processing the animals for slaughter (Murphy, 2012, para. 20).

People’s attitudes toward domestic horses seem to apply to all horses in general. The emotional attachment and the years of companionship our ancestors have built with horses impacts how the public thinks the population of feral horses should be managed. When we discussed the practice of slaughtering horses with student Rachel Swaniger, she stated, “I don’t believe it’s o.k. to slaughter them because it’s cruel. Slaughtering cows is fine because I love my burgers. But people don’t eat horse meat.” Eva Thoi, another student, expressed similar views: “That’s so sad, why would anyone do that?” When I asked her what the difference between slaughtering cows and horses was, she responded, “Killing cows is sad but you don’t hear much about people killing horses” (E. Thoi, personal interview, November 28, 2012).

A Lethal Paradox

            Both wolves and feral horses are causing significant economic problems for ranchers and farmers in the United States. Wolves prey upon livestock, mainly sheep and cattle, which are a direct source of income for many people in rural communities. Horses overuse grazing pastures, rendering them barren for ungulates and cattle and useless to farmers who own them.  Wolves exist at a relatively sustainable population, while wild horses are overpopulated. Why is it, then, that a rancher who sees 100 horses around his well, damaging his property, does not shoot on site?

There is no regulated open hunting season on these horses; in fact, shooting them in any context is legally forbidden by the Wild Horse and Burro Act. After reading a large amount of information on wolves and wild horses, we stepped back and tried to view their management from the most objective, bias-free standpoint possible. Even as we write this it is difficult to separate our emotions from the subject. The truth is, there is no difference between shooting a wolf and shooting a horse except for how we as humans feel about it.  Something seems innately wrong when we think about destroying a perfectly healthy horse. We argue that the ‘innate’ part of this feeling stems directly from how our culture has taught us to perceive these animals.

Fear is a strong motivator is any situation. It gives us a reason to be angry, and spurs us into action when we sense a threat. Farmers and those living on rural land view wolves as a threat to their livelihood. It is easier to destroy a creature that you fear, and it certainly seems like it is a natural reaction to kill an animal that kills. Perhaps this is the reason that lethal regulation of wolf populations was the first defense chosen. Wolves hold so much negative weight it our stories, language, and media that these influences may have been just enough to sway us to shoot them instead of exploring non-lethal methods much earlier. Wolves are a vital part of the ecosystem and aid in keeping populations of ungulates in balance. Thankfully, more research is being done as to effective, long-term solutions to keep wolf populations in the western United States at a biologically and publically acceptable level. As mentioned previously, this includes research into shock collars, as well as various visual and scent deterrence techniques.

The benefits that horses have given us and the emotional attachment that has grown over the centuries fogs our judgment as to what is best for the horse’s future welfare. This distraction prevents us from using destructive means of regulating their population, despite the fact that they are an ecological disturbance to us and to other native species.

Management Proposals

Throughout our research, we found several non-lethal management techniques which we felt could be built upon. Research would have to be performed to determine their effectiveness. In their studies regarding the effectiveness of lethal methods to control wolves, Harper et al. (2008) found that the mere act of setting up traps in the woods was enough to deter wolves from the area, even though these traps did not catch any wolves. This suggests that human activity and scent was a natural deterrent (p. 783). For farms that have a recurrent problem with wolf depredation, we suggest the development of a ‘scent perimeter’. Similar to a scarecrow, farmer could place wooden, plastic, or metal human silhouettes in the forest surrounding their property. These could be hung with human scent, probably initially urine, to create a silent human barrier between the pasture and the wolf pack. Harper et al. also note that certain adult males within a pack appear to initiate hunting activity (p. 783). We propose that if there is a problem wolf pack, these key males could be accessorized with shock collars. If the pasture is set up as the shock area, conditioning of these few males should affect the hunting behavior of the whole pack and move them farther from the farm.

In regards to horses, their current maintenance by the BLM seems to be a waste of time and money. We believe that it is time for people to face a hard truth about what may be best to sustain healthy bands of horses. The BLM is funded by taxpayer’s money, and unfortunately it seems as if we are dumping this money into a black hole. Funds go towards corralling the horses and husbandry for the potentially adoptable horses. However, the number of horses kept in holding pens continues to increase because there is not a fast enough outlet for them. We assert that the solution is to either increase the number of horses adopted out or to humanely slaughter them in local slaughterhouses. The problem with the adoption program lies in its bad marketing strategy. There are plenty of people who would love to adopt a horse, but because the program is not commercialized enough, the demand is lower than expected. To utilize taxpayer’s money to the fullest, we believe that slaughterhouses should be constructed in the United States where there are high volumes of problematic wild horses. With slaughterhouses in close proximity to natural grazing areas, capturing and transporting the horses to the factories would take less time and inflict less stress on them. The slaughterhouses should also be strictly managed by the USDA and follow humane slaughtering techniques.

Conclusion

            There are so many methods of population regulation that have not been applied to either species because we have failed to think outside the ‘emotional box’. If we can accept that our emotions play a large, though subtle, part in our decision and law making, we can open our eyes to new and more effective forms of wildlife management. While our history has founded our current beliefs, we have the chance now to change the course of the story.

References

Chavez, A. S., Gese, E. M., & Krannich, R. S. (2005). Attitudes of rural landowners toward wolves in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(2), 517-527. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648 (2005)33[517:AORLTW]2.0.CO;2

Elizondo, V., Fitzgerald, T., & Rucker, R.R. (2011). An economic analysis of the wild horse and burro program. 1-44. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2011/elizondo/ElizondoV0511.pdf

Garcon, M., Karolyi, P., Hardy, L. (November 2012). Horse Symbolism in Different Cultures.  1(1), 6-8. Retrieved from http://www. scipres.com

Harper, E. K., Paul, W. J., Mech, L. D., & Weisberg, S. (2008). Effectiveness of lethal, directed wolf-depredation control in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(3), 778-784. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2007-273

Hawley, J.E., Gehring, T.M., Schultz, R.N., Rossler, S.T., & Wydeven, A.P. (2009). Assesment of shock collars as nonlethal management for wolves in Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(4), 518-525. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2007-066

Lucchesi, P. (2011, November 30). Congress restores U.S. horse-slaughter industry, but it’s still illegal in CA. Retrieved from http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/

Miller, R. (March 1983). Habitat Use of Feral Horses and Cattle in Wyoming’s Red Desert. Journal of Range Management, 36(2), 195-198. Retrieved from ojssandbox.library.arizona.edu

Murphy, K. (2012, July 11). Missouri Town Hopes to have First U.S. Horse Slaughter Plant. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com

Peterson, T. R. (2005, February). Through different eyes: shifting values and the return of the real wolf. Orion Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php /articles

Pitt, K. P., (Spring 1985). The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act: A Western Melodrama. Environmental Law, 15(3), 503-530. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/envlnw15&div=29&g_sent=1&collection=journals

Sharma, K. D. (April 1997). Assessing the impact of overgrazing on soil erosion in arid regions at a range of spatial scales. In D.E. Walling & J.~L. Probst (Eds.), Human Impact on Erosion and Sedimentation. 119-123. Location: Publisher. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: IAHS Press.

Stekert, E.J. [English professor, University of Minnesota] (1999). Crying wolf – the wolf as symbol in folklore. Wolfsong of Alaska, Retrieved from http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/ wolf_ folklore .html

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Services. (2001). Environmental Assessment for Wild Free-Roaming Horse Management on the El Rito Ranger District. 1- 67. Retrieved from www.fs.usda.gov

Elizabeth Gaudet, Natural Resource Conservation

Julian Ross, Environmental Science

Introduction

Industrial agriculture, including factory farming, is seen by some as an improvement in the production of food.  It is able to produce high yields of crops and animal products on small areas of land and has become a booming industry in the United States. Most of the food produced by industrial agriculture is shipped and sold far from the source of production.  Crops such as wheat, corn, and coffee are often grown on industrial monoculture farms where, year after year, the same crop is grown.  Factory farming, a component of industrial agriculture, consists of raising livestock on grain-based feed.  The livestock (most commonly cows, chickens, and pigs) are raised in high-density confined spaces.  Although it may seem like producing high yields as efficiently as possible is ideal, there are several external factors to consider. Factory farms have many negative environmental and health consequences that need to be addressed in order to develop a more sustainable food system for the 21^st Century. Livestock on factory farms have a poor quality of life because of the confined spaces and high rate of disease that occurs in these constricted environments.  Factory farms must administer high levels of antibiotics continuously to the livestock as a preventative measure against infection.  Pesticides are also used within the livestock facilities to combat pests since the confinement areas are so grimy.  These conditions are unnatural and lead to potential illness for both livestock and consumers. Supporting small, local farms is the most effective way that an individual can help solve the issues caused by factory farming. These smaller agricultural businesses produce crops and livestock more safely and sustainably, therefore lessening the negative effects on the environment, the economy and human health.

 Cons of Industrial Agriculture

One of the major concerns about factory farming is the large amount of pollution produced and how this affects organisms and ecosystems.  This pollution includes runoff of pesticides and animal waste. The animal waste can contain antibiotics and unnatural amounts of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus as well as dangerous pathogens that evade antibiotics.

Pesticides are applied to the skin of livestock in factory farm facilities in order to combat pests like mites, cockroaches, and flies because of the unsanitary conditions in the high-density livestock facilities.  The livestock is also mainly fed with corn grown by industrial agriculture companies that requires the use of many pesticides and herbicides to fight off insects and weeds from the corn monoculture (GRACE, 2012).  This high level of pesticide use negatively affects the health of farm workers and those who are exposed.  Health hazards can be acute from short-term exposure to high doses, or they can be chronic from prolonged low-level exposure (Pagiola, 1995).  Pesticides in run-off also contaminate ground and surface water, which affects the humans and wildlife who use the water (Pagiola, 1995).  Vegetable crops tend to have the highest concentration of pesticide use, which can adversely affect consumers of these vegetables (Pagiola, 1995). Livestock that are fed pesticide rich materials will accumulate toxins that are then passed along via meat products. Having more crop biodiversity is the broadest and most effective solution for reducing the amount of pesticides and fertilizers needed. Biodiversity supports an environment that prevents pest species from controlling the ecosystem and causing damage to crops.

Runoff from animal waste can also contain excessive amounts of nutrients, specifically nitrates and phosphates, which causes eutrophication of the bodies of water they empty into.  Eutrophication is the sudden introduction of a nutrient/nutrients into an ecosystem, where it can cause disturbances among the species. Nitrogen and phosphorus eutrophication in water can promote excessive growth of algae, which depletes the water of oxygen once it dies and decomposes (United States Geological Survey, 2011).  A depletion of oxygen causes the death of organisms within the aquatic ecosystem such as certain species of fish that require high amounts of dissolved oxygen (USGS, 2011).

Animal waste from factory farms can contain antibiotics that were fed to the animals in order to promote growth and fight off the chance of disease. The spread of disease is a real concern, since the livestock live in such close proximity to one another, making antibiotics a key component in raising the animals (GRACE, 2012).  Bacteria within the animals’ intestines can become resistant to the antibiotics because of constant exposure to it.  It can be very dangerous if these bacteria are exposed to humans, since antibiotics would be ineffective in treating the infection (Chapin, Rule, Gibson, Buckley, and Schwab, 2004).  The antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animal waste can reach the human population as water runoff, soil contamination, food contamination, or direct contact with the animals (Chapin et al, 2004).  We believe that multiple, lower-density livestock farms will require less antibiotic use and therefore pose less risk for disease.

Another scary human health risk is E. coli infection from eating livestock fed with grains (mostly corn).  Cattle, pigs and other livestock are not designed to digest starchy grains and a portion of the starch is passed into the lower digestive system, where it is fermented into acetic acid (Segelken, 1998).  The normally alkaline digestive system becomes acidic when the livestock are raised on grain feed. The acidic environment of the livestock’s gut selects for acid-resistant forms of E. coli, such as the deadly O157:H7 strain.  Usually the stomach acid of the human digestive tract kills off E. coli before it passes to the intestines.  However, acid-resistant E. coli can survive the low pH of the human stomach and cause infection and illness once they reach the intestines.  When livestock are raised on their natural diet (grass and insects), their guts have a higher pH and therefore do not select for these acid-resistant bacteria (Segelken, 1998).  We believe that raising animals on pastures can help prevent risk of food-borne illness because the chance of producing acid-resistant strains of bacteria is much lower.

Sustainable Local Methods

Sourcing food from local farms can help to mitigate many of the negative effects caused by factory farming and benefit local farmers and consumers in other ways. Implementation of agriculture that supports the needs of the local environment and people allows for food production that requires less resources and minimizes the distance food is transported before it is consumed.

Small, local farms can maintain a diverse selection of plant and animal life. Biodiversity on a sustainable farm is not limited to food products; it also includes supportive species that help maintain the integrity of the crops and ecosystem. This biodiversity helps to limit the impact that pests have on crops because there is competition between pests and other species, such as birds. Farms that are integrated along tree lines and rivers support bird and bat habitats that help drive down pest populations and lower the need for pesticides. This type of biodiversity mimics a competitive natural environment and minimizes the need for pesticides and fertilizers.

Seasonal eating is another concept integral to maximizing the benefits of local agriculture. Seasonal eating means consuming food goods that are in season locally, at the time of consumption. In temperate areas like New England, this means consuming fresh vegetables and fruit during the Summer and Fall months and eating more meat products in the Winter and Spring. This decreases reliance on crops that have to be shipped from warmer climates, which reduces transportation-related fossil fuel consumption.

There are also economic factors to understand when considering where your food it produced. When food is grown and obtained locally, the majority of the money that is spent on the food remains in the local economy. Instead of benefiting corporations and stock-holders that own factory farms, money spent on local agriculture benefits the local workers who work to produce the food. When buying food directly from farms or farmer’s markets, farmers benefit from not having to sell their products to distributors at reduced prices and can receive the full value of their products. This direct-to-consumer approach benefits both the farmer and consumer by eliminating the intermediary party.

Local agriculture also uses far less fossil fuels than its factory-farming counterpart because of decreased reliance on transportation, synthetic fertilizers and farm machinery. Small-scale farms rely more on a physical labor workforce than on machines and this uses less fossil fuels, while creating more jobs.  This reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released, helping to mitigate global climate change.

Local, diverse agricultural also has several secondary benefits that add to its value. There is evidence that ruminants that are herded in a rotational patterns on pastures help the soil sequester more carbon dioxide (a potent greenhouse gas) than is released by the cattle production. (Abend 2010) This creates a net positive effect when considering the environmental carbon cycle. A 2006 report by the United Nations attributed 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases to livestock production. Shifting focus towards pasture-raised livestock could potentially make a substantial impact on total greenhouse gas emissions.

Counterarguments And Additional Considerations

Factory farms have taken some steps in increasing their benefits and mitigating their negative effects.  One example is the process of capturing the methane released from cows and using it to generate electricity.  Although this is a good effort to become more sustainable, it doesn’t help eliminate the pollution from animal wastes and pesticide runoff (GRACE, 2012).  Another example of the benefits of industrial agriculture and factory farming is that it allows for cheap food production (Farrell, 2007).  This is true, but looking at all the external costs of being able to get cheap food, it is in people’s best interest to consider paying the extra money for sustainably produced food.  This not only improves the health of consumers but will provide a more biologically diverse and resilient environment for future generations.  Lastly, industrial agriculture provides a lot of food for the growing human population (Farrell, 2007).  However, this high yield is susceptible to a complete wipeout if circumstances are right.  Since it’s usually a monoculture (the same crop planted in a given area) there is little genetic diversity.  If the crop encounters a new strain of pest that it has little or no resistance to, then the entire crop may be destroyed due to infection. If this happens, then the benefits of high yield industrial farming may be lost and there could be a shortage of food.

The primary method of supporting sustainable agriculture at this time is for consumers to be aware of how the source their food and to maximize the percentage that they acquire from local sources. Whether starting a garden or buying into a farm share, obtaining food from the local environment yields the benefits outlined in this paper. If enough consumers change their habits to support these methods, a substantial positive effect can be made on the environment and society.

Since the growing human population creates a major challenge to the production of food, we think that it is still important to have some of these industrial agriculture systems, but changes within these systems need to be made.  We believe that if industrial agriculture can adopt some of the ideas practiced by smaller farms (more biodiversity, rotational patterns on pastures, low-density confinement resulting in less pesticide and antibiotic use, etc.), then this could help reduce some of the negative consequences.  But, the most important and effective way to reduce the environmental and health consequences is to support local agriculture as much as possible, since these farms are the “poster-child” for ways to farm sustainably.  The government should encourage more local farming to be done so that more local food can be produced.  This could be done through tax breaks for the farmers or subsidies granted to them. However, if the government is unable to enact policies that support these practices, consumers still have the ability to support them by interacting with their local farms to obtain food.

Conclusion

Empowering people to gather food from their local communities should be the primary goal of researchers and policymakers of the 21^st century. While each region of the world requires a unique approach to growing and marketing local food, there are universal principles that should be embraced in order to maximize the benefits. These principles include small-scale farms, seasonal eating and agricultural diversity. Utilizing these concepts benefits the environment, local ecosystem and empowers communities to support their local economies. It is our recommendation that communities take the necessary steps to support the development of local agriculture and discourage the consumption of food from distant factory farms.

REFERENCES

Abend, L. (2010, January 25). How eating grass-fed beef could help fight climate change. TIME.com. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html

Chapin, A., Rule, A., Gibson, K., Buckley, T., & Schwab, K. (2004). Airborne multi drug-resistant bacteria isolated from a concentrated swine feeding operation.  Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(2), 137-142.  doi: 10.1289/ehp.7473

Chickens on Factory Farm – So What Does The Inside Of A Factory Farm Look Like Anyways. (2009). Image retrieved on: Dec 4, 2012, retrieved from: http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/so-what-does-the-inside-of-a-factory-farm-look-like-anyway-slideshow.html

Farrell, R. (2007, June 10). Factory Farms; Are they good for consumers? Real Truth. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://realtruth.org/articles/070601-004-ff.html

Mobile Chicken Roost – The Dews. (2012). Image retrieved on: Dec 4, 2012 retrieved from: http://libertyfarmva.blogspot.com/2012/05/polyface-farm-shenandoah-valley.html

Pagiola, S. (1995). Environmental and natural resource degradation in intensive agriculture in Bangladesh. Washington, D.C.: Agriculture and Natural Resource Operations Division South Asia Region.

Segelken, R. (1998, September 17). Cattle feeding change could cut E. coli risk. Cornell Chronicle Online. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/9.17.98/cattle_feeding.html

Sustainable table; Pesticides. (2012). GRACE Communications Foundation. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://www.gracelinks.org/263/pesticides

Toxic substances hydrology program; Eutrophication.  (2011, December 27).  USGS. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html