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