Factory farming

Interior of a hog confinement barn or piggery

Factory farming is the practice of raising farm animals in confinement at high stocking density, where a farm operates as a factory — a practice typical in industrial farming by agribusinesses.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Confinement at high stocking density is one part of a systematic effort to produce the highest output at the lowest cost by relying on economies of scale, modern machinery, biotechnology, and global trade. Confinement at high stocking density requires antibiotics and pesticides to mitigate the spread of disease and pestilence exacerbated by these crowded living conditions.^[6] In addition, antibiotics are used to stimulate livestock growth by killing intestinal bacteria.^[7] There are differences in the way factory farming techniques are practiced around the world. There is a continuing debate over the benefits and risks of factory farming. The issues include the efficiency of food production; animal welfare; whether it is essential for feeding the growing global human population; the environmental impact and the health risks.

The UN and OIE estimate that in coming decades there will be billions of additional consumers in developing countries eating meat factory farmed in developing countries, but currently only about 40 out of the around 200 countries in the world have the capacity to adequately respond to a health crisis originating from animal disease (such as swine flu, avian flu, West Nile virus, bluetongue, and foot and mouth disease). Widespread use of antibiotics increases the chance of a pandemic resistant to known measures, which is exacerbated by a globally distributed food system. Decreased genetic diversity increases the chance of a food crisis.^[8]

A commercial chicken house raising "broiler" pullets for meat

Terminology

Agriculture
General
Agribusiness · Agriculture
Agricultural science · Agronomy
Animal husbandry
Extensive farming
Factory farming · Free range
Industrial agriculture
Intensive farming
Organic farming · Permaculture
Sustainable agriculture
Urban agriculture
History
History of agriculture
Neolithic Revolution
Muslim Agricultural Revolution
British Agricultural Revolution
Green Revolution
Particular
Aquaculture · Dairy farming
Grazing · Hydroponics · IMTA
Intensive pig farming · Lumber
Maize · Orchard
Poultry farming · Ranching · Rice
Sheep husbandry · Soybean
System of Rice Intensification
Wheat
Categories
Agriculture by country
Agriculture companies
Biotechnology
Farming history
Livestock
Meat processing
Poultry farming
Agropedia portal
This box: view • talk • edit

Factory farming

The Oxford English Dictionary attributes the first recorded use of "factory farming" to an American journal of economics in 1890.^[9] It is now used widely by mainstream news organizations, including the BBC, The Washington Post, and CNN. A 1998 documentary, A Cow at My Table, shows the term is also used within the agricultural industry, although it is regarded by sections of the industry as a term used by activists.^[10] The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes that the term is "descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S." and frequently used by animal rights activists.^[11] Webster's New Millennium defines it as "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility."^[12]

Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)

"An animal feeding operation is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a lot or facility where animals are kept 45 days of the year or more [and] structures or animal traffic prevents vegetative growth. Note that this is different from a EPA's definition of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) which is an animal feeding operation larger than a given size."^[13]

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

In the U.S., some factory farms are also known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)^[14][15] confined animal feeding operations,^[16] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).^[17] "A confined animal feeding operation means a lot or facility, together with any associated treatment works, where both of the following conditions are met. One, animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period. And two, crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained over any portion of the operation lot or facility." The definition is used as part of waste management and environmental protection laws to deal with the concentrated pollution from large quantities of animal waste.^[18][19].

Confinement

CAFOs and factory farms can be mostly indoors or mostly outdoors operations. The "confinement at high stocking density" aspect refers to lack of natural vegetation that the animals can eat and that can naturally process the resulting animal waste. High stocking density destroys the vegetation and produces unacceptable pollution from the animal waste in run-off and ground water unless it is handled appropriately, so laws have been enacted to deal with that; thus the legal definition for the term CAFO.

History

Agriculture adopted more intensive methods during the 18th century, with this growth in production best characterized by the Agricultural Revolution, where improvements in farming techniques allowed for significantly improved yields, and supported the urbanization of the population during the Industrial Revolution.

Innovations in agriculture beginning in the late 19th century paralleled developments in mass production in other industries. The identification of nitrogen and phosphorus as critical factors in plant growth led to the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers, making possible more intensive types of agriculture. The discovery of vitamins and their role in animal nutrition, in the first two decades of the 20th century, led to vitamin supplements, which in the 1920s allowed certain livestock to be raised indoors.^{[citation needed]} The discovery of antibiotics and vaccines facilitated raising livestock in larger numbers by reducing disease. Chemicals developed for use in World War II gave rise to synthetic pesticides. Developments in shipping networks and technology have made long-distance distribution of agricultural produce feasible.

According to the BBC, factory farming in Britain began in 1947 when a new Agriculture Act granted subsidies to farmers to encourage greater output by introducing new technology, in order to reduce Britain's reliance on imported meat. The United Nations writes that intensification of animal production was seen as a way of providing food security.^[20] The agriculture correspondent of The Guardian wrote in 1964:

Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay. The tide will not be held back, either by the humanitarian outcry of well meaning but sometimes misguided animal lovers, by the threat implicit to traditional farming methods, or by the sentimental approach to a rural way of life. In a year which has been as uneventful on the husbandry side as it has been significant in economic and political developments touching the future of food procurement, the more far-seeing would name the growth of intensive farming as the major development.^[21]

Nature of the practice

Scale

Agricultural production across the world doubled four times between 1820 and 1975^[22] to feed a global population of one billion human beings in 1800 and 6.5 billion in 2002.^[23]

During the same period, the number of people involved in farming dropped as the process became more automated. In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90 consumers.^[23]

The number of farms has also decreased, and their ownership is more concentrated. In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens.^[24] In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000,^[25] with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms as of 2002, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council.^[23] According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way.^[14]

Europe has become increasingly skeptical of factory farming, after a series of diseases such as BSE (mad cow) and foot and mouth disease affected its agricultural industries, yet despite these outbreaks there are indications that the industrialized production of farm animals is set to increase globally. According to Denis Avery of the Hudson Institute, Asia increased its consumption of pork by 18 million tons in the 1990s.^[26] As of 1997, the world had a stock of 900 million pigs, which Avery predicts will rise to 2.5 billion pigs by 2050.^[26] He told the College of Natural Resources at the University of California, Berkeley that three billion pigs will thereafter be needed annually to meet demand.^[27]

Distinctive characteristics

Cows in a factory farm in the U.S.

Factory farms hold large numbers of animals, typically cows, pigs, turkeys, or chickens, often indoors, typically at high densities. The aim of the operation is to produce as much meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost. Food is supplied in place, and a wide variety of artificial methods are employed to maintain animal health and improve production, such as the use of antimicrobial agents, vitamin supplements, and growth hormones. Physical restraints are used to control movement or actions regarded as undesirable. Breeding programs are used to produce animals more suited to the confined conditions and able to provide a consistent food product.^{[citation needed]}

The distinctive characteristic of factory farms is the intense concentration of livestock. At one farm (Farm 2105) run by Carrolls Foods of North Carolina, the second-largest pig producer in the U.S., twenty pigs are kept per pen and each confinement building or "hog parlor" holds 25 pens.^[28] The company's chief executive officer, F.J. "Sonny" Faison, has said: "It's all a supply-and-demand price question … The meat business in this country is just about perfect, uncontrolled supply-and-demand free enterprise. And it continues to get more and more sophisticated, based on science. Only the least-cost producer survives in agriculture."^[29] Faison states tongue-in-cheek:

They're in state-of-the-art confinement facilities. The conditions that we keep these animals in are much more humane than when they were out in the field. Today they're in housing that is environmentally controlled in many respects. And the feed is right there for them all the time, and water, fresh water. They're looked after in some of the best conditions, because the healthier and [more] content that animal, the better it grows. So we're very interested in their well-being—up to an extent.^[30]

Key issues

Ethics

The large concentration of animals, animal waste, and the potential for dead animals in a small space poses ethical issues^{[clarification needed]}. It is recognized that some techniques used to sustain intensive agriculture can be cruel to animals.^[31] As awareness of the problems of intensive techniques has grown, there have been some efforts by governments and industry to remove inappropriate techniques.

In the UK, the Farm Animal Welfare Council was set up by the government to act as an independent advisor on animal welfare in 1979.^[32] and expresses its policy as five freedoms: from hunger & thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury or disease; to express normal behavior; from fear and distress.

There are differences around the world as to which practices are accepted and there continue to be changes in regulations with animal welfare being a strong driver for increased regulation. For example, the EU is bringing in further regulation to set maximum stocking densities for meat chickens by 2010, where the UK Animal Welfare Minister commented, "The welfare of meat chickens is a major concern to people throughout the European Union. This agreement sends a strong message to the rest of the world that we care about animal welfare.”^[33]

However, given the assumption that intensive farming techniques are a necessity, it is recognized that some apparently cruel techniques are better than the alternative^{[clarification needed]}. For example, in the UK, de-beaking of chickens is deprecated, but it is recognized that it is a method of last resort, seen as better than allowing vicious fighting and ultimately cannibalism.^[31] Between 60 and 70 percent^[34] of six million breeding sows in the U.S. are confined during pregnancy, and for most of their adult lives, in 2 ft (0.61 m) by 7 ft (2.1 m) gestation crates.^[3][35] According to pork producers and many veterinarians, sows will fight if housed in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates by 2017.^[3] They are being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy.^[36] With the evolution of factory farming, there has been a growing awareness of the issues amongst the wider public, not least due to the efforts of animal rights and welfare campaigners.^[37] As a result gestation crates, one of the more contentious practices, are the subject of laws in the U.S.^[38], Europe^[39] and around the world to phase out their use as a result of pressure to adopt less confined practices.

U.S. consumer preferences

A study done by Oklahoma State University, utilizes results of a representative telephone survey to measure consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare, and investigates how these attitudes vary across individuals. The survey finds that consumers desire high standards of animal care, even if it raises food prices and involves government regulation. Support is particularly strong for females, Democrats, and residents of the Northeastern United States. To provide high standards of animal care, consumers as a whole perceive allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviors and exercise outdoors to be more important than protection from other animals, shelter, socialization, and comfortable bedding. Consumers vary in their perceptions though, and are divided into three classes of consumers: Naturalists, Price Seekers, and Descartes’ Entourage. Naturalists place great importance on allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviors and exercise outdoors, and comprise 46% of the sample. Price Seekers, comprising 14% of the sample, are primarily concerned with low prices. Descartes' Entourage make up 40% of the respondents, and value animal welfare but perceive it can be achieved by simply providing food, water, and treatment for injury and disease. This last group perceives amenities such as access to outdoors and ability to exhibit natural behaviors unimportant for the well-being of farm animals.^[40]

Human health impact

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human beings.

Pesticides are used to control organisms which are considered harmful^[41] and they save farmers money by preventing product losses to pests.^[42] In the US, about a quarter of pesticides used are used in houses, yards, parks, golf courses, and swimming pools^[43] and about 70% are used in agriculture.^[42] However, pesticides can make their way into consumers' bodies which can cause health problems. One source of this is bioaccumulation in animals raised on factory farms.^[43][44][45]

The CDC writes that chemical, bacterial, and viral compounds from animal waste may travel in the soil and water. Residents near such farms report nuisances such as unpleasant smell, flies and adverse health effects.^[15]

The CDC has identified a number of pollutants associated with the discharge of animal waste into rivers and lakes, and into the air. The use of antibiotics may create antibiotic-resistant pathogens; parasites, bacteria, and viruses may be spread; ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus can reduce oxygen in surface waters and contaminate drinking water; pesticides and hormones may cause hormone-related changes in fish; animal feed and feathers may stunt the growth of desirable plants in surface waters and provide nutrients to disease-causing micro-organisms; trace elements such as arsenic and copper, which are harmful to human health, may contaminate surface waters.^[15]

In the European Union, growth hormones are banned on the basis that there is no way of determining a safe level. The UK has stated that in the event of the EU raising the ban at some future date, to comply with a precautionary approach, it would only consider the introduction of specific hormones, proven on a case by case basis.^[46] In 1998, the European Union banned feeding animals antibiotics that were found to be valuable for human health. Furthermore, in 2006 the European Union banned all drugs for livestock that were used for growth promotion purposes. As a result of these bans, the levels of antibiotic resistance in animal products and within the human population showed a decrease. ^[47]

The various techniques of factory farming have been associated with a number of European incidents where public health has been threatened or large numbers of animals have had to be slaughtered to deal with disease. Where disease breaks out, it may spread more quickly, not only due to the concentrations of animals, but because modern approaches tend to distribute animals more widely.^{[48][citation needed]}. The international trade in animal products increases the risk of global transmission of virulent diseases such as swine fever^[49], BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu.

In April 2009, lawmakers in the Mexican state of Veracruz accused large-scale hog and poultry operations of being breeding grounds of a pandemic swine flu, although they did not present scientific evidence to support their claim. A swine flu which quickly killed more than 100 infected persons in that area, appears to have begun in the vicinity of a Smithfield subsidiary pig CAFO.^[50]

Animal health impact

The result of confinement and overcrowding is a lack of exercise and natural locomotory behavior for the animals. This, in turn, weakens both their bones and muscles. In addition, an intensive poultry farm provides the optimum conditions for viral mutation and transmission - thousands of birds crowded together in a closed, warm and dusty environment is highly conducive to the transmission of a contagious disease. Selecting generations of birds for their faster growth rates and higher meat yields has left birds’ immune systems less able to cope with infections and there is a high degree of genetic uniformity in the population, making spread of the virus more easy. Further intensification of the industry has been suggested by some as the solution to avian flu, on the rationale that keeping birds indoors will prevent contamination. However, this relies on perfect, fail-safe biosecurity – and such measures are near impossible to implement. Movement between farms of people, materials and vehicles poses a threat and breaches in biosecurity are possible. Intensive farming is creating highly virulent avian ‘flu strains. With the frequent flow of goods within and between countries, the potential for disease spread is high.^[51] Confinement and overcrowding of animals' environment presents the risk of contamination of the meat from viruses and bacteria. Feedlot animals reside in crowded conditions and often spend their time standing in their own waste. In fact, a dairy farm with 2,500 cows may produce as much waste as a city of 411,00 people, and unlike a city in which human waste ends up at a sewage treatment plant, livestock waste is not treated. As a result, feedlot animals have the potential of exposure to various viruses and bacteria via the manure and urine in their environment. Furthermore, the animals may often have some manure remaining on their bodies when they go to slaughter. ^[52]

Environmental impact

Concentrating large numbers of animals in factory farms is a major contribution to global environmental degradation, through the need to grow feed (often by intensive methods using excessive fertiliser and pesticides), pollution of water, soil and air by agrochemicals and manure waste, and use of limited resources (water, energy).^[53]

Livestock production is also particularly water-intensive in indoor, intensive systems. Eight per cent of global human water use goes towards animal production.^[53]

Industrial production of pigs and poultry is an important source of GHG emissions and is predicted to become more so. On intensive pig farms, the animals are generally kept on concrete with slats or grates for the manure to drain through. The manure is usually stored in slurry form (slurry is a liquid mixture of urine and faeces). During storage on farm, slurry emits methane and when manure is spread on fields it emits nitrous oxide and causes nitrogen pollution of land and water. Poultry manure from factory farms emits high levels of nitrous oxide and ammonia.^[53]

Organic pig meat production has a lower global warming potential per kg than does intensive pig meat production. The GHG emissions for free-range poultry meat are slightly higher than for factory farmed poultry meat.^[53]

Environmental impacts of factory farming can include:

• Deforestation for animal feed production
• Unsustainable pressure on land for production of high protein/high energy animal feed
• Pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser manufacture and use for feed production
• Unsustainable use of water for feed-crops, including groundwater extraction
• Pollution of soil, water and air by nitrogen and phosphorus from fertiliser used for feed-crops and from manure
• Land degradation (reduced fertility, soil compaction, increased salinity, desertification)
• Loss of biodiversity due to eutrophication, acidification, pesticides and herbicides
• Worldwide reduction of genetic diversity of livestock and loss of traditional breeds
• Species extinctions due to livestock-related habitat destruction (especially feed-cropping) ^[53]

Animal welfare impact

Animal welfare impacts of factory farming can include:

• Close confinement systems (cages, crates) or lifetime confinement in indoor sheds
• Discomfort and injuries caused by inappropriate flooring and housing
• Restriction or prevention of normal exercise and most of natural foraging or exploratory behaviour
• Restriction or prevention of natural maternal nesting behaviour
• Lack of daylight or fresh air and poor air quality in animal sheds
• Social stress and injuries caused by overcrowding
• Health problems caused by extreme selective breeding and management for fast growth and high productivity
• Reduced lifetime (longevity) of breeding animals (dairy cows, breeding sows)
• Fast-spreading infections encouraged by crowding and stress in intensive conditions^[53]
• Male chicks, which are too scrawny for meat and incapable of laying eggs, may be liquidated as inventory^[54]

Farmed animals and the law

Farmed animals are excluded by most state animal cruelty laws and the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The 28 hour law, enacted in 1873 and amended in 1994, covers farmed animals during transportation only. The law states that when animals are being transported for slaughter, the vehicle must stop every 28 hours and the animals must be let out for exercise, food, and water. The United States Department of Agriculture claims that the law does not apply to birds. The Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act is similarly limited. Originally passed in 1958, the Act requires that livestock be stunned into unconsciousness prior to slaughter. This Act also excludes birds, who make up more than 90 percent of the animals slaughtered for food, as well as rabbits and fish. Individual states all have their own animal cruelty statutes; however many states have a provision to exempt standard agricultural practices.^[55].

Aspects of factory farming

• Low monetary cost — Intensive agriculture tends to produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. This is achieved by reducing land costs, management costs, and feed costs through government subsidized agricultural methods.
• Standardization — Factory farming methods permit increased consistency and control over product output.
• Efficiency — Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. Further, more efficient production of meat, milk, or eggs results in a need for fewer animals to be raised.
• Economic contribution — The high input costs of agricultural operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital. A single dairy cow contributes over $1300 US to a local rural economy each year, each beef cow over $800, meat turkey $14, and so on. As Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff states, “Research estimates that the annual economic impact per cow is $13,737. In addition, each $1 million increase in PA milk sales creates 23 new jobs. This tells us that dairy farms are good for Pennsylvania's economy.” ^[56]
• Food safety — Reducing number and diversity of agricultural production facilities may make oversight and regulation of food quality easier.
• Animal health — Larger farms may employ greater resources to maintain a high level of animal health. Larger farms can potentially employ expert employees who devote their working hours to assessing animal health, a task which would be cost-prohibitive for most small farms. Larger farms may be more able to make regular use of veterinarians and the resources of state and federal agricultural extension services. Industrial agriculture generally provides more mechanisms for the use of antibiotics to prevent and treat diseases than non-industrial agriculture.
• Diseases - Intensive farming may make the evolution and spread of harmful diseases easier. Many communicable diseases spread rapidly through densely spaced populations of animals with low genetic diversity. Animals raised on antibiotics may develop antibiotic resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria ("superbugs").^[57] Use of animal vaccines can create new viruses that kill people and cause flu pandemic threats. H5N1 is an example of where this might have already occurred.^[58][59][60]
• Pollution — Large quantities and concentrations of waste are produced.^[61] Lakes, rivers, and groundwater are at risk when animal waste is improperly recycled. Pollutant gases are also emitted. Concentrations of animals can produce unacceptable levels of foul smells as opposed to the tolerable odours of the countryside. In less intensive conditions, natural processes can break down potential pollutants. Large farms can maintain and operate sophisticated systems to control waste products. Smaller farms may be less able to invest in the same standards of pollution control.^{[citation needed]}
• Ethics — Cruelty to animals: Crowding, drugging, and performing surgery on animals. On some farms, chicks may be debeaked when very young. Confining hens and pigs in crates no larger than the animal itself may lead to physical problems such as osteoporosis and joint pain, and psychological problems including boredom and frustration, as shown by repetitive or self-destructive actions.^[62] Animal treatment is subject to welfare legislation, though there is not consensus on what is acceptable, and there is virtually no oversight by authorities.^{[citation needed]}
• Destruction of biodiversity — A tendency towards using single adapted breeds (a mono-culture) in factory farming, both in arable and animal farming, gives uniform product designed for high yields, at the risk of increased susceptibility to disease. The loss of locally adapted breeds reduces the resilience of the agricultural system. The issue is not limited to factory farming and historically the problem is reflected in the rapid adoption of one or two strains of crops across a wide area as seen in the Irish potato famine of 1845 and the Bengal rice famine in 1942.^[63] The loss of the gene pool of domesticated animals limits the ability to adapt to future problems.
• Nutrient poor food - Heavy reliance on non-heritage, high yield breeds of plants and animals reduce nutrient content.

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Factory farming

• Cattle Health Initiative
• Chicken: The Dangerous Transformation of America's Favorite Food (book)
• Environmental vegetarianism
• Feedlot
• Food systems
• Humane Slaughter Act
• List of foodborne illness outbreaks
• Permaculture
• Small-scale agriculture
• System of Rice Intensification
• Battery cage
• Battery Hen Welfare Trust
• Gestation Crate

Notes

Further reading

• Bernstein, Mark H. Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship With Animals. University of Illinois Press, 2004. ISBN 0252071980
• Brooman, Simon & Legge, Debbi. Law Relating To Animals. Cavendish Publishing. ISBN 1843141299
• Roberts, Paul (2008). The End of Food. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 9780618606238. 
• The State of Meat Production in Developing Countries: 2002 from The State of the Animals II: 2003 ISBN 0-9658942-7-4
• Compassion in World Farming - Publications (various)

External links

• "Bacon as a Weapon of Mass Destruction" - video by Democracy Now!