Category: Factory Farming

Farming and raising animals for food have been an integral part of human culture for decades. Animal farmers often keep animals in an intensive area and using industrial devices to boost the process of production. Products of such farms are often meat, milk, and eggs. Animal farming is also known by its critics as animal factory farming or CAFO (concentrated animal feeding). Factory farming which has been defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a large industrialized farm” has been designed with the idea of more food production at the lowest costs. While it seems that these days the heated debates about using electric cars and public transport have increased around the world to avoid more climate change problems, there are issues regarding whether animal farming is one of the main culprits of climate change. Cole et al. (2015) noted that animal farming exceeds all forms of transport in terms of global greenhouse gas (GHG). Thus, the important role of animal farming and its adverse environmental effects cannot be neglected. Animal agriculture is a leading cause of water, atmosphere pollution and one of the contributors to biodiversity loss. However, some benefits are associated with this means of farming. Using animal farming not only has provided more efficiency in the food industry but also causes health benefits.

Animal farming development and its benefits

Although many people would oppose this opinion, factory farms bring about efficiency in the food industry since animal farms often process and produce edible stuff in a short time but in a large amount. The major reason for this is probably that animal factories almost have been industrialized. Carlton Gyles in 2008 noted that from 1970 to 2005 in America, milk, meat, and egg production has dramatically increased but the production time of a 5-pound chicken has decreased from 12 weeks to 7. Moreover, Nicholson et.al (2001) explained that the productivity of the intensive livestock systems is two times faster than mixed crop-livestock systems and six times faster than grazing systems. In contrast to evidence which presents the view that animal farming is beneficial an alternative perspective illustrates that factory farming is one of the primary contributors to major environmental problems in the world and those who agree with this idea may assert that animal farming leads to water and atmosphere pollutions as well as loss of biodiversity.

Pollution on the water caused by animal farming

Animal farms have become the main contamination source of surface and groundwater resources. Like other live creatures, the feces and urines of animals contain various viruses and bacteria which would easily enter water sources just by rainfalls, if they do not effectively collect. It should be also noted that using chemical hormones and drugs such as antibiotics, have been increasing in animal agriculture and some active components of these chemicals even remain in animal excrements and all the pollutants would be negatively changed water quality. Moreover, the environment of animal farms is expected to be included cleaning and hygiene facilities because disinfection and cleaning are important prevention procedures to spread pollution in animal farms that are located near rivers or oceans. Since there are not still adequate and exact sterilization standards in some areas and many farms deprive of disinfection facilities, so infiltration of pollution on surface and groundwater sources is caused by such animal farms. Allah bakhsh et al. (2014) conducted research into the assessment of tetracycline contamination in surface and groundwater resources located near animal farming houses in Tehran, Iran. In this study, two locations were selected to take samples and a total of 24 samples were collected and analyzed over 6 months. Their research findings indicate high levels of Tetracycline in surface and groundwater locations near animal farms. They also noted that wastewater effluent can be potentially considered as a pollution source of surface water resources. They continue by suggesting that more monitoring of antibiotics levels in water sources near animal farm plains is needed to prevent water pollution.

Pollution on the atmosphere caused by animal farming

Animal farming pollution in the atmosphere focuses on greenhouse gas emissions which give rise to increased global warming. As a result of the high level of indigestion in animal farms where animals are fed with low-quality grains, an eye-catching amount of methane would enter the atmosphere. Besides methane produced by animal flatulence, methane extracted from animal feces is also considerable. In addition, transporting animal feeds to animal farms and distributing animal production from animal farms to customers bring about a lot of travel and will end up with a lot of carbon emissions. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in 2006 that livestock products are responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. They also revealed that animal agriculture accounts for 9% of global carbon dioxide emissions, 35 to 40 percent of global methane emissions, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions.

Intensive farming contributes to specious extinction. Firstly, animal excrements, as well as animal gases that migrate to agricultural fields and water sources would destroy a vast number of creatures that are not familiar with such components which often contain chemical matters. Secondly, forests and natural grasslands have been converted to big animal agricultural lands and as a result of such huge deforestations, a vast number of habitats that were specific in these areas have vanished after a while. Thirdly, by converting natural areas to animal farms, hunting predators have increased because wild animals are often considered a potential threat to domestic animals. A global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services which was released by The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a report in 2019 and pointed out that human activities have resulted in species decline. They noted that major reasons for such nature’s decrease are including deforestation, overfishing, bushmeat hunting, invasive alien species, pollution, and climate change.

To conclude, there are several significant issues that show that while animal farming brings about productivity and efficiency in the food industry as well as humankind’s health benefits, intensive animal farming is a primary driver of global warming, global biodiversity loss, and a major source of groundwater and surface water contaminations and after seeing these evidence, there is no way we can agree with this idea that nature and people are in trouble. Factory farms place animals in small spaces or pack them tightly and they are often being pumped full of hormones or drugs to become more productive and less sick. As a result of such unethical treatments, animals are living under stressful conditions and it brings about the animal’s health to decline, which is not only dangerous for animals but also affects human kinds’ health due to the fact that most people use animals products. Since antibiotics, anxiety, and growth hormones have been linked to increased risk of chronic diseases, after a while, we will face a vast number of persons who suffer from severe diseases such as breast and prostate cancer. In addition, as a result of such brutal behavior with the animal in farms, cruelty in societies would become common caused to more social inequality.

“There is no morally relevant difference between torturing puppies as described in the “Fred” thought experiment and buying factory farmed meat.” Is this a plausible claim? In answering this question, begin by (1) clearly explaining what Norcross means by claiming there is no morally relevant difference between torturing puppies (as laid out in his thought experiment) and supporting factory farming by purchasing factory- farmed meat. Then, (2) explain how one might object to Norcross’s claim on the basis that “agribusiness is much too large to respond to the behavior of one consumer”. Lastly, (3) evaluate whether this objection succeeds.

Factory Farming

Factory farming seems to be a misunderstood concept to most people, not truly knowing the consequences that comes with it. It is disregarded as a form of torture and mistreatment to animals because the individuals taking part in purchasing these products do not see this abuse being done. Furthering this point, the factory farming companies do not state how or show this form of abuse to the public either. Since people don’t think about or understand the torture being done to these animals, they think there is a moral difference between factory farmed meat and the torturing of domesticated animals. But Norcross goes into a thought experiment about how the torturing of domesticated animals has no morally relevant difference than factory farming. The paper is going to delve into whether or not this is a plausible claim and how an individual might object to this claim.

Norcross conducted a philosophical thought experiment, called the “Fred” thought experiment. Within Norcross’ experiment there is a man named Fred who loves chocolate but gets into a car accident and damages his godiva gland, which produces the cocoamone hormone (the hormone that allows people to taste chocolate). When Fred discovers this, he is distraught but soon finds out puppies produces this hormone when they endure severe suffering and if he eats them, he too will be able to taste chocolate again. But soon his neighbors call the police because of strange noises coming from his house and when they see what is going on, they are disgusted, arresting him on the spot. However, at his trial Fred states that what he was doing is the exact same thing that society does with factory farming, and if factory farming is acceptable then so should his actions. From this “Fred” thought experiment, Norcross is emphasizing that the animals in both situations are experiencing immense amounts of suffering. Norcross blatantly states that Fred is torturing the puppies to enhance the cocoamone hormone. Whereas factory farmed animals are forced to live in overcrowded slaughterhouses and pumped with hormones before their deaths, which both are forms of torture although they are not physically stated. Therefore, it does not matter the type of animal or how they are tortured but that it is morally the same, if people believe factory farming is morally permissible then Fred’s actions are too.

An objection someone may have to Norcross’ claim is on the basis of “agribusiness is much too large to respond to the behavior of one consumer,” (Norcross, 231). This objection is based upon the idea that Fred is torturing the puppies solely for his own ability to enjoy chocolate, but the agribusiness is responding to a want of a mass amount of people within society. Therefore, individuals find these two instances to be different because Fred could stop and save the puppies, whereas the agribusiness is not going to stop for one individual. This can be seen with Norcross’ statement in an example case, “Therefore I cannot prevent the suffering of any animals… since the animals will suffer no matter what I do, I may as well enjoy the taste of their flesh,” (Norcross, 231). Finally, Fred is torturing puppies for his pure enjoyment of tasting chocolate again, but the agribusiness is a money hungry conglomerate focused on sales and not the enjoyment of one individual customer. This can also be seen with the first response that is given to defend the objection. It’s similar to the “Fred” thought experiment, in that a restaurant uses the hormones from tortured puppies to enhance the taste of chocolate in their desserts. A person then takes his friend to this restaurant to try out the dessert and afterwards tells him why it tastes so amazing. With this disgust the friend refuses to eat it again but the individual who brought him states that since this is the new commodity, him stopping won’t stop puppies from suffering. This is one “case” experiment used to justify the continued consumption of factory farmed meat. Another response to back this notion is about factory farmed chicken. That even if 10,000 people were to stop eating factory farmed meat it wouldn’t stop the production; it would only lessen it. Which leads to the belief that majority of the people possess, that since it is such a massive franchise it would be meaningless to even try to stop eating factory farmed meat.

However, like Norcross, I do not believe that this objection succeeds in proving his claim to be invalid. For instance, even if one person stops eating meat may seem ineffective, a huge impact would be made if everyone stops. This statement emphasizes on the fact that people cannot use the excuse that the agribusiness will not stop for one person, as a justification for their actions to continue to buy factory farmed meat. This is also a dominant point that Norcross makes in the reading, “So, even if it is true that your giving up factory raised chicken has only a tiny chance of preventing suffering… your continued consumption is not thereby excused,” (233). Norcross explicitly states that even though the agribusiness will not stop for one individual, it can eventually be brought to an end if a mass amount of the population gradually stops eating factory farmed meat. I agree with Norcross that this is not a sufficient or viable reason because one person can create a domino effect with others who share the same beliefs. Furthering this point, Norcross also states that it is not morally different to stop the torture of puppies to the torture that factory farmed animals endure. That a person with a moral conscience who believes torturing puppies for the production of the cocoamone hormone to be unjust, then they too have to be aware that production of factory farmed meat is bad. Norcross then explains this notion by stating, “If the attempted excuse of causal impotence is compelling in the latter case, it should be compelling in the former case. But it isn’t,” (232). That the individuals claim to be unaware is a form of self-deception to justify their objection that there is a difference between the torturing of domesticated animals and factory farmed animals. Therefore, the above objection does not validate the actions of factory farmed meat consumption because all monumental change movements began with one person or one idea, followed by a chain reaction.

In conclusion, Norcross’ claim that there is no moral difference between torturing puppies and buying factory farmed meat is valid. This can be seen with the points Norcross makes invalidating the objection that the agribusiness is too large to make a difference in. The stance that the objection takes, that one person couldn’t invoke change in the agribusiness, making it pointless to try is an unjustified excuse from “morally sensitive” (Norcross, 233) meat eaters. Therefore, I do not believe that the objection is valid, and that Norcross’ claim is plausible.

Work Cited

1. Norcross, Alastair. Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.Philosophical Perspectives, 2004, https://canvas.fsu.edu/courses/95296/files/5767254?module_item_id=1592718.

All auto mobiles, planes and factories combined are no match to raising farm animals for food when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. As demand for meat has grown the animal agriculture has gobbled up more and more of water, energy, crops and land. For the last decade, vast expanses of native environment have been cleared to grow crops to feed the farm animals in factory farms. It is estimated on average they feed 6kg of plant protein to get 1kg of animal protein, thus proving that factory farms use more food than they produce. 13 of all the cereal in the world are being fed to farm animals per year equaling the amount of food for 3 billion people around the globe.

Factory farming of animals is an industrialized intensive farming of animals. It is estimated that most farm animals are commonly known as chickens and pigs. These factories keep their animals in horrible condition such as in dark sheds with not enough room for one animal in a cage which they can’t escape from nor can they move around within it. The reason why is that the factory can get the cheapest way possible to get mediocre products for the cheapest price, simply referred as fast food farming. There are two ways of farming a chicken for eggs or meat. In sheds there are possibly more than 25 chickens per cage and having less than a sheet of A4 per chicken to stand on. They are fed with special diet with antibiotics to support their growth resulting three times faster than the average hen. They are usually slaughtered at five to six weeks old, a very quick and painful life. Some of the chicks don’t even survive until then because their organs are unable to support its body because of its unnatural growth and suffocate to death. Some can’t even stand on their feet, unable to reach their food and die from starvation. In average loss per day from the chicks in New Zealand is 8000 until today. The only time they see the sunlight was the day they die in the hands of a butcher. Because of the antibiotics there was a major outbreak of bird flu in 2014 all over Asia. Millions of people died due to crippled infected dead meat being exported from East Asia had soon infected all of Eurasia. This was almost as worse than natural disasters.

As for the chickens being raised to produce eggs are called battery hens. When the eggs hatch turns out being female would be raised to lay eggs and if male than they execute it on day one because they were no use to the factory since they already had a different group of mating males. The Hen’s lifetime is about 14 months. They are also kept in small cages at least 5 in each one. After they reach a limit which they are unable to lay eggs they are slaughtered by the farmers and thrown into the industrial waste. This truly one of the worst lives that the factory has to offer.

Last but no least there are factory farm pigs. The number of pigs are very important for business which is exactly why they breed these pigs. The female pigs are kept in very small metal cages, unable to move left to right, forward or backward. It was perfectly designed for one pig only and had a small space for the piglets to stay next to the cage by their mother. The reason for this torturous act was to reduce labor for one farmer and making it easy for him to look after many animals at once. Once they piglets are born they stay with their mother until they are 4 weeks old, then they are separated from their mother to be raised for slaughter in another den. And once her piglets are gone she is immediately impregnated again. These breeding pigs live about two-four years depending on their mating state.

Many people believe by reducing the amount of meat in our meals we can prevent pollution, end world hunger and save resources. Not only that doctors from around the world believe that we can avoid obesity and certain diseases such as heart problems, stroke and some types of cancer. Our choices on the dinner table have no longer just a local impact, their affects the globally on people, animals and the environment. The power to change the world is in our own hands.

The production of livestock is among one of the most ecological detriments for all human needs (Abbasi et al., 2015). Firstly, it is inevitable to say that the human population is increasing, and towns are extending to mega-cities (Abbasi et al., 2015). while the request to produce more food will continue to grow, and agricultural land will continue to decrease (Abbasi et al., 2015). Within the mid-20th century, the era of industrialization fostered the explosion of natural resources to produce goods and services, and it has since been the subject of the environment (Bourgeois, 2012). In the 21st century, human beings have different effects on nature and the environment; therefore, this issue has increasingly become a central topic of interest in the world (Bourgeois, 2012). Similarly, it is essential to relieve these effects, analyze and improve the industrialization of livestock, including both extensive pasture and intensive according to farming, as well as the produce of factory-farms, the latter having a far superior effect on the environment (Bourgeois, 2012). Furthermore, there is much more comprehensive harm to the environment in terms of soil erosion, depletion of water resources, pollution, global warming and the lack of biodiversity than the product of equivalent quantities of other forms of food (Pimentel et al. 1975., Steinfeld et al., 2006 as cited in Abbasi et al.,2015). However, this widely held belief that animal farming is one of the main factors to the environmental issues in the world is not believed by all. There are also conversations around animal farming, creating a positive effect on the environment. This essay will aim to discuss animal farming, with regard to its environmentally destructive nature, focusing on global warming, water, and air pollution around the world.

To begin with, many people have argued that animal farming is one of the significant reasons for environmental problems. A total of 18 percent of greenhouse gas emission is constituted by the livestock industry (FAO, 2006, as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). It is said that three main compounds that contribute to this issue are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has the most considerable impact on global warming due to the extensive quantities emitted primarily through burning fossil fuels (Koneswaran & Nierenburg, 2008 as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). Every year, 9 percent of the total CO2 emissions are constituted by factory farms (Koneswaran & Nierenburg, 2008 as cited in Bourgeois, 2012).

This polluted gas contributes to 41 million tonnes of CO2 to feed crops. An additional 90 million tonnes for farm operations, 2.4 billion tonnes in the excavation of trees, and 28 million tonnes as a result of soil cultivation (Abbasi et al., 2015). It is also worth mentioning that livestock is a primary source of land-based pollution because it releases a significant number of nutrients and organic matter, pathogens and drug residues into soil, and rivers, lakes and coastal zones (Aarnink et al., 1995; Losey and Vaughan, 2006; Fiala, 2008 as cited in Abbasi et al. ,2015). Livestock activities produce nitrous oxide, which is the most potent of the three primary greenhouse gases (GHGs) .This makes up 65% of global N2O anthropogenic emissions.

Furthermore, they constitute 75–80 percent of all agricultural emissions. Current trends suggest that this level will significantly increase over the next decades (Tauseef et al., 2013 cited in Abbasi et al., 2015) methane and nitrous oxide are the most significant greenhouse gases which occur as a result of animal agriculture (Grossi et al., 2019). Methane is generated by enteric fermentation and manure storage which is a gas that has an impact on global warming 28 times more than carbon dioxide (Grossi et al., 2019)

Furthermore, Pollution is another significant issue surrounding the inescapable practice of factory farming. It is argued that over 133 million tonnes of manure are produced each year in the United States (Burkholder et al., 2007, as cited in Bourgeois,2012). A part of the manure is treated and utilized as fertilizer in agricultural usages, while the majority of it is stored in enormous lagoons. Also, various dangerous gases are discharged, which is constituted synthetic compounds, for example, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (Heederik et al., 2007 as cited in Bourgeois,2012).

Moreover, 64 percent of anthropogenic ammonia is constituted by the livestock industry, which leads to acidification of ecosystems and the production of acid rain (Heederik et al., 2007 as cited in Bourgeois,2012). Studies have admitted that enhancing the occurrence of respiratory symptoms such as headaches, diarrhea, burning eyes, and sore throats occurring among neighboring communities. Research has also shown that decreasing the quality of life between inhabitants who are residing close to operations (Heederik et al., 2007 as cited in Bourgeois,2012).

Additionally, many constituents of the livestock industry have an extensive influence on the quality of water and accessibility. It has been argued that approximately 70 percent of available freshwater is used by industrial agriculture, which more than 8% is devoted to crop feeding and irrigating (Henning, 2011 as cited in Bourgeois,2012). Further to this, the significant and detrimental results of factory farming result in water pollution (Henning, 2011 as cited in Bourgeois,2012). Livestock generates a considerable amount of manure, and run-off occurs in the fields where manure is used as fertilizer, or waste lagoons ruptures (Burkholder et al., 2007 as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). Additionally, there are outbreaks due to the significant rainfall or ruptures (Burkholder et al., 2007, as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). Manure is rich in the composite of nitrogen, phosphorus, and ammonia (Henning, 2011 as cited in Bourgeois,2012). When extreme amounts of these compounds are released into the environment, they can lead to harmful algal blooms, causing eutrophication in both fresh and coastal waters, which leads to the killing of fish and destroying coral reefs (Henning, 2011 as cited in Bourgeois,2012). Manure also constitutes of different virus and bacteria that can pollute water supplies which causes a variety of human health issues, for example, gastrointestinal distress and infections (Burkholder et al., 2007 as cited in Bourgeois,2012)

Although animal farming is one of the initial factors for environmental problems, some people argue that acid rain is the main factor for ecological problems (Barnosky et al., 2011 as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). The effect of acidification has been analyzed all over the world. This phenomenon has affected detrimentally on ecologies such as deduction of aquatic fish species’ reproduction, dieback and growing stunts in plants, the reservoir of toxic aluminum and heavy metals in soil and water bodies, and different biodiversity loses including corals and shellfish as well as the decline of the humanmade structures which is made up of marble, stone, and erosion of metal structures (Barnosky et al., 2011 as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). The livestock industry in regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth, which are occupied by living organisms is currently tolerating a 6th mass extinction (Barnosky et al., 2011 as cited in Bourgeois, 2012). This loss is widespread due to increasing global temperatures, habitat extinction, pollution, and the action of making excessive use of a resource. (Primack, 2010 as cited in Bourgeois,2012).

In conclusion, the production of animal protein engaging in livestock is among the most global warming and eco-reducing of anthropogenic activities. Further, producing livestock is among the ecologically harmful effect for all human needs, and it is said that there are much broader effects on the environment, such as soil erosion, discharge of water resources, pollutions, and global warming. It is also worth mentioning that greenhouse gas emissions also contributed by the livestock industry. Furthermore, animal farming causes global warming due to more enormous quantities of the burning of fossil fuels. Moreover, another significant issue is caused by animal farming is pollution, and this issue is leading to different health problems such as headaches, sore throat, and burning eyes.Additionally, the livestock industry has a significant impact on the quality of water, and it causes to kill fish. Although some people said that acid rain has a detrimental effect on the environment, according to the 2012 progress report of USA EPA (2013), the impact of global environmental issues such as acid rain, acid deposition, and discharging of ozone layer environmental impacts are decreasing (Sivaramanan, 2015). Lastly, factory farming constitutes a substantial change in nitrogen, carbon, and methane cycle and rising ocean temperature, habitat loss, and pollutions, so all of them contribute to global warming.

References

1. Abbasi,T, Abbasi,T & Abbasi, S.A.(2015). Reducing the global environmental impact of livestock: The mini livestock option: Cleaner production, pp1-37. Retrieved March 07, 2020, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274096837_Reducing_the_global_environmental_impact_of_livestock_production_The_minilivestock_option
2. Bourgeois, L(2012). A Discounted Threat: Environmental Impacts of the Livestock Industry: Earth common, 2(1). Retrieved March 06, 2020, at https://journals.macewan.ca/index.php/earthcommon/article/download/56/83
3. Grossi,G&Goglio,p&Vitali,A&Williams,A.G(2019). Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies, 9(1), pp69-76. Retrieved March 06, 2020, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328889018_Livestock_and_climate_change_Impact_of_livestock_on_climate_and_mitigation_strategies
4. Sivaramanan, S. (2015). Acid Rain, causes, effects, and control strategies. Retrieved March 07, 2020, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275344491_ACID_RAIN_CAUSES_EFFECTS_AND_CONTROL_STRATEGIES

When discussing global climate change and the factors that contribute to it, most people like to point to the easy factors to blame such as fossil fuels which include oil, coal, natural gas, etc. but what usually flies under the radar is how bad livestock contributes to global climate change and how bad it is for the environment. According to the article “Factory Farming Is an Environmental Hazard” the author Wenonah Hauter states that factory farming as a whole is an environmental hazard due to the way it is harming small rural communities in most states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, and North Carolina to name off a few, where they are host to some of the biggest factory farms in the country. Factory Farming is where companies such as the Tyson Chicken company, where they will practice breeding and raising vast numbers of animals in horrible, tight, and unnatural conditions while also subjecting them to objectionable conditions in order to harvest the most out of their meat, milk, and eggs. This system is currently under the microscope and is easily criticized because more and more people are becoming informed as to how these massive farms actually operate and their impact on the environment. This leads to the author Wenonah Hauter, saying whether if we as Americans should demand more meaningful laws and regulations from our own government to enforce so that they can potentially prevent these health hazards coming from all these animals and large factories that are making it happen from potentially being even worse and harming our ecosystem way more than we can afford. Throughout this essay, I will explain the reasons why this system of farming, while incredibly efficient, is actually harming both the environment and ourselves.

For instance, there are actually some people who don’t know about some of the nutrients and food that livestock owners or companies feed their animals that they actually end up releasing very harmful toxins that some of these animals release such as methane, which is released by cows, which is a gas that is found around the Earth’s atmosphere in very small qualities but is actually a very harmful gas that can also be found in the guts of ruminant livestock as well because of methanogen microorganisms which belong to the archaea. Also adding to this, in the article “Livestock Contributes to Global Warming” the authors mention that the side-effects of large-scale livestock can be even more harmful in terms of pollution instead of other more known effects such as the likes of coal, oil, natural gas, etc. Which gives you more of an idea of how livestock as a whole is contributing to the situation.

The current system of farming has been horrible for the environment with it being polluted, depleted of aquifers, destroying topsoil, and releasing so many Greenhouse Gases. The production of meat is such a huge factor because of how the grain that the companies use to feed the animals and how much land it takes up to get this while also having a large loss of energy production as well. It has also come to endangering a whole epidemic of obesity, heart disease, and cancer as well as reproductive and hormone disorders not forgetting to mention that there are about 86 million cases of food poisoning year-round. Which can cause us to look at what exactly these factories are putting into the animals, in the article, “Industrial Farming Is Harming Farmers, the Environment, and Public Health” the author Ronnie Cummins, who is the founder and also director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a non-profit, US-based network that focuses on healthy lifestyles while also promoting a regenerative system of farming, states some eye opening statistics by saying that the annual impact in the U.S. of 12 billion pounds of chemical nitrate fertilizers; a billion pounds of toxic pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides; thousands of tons of antibiotic residues and hormones in dairy products and meat(80% of all antibiotics produced in the country are injected into our animals so that we can get the most out of them causing them to grow faster while also trying to survive the horrible style of these factory farms and its intense confinement); causing massive loads of industrial waste and the sewage sludge on our own nations farmlands, and literally billions of pounds of leftover slaughterhouse waste, blood, fat and raw manure fed to animals on these non-organic farms, leaving me to question how are we still alive if we’re actually eating this.

There is actually some researchers that say Factory Farming could actually be a benefit but of course with some modifications in the system of how it raises and feeds their animals. For instance in the article, “Don’t Believe the Lie: Organic Farming CAN Feed the World”, the author Ethan A. Huff, who is the main staff writer for an online environmental news website called Natural News. Huff uses the argument that Organic Farming by itself has the potential and is fully capable of feeding the world. While also mentioning that,” …Organic farming systems actually produce higher yields than GM and non-GM conventional farming systems. Organic farming is also fully self-renewing and sustainable, as compost, manure, and other organic fertilizing methods naturally enrich the soil and eliminate the need for toxic pesticides and herbicides” (Par. 4 Huff). So while Huff has the right idea and could potentially build off of what he says, that big idea of organic farming seems like such a big project that needs time to develop and also time to get rid of the huge factories that are producing almost all of the United States food.

Most Americans like to look at the positives of a hugely controversial subject such as Factory Farming and just as in every other controversy there are definitely positives in this topic. The article, “21 Advantages and Disadvantages of Factory Farming “mentions plenty of truths, such as the obvious main fact that factory-produced meat is largely affordable by everyone but that is because of the way that they get their meat from the animals and the methods behind it. While also helping to create jobs for people all across America due to how many Factory Farming companies support their local economies while also purchasing crops and feed supplies from mom-and-pop operations, pay property taxes that fund the schools, and provide other financial benefits for the communities these companies are based in as well. But as there are positives to say about this, there are also many negatives that I personally believe outweigh the positives. Such as the huge fact that greenhouse gas emissions are largely significant from factory farms because on yearly average it is roughly about 13% of GHG emissions that occur each year worldwide and that’s actually a fair estimate because in reality, most farms don’t have their production levels so we’re looking at that percentage to potentially be significantly higher than what was estimated. But one thing that’s certain is that there are over 6 billion tons of problematic gases that reportedly come from these farms, with methane and nitrous oxide being the primary contributor to all these gases that are released. The biggest disadvantages would obviously be the hurting of the animals in all this and how badly they’re treated in this tight breathing, no spaced farms that don’t allow them to get movement while they’re getting fed to get enchantingly bigger which causes them to change how they’re supposed to be raised and fed naturally.

Leading to the conclusion of the whole essay, Factory Farming is very bad for the environment no matter how much cheaper and easier it is for the economy to produce and sell it to consumers all over the world, that does not make up for the horrible after-effects that it causes to our own planet and especially the animals being used to make all this productivity so we as humans need to find a way to end this horrible system that is harming our ecosystem more than it is helping it.

Climate change is inevitable. Between the usage of fossil fuels and the misuse of agriculture, professionals anticipate that the damage of climate change will be irreversible within seventeen months. Specifically, one of the leading causes of global warming is factory farming. Not only is industrial livestock production inhumane and deeply disturbing, but it affects methane contribution, resource usage and is intensely concerning to public health. Because of the damage that factory farming is doing to our environment, climate change is becoming more and more of a menacing thought. It’s time to put aside our differences and political beliefs regarding the animal-free lifestyle and crush factory farms around the world for good.

One cow will belch on a factory farm every forty seconds. Within each day, a single cow can produce upwards of 150 gallons of methane; A total of one hundred cows alone can produce up to 20% of the world’s methane in their lifespan. With the cow demand on the rise, the numbers don’t seem to be getting smaller. Furthermore, the UN predicts that cow demand will likely grow by more than 50% by 2050. But what is methane? Like many fossil fuels, methane is highly toxic and dangerous, after all, it’s twenty times more harmful than carbon dioxide.

As cows eat, microorganisms in their stomachs develop and are released into the air through their bodily functions. Because of this, german scientists are currently working on a pill that will reduce the amount of global methane contribution by 4 to 6 percent. They’re also considering changing the cows’ diets to prevent the effects of climate change. But sadly scientists alone can’t change the number of methane cows produce. Although changing cows’ diets and inventing a new pill may help, we need to look to solid solutions. For example, breeding cows to produce less methane, planting thousands and thousands of trees, and even banning factory farms once and for all. To prevent further climate change, we need to ban together and start with decreasing the number of cow burps on commercial farms.

Not only are factory farms influencing global warming through cow burps, but they are using an unnecessary amount of resources to do so. Between animal feed, energy for the farms and transportation vehicles, water for the animals, land that the farms root themselves into, antibiotics for the animals, and cleaning products, resources that industrial livestock production “needs” is used at an unbelievable amount each year. It’s estimated that factory farms are gifted a whopping one trillion dollars for these resources that are being stolen from people who actually need them. Jess Miner explains how animal farming heeds massive amounts of water and food and therefore needs to be shut down. By shutting them down, we’ll generate more energy and more cows by using the same amount of food (resources) as before. “Agriculture will be made more efficient”, she says.

But numbers have a lot more to say than words, right? One-third of a pound of beef for a hamburger is estimated to cost 660 gallons of water alone. A whole pound takes 1,799 gallons of water, which is also the amount that 100 Americans use to shower. But water isn’t the only resource factory farming abuses. Industrial livestock production is responsible for 70% of the deforestation of Amazon land. These numbers need to plunge before it’s too late, after all, much of these resources are necessary for the continuation of our planet. Without these assets, our planet will fall down the slippery slope of pollution and therefore destruction. Many people don’t know of these facts, so the first step to a healthier climate is to educate people about factory farming. By doing this, people will almost definitely start calling out factory farms and after a while, these death farms will be put to an end once and for all.

Along with methane contribution and resource usage, factory farming poses many unacceptable public health concerns. For one, industrial livestock production is an unreliable food source for humans, considering these farms are in the hands of corporate companies that only care about the money in their pockets. Because of this, these farms are run on a low budget and therefore the product (meat and dairy products) are also cheap. Because of the second-rate quality of these foods, diseases are more than common. For example, bovine spongiform encephalitis, trichinosis, salmonella, and many more than most people can hardly pronounce.

The US alone produces 1 million tons of manure a day from factory farms. This such animal waste that these megafarms produce is stored in huge, open-aired lagoons which are disgustingly prone to leaks and spills. To make matters worse, the farms choose to expand these lagoons instead of removing them and discarding them properly. One of these spills happened in 2011 on a hog farm in Illinois where 200,000 gallons of manure spilled into a nearby creek. Not only did around 110,000 fish pass away from this catastrophe, but it is more than likely that this mess somehow made its way into the water that humans use to drink, shower, and more.

After all, this muck can easily make its way into our water supply and spread critical diseases to those in nearby neighborhoods and even cities. Families that live around factory farms have reported a higher tendency for disease, illness rates and have gone to say that they’ve noticed a decrease in their property value because of the megafarms that they live by. But what can we do to fix these obstacles that call themselves factory farms? Better health codes are obviously necessary for this specific issue of public health concern. From there we can move on to finding more efficient waste storage containers to keep the animal manure in. Maybe when we’re done with solving those problems, people will finally realize the dangers and oppression that tag alongside livestock megafarms.

There is an inevitable link between factory farming and climate change. It’s impossible for one to persuade others’ thoughts and choosings so, in the end, I leave you with this thought: for every year that a person is vegetarian, they will save one hundred lives. That’s one hundred animals that had mothers. They felt love. They felt fear. And they felt pain. Pain that factory farms induce upon these animals, knowing well that we don’t actually need them for food, but instead we choose to kill them for our own benefit. These animals are dying every day by the thousands so that these merciless tycoons can buy wealthy houses and cars and sit in the lap of luxury. So choose vegetarian. Choose vegan, even. Choose a healthy planet. Choose to end industrial livestock production.

Animal factory farming of chickens is a rapidly growing global problem. In the US alone an estimated 9 billion are consumed yearly(ASPCA). To put that into perspective our planet is estimated to have 7.7 billion people, so right now we are eating more chicken yearly than there are people on the planet. Because of our rising numbers more factories have to be made to compensate for the demand of the bird, But the rise of these factories has started to take a toll on our environment, our health, and the way we view the animal, and needs to be regulated more heavily.​

The Last Chance for Animals (LCA) organization defines factory farming as an industrial process in which animals, and the products they generate are massed produced. People then harvest the animals for various products such as eggs, meat, leather, fur etc. The expansion of these factory farms are beginning to affect our atmosphere and cause damage to our planet. The modern factory puts much strain on natural resources such as water, land, fossil fuels. Big farms yield relatively a small amount of product in replacement of how much it affects us with pollution, greenhouse gases, air, water, deforestation, as well as the contribution to climate change. With the rapidly growing business that is animal agriculture more factories are having to be built yearly. These factories require lots of land and is a major cause of deforestation. The Food and Agriculture of The United Nations has estimated “70 percent of land formerly supporting amazon rainforest has been turned over to grazing”(FarmSanctuary). With the destruction of these forests for the factories it is starting to affect different animal species by taking away their habitats and forcing them to relocate to other places. If these animals are pushed to relocate some may have to try surviving in urban areas. If any of this wildlife gets too close to humans it could start to be come dangerous and may even become harmful depending on the species.

Like stated above, factories require lots of resources to continue operations; however, some resources, that are a little more mandatory for animal health and suitable product start to become higher in demand with the increase of factory farms. An example of one of these kinds of resources is water. Water you may not think is a valuable resource but having to supply billions of animals with clean drinking water starts to affect us humans and our way of life. Water is needed to help grow the crops that animals eat, provide something suitable to drink, waste disposal, and clearing the filth of the animal, living spaces, as well as off the transportation trucks. “In the United States alone, animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 36-74 trillion gallons of water annually” says author at the Modern Studio(TheModernStudio). If 36-74 trillion gallons of water is consumed yearly it begins to take a toll on that resource and is making it more valuable to us as humans who need it to survive. Fiona Harvey states that currently “844 million people which equates to one in nine of the planets population lacks access to clean, affordable water within half an hour of their homes. Almost every year three hundred thousand children under five die of diarrhea, linked to dirty water (TheGuardian).” If the amount of factory farmed meat consumed yearly starts to reduce it will begin to start saving us valuable water that could be used for other more important life and death matters.

Now that we know how it affects our environment just by running a regular farm, you begin to question the actual product that’s being made. A major animal subjected to the lifestyle of living on once of the farms is the chicken. There are two types of the bird that is used for the industry one is called the “broiler” and the other the “breeder”. These two types of chickens go through a lifestyle some may not imagine. Broiler chickens are raised solely for the purpose of their flesh. Broiler chickens were bred to be bigger and gain weight faster than other birds making them perfect for faster production of the animal, the Grow Network states that 85% of the birds skeleton is developed by 6 weeks. Broiler chickens in fact grow so fast that their legs can’t develop fast enough and can’t keep up its own weight, so many simply can’t walk or break their legs. The other type of factory chicken is the “breeder”. The breeder chickens job is self-explanatory make more chickens, and lay eggs. Breeder chickens have it rougher than the broiler because they must stay alive longer. Broiler chickens have 6-12 weeks of life until they can be harvested which doesn’t compare to the year of life that the breeder chickens must suffer through. Because the breeder chicken must stay alive for longer, they will continue to grow larger than normal because of their genetic engineering. The larger they get the more risk of any kind or organ failure increases. These chickens are usually raised in giant windowless sheds called broiler farms with tens of thousands of other chicken crammed pack. Because so many birds are forced to be with each other in such confined spacing they cannot establish any kind of social order thus causing frustration within the animals making them peck at each other sometimes to the death. To avoid them pecking each other farmers will cut off their beaks at a young age without any kind of anesthesia to prevent injury of other birds, but some still die from starvation because it’s too painful to eat. Another major downfall to keeping broiler chickens in these conditions is the spread of disease. Living spaces that aren’t taken care of often offer perfect living conditions for bacteria such as salmonella to manifest and take over. Consumer reports discovered that “two-thirds of chicken meat analyzed was infected with salmonella or campylobacter or both”. These diseases are caused because of how filthy the living situation is for these animals. To combat these bacterial infections most of these chickens are given antibiotics to build immunity to it, but some bacteria are evolving to become immune to the antibiotics and still wreak havoc through these farms. Because the bacteria is becoming resistant to antibiotics, it means that if a human were to get sick from one of these animals treatment of the illness would be hard because the bacteria already have an immunity to it.​

Whats even worse for these birds besides their living situation is how they’re treated. PETA has done several investigations on the major chicken brand of Tyson and the founding have been horrendous. In 2007 investigators went to a broiler farm and witnessed over 9-day period workers urinating in the area the birds are stored, and on the conveyor belt system that moves them, but that not all the investigator witnessed. At Tyson workers admitted to breaking the birds backs by beating them on rails, several animals are hung by shackles by their head instead of feet, workers throwing animals into the wall, or even the machine that kills them was not just cutting of its head but missing the neck altogether and inflicting wounds on the birds body while it was still alive so then a back up killer had to become involved and would stab it in the throat with a knife. This list of horrors goes on and on but those are just a few examples of a major company where this abuse is happening, now imagine all the little owned companies where regulations are not really checked upon. PETA also states that “more chickens are raised and killed for food more than any other land animal combined yet not a single federal law protects them from abuse.” All federal laws regarding animal farming exempt poultry from the regulations altogether which should be the opposite since the bird is the most killed animal in the business.​

A simple solution to eating chicken without having to support these factory birds is eating free range chickens. According to the US Department of Agriculture Regulations, a free range must have access to the outdoors. Unlike factory birds the free-range chicken are given a natural way of life before harvested. Most species of chicken can live up to 6 years but when farmed for their meat free range chickens can live for a longer period of 8-12 weeks instead of the usual 6 weeks that factory birds get. Free range birds can roam open plots of land and forage for their food instead of being forced to eat a grain feed with antibiotics. So, by purchasing free range birds you are paying for a better more fortunate way of life for your meals. Another reason why the free-range bird is a good alternative for us is for the nutritional benefits. FitnessFoods reveals that the free range have higher levels of nutrients and less fat. They also continue to go on saying “Free range chickens have 21% less total fat, 30% less saturated fat and 28% fewer calories than their factory counterparts. Eggs from free range also has 10% less fat, 40% more vitamin A, and 400% omega 3-s.” If people were to be more aware of what they are purchasing it could save countless lives from torture and reap benefits upon yourself.

​With the problems induced from factory farms today some change is needed. Not only are factory farms tearing up our environment, they are also using up valuable resources, putting the lives of many through torturous conditions, and putting our health at risk. If government regulation continue to fail this poor animal, you can save many lives by asking the simple questions of what am I eating? And where did it come from? Next time you purchase some chicken meat do some research behind what company you are going through and how they take care of their product. Not only will you save the pain of many animals, but you will also keep yourself happy and healthy and start to contribute helping our environment in this day in age.

Dairy farming in New Zealand is the intensive production of milk. Milk must go through a process to meet the specific market requirements before it is eventually sold as a dairy product. For farmers to have an optimum yield of milk produced, they will need to ensure their pasture is fertilized. Cows eat grass which is mainly made up of nitrogen and when a cow eats grass, it eats all the nitrogen. Some of the nitrogen stays in the cow and some comes out as urine and feces (NH4 – ammonia), 20% of nitrogen is absorbed by cow and 80% comes out other end and used as effluent. Effluent is an organic fertilizer that contains a mix of water, urine, feces and excess milk that has been washed out of the milking shed. Effluent plays a major part about how much nitrogen is in the soil.

Excessive use of fertilizers has negative effects on the environment. The two most common fertilizers that effect the environment are nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates are water soluble and dissolve in water. Leaching occurs when the soil is waterlogged and can’t absorb anymore nutrients which causes the nitrates to percolate past the root zone and into the water table. Phosphates don’t dissolve too well and sit on the ground and attaches to soil particles. Phosphates enter the waterway by runoff, rather than leaching as heavy rainfall washes the phosphorus into the rivers and streams. Studies have shown that 30% of the phosphorus consumed by cows in their food eventually leaves the farm and enters our waterways. Fertilizing should not be carried out during spring as the nutrients are robbed from the soil because of the high rainfall which leads to leaching and runoff.

Effluent leaching and runoff affect the quality of the water. Nitrates and phosphates are the only fertilizers that impact the environment negatively. On monitored groundwater sites 59% groundwater has E. coli and 12% of New Zealand rivers have higher concentrations of E. coli than normal. There is a trend pattern in water pollution over the past 20 years. In Canterbury, livestock nitrogen leaching has increased 117% since 1990 from 15,000 tons to 33,000 tons in 2017. The amount of nitrates are increasing because there is more intensive farming.

Fertilizer application has increased 300% over the last 10 years. The nitrogen in fertilizer is very harmful once into the waterways because it causes eutrophication. Eutrophication is a body of water that has become enriched with nutrients which induce excessive growth of toxic algal blooms. Algal blooms decrease the oxygen levels in the water as it requires oxygen to grow and decompose. When algae decompose, the nutrients contained in that organic matter are converted into an inorganic form by microorganisms. This process consumes oxygen, which reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen for aquatic plants and organisms. Successful algal blooms don’t allow sunlight to enter the water and aquatic plants are unable to photosynthesize or survive because of the lack of oxygen from algae decomposition. Marine life is now unable to survive in waterways and will have to go somewhere else or die off. Dead algae build up like black sludge along the bottom of the body of water and undergoes anaerobic digestion which produces methane and CO2. This reduces the water alkalinity because of the absence of sunlight during the process of anaerobic digestion. Temperature also rises several degrees. All of this leads to a decrease in biodiversity in our waterways.

This pollution of the water effects the recreational uses of rivers. 60% of New Zealand rivers and lakes are un-swimmable due to the unsafe levels of E. coli and Giardia. This can cause a decrease in tourism as it does not go with our clean green image and therefore effect our local economy. Water will not be drinkable and would make you sick from the bacteria in the water.

However, there are ways to make farming more sustainable and not have a negative effect on our environment. Nutrient management is important in ensuring you do a soil test so you know which nutrients your soil is lacking and know the correct ratio of specific fertilizer to apply. The time of your application is important and can financially save you money. Don’t apply fertilizer in early spring because the rainfall will wash away your fertilizer and if you applied a slow-release fertilizer it would have all washed away and the nutrients wouldn’t have been absorbed into the soil. Mid-late spring would be the best time of year for application.

Other mitigating actions to reduce chances of nitrates and phosphates getting into waterways is fencing off and then riparian planting. Waterways on all farms should now be fenced off so stock can’t get into the waterways. Riparian planting acts as a filtration system. Plants absorb the nutrients from the runoff before it reaches the waterways. It acts as a deterrent from any stock that could pollute its waterways and also prevents erosion as the roots hold the soil together. Planting native trees in your riparian patch can increase the biodiversity for New Zealand native species.

Wetlands are the kidneys of the landscape and are another form of riparian planting. Wetlands can be more beneficial than traditional riparian planting as they can remove up to 75% of nitrate runoff. Wetlands hold surface water and slowly release it over time. This helps control flood damage. Wetlands are one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems and are perfect for increasing the biodiversity lost from eutrophication.

There are simple solutions to keeping our waterways protected from leaching and runoff. Knowing how to manage nutrients will help farmers not apply excessive amounts of fertilizer. All farms should have their waterways fenced off from stock and should be planting up their waterways into wetlands and riparian areas can absorb excess nutrients before they get into our waterways.

A considerable number of the United States population are unaware of the misdeeds that take place within the meat industry. Some believe the pictures depicting a traditional family farm on the packages of meat products are legit. Others fall under the impression that meat advertised as “free of GMOs” or “grass-fed” makes it is safe to eat. Actually, the truth could not be further away from all these things, which are just diversions to sell. The meat industry uses money and influence to cover up many of its immoral deeds. Livestock should not be farmed on a large scale because of the risks to people’s health, adverse effects on the environment, and the unethical practices used on animals.

Producing meat on a factory farm has many drawbacks to an individual’s well-being. In the last decade, numerous health concerns have been raised about the effects of consuming processed meats. A substance called a carcinogen has been detected in processed and red meat, which is scientifically proven to cause cancer. Carcinogens have also been linked to many illnesses such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. Not to mention, the number of antibiotics given to livestock could lead to resistant bacteria- the resistant bacteria occasionally find their way onto the meat and cause illnesses in people. Sometimes, the medication is of no use for certain pathogens, who find livestock to be the perfect host; the pathogens, in turn, infect humans when in close contact with animals. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), however, have changed people’s lives differently. Communities near these CAFOs suffer greatly from air pollution and water contamination. According to “Factory Farms Destroy Communities” the toxic air coming from CAFOs has caused many nearby residents to develop asthma, and manure runoff pollutes the water source of these residential areas. Locals cannot possibly maintain a healthy standard of living while dealing with the negative side effects of concentrated animal feeding operations. Consequently, industrialized meat farms leave people gagging on its awful smell and up to their waste in the doctor’s bills.

Not only does large-scale livestock farming harm people, but it also has many adverse effects on the environment. Manure and chemicals from livestock factories get caught in streams, lakes, and rivers, killing aquatic life. In the United States alone, farmed livestock produce 7 million pounds of feces each minute. Additionally, large livestock, such as cows, requires tons of water daily, which drains a tremendous amount of water from the blue water supply. The High Plains aquifer is a prime example of water depletion in the central United States due to irrigating corn for cattle feed. Not to mention the lack of biodiversity because farmers plant the same crop in their field year after year. This diminishes the number of nutrients in the soil and can be catastrophic to farmers if their crop is wiped out. Also, methane and carbon dioxide produced by decomposing livestock manure is to blame for a large chunk of global warming. In fact, “animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of global climate change- more than all forms of transportation combined. Along with other environmental issues caused by large livestock factories, it is safe to say they are a hazard to ecosystems.

Probably the most disturbing of things associated with factory farming is the unethical practices used on animals. Thousands upon thousands of animals may be crammed into a single building at a time, spreading disease and enduring high temperatures. Chickens and turkeys held in industrial chicken houses have their horns and tails mangled from being so cramped together. According to Mike Smith of Johns Hopkins “animals raised in Industrial Food Animal Production (IFAP) operations may be subjected to overcrowding, confined conditions that severely restrict movement, bodily alterations without pain relief, jolting during transport, feed deprivation, early weaning, and other physical and emotional harms”. These methods that meat companies use are highly unsafe for both the animals and the meat produced. Also, being the social creatures that they are, animals separated from their mother has a detrimental effect on their livelihood. Yuval Harari of The Guardian points out how evolution has a play on the mind of these animals and how calves have an urge to bond with their mothers, just as a child desires to bond with its mom. Even though cows, pigs, and chickens are raised for food, they are still thinking, feeling creatures. To cause such pain to an animal is cruel and unjustified.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, individuals argue that the meat industry is capable of producing masses of meat at a low price. With the earth’s growing population, it is vital to find ways to feed everyone, however, large scale meat farming is not the answer. Not only does it occupy land to raise livestock, but the amount of land used to grow crops for livestock feed is ridiculous. A wiser idea would be for consumers to buy from sustainable family farms. Small-time agriculturalists make farming livestock personable because they are tied to the land, and are more likely to manage their operation responsibly compared to factory farms. Regardless, if the meat industry insists on continuing down this path, agriculture, as it is known, will cease to exist.

Numerous cases can be made against large-scale animal farms, including the risks to people’s health, negative impact on the environment, and unethical practices used on animals. Greedy meatpackers have little care about the consequences of their actions, as long as they make money. As horrible as the meat industry seems, it can be changed by supporting local, family-owned farms. It is time for people to stand up to this heinous crime.

The year 2017 was about one degree Celsius warmer than an average year on Earth, and from now on, each year is only going to get warmer (NASA). This is what scientists have dubbed climate change, and it has been happening for years. Climate change is often associated with greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The phrase greenhouse gas is misrepresented in the media, making it seem like something that is released from the most toxic of chemical spills or from nuclear reactions. The reality is that these are simply gases that trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere, and they are released during every-day human activities. Climate change is affected by several things, but there has been a recent conversation about how factory farming, a means of producing animal products, and climate change are interrelated. Factory farming, also called concentrated animal feeding operations, is when animals are kept in “unnaturally high densities” to be fed and bred for meat or other products for human consumption (Turner). Many scientists have concluded that factory farming is accelerating climate change and detrimental to the environment, but others believe it is simply necessary to produce enough food for a growing global population.

Factory farming is one of the top emitters of a greenhouse gas called methane, and this has led scientists to conclude that it is a main contributor to climate change. CH4, methane, is “a greenhouse gas that is [thirty-four times] stronger than carbon dioxide,” meaning that it traps and retains thirty-four times more heat in the atmosphere as CO2 (Dean). Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas which warms Earth’s atmosphere when it is emitted into the environment. There are a few natural emitters of methane, such as “wetlands and freshwater systems,” but anthropogenic methane emissions far outweigh natural sources of methane gas (Dean). It has been found that 37% of the world’s methane emissions is from the farm animal sector, namely factory farming (“An HSUS Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture”). This is the largest amount of global methane emissions that can be attributed to one specific industry. The agricultural industry is the single largest emitter of methane, and the vast majority of it comes from concentrated animal feeding operations. One way this methane is getting into the atmosphere is from animals’ digestion. Ruminants, such as cows, sheep, and goats, emit methane during their natural digestion process (Turner). This is a natural occurrence, but these methane emissions have become a problem because of the sheer density of animals that are kept on factory farms. Animals in concentrated animal feeding operations are typically crammed into a building designed to only feed them until they are ready to be prepared for their fate on a grocery store shelf. This makes for extremely high densities of animals on small plots of land. Since there are so many animals in a small area that naturally would not occur, the density of the methane released from animal digestion and practices such as manure lagoons create exceptionally high levels of methane emissions. Scientists have looked at these facts to determine that the emissions from factory farming has accelerated climate change due to the sheer amount of methane released and its potent greenhouse abilities.

While many people agree that factory farming is extremely detrimental to the climate, others still believe that concentrated animal feeding operations are necessary to produce enough food for the world’s population. It is no secret that most people eat meat as the main source of protein in their diet, but it is interesting to recognize that only 2% of the people in the world do not eat animal products as their main source of protein (Moreno). This means that the world requires massive amounts of meat, dairy, and eggs daily to meet the requests and nutritional needs of the other 98% of the population, and “factory farming is currently the most efficient way of producing mass amounts of animal protein” (Moreno). Although the argument against factory farms stands, it is extremely important to recognize that there are people around the world without enough food to sustain themselves, and if we scale back factory farming, it could result in reduced protein availability and intake around the world, causing malnutrition. Additionally, reducing the size of the factory farming industry could have massive impacts on low-income people. The price of meat has been “decreasing at a constant downward slope” in recent years, so reducing the amount produced would increase demand and lower supply, causing a skyrocketing effect on the price (Moreno). As the largest concern around factory farming is the greenhouse gas emissions, it is necessary to note that recent technology developments have reduced the amount of energy and natural resources that are needed to perform tasks required on these industrial farms (Lusk). Before the current technological advances in the farming industry, it would have required multiple carbon-emitting vehicles to do the job of one new vehicle, or even would have required more animal power resulting in higher methane emissions. Though there are valid concerns about the effects of factory farming on climate change and the environment, it is important to consider that the world’s population is growing exponentially, and there is currently no method of producing protein that is more efficient than factory farms.

As there are two valid arguments on the issue of factory farming, we must consider the remaining question: what happens next? Many people have been taking personal steps to show their opposition to the factory farming industry by removing meat or all animal products from their diets. In a study conducted on American adults, “two-thirds reported reducing meat consumption” in the last three years (Neff). This is especially important to note because the United States of America is one of the top meat-consuming countries. Americans eat dramatically more meat than the rest of the world, at an average of over 100 kilograms per person per year, compared to the worldwide average of 43 kilograms (Ritchie). Since Americans eat a large portion of the world’s meat, they are also responsible for a significant portion of the pollution caused by factory farming. If Americans reduced their meat intake to align with the global average, it could have massive effects on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted and slow the effects of climate change. In addition, there has been a growing trend of limiting red meat consumption. Much of this trend can be attributed to the health benefits that accompany the decision, but environmental reasons are also cited as a cause of the shift in diet. American beef consumption was at the very highest in the 1970s, and “has since declined by about one-third” (Waite). The growing awareness around the issue of factory farming and climate change has led many to not eliminate the food group from their diets, but rather reduce their animal product consumption overall. Beyond personal choices, new legislation in America is being introduced which addresses the issue of climate change. The Green New Deal was introduced by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the bill is intended to be an aggressive approach at reducing America’s carbon emissions and slowing climate change. The Green New Deal included means of addressing environmental impacts of factory farming and attempted to place restrictions on the industry to eliminate future danger from the industry (Roberts). While the Green New Deal did not pass in the Senate, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey are in the process of writing multiple smaller bills which would accomplish parts of what they hoped the Green New Deal would accomplish (Steinbuch). This push towards legislation regulating factory farms and the increase in individual actions shows that Americans are gaining awareness that the meat industry is a factor in climate change, and they are acknowledging scientists’ findings on the issue.

With these steps being taken by those in opposition to the factory farming industry, it is important to consider that not everyone is able to make these changes in their everyday life. For many people living on a low or fixed income, sometimes the only option to choose to eat a one-dollar hamburger rather than a ten-dollar salad or meat-free option. Meat is simply affordable and readily available for those in need of a quick, inexpensive, calorically dense meal. The factory farming industry feeds the majority of the world’s population; thus, it cannot be eliminated immediately. Rather, we must consider the environmental effects of the food choices we make. When food is purchased, it sends a message to every industry involved that the buyer supports them. Each person must decide for themselves how they wish to vote with their dollar. Scientists and meat-lovers alike make the decision of what message to send with the purchase of their food. In the meantime, the temperatures keep climbing.