Over the years, from the Stone Age era up to recent times, animal farming has been a prominent activity carried out by individuals of a given society for both personal and commercial purposes (Cregier 197). The methods used as well as techniques applied in the area of animal rearing have greatly advanced and improved efficiencies, especially with the introduction of modern technology (Peter 36).
Discussion
One major concern that has been brought to the attention of animal farmers, in general, is the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to confine all or certain farm animals (Kitchell and Erikson 59).
Over time, animal farmers have been made aware of such farm production methods which include rearing certain animals within confined areas for instance cages or other spaces considered restrictive (Cregier 199).
This concern has led both governments and industries to come up with guidelines to ensure that farm animals are properly handled and taken care of (Kitchell and Erikson 62).
To make it illegal for individuals to be cruel to animals, the government has put in place such laws as state law. This law ensures that if animals are kept in confined enclosures, ample exercising space, as well as proper access to basics such as water, shelter, and food, are provided (Peter 37).
Mistreatment or mishandling of animals is also banned under the state law and anyone found guilty of violating the rules is prone to be fined, imprisoned or both (Cregier 201).
An example of a state where such strict laws concerning farm animals are being applied is the state of California. A measure known as Proposition 2 (Prop 2) was passed and is to be implemented starting 1st January 2015 (Peter 41). This Proposition is meant to curb and stop cruelty as well as inhumane treatment of animals. As a result, caging or confinement of animals is dealt with.
With the start of the year 2015, Prop 2 states that confinement of farm animals, with certain omissions such as calves, reared for beef, broilers (egg-laying hens) as well as pigs that are pregnant, will be prohibited (Kitchell and Erikson 65). This will be applied especially in cases where such animals do not have enough space to move, stand or fully make use of their limbs. Anyone found guilty under the law of Prop 2 will be fined up to $1,000 or face imprisonment of up to six months in county jail (Cregier 209).
When Prop 2 gets to be applied at the start of the year 2015, certain steps and actions will occur.
Since Prop 2 will prohibit the confinement of animals in an enclosed area, animal farmers will be forced to look for extra space to enable their animals to move freely (Kitchell and Erikson 69). Those farmers who normally mistreat and/or mishandle animals will be dealt with accordingly.
Natural resources will be immediately affected since more space for the animals would mean less crowding and confinement hence better management of wastes as in the case of factories (Cregier 213).
In addition, healthy competition between local economies and family small scale farmers will occur and result in enhancement of competition to bring down the high market prices (Peter 45).
Conclusion
Despite some arguing that the implementation of Prop 2 will lead to job losses as well as expose people and birds to illnesses such as salmonella and bird flu respectively, it will in the end ensure better food quality as well as safety for the animals.
Work Cited
Cregier, S. E. Farm Animal Ethology: A Source Book. Captus Press: Ontario, Canada. 1989. Pp. 196 – 213.
Peter Carruthers. The Animal Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge University Press. 1992. pp. 35 – 50.
R.L. Kitchell and H.H. Erikson (eds.). Animal Pain: Perception and Alleviation. Williams and Williams Co., Baltimore. 1983. pp. 58 – 79.
The global human population is increasing. Food has now become an important concern due to the soaring population. The high population has reduced farming area to build homesteads (Pollan, 2007). Wild animals have suffered the most. As a result, global meat production has decreased.
A new trend has been developed. Animals are now domesticated specifically for meat production. Mixed opinions have resulted due to this new trend. Vegetarians have opposed this trend while the activists have taken to war with mass killing of animals to provide meat. The most affected animal is chicken. Many people keep chicken because it is a good source of protein. This paper will explore farming and animal consumption.
Initially, chicken production was done under the free-range system. The system has changed to deep litter system. Here, chickens are confined in a poultry house. They are fed from the house with little movement. This system has denied chickens the freedom to eat all nutritious food that occurs naturally in the environment (Pollan, 2007).
Generally, all animals are confined with one aim of providing food. This trend has denied animals the basic fundamental animal rights to access proper nutrition and free life. Few traditional cultures, have maintained the respect for animal life as a basic component for human survival (Kalof, 2012).
The advancement of industrialization has contributed to massive processing of livestock products. Farming as a business, is a new farming trend that has ignored alternative sources of food. This poses a great challenge and respect for nature. Therefore, it is important to develop changes that will respect the importance of animals in nature.
The first problem with farming and animal consumption is its impact on the environment. Different farming methods contribute to environmental degradation. The obvious effects are environmental pollution and land degradation (Adler & Lawler, 2012). The first reason of environmental pollution is through processing.
Meat processing plants are heavy industries. They emit greenhouse gases and require a lot of water to cool the engines (Koneswaran & Nierenberg, 2008). The byproducts, containing toxic substances, are released to the rivers or other water bodies. Hence, both air and water is polluted.
The second problem of farming and animal consumption is competition for scarce natural resources. Water is the major natural resource. Every living thing competes for it. People have resorted to stocking many animals on small pieces of land (Weber& Matthews, 2008). Due to the increasing human population, water has become scarce.
Animals require water for drinking, and cultural practices like spraying. Humans too require water for domestic use and other recreational obligations. Therefore, competition sets in for this scarce commodity. For example, cattle require about 50 Liters of water per day (Adler & Lawler, 2012). Therefore, changes need to be made to reduce growing competition for water.
Farming
Farming techniques range from small to large production schemes. Besides, farmers farm for different reasons. In this regard, farmers choose different methods of farming based on their needs. They also use different technologies based on resources available and the kind of crops or animals they need.
Increase in consumption of agricultural products has placed immense pressure on production. Moreover, unpredictable climatic conditions have made it difficult for farmers to envisage and plan for agricultural activities in a timely manner. Additionally, forecasting, which aids farmers in planning for their calendars have also changed because of unpredictable weather.
Farmers have faced unpredictable future in their efforts to increase production of both plants and animals. Moreover, animal production has faced increased challenges ranging from scarcity of water to availability of perennial diseases, among others. Therefore, discussions on farming and animal consumption have dominated current debates. This has encompassed economic, social, political, and cultural forums. In essence, debate on farming methods and animal consumption has been a challenge not only to farmers but also to the society.
Animal consumption
Animal husbandry ranges from breeding to rearing of animals. Based on any given business model, farmers can rear dairy cattle, beef cattle, mink, swine, horses, sheep, chickens, turkeys, and rabbits, among others. Understandably, these animals consume food and water in various capacities.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that water is a necessity for all animals. Additionally, feeds are very essential. Current trends have shown that animals consume huge chunks of feeds and water. For instance, livestock can consume 50litres of water per day. Additionally, it can consume heaps of fodders. This makes it difficult to achieve efficiency in feeding them because of limited resources.
However, in the United States, animal husbandry has utilized modern technologies. Nonetheless, this has led to waste of resources. In fact, some quarters have suggested that food utilized in America alone, to feed animals could feed more than 800 million people. This is possible because most animals are kept in enclosed facilities where very little movement is allowed (Adler & Lawler, 2012).
New technologies and animal consumption
Keeping animals in enclosed areas have been found to cost farmers incredibly on animal consumption. Additionally, demand for meat in the world as well as in the United States has ensured that naturally reared animals cannot satisfy the demand. Therefore, it can be observed that a number of factors have forced hand in establishing current farming methods. Companies are after profits, which would sustain them.
Therefore, they spend billions of dollars in animal consumption to achieve their targets in the shortest time possible. However, the effects of such actions are rarely considered. In fact, companies tend to overlook such effects for the sake of profits. It has been established that resources utilized to feed animals in these systems have only continued to increase. Additionally, Animal rights activists have found it to be abusive when numerous animals are crowded in a small space thereby denying them the ability to walk freely.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that this trend has ensured farmers earn massively from their farms. When the economies of scale are estimated concerning animal rights, profitability would be highly reduced. For instance, poultry farming has been done with emphasis on enclosing several chicks in a small area.
However, it should be noted that if each chicken were to be given its own space, a large tract of land would be needed to rear just 1000 chicks. Therefore, return on investment would be lowered greatly, considering the high cost of land as well as the amount of inputs required to develop such places. In fact, if each chick were given its required space, big losses would be made.
This would not meet the demand for meat in the market. Therefore, it would increase pricing of chicken meet because of inadequate supply on an overwhelming demand for meat. Essentially, it is highly difficult to achieve profitability and at the same time give animals rights as desired by activists.
Discussion
From the information above , it can be observed that granting animals their rights as required, would require participation from all stakeholders, most especially, consumers of animal products such as meat, among others. It should also be noted that meat consumers would be the hardest hit in such a case since there would be inadequate meat to be supplied to customers. Additionally, those who depend on chicken meet would also have to shelve their desires since production of meat from chicken would be slowed.
It should also be noted that such a move would also affect egg production because fewer hens would have the opportunity to lay eggs. Essentially, animal rights would require people to reduce greatly on meat consumption. Additionally, it would require that farmers acquire additional land to be able to rear many animals. Moreover, the expenses involved in such an expedition would be high considering that farmers would need to take care of all the animals.
Such changes would require additional expenses such as labor, farm inputs and maintenance, among others. Most farming centers would be forced to ignore methods such as zero grazing and instead stick to traditional methods. The gains of technology would thus need to be ignored because of animal rights.
This is practically impossible. In fact, demand for meat is instead increasing despite the factors mentioned. It is, therefore, necessary to consider that numerous changes would be required to achieve the desires of animal activists. These would include reduction in meat consumption, innovation and invention of new technologies with emphasis on green technology as well as animal rights. It would also require that many people become vegetarians.
Additionally, it would require that most resources are put in place to cover for additional land and other inputs required for establishing new methods of farming. This would be historic since man would have to go back on civilization to achieve this feat.
Farming and animal consumption can thus be seen as a very significant topic since it tries to find ways of balancing technological advances and environmental awareness.
Activists are mainly concerned with climatic changes due to green house transmissions created by most animal production industries, among others. At the same time, they are concerned by the amount of feeds animal consume. Figures from various parts of the world show that animals consume large amounts of feeds as well as water as compared to irrigation in cultivation of green foods.
Moreover, animals consume more green products than people do. This means that pressure on green products is increased thereby depleting the ecosystem. Therefore, it should be considered that animals should be raised naturally to reduce pressure on the ecosystem. Additionally, factors involved in such actions would require that people reduce on meat consumption, a task that is impossible. Reduction is impossible since demand has led to these changes in technology and costing.
Analysis
Farming and animal consumption remains a constant debate concerning sustainability. Even if farmers wanted to consider other options of integrating natural farming methods, it is still a tall order to achieve what the environment and animal right activists want. Additionally, it should be noted that such changes would require adequate time for planning and systematic transition.
However, systematic transition in meat consumption would be another obstacle to implementation of green farming. In essence, such a move would require cooperation from all stakeholders involved. Moreover, it would require those involved to consider greatly, the implications associated with such a move. For instance, when people switch to green technology, it would be necessary to note if all nutrients required would be gained from green technology.
Additionally, it would also be important to consider if such a move would clamp on people’s right to consume whatever they like. In essence, such a move would have several repercussions. Farmers would also have to accept losses for some years before they become profitable, which is another obstacle to that quest.
It has been noted that animal consumption continues to increase due to rise in demand for meat. Additionally, animal consumption has also put pressure on available vegetation, which is shared by both domestic and wild animals as well as people. These have had big implications on climate and vegetation of the world.
There is increasing drought, global warming, and scorching heat. These repercussions are central to the call for re-evaluation of farming methods with focus on animal consumption, animal rights and environmental conservation. However, such feat can only be achieved when all stakeholders are involved in positive dialogue as well as when ways of reducing meat consumption are determined.
Conclusion
In conclusion, policies should be developed to ensure that food crop production remains higher than meat production. Therefore, farming and animal consumption is an important topic that can determine the survival of the environment, animals and human beings. Although, meat production is a source of food, it cannot sustain the whole population. Some Individuals in a population are vegetarians on religious basis. This group of people is affected more because most of the arable land is used for meat production.
Kalof, L. (2012). Making animal meaning. East Lansing, United States: MSU Press.
Koneswaran, G., & Nierenberg, D. (2008). Global Farm animal production and global warming: Impacting and mitigating climate change. Journal of Environmental health prospect, 116(5), 578-582.
Pollan, M. (2007). Omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York, NY: Penguin press.
Weber, C. L. & Matthews, H. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 42(10): 3508-3513.
Chicken production in industrialized countries has undergone huge changes in the course of the last century. In the past, chickens were fed on farm diets and kept to produce eggs and meat. This has changed with the establishment of specialized industrial production systems that are characterized by factory farms. Nierenberg and Garces (2005, p.11) define industrial farming as “a system of raising animals, using intensive ‘production line’ methods that maximize the amount of meat produced, while minimizing costs”.
Chicken factory farms have thrived significantly in the past 2 decades and they supply the largest share of chicken meat demands in the country. This paper will set out to offer a detailed description of the process of raising factory farm chickens. The paper will focus on the environmental conditions that chickens thrive under as well as their food.
Growth and Development of the Broiler
The lives of the chickens that are raised in the factory farm begin at the hatching machines. Here, thousands of fertilized eggs are placed into incubators which play the role of brooding hens. In the incubator, the temperature and humidify levels are carefully controlled and monitored so as to ensure successful hatching (MacDonald, 2008).
In 21 days, the breeding cycle is complete and the chicks are hatched successfully. When the chicks are hatched, they are delivered to the broiler shed where they will be raised for meat. In order to increase their chances of success, it is necessary to transport the chicks to the farm quickly and begin feeding them in the proper environment. Before being transported to the farm factory, the young chicks which will become broilers are administered with vaccinations to help them overcome diseases that are common to chickens.
Monitoring the climate conditions is of most importance for chicks since they lack the ability to regulate their body temperature for a period of up to two weeks. Preheating the house is therefore crucial for the survival of the chicks. The air temperature should be 86F while the litter temperature should be 82⁰-86⁰F (Aviagen, 2009).
The relative humidity (RH) of the houses should be relatively high when the chicks arrive from the hatchery. This is because RH at the hatchery is high at the end of the incubation process (approximately 80%) and if the chicks are taken to a house with low RH, they may suffer from shock and will be predisposed to respiratory problems. The ideal RH for the first few days should therefore be 60-70%.
The chicks which are kept as broilers are specially selected fro their high growth rates and low feed to gain ration. Broilers are raised to 35-42 days of age by which time they have acquired a weight of 1.5kg. The Aviagen (2009) stresses that it is important for chicks to be able to feed and drink freely upon their arrival to the house.
The water should have low mineral content while the food should ideally be in the form of pellets. Pellets are preferred to mash feed since they encourage food intake and performance by the chickens. The nutrients levels in the pellets are balanced and have ingredients with high digestibility. This reduces the amount of energy needed to eat the feed hence increasing performance.
In the first days of their lives, chicks are fed with crumbled feed or mini-pellets. The main objective of the starter feeds is to give the chicks a good appetite and ensure optimal growth within the first 10 days. After the starter feed, the chicks are introduced to grower feeds which consist of pellets.
The pellets have a high concentration of energy and amino acids and during this intake, the chicks’ exhibit dynamic growth. Chicks are fed grower feeds for a period of up to two weeks. The final course of feeds is the finisher feeds which are given from 25 days until the day of processing which is generally at 42 days.
Antibiotic use in poultry factory farms is high due to the crowded conditions in which the chickens live. Antibiotics are used both for preventive and curative measures. As curative agents, they are used to treat bacterial infections which the chickens may succumb to. As preventive agents, antibiotics are used to prevent and control the spread of diseases which would otherwise overwhelm the entire farm. Aviagen (2009) recommends that the antibiotics be distributed though the water that is given to the chicks.
When the chickens have reached the desired weight, they are taken to the processing companies. Before the birds are taken for slaughter, it is important to withdraw feed so as to eliminate pharmaceutical residuals that are in the bird’s system due to the constant use of antibiotics during the bird’s growth.
Housing
The housing provided for the broilers is crucial to the survival as well as the productivity of the flock. The MacDonald (2008) notes that housing is of great importance in the chicken production industry since housing influences the feed efficiency as well as the mortality rate of the chickens. A typical house has a side curtain that can be lifted or dropped to control the climate in the house through natural ventilation. Even so, more modern houses have climate control equipment installed to give the farmer greater control over the climate.
MacDonald (2008, p.8) asserts that they two most important climate control equipment are “tunnel ventilation and evaporation cooling cells”. The Tunnel ventilation systems are made up of huge fans at one end of the house and air inlets at the opposite end of the broiler house. The fans pull the air through the house thus creating a wind effect while removing the excessive heat in the house. The evaporative cooling cells provide further cooling by lowering the temperature of the air as it moves through the pads and the chicken house.
Litter material is spread up to a depth of 4inches on the floor of the building that is to house the chicks. Litter is mostly made up of soft wood shaving material. This litter is important since it helps to raise the temperature of the floor. It is therefore important that the litter remains loose and dry through the entire period that the chickens are in the house.
Lighting is also an important consideration when constructing the house since light plays a role in the performance of the chickens. Lighting programs adopted by the farm are such that log day lengths of 23 hours are provided with only an hour of darkness per day. Continuous lighting ensures that chicks have an optimal feed intake which increases their growth rates.
Issues Affecting Broilers
While in the house, chickens face a number of contaminants that adversely affect them. Common contaminant emissions from the houses include nitrogen, carbon dioxide and ammonia.
If these contaminants of air are not properly regulated, they may lead to the damaging of the birds’ respiratory tract which will result in reduced performance. Continuous lighting is another conditions that negatively affect the welfare of the chickens. Aviagen (2009) reveals that continuous lighting throughout the life of the flock results in abnormal feeding and drinking habits due to sleep deprivation.
Another important issue is that of stocking in the houses. Decisions on the stocking density are made on an economical consideration since profit maximization is the primary goal.
Aviagen (2009) asserts that “stocking density influences bird welfare, broiler performance, uniformity and product quality”. With these considerations in mind, it makes sense to avoid overstocking which not only increases environmental pressures on the house but also reduce profitability due to low bird performance. The US recommends 2 birds per ft2 with the live weight of each bird being 3lb.
Wise and Jennings (2002) report that the growth rate of bones in broilers is greatly outpaced by the growth of muscles and fat which results in the chickens not being able to support their weight efficiently. As a result of this, many boilers suffer from leg deformities or even lameness.
Researchers conclude that “birds might have been bred to grow so fast that they are on the verge of structural collapse” (Wise and Jennings, 2002, p.286). Also, Rauw et al. (1998) assert that broilers that have been genetically modified for faster growth are susceptible to a myriad of diseases as a result of the weakened immune system.
Conclusion
This paper has described how producers raise chickens with particular focus being paid to the conditions and environment under which the chickens are raised. From this paper, it is clear that the major concern for most factory farms is high productivity which translates to greater profitability.
As such, the welfare of the chickens is secondary to profitability. Even so, chicken welfare is linked to higher performance and because of this, most farms aim to provide conditions that are conducive for high productivity. Through broiler meet produced through factory farms, the dramatic increase in broiler meat demand has been met effectively.
References
Aviagen (2009). Ross Broiler Management Manual: Chick Management. Web.
MacDonald, J.M. (2008). The Economic Organization of U.S. Broiler Production. USDA.
Nierenberg, D., & Garces, L. (2005). Industrial Animal Agriculture: The Next Global Health Crisis? World Society for the Protection of Animals.
Rauw, W.M, et al. (1998). “Undesirable Side Effects of Selection for High Production Efficiency in Farm Animals: A Review”. Livestock Production Science, 56:15-33.
Wise. D., & Jennings. A. (2002). “Dyschondroplasia in Domestic Poultry”. The Veterinary Record 91:285-6.
An agricultural system can be defined as various components brought together. This is achieved by a form of interaction and interdependence operating within certain boundaries. The aim is to achieve designated agricultural goals and objectives to benefit the owner.
The analysis of agricultural farming system has two dimensions including the production and management systems. The production system involves crops, pasture, animals, soil and the biophysical system.
The management system, which is more predictable than the biophysical system, involves values, goals, people, knowledge and resources (Singha, et al, 2012).
Agricultural system research began in the late 1970s by scholars based in the developed nations. The aim was to address the challenges faced by small scale farmers who had not embraced new technology. At the time, technological innovations only suited large scale farmers. The main aims of the research were to educate small scale farmers on how they should make decisions.
In the 1980s, some European scholars also found out that small scale farmers in inhabitable areas were not adopting new technology appropriately. Therefore, the agricultural system was introduced to assess the needs and potential of both commercial scale and small-scale farmers.
The main purpose of farming systems approach is to address world changes and solve problems that challenge farmers (Mcgilloway, 2005).
In the early days, farming was preoccupied by crops and livestock keeping. However, todays there is no limitation to the amount of enterprises a farm system can have. Multi-scale approaches have opened up studies on landscape and market environments.
Modern system recognises the role of different stakeholders and the different aspects that they bring into play. Modern systems take a territorial rather than a sectorial approach where some members of the family work outside the farm, but still enjoy the benefits of the output. System performances are not pegged on productivity alone but encompass stability and sustainability.
Farms are changing continuously in the same way as the society, economy and climatic conditions. Optimum conditions require constant learning that involves an active and continuous process (Byzedi, et al, 2011).
General systems classification
The systems can be divided into three broad classifications that include natural, artificial and social systems. Natural systems are those that occur naturally; they are not a subject of mankind. They include all things that exist naturally, and include both physical and biological components of nature.
It is important to gain deeper knowledge about how these systems interrelate and all processes that occur to constitute the world and support all forms of life (Ahmed, Alam & Hasan, 2010).
It is not possible to copy or duplicate the fundamental, natural systems. They exist in their own form. Those that are relevant to agriculture may include the following: the weathering or rocks to form soils; plants that grow on the soil; animals that feed on the plants; manure obtained from the animal and rechanneled to the soil to enhance its fertility among other natural systems (Araújo & Melo, 2010).
The definition of social systems can be very hard and tricky. Nonetheless, they include societies that form social groups, institutions and social mechanisms created by social groups. They also include the interrelations that exist amongst individuals, groups, societies and communities.
This can be observed directly or manifested through other medium of the institutions. Social institutions are characterized by relationships among individuals, groups, and communities, as opposed to non-living things.
Human, social systems have a direct impact on farming activities. The term social system is used widely to refer to institutions and relationships of an economic, social, political and religious nature (Byzedi, et al, 2011).
Artificial systems are similar to social systems in that they do not occur in nature, but are purely of human nature. They are manufactured by man to serve human needs. All artificial systems are derived from either or both kinds of elements.
This includes elements obtained from natural and social systems and elements created for certain purposes by each artificial system. The general relation of this system is that natural systems are strictly independent of all other systems.
Although social systems may seem to be independent, they are interdependent on natural systems for survival. In addition, artificial systems indirectly depend on natural systems and directly on social systems (Cairns & Brookfield, 2011).
Farm-Household system
In general, a farm household system is comprised of the various parameters that govern the operation and sustainability of the system. This includes the system boundaries, household, plan of operation, resource pool, the final product enterprise, resource generating activities, agro-technical processes, whole farm service matrix, structural coefficients, and the time dimension.
System boundaries are the parameters used to differentiate the system from other systems, as well as from the external world at large. Such boundaries are usually obtained from the structural characteristics of farm, aims of analysis, and interrelation with the physical boundary.
The boundary may also include farm income generating activities (Cernea & Kassam, 2006).
The farm household consists of the nuclear family, but at times may include the extended family. It also includes all farm workers and labourers situated or working and residing within the farm’s boundaries. The basic assumption is that all households are run or controlled by males.
However, this is not always the case as research has shown that there are households that are purely managed by females. The household performs two major roles in the farm-household system. This includes assisting in resource management and as beneficiaries of the system.
Household members are responsible for providing leadership, providing objectives and goal, and providing management to the farm. In small scale farms, the principal beneficiaries are usually the family members.
However, some external beneficiaries may also exist. It is also common for other family members who do not live on the farm to come during harvest or ask for assistance from the resident members (Martius, 2012).
Operating plan refers to the household objectives that are identified and achieved through the preparation and implementation of a farm operating plan. This may be achieved by choosing the best possible mix of activities, agro-technical processes, enterprises and resources. Accountants classify farm resources into two components namely fixed and short term resources.
Fixed resources are used for very long periods and may include land, machinery and irrigation system. They are used to maintain the farm and by individual enterprises. Short term resources are used every year and form a recurrent expenditure.
They consist of items such as fertilisers and pesticides. Farm resources can also be viewed from their potential rather than from results of their use. Farm resources flow from the main pool to other sublevels of the system to generate the farm’s output (Chapagain & Gurung, 2010).
A farm enterprise consists of sublevels whose main purpose is to produce output. It may involve the use of various technology and process activities with the aim of producing end products. Resource generating activities are classified into three general categories including domestic use, general use, and those used by certain enterprises.
Whole-farm service matrix refers to fixed capital resources that are critical to the routine operations on the farm. However, they are not directed to any exclusive use of any enterprise or activity such as land, barns and irrigation channels. Some capital items exist as subsystems and are interdependent from other components such as grain drying facilities, methods of soil conservation and plough.
Capital is managed and used to provide services that are not specific, but facilitate the operation of the lower levels of the farm system (Chopra, 2005).
Structural coefficients are things that define and enumerate linkage relationships between various parts or elements within a subsystem. An essential quality of any system is the correlation and interrelation between all sublevels of the system.
Time dimension cannot be defined but rather reflects on certain operating phases that may have the same duration as the longest enterprise of a subsystem. In this case, cotton has a gestation of seven months or one year depending on the climatic conditions.
If the household objectives are achieved, it can be reactivated in continuous stages. A good system may allow further development and mechanization, while a bad system might prove unsustainable (Halberg, 2006).
A diagram of interrelationships of elements in a simple household system
Some of the key inputs of this system include the farm operating plan and the farm’s pool of resources such as land, water, seeds and cash. It also includes household components, various farm activities, external forces and farm processes.
The operating plan is the policies and objectives that have been established. A poor plan leads to poor output. The resource pool is where the fixed capital services are stored. All the subsystems get allocation of these resources from this pool. This includes water for irrigation (MacRae, 2011).
Household components are the social systems within the family. Despite the family being a social system and not an agricultural system, it dominates all other subsystems that make up the farm component. The family performs two basic functions. It assists in giving direction on resource management. It also acts as a beneficiary to the output produced.
The use of fertilisers is also a major input in this system. As technology changes, more and more farmers are turning to the use of fertilisers and pesticides for the control of pests. Animals are also a major component of the input. They may be of single species such as dairy cows, fish and chicken.
Manure from animals is also used as organic fertiliser to subsidise the use of inorganic products as fertiliser. The crops also form an input resource as they are used as fodder for animals. Animals are fed on the leftover matter from green plants (Magbanua, et al, 2010).
Outputs
The major outputs associated with this system include cash, food and seed. Cash is obtained from the sale of farm produce. This may include the sale of commodities such as agricultural products like grains, vegetables, milk, and meat.
All the surplus produce that is not consumed by the family member is put on sale. The proceeds from this sale are rechanneled back into the farm system as capital for other enterprises (Sadati, et al, 2010).
Controllers
Farmer’s preference means that farmers have an impact on the output and input because of their own likes and dislikes. Human beings have their own preferences that affect the choices they make.
Farmers decide on estimates of fertilizers, the seed type to plant, irrigation frequencies among others basing on their previous experiences, local community practice; advice from extension workers; labels found on fertilisers and pesticides or in reference to farm records. Farmers also make decision basing on the actual financial costs of inputs and the amount of the effect it has on the output.
In cases where the projected output is not known, the farmer is likely to rely on extension services. In addition, when big changes have been witnessed in previous outputs that necessitate making of changes, the farmer may be forced to adopt the new technology hence making changes to input that will impact on output (Mcgilloway, 2005).
Conclusion
Farming systems research will continue having a big impact in innovation and development of new agricultural methodologies. This is aimed to sustain agriculture both in the commercial and small scale farms.
Farming system analysis has been pivotal in the empowerment of peasant farmers by enabling them to identify and implement strategies of improving their livelihoods. However, farming systems have a major challenge in that they are not widely adopted by the intended groups. The greatest challenges include how to engage the participation of small scale farmers in implementing these developments.
It requires collaboration and exchange of information from all stakeholders and relevant institutions. This also requires liberalization of all political, social and economic barriers. It involves a move from the traditional norms of governance to friendly forms such as the use of horizontal interactive processes.
References List
Ahmed, N, Alam, M & Hasan, M 2010, ‘The economics of sutchi catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) aquaculture under three different farming systems in rural Bangladesh’, Aquaculture Research, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1668-1682.
Araújo, A & Melo, W 2010, ‘Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system’, Ciência Rural, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 2419-2426.
Byzedi, M, et al. 2011, ‘Studying the Effects of Supplementary Irrigation (Sprinkler Systems) to Dry Farming Wheat Cultivars’, World Academy Of Science, Engineering & Technology, vol. 79, pp. 551-553.
Cairns, M & Brookfield, H 2011, ‘Composite farming systems in an era of change: Nagaland, Northeast India’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 56-84.
Cernea, MM & Kassam, AH 2006, Researching the culture in agriculture: social research for international agricultural development, Wallingford, CABI Pub.
Chapagain, T & Gurung, G 2010, ‘Effects of Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM) Practices on the Sustainability of Maize-based Hill Farming Systems in Nepal’, Journal Of Agricultural Science (1916-9752), vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 26-32.
Chopra, KR 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses: findings of the responses working group, Island Press, Washington.
Halberg, N 2006, Global development of organic agriculture: challenges and prospects, CABI, Wallingford.
MacRae, G 2011, ‘Rice Farming In Bali’, Critical Asian Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 69-92.
Magbanua, F, et al. 2010, ‘Responses of stream macroinvertebrates and ecosystem function to conventional, integrated and organic farming’, Journal Of Applied Ecology, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1014-1025.
Martius, C 2012, Cotton, water, salts and soums: economic and ecological restructuring in Khorezm, Uzbekistan, Springer, Dordrecht [etc.].
Mcgilloway, D 2005, Grassland: a global resource: XX IGC 2005 Ireland & United Kingdom, Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
Sadati, S, et al. 2010, ‘Exploring the Solution for Overcoming Challenges Facing Peasant Farming System in Iran’, Journal Of Agricultural Science (1916-9752), vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 244-253.
Singha, A K, et al. 2012, ‘Analysis on Influencing Factors of Technology Adoption of Different Land Based Enterprises of Farmers under Diversified Farming System’, Journal Of Agricultural Science (1916-9752), vol. 4, no. 2: 139-146.
Irrigation System on subsistence farmers in the Melanesian region
Melanesia region comprises Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, New Caledonia and Papua New Guinea. For a long time, Melanesian farmers in the region have practiced subsistence farming as a source of their livelihood. Because of the changing climate, and the region landscape, most farmers use irrigation schemes to support their practices of subsistence farming.
Melanesian Irrigation systems are well organized. According to Dunford & Ridgell, (1997) subsistence farmers in the region have aligned their farming practices basing on irrigations requirements. One of the irrigation schemes is widely used in the region is Dani Irrigation.
Dani irrigation is a scheme practiced by Dani people living in the Melanesian highlands. Danis are famed for their extensive cultivation practices. Dani farmers use this form of irrigation scheme to support intensive cultivation of crops such as sweet potatoes, taro, and other supplementary crops grown in the region.
Dunford & Ridgell (1997) indicate that besides Dani irrigation schemes, Melanesia region has developed local irrigation methods. Mostly, these methods involve activities such asdigging ditches to help farmers tap water from small streams that pass under the valleys. Moreover, local irrigation method involves farmers digging channels to re-direct waters and creating raised contours in the field for holding water.This helps in retaining water in the fields.
Dunford & Ridgell (1997) illustrate several ways in which Melanesian farmers use ditches. They demonstrate that ditches are source of fertilizer; hence, farmers use the fertilizer to apply to their crops.
To reduce the incidence of soil erosion, and help conserve soil moisture, subsistence farmers use sharp wooden sticks to dig holes during planting of crops such as sweet potatoes. Dunford & Ridgell (1997) also point out that farmers stagger their planting practices; this ensures the crop matures on ayear-round basis without requiring storage. This measure guarantees constant water supply.
Southern Nile Farmers
Southern Nile subsistence farmers have over the ages been dependent on irrigation practices to grow their crops. Presently, most farmers have established small-scale irrigation schemes under self-help programs (Abate, 1994). The self-help programs have been critical in addressing farmers’ irrigation needs.
Despite new trends in farming practices, such as adopting new irrigation methods and farming practices in the southern region, most farmers still carry on with traditional irrigation practices. They view traditional irrigation methods as less costly because they are managed communally.
Despite many tangible benefits from using irrigation practice, some farmers, for example, those living in Ethiopian region have not fully aligned their irrigation systems and practices to reap from the waters of River Nile (Abate, 1994), which evidenced through variation in their cropping calendars, water usage patterns, the type of crops they are growing and the socio-economic trends in which they operate.
Besides, southern farmers use conventional river diversions as irrigation method. Consequently, they use hand operated shaduf and water wheels among others. These devices assist in conveying water into the fields. Other common methods include digging shallow wells along rivers and using spade irrigation.
Being practiced on a smaller scale, these systems encounters fewer problems than those experienced in large scale farming such as; farmers relying on organizations over control and remote management practices (Abate, 1994). hese methods are labor intensive and tiresome.
However, in recent times, they have noted the benefits of efficient irrigation strategies prompting them to acquire irrigation pumps. They have been driven by factors such as increasing pressure on farming land, production quotas, rainfall inconsistency and collective ownership of land.
Range of Foreign Aids Agencies
Various foreign aids organizations have been critical in supporting subsistence farming in various capacities. For example, in the Nile Basin, the German Ministry of Environment carried out a case study on the effects resulting from use of scarce resources of River Nile. The ministry asserted that Egypt, and the entire region using River Nile will face severe environmental security risk as a consequence (Lensink& Morrissey, 2000).
Additionally,The Word Bank, under the World Bank Integrated Irrigation Improvement, and Management Project has been instrumental in assisting subsistence farmers in Southern Nile region. The organization’s goal is to increase production and encourage sustainable use of water resources in the region.
The organization views that most farmers are facing a growing need of River Nile water resource, hence, this will ultimately decrease its supply in the future. The organization is involved in activities such as developing and implementing integrated water management strategies, environmental management strategies, rehabilitating and improving irrigation and drainage systems in the region (Lensink& Morrissey, 2000).
Similarly, in Melanesia, United Nation Development Program and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Program, among other agencies are supporting the region significantly (Lensink& Morrissey, 2000). In addition to providing information on the best farming practices, they are supporting farmers through training, funding and designing underground irrigation system.
Their aim is to prevent drought in the future. Consequently, other regional agricultural bodies, in conjunction with the government are advising farmers on the best irrigation practices to use in the farms.
References
Abate, Z 1994,Water Resources Development in Ethiopia: An Evaluation of PresentExperience and Future Planning Concepts, Ithaca Press,Reading
Dunford, B&Ridgell, R 1997, Pacific Neighbors: The Islands of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, Bess Press, Honolulu
Lensink, R &Morrissey,O 2000, ‘Aid instability as a measure of uncertainty and the positive impact of aid on growth’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 36 no.3, pp. 31–49.
Agriculture plays an important role in human life. Through this activity, humans can produce adequate food to ensure their survival. However, agricultural practices have major effects on the ecosystem. In Australia, the Golden Sun Moth has been affected significantly by farming. While this diurnal species was once widespread throughout southeastern Australia, its numbers have decreased dramatically. Currently, the moth is in the list of most endangered insect species in Australia. This paper will highlight the negative effects that farming has had on the golden sun moth.
Agriculture has led to the destruction of the natural habitat of the moth. The golden sun moth is found in the temperate native grasslands. The demand for more agricultural land has led to vast tracks of grasslands being cleared for farming. O’Dwyer and Attiwill (2000) state that when land is cleared for agriculture purposes, large numbers of the moth population are destroyed. Unlike other species of moths that can migrate to other areas in search of suitable habitats to colonize, the golden sun moth can only travel short distances. Grund (2009) documents that this moth flies at a relatively slow speed, and the females are semi-flightless, which inhibits their ability to travel. For this reason, when their current habitat is cleared for farming, the moths that previously occupied the habitat are likely to be destroyed.
Farming has reduced the availability of the grass needed to sustain the golden sun moth in its early development state. Unlike most other insects that can survive on a variety of plants in their larva state, this moth requires grass for its survival. Staak (2009) documents that the larvae of the golden sun moth feed almost exclusively on the native Wallaby grass found in the Australian grassland. Farming practices have led to the dramatic reduction of the grass needed for the survival of this moth. The original Wallaby grass species has decreased dramatically due to extensive grazing. Staak (2009) notes that grazing by farm animals leads to a competition for the grass needed for the moth’s survival. Without adequate grass supplies, the golden sun larva cannot survive into its moth state.
The golden sun moths are also affected by the agricultural practices of insecticide and herbicide use. Modern farming relies heavily on the use of agrichemicals. These farm inputs are used to protect crops from pest and diseases, therefore, increasing farm yield. However, the chemicals adversely affect the golden sun moths. According to Grund (2009), the repeated use of broad-acre herbicides and insecticides leads to the destruction of the moths. The moths are not tolerant of the chemicals, and they are poisoned by the exposure. The larva and pupae that live underground can also be destroyed by the agro-chemicals (Grund 2009). As such, these chemicals, which are essential for modern farming, poison the moths leading to their widespread destruction.
The future of the once widespread golden sun moth is uncertain. From the information given in this paper, it is clear that agriculture has played a major role in reducing the population of this moth in Australia. There are various conservation efforts being implemented to prevent the extinction of the golden sun moth. These efforts include restricting agricultural practices in some of the natural habitats of the moth. Such efforts reduce the negative effects of farming on the moths ensuring their survival.
References
Grund, R 2009, South Australian Sun-Moths. Web.
O’Dwyer, C & Attiwill P 2000, ‘Restoration of a Native Grassland as Habitat for the Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana Walker (Lepidoptera; Castniidae) at Mount Piper, Australia’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 170-174.
Staak, A 2009, Sun Moth Count butterfly monitoring in Australia. Web.
Furnished cages and free-run systems are familiar with artificial housing environments for poultry. The two systems differ in the way they cater to regular feeding/foraging, nesting, perching, and dust bathing, which are essential for the welfare of poultry. The Peach Farmhouses 20,000 laying hens in cages (40 birds per cage) while the Olive Farm is a free run system with 10,000 chickens in a divided hoop barn (5,000 hens in each half). In the context of animal welfare, both systems meet the behavioral needs of the birds to varying degrees.
Comfort feeding or foraging is a natural behavior of all birds. In the Peach Farm, the chain feeders are placed at a lower position than the average height of the hens. One bird can be seen straining its neck to reach the feeds, a scenario that has the potential of causing injury and abnormal feather pecking. In their study, Weeks and Nicol (2006) found that the absence of suitable feeders and foraging litter in conventional battery cages increases the risk of abnormal feather pecking.
Ideally, hens spend half of their time feeding and foraging. However, in the Peach Farm the time spent feeding at the feeder is less than 50% of the 16 h light period. In contrast, feeding and foraging take over 50% of the 16.3 h light period of the Olive hens. Therefore, the raised feeders, nibble drinkers, and forage litter at the Olive Farm promote comfort feeding of the chickens than the low-level Peach feeders. Additionally, the abnormal feather pecking caused by the low-level feeders may account for the significantly higher mortality at Peach Farm (2.4%) than at the Olive Farm (0.8%).
Perching and roosting is another essential behavioral need for hens. In the Peach Farm, the floor on the cages consists of wire and steel bars, which may hinder comfortable perching. In addition, the perches provided are more congested (12.4cm per hen) than those in Olive Farm (15cm per hen). Thus, there is a likelihood of pushing and aggression in the Peach Farm. Scientific literature shows that if the perch space is insufficient, birds are likely to display frustration because the intrinsic urge to perch or nest is thwarted by overcrowding (Knierim, 2006). Furthermore, abnormal feather pecking and aggression often arise in a crowded perching/roosting space.
From the slides, the laying hens in the Peach Farm become flighty and huddle in a corner when a person approaches. In contrast, the Olive hens are less freakish and do not fear people probably because sufficient perching space reduces their anxiety and restlessness (Donaldson and O’Connell, 2012). Therefore, if the perch space is sufficient, as in the Olive Farm, the hens are less likely to be flighty and fearful of people.
The lack of substratum litter in cages is repressive to the hens’ urge to dust-bathe. Experimental evidence shows that the availability of a dusty substratum stimulates the urge to dust-bathe, which is a gratifying activity for birds (Olsson and Keeling, 2005). In contrast, the littered floor in the Olive Farm is expansive, giving Olive hens a larger substratum to dust-bathe than the Peach hens (45cm by 45cm per 40 hens). Additionally, the small cage space may limit the hens’ ability to move around, which could explain the high risk of injury due to cage trauma recorded at the Peach Farm. On the other hand, the spacious Olive barn stimulates the urge to fly, which increases the risk of injury due to flying collisions. However, the large hoop barns may give the hens enough room to engage in comfort activities such as stretching and wing flapping.
Comfort behavior is restricted in a cage environment. Valkonen, Valaja, and Venalainen (2005) explain that activities such as preening and flapping of wings maintain the feathers in a healthy state. The spacing in the Peach Farm cages (660cm2 per hen) may be insufficient for hens to do simple movements. Furthermore, the limited floor space coupled with the high frequency of abnormal feather pecking may account for the high average feather score (2.9) of the Peach hens. From the pictures in the slides, it is clear that the back feathers of the Peach hens are diminishing while those of the Olive hens are thick and healthy probably because they have enough space to engage in comfort activities. This observation shows that the free-range system offers a more comfortable environment than the cage system.
A confined environment also limits the birds’ ability to exercise, which is crucial in improving bone structure and strength. Yue and Duncan (2003) found that the limited space in cages impedes free movement that essentially strengthens the muscles and bones via the dynamic loading process. In this study, up to 24% of the caged birds culled at 72 weeks had fractured bones. This problem is also observed in the Peach Farm where 18.1% and 31% of the surveyed poultry suffered from hyperkeratosis and twisted/broken keel bones. In light of this finding, it is fair to conclude that hens require more space than the one provided in cages. However, hens temporarily prefer smaller spaces when nesting (Fraser and Duncan, 2008). In this respect, the Peach Farm’s 60 by 55cm may be more preferable to the large nesting area of 110cm2 per hen in the Olive Farm.
Exploratory behavior is common among birds. Birds tend to be inquisitive of their surroundings, a trait that helps them identify a suitable site to perch/roost or nest. Research shows that environments that deprive hens of the opportunity to explore their surroundings affect their psychological well-being because exploratory behavior lies “at the core of avian physical existence” (EFSA, 2005, p. 33). In the Olive Farm, the hens spend most of their time foraging for feeds from the litter, which is an environmental challenge that quells their primal instinct to search for food. In contrast, the chickens at the Peach Farm obtain their nutrition from the chain feeders. Knierim (2006) explains that hens continue to explore for food or nesting sites even when such resources are provided. Thus, the cage environment at the Peach Farm may suppress the natural exploratory behavior of the hens, which may affect their psychological well-being.
On the other hand, the free-range system at the Olive Farm is enriched with various stimuli, including litter and dust-baths, which appeal to the natural tendency of chickens to explore and manipulate their environment. The hens have the opportunity to investigate the litter for feeds, perch on the superstructure of the hoop barn, and choose a nesting site from a range of options. The variable environment matches the intrinsic desire to explore and interact with different objects. The engaging environment in free-range systems reduces the frequency of feather pecking and improves the hens’ quality of life (Fraser and Duncan, 2008). In the slides, the Peach Farm hens engage more in feather pecking than the Olive Farm chickens probably due to the lack of exciting stimuli in the cages.
In conclusion, evidently, the free-range system in the Olive Farm is better for the welfare of the laying hens than the cage environment of the Peach Farm. Overall, the Olive Farm appeals to the psychological and behavioral needs of laying hens, such as comfort feeding, perching, dust-bathes, exploration, and exercising, more than the Peach Farm does.
References
Donaldson, C.J., and O’Connell, N.E., 2012. The influence of access to aerial perches on fearfulness, social behaviour and production parameters in free-range laying hens.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 142: 51-60.
EFSA, 2005. Scientific report on the welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. European Food Safety Authority, London, p. 33.
Fraser, D. and Duncan, I.J., 2008. Pleasures, pains, and animal welfare: Toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare, 7: 383-396.
Knierim, U., 2006. Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: a review. Wageninhen Journal of Life Sciences, 54: 133-145.
Olsson, I.A. and Keeling, L.J., 2005. Why in earth? Dustbathing behavior in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 93: 259-282.
Weeks, C.A. and Nicol, C.J., 2006. Behavioral needs, priorities, and preferences of laying hens. World’s Poultry Science, 62: 296-307.
Yue, S. and Duncan, I.J., 2003. Frustrated nesting behavior: relation to extra-cuticular shell calcium and bone strength in White Leghorn hens. British Poultry Science, 44: 175-181.
Valkonen, E., Valaja, J. and Venalainen, E., 2005. The effects of dietary energy and perch design on the performance and condition of laying hens kept in furnished cages. Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Lublin, Poland. pp. 91-103.
This paper will give facts on four categories of animals kept in Canada; the farm animals, animals used in experiments, animals used as companions to people and those used in entertainment. Findings indicate that there are 630037 beehives, 1230500 cattle, 166000 chicken, 1400 ducks, 330 guinea fowl and geese, 30,000 goats, 407000 horses, 4000 mules, 1268000 pigs, 88700 sheep, and 55,000 turkeys. The numbers of all the rest except beehives and cattle are given as 1000 head (“Faostat-Canada” par. 1). There are 6.4 million dogs and 7.0 million cats that are the companion animals. There are also laboratory animals that number approximately 216, 450 (“Wild Animals in Entertainment” par. 1). They are grouped into 126290 rodents, 61792 fish, 23691 reptiles and amphibians, 1358 birds, 1778 large mammals, 1981 small mammals, and 360 marine mammals. The category of wild animals utilized in the entertainment sum up to about 200000 in the zoos and circuses (Hui 1).
Farm Animals
Farm animals include mammals and birds commonly kept by people for agricultural purposes such as the production of fiber, food, fertilizer. There are 630037 beehives, 1230500 cattle, 166000 chicken, 1400 ducks, 330 guinea fowl and geese, 30,000 goats, 407000 horses, 4000 mules, 1268000 pigs, 88700 sheep, and 55,000 turkeys (“Faostat-Canada” par. 2). Canadian fundamental agricultural output comes from poultry, beef, pork, and dairy. These productions are crucial to Canada because they generate income that enhances the livelihoods of the Canadians.
Companion Animals
Companion animals are always domestic animals determined by the close relationship between them and their owners. There are 6.4 million dogs and 7.0 million cats that comprise this category. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS) approves the ownership of companion animals to people with satisfactory standards of physical and emotional care for the animals (“Wild Animals in Entertainment” par. 1). Such animals include pets like cats, dogs, and other easily domesticated animals. The commissions are responsible to take care of pets like cats, dogs by spaying and neutralization that controls their breeding patterns (Hui 1). Overpopulation of some companion animals is common in Canada, but abandoning of these animals is not acceptable. It means that it is against the moral code of the Country. According to the Canadian animal regulatory laws, the unwanted animals are admitted to the local humane society for protection (Hui 1).
Laboratory Animals
Laboratory animals include any vertebrates bred and kept for the research testing purposes or training. The position of the animals in laboratory research, testing, and teaching is regulated by the Canadian laws (Hui 1). Such animals include rats, rabbits, and the squirrels as well as guinea fowls. There also laboratory animals total up to 216, 450. They are grouped into 126290 rodents, 61792 fish, 23691 reptiles and amphibians, 1358 birds, 1778 large mammals, 1981 small mammals, and 360 marine mammals species. The animals help in research and learning because their digestive systems resemble that of humans, which makes them relevant for investigations.
Wild Animal Kept For Entertainment
This group of animals is captured from the wild without domestication. They are entertain people in places like zoos, circuses, and aquariums. Wild animals kept for entertainment are not tamed. Therefore, they can be dangerous and are likely to injure or kill, which means they should be treated with care. The wild animal species vary but there are some commonly known ones such as giraffes, birds, wild snakes, antelopes, and wild cats kept for entertainment in circuses and zoos. The category of wild animals in this group sums up to about 200000 in the zoos and circuses
Globally, circuses have entertained numerous people for many years with the help of the animals kept for the entertainment. however, those animals suffer because they are confined in small cages. The animals’ social, behavioral, and psychological satisfactions fail under such conditions. Since the wild animals are used to staying in natural environments that do not restrict their movements, they die prematurely if kept in such restricted conditions. Although these animals seem to be friendly, they are very dangerous when provoked and can easily attack and kill people.
There are nearly one hundred zoos and wild animal collections in Canada, which provide perfect and quality care for the wild animals. There are policies by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies that regulate welfare of animals because of their relative importance to the economy and the visitors.
A Summary of the Total of the Animals in Canada
Category
Number
Category
Farm animals
20874467
10 million to 100 million
Entertainment animals
200000
100 000 to 1 million
Companion animals
13400000
10 million to 100 million
Laboratory animals
216450
0 to 100 000
Total
34690917
10 million to 100 million
Conclusion
Canada has a wide variety of animals which are classified by the next categories: farm, entertainment, companion, and laboratory animals. Their numbers vary widely. For instance, there are 20874467 farm animals, 200,000 entertainment animals, 13400000 companion animals and 216450 laboratory usage animals. The statistics indicate that the farm animals are the largest group of the mentioned animals, while those used for laboratory experiments are in the minority. There are laws set that govern the usage of the animals, however regulations vary among provinces.
Works Cited
Hui, Stephen. UBC Used 216,450 Animals in Experiments in 2013. Georgia Straight Vancouver’s News & Entertainment Weekly. 2014:13. Web.
In the past, factory farming was regarded as a technological triumph that would sustain food sufficiency in the growing world population. Today, a growing concern from various experts, including agriculturalists, as well as scientists and policymakers, perceives factory farming as a dead end, a mistaken agricultural approach, and destructive invention to the living systems (Pluhar 455). Factory farming poses serious health threats that cannot be overlooked. Several scientific researchers have shown that the modern practice of factory farming is an increasingly acute danger to human health, the environment, and animal welfare. Until recently, animal welfare associations have avoided the controversial factory farming debates, focusing instead on other conventional aspects such as pet overpopulation and frequent instances of animal cruelty. However, a clash between the moral agents including the animal rights activists and the influential agribusiness businesses appears unavoidable.
Intensive animal confinement and mechanized production procedures generate an enormous volume of animal products used in human consumption (Williams 373). An urgent attention on effects of factory farming to human health, environment and animals is paramount to curb possible disastrous effects in future. Failure to contain and control these methods can lead to a global crisis. Despite the many merits associated with this method, the extent of danger it poses to humanity overweighs all outstanding advantages associated with it. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production investigation research 2008 on the impact of factory farming confirmed the harmful effect posed by products produced through this method and recommended a 10 year for the closure of the most intensive production techniques used in factory farming, including battery cages, force feeding birds to reap their fatty livers for foie gras and gestation crates (The Characteristics of Industrial Agriculture 1). The researchers concluded that the current factory farming is quite purely unacceptable due to its harmful effects on humans, environment, and animals. These findings came at a time when not only the United States but also the global demand for animal products, particularly meat, has risen to their highest point yet. Based on findings explored from a variety of ethical viewpoints, especially utilitarian and rights based perspectives, there is a need to consider other alternatives.
This short writing was meant to highlight that the world we live in today is highly dependent on factory farming and the deep, everlasting impacts it has on our society and lifestyles. Although highlighting the advantages that provide sustainability and economic stability is important, the aim of this paper is to bring forth the wide array of disadvantages and threats to the society and environment that these methods bring. But with all that being said, the industrial livestock production has become a very important part of how the world functions and how the food supply is dependent on it and is distributed across the globe.
Harm to Animals
Disease and Life Expectancy
Most of the issues that are connected with the factory farming effect on animals are caused by such factor as overcrowding. Large numbers of birds and animals are kept on small territories, which facilitates the spreading of infections. The fish population is also subject to this problem, as the long-term overcrowding may lead to the higher competition for food and result in stress and decline of the immune defense, which can cause the growth of disease rates (Gregory & Grandin, 2007, p. 136). Moreover, the inability of animals to live a natural life results in their shorter life span, which is also disadvantaging for humans as they do not receive enough proteins that could potentially be developed through more sustainable methods (Fick, 2008, p. 163). Thus, the conditions of flock and cattle raising are not only harmful to animals but they also strongly decrease the population, resulting in the lack of food for people.
Painful Practices
The ways of keeping birds and animals used in factory farming are often cruel and causing pain. For instance, there is a practice of beak trimming of chicken that is done to prevent the cases of cannibalism among birds kept in small rooms (Poultry Hub, 2017, para. 1). Besides, most chickens are kept in cages for the most of their lives, which causes various health issues with legs and feathers since they are not adjusted to stand or rub against the wire. These birds need worms and other organic food found in the earth for their optimal growth and functioning (Healthy Eating Politics, 2017, para. 2). However, in the case of factory farming, it is almost impossible to keep an eye on the great numbers of chicken roaming the open ground. Moreover, not all countries have yet adopted the regulations that would allow slaughtering farm animals without them feeling stressed during the process.
Ethical Concern
It is not surprising that more and more people become concerned with the conditions in which farm animals are raised. Although it is true that the large portion of the world’s population is primarily concerned about the cost of products, most people in the developed countries are willing to pay more for food that has been produced in a sustainable way. This is one of the results of the grand survey conducted for ASPCA the last year (ASPCA, 2016, para. 5). Other key findings include the misconceptions about the popular labels regarding the industry and the small literacy in the field of monitoring the farm animal welfare. These results show that although people are concerned with the state of farm animals, they do not make much effort to study the subject in depth. Marketing is a powerful tool to make people believe that the food they consume is eco-friendly, yet a little portion of customers studies whether these claims are true. It is possible that the primary concern of people who choose sustainable food producers is to look better in public through supporting the modern ethical trends. However, even this artificial interest has already created a demand for the new agricultural techniques that would prevent the animal suffering. It may possibly occur in the future that the developed countries will pass the laws prohibiting the factory farming. In any case, the survey made for ASPCA clearly shows that people lack education in matters concerning animal cruelty in the field of the food production.
Harm to Humans
Farmers’ Health State
It is not only animals who suffer health issues from the factory farming methods. People who work on farms also go through the illness cases directly caused by the use of chemicals during their work. For instance, the study of the rice field workers in the Philippines has shown that they experience problems with sight, blood pressure, and digestion (Naylor, 1996, p. 64). The research connects these problems with the extensive use of pesticides for tackling weeds. Another evidence shows that the long-term exposure to the sun can cause problems with skin such as the early aging and melanoma cases (Ulimwengu, 2009, p. 1). Besides, people who work directly with animals are regularly exposed to viruses and diseases that can be transmitted to humans. While this issue can be present in natural farming, the intensive methods pose higher risks due to the larger numbers of cattle.
Disease Spreading
The spreading of diseases among other people is also influenced by the factory farming. The overcrowded facilities create perfect conditions for the development of viruses and pathogenic bacteria (Geer, 2014, para. 2). Because of a large number of animals, viruses can mutate to get new forms, which is happening every year. Studies suggest that the factory farming could lead humanity to the situation of the so-called “antibiotic apocalypse” when new viruses would be resistant to all forms of medicine (Woolfe, 2016, para. 1). This estimation seems particularly accurate, as scientists are currently observing the growing number of flu forms which become harder to treat each year. All the vaccines that are currently used in the healthcare system may become ineffective due to the rapid development of the new disease types, and humanity may need to rethink the whole treatment ways to tackle this problem along with changing the ways in the agricultural field.
Antibiotics and Hormones
Apart from the threat of the disease spreading, factory farming is a source of the population’s health state worsening, as the majority of meat and dairy products are full of antibiotics and hormones used on animals to prevent them from falling ill or to help them gain mass. When antibiotics are consumed by people, they can cause the extinction of the natural microflora in the digestion system, resulting in the malfunctioning of the whole body. Hormones are even more dangerous, as they change the vital processes in a body that can lead to such problems as diabetes and obesity. The recent survey made by the National Research Center shows that people become more concerned about reducing antibiotics in food production (National Research Center, 2015, p. 3). More than half of the respondents answered that they find this matter to be very important. However, it is impossible to reject the usage of medicine in factory farming since the large numbers of animals cannot be kept healthy if they live at the same place. It becomes evident that the current methods in agriculture are not satisfying as perceived by the majority of the American population. The problem is further deepened by the food producers who do not state on their products that animals were treated with antibiotics and hormones. It might be the task of the government that needs to address this issue and make the farming safer by obliging producers to regulate the amount of medication they use since ensuring the interest of citizens is the country’s top priority.
Harm to Ecology
Deforestation
The fact of destroying the natural landscape by factory farming is probably the most pressuring issue caused by this industry. Such problem as deforestation is the biggest one, as it can be traced in the emerging states like Ghana, where there is an urgent need to create a more effective department of agriculture, as the country is suffering from the inappropriate land usage (Asante, 2005, p. 185). Asia is also suffering from the current practices. For instance, vast territories of the mangrove forests are suitable for shrimp farming, which is causing a gradual destruction of these areas (Barbier & Sathirathai, 2004, p. 56). It is easy to predict that if the current methods of farming continue to prevail, the state of the Earth will change in the next several decades. Forests provide oxygen and protect the planet from overheating. Failure to save these precious territories will result in the climate change.
Loss of Species
Deforestation and changing of other areas lead directly to the shortage of fauna species. As animals lose their natural habitats, they have to adapt to the new conditions, which is impossible to achieve in the short run. The World Wide Fund for Nature claims that 50 percent of the world’s lands have been turned into farming territories, which is threatening animals living there (WWF, 2016). The fauna world is not the only one suffering, as plants are also endangered in the changing world. The growth of the population in the United Kingdom has caused the increase in the territories used for the farming purposes, which resulted in the extinction of hundreds of domestic species (Marshall, 2016). While people strive to feed themselves properly, they forget the importance of their surrounding and it may soon happen that humanity will find itself to be one of the few species left on Earth.
Pollution and Starving
The issue of pollution is widely discussed in public. It is no longer surprising that farming causes water and soil contamination that heavily impacts the environment. However, it is much less discussed that pollution can harm the food production itself. The research made recently is based on the interview conducted with several farmers in Thailand who are growing rice (Khai & Yabe, 2013). One of the most peculiar answers given by the respondents is that water pollution is causing the production of rice to grow in cost. Contaminated water and soil prevent crops from the proper development, as many of them die. This information may serve as a reason for rethinking the modern ways of farming. Many regions of the world, and especially Asia, are dependent on rice, and the increasing cost of this product may lead to the starvation of millions of people. This fact undermines the initial idea of factory farming which lies in providing affordable food to as many people as possible through cheaper technologies and less workforce required to produce the product. It is possible that the problem of overpopulation is the primary cause to the fact that humanity cannot afford to switch to the more natural methods in agriculture. However, if things will be kept the way they are now, humanity may face famine along with the other problems already described in this paper. It is evident that the more lands are polluted by farming, the less territories can be used for food production in the future.
Conclusion
Summarizing all the factors stated above, it becomes clear that factory farming presents more disadvantages than offers benefits to people. Although this method of agriculture provides food for the large numbers of consumers, it cannot satisfy this need in the long run. Factory farming affects the whole planet and can no longer be supported if humans want to ensure they live in the healthy environment It becomes evident that, while this method of farming is extremely developed in the world and is currently the only option to produce large quantities of food, countries’ administration offices must thing of the new ways to eliminate the existing problems.
This paper has discussed in detail the issues caused by factory farming. Firstly, the cruel practices regarding animals can no longer be sustained in the modern world where people have come to an understanding of the life importance of every creature. Secondly, the impact of factory farming on the human health is also disturbing, as many people are currently suffering from diseases and viruses acquired through the consumption of meat and dairy products. Finally, the effect that the current methods in agriculture industry have on the environment are devastating as they destruct the land and sea habitats and cause many species of flora and fauna to go extinct.
It becomes evident that people are becoming more concerned with the situation. While the mass interest in the topic is essential, it should become the task of the governments to form laws and regulations that would change the current situation. Luckily, many administration representatives, especially in the developed states, have already paid their attention to the problem. It may be expected in the nearest future that factory farming would become much less harmful for people and environment since there are no real alternatives that could substitute this technique at the moment.
Nowadays, more and more businesses start campaigns to support the environment. Even food producers try to ensure potential customers their products are eco-friendly and good for health. The growing number of food suppliers who use natural farming methods supports the demand for the green technologies in agriculture. All of these trends can serve as a signal to the forthcoming end of such practice as the factory farming as it is known today.
References
Asante, M. S. (2005). Deforestation in Ghana: Explaining the chronic failure of forest preservation policies in a developing country. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
ASPCA. (2016). New research finds vast majority of Americans concerned about farm animal welfare, confused by food labels and willing to pay more for better treatment. Web.
Barbier, E., & Sathirathai, S. (2004). Shrimp farming and mangrove loss in Thailand. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fick, G. W. (2008). Food, farming, and faith. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Geer, A. (2014). 5 modern diseases on the rise because of factory farming. One Green Planet. Web.
Gregory, N. G., & Grandin, T. (2007). Animal welfare and meat production. Cambridge, MA: CABI.
Healthy Eating Politics. (n. d.). Free range chickens. Web.
Khai, H. V., & Yabe, M. (2013). Impact of industrial water pollution on rice production in Vietnam. In N. W. T. Quinn (Ed.), International perspectives on water quality management and pollutant control (pp. 61-85). Rijeka, Croatia: INTECH.
Marshall, C. (2016). Nature loss linked to farming intensity. BBC News. Web.
National Research Center. (2015). Natural food labels survey. Web.
Naylor, R. (1996). Herbicides in Asian rice: Transitions in weed management. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Poultry Hub. (2016). Beak trimming. Web.
Ulimwengu, J. M. (2009). Farmers health status, agricultural efficiency, and poverty in rural Ethiopia. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Woolfe, S. (2016, October 17). Factory farming could lead us to “antibiotic apocalypse.” The Canary. Web.
Rearing of cattle is an old practice that has been very beneficial to mankind. Before the discovery of wind and steam power, animal power was relied on as a major source of energy. Harnessing the power in animal muscles, communities ploughed their lands and carried produce to the market; increasing their economic productivity.
It must sound very surprising, strange and even absurd, to you my friends, to even imagine I can advocate for abolishment of beef farming in this country. Given we are all sons and daughters of farmers; you have every reason to consider anybody with my proposal insane. However, please do not dismiss me before hand. Allow me to explain to you my reasons and let see if they have some sense. I am convinced that our world would benefit immensely from a ban on beef farming.
Beef faming in this country and in the world as whole is very lucrative. Ladies and gentlemen, it is imperative for me to note how beneficial beef farming has been and continues to be to you. Meat and milk form a great bulk of people’s diets around the world. Consumption of quick foods like hamburgers in the streets of developed countries like the US continues to sky rocket.
Despite the negative effects of quick foods, people rely on them for convenience purposes. Most of the quick foods are beef products. It is projected that consumption of beef products is bound to increase fourfold by the year 2020 (Schossler 199). Therefore, for those established in the beef industry, huge margins or profits still beckon.
Cereal farmers are also making a kill in this by providing the animal feed that is on high demand due the increased animal farming activities. It is needless to say how beef consumption is beneficial to our body health. Consumption of lean meat, mark the word LEAN, is good for our health.
It is third behind cereals and grains as a source of iron. Beef is also an excellent source of protein, zinc and phosphorus which are important for our body nutrition. Proteins are very essential for our bodies. They are the building blocks for our bodies. I can already see living examples of users of these proteins here. They are well built and good looking.
Dear friends, you have all heard of Global warming, haven’t you? In the last couple of years, everyone was talking about climate change and global warming. We are all very afraid of the effects of global warming; aren’t we? From desertification in Africa to submerging of Islands to Increased Tsunamis, all these are basically effects of climate change. It is for this reason that the whole world has to pose as ask the question “What are the causes of global warming?”
The answer is simple, climate change and resultant global warming has to do with carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases form a blanket on the atmosphere and trap solar energy radiated from the earth’s surface. This leads to what we are calling global warming, which is causing adverse climate change. We all affirm that our cars, coal and our industries have very adverse effects on our environment.
However, I risk being stoned to death right now for pointing out that today’s diets, especially meat consumption, is a major reason why global warming is happening. This sound awry and maybe very absurd but let me explain. A 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture organization (FAO) indicated that beef farms produce higher percentages of greenhouse gases into the environment than cars and industries (CIWF.org). That sounds like an exaggeration, but the report is out there for all of us to read for ourselves.
Compared to crop farming, beef farming produces as much as ten times the amount of greenhouse gases. Gases like carbon IV oxide (CO2), nitrogen IV oxide, and methane are produced in high quantities during beef farming, beef processing and beef transportation to the markets.
From the FAO report, current contribution of beef farms is between “14-22% of 36 billion tons of carbon IV oxide equivalent” (CIWF.org). This is a very high and alarming level. In this case, a small beef farm can produce the same amount of greenhouse gas that a car can produce when driven for several miles. In my introduction I pointed out that beef consumption is increasing all over the world. This boils down to increase in greenhouse gases; from expanding beef farms, thus accelerated global warming.
Additionally, the increased rearing of beef animals has led to increased deforestation as huge tracts of forest land, all over the world, are cleared to create room for pasture development. Clearing of forests for livestock keeping has seen the destruction of “over 25% of the forests in Central America since 1960” (Robbins 220). To clear forests, most farmers simply burn them down.
Away from the global warming issue, considering the amount of vegetation that cattle eat, one would wonder if these are not creatures of destruction. Land dereliction and desertification has been caused to a large extend by livestock all over the world. The cattle trample on the vegetation while devouring tons of vegetation on a daily basis. An animal feeds on approximately 900pounds of vegetation every month. Lack of soil cover due this leads to soil erosion and hence reduction in the soils output (Shiva pp 70-71).
Ladies and gentlemen, suppose some terrorist organizes a bomb attack that kills 4,000 people, how many of us will bay for the terrorist’s blood? How many of us will advocate for the cruelest penalty against the terrorist? My bet is many of us would want to personally lynch such a person. We all want to live well and guarantee a better future for generations to come. However, as I look around, all I notice is people killing themselves and ensuring the future generations will survive in pain.
Let us stop to think about it. How many people do we know that have obesity, suffer from heart attacks and other related conditions that are related to diet problems? Consumption of red meat as well as processed meat is harmful to our bodies. Therefore, to remain healthy, we have to cut down on the amounts of meat in our daily diets.
It is medically verifiable that cutting down on meat consumption lowers the chances of getting heart diseases or cancer. Most of the processed meat passes through irradiation. People consuming such meat risk of getting cancer, which is a terminal disease (Schossler 202).
Dear friends, in conclusion, I wish to reiterate that I appreciate the economic value of beef farming and the nutritive value of proper meat consumption.
However, the odds are against the rearing of cattle and consumption of meat. Global warming, climate change, desertification and land dereliction are not only caused by our cars and industries! In this essay, I have provided convincing facts connect beef farming and global warming.
Secondly, I have also shown how unchecked meat consumption is harmful for health. Finally, the quest for more pastures has led to deforestation leading to increasing desertification in some parts of the world. Considering all this facts, I am personally convinced that is it more beneficial and healthy if we switched to vegetarian diets. A vegetarian diet would assure all of us of good health but also decelerate global warming.
Works Cited
CIWF.org. Global Warning: Climate Change and Animal Welfare, 2008. Web.
Robbins, Richard. Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Schossler, Eric. Fast Food Nation; the Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Harcourt: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.
Shiva, Vandana. Stolen Harvest. New York: South End Press, 2000.
