Industrial Farm Animal Production Poses Risks to Consumers and Environment
Industrial farm animal production is characterized by large numbers of animals confined in relatively small areas, usually in enclosed facilities, which restrict movement, similar to the facility pictured above.
Over the past 50 years, the production of farm animals for food has shifted from the traditional, extensive, decentralized family farm system to a more concentrated system with fewer producers. This production model—sometimes called industrial farm animal production (IFAP)—is characterized by confining large numbers of animals of the same species in relatively small areas, generally in enclosed facilities that restrict movement.
The IFAP system, as it exists today, too often concentrates economic power in the hands of the large companies that process and sell the animal products, instead of the individuals who raise the animals. In many cases, the “open market” for animal products has completely disappeared, giving the farmer only one buyer to sell to, and one price to be received.
In addition to raising animals in closer proximity, steps were taken to streamline the process of raising animals for food, including standardized feed for rapid weight gain; genetic selection to accentuate traits that create uniform meat products; and mechanization of feeding, watering, and other husbandry activities. This streamlined processing and standardization is typical of the evolution of industrial pursuits, and is intended to be more economical by lowering the amount of input required to achieve a marketable product.
Lagoon waste management system for a 900-head hog farm in Georgia. The tremendous quantities of animal waste produced at industrial farm animal production facilities contaminate waterways, lakes, groundwater, soils and the air.
The current IFAP system poses serious threats to humans and the environment. These include contributing to the increase in the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because of the overuse of antibiotics; air quality problems; the contamination of rivers, streams, and coastal waters with concentrated animal waste; animal welfare problems; and significant shifts in the social structure and economy of many farming regions throughout the country.
Reports on the amount of antibiotics used in animals today range from 17.8 to 24.6 million pounds per year. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. annually are used in farm animals. These facilities can be harmful to workers, neighbors, and even those living far from the facilities through air and water pollution, and via the spread of disease. Workers and neighbors of IFAP facilities experience high levels of respiratory problems and can serve as a bridging population, transmitting animal-borne diseases to a wider population.
As with the public health impact, much of IFAP’s environmental impact stems from the tremendous quantities of animal waste which are concentrated in and around IFAP facilities. Animal waste in such volumes may exceed the capacity of the land to absorb the nutrients and attenuate pathogens. Thus, what could be a valuable byproduct becomes a waste that must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. In addition, many IFAP facilities are found in vulnerable locations, such as on flood plains or close to communities which utilize well water.
The annual production of manure produced by animal confinement facilities exceeds that produced by humans by at least three times. Manure in such large quantities carries excess nutrients, chemicals and microorganisms that find their way into waterways, lakes, groundwater, soils and airways. Excess and inappropriate land application of untreated animal waste on cropland contributes to excessive nutrient loading and, ultimately, eutrophication of surface waters. IFAP runoff also carries antibiotics, hormones, pesticides and heavy metals.
Other environmental issues associated with IFAP include high levels of resource use. IFAP requires a large amount of water for irrigation of animal feed crops, as well as the cleaning of many buildings and waste management systems. Much of this water comes from finite groundwater sources that recharge slowly or not at all, and are in demand for human needs.
Greenhouse gas emissions from all livestock operations account for 18 percent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding the emissions caused from the transportation sector. Greenhouse gases, primarily methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide, are produced by the animals during the digestion process in the gut. Additional emissions result from degradation processes occurring in uncovered waste lagoons and digesters.
IFAP, as practiced today, is also extremely energy intensive and requires disproportionately large inputs of fossil fuels, industrial fertilizers and other synthetic chemicals. For example, the ratio of fossil fuel energy inputs per unit of food energy produced averages 3:1 for all U.S. agricultural products combined. For industrially produced meat products, the ratio can be as high as 35:1.
For more information, contact Robert Martin at RMartin@pcifap.org or visit www.ncifap.org.
The information provided in this article is from a 2 1/2 year study that the PCIFAP, in consultation with other national experts, conducted as an assessment of the IFAP impact on the public’s health, the environment, farm communities and animal health and well-being.
Join Ohio’s Grassroots Effort to Promote Sustainable Farming
The Ohio Alliance for Responsible Agriculture is a grassroots network formed last year to work on changing how concentrated animal feeding operations are regulated in the state. The nonprofit organization is working to preserve Ohio’s farm heritage as well as promoting family farms which are profitable, economically responsible and sustainable.
For more information, contact Jane Phillips at 419-278-8973; JaneEPhillips@aol.com.