Intensive Livestock Operations in Industrial Agriculture

As the worlds population continues to invoke at an ever increasing rate, we atomic number 18 forced to find more efficient ways to break sufficient quantities of feed in order to satisfy consumer demand. Although thither are several(prenominal) alternatives, the most commodious solution seems to be the development of industrial proceeds agriculture, which results in the farming practices of confined to a faultl feeding.Intensive inventory operations or confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are farms in which anywhere from several hundred to several thousand animals are being raised in tremendously condensed spaces for the commercial employment of poultry, meat and dairy. The Swiss College of Agriculture defines industrial systems as having livestock densities larger than 10 livestock units per hectare, and they depend generally on outside supplies of feed, energy, and another(prenominal) inputs, as in confined animal feeding operations(Menzi. Oenema.Shipin. Gerber. Robinson. Franceshini. ). Although CAFOs are currently the most cost-effective and efficient way to produce animal products, there are doubled adverse set up associated with these production practices. Tons of muck up, waste, and other by-products generated from intensive livestock operations pollute the air, injury, and pissing in surrounding areas due to outlandish run-off. CAFOs pose a serious threat to the environment from body of peeing and air pollution, which in turn is potentially harmful to the come upbeing of humans.Nevertheless, supporters of modern industrial sylvan production practices claim that the economic benefits of theses farming practices currently outweigh the potential consequences to the environment and troupe. Although modern industrial plain practices may have a few jobs, there are a multitude of advantages that are ordinarily overlooked when discussing the effects of these production techniques. After all, the development of industrial agricult ure was the solution to a problem before it was ever the problem.When demand for chintzy food began to grow substantially in the mid ordinal century, farmers began to use production techniques such as intensive livestock operations to supply this ontogenesisd demand. In addition to increased production quantities, intensive livestock operations have importantly lowered food prices by allowing farms to enjoy lower production costs, greater production efficiency and increased consistency and visit over product output due to standardization.According to the Union of come to Scientists, the benefits of industrial agriculture have been cheap food a release of labor from agricultural activities for employment in other sectors large, profitable chemical substance and agricultural industries and increased export markets. It is difficult to ignore the massive economic contributions indirectly related to intensive livestock operations as well. For example, the Union of interested Scient ists estimates that nontherapeutic animal agricultural use (drugs given to animals veritable(a) when they are not sick) accounts for 70 percent of total antibiotic consumption in the United States (Sayre).The inordinateness profits these pharmaceutical companies earn each year as a result of confined animal feeding operations enables newly business investments, which in turn creates new jobs. Nevertheless, the system is not perfective and several problems do exist with industrial production agriculture. However, the revenues generated by these industrial production practices account for a significant portion of US GDP and are an integral part of the economy. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, agricultural products make up 10 percent of all exported US merchandise. It would simply be too detrimental to global and domestic food supplies as well as the economies associated with each to suddenly expose the use of industrial farming practices. Industrial livestock opera tions are widely scrutinized, and rightly so. Although the fiscal production gains from industrial livestock operations are substantial, there are countless environmental and tender costs associated with these production practices. Pollution from animal waste is the most immense problem concerning CAFOs.John Cotter of the Canadian Press states that, Canadian livestock produced 164 billion kilograms of mire in 2001, enough to fill Torontos tack Dome stadium twice a week. There is simply too much manure in too small a space to be able to economically dispose of it in an environmentally friendly way. The inability to properly dispose of all the tons of animal waste produced results in tilth around industrial livestock operations to become overly saturated with excrement, which leads to agricultural run-off polluting streams and rivers.Polluted water from agricultural runoff has tested positive for E. coli from farm animal manure and was responsible for killing seven community an d making 2,300 others ill in the rural Ontario community of Walkerton in May of 2000(Cotter). Antibiotics used in intensive livestock operations may contaminate the water supply as well make a rapid rise of antibiotic-resistant microbes, an inevitable consequence of the widespread use of antibiotics as feed additives in industrial livestock operations (Sayre).Air pollution from severe animal feeding operations is of growing concern as well, they emit methane gas, a factor in global climate change, and hydrogen sulfide, which causes flulike symptoms in humans and, at high levels, leads to brain damage(EH Update). Although there are numerous additional consequences resulting from industrial livestock operations, water and air pollution have the greatest impact on human safety and the environment.The adverse favorable and environmental costs of intensive livestock operations must be taken into consideration when find the true cost of cheap food. Although substantial conflicts aris e between the two opposing views on CAFOs in industrial production agriculture, neither side can deny the resulting economic benefits nor the potential environmental and societal hazards related to these production practices. The core discrepancy between the two outlooks lies within the cost/benefit psychoanalysis of industrial farming practices.Supporters of industrial agriculture and intensive livestock operations claim that the economic benefits gained by means of these efficient production techniques such as increased output, lower production costs, and profits to input suppliers significantly outweigh the latent environmental and societal dangers associated with these production practices. On the other hand, opposing parties maintain that the water, air, and soil pollution caused by industrial livestock operations along with the resulting detrimental consequences to society and the environment are far greater than the economic benefits postd by these production practices.Alt hough I am an avid believer in the free market and the theory that public resources such as water and air should be shared, there is much needed regulation in industrial livestock farming practices. These factory farms are passing unhealthy not only for consumers of the products produced, but for society as a whole. The farming practices related to concentrated animal feeding operations are socially, environmentally, and economically unsustainable in the long run. Antibiotic resistance, the creation of new pathogens as well as water and air pollution will have detrimental effects on society.Nevertheless, a healthy domestic and global economy is critical to the well being of the US and world populations. It would be impractical to simply stop or ban industrial agricultural practices without causing a huge disruption in both domestic and global food supply, as well as the economies associated with each. If we are serious about cleaning up production agriculture, government policies such as zoning regulations and taxes can discourage large concentrations of intensive production( provender and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations).Other policy decisions include, eliminating subsidies, adjusting taxes and providing incentives for investment in technology to reduce pollution could reduce the environmental damage caused by industrial livestock production (Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations). Above all, it is imperative that we implement policy decisions that aim to reduce industrial agricultural practices by limiting government subsidies and transfer payments, in addition to increasing the benefits farm income programs provide to farmers who practice sustainable forms of agriculture.It is somewhat difficult to truly analyze the costs and benefits related to CAFOs and industrial agricultural practices because many of the consequences cannot be quantified. However, we must remember that these industrial farming practices were adopted in order to increase output to meet the growing demand for agricultural products. Without the use of industrial farming, it would be nearly impossible to economically supply the global population with sufficient quantities of food. In addition, these farming practices support numerous other business ventures that allow other sectors of the economy to grow.Nevertheless, these industrial agricultural practices pose serious threats to the environment and society due to the pollution they produce. Although it is unreasonable to suggest that these farming practices should be prohibited, steps can be make toward reducing agricultural pollution by implementing effective and economical policy decisions, that support sustainable agriculture. full treatment Cited Cotter, John. Rein in factory farms, group tells Ottawa Environmentalists report urges federal regulation of large-scale manure dumping. Canadian Press (2002) Lexus Nexus. 17 Sep. 2011. EH Update Water Fluoridation Debate. Journal of Environmental Health. Issue 65. 3 (2002) Vol. 52. pgs 1-7. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sep. 2011. (No author listed) Environment Industrial Livestock Production Near Cities Considered Damaging. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Africa News. (2006) LexusNexus. 17 Sep. 2011. Sayre, Laura. The Hidden Link Between Factory Farms and Human Illness. bugger off Earth News 232 (2009) 76-83. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO.Web. 17 Sep. 2011. Swiss College of Agriculture, Menzi, H. Oenema, O. Burton, C. Shipin, O. Gerber, P. Robinson, T. Franceschini, G. Impacts of intensive livestock production and manure management on the environment. Livestock in a changing landscape, Volume 1 drivers, consequences and responses. 2010 pp. 139-163. ISBN 978-1-59726-671-0. Union of Concerned Scientists. The Costs and Benefits of Industrial Agriculture. Sustainable AgricultureA New Vision. 1997. http//www. portaec. net/library/food/costs_and_benefits_of_industria l. hypertext mark-up language