Food is one of the cornerstones of civilization. For life to exist, food needs to be present, therefore, history exists on the premise of food. For a society to advance, the demand for food must be met. At what point does the advancement of society through food do more harm than help? In what ways does the modern farming and food production alter the health of people, the environment, and the economy? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, factory farming is, “a large industrialized farm; especially: a farm on which large number of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maximize production at a minimal cost” (Merriam-Webster). The modern factory farming serves the needs of the population, but according to research, prolonged factory farming will not be able to sustain the population due to environmental consequences, inhumane practices, and human health, yet no change will be made till an economic gain is guaranteed to the industry. 

Farming has always been a part of life and will always be a part of life, as it should be. The farming industry has greatly evolved in the last few decades. The quintessential family farm model still exists, but accounts for a small amount of the farming industry. The idealized farm still operates, but most family farms have industrialized their farms to make a profit. Modern day farmer, Blake Hurst, explains that large companies contract the small farming families to produce the livestock, but the actual farmers are still family farmers. “A factory farm (only) needs to have 500 beef cattle, 500 dairy cows, sell 500,000 chickens annually or house 100,00 egg-laying chickens (Factory Farm Nation 2015)” (Phil Lempert). These requirements are not hard to meet when one owns a large, for profit farm. The issue arises when the livestock lives close in proximity to where they are not afforded the room to move, forced to eat certain foods, and walk around in their waste that lacks proper treatment and harms the environment. 

This trend of farming factory began back in the 1900’s when poultry farmers discovered shed farming instead of open air farming to protect livestock from predators and the elements. Sheds proved successful in producing more animals on less land and from there the revolution of compacting several animals into a small area was born. Farming in sheds was not ideal but began to encroach on inhumane when animals began receiving additives in their feed. In the 1940’s chicken farmers accidentally discovered that adding tetracycline fermentation byproducts to chicken feed accelerated the animal’s growth. According to Laura Sayer, “The addition of steady doses of antibiotics to this picture tips the balance from appalling to catastrophic” (5). Prolonged use of medications decreases the effectiveness of the product and builds a resistance. This goes for humans and animals. Knowing this, farmers continue to use these additive to increase their yield because the faster the livestock grows, the faster it can be slaughtered, and the next round of animals can be raised. Due to the built-up immunities in the animal’s, diseases have become stronger and more resistant to existing medicines. Livestock incubates diseases that are transmitted to humans. By the time the disease affects humans, it has evolved into a monstrous disease that is resistant to typical medicines, so new vaccines must be invented. Sayer writes, “The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that nontherapeutic animal agriculture use (drugs given to animals even when they are not sick) accounts for 70 percent of total antibiotic consumption in the United States” (5). In the end, the overuse of drugs on livestock, that does not need it in the first place, leads to more drugs needed for humans, but still not as much as is used in the animals feed. The conditions of the sheds and confined spaces paired with the additives in the feed lend factory farms to being incubators for disease. 

The factory farms destructiveness reaches beyond disease through resistance due to farmers not properly treating the livestock’s waste.  A strong correlation exists between poor health and proximity to a factory farm. In Andrew Nikifourk’s article, “When Water Kills”, he notes that in 1997 in Iowa a study was done showing that gases coming from factory farms caused reparatory illness in residents living up to two kilometers away. Nikifourk also writes, “A U.S. survey published this spring found that people living downwind from hog farms in North Carolina – where such factories first originated –experienced more headaches, runny noses, sore throats, excessive coughing, diarrhea and burning eyes than residents of a community without hog factories” (4). The lack of waste treatment inevitably harms the health of residents. The massive amounts of waste on the small plots of land do not receive treatment and the toxins seep into the water and air causing health issues. The closer a town is to a factory farm the higher the risk of illness either from the air or water due to a lack of regulation on the manure as well as the gases from the livestock. 

Americans in general consume more meat than our diets need. To curb factory farms takeover, Americans can eat less meat. Meat is not intended to be a massive part of a diet or meal, rather it should be viewed as a condiment. In other countries meat consumption is much lower than in America and overall the population is healthier. The Animals Australia Organization produced an add about factory farming claiming that a reduction in meat consumption helps to avoid obesity, decrease heart disease, reduce likelihood of stroke, and prevent certain cancers. Not only does reducing meat consumption benefit health, it also allows the allocation of more land for grass fed beef. Grass fed beef benefits humans health because the meat is leaner causing it to be healthier. 

According to Animals Australia’s campaign against factory farms, climate change is impacted more from farming than planes, trains, and automobile emissions combined. The campaign further supports their claim with the United Nations statement that animals raised for food are one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases. They claim that reducing the amount of meat consumed globally can reduce pollution, save resources, and feed more people through reallocation of resources that are being fed to animals. The “When Water Kills” article written by Andrew Nikifourk states, “In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that agricultural runoff from animal factories and traditional farms is the leading source of water pollution in that country” (3). 

Animal waste not only impacts health, it is also one of the biggest harms to the environment. Animals produce more waste than humans, yet the treatment of their waste is less regulated than humans. The issue comes from large amounts of animals living in the crowded confinements of factory farms, producing massive amounts of waste on very little land. The famers then leave the piles of waste sitting on the small area of land untreated. This practice degrades the land and permeates into the air and water, impacting the health of the residents in the surrounding communities. However, if the farmers were to follow recommended practices the animal waste could be repurposed as fertilizer. In Blake Hurst article, “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals”, he explains that manure can be used to replace fertilizer by collecting the manure under sheds in concrete pits and forking it into the soil. He elaborates that this will guarantee the manure is not susceptible to erosion therefore it will not harm the environment. Hurst comes from a point of a farmer who believes in continuing factory farming because it is the best way for farmers to meet demand. While he has proof for his theory, other farmers do not follow these processes as he does because there are no laws requiring them to. Even if the farmers followed his practices, the factory farms and their waste are still host to a multitude of disease, and the gases emitted from the animals are still a major issue. American environmentalist Bill McKibben might have a solution to the manure issue. He is not a farmer, but from looking at history he has a logical method for farming. McKibben makes note that pre-farming there were many more animals in North American then there are now, yet there were not nearly as many environmental repercussions from manure. This is because animals were constantly moving around due to predators and the seasons. As the animals migrated they grazed, pooped, and moved on. This allowed land to gain the perfect amount of nutrients from the animals and led to grass growing and absorbing the carbon and methane emitted from the animals. McKibben proposes that first people eat meat in healthy doses to decrease the demand, and second that farmers adopt a rotating field model. 

The key technology here is the single-strand electric fence – you move your heard or your flock once or twice a day from one small pasture to the next, forcing them to eat everything that’s growing there but moving them along before they graze all the good stuff down to bare ground…Done right, some studies suggest, this method of raising cattle could put much of the atmosphere’s oversupply of greenhouse gases back in the soil inside half a century. (McKibben 373)

When considering the health of the livestock, humans, and the environment, people question whether organic or industrialized farming is more beneficial. People blindly assume organic is the way to go, but organic comes at a price most people are not willing to pay. Farmer Blake Hurst argues, “The combination of herbicides and genetically modified seed has made my farm more sustainable, not less, and actually reduces the pollution I send down the river” (Hurst 350). Therefore, when produce is in question, people might want to rethink their theories on herbicides and GMOs. While they are not ideal methods, using herbicides, which are plant based, and genetic modification to increase produce yields is not a bad idea. If people were to reduce their meat consumption, the demand for produce would rise and these methods are effective means to increase yields.  

In comparing organic farming’s energy usage and yields to factory farming, they surprisingly are even. But factory farming, partly due to its industrial component, still fares worse for the environment then organic farming. In research video done by a student, Ian Siporin, energy consumption, carbon retention in soil, and product yield between organic versus industrialized factory farming are analyzed against each other. Siporin claims that overall organic uses 30% less energy than industrialized methods because organic farming does not require the fertilizers, therefore cutting out what accounts for one to two percent of America’s total energy use. Organic farming also holds around 1.6 times as much carbon as does industrial farming. “Soil that holds carbon is a good thing. It regulates climate and water supply in lowering the greenhouse effect” (Siporin). A study of one industrial farm versus two organic farms has been going on for 20 years now. They have found that industrial faming yields 5,900 more kilograms per a hectare than organic farming does. After five years, the production evened out among systems and the organic farms even produced a higher yield during droughts. 

For the environment to be preserved, a modification in factory farming and industrialized farming is essential. The continuation of untreated manure is and will continue to be toxic for the livestock, humans, and the environment. Also, the emission of gases from farm animals will continue to be more detrimental than all common modes of transportation combines. Many theories exist as to how to solve the problem, like McKibben’s electric fences and reducing meat consumed, as well as Hurst’s proper use of manure. No change will occur unless legally mandated or financial gains are to be had. Money drives life and for the farmers to change their methods, there needs to be a financial solution. 

The rise of the factory farms is due to substantial monetary gains that accompany increasing livestock yields on reduced land. Since the invention of factory farms the demand for meat has increased due to the expectation that meat will be readily available. According to Blake Hurst, family farms now produce most livestock so the ideal family farms people imagine their meat coming from no longer exist. For the demand to be met, farms must adhere to a factory style. Hurst also argues that damages to the environment are an inevitable cost. He also promotes the use of sheds for animals because they come at a lower cost for the farmer and the animals do not know any different because they do not have a conscious. While animals do not know their treated inhumanly, their living conditions are breading grounds for disease. In fact, the cost of using drugs to enhance growth does not even out in the end. “In 2006, a team at Johns Hopkins used data from poultry giant Perdue to show that the small advantage in weight gain associated with nontherapeutic antibiotic use was canceled out by the cost of the drugs” (Sayer 8). The drug industry would be the only sector of factory farming to suffer if drugs are removed from farming, when drugs should never have been a part of farming in the first place.

Factory farming’s takeover of the industry is partly due to the subsidies received. According to a study done by student Ian Siporin, organic farming only receives four percent of government funding for the farming industry. Therefore, the small organic farmers struggle to keep up with the corporate factory farms. When Siporin investigated economic gains from industrial and organic farming he found that $122 billion is made from industrial farming a year compared to the $21 billion generated from organic farming. However, the organic farms only account for one percent of farmland yet produce 15% of the total profit. In fact, the organic farms produce better in droughts and even out production wise with industrial farms after five years. 

The corporate giants use “Economies of Scale” to justify factory farming. In the article “Factory farming takes huge toll on human health, environment” The CCPA Monitor analyzed the cost the corporate farmers fail to acknowledge. “Among these costs are human illnesses caused by drug-resistant bacteria created by the rampant use of antibiotics on feedlots and the degradation of land, water and air quality caused by animal waste too intensely concentrated to be neutralized by natural process” (The CCPA Monitor 31). Ignoring the issue is not the solution because the cost keep accumulating and eventually must be taken care of. The factory farmers may not have to take care of the issues directly, but the rest of the population will have to bear the brunt of the issues. 

At this point in time, the continuation of factory farming proves to be destructive and needs to end. Other countries have used alternative methods due to new regulations and have experienced success. 

Sweden and Denmark have led the way over the past two decades in the development of commercial farming methods that minimize antibiotic use. Alternative management Strategies include improving animals' diets, changing weaning practices for pigs, cleaning facilities thoroughly in between groups and being more careful about mixing animals coming from different locations. (Sayer 8) 

But we cannot change the industry just from these methods. One of the easiest ways for individuals to help with the issue is to consume less meat. Animals Australia claims that about 1/3 of grain and cereal produced globally is fed to animals instead of people. If everyone was to reduce meat consumption to healthy levels, treating meat as a condiment instead of a meal, all the feed used for the livestock could go to starving people. More grain and cereal is consumed by animals then the animals produce. According to a study done by Phil Lempert for Forbes, people will pay more for quality meat. 

According to American Humane’s survey nearly 95% of participants are “very concerned” about the welfare of farm animals and 69% of consumers responding to a Context Marketing survey (2010) said they would be willing to pay more for food that “promises to be produced to higher ethical standards”, showing that this is an issue that consumers truly care about. (Lempert) 

Once the demand for meat decreases, practices such as McKidden’s rotating fields will be appealing and realistic practices for farmers. 

Farming is an industry that has always been around and will continue to be a staple of society, but major revolutions must occur. Health needs to addressed because there should not be risk associated with consuming food that is necessary for life. If the environment can no longer provide its basic functions due to animal waste, then how will the population get the food they need. In the end, a monetary incentive must be present for any major change to occur because farming is now a major industry and whole sections of the economy would collapse if a major change occurred suddenly. 
