Intensive Livestock Operations in Industrial Agriculture

As the worlds population continues to grow at an ever increasing rate, we ar forced to find more efficient moods to produce adequate quantities of fare in order to satisfy consumer demand. Although at that place are several(prenominal) alternatives, the roughly convenient rootage seems to be the development of industrial performance agriculture, which results in the farming practices of restrain animal aliment.Intensive store trading operations or confined animal nourishment operations (CAFOs) are farms in which anywhere from several hundred to several thousand animals are being raised in tremendously condensed spaces for the commercial produce signal of poultry, meat and dairy. The Swiss College of Agriculture defines industrial systems as having lineage densities larger than 10 livestock units per hectare, and they depend primarily on out case supplies of feed, energy, and other arousals, as in confined animal feeding operations(Menzi. Oenema.Shipin. Gerber. Robins on. Franceshini. ). Although CAFOs are currently the most price-effective and efficient way to produce animal products, there are multiple adverse make associated with these merchandise practices. Tons of spread out, waste, and other by-products generated from intense livestock operations choke off the air, soil, and pee in surrounding areas due to artless run-off. CAFOs pose a serious threat to the milieu from water and air befoulment, which in uprise is potenti anyy harmful to the wellbeing of humans.Nevertheless, supporters of modern industrial outlandish outturn practices claim that the economic benefits of theses farming practices currently outweigh the potential resultant roles to the milieu and order. Although modern industrial agricultural practices may have a fewer problems, there are a multitude of advantages that are commonly miss when discussing the effects of these production techniques. After all, the development of industrial agriculture was the solu tion to a problem before it was ever the problem.When demand for cheap nutriment began to grow substantially in the mid twentieth century, farmers began to use production techniques such as intensifier livestock operations to supply this increase demand. In addition to increased production quantities, intense livestock operations have significantly humiliateed food prices by throw overboarding farms to enjoy lower production be, greater production efficiency and increased consistency and retain over product output due to standardization.According to the Union of refer Scientists, the benefits of industrial agriculture have been cheap food a release of comprehend from agricultural activities for employment in other sectors large, profitable chemical and agricultural industries and increased export markets. It is difficult to ignore the massive economic contributions indirectly related to to intensive livestock operations as well. For example, the Union of Concerned Scienti sts estimates that nontherapeutic animal agricultural use (drugs given to animals even when they are non sick) accounts for 70 percent of total antibiotic consumption in the unite States (Sayre).The excess profits these pharmaceutical companies earn each year as a result of confined animal feeding operations enables pertly business investments, which in turn creates new jobs. Nevertheless, the system is not double-dyed(a) 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 gross domestic product 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 patently be in any case detrimental to planetary and domestic food supplies as well as the economies associated with each to suddenly discontinue the use of industrial farming practices. Industrial livestock operations are widely scrutinized, and rightly so. Although the monetary production gains from industrial livestock operations are substantial, there are countless environmental and social costs associated with these production practices. defilement 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 manure in 2001, luxuriant to fill Torontos Sky Dome stadium twice a week. There is simply too oftentimes manure in too small a space to be able to economically persuade of it in an environmentally friendly way. The inability to properly dispose of all the tons of animal waste produced results in farmland 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 people and 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 causing 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 concentrated animal feeding operations is of developing 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 head word 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 social and environmental costs of intensive livestock operations must be taken into consideration when find out the true c ost of cheap food. Although substantial conflicts arise between the deuce 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 analysis of industrial farming practices.Supporters of industrial agriculture and intensive livestock operations claim that the economic benefits gained through 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 bene fits renderd by these production practices.Although I am an avid believer in the free market and the theory that universal resources such as water and air should be shared, there is much needed regulation in industrial livestock farming practices. These grind farms are extremely un salutary 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 universe of discourse 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 impossible to simply stop or censor 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 s erious about cleaning up production agriculture, brass policies such as zoning regulations and taxes can discourage large concentrations of intensive production(Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations).Other policy decisions include, eliminating subsidies, adjusting taxes and providing incentives for investing in applied science 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 go through policy decisions that aim to reduce industrial agricultural practices by limit 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 mus t recover 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 made toward reducing agricultural pollution by implementing effective and economical policy decisions, that support sustainable agriculture. whole caboodle Cited Cotter, John. Rein in factory farms, group tells Ottawa Environmentalists report urges national regulation of large-scale manure dumping. Canadian Press (2002) Lexus Ne xus. 17 Sep. 2011. EH Update Water Fluoridation Debate. Journal of Environmental Health. Issue 65. 3 (2002) Vol. 52. pgs 1-7. schoolman Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sep. 2011. (No author listed) Environment Industrial Livestock action Near Cities Considered Damaging. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Africa discussion. (2006) LexusNexus. 17 Sep. 2011. Sayre, Laura. The incomprehensible Link Between Factory Farms and Human Illness. Mother 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 ever-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 V ision. 1997. http//www. portaec. net/library/food/costs_and_benefits_of_industrial. hypertext markup language