Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Industrial Farm Animal Production in America

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Industrial Farm Animal Production in America
  • Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 21:12:37 -0600


Final Report: Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in
America
http://www.ncifap.org/

Executive Summary learn moreclick here (2.7 MB)
http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAP%20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY.pdf
Full Report learn moreclick here (6.2 MB)
http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAP%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Pew Commission Says Industrial Scale Farm Animal Production Poses
“Unacceptable” Risks to Public Health, Environment

(Washington, DC – April 29, 2008) The current industrial farm animal
production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the
environment and the welfare of the animals themselves, according to an
extensive 2½-year examination conducted by the Pew Commission on Industrial
Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), in a study released today.

Commissioners have determined that the negative effects of the IFAP system
are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore.
Significant changes must be implemented and must start now. And while some
areas of animal agriculture have recognized these threats and have taken
action, it is clear that the industry has a long way to go.

Public Health

Over the past five decades, the number of farms producing animals for food
has fallen dramatically, yet the number of food animals produced has remained
roughly constant. It is the concentration of farm animals in larger and
larger numbers in close proximity to one another, along with the potential of
IFAP facilities to affect people, that give rise to many of the public health
concerns that are attributed to IFAP. Animals in such close confinement,
along with some of the feed and animal management methods employed in the
system, increase pathogen risks and magnify opportunities for transmission
from animals to humans. This increased risk is due to at least three factors:
prolonged worker contact with animals, increased pathogen transmission within
a herd or flock, and the increased opportunities for the generation of
antimicrobial resistant bacteria (due to imprudent antimicrobial use) or new
strains of viruses. Stresses induced by confinement may also increase the
likelihood of infection and illness in animal populations.

Communities near IFAP facilities are subject to air emissions that can
significantly affect certain segments of the population. Those most
vulnerable—children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic or acute
pulmonary or heart disorders—are at particular risk. The impacts on the
health of those living near IFAP facilities have increasingly been the
subject of epidemiological research. Adverse community health effects from
exposure to IFAP air emissions fall into two categories: (1) respiratory
symptoms, disease and impaired function, and (2) neurobehavioral symptoms and
impaired function.

Environment

As with public health impacts, much of IFAP’s environmental impact stems from
the tremendous quantities of animal waste that are concentrated on IFAP
premises. Animal waste in such volumes may exceed the capacity of the
landscape to absorb the nutrients and neutralize pathogens. Thus, what should
be a valuable byproduct (e.g., fertilizer) becomes a waste that must be
disposed of.

According to the EPA, the annual production of manure produced by animal
confinement facilities exceeds that produced by humans by at least three
times. Unlike most human sewage, the majority of IFAP is spread on the ground
untreated. Manure in such large quantities carries excess nutrients and farm
chemicals 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. Eutrophication is an excess of nutrients in
a body of water, mostly nitrates and phosphates from erosion and runoff of
surrounding lands, that causes a dense growth of plant life and the death of
aquatic animal life due to lack of oxygen.

IFAP runoff also carries antibiotics and hormones, pesticides, and heavy
metals. Antibiotics are used to prevent and treat bacterial infections and as
growth promoters. Pesticides are used to control insect infestations and
fungal growth. Heavy metals, especially zinc and copper, are added as
micronutrients to the animal diet.

According to a 2006 UN report, globally, greenhouse gas emissions from all
livestock operations account for 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions, exceeding those from the transportation sector. IFAP can produce
greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gases,
primarily nitrous oxide, arise mainly from the microbial degradation of
manure.

Air quality degradation is also a problem in and around IFAP facilities
because of the localized release of significant quantities of toxic gases,
odorous substances, and particulates and bioaerosols that contain a variety
of microorganisms including human pathogens. Some of the most objectionable
compounds are the organic acids, which include acetic acid, butyric acids,
valeric acids, caproic acids, and propanoic acid; sulfur containing compounds
such as hydrogen sulfide and dimethyl sulfide; and nitrogen-containing
compounds including ammonia, methyl amines, methyl pyrazines, skatoles and
indoles.

It is also recognized that ammonia emissions from livestock contribute
significantly to the eutrophication and acidification of soil and water. Some
level of nutrient overload occurs naturally, but this process can be
accelerated by human activities. Acidification can put stress on species
diversity in the natural environment.

Animal Welfare

IFAP methods for raising food animals have generated concern and debate over
just what constitutes a reasonable life for animals and what kind of quality
of life we owe the animals in our care. It is an ethical dilemma that
transcends objective scientific measures, and incorporates value-based
concerns. Physical health as measured by absence of some diseases or
predation, for example, may be enhanced through confinement since the animals
may not be exposed to certain infectious agents or sources of injury that
would be encountered if the animals were raised outside of confinement. It is
clear, however, that good animal welfare can no longer be assumed based only
on the absence of disease or productivity outcomes. Intensive confinement
(e.g. gestation crates for swine, battery cages for laying hens) often so
severely restricts movement and natural behaviors, such as the ability to
walk or lie on natural materials, having enough floor space to move with some
freedom, and rooting for pigs, that it increases the likelihood that the
animals suffer severe distress.

Good animal welfare can also help to protect the safety of our nation’s food
supply. Scientists have long recognized that food safety is linked to the
health of the animals that produce the meat, dairy, and egg products that we
eat. In fact, scientists have found modern intensive confinement production
systems can be stressful for food animals, and that stress can increase
pathogen shedding in animals.


Rural America

Life in rural America has long been challenged by persistent poverty. The
causes are many, but among them is the lack of economic diversity in rural
economies. Workers have few options in the event of a plant closure or other
dislocation, and unemployment rates are high. Consequently, IFAP is
frequently considered an attractive new source of economic opportunity by
local economic development officials, but with this transition comes
significant change including public health threats.

The industrialization of American agriculture has transformed the character
of agriculture itself and, in so doing, the face of rural America. The
family-owned farm producing a diverse mix of crops and food animals is
largely gone as an economic entity, replaced by ever-larger operations
producing just one animal species, or growing just one crop, and many rural
communities have fared poorly.

As the food animal industry shifted to a system of captive supply
transactions controlled by production contracts, economic power shifted from
farmers to livestock processors or so-called integrators. Farmers
relinquished their once autonomous, animal husbandry decision-making
authority in exchange for contracts that provide assured payment, but require
substantial capital investment. Once the commitment is made to such capital
investment, many farmers have no choice but to continue to produce until the
loan is paid off. Such contracts make it nearly impossible for there to be
open and competitive markets for most hog and poultry producers, who must
enter into contracts with the integrators (meat packing companies) if they
are to sell their production.

Although the proponents of the industrialization of animal agriculture point
to the increased economic efficiency of IFAP operations, the Commission is
concerned that the benefits may not accrue in the same way to affected rural
communities. In fact, industrialization leading to corporate ownership
actually draws investment and wealth from the communities in which specific
IFAP facilities are located.

The Commission’s recommendations focus on appropriate siting of IFAP
facilities in order to prevent further degradation of air, water, and soils
and to minimize the impact on adjacent communities.

Below are the Commission’s key recommendations.

1. Ban the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal
production to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance to medically
important antibiotics and other microbials.

2. Implement a disease monitoring program for food animals to allow
48-hour trace-back of those animals through aspects of their production, in a
fully integrated and robust national database.

3. Treat IFAP as an industrial operation and implement a new system to
deal with farm waste to replace the inflexible and broken system that exists
today, to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health
hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.

4. Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within
a decade to reduce the risk of IFAP to public health and improve animal
wellbeing (i.e., gestation crates and battery cages).

5. Federal and state laws need to be amended and enforced to provide a
level playing field for producers when entering contracts with integrators.

6. Increase funding for, expand and reform, animal agriculture research.

“The goal of this Commission is to sound the alarms that significant change
is urgently needed in industrial farm animal production,” says John Carlin,
PCIFAP Chairman and former Kansas governor. “I believe that the IFAP system
was first developed simply to help increase farmer productivity and that the
negative effects were never intended. Regardless, the consequences are real
and serious and must be addressed.”

Our energy, water and climate resources are undergoing dramatic changes that,
in the judgment of the Commissioners, will require agriculture to transition
to much more biologically diverse systems, organized into biological
interactions that exchange energy, improve soil quality, and conserve water
and other resources. “Long-term success will depend on the nation’s ability
to transform from an industrial economy that depends on quickly diminishing
resources to one that is more sustainable, employing renewable resources and
understanding of how all food production affects public health and the
environment,” says Michael Blackwell, PCIFAP Vice Chair and former dean of
the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine and former
Assistant Surgeon General, (Ret.) USPHS.

The PCIFAP consists of 15 Commissioners who bring individual knowledge and
expertise in diverse fields, including public policy, veterinary medicine,
public health, agriculture, animal welfare, the food industry and rural
society. The Commission assessed the current state of industrial animal
agriculture based on site visits to production facilities across the country;
consultation with industry stakeholders, public health, medical and
agriculture experts; public meetings; peer-reviewed technical reports; staff
research; and Commissioners’ own expertise. PCIFAP is a project of The Pew
Charitable Trusts and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.




  • [Livingontheland] Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, Tradingpost, 05/01/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page