The Industrialization of Animal Agriculture: Connecting a Model With Its Impacts on the Environment
| Author | Hannah M.M. Connor |
| Pages | 65-91 |
Page 65
Chapter 5
The Industrializtion of Animal
Agriculture: Connecting a Model With
Its Impacts on the Environment
Hannah M.M. Conno r
Globally, the production a nd consumption of livestock, including swine and cattle, and poultry
products is growing.1 Global meat production more t han doubled from over 136 million tons
in 1980 to over 285 million tons in 2007,2 while U.S. meat production followed similar growth
trends.3 Increases in the supply of livestock and poultry products can be linked directly to structural changes
in production systems that allow more animals to be raised in connement over a shorter period of time and
with comparably lower cost and uncertainty.4 e expansion of animal agriculture is, in part, a response to
global population growth a nd changes in economic conditions, as well as cha nges in social attitudes with
respect to the consumption of animal products. It is also attributable to the increased accessibility and the
decreased cost of these products.5
As costs to producers and consumers have declined, however, secondary environmental and public
health costs have arisen and, in many cases, undermined ma ny of the benets of the connement pro-
duction model. Specically, studies show that livestock and poultry connement operations can directly
impact the environment t hrough water pollution and water scarcity, climate change, air pollution, land
degradation, loss of biodiversity, and environmental justice implications, and can indirectly impact the
environment through the increased demand for monoculture feed crop production.6
In connecting changes in the production of animals with their impacts on the environment, this chapter
begins w ith an account of the transformation and consolidation of the livestock and poultr y industries,
both globally and domestically. e chapter then describes the commonly uti lized operational designs,
including waste management and disposal systems, and concludes with an examinat ion of the relationship
between conned animal production and the environment.7
1. See H. Steinfeld et al., F A O U N (FAO), L’ L S: E
I O 7-12 (2006), available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm [hereinafter L’ L S].
2. See FAO, T S F A: L B 15, tbl. 3 (2009), available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i0680e/i0680e00.htm [hereinafter L B].
3. R.U. H K.J. S, P C’ I. F A P., E I I F A P-
14 (2006), available at http://www.ncifap.org/bin/s/y/212-4_EnvImpact_tc_Final.pdf [hereinafter P E I]
(referencing U.S. D’. A. (USDA), R M P (2007), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/
MeatAnimPr//2000s/2006/MeatAnimPr-04-27-2006.pdf.).
4. See P E I, supra note 3, at 5 ( For example, one conn ed poultry operation can now raise 25,00 0 to 50, 000
chickens “to market weigh t within a few weeks b y automated feeding apparat uses dispensin g a growth-op timizing diet usually suppl e-
mented with antimicrobials.”).
5. See L’ L S, supra note 1, at 7-12; P E I, supra note 3, at 5.
6. See, e.g., id.; F W W, T F I F: H C A A T
H H, E, R C 5 (2007), available at http://www.pigbusiness.co.uk/pdfs/Food-and-Water-
Watch-Farms-to-Factories.pdf(referencing F. Henry, Mega-Farms Stoke Worries Over Waste Spills, P D, Oct. 9, 2005 (Cleveland,
Ohio); Iowa Dep’t of Natural Resources, Environmental Services Division, Manure (2003); Iowa Dep’t of Natural Resources, Environmental
Services Division, Manure (2004); Iowa Dep’t of Natural Resources, Environmental Services Division, Manure (2005); Iowa Dep’t of Natural
Resources, Environmental Services Division, Manure (2006)).
7. While a few concerns related to livestock and poultry slaughtering facilities will additionally be addressed, those facilities are not the focus of
this chapter.
Page 66 Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Law
A. Growth and Consolidation of the Livestock and Poultry Industry
Traditional anima l agriculture relies on a diversied farming approach in which animals are raised pri-
marily in a forage and past ure-based model, and t he size of the livestock herd is highly dependent on the
operation’s land and grazing resources.8 Sometimes referred to as a “family farm,” “[m]ost [traditional]
farms were independently owned and managed by families,” and livestock were considered “‘mortgage lift-
ers,’ adding value to crops grown on the fa rms.”9 In many cases, a farm’s income was derived through the
production of both livestock and cash crops.10
As international demand for meat, dairy, and poultry products has increased,11 however, the production
sectors have “responded [to this demand] . . . main ly through intensication rather than expansion.”12 In
other words, as consumption has increa sed, the corresponding production sectors have grown vertically,
consolidating production into larger, more intensive operations, instead of relying on t he expansion and
propagation of smaller, traditional farms. is process of intensication and consolidation is often referred
to as the “verticalization” or “industrialization” of animal agriculture.13
U.S. corporations, operating both domestically and abroad, have been integral in establishing and but-
tressing the use of consolidation practices in livestock and poultr y production.14 Indeed, the introduction
in the 1930s of “highly mechanized” swine slaughterhouses to the America n landscape pa ired with the
growth of “vertica lly integrated” meat packing companies are often cred ited as the root of industrial ani-
mal production.15 Although hog meatpackers initiated the industria lization trend, it was the adaptation
and renement of that model to poultry production practices that ful ly integrated the connement model
into modern industrial anima l production.16
Specically, poultry production companies recognized that while growth and slaughter are each distinct
practices, a similar mechanization and uniformity could be applied to and merged within the overall busi-
ness approach. For this type of industrialization to be successful, though, a number of substantive changes
had to be made to the traditional farming model, including change s to t he structure, control, and basic
approach of farming sy stems.17 In eect, to maximize prots, the industr y altered the traditional farming
approach to animal agriculture by controlling the supply and specializing the means of production.
On average, “specializing the means of production” refers to the act of increasing the number of ani-
mals being raised at one operation, conning the ani mals to one or a number of highly controlled “barns”
or feedlots, a nd converting the animals to a feed-based diet.18 e resultant s ystem is “characterized by a
switch from the traditional anima l agriculture’s reliance on animal biology a nd behavior and skilled hus-
bandry to the new animal agriculture’s reliance on mechanized techniques of restricting and controlling
animals’ behavior and biological processes.”19 Ostensibly, these new operations are intended to reduce risk
by lowering primary transaction costs, reducing the amount of spac e necessary for each animal, accruing
8. See L B, supra note 2, at 26-29, 33; M H, I A T P, T
P W P C H 15 (2000), available at http://www.iatp.org/documents/the-price-we-pay-for-corporate-hogs [hereinafter
T P W P] (citing D. Houghton, e Vanishing American Hogman, S F, H1-H8 (1984)).
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. For example, in 2005 the world’s population was estimated at 6.5 billion and was increasing by an estimated 76 million persons annually. Based
on this continued rate of expansion, the U.N. projects the worldwide population to expand to 9.1 billion by 2050 and 9.5 billion by 2070.
See L’ L S, supra note 1, at 7 (citing U.N. Dep’t of Economic and Social Aairs, World Population Prospects, e 2004
Revision, New York, NY (2005), available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf). See also L’
L S, supra note 1, at 20.
12. Id. at 6.
13. P E I, supra note 3, at 2.
14. See L’ L S, supra note 1, at 19 (“Large multinational rms are becoming dominant in the meat and dairy trade, both in
the developed world and in many developing experiencing fast livestock sector growth.”); id. at 279 (nding that industrialization of animal
agriculture was observed “in the EU and North America from as early as the 1960s, and in emerging economies since the 1980s and 1990s.”).
15. P C I F A P, P M T: I F A P
A 5, 6 (2008), available at http://www.ncifap.org/bin/e/j/PCIFAPFin.pdf [hereinafter P M T].
16. M. Broadway & D. Stull, e Wages of Food Factories, 18 F F 43-65, 47 (2010) [hereinafter e Wages of Food Factories].
17. See, e.g., P M T, supra note 15.
18. Id.
19. T P W P, supra note 8, at 16 (referencing I. Ekesbo, Animal Health Implications as a Result of Future Livestock and Husbandry Develop-
ments, 20 A A B. S. 95-104 (1988)).
To continue reading
Request your trial