Confined Animal Food Operations and its environmental effects Essay Example
There has been a significant increase in the number of factory farms, also known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), in recent years. This rise is causing harm to the environment. These facilities confine and raise livestock for at least 45 days within a 12-month period without natural grass and vegetation. Unlike traditional American farms where animals graze and engage in their natural behaviors, factory farms subject animals to confined and unsanitary conditions that negatively impact both the animals and the environment. The practices employed by these farms have detrimental effects on water, soil, and air quality (Marshall and Stuart 719). To protect our environment, it is crucial that we eliminate these factory farms from our surroundings.
Contaminated water presents dangers to the environment and biodiversity, frequently resulting in harm to biological communities. The utilization of compost ing
...redients like potassium, nitrogen, and phosphorus in animal feed is widespread within our vicinity. Nevertheless, when these elements accumulate, they become hazardous. Water leaks, breaks, and overflows in factory farms result in water pollution that fosters algae growth. This causes a depletion of oxygen levels and ultimately leads to the demise of fish and other aquatic organisms. The larger scale of factory farms amplifies the frequency of such incidents, endangering species while also adversely affecting water and land quality.
Factory farms have negative effects on the supply of water and land for growing organic foods, but these natural food sources can sustain a larger population using fewer resources. In addition to fertilizers, factory farms also release pollutants like fertilizer and urine into the air, further polluting already compromised water and soil systems. The unpleasant odor in our surroundings is mainly
caused by four gases: methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia, and carbon dioxide.
Factory farms emit small amounts of carbon dioxide, leading to various health issues such as eye, nose, and throat disturbances, headaches, coordination problems, nausea, liver and kidney damage, complications in the central nervous system, and specific cancers (Silbergeld et al., 160). These emissions also result in chest pains, fatigue, reduced concentration abilities, vision impairments, and cognitive disabilities due to insufficient oxygen absorption by tissues and organs. The presence of odors often indicates air pollution's detrimental impact on health. Additionally, these gases contribute to climate change by getting trapped in the atmosphere and causing greenhouse effects. One might wonder why there is a significant rise in gas emissions. The number of animals raised for food in factory farms has increased by approximately 60% within the past five decades.
The proliferation of animals means an increase in animal waste. According to Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Country, consumers today spend approximately $110 billion annually on consuming four times as much chicken and three times as much beef and pork compared to previous decades. This explains the continued growth and profitability of fast food establishments. The rising demand for inexpensive meat and dairy products fuels the existence of factory farms worldwide, making it difficult for governments to regulate and hold CAFOs accountable for environmental damage. Traditional farmers used farming methods that had a smaller impact on the environment compared to factory farms. They conducted business over a longer period, simultaneously raising livestock and crops while utilizing traditional composting techniques with manure. In contrast, affluent CAFOs operate on a shorter cycle focused on maximizing quantity.
Even if animal waste
was properly treated and used on nearby crops, the amount would still be excessive. When ponds, where animal waste is stored, are not properly managed, waste leaks into our groundwater and releases high levels of gases into the air, worsening climate change. The dominance of industrial factory farms over traditional farmers is primarily why they control our entire environment. However, technological advancements have provided solutions to mitigate environmental issues in the animal agriculture industry. New fertilizers can now reduce the loss of nutrients to the environment.
Techniques have been developed to reduce nutrient discharges, emissions, and odor from animal waste. Efforts are being made to find economically viable uses for waste that minimize environmental impact (Saenz et al., 340). However, implementing new technologies comes with costs and risks. Without a focused approach, adoption may be slow. Advances in information technologies have empowered neighbors of proposed large-scale animal operations to have an effective influence. The internet enables local communities to communicate, gather information about issues and legal or political processes, establish collaborations with distant communities, and choose their sources of information for discussions and debates.
In the United States, the growing number of factory farms creates challenges for effective leadership and poses risks to decision-making. The expansion of these farms results in reduced soil, water, and air quality. The use of fertilizers and animal waste contributes to environmental damage, while the use of drugs promotes the emergence of new bacteria. In order to prevent infection outbreaks caused by animals being kept in confined and unsanitary conditions, factory farm managers rely on antimicrobial agents.
As the tolerance of microscopic organisms towards antibiotics increases, new strains of microorganisms emerge and pose
significant challenges to our environment. The external introduction of these strains disrupts the existing equilibrium in the environment, making the management of available natural resources even more crucial.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. The energy required to oversee Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) further burdens our polluted environment. In fact, beef production alone consumes more water than the nation's total production of fruits and vegetables. On average, a dairy farmer will use 150 gallons of water per day for each cow to wash and flush out the compost system.
Despite using a large amount of water, instead of utilizing land for growing crops for human consumption, it is being used to cultivate animal feed and transport it along with livestock. Certain companies have adopted either a captive supply or vertical integration approach to agriculture. Captive supply refers to when a packing company possesses contracts for cattle, giving them an advantage in the market by eliminating the need to bid on cattle in the open market. On the other hand, vertical integration offers even greater benefits as these companies own every step of the process, including factory farms, fertilizer manufacturing plants, feed sources, slaughterhouses, packaging and distribution centers. They are also involved in advanced technologies such as genetic engineering and lighting. Consequently, these companies have become dominant monopolies. To safeguard our environment against further detrimental impacts caused by factory farms, either their dismantlement or holding them accountable for their effect on our surroundings should be considered.
Factory farms benefit at the expense of animals and the environment. Their wealth and influence impact government policies. We may not pay at the checkout line, but we pay when we visit
the doctor for health issues specifically related to the insensitive operations of factory farms. We also contribute our tax money to support the meat and dairy industries and clean up their toxic waste (Broom 4168). One way to combat the negative impact of factory farms on the environment is to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. For consumers unwilling to give up animal products, they should purchase responsibly and contact legislators to push for stricter punishments for factory farm spills, leaks, and overflow disasters.
Conclusion
In summary, litigation is a common method to resolve the problem in both the United States and worldwide.
Many environmental organizations continue to utilize litigation as a method to enforce regulations worldwide. However, there are concerns about the costs, time delays, uncertainties, loss of control, and diminished representation for all stakeholders associated with lawsuits. Consequently, these issues may impact the scale and number of animal operations, particularly smaller and medium-sized farms that may lack the resources to defend against legal actions. In light of this, a group's acceptance of animal farming becomes a crucial factor in the industry's potential expansion.
It may also have an impact on the intensity of sites within the United States. While an immediate mitigation measure cannot be established, it is appropriate for the responsible personnel to continue searching for key aspects that can be considered to find the final alternative.
Works cited
- Broom, Donald M. "Animal welfare: concepts and measurement." Journal of animal science 69.10 (2001): 4167-4175.
- Campagnolo, Enzo R., et al. "Antimicrobial residues in animal waste and water resources proximal to large-scale swine and poultry feeding operations." Science of the Total Environment 299.1 (2002): 89-95.
- Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How
sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture." Environmental health perspectives 110.5 (2002): 445.
"Influenza as an amplified risk in confined animal feeding operations." The study titled "Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health" by Silbergeld, Ellen K., Jay Graham, and Lance B. Price, published in the Annual Review, explores the connection between the use of antibiotics in industrial food animal production and its impact on human health.
Public Health 29 (2008): 151-169.
