---

Factory farming is a complex subject, and there is no one clear solution. There will always be a balance between maximizing profits, making food widely available, and protecting ourselves, the animals in our care, and our planet.

---

Author Biography

Jeff Jorgensen has lived in Logan, Utah, all his life and is now a freshman at Utah State University. He is majoring in Bioveterinary Science, after which he plans to attend USU’s newly built College of Veterinary Medicine. Jeff attends school and works full-time. He enjoys spending his free time with his cat or playing Dungeons and Dragons.

This essay was composed in November 2024 and uses MLA documentation.

---

Introduction

Agriculture is a fundamental part of who we are as a species and as a society. Humans began shifting from hunting and foraging to raising crops and livestock approximately 10,000 years ago. This new development enabled, and indeed necessitated, the formation of larger and more complex settlements, as “farming increased food production and enabled more children to survive, which in turn obliged people to rely on farming to support the growing population” (Tauger 6). In the centuries since, our growing population has led us to invent more efficient farming practices and technologies. These innovations have culminated in the development of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These factory farms, as they are colloquially known, are large feedlots and warehouses where large numbers of livestock are housed and fed in a highly specialized and cost-efficient process (Gunderson et al. 27).

These factories have undoubtedly allowed us much higher farming efficiency, leading to the widespread availability and affordable fresh meat to people of nearly all nationalities and income classes. With the global population estimated to surpass 10 billion by the end of the century, feeding that growing population is now more important than ever. However, with all their innovations and benefits, CAFOs have created several societal problems. Factory farms raise many concerns, but three of the most prominent are animal welfare, human public health risks, and environmental impacts. These issues are not isolated but interconnected, adding to the complexity of the problem.

Animal Welfare

The first and most apparent problem with factory farming is the cruelty inflicted upon the animals housed within, who are seen as nothing more than biological machines and whose potential for profit is viewed as their only value. The exact procedures vary by species, but common themes for all livestock are confinement and indifference to pain. Chickens are raised as either broilers (sold for meat) or egg layers. If designated as layers, females are debeaked and housed in battery cages, wire cages measuring less than two square feet, with up to ten birds in a cage. Both male and female broilers are also debeaked and crammed into huge sheds, with thousands of birds in one building. They are left to walk around the overcrowded shed, pecking for food on the excrement-covered floor (Cassuto 64). Cattle, pigs, and other animals fare no better, being confined to pens too small to allow them to stand up, let alone walk, run, or play. These animals are often kept in cages for their entire lives and are never allowed to feel the sun or the grass beneath their feet.

Public Health Risks

Another issue is the rampant zoonotic diseases (i.e., diseases caused by pathogens transmissible to humans from non-human animals) present in CAFOs, brought about by the high concentration of animals in small spaces. For over 60 years, the US cattle industry has relied heavily on feedlots. In these areas, many cattle are housed and fed energy-dense feed through communal troughs. This practice lets farmers capitalize on efficiency by having many cattle living close together rather than spread out over a grazing pasture. However, the high-density environment in which these cattle are housed is an ideal breeding ground for zoonotic pathogens, many of which are transmitted through direct or fecal-oral contact (Koyun et al.). Salmonella, E. coli O157, Campylobacter, and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease) are only some of the diseases that can arise from factory farms. In many poultry sheds, birds are crammed so close together they completely obscure the floor, which, when glimpsed between the tightly pressed bodies, can be seen to be covered with feces (O’Brien). The accelerated growth of these pathogens endangers not only the lives and health of the animals but also humans, as many diseases found in livestock can be transmitted to humans through physical contact and meat consumption.

Along with proliferating pathogen numbers, factory farms also accelerate the mutation of those pathogens into antibiotic-resistant strains. Many farms now use antibiotics to protect their livestock and promote their growth. According to the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, approximately 80% of antibiotics manufactured in the US are fed to farm animals. The majority of those are used to promote rapid tissue growth (Gunderson et al. 29). Many of these antibiotics are closely related to those used in human medicine, and the abundant overuse that they see on CAFOs can lead to the evolution of more diverse strains of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. This evolution is a threat not only to the health of our animals but our own as well.

Environmental Consequences

Along with human public health problems, such a large livestock population, especially when housed in small spaces, has detrimental effects on the environment. Livestock, particularly cattle, emit greenhouse gases that contribute significantly to climate change (Livestock’s Long Shadow 82). All animals emit carbon dioxide through respiration. Many animals, especially ruminants (e.g., cattle, sheep, and goats), emit methane through their digestive processes. Manure can also emit varying degrees of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, depending on how they are produced and managed. These compounds contribute to the greenhouse effect, raising the planet’s temperature. Carbon dioxide is the most abundant, but methane is 21 times more effective in trapping heat. It can remain in the atmosphere for up to 15 years. Nitrous oxide, although present in far lower quantities than either carbon dioxide or methane, is 296 times as effective as carbon dioxide and can remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years (Livestock’s Long Shadow 82-83).

Aside from climate change, CAFOs contribute to land degradation, water and air pollution, and biodiversity loss. A report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) found that “processes associated with livestock production account for 70 percent of all agricultural land use, occupying 30 percent of the Earth’s surface and contributing to land degradation and biodiversity loss” (Gunderson et al. 29). The concentrated numbers of cattle in feedlots also produce a lot of manure. That manure can then release ammonia gas, which is then precipitated through rain back onto the ground, where it can harm certain ecosystems. According to Andy Cole, a researcher at an experimental feedlot in Bushland, Texas, “When a cow urinates in a wide open pasture, there’s a good chance that most ammonia gas escaping from the urine will just land nearby and fertilize some grass. But when animals are close together in a feedlot, there is enough concentration of ammonia emissions that some of it can travel farther afield” (Comis).

Positive Impacts

For all of its deleterious effects, however, no one can argue that the innovations of factory farming have not drastically increased our ability to put food on everyone’s table at a reasonable price. Despite our population being higher than ever before, a more significant portion of that population now has access to meat, dairy, and eggs. The US employs factory farming practices more than anywhere else globally and has been particularly efficacious in maximizing its meat economy. The United States exceeds its European counterparts in production and price for agricultural animal products, producing more meat per capita than any European country and having a lower cost per quantity of meat than any country in the EU, saving Spain (Mitchell 49-52). That being said, the environmental and public health effects may end up costing us more in the long run, as we are forced to react to the disastrous results of climate change and the spread of disease among our human population. And the agricultural sector itself will not escape the reach of climate change. As the planet warms, global food supplies will be reduced, and prices will increase (Livestock’s Long Shadow 80-81). While completely eradicating CAFOs is unfeasible, something must be done to regulate them and mitigate their negative effects.

Addressing the Issues

The Role of Diet

With all of these negative impacts of factory farming, how can we address these issues? What can you do to help solve the problems caused by factory farming? On a personal level, you can change your diet. CAFOs rely on the growing demand of consumers for large quantities of meat. If our society shifted towards a more plant-based diet, the need for so much livestock would be reduced. This shift would also be more efficient, as one pound of beef requires seven pounds of corn to produce, while one pound of pork requires six-and-a-half pounds of corn, and one pound of chicken requires just under three pounds (Pluhar 459). Calling for a vegetarian or vegan diet from everyone, of course, would be as laughable as it is impractical. A more realistic goal is a gradual global shift toward a more sustainable agricultural market. And for those who aren’t willing to cut out meat entirely, consider reducing the amount of meat you consume or even sourcing it from ethically and environmentally responsible farms.

The Role of Policy and Advocacy

Changing your diet, however, can only go so far. Real change needs to happen at a regulatory level, and the most significant difference an individual can make is with their voice and vote. You can contact state and federal representatives, urging them to consider legislation to curb the deleterious effects of factory farming. Additionally, many advocacy groups exist promoting animal welfare and environmental protection. These include the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Earthjustice, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. These organizations, and many others, are a good resource for finding specific causes to which you can contribute monetarily or through public outreach and activism.

Some regulations have already been put forward. In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented its Guidance for Industry #213, which called for antibiotic manufacturers to remove growth-promotion claims from their product labels. The Veterinary Feed Directive also requires drugs used in animal feed to be prescribed and overseen by a licensed veterinarian (Fact sheet: Veterinary feed directive). Furthermore, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service aims to monitor and control outbreaks of contagious diseases among livestock populations. Both of these initiatives are necessary steps toward ensuring our safety. The USDA and FDA have limited resources, both in workforce and funding, and increasing those resources would make them more effective in enforcing these measures.

Along with mitigating public health risks, improved funding and legislation can help stop the cruel methods practiced on factory farms. The United States has surprisingly lax regulations concerning animal cruelty. Protections against this cruelty exist, but they are largely ineffectual. The United States Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (AWA) aims to regulate the treatment of animals used in commerce, but the act specifically excludes birds, livestock, and poultry from its definition of “animal” (Animal Welfare Act). Furthermore, these laws are rarely enforced; the penalty is a relatively small fine when they are. Enforcement usually falls to local law enforcement, which doesn’t have the jurisdiction to enter private property without a warrant and is not incentivized to act as the penalties are relatively low (Cassuto 66-67).

In contrast, animal welfare laws in the European Union are much more comprehensive. Unlike in the US, livestock are protected under the European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Farming Purposes. This treaty bans practices such as battery cages and veal crates, both of which confine animals in small spaces without room to move (Tomaselli). Enforcing these treaties does cost farmers some margin of their profit, at an estimated cost of 2% of the farm’s output, however, ensuring high quality of life for livestock also leads to “enhanced productivity, product quality, and business image” (European Court of Auditors). While the EU is somewhat behind the US in production, they can still produce enough meat and animal products to satisfy their populace. An amendment to the Animal Welfare Act to eliminate the exemption for livestock would go a long way toward promoting the well-being of farm animals, as it would increase funding and manpower to enforce the act. The AWA could also be supplemented with new laws that ban specific practices, such as debeaking and veal crates. California has already banned these practices and others in the 2008 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty rate (Gunderson et al. 33), which could serve as a template for a federal ban.

The Role of Farming Practices

A common public perception about farms is that smaller farms are better from an ethical and environmental perspective (Busch et al.). The problem isn’t the size of the farm itself, though, but rather the practices employed by that farm. According to a meta-analysis of studies regarding farm size and sustainability, many of these studies make comparisons of the management of small and large farms without acknowledging that those same management systems can be implemented on larger farms (Ebel 25). Another study measuring the welfare of animals on dairy farms in Germany reported that, while there was some negative correlation between herd size and animal health, housing conditions and management practice were a much more significant indicator (Gieseke et al.). These studies indicate that while factory farming presents clear problems that hurt human and non-human lives, these issues can be mitigated by ensuring proper management and farm practices.

Farmers reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of feed additives. These compounds are added to livestock feeds, either obtained from other organisms or manufactured synthetically, to produce varying effects on the livestock. Some additives have been shown to reduce methane production in cattle by disrupting the metabolic activity of methanogens in the rumen of the cattle. There are many methane-reducing additives available, with varying efficacy. In one study, steers were fed a diet supplemented with Asparagopsis taxiformis (red seaweed) and measured for methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide emissions, as well as production and meat quality. Methane emissions decreased by around 50% raw yield and 70% dry matter intake per kg. The seaweed additive also increased feed efficiency, reducing costs by up to $0.37 per kg of weight gain. While this may not seem all that significant, the costs start to add up, and a farmer finishing 1000 head of beef cattle could cut expenses on feed by anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000, depending on the dosage used (Roque et al. 7,14-15).

Another study using iodoform as an additive showed a significant decrease in enteric methane emissions. However, it also decreased milk production (Thorsteinsson et al. 7-8). Taking all of this into account, some feed additives are better than others at achieving different results, and further research is needed to explore the best compounds to decrease greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining, or even improving, animal productivity. The initial cost of the additive and producer awareness of these additives must also be considered. One consideration of the role of government in this area is not regulation but education and incentive. Subsidies could be given to farmers to offset the cost of feed additives, and government outreach programs can be implemented to educate producers on the existence and efficacy of feed additives.

Conclusion

With all of these problems and potential solutions laid out, factory farming is a complex subject, and there is no one clear solution. There will always be a balance between maximizing profits, making food widely available, and protecting ourselves, the animals in our care, and our planet. It is clear, however, that our current model is unsustainable. Even ignoring the moral imperative to protect the health and happiness of farm animals, it is in our self-interest to mitigate the risks to ourselves. The catastrophic damage that can be brought about by climate change alone is worth exploring other methods of food production and agricultural practices. And we are always just one step away from a deadly outbreak originating from a farm with lax health and hygiene practices. Humanity has come a long way from our nomadic origins, and along with the ability to shape the natural world around us to serve our goals comes a duty to protect that world and, in so doing, protect ourselves.

Works Cited

Busch, Gesa, et al. “‘Factory farming’? Public perceptions of farm sizes and sustainability in animal farming.” PLOS Sustainability and Transformation , vol. 1, no. 10, 2022, e0000032.

Cassuto, David N. “Bred Meat: The Cultural Foundation of the Factory Farm.” Law and Contemporary Problems,  vol. 70, no. 1, 2007, pp. 59-87.

Comis, Don. “An Environmental Look at American Feedlots.” Agricultural Research, vol. 51, no. 7, 2003, pp. 10. Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection; ProQuest Central, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/environmental-look-at-american-feedlots/docview/208060905/se-2.

Ebel, Roland. “Are Small Farms Sustainable by Nature?—Review of an Ongoing Misunderstanding in Agroecology.” Challenges in Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020, pp. 17-29. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/17267.

European Court of Auditors. Animal Welfare in the EU: Closing the Gap between Ambitious Goals and Practical Implementation. European Court of Auditors,  2018. https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr18_31/sr_animal_welfare_en.pdf.

“Fact Sheet: Veterinary Feed Directive Final Rule and next Steps.” US Food and Drug Administration, FDA, www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/development-approval-process/fact-sheet-veterinary-feed-directive-final-rule-and-next-steps. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.

Gieseke, Daniel, et al. “Relationship Between Herd Size and Measures of Animal Welfare on Dairy Cattle Farms with Freestall Housing in Germany.” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 101, no. 8, 2018, pp. 7397-7411.

Gunderson Ryan, et al. “Factory Farming: Impacts and Potential Solutions.” Agenda for Social Justice: Solutions in 2016, edited by Glen W. Muschert, Brian V. Klocke, Robert Perrucci, and John Shefner, Bristol University Press, 2016, pp. 27-38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/agenda-for-social-justice/factory-farming-impacts-and-potential-solutions/3A4CCF0188C27C9EC113BD7EEA55A07E.

Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. The Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative, FAO, 2006. openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/36ade937-4641-46ed-aac4-6162717d8a7f/content. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.

Mitchell, Lorraine. “US and EU Consumption Comparisons.” US-EU Food and Agriculture Comparisons, edited by Mary Anne Normile and Susan E. Leetmaa, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report, 2004, p. 49. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/6t053f96k/j6731792f/9s161b05f/WRS-02-27-2004_Special_Report.pdf.

Pluhar, Evelyn B. “Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 23, no. 5, 2010, pp. 455-468. ProQuest, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/meat-morality-alternatives-factory-farming/docview/750069225/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x.

Roque, Breanna M., et al. “Red Seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) Supplementation Reduces Enteric Methane by Over 80 Percent in Beef Steers.” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 3, 2021. ProQuest, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/red-seaweed-asparagopsis-taxiformis/docview/2502194053/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247820.

Tauger, Mark B. Agriculture in World History. Routledge, 2010.

Thorsteinsson, Mirka, et al. “Enteric Methane Emission of Dairy Cows Supplemented with Iodoform in a Dose–Response Study.” Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group), vol. 13, no. 1, 2023, pp. 12797. ProQuest, https://login.dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/enteric-methane-emission-dairy-cows-supplemented/docview/2847166321/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38149-y.

Tomaselli, Paige M. “Full Title Name:  Brief Summary of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws.” Animal Law Legal Center, Michigan State University College of Law, 2003, www.animallaw.info/article/brief-summary-international-comparative-animal-cruelty-laws.

United States, Congress. Public Law No. 91-579, Animal Welfare Act of 1970. United States Statutes at Large, 24 December 1970. Library of Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/91st-congress/house-bill/19846/text.