Conscious Choice: Industrial Agriculture

May 1999

Industrial Agriculture

by Gina Welch

When Thomas Jefferson envisioned the future of America, he hoped the United States would remain an agrarian society. Today, less than two percent of the population is involved in agriculture. We still rely on farming for the production of food, and hence, our survival. But we rely on industry, too. Industrial methods have permeated manufacturing, sales, and agriculture itself; industrial practices have been sold to us as a way to produce more food of better quality.

What, exactly, does "better quality" food mean to industrialists? Most often, it means food that looks good, ships well, and does not spoil easily. By those standards, industry has succeeded. By other measures, however, industrial agriculture is not only a failure, but a menace. Some say these other measures are the true standard by which we should evaluate our food.

Don’t Be Cruel

The cramped quarters and horrendous conditions of factory farms are not news to most people. Most of us know that "food animals" are kept in buildings, away from the light of day, until they are brought to the slaughterhouse. According to the USDA, in 1997 more than 60 percent of calves were dehorned and almost 80 percent were castrated. Both these procedures were done without anesthetic. Some 25 percent of American cows are shot up with Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), which, in addition to human health concerns can cause numerous problems in the cows (see Frankenfoods in this issue).

Do you switch to pork? Unfortunately, pigs do not fare any better on conventional farms; they are kept in the same dismal conditions as bovines. The National Pork Producers Council endorses several painful procedures for piglets, including "clipping needle teeth, docking tails, and castrating boars (to prevent off-flavored meat)." Again, no anesthetic or painkillers are used during the procedures.

Life is no picnic for chickens either. Industrial agriculture is continually looking for ways to increase production of chickens, whether they are produced for their eggs or for their meat. One way of increasing production is by increasing the amount of birds in the building or structure. Thousands of birds are stuffed in buildings, never able to see the sun or feel the earth beneath their feet, so cramped together they can scarcely move. "The hens incessantly strike out in frustration — pecking at the only thing available: each other," according to Bradley Miller, the national director of the Humane Farming Association (HFA). The birds are forced to undergo a painful procedure called debeaking in order to stop damage to the chickens that could cost farmers money, according to Miller. The hen’s upper beak is cut off with a hot blade, without anesthetic. Debeaked birds still peck at each other, but they do not cause as much economic damage.

Okay, no beef, pork, or chicken. You’ll be a lacto-ovo vegetarian. There’s nothing like "the incredible, edible egg." Any problems there?

Well, some. The egg industry, which has seen some success in its efforts to promote egg consumption, is now trying to increase production. One way to increasing egg production is through forced molting, known in the industry as "recycling." Here’s how it’s done. Feed is taken away for days, or perhaps weeks, depending on the farm. Chickens lose their feathers. After the chickens molt, they begin producing eggs again. Obviously, not all chickens survive this process. But the monetary cost of a few dead chickens is nothing to the farmer compared to the money gained from the increased egg production.

Unfortunately, forced molting also is unhealthy to humans. A study on forced molting procedures published in Poultry Science, stated that "feed removal substantially increased the susceptibility of hens to an SE (Salmonella enteritidis) infection." In one of the experiments "SE was recovered from five eggs, each from a different hen....All of the isolations were from molted hens." Of course, contaminated eggs or poultry can then spread salmonella to humans.

The Threat of
Antibiotic Resistance

To reduce the incidence of infection due to forced molting, close quarters (and the resultant manure overload), and pecking injuries, most birds are pumped full of antibiotics. Many of us have heard in the news the growing resistance of people to certain antibiotics. Many are not aware that the food we eat is contributing to this problem. "Animal husbandry is a driving force for the development of antibiotic resistance in certain pathogenic bacterial species," according to Wolfgang Witte, in the journal Science. This is true for a couple of reasons. First, some of the diseases antibiotics are being used to treat in farm animals are the same diseases humans can become infected with, such as salmonella, campylobacter, and E. coli. Another reason for the growing resistance is that some of the antibiotics given to farm animals are extremely similar to ones given to humans. Avoparcin, which is placed in animals’ feed, is similar to vancomycin, which is a human medication. "Vancomycin and avoparcin have the same mode of action; resistance to one confers resistance to the other," according to Witte. The American Society for Microbiology "estimates that drug-resistant pathogens cost more than $4 billion per year in extra medical costs in the United States alone." This figure does not take into account the cost of human lives from people dying from antibiotic-resistant infections.

Free-Range

People who are against the cruelty of industrial farming but still wish to consume eggs and chicken products scour supermarkets for "free-range" products that allow them to make omelets and other foods without contributing to the cruelty of chickens in intensive agriculture. On a "free-range" farm chickens are allowed to roam rather than being confined in cramped cages on conventional farms.

Food Animals Concerns Trust (FACT) in Chicago has a program called Nest Eggs. The guidelines provide that the birds are uncaged and that nest boxes and other comforts are provided. Forced molting is, of course, prohibited. Farms that follow FACT’s guidelines receive free marketing and promotion. (Contact FACT at 773-525-4952 to receive a list of which grocery stores carry free-range eggs in the Chicagoland area.)

Having free-range chickens does more than ease animal lovers’ consciences. Free-range chickens also eat some of the pests that destroy crops. The diet of free-range chickens includes ants, earthworms, leafhoppers, slugs, wireworms, shield-backed bugs, tarnished plant bugs, muscoid flies, and various types of beetles, according to a study on the effects of free-range chickens on insect pests and weeds. Not only do chickens on free-range farms dine on pests; they also dine on weed seeds. It is not surprising then that those farms with free-range chickens would have a reduced need for pest and weed control.

The Growth of Aquaculture,
or, Down at the Fish Farm

As the harmful health aspects of large amounts of meat consumption are becoming more known, an increasing amount of people have been eating fish. This, in turn, is causing problems for natural fish populations. As natural fisheries are being depleted, industial fish harvests are becoming more common. In fact, aquaculture has become a huge industry. Preliminary results from the Economic Research Service show U.S. private aquaculture production at $772,900,000. This is more than double the amount for 1985.

Factory Fish Farming in Illinois

Illinois appears to be an ideal state for aquaculture. You may be wondering how a state in the Midwest can be ideal for harvesting fish. Illinois’ idealness has more to do with the state’s laws than our geography. In most states, fish harvested by a company are not legally owned by that company; rather, the legal right is that of natural resource agencies. This is not the case in Illinois. In the Land of Lincoln, a company has the legal title to the fish after purchasing permits. This makes it "easier for producers to get development money when they have legal title to their crop," according to a report on aquaculture by the USDA. According to the report, "Producers in Illinois are not required to report sales or production." Legal rights to the beings you harvest and you do not have to report details to the government? It is a businessperson’s dream; although, understandably not the fish’s.

"Harvested" fish are raised and kept in tanks for their entire lives, rather than being caught from the wild. They are born in a hatching tank and then transferred to another tank where they are crowded together with other fish. This overcrowding creates horrible conditions for the fish — and for sanitation. "Raising fish in crowded, excrement-laden water necessitates the broad use of agrichemicals," as well as antibiotics, according to Gary Bauston of Farm Sanctuary. With all of the added chemicals, fish may be a less healthful meal than people think.

Another concern of harvesting fish is the spread of diseases. "Diseases associated with all types of aquaculture have spread, sometimes very rapidly, over wide geographic areas," according to the report by the USDA. The report explains, "The physical spread of disease in aquaculture differs from the spread of disease in traditional livestock due to the nature of the aquatic environment and the physiology of aquatic organisms." From 1992 to 1995 a virus infecting Pacific white shrimp spread throughout Ecuador, Central America, and Hawaii and is now a problem with cultured shrimp in Texas. If the problem was confined to the cultured populations it may not be much more than an economical concern to the harvesters. However, the diseases spread to wild populations, as in the case of whirling disease, which is now spreading throughout the Rocky Mountain states. Whirling disease infects mainly young trout and salmon, according to Susan Higgins at the Whirling Disease Foundation. It is caused by a parasite and causes damage to the brain and spinal cartilage.

Wild populations of fish are affected by aquaculture in other ways as well. The larvae raised on fish farms come either from hatcheries or are caught. Nets meant to trap shrimp larvae "inevitably trap large quantities of other invertebrates and fish — amounting to 20 or more times the weight of the shrimp larvae," according to Jeff Hecht in the journal New Scientist.

Amish Agriculture

Amish agriculture is superior to chemical farming in many ways. Animals are fed fewer antibiotics; and the Amish generally only medicate their animals when they are sick. Some (but not all) Amish food animals are allowed to roam. Fewer pesticides are used in Amish food production. Amish habits of crop rotation and cultivation "largely eliminate the need for chemical pesticides," states Mary Jackson, a graduate student at the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Amish agriculture is beneficial to the environment in other ways as well. Fields are usually plowed with a horse rather than a tractor. "Slower tillage, as in horse-drawn, does not throw the soil up as high behind the plow, so it is conceivable that less would be lost to the wind during plowing," according to Jackson. Instead of the commercial fertilizers used by many conventional farms, Jackson states the Amish use "manure mixed with straw, and a four-year rotation incorporating two continuous years of grass/legume hay." These substances pose no threat to the farmers applying them, the land absorbing them, or the consumers who eat the foods they help produce.

Organic Agriculture (of Course)

If you’re reading this article, you probably know, already, that organic agriculture eschews chemical pesticides, genetic engineering, and antibiotics. Thus, organic farmers "avoid the risks of biocide use, including carryover of residues or biocide-resistant microbes into the human food chain," according to a study of organic farming in the American Journal of Alternative Agriculture.

But the benefits of organic extend beyond personal consumption. Organic produce also has a beneficial effect on the environment because of the reduced use of chemicals applied to the land. Crop rotations and animal manure are also "a key management tool in weed and pest control and in maintaining good soil fertility and structure," according to a study on organic farming. The study found that farmers who used organic methods even were able to make "idled" land productive again.

Organic practices can even lead to less plant disease and infestation than when pesticides are used. In a scientific experiment published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, European corn-borer females were released in maize that was planted in both regular and organic soil; their egg-laying preferences were documented. Results found that "for plants in the organic soils, egg laying was uniformly low" and "variance in egg laying was about 18 times higher among plants in conventional soil than among plants in organic soil." What does this prove? That pests like chemically treated soil better than organic soil. What does it mean? That organic crops are less prone to suffer damage due to pests.

A study published in the journal Plant Disease, which had similar findings, stated: "The consistent reduction in root disease severity in organic and reduced-input compared to conventional farms can be ascribed to longer rotations, regular applications of organic amendments, and abstinence from or reductions in pesticide use."

Industry in its Place

Industrial agriculture has promised new and better ways to increase our food production. Unfortunately, its proponents have increased production largely at the cost of animal suffering, soil depletion, and compromised human health. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, works with the needs of animals, plants, and soil.

Organic has problems, too, however. Currently, it’s more expensive than chemically produced food. In addition, its means of pest control are limited. Cost, however, is a red herring. The cost of organic food is reflected entirely in its price, while the costs of industrial agriculture are hidden in government subsidies, environmental cleanup costs, and healthcare costs.

Anyway, as demand increases and more farms adopt organic methods, the food will become less rare, and prices should, eventually, decrease. Already, prices are falling. A study in Massachusetts found that less than 25 percent of organic growers received a "price premium of at least 15 percent over conventional prices. The remainder either reported a premium of less than five percent or did not know whether they were getting a premium because the prices of fresh produce vary so strongly with quality, volume of sales, and time."

As for pest control, this is an area in which industry can help — not by inventing chemical "controls," but by looking at simple methods by which pests can be discouraged.

By trying to sneak in under the organic banner last year, chemical producers sold themselves short. Instead of trying to promote products and procedures that are toxic and costly, they should be using their expertise to find ways of supporting organic farmers. It’s time for the industry to support agriculture, instead of trying to control it.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: