Impacts of the Mass-Industrialization of Animal Agriculture and the Increasing Presence of Concentrated Animal Feeding Organizations on the Environment

A Literature Review

 

Abstract

The health of our planet, wildlife, and human life, has become endangered by the explosion of concentrated animal feeding organizations (CAFOs, pronounced KAY-foes) and the animal agriculture industry (AAI). The primary focus of this essay is to identify and discuss the ways in which the AAI is changing our planet through the review and analysis of scholarly articles concentrating on the topics of: climate change, water, and sustainability. We find that the AAI is a primary contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into our atmosphere, is threatening wild and human life through the contamination of surface- and groundwater with harmful pathogens and toxicants, and is a leading cause in the degradation of human health, deforestation, as well as the degradation and desertification of land.

Introduction

Although it is widely recognized by scientists and global populations alike, the impact the AAI has on our atmosphere, freshwater integrity, public health, and ecosystems is still largely overlooked and underemphasized. Through the systematic analysis of peer-reviewed primary and secondary literature, this paper aims to consolidate and provide overview of the AAI’s effect on our planet both, ecologically and environmentally. The objective: to further understand how the mass-industrialization of animal agriculture and the increasing prevalence of CAFOs is impacting and changing our environment.

Literature Review

The primary topical concentrations of the literature in review can be divided into three categories: climate, water, and sustainability, and will be reviewed in that order respectively.

Climate literature: “Reducing Meat Consumption in Developed and Transition Countries to Counter Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss: A Review of Influence Factors” by Susanne Stoll-Kleemann and Uta Johanna Schmidt; “Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change” by Gowri Koneswaran and Danielle Nierenberg; “Communicating the Climate Impacts of Meat Consumption: The Effect of Values and Message Framing” by Thomas Graham and Woke Abrahamse.

Water literature: “Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality” by JoAnn Burkholder, Bob Libra, Peter Weyer, Susan Heathcote, Dana Koplin, Peter S. Thorne, and Michael Wichman; “Detection of Hepatitis E Virus and Other Livestock-Related Pathogens in Iowa Streams” by Carrie E. Givens, Dana W. Koplin, Mark A. Borchardt, Joseph W. Duris, Thomas B. Moorman, and Susan K. Spencer; “Source Tracking Swine Fecal Waste in Surface Water Proximal to Swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” by Christopher D. Heaney, Kevin Meyers, Steve Wing, Devon Hall, Dothula Baron, and Jill R. Stewart.

Sustainability literature: “Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’: The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet” by Brian G. Henning; “Sustainability and Meat Consumption: Is Reduction Realistic?” by Hans Dagevos and Jantine Voordouw; “The Sustainability Challenges of our Meat and Dairy Diets” by Susanne Stoll-Kleemann and Tim O’Riordan.

Climate and the Animal Agriculture Industry

Background

The AAI has been claimed to be a leading contributor in emissions of potent GHG into our atmosphere, global deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. The literature in question finds that as our global population continues to rapidly expand, the demand for food has resulted in the anthropogenic straining and exploitation of our natural resources.

GHG Emissions

While the emphasis when discussing global climate change is often on carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (N2O) have a higher capability of trapping heat than CO2 does (Graham & Abrahamse, 2017, p. 98). Due to the unnatural diet fed to livestock to encourage accelerated growth, the manure in confined feedlots has a high methane producing capacity, and therefore the immense quantities of animal waste produced by CAFOs has the potential for significant anthropogenic emissions of methane and N2O (Koneswaran and Nierenberg 2008, p. 580). Graham and Abrahamse (2017) note that ruminant digestion, which causes enteric fermentation, is responsible for some 44% of all livestock GHG emissions (p. 98), and Koneswaran and Nierenberg (2008) state that almost half of all GHG emissions from farm manure can be accounted for by pig manure alone (p. 580). As a whole, the AAI contributes more GHG emissions to the atmosphere than even the transportation sector (Koneswaran and Nierenberg, 2008, p. 578).

Distribution

The volume of food required to feed the global population of livestock is so immense, it is projected that if crops intended for biofuel and animal feed were instead used for direct human consumption, approximately 70% more calories would become available; enough food to feed an estimated 4 billion more people (Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt, 2016, p. 1262). Indeed, 80% of the world soy bean crop is fed to the global population of livestock, along with more than half of all corn crop (Koneswaran and Nierenberg, 2008, 579). Graham and Abrahamse (2017) remark that meat production is more carbon expensive than the crop equivalent, and therefore the production of animal protein is inherently inefficient, due to the resource expense required to transfer energy up the food chain (p. 98).

Results

As the population grows and the demand for animal products increases, so too do our emissions. The practice of unnatural feeding patterns and dietary shifts to accommodate the populous’ need for meat has led to industrial farms increased output of harmful waste into the environment. The heightened capacity for methane in livestock waste as a result of unnatural feeding practices has contributed to the AAI being considered a leading contributor in global anthropogenic GHG emissions. It was observed that producing animal meat for consumption is less energetically efficient than growing a plant caloric-equivalent, and that if we reprioritized our distribution of food and efforts we could feed approximately 0.5 times as many people.

Water Contamination and CAFOs

Background

The rise of CAFOs presents a serious risk to both surface- and ground-water quality because of the immense production of waste from livestock and the potential for concentrated amounts of contaminants to enter the environment. Every year in the United States, the AAI produces 133 million tons of manure, which is concentrated with harmful contaminants, such as: nutrients, naturally excreted hormones, veterinary pharmaceuticals, heavy metals and pathogens (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 308). Manure is consolidated into open pits called “lagoons,” where it is stored until it can be sprayed onto agricultural fields (Heaney et al., 2015, p. 2). Due to the nature of their confinement, animals in CAFOs are at risk for microbial infections, so antibiotics are used extensively to both treat and prevent infections and illnesses, as well as to promote accelerated growth in livestock (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 308). The over-application of livestock manure as fertilizer can introduce too many macronutrients to the soils, such as, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), as well as heavy metals that are added into livestock feed (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 308). The increasing presence of CAFOs threatens the quality of freshwater resources because microbial pathogens from waste lagoons can enter the environment through leaks, or rainstorms which result in overflow or run-off (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 308).

Nitrates and Consumption

Many serious health risks have been linked to the prolonged exposure and ingestion of nitrate-nitrogen contaminated water (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 310). Burkholder et al. (2007) notes findings where in surface runoff from spray fields receiving the recommended amount of swine effluent, 3-6 mg (NO3)/L was present; while in an adjacent stream to swine effluent spray fields 6-8 mg total inorganic N/L and 0.7-1.3 mg P/L was measured (p. 308). High levels of nitrate contamination in drinking water has been reported to increase the risk of hyperthyroidism and insulin-dependent diabetes; along with increased risk of undesirable reproductive malformations, such as, central nervous system malformations and neural tube defects (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 310).

Animal waste is not just rich in contaminants, nutrients, parasites, viruses, and bacteria but biochemical oxygen-demanding materials (BOD) as well (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 309). Due to the high volume of pharmaceutical treatment administered to livestock in CAFOs, there is increasing resistance among microbial populations to antibiotics (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 309). Though, there is little research on the side-effects of long-term exposure to low levels of antibiotics in humans (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 310).

Hepatitis E and Fecal Contaminants

Pathogens from CAFO waste lagoons do not only travel through surface and ground waters, but can also be absorbed into streambed sediment, and can be detected up to 25 days after a waste lagoon spill (Givens et al., 2016, p. 1043). Through the routine tests of 22 water samples from six stream sites in central Iowa, Givens et al. (2016) found that within the South Fork Iowa River basin, 25% of main-stem river samples and 58% of tributary water samples were positive for HEV RNA (p. 1048). Prior to manure application on cropland, HEV was detected in 20% of samples; after manure application, in 80% of samples (Givens et al., 2016 p. 1048). Givens et al. (2016) notes that previous studies have proven hepatitis A, among various other viruses, can transport through soil into ground water, as well as from surface water to groundwater (p. 1050). In this study, several antibiotic resistance gene markers were detected, along with Shiga-toxin producing E. coli, enterococci and pathogen gene markers from bacteria (Givens et al., 2016, p. 1050).

For one year in North Carolina, Heaney et al., (2015) collected and tested water samples proximal to swine CAFO lagoon sites and swine effluent spray fields, at both up- and downstream locations, for fecal indicator bacteria and candidate swine-specific microbial source tracking (MST) markers. 112/185 surface water samples (61%) tested positive for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and Enterococcus; and were detected at concentrations which exceeded federal and state recreational water quality guidelines (Heaney et al., 2015, p. 8).

Impacts of Water Contamination

Following CAFO waste spills, proximal surface waters have detectably high concentrations of ammonium, phosphorus, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, pathogenic microorganisms such as Clostridium perfringens, and anoxic conditions for approximately 30km downstream from the point of contamination (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 309). Degraded water conditions such as these, especially high ammonia concentrations and anoxia, have caused mass kills of freshwater fish of varying species in the affected areas; from minnows to striped bass and flounder (Burkholder et al., 2007, p. 309). While there are mean differences, fecal indicator bacteria is detectable at both proximal up- and proximal downstream locations from the point of contamination (Heaney et al., 2015, p. 8). The impairment of surface- and groundwater quality will consequently impact both environmental and human health (Givens et al., 2016, p. 1050).

Results

Due to the high concentration of various contaminants in animal waste lagoons, the quality of any freshwater resource proximal to a CAFO or farmland treated with CAFO waste as fertilizer, is either being threatened or has already become compromised with dangerous bacteria and pathogens. The overuse of antibiotics in CAFOs has resulted in the presence of antibiotic resistance gene markers in contaminated waters, however it is unknown how ingestion of low levels of antibiotics over an extended period of time will affect human populations. CAFO waste threatens both wildlife as well as human life. Anoxic conditions in CAFO proximal water systems result in massive loss of life; and these conditions can exist more than 18 miles away from the originating point of contamination.

Sustainability

Background

The rapid expansion of the human population has drawn into question whether the mass consumption of meat is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable in the long term. The energetic expense of livestock production is found to be disproportionate to the energetic (caloric) outcome; and while for millennia the cornerstone of many cultural and societal traditions has been the consumption of meat, some scientists are no longer sure if our planet and societies can sustain the level of production required to feed as many people who want it.

Nutrition and Public Health

In both developed and developing countries, the overconsumption of meat is drastically impacting the health of humans, is a leading cause of obesity, and has been linked to serious chronic illnesses (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 67). Henning (2011) observes instances of overconsumption, noting that the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein suggested by the United States Department of Agriculture is 56g; however, the average American meat-eater consumes twice that allowance a day, with approximately 77g of protein coming from animal meat (p. 67). In contrast, the average vegetarian consumes a total of 89g of protein a day (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 67). Apart from obesity, diets with a high share of meat, dairy, and egg products can lead to coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, gout, and cancer (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, p. 43). Chronic diseases aside, CAFO proximity to population centers is resulting in the rise of zoonotic infections such as avian influenza, various viral haemorrhagic fevers, Nipah virus from pig farming, and mad cow disease, as well as its human variant (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 67).

Due to the level of confinement and unsanitary conditions in CAFOs, producers administer large doses of antibiotics to their herds and flocks to prevent the rapid spread of disease, however this is facilitating the evolutionary growth of more antibiotic resistant infections (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 66). More than 99% of meat consumed originates from CAFOs, and this is resulting in antibiotic resistance in humans too; consequently, the rate of mortality due to infections exceeds 25,000 deaths a year (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, p. 43). Henning (2011) notes a study out of Clinical Infectious Disease from Oxford University Press stating that the routine use of antibiotics in the AAI is exacerbating an “epidemic” of antibiotic resistant infections (p. 66).

Land Degradation, Deforestation and Biodiversity Loss

The single greatest contributor to deforestation worldwide is the AAI (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 72). Livestock are responsible for 55% of soil erosion in the U.S. alone (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 72), and can account for 37% of all pesticide use, 50% of all antibiotic use, and 33% of all loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater sources (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, p. 40). Due to the level of deforestation and the conversion of lands to feed crops and pastures, in some parts of the world we are even seeing desertification of soils (Henning, B. G., 2011, p. 72). Within the last 40 years 52% of the world’s wildlife has disappeared due to agriculture, food energy production, and urban development; 30% of said biodiversity loss is attributed to livestock production, and the industry threatens some 306 of 825 terrestrial ecoregions, as well as 23 of 35 biodiversity hotspots globally (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, p. 38).

Economics

The AAI is not only changing the world’s ecosystems and lifeforms, but our economies as well. In former rain-forested areas in South America, the expansion of soybean farming has led to the widespread loss of local incomes, and small scale farmers are being displaced so their land can be used to grow feed to export to more industrialized countries (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, p. 41). The industrialization of animal agriculture has transformed countries like Brazil and Paraguay, for example; where in Brazil 46% of the land area is owned by 1% of the population, and in Paraguay more than 100,000 small soy farms have been overturned (sometimes forcibly) since 1990 (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, pp. 37-41). Beyond the Americas, “low profitability” chicken pieces being exported from Europe has led to the destabilization of local markets in Africa (Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. 2015, p. 41).

Results

The industrialization of animal agriculture is changing our population biochemically, threatening our resistance to disease, as well as destabilizing ecosystems and economies. Meat is largely being over consumed, and in developed countries (such as the United States) the level of over consumption is leading to life threatening chronic illnesses, as well as weakening the population’s sensitivity to antibiotics. Industrialized animal agriculture and the urbanization of lands is resulting in the degradation in populations of native wildlife, and is economically overturning developing countries.

Conclusion

Discussion

Climate Pressure, Poisoning our Largest Natural Resource, and Sustaining Exploitation. The AAI is a leading contributor of highly potent GHGs, such as methane and N2O, into the atmosphere. Gases such as these have a higher capability of trapping heat, therefore have greater potential for warming the planet and are largely connected with global warming. As the global population continues to rise, imbalances in the prioritization in designation of food resources is deemed inefficient. The distribution of crops to feed the global livestock population is unbalanced when compared in contrast to the global demand for food.
The immense amounts of waste produced by CAFOs is densely concentrated with pathogens, pharmaceuticals, fecal indicator bacteria, hormones, and macronutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. CAFO lagoons, as well as fertilizer treatments to crop land, have resulted in the contamination of proximal recreational waters (surface) as well as ground and private waters, such as wells, with nitrates (among many other contaminants). Long term exposure to such contaminants through drinking water have been connected to various chronic illnesses and birth defects. Proximal fresh water fish populations sometimes suffocate in their streams and rivers due to anoxic/hypoxic conditions from high concentrations of ammonia, as a result of CAFO waste contamination.

The overconsumption of and demand for meat is degrading the human population’s health, and facilitating the evolution of infections resistant to antibiotics. The over exploitation of land is resulting in significant losses in the world’s biodiversity, and soil erosion that is leading to desertification.

The mass-industrialization of animal agriculture and the increasing prevalence of CAFOs has far-reaching and detrimental effects on our environment. Short-term consequences of industrialized farming include economic shifts and brief illnesses from water exposure. Long-term consequences involve the accelerated evolutionary development of treatment-impervious bacterial infections, voluntary and involuntary extinction of native species, total contamination of natural aquifers, insensitivity to antibiotic treatments in humans, and the permanent desertification of topsoils as a result of overgrazing and deforestation.

Future Perspectives

How Can We Save Ourselves? Small scale farming on pastures is considered to be less harmful to the planet and, in some circumstances, be beneficial for biodiversity (Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, 2016, p. 1261). However, as industrialization and the global population is forever on the rise, it is no surprise that the FAO predicts the global demand for meat will increase by 73% from 2010 to the year 2050 (Graham and Abrahamse, 2017, p. 98). As the AAI is responsible for 14.5% of all GHG emissions, transitioning the global diet to vegetarian friendly foods could reduce emissions from food production by 55% (Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt, 2016, p. 1261). In conclusion, the reduction of meat consumption has significant potential to prevent global deforestation and desertification, as well as reduce GHG emissions and mitigate the impact of global warming on our planet.

References

Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer, P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thorne, P. S., & Wichman, M. (2007). Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 308-312.
http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839

Dagevos, H., & Voordouw, J. (2013). Sustainability and Meat Consumption: Is Reduction Realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 9(2), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115

Givens, C. E., Koplin, D. W., Borhcart, M. A., Duris, J. W., Moorman, T. B., & Spencer, S. K. (2016). Detection of Hepatitis E Virus and other Livestock-Related Pathogens in Iowa Streams. Science of the Total Environment, 566-567(2016), 1042-1051.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.123

Graham, T., & Abrahamse, W. (2017). Communicating the Climate Impacts of Meat Consumption: The Effect of Values and Message Framing. Global Environmental Change, 44, 98-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004

Heaney, C. D., Myers, K., Wing, S., Hall, D., Baron, D., & Stewart, J. R. (2015). Source Tracking Swine Fecal Waste in Surface Water Proximal to Swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Science of the Total Environment, 511.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.062

Henning, B. G. (2011). Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’: The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet. Ethics and the Environment, 16(2), 63-93.
https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.16.2.63

Koneswaran, G., & Nierenberg, D. (2008). Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(5), 578-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11034

Stoll-Kleeman, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2015). The Sustainability Challenges of Our Meat and Dairy Diets. Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 57(3), 34-48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2015.1025644

Stoll-Kleemann, S., & Schmidt, U. J. (2016). Reducing Meat Consumption in Developed and Transition Countries to Counter Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss: A Review of Influence Factors. Reg Environ Change, 17, 1261–1277.
https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.16.2.63

 

Written and researched by Olivia H. Klingler