research papers on factory farm

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Oxford University Press - PMC COVID-19 Collection

What’s Wrong With Factory Farming?

Jonathan anomaly.

Duke University

Factory farming continues to grow around the world as a low-cost way of producing animal products for human consumption. However, many of the practices associated with intensive animal farming have been criticized by public health professionals and animal welfare advocates. The aim of this essay is to raise three independent moral concerns with factory farming, and to explain why the practices associated with factory farming flourish despite the cruelty inflicted on animals and the public health risks imposed on people. I conclude that the costs of factory farming as it is currently practiced far outweigh the benefits, and offer a few suggestions for how to improve the situation for animals and people.

Factory farming involves raising livestock in densely populated environments often called ‘concentrated animal feeding operations’. 1 Common practices include packing pregnant pigs into gestation crates so small they cannot turn around, placing egg-laying hens in cages stacked on top of one another in massive enclosed buildings and raising cows on feedlots rather than the grass pastures many of us associate with ruminants. 2 Because of the stress induced by these conditions, including the constant frustration of their natural instincts, many animals develop compromised immune systems, and without a steady course of antibiotics, many more would become sick and die of bacterial infections. Thus, antibiotics are often used to compensate for conditions that would otherwise make it impossible to raise animals ( Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials, 2010 ).

The practices that comprise factory farming evolved as a result of competition between firms to produce commodities—mainly milk and meat—at minimal cost. Competition usually benefits consumers. Factory farming has lowered the price of animal protein, and this is a real boon for poor and middle-class consumers. But there are at least three moral problems with factory farming, and none of them is factored into the price of the animal products they create. These include the spread of pathogenic viruses, the diffusion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria into our shared microbial environment and the immense cruelty suffered by animals in confined conditions.

Animals and Influenza

Experts agree that most (and perhaps all) strains of the influenza virus that infect human beings originated from contact with other animals, especially domesticated birds and pigs in Asia ( Crawford, 2000 : 95). The advent of animal agriculture brought a steady supply of protein to people, but it also increased the transmission of viruses carried by animals, and spurred the evolution of existing viruses.

There are several reasons factory farms seem to elevate the risk of novel viral outbreaks—especially variations of avian and swine flu. First, crowding animals together in close confinement can induce stress and suppress their immune systems, raising parasite loads and making animals more susceptible to infections; second, as all of us have learned after catching a cold in school or at work, viral transmission is facilitated by animals being kept in proximity to one another; third, close contact between different species of animals gives viruses a continuous opportunity to mutate and reassort to create new strains; fourth, many factory farms confine animals to indoor spaces that lack adequate sunlight or ventilation, which allows viruses to survive longer without a host; and finally, because animals on factory farms are often genetically similar, they can be more susceptible to specific parasites ( Crawford, 2000 ; Greger, 2007 ).

The situation on factory farms is in some ways analogous to that of overcrowded prisons ( Schmidt, 2009 ). Infectious diseases flourish in prisons for some of the same reasons: high stress and poor nutrition can impair people’s immune systems, and crowding permits a quick transfer of microbes and a continuous supply of hosts. This is one reason many experts believe pathogenic viruses like hepatitis have spread more rapidly in crowded prisons than in the surrounding population ( Bick, 2007 ).

Most people already understand that crowding can spread sickness, and compromised immunity makes people more susceptible to infection, but few people understand how crowding different species together—as occurs on factory farms and in live animal markets—might hasten the evolution of new strains of virus. According to Dorothy Crawford, ‘[b]ird viruses usually lack the receptor binding protein needed to infect human cells, but some domestic animals like pigs and horses are susceptible to both bird and human strains. So gene swapping between human and bird strains often occurs in pigs or horses, causing a major genetic change in the virus make-up called an antigenic shift . Occasionally after this mixing a “new” virus strain emerges that can infect and spread in humans, and as the population is completely naïve to this “new” strain it can spark a pandemic’ ( Crawford, 2007 : 205).

Viruses have long jumped between species, but the advent of animal agriculture increased opportunities for viral transmission between animals and humans. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, which infected half of the world’s population and killed tens of millions of people, is thought to have arisen in farm animals. Although this particular strain cannot be blamed on practices that began in the late 20th century, our current practices increase the risk that new versions of existing viruses will emerge. It should be emphasized that in most cases, it is impossible to track the exact origin and evolutionary progress of any particular strain of flu. Scientists instead look for patterns of correlation between sites of initial infections, and rely on general knowledge about the conditions that facilitate the emergence and transmission of viruses.

Regardless of the origin of specific outbreaks of swine and avian flu, the general trend seems to implicate factory farming as a significant cause of many new strains: ‘there is no doubt that we are in the midst of the worst ever recorded flu pandemic in birds. The [H5N1] virus started life as a harmless infection in the intestines of wild birds and jumped to domestic chickens in the 1990s, where modern intensive farming techniques gave it the opportunity to adapt and evolve … . And now this virulent strain has not only crossed back into wild fowl but has increased its host range to include other birds … and even some mammals such as cats’ ( Crawford, 2007 : 208).

Although I have focused on different strains of influenza, animals share many other viruses, even if only a small number induce death or disease when they jump species. The morally interesting question is whether we can justify practices that increase the likelihood of new viral epidemics.

It is conceivable that new strains of viruses that arise on factory farms will eventually lose their virulence and strength. When viruses are confined to a specific population, they tend to become weakened as they co-evolve with the animals that host them. This occurs because from the virus’s standpoint—from the standpoint of the ‘selfish’ genes that comprise viruses—a host is better alive than dead, as a live host can create more copies of the virus and spread it to more people.

However, it can take many years for a virus to become benign ( Crawford, 2000 ), and in the intervening period, it can decimate populations. So the fact that in the long run viruses tend to lose their virulence—their ability to cause disease or death in the animals that host them—does not suggest that we should continue to allow factory farmers to house their animals in extreme confinement. 3

Antibiotic Resistance

In recent years, awareness of the problem of antibiotic resistance has grown as bacterial diseases ranging from tuberculosis to gonorrhea have become increasingly costly or difficult—and in some cases, impossible—to treat by existing antibiotics ( United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013 ). Many people now understand the basic evolutionary principle that our increasing use (and misuse) of antibiotics fuels the evolution and dispersion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But fewer people are aware of the connection between the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock and the emergence of new patterns of antibiotic resistance in people.

Resistance to antibiotics arises in farm animals for the same reason it does in people. For billions of years, bacteria have been competing with each other and with plants, fungi and animals for scarce resources. Although most of these relationships have become mutualistic (beneficial to both parties) or commensal (neither harmful nor beneficial to both parties), some are parasitic relationships in which bacteria benefit at the expense of their host. When bacteria parasitize other organisms, natural selection rewards genetic mutations and immune responses that allow their victims to fight back. The arsenal that organisms have evolved to defend themselves against exploitation includes chemical weapons that destroy bacteria, and enzymes that disrupt DNA synthesis to prevent their replication. Bacteria have responded in kind by developing sophisticated defenses, including membranes that block antibiotic absorption ( Delcour, 2009 ), enzymes that degrade the efficacy of antibiotics ( Wright, 2005 ) and efflux pumps that eject antibiotics that have already been absorbed ( Kumar and Schweizer, 2005 ).

One might think that organisms with an adaptive immune system would eventually find a way to resist bacterial exploitation. To some extent this occurs, which explains the existence of endogenously produced antibiotics in many organisms, and natural immunity to the deleterious effects of some bacteria in others. But bacteria have responded with a creative way of evolving quickly. Horizontal gene transfer through conjugation and transduction allows bacteria to acquire genes from other bacteria, from phage viruses that parasitize them and occasionally from unwilling hosts. This allows bacteria to exploit mutations and gene sequences that arise in other organisms, which is one reason most scientists see no way of developing an antibiotic that permanently removes the threat of harmful bacteria. The challenge instead is to find specific antibiotics that kill harmful bacteria, undermine their virulence or prevent them from replicating long enough for an immune system to clear them from an animal’s body.

Nearly half of all antibiotics worldwide are given to farm animals to promote growth and prevent diseases in the crowded quarters in which livestock are increasingly kept, and in the US, an estimated three quarters of all antibiotics go directly to livestock on factory farms ( US GAO, 2011 ). For many years, public health experts have warned about the dangers of using large quantities of antibiotics in farm animals, especially when they are used at sub-therapeutic doses over long periods, as this creates an ideal environment for bacteria to evolve and spread resistance to antibiotics ( Gorbach, 2001 ). Antibiotics are administered at low levels because they can speed the growth of some animals by increasing nutrient absorption and preventing infections in cramped conditions ( McEwen and Fedorka-Cray, 2002 ). Using antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes gives farmers a small but significant advantage over those who decline to use them, thus creating a negative sum game in which the rational profit-maximizing choice for each farmer gives no farmer any particular advantage over others, but leaves nearly all animals and people worse off.

Animals are worse off because of the cruel conditions in which they are kept. Farmers are no better off using antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes if their competitors are also permitted to use them. People are worse off because antibiotic-resistant bacteria often find their way into human hosts.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria that arise on factory farms can spread to human hosts in a number of ways. First, those who work on farms and handle animals or raw meat can pick up antibiotic-resistant bacteria from animals who have it, and transfer it to other people; second, some bacteria survive in meat even after it is cooked, and are transferred directly to those who eat it; third, animal waste from factory farms that contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria is often used to fertilize crops, and some of these bacteria infect people who either work with crops or consume them; and finally, as bacteria do not respect physical or biological borders, some are transferred to animals and streams around factory farms ( McEwen and Fedorka-Cray, 2002 ; Casey et al. , 2013 ).

In a recent overview of antibiotic resistance on US farms, the Environmental Working Group found that among the most common meats bought in US supermarkets, 81% of turkey, 69% of pork chops, 55% of ground beef and 39% of chicken contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria ( Undurraga, 2013 ). By themselves, these numbers should not be alarming, as many bacteria have been carrying antibiotic-resistant genes for millions of years. It is possible for resistant bacteria to spread from animals to humans, or from humans to animals, so the misuse of antibiotics among people may be (at least partly) responsible for recent increases in resistance among bacteria that colonize farm animals ( Singer, 2003 ). However, recent increases suggest that factory farming practices are largely responsible for antibiotic resistance among farm animals, and thus in the meat that derives from them. While experts argue about whether most resistance comes from the misuse of antibiotics (such as their use for growth promotion), or whether it comes simply from the total quantity used, there is clear evidence that more use in people or animals creates more resistance in the bacteria that colonize them (Wegener, 2003a), and that reducing their use in farm animals in countries like Denmark has led to less resistance (Wegener, 2003b).

Although it is necessarily imprecise, we can measure the increased prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria over time. For example, between 2002 and 2011, multidrug-resistant Salmonella in raw chicken in the US has increased from ∼20 to 45%, and in turkey during the same period, it increased from ∼20 to 50% ( Undurraga, 2013 ). Human deaths from multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli derived from poultry are on the rise, and this is likely to be true for many pathogenic bacteria derived from farm animals ( Collignon et al. , 2013 ). Unfortunately, withdrawing antibiotics from animal feed does not work especially quickly. Just as it takes time for bacteria to acquire and spread genes that confer resistance, it often takes time for them to lose these genes when antibiotics are withdrawn ( Lenski, 1998 ). This is because although genes that confer resistance are costly to carry, the costs are often minimal and some genes can encode for the conditional expression of resistance, so that resistance genes are only phenotypically expressed in bacteria when antibiotics are present ( Andersson and Levin, 1999 ). And although the prevalence of resistance genes typically falls over time when antibiotics are withdrawn, it takes a long time to approach 0. So when antibiotic use is resumed, even a small number of bacteria with antibiotic-resistant genes can spread rapidly within and between different bacterial populations ( Salyers and Amabile-Cuevas, 1997 ). This suggests that it may take considerable time before removing antibiotics in agriculture restores their efficacy.

While most European countries have phased out the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock over the past decade, the US and other countries have been slow to respond—presumably because there are significant upfront costs to changing the way farm animals are fed and housed, and because farmers with lobbying power fear losing market share to less scrupulous farmers in other countries who continue to use factory farming techniques that necessitate antibiotics.

Animal Cruelty and Public Policy

Philosophers argue about whether animals have rights, and if so where these rights come from. These are important arguments to have, but any plausible theory will hold that sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and frustration have interests that deserve protection. The problem is that the interests of animals and people can come into conflict. People have an interest in advancing medical research and consuming cheap protein, and animals have an interest in being able to exercise their instincts, or at least being free from gratuitous pain and frustration. When interests collide, the differences between various theories of animal rights will come to the fore. However, we can start with the assumption that any theory of animal welfare worth taking seriously will include a pro tanto obligation not to inflict cruelty on animals without sufficient justification.

Some think that rationality or consciousness is a necessary condition for moral standing. 4 Others suggest that sentience is sufficient for moral standing, so that all sentient animals deserve to have their interests protected. The claim that animals are equal in the sense of having their interests equally considered does not imply that they should be treated the same. Instead, the idea is that having an interest means that moral agents should take these interests into account when deciding what to do. The fact that a pig has interests does not imply that it should be given the right to own a home or drive a car, but rather that we should minimize unnecessary pain and frustration ( Singer, 1976 ), perhaps by according it legal rights, and by requiring farmers to abide by certain animal welfare standards.

Another view is that although a variety of qualities like rationality, sentience and empathy give animals moral standing, there is no precise combination of qualities that clearly separates animals with and without rights. Call this view pluralism. James Rachels seems to endorse this view:

There is no characteristic, or reasonably small set of characteristics, that sets some creatures apart from others as meriting respectful treatment. That is the wrong way to think about the relation between an individual’s characteristics and how he or she may be treated. Instead we have an array of characteristics and an array of treatments, with each characteristic relevant to justifying some types of treatment but not others. If an individual possesses a particular characteristic (such as the ability to feel pain), then we may have a duty to treat it in a certain way (not to torture it), even if that same individual does not possess other characteristics (such as autonomy) that would mandate other sorts of treatment (refraining from coercion). [ Rachels, 2004 : 169].

Some find this view unsatisfying because it fails to draw clear lines or to list off a single set of obligations that we owe to all creatures with moral standing. But the fact that our moral universe is more complicated than we would like it to be does not imply that pluralism is false. Regardless of their differences, pluralists like Rachels and consequentialists like Singer agree that farm animals should be guaranteed minimally decent treatment, and that using them as mere means to our ends is wrong.

Animals used for food are treated differently around the world, and even Western countries offer different protections. For example, while the European Union (EU) has robust anti-cruelty laws that apply to all member states, the US federal government affords no protection at all to animals raised for food. The US Animal Welfare Act passed in 1966 exempts most animals that humans come into contact with from protection against cruelty:

Farm animals, such as domestic cattle, horses, sheep, swine and goats that are used for traditional, production agricultural purposes are exempt from coverage by the AWA [emphasis added]. Traditional production agricultural purposes include use as food and fiber, for improvement of animal nutrition, breeding, management or production efficiency, or for improvement of the quality of food or fiber. 5

The federal government has delegated this responsibility to state governments, and many states have created animal welfare laws designed primarily to protect the interests of meat producers, and companion animals like dogs and cats, while excluding farm animals of similar or greater sentience from similar protection. Most states make it difficult to prosecute violations of animal welfare laws, and have relatively weak anti-cruelty provisions, which count a practice as unacceptably cruel only if it violates existing practices.

According to Wolfson and Sullivan,

In a rapidly growing trend, as farming practices have become more and more industrialized and possibly less and less acceptable to the average person, the farmed-animal industry has persuaded the majority of state legislatures to actually amend their criminal anticruelty statutes to simply exempt all ‘accepted’, ‘customary’ or ‘normal’ farming practices ( Wolfson and Sullivan, 2004 : 212).

These provisions would be considered outrageous if applied to humans. Imagine a world in which some humans are considered the property of others, and the question is how the property owners should be allowed to treat their subjects. Some owners argue that it would be costly to improve the already awful standards, so we should only regard acts as cruel if they violate practices that already exist. While there are clear differences between human and non-human animals, defining morally acceptable practices by reference to whatever is currently done is morally perverse, and it precludes virtually any improvement in existing standards.

In recent years, some states have extended more protection to farm animals. For example, in 2008, California voters passed the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which requires that ‘calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.’ 6 While this is a slight step forward, it may also induce farmers to move to other states to continue their cruel but cost-saving practices. States like Nevada have made significant efforts to lure farmers out of California. 7

In contrast to the US (and much of the rest of the world), the EU has enacted strong protections for farm animals, and some individual states have passed laws that exceed these standards. For example, while the entire EU has banned the use of gestation crates for pigs and battery cages for hens, Germany has banned cages and crates for all farm animals. In Germany, farmers are required to raise hens in large barnlike aviaries, to allow other animals to move around with some degree of freedom, and to have straw or grass bedding, rather than sleeping on concrete floors surrounded by metal cages ( Wolfson and Sullivan, 2004 ).

An advantage of the EU’s approach to animal welfare is that it establishes minimally acceptable requirements that states and farmers are free to exceed. Therefore, it reduces the collective action problem in which farmers who would prefer to provide an enriched environment for animals fear that other farmers will exploit this concern by using cheaper techniques that externalize the moral costs of production.

It might be argued that if people are concerned about the treatment of animals, or the threat of zoonotic epidemics and antibiotic resistance, they should change their consumption rather than using the power of the state to force producers to alter their production practices. While I agree that people who understand the costs of factory farming have a moral obligation to change the way they shop for meat (for example, to look for labels like ‘certified humane’ and ‘free range’), and that some people who do not understand the moral issues surrounding factory farming are culpably ignorant and have an obligation to familiarize themselves with the issues, I do not think we should simply assume that consumers will voluntarily change their habits.

First, some ignorance of morally repugnant practices is, in the economic sense, rational. Because we have limited time, and information is costly to gather and process, consumers are often rationally ignorant about how their actions and consumption choices affect other people and animals. It is difficult, and arguably undesirable from a social standpoint, to expect consumers to know everything about how the products they consume are made. In fact, this is the point of prices in a well-functioning market: consumers and producers do not need to understand how everything is made to act in ways that tend to make others better off ( Hayek, 1945 ). But this is only true when prices capture most of the costs and benefits generated in producing pencils and paperclips, and other consumer goods. When milk and meat are produced in such a way that the costs to people and animals are not factored into the price of production, we are not necessarily better off, and our ignorance can lead us to make choices that we would not make if we were aware of the harm they impose on others.

Second, the core function of a liberal government is to produce public goods and prevent people from imposing unwarranted harms on each other. Giving people the discretion to consume factory-farmed foods allows them to inflict cruelty on animals, and to inflict significant health costs—even death—on other people. While the harm to animals is direct, the harm to other people is probabilistic and diffuse. Each person’s consumption of meat from factory-farmed animals merely contributes to a process that significantly elevates the risk of harm to other people in the form of antibiotic-resistant infections, or new viral infections that arise in birds and pigs.

Since some people will continue to consume factory-farmed products because it is cheaper than the alternatives, or because they are ignorant of the harms associated with these products, we cannot rely solely on social norms and moral outrage to drive farmers to alter their practices, nor can we rely on farmers to voluntarily phase out factory farming, as most farmers who act this way will be driven out of business by less altruistic competitors. 8 Instead, governments should require factory farmers to change the way they raise animals.

An obvious starting point is for the rest of the world to follow the EU in banning the use of battery cages for hens (which typically involve stuffing half a dozen hens into cages so crowded they can barely move) and gestation crates for veal and sows. By requiring farmers to use straw or other bedding for animals and increase roaming space and access to fresh air, we can marginally increase their comfort and decrease the stress that leads to compromised immunity. This alone would significantly increase welfare and reduce the risk of zoonotic viral infections. It would also reduce the need to administer antibiotics to prevent infections brought on by crowding.

The US should also follow Europe in banning the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics to promote growth in farm animals ( Lessing, 2010 ), and should tax the use of antibiotics for therapeutic purposes, using the revenue to fund research into new vaccines and new antibiotics ( Vagsholm and Hojgard, 2010 ; Anomaly, 2013 ). One study suggests that when we tax pollution—in this case, the use of antibiotics that leads to antibiotic resistance—and use the revenue generated from the tax to address the source of pollution or compensate victims, public support for the tax increases ( Kallbekken et al. , 2011 ). It is also arguably more efficient and fair to tax practices that produce social costs rather than activities that are socially beneficial ( Anomaly, 2010 ).

At the very least, the US and other countries should prohibit the use of all medically important antibiotics when they are used simply for the purposes of growth promotion, or as a way of compensating for crowded and unhealthy conditions on factory farms. This is what the US Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act proposes, although even if it eventually passes, there is some worry that it may not go far enough because sometimes resistance to non-medically important antibiotics can also confer resistance to medically important ones. 9 Because we share a microbial environment, the overuse of antibiotics aimed at particular bacteria can increase the prevalence of antibiotic resistance among other bacteria that are likely to affect human health. Thus, instead of allowing farmers to decide on the kind and quantity of antibiotics to give to their animals, we might at least require veterinary oversight. Allowing farmers to administer antibiotics indiscriminately is tantamount to allowing them to decide how much harm they would like to inflict on other people.

One potential problem with banning antibiotics for growth promotion, and requiring veterinary supervision and prescription for administering antibiotics to sick animals (or as prophylaxis for potentially sick animals), is that farmers might pressure veterinarians to prescribe antibiotics when they are not really needed. More plausibly, in the absence of other requirements like increased roaming space, farmers might actually need antibiotics for sick animals—not because animals naturally get sick a lot, but because the conditions on factory farms ensure that animals will be infected with pathogenic bacteria. 10 This suggests the need to impose a complementary package of requirements on farmers that both improves animal welfare and decreases the transmission of disease.

It is impossible to say with precision what the total cost of imposing new requirements on farmers would be. If the cost was large, this could be a real loss for people with less income. But the argument from cost is not decisive.

Evidence from Europe indicates that the cost of complying with more stringent rules may not be as high as farmers anticipate. For example, in Denmark, the extra cost so far of implementing standards that increase animal welfare and decrease antibiotic use is estimated at $1 per pig ( Wegener, 2003b : 448). It is likely that forcing farmers in the US and China to switch from intensive methods would impose greater costs, as both countries currently use much more confinement and antibiotics than Denmark ever did. The problem with estimating the cost of changing methods is that organizations representing animal welfare advocates and factory farmers give different estimates, and it is too early to know precisely how new provisions in Europe and California will impact prices, as they are just beginning to come into effect.

Another reason to think the argument from cost is not decisive is that although meat has been a cheap and sometimes necessary source of high-value protein for humans throughout much of our history, a nutritionally adequate diet does not require the consumption of meat, and certainly does not require the amount of meat consumed by people living in Japan or the US ( Smil, 2013 ).

Finally, when the relative price of meat increases, markets will reward research into synthetically created meat, derived from stem cells, which may eventually be healthier and cheaper than ‘naturally’ created meat. 11

The argument that phasing out factory farming would unfairly harm the poor by increasing the cost of meat is not a sufficient reason for failing to act. Many poor people around the world would still be able to consume humanely raised animal products, and people in destitute poverty may have to turn to grains and legumes for most of their protein (as they already do). But being forced by circumstance to consume less meat than one would like does not give people the right to consume or produce food in a way that inflicts unwarranted harm on other people or animals.

1. According to the EPA, a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is a farm in which ‘animals are kept and raised in confined situations. CAFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields or on rangeland.’ http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7 [accessed 10 October 2013].

2. For a more thorough description of conditions on factory farms, see Singer and Mason, The Way We Eat ( 2006 ), the HBO documentary, Death on a Factory Farm (2009), and Wolfson and Sullivan, ‘Foxes in the Henhouse’ ( 2004 ).

3. My point here is more about the degree of animal confinement, or stocking density, rather than the size of the farming operation. It may be that larger animal farms that enclose the animals from contact with wildlife are safer, and make disease surveillance more cost-effective, than backyard chicken or pig farms.

4. Immanuel Kant is generally thought to have held this view, although he did acknowledge indirect duties toward non-rational animals.

5. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.php?policy=17 [accessed 10 January 2014].

6. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_2,_Standards_for_Confining_Farm_Animals_%282008%29 [accessed 10 January 2014].

7. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB126334191947626965 . Wall Street Journal [accessed 26 November 2013].

8. The biggest flaw in current US policy is that it sets recommendations rather than binding requirements for farmers to limit their use of antibiotics, and to alter their practices to increase animal health ( United States Government Accountability Office, 2011 ).

9. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1150 [accessed 10 January 2014].

10. There is some evidence that in Denmark, where non-therapeutic antibiotics were banned in 2000, farmers have steadily increased the use of antibiotics for therapeutic purposes, although net use is still down significantly ( United States Government Accountability Office, 2011 : 40). This problem could be minimized by requiring veterinary prescription, and by imposing modest taxes or fees on the use of antimicrobials. If the taxes were too high, this might lead to an increase in easily preventable animal suffering. But even a modest tax could deter superfluous use, force farmers to keep animals in better conditions and raise revenue for research into alternatives to existing practices, including the development of new kinds or classes of antibiotics.

11. The latest version of synthetic meat is being bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2384715/At-tastes-meat–Worlds-test-tube-artificial-beef-Googleburger-gets-GOOD-review-eaten-time.html [accessed 21 September 2013].

• Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials. Analysis of Antibiotic Misuse in US Food Animals. 2010. available from http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/newsletter_33_3555326098.pdf [accessed 21 September 2013] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersson D I, Levin B R. The Biological Cost of Antibiotic Resistance. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 1999; 2 :489–493. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anomaly J. Collective Action and Individual Choice: Rethinking How We Regulate Narcotics and Antibiotics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2013; 39 :752–756. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anomaly J. Combating Resistance: The Case for a Global Antibiotics Treaty. Public Health Ethics. 2010; 3 :13–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bick J. Infection Control in Jails and Prisons. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2007; 45 :1047–1055. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey J, Curriero F C, Cosgrove S E, Nachman K E, Schwartz B S. High-Density Livestock Operations, Crop Field Application of Manure, and Risk of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Infection in Pennsylvania . JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013; 173 :1980–1990. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collignon P, Aarestrup F M, Irwin R, McEwen S. Human Deaths and Third-Generation Cephalosporin Use in Poultry, Europe. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2013; 19 :1339–1340. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford D. The Invisible Enemy: A Natural History of Viruses. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford D. Deadly Companions: How Microbes Shaped Our History. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Delcour A. Outer Membrane Permeability and Antibiotic Resistance. Biochima et Biophysica Acta. 2009; 1794 :808–816. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorbach S. Antimicrobial Use in Animal Feed—Time to Stop. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2001; 345 :1202–1203. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greger M. The Human/Animal Interface: Emergence and Resurgence of Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 2007; 33 :243–299. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayek F. The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review. 1945; 35 :519–530. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kallbekken S, Kroll S, Cherry T. Do You Not Like Pigou, or Do You Not Understand Him? Revenue Recycling in the Lab. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2011; 62 :53–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar A, Schweizer H P. Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics: Active Efflux and Reduced Uptake. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2005; 57 :1486–1513. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenski R. Bacterial Evolution and the Cost of Antibiotic Resistance. International. Microbiology. 1998; 1 :265–270. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lessing A. Killing Us Softly: How Sub-Therapeutic Dosing of Livestock Causes Drug-Resistant Bacteria in Humans. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 2010; 37 :463–491. [ Google Scholar ]
• McEwen S A, Fedorka-Cray P J. Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Animals. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2002; 34 (Suppl. 3):93–106. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachels J. Drawing Lines. Foxes in the Henhouse. In: Nussbaum M, Sunstein C, editors. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salyers A A, Amabile-Cuevas C F. Why Are Antibiotic Resistance Genes so Resistant to Elimination? Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1997; 41 :2321–2325. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt C. Swine CAFOs & Novel H1N1 Flu. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2009; 117 :394–401. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation. In: Regan T, editor. Animal Rights and. Human Obligations. London, UK: Pearson Publishing; 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P, Mason J. The Way We Eat. New York City: Rodale Publishing; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer R. Antibiotic Resistance—The Interplay between Antibiotic Use in Animals and Human Beings. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2003; 3 :47–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smil V. Should we Eat Meat? Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Undurraga D. 2013. Superbugs Invade Supermarkets. Environmental Working. Group. available at http://static.ewg.org/reports/2013/meateaters/ewg_meat_and_antibiotics_report2013.pdf [accessed 15 September 2013] [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Government Accountability Office. 2011. Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies. Have Made Limited Progress Addressing Antibiotic Resistance in Animals. available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-801 [accessed 21 September 2013] [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic Resistance. Threats in the United States. 2013. available at http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf [accessed 21 September 2013] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vagsholm I, Hojgard S. Antimicrobial Sensitivity—A Natural Resource to be Protected by a Pigouvian Tax? Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2010; 96 :9–18. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wegener H. Antibiotic Resistance—The Interplay between Antibiotic Use in Animals and Human Beings. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2003a; 3 :47–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wegener H. Ending the Use of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters is Making a Difference. American Society for Microbiology News. 2003b; 69 :443–448. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolfson D, Sullivan M. Foxes in the Henhouse. In: Nussbaum M, Sunstein C, editors. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright G D. Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics: Enzymatic Degradation and Modification. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2005; 57 :1451–1470. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

The End of Factory Farming Alternatives to Improve Sustainability, Safety, and Health

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Photo by Jo-Anne McArthur on Unsplash

The UK-based campaign group Scrap Factory Farming has launched a legal challenge against industrial animal agriculture; the challenge is in the process of judicial review. While a fringe movement, Scrap Factory Farming has already accrued some serious backers, including the legal team of Michael Mansfield QC. The premise is that factory farming is a danger not just to animals or the environment but also to human health. According to its stated goals, governments should be given until 2025 to phase out industrialized “concentrated animal feeding organizations” (CAFOs) in favor of more sustainable and safer agriculture. This paper will discuss the bioethical issues involved in Scrap Factory Farming’s legal challenge and argue that an overhaul of factory farming is long overdue.

INTRODUCTION

A CAFO is a subset of animal feeding operations that has a highly concentrated animal population. CAFOs house at least 1000 beef cows, 2500 pigs, or 125,000 chickens for at least 45 days a year. The animals are often confined in pens or cages to use minimal energy, allowing them to put on as much weight as possible in as short a time. The animals are killed early relative to their total lifespans because the return on investment (the amount of meat produced compared to animal feed) is a curve of diminishing returns. CAFOs’ primary goal is efficiency: fifty billion animals are “processed” in CAFOs every year.

The bioethical questions raised by CAFOs include whether it is acceptable to kill the animals, and if so, under what circumstances, whether the animals have rights, and what animal welfare standards should apply. While there are laws and standards in place, they tend to reflect the farm lobby and fail to consider broader animal ethics.

Another critical issue applicable to industrial animal agriculture is the problem of the just distribution of scarce resources. There is a finite amount of food that the world can produce, which is, for the moment, approximately enough to go around. [1] The issue is how it goes around. Despite there being enough calories and nutrients on the planet to give all a comfortable life, these calories and nutrients are distributed such that there is excess and waste in much of the global North and rampant starvation and malnutrition in the global South. The problem of distribution can be solved in two ways: either by efficient and just distribution or by increasing net production (either increase productivity or decrease waste) so that even an inefficient and unjust distribution system will probably meet the minimum nutritional standards for all humans. This essay explores four bioethical fields (animal ethics, climate ethics, workers’ rights, and just distribution) as they relate to current industrial agriculture and CAFOs.

l.     Animal Ethics

Two central paradigms characterize animal ethics: welfarism and animal rights. These roughly correspond to the classical frameworks of utilitarianism and deontology. Welfarists [2] hold the common-sense position that animals must be treated well and respected as individuals but do not have inalienable rights in the same ways as humans. A typical welfare position might be, “ I believe that animals should be given the best life possible, but there is no inherent evil in using animals for food, so long as they are handled and killed humanely .” Animal rights theorists and activists, on the other hand, would say, “ I believe non-human animals should be given the best lives possible, but we should also respect certain rights of theirs analogous to human rights: they should never be killed for food, experimented upon, etc. ”

Jeremy Bentham famously gave an early exposition of the animal rights case: “The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? , but Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”

Those who take an animal welfare stance have grounds to oppose the treatment of animals in CAFOs as opposed to more traditional grass-fed animal agriculture. CAFOs cannot respect the natural behaviors or needs of animals who evolved socially for millions of years in open plains. If more space was allowed per animal or more time for socialization and other positive experiences in the animal’s life, the yield of the farm would drop. This is not commercially viable in a competitive industry like animal agriculture; thus, there is very little incentive for CAFOs to treat animals well. Rampant abuse is documented. [3] Acts of cruelty are routine: pigs often have teeth pulled and tails docked because they often go mad in their conditions and attempt to cannibalize each other; chickens have their beaks clipped to avoid them pecking at each other, causing immense pain; cows and bulls have their horns burned off to avoid them damaging others (as this damages the final meat product, too); male chicks that hatch in the egg industry are ground up in a macerator, un-anaesthetized, in the first 24 hours of their life as they will not go on to lay eggs.

These practices vary widely among factory farms and among jurisdictions. Yet, arguably, the welfare of animals cannot be properly respected because all CAFOs fundamentally see animals as mere products-in-the-making instead of the complex, sentient, and emotional individuals science has repeatedly shown them to be. [4]

ll.     Climate Ethics

The climate impact of farming animals is increasingly evident. Around 15-20 percent of human-made emissions come from animal agriculture. [5] and deforestation to create space for livestock grazing or growing crops to feed farm animals. An average quarter-pound hamburger uses up to six kilograms of feed, causes 66 square feet of deforestation, and uses up to 65 liters of water, with around 4kg of carbon emissions to boot – a majority of which come from the cattle themselves (as opposed to food processing or food miles). [6] According to environmentalist George Monbiot, “Even if you shipped bananas six times around the planet, their impact would be lower than local beef and lamb.” [7] The disparity between the impact of animal and plant-based produce is stark.

Not all animal products are created equally. Broadly, there are two ways to farm animals: extensive or intensive farming. Extensive animal farming might be considered a “traditional” way of farming: keeping animals in large fields, as naturally as possible, often rotating them between different areas to not overgraze any one pasture. However, its efficiency is much lower than intensive farming – the style CAFOs use. Intensive animal farming is arguably more environmentally efficient. That is, CAFOs produce more output per unit of natural resource input than extensive systems do. However, environmental efficiency is relative rather than absolute, as the level of intensive animal agriculture leads to large-scale deforestation to produce crops for factory-farmed animals. CAFOs are also point-sources of pollution from the massive quantities of animal waste produced – around 1,000,000 tons per day in the US alone, triple the amount of all human waste produced per day – which has significant negative impacts on human health in the surrounding areas. [8]

The environmental impacts of CAFOs must be given serious ethical consideration using new frameworks in climate ethics and bioethics. One example of a land ethic to guide thinking in this area is that “[it] is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” [9] It remains to be seen whether CAFOs can operate in a way that respects and preserves “integrity, stability, and beauty” of their local ecosystem, given the facts above.  The pollution CAFOs emit affects the surrounding areas. Hog CAFOs are built disproportionately around predominantly minority communities in North Carolina where poverty rates are high. [10] Animal waste carries heavy metals, infectious diseases, and antibiotic-resistant pathogens into nearby water sources and houses.

lll.     Workers’ Rights

The poor treatment of slaughterhouse workers has been documented in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic, where, despite outbreaks of coronavirus among workers, the White House ordered that they remain open to maintain the supply of meat. The staff of slaughterhouses in the US is almost exclusively people with low socioeconomic status, ethnic minorities, and migrants. [11] Almost half of frontline slaughterhouse workers are Hispanic, and a quarter is Black. Additionally, half are immigrants, and a quarter comes from families with limited English proficiency. An eighth live in poverty, with around 45 percent below 200 percent of the poverty line. Only one-in-forty has a college degree or more, while one-in-six lacks health insurance. Employee turnover rates are around 200 percent per year. [12]

Injuries are very common in the fast-moving conveyor belt environment with sharp knives, machinery, and a crowd of workers. OSHA found 17 cases of hospitalizations, two body part amputations per week, and loss of an eye every month in the American industrial meat industry. This is three times the workplace accident rate of the average American worker across all industries. Beef and pork workers are likely to suffer repetitive strain at seven times the rate of the rest of the population. One worker told the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that “every co-worker I know has been injured at some point… I can attest that the line speeds are already too fast to keep up with. Please, I am asking you not to increase them anymore.” [13]

Slaughterhouses pose a major risk to public health from zoonotic disease transmission. 20 percent of slaughterhouse workers interviewed in Kenya admit to slaughtering sick animals, which greatly increases the risk of transmitting disease either to a worker further down the production line or a consumer at the supermarket. [14]

Moreover, due to poor hygienic conditions and high population density, animals in CAFOs are overfed with antibiotics. Over two-thirds of all antibiotics globally are given to animals in agriculture, predicted to increase by 66 percent by 2030. [15] The majority of these animals do not require antibiotics; their overuse creates a strong and consistent selection pressure on any present bacterial pathogens that leads to antibiotic resistance that could create devastating cross-species disease affecting even humans. The World Health Organization predicts that around 10 million humans per year could die of antibiotic-resistant diseases by 2050. [16] Many of these antibiotics are also necessary for human medical interventions, so antibiotics in animals have a tremendous opportunity cost.

The final concern is that of zoonosis itself. A zoonotic disease is any disease that crosses the species boundary from animals to humans. According to the United Nations, 60 percent of all known infections and 75 percent of all emerging infections are zoonotic. [17] Many potential zoonoses are harbored in wild animals (particularly when wild animals are hunted and sold in wet markets) because of the natural biodiversity. However, around a third of zoonoses originate in domesticated animals, which is a huge proportion given the relative lack of diversity of the animals we choose to eat. Q fever, or “query fever,” is an example of a slaughterhouse-borne disease. Q fever has a high fatality rate when untreated that decreases to “just” 2 percent with appropriate treatment. [18] H1N1 (swine flu) and H5N1 (bird flu) are perhaps the most famous examples of zoonoses associated with factory farming.

lV.     Unjust Distribution

The global distribution of food can cause suffering. According to research commissioned by the BBC, the average Ethiopian eats around seven kilograms of meat per year, and the average Rwandan eats eight. [19] This is a factor of ten smaller than the average European, while the average American clocks in at around 115 kilograms of meat per year. In terms of calories, Eritreans average around 1600kcal per day while most Europeans ingest double that. Despite enough calories on the planet to sustain its population, 25,000 people worldwide starve to death each day, 40 percent of whom are children.

There are two ways to address the unjust distribution: efficient redistribution and greater net production, which are not mutually exclusive. Some argue that redistribution will lead to lower net productivity because it disincentivizes labor; [20] others argue that redistribution is necessary to respect human rights of survival and equality. [21] Instead of arguing this point, I will focus on people’s food choices and their effect on both the efficiency and total yield of global agriculture, as these are usually less discussed.

Regardless of the metric used, animals always produce far fewer calories and nutrients (protein, iron, zinc, and all the others) than we feed them. This is true because of the conservation of mass. They cannot feasibly produce more , as they burn off and excrete much of what they ingest. The exact measurement of the loss varies based on the metric used. When compared to live weight, cows consume somewhere around ten times their weight. When it comes to actual edible weight, they consume up to 25 times more than we can get out of them. Cows are only around one percent efficient in terms of calorific production and four percent efficient in protein production. Poultry is more efficient, but we still lose half of all crops we put into them by weight and get out only a fifth of the protein and a tenth of the calories fed to them. [22] Most other animals lie somewhere in the middle of these two in terms of efficiency, but no animal is ever as efficient as eating plants before they are filtered through animals in terms of the nutritional value available to the world. Due to this inefficiency, it takes over 100 square meters to produce 1000 calories of beef or lamb compared to just 1.3 square meters to produce the same calories from tofu. [23]

The food choices in the Western world, where we eat so much more meat than people eat elsewhere, are directly related to a reduction in the amount of food and nutrition in the rest of the world. The most influential theory of justice in recent times is John Rawls’ Original Position wherein stakeholders in an idealized future society meet behind a “veil of ignorance” to negotiate policy, not knowing the role they will play in that society. There is an equal chance of each policymaker ending up poverty-stricken or incredibly privileged; therefore, each should negotiate to maximize the outcome of all citizens, especially those worst-off in society, known as the “maximin” strategy. In this hypothetical scenario, resource distribution would be devised to be as just as possible and should therefore sway away from animal consumption. 

Evidence is growing that animals of all sorts, including fish and certain invertebrates, feel pain in ways that people are increasingly inclined to respect, though still, climate science is more developed and often inspires more public passion than animal rights do. Workers’ rights and welfare in slaughterhouses have become mainstream topics of conversation because of the outbreaks of COVID-19 in such settings. Environmentalists note overconsumption in high-income countries, also shining a light on the starvation of much of the low-income population of the world.

At the intersection of these bioethical issues lies the modern CAFO, significantly contributing to animal suffering, climate change, poor working conditions conducive to disease, and unjust distribution of finite global resources (physical space and crops). It is certainly time to move away from the CAFO model of agriculture to at least a healthy mixture of extensive agriculture and alternative (non-animal) proteins.

[1] Berners-Lee M, Kennelly C, Watson R, Hewitt CN; Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation.  Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene. 6:52 , 2018. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.310

[2] : Lund TB, Kondrup SV, Sandøe P. A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation – Developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211656. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0211656

[3] Fiber-Ostrow P & Lovell JS. Behind a veil of secrecy: animal abuse, factory farms, and Ag-Gag legislation, Contemporary Justice Review, 19:2, p230-249. 2016. DOI:  10.1080/10282580.2016.1168257

[4] Jones RC. Science, sentience, and animal welfare.  Biol Philos  28, p1–30 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9351-1

[5] Twine R. Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure. Sustainability, 13, 6276. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13116276

[6] Capper JL. "Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems"  Animals  2, no. 2: 127-143. 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2020127

[7] Monbiot, George. “In Trying to Reduce the Impact of Our Diets, … Their Impact Would Be Lower than Local Beef and Lamb.” Twitter , Twitter, 24 Jan. 2020, twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1220691168012460032.

[8] Copeland C. Resources, Science, and Industry Division. "Animal waste and water quality: EPA regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)." Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, 2006.

[9] Leopold A. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. 1949.

[10] Nicole W. “CAFOs and environmental justice: the case of North Carolina.”  Environmental health perspectives  vol. 121:6. 2013: A182-9. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.121-a182

[11] Fremstad S, Brown H, Rho HJ. CEPR’s Analysis of American Community Survey, 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. 2020. Accessed 08/06/21 at https://cepr.net/meatpacking-workers-are-a-diverse-group-who-need-better-protections

[12] Broadway, MJ. "Planning for change in small towns or trying to avoid the slaughterhouse blues." Journal of Rural Studies 16:1. P37-46. 2000.

[13] Wasley A. The Guardian. 2018. Accessed 08/06/2021 at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/05/amputations-serious-injuries-us-meat-industry-plant

[14] Cook EA, de Glanville WA, Thomas LF, Kariuki S, Bronsvoort BM, Fèvre EM. Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in western Kenya. BMC Public Health. 17(1):14. 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3923-y.

[15] Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, Teillant A, Laxminarayan R.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2015, 112 (18) 5649-5654; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503141112

[16] Resistance, IICGoA. "No Time to Wait: Securing the future from drug-resistant infections."  Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations : p1-36. 2019.

[17] Espinosa R, Tago D, Treich N. Infectious Diseases and Meat Production.  Environ Resource Econ  76,   p1019–1044. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00484-3

[18] “Q Fever Fact Sheet.” Pennsylvania Department of Health, 4 Jan. 2003. https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Documents/Diseases%20and%20Conditions/Q%20Fever%20.pdf

[19] Ritchie, Hannah. “Which Countries Eat the Most Meat?” BBC News , BBC, 4 Feb. 2019, www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47057341.

[20] Reynolds, Alan. “The Fundamental Fallacy of Redistribution.” Cato.org , 11 Feb. 2016, 1:22 pm, www.cato.org/blog/fundamental-fallacy-redistribution.

[21] Patricia Justino Professor and Senior Research Fellow. “Welfare Works: Redistribution Is the Way to Create Less Violent, Less Unequal Societies.” The Conversation , 20 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/welfare-works-redistribution-is-the-way-to-create-less-violent-less-unequal-societies-128807.

[22] Cassidy E, et al, “Redefining Agricultural Yields: From Tonnes to People Nourished Per Hectare.” Environmental Research Letters, V. 8(3), p2-3. IOPScience. 2013, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034015

[23] Poore J, Nemecek T.  Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers .  Science , 360(6392), p987-992. 2018.

Rory Cockshaw

MS Natural Sciences Candidate University of Cambridge

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

2021 Articles

The End of Factory Farming: Alternatives to Improve Sustainability, Safety, and Health

Cockshaw, Rory

The UK-based campaign group Scrap Factory Farming has launched a legal challenge against industrial animal agriculture; the challenge is in the process of judicial review. While a fringe movement, Scrap Factory Farming has already accrued some serious backers, including the legal team of Michael Mansfield QC. The premise is that factory farming is a danger not just to animals or the environment but also to human health. According to its stated goals, governments should be given until 2025 to phase out industrialized “concentrated animal feeding organizations” (CAFOs) in favor of more sustainable and safer agriculture. This paper will discuss the bioethical issues involved in Scrap Factory Farming’s legal challenge and argue that an overhaul of factory farming is long overdue.

• Medical ethics
• Bioethics--Philosophy

Also Published In

More about this work.

Agriculture, Animal Ethics, Animal Rights, Climate, Factory Farming, Sustainability

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

‘Factory farming’? Public perceptions of farm sizes and sustainability in animal farming

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Current address: Food Consumption and Wellbeing, Department of Sustainable Agriculture and Energy Systems, University of Applied Sciences Weihenstephan-Triesdorf, Freising, Germany

Affiliation Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

• Gesa Busch, 
• Elisa Bayer, 
• Achim Spiller, 

• Published: October 28, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032
• Reader Comments

Farm sizes play an important role in increasing public debates surrounding the sustainability of agriculture, specifically of animal farming. While research cannot find consistent relationships between sustainability and farm sizes, the ‘small-is-beautiful’-hypothesis remains still prominent in public perceptions. The aim of this study is to deeply analyze public associations coming with small and large farms with a focus on sustainability issues, including animal welfare. We additionally consider the memory of media reporting on farms with different sizes, wishes for legal regulations on farm and herd sizes, and the persuasiveness of scientific results that disentangle farm size from sustainability aspects. To answer these questions, an online survey with 985 German residents was conducted in May 2021 and descriptively analyzed. Although the attribute ‘small numbers of animals’ range among the less important ones that constitute an ‘ideal animal farm’ (rank 10 of 12 attributes), the large majority of participants (75.8%) reveal a preference for small over large animal farms. This is backed up by the perception that small farms are advantageous in terms of good animal welfare, environmental protection and product quality, but disadvantaged when it comes to profitability. Additionally, negative media reporting on animal farms (remembered by 92%) is more frequently related to large farms (82.5%) whereas positive media reporting (remembered by 81.4%) are mainly linked to small farms by 56.8%. More than half of respondents wish for regulations that limit farm and barn sizes. Scientific results finding no relationship between farm size and animal protection or climate protection are convincing for only 33.0% and 39.8% of the sample, respectively. A large farm size acts as a proxy for farming systems with low animal welfare and conservation levels. This challenges communications about the future of farming with the public as it can be assumed that farm sizes will further increase.

Author summary

In public discussions, farm size is often mentioned as an important factor for good animal welfare and high environmental protection in animal farming. Scientific findings contrast this ‘small-is-beautiful’ perceptions by not finding such simple relationships. In this study, we analyze peoples’ associations with farm sizes in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms of preferences for small farms. We could find that farm size is used by people from the broader public as proxy for good animal welfare and environmental protection on farms. It is not farm size per se that is perceived as important and sustainability aspects are more important but large farms are associated to consider sustainability less and focus more on profit on the expense of sustainable practices. Our findings point to a challenge in the communication of future sustainable farming systems that might rely on larger operations due to their advantages in terms of technology adaption, professionalism and economies of scale.

Citation: Busch G, Bayer E, Spiller A, Kühl S (2022) ‘Factory farming’? Public perceptions of farm sizes and sustainability in animal farming. PLOS Sustain Transform 1(10): e0000032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032

Editor: Amanda E. Sorensen, Michigan State University, UNITED STATES

Received: April 4, 2022; Accepted: September 21, 2022; Published: October 28, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Busch et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data are available in Figshare public data repository under DOI: dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19493783 .

Funding: We are grateful to the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) and Federal Programme for Organic Farming and Other Forms of Sustainable Agriculture (BÖLN) for financing this study in the project: “Improving social acceptance of organic livestock systems – Analysis of public expectations and development of trust marketing concepts” (grant number 2818OE097 to AS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1 Introduction

In recent years, the sustainability of agriculture including livestock farming is highly debated in many countries public and politics such as in Germany or the Netherlands. This leads to pressure on farmers to transform the sector towards more sustainability under insecurity, resulting in discontent and even protest [ 1 , 2 ]. Farm size plays an important role in public discussions surrounding agriculture and critiques on livestock farming [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. The public often perceives large-scale farming as being detrimental for animal welfare and achieving lower sustainability levels [ 5 – 8 ]. Contrastingly, scientific studies show that farm size is not a good indicator for sustainability [ 4 , 9 – 12 ]. Both large as well as small farms have their advantages and disadvantages concerning sustainability aspects. For example, biodiversity decreases as the size of the cropland plots increases [ 13 , 14 ] and large-scale dairy farms manage less grasslands, resulting in higher pesticide use [ 15 ]. At the same time, large farms usually show clear advantages in productivity and efficiency per production unit [ 3 , 16 – 18 ], financial outcome [ 3 , 16 , 18 ] and contribute to low food prizes due to economies of scale [ 19 ]. They are further more advantageous because of specialization, which favors high levels of knowledge [ 20 , 21 ], and the development of modern technologies i.a. those that have the potential to reduce the use of pesticides [ 16 ]. Small family farms in Germany are not generally more sustainable compared to larger farms [ 22 ]. Although slightly more production diversification is observed, small farms are likely to cultivate somewhat more monoculture, a little more bare soils during winter and slightly less conservation of structural elements in crop lands such as hedges, walls and trees, probably due to higher scarcity of land and increased economic pressure [ 22 ]. However, small farms may favor a more diverse agriculture [ 23 ], support local food availability [ 24 ], are more flexible in implementing new forms of agriculture such as the concept of Community Supported Agriculture [ 25 ] and provide space for endangered livestock breeds and varieties. Some argue that ‘small pioneers’ may be more likely to make an important contribution to the sustainable transitioning of a sector [ 26 ] which would also make small farms more advantageously.

Looking at animal welfare levels, a literature review [ 21 ] shows that farm size is not the decisive factor for animal welfare. It is rather the type of husbandry system and farm management that plays an important role [ 5 , 11 , 21 , 27 , 28 ]. In addition, farmers’ behavior and attitudes towards the animals affect the human-animal relationship more than herd size [ 29 ]. However, large farms may be more specialized which can be beneficial for good management [ 20 ]. Contrastingly, practices like access to pasture that benefit animal welfare tend to decrease with increasing farm size [ 15 , 21 ]. Additionally, large-scale livestock farms bear a higher risk to impair welfare of a higher number of animals at once in the event of disasters such as stable fires, disease outbreaks or bad management.

Thus, there is no clear evidence on the overall effect of farm size towards sustainability and animal welfare. However, since many years the ‘small is beautiful’-hypotheses shapes public discussions on agriculture and food production [ 30 ] and may bias perceptions regarding the relationship between size of operation on the one and sustainability and animal welfare on the other hand. The term ‘factory farming’ is often used to describe large operations with little welfare and low sustainability levels. In a survey with German residents in 2011, it was found that people have negative associations with the term ‘factory farming’, such as animal-abuse and cruelty, high stocking densities and diseases [ 7 ]. Regarding farm sizes, ‘factory farming’ started for many respondents with a number of animals clearly below average herd sizes in Germany [ 7 ]. Another study points into similar directions and shows that intensive livestock production is evaluated as unethical by a majority of respondents in five European countries and the most seen risks are animal stress, unnaturalness and an increased incidence of animal diseases [ 31 ]. The mentioned might contribute to why consumers prefer products from small farms, with purchase motivations similar to those for organic or locally sourced foods–especially with regard to the treatment of animals but also in terms of support for farmers [ 32 ]. Indeed, organic farms are assumed to be smaller than conventional ones and the idea of fair payment for ‘small family farms’ is an important motive for buying organic produces [ 33 ].

Nevertheless, so far, little is known about the ‘small is beautiful’-frame and what farm characteristics and associations contribute to this perception. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine how the public perceives farm sizes in animal farming and how people relate sustainability aspects and animal welfare to farm size. This is particularly important as large-scale farming is increasingly dominating agriculture in Western countries [ 24 ] and public acceptance is needed as one dimension of long-term sustainability [ 34 ]. We further investigate how convincing scientific results about disentangled farm size and sustainability aspects are for citizens. The latter is important for science communication about sustainability aspects in farming (other than size).

In this context our research questions are the following: 1) Do citizens prefer small or large animal farms and how is media reporting on animal farming and farm sizes perceived? 2) What role plays farm size in citizens’ perceptions of an ideal animal farm? 3) How are different sustainability dimensions related to farm size in public opinions? 4) Do citizens favor regulations concerning farm and herd sizes? 5) How convincing are scientific results that disentangle sustainability from farm size for citizens?

2 Material and methods

2.1 ethics approval.

The study was approved by the Ethics Commission at University of Göttingen before data collection. Participants were informed about the use of data and they provided written informed consent online. They were informed that they can withdraw consent at any time by leaving the survey through closing their internet browser.

2.2 Survey design

To answer our research questions, an online survey with 985 German residents was conducted in May 2021. The survey started with questions about gender identity, age, education, and place of residence. These questions were set as quotas according to the population in Germany. People were further asked about household income and size and what type of diet they follow. The next question asked whether participants prefer small or large farms and this question was repeated at the very end of the survey. By repeating the question at the end, we intended to measure if attitudes have changed after engaging more deeply with the topic. In a next step, participants were shown a set of attributes, including aspects related to farm size such as ‘small numbers of farmed animals’ and ‘few employees’, and were asked to indicate on five-point scales what they consider important for an ‘ideal’ animal farm they want to purchase produce from. They were also asked whether they have seen or read about positive and negative media reporting on animal farming and if yes, whether this was about small or large farms. Subsequently, participants were asked to indicate for different sustainability aspects (animal welfare, ecology, economy, social aspects) if they think these are met on small farms, large farms or independent of farm size. They were additionally asked whether there should be regulations on how many animals should be allowed per farm or per stable and if yes, how many they consider appropriate in the case of poultry, pigs and cattle. For this question, the sample was randomly split into two sub-samples in order to limit survey length. Half of the sample answered the questions for farm and the other for stable size. Questions were repeated for organic farms/stables, respectively. Finally, participants were confronted with a short text describing that scientific results do not see a clear relationship between farm sizes and animal welfare or farm sizes and conservation and climate protection. Again here, participants were randomly assigned into one of two splits, either the animal welfare or conservation/climate protection sub-sample in order to limit response times adequately.

2.3 Data collection, cleaning and analyses

Recruitment of participants was facilitated by an online panel provider. Data was collected online between May 4 th and May 8 th 2021. A total of 1,686 participants opened the link to enter the survey. 365 participants were screened out due to quota requirements, 174 participants did not pass the quality check questions, and 17 declined their consent. From the remaining 1,130 participants, 1,050 finished the survey. The median response time was 1150 seconds. Participants with a shorter response time than half of the median (575 seconds) were excluded due to speeding behavior which is related to straightlining [ 35 ]. This was true for 65 participants. The final sample for analyses consists of 985 respondents. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.

2.4 Sample description

Table 1 shows the distribution of demographics in the sample and the German population. It shows that the sample is similar to the population in terms of age, gender education and place of residency.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.t001

3.1 Preference for small vs. large farms

Fig 1 shows a majority of respondents (rather) preferring small over large farms both at the beginning as well as at the end of the survey. Participants preferring large farms constitute less than 10% of the sample. 6.1% do not know or do not care at the beginning and 3.9% after completing the survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g001

Looking at gender differences, we observe that female participants prefer small farms more compared to male participants at the beginning of the survey (mean female = 1.66; standard deviation (SD) = 0.75 and mean male = 1.88; SD = 0.87; p≤0.001; scale from 1 = “I prefer small farms” to 5 = “I prefer large farms”). At the end of the survey, these differences disappear (mean female = 1.85; SD = 1.06 and mean male = 1.89; SD = 0.77; p≥0.05) reasoned by a change in the women’s answers.

There is a weak positive correlation between age and the preference for large farms at the beginning of the survey (r = 0.10; p≤0.01), while this correlation also disappears at the end of the survey (r = -0.05; p≥0.05).

3.2 Media reports on small and large farms

Figs 2 and 3 show how many participants remember to have seen or read about animal farming in a positive or negative way on TV or in the newspaper. 92.0% of respondents indicate to already have seen a negative report about animal farming on TV or to have read a negative article in newspapers. Only 4.7% of respondents state to never have seen or read a negative reporting (3.4% do not know). From those 92.0% who already encountered negative reports, 82.5% state that it was about large farms. In total, 81.4% indicate that they have seen or read a positive report/article about agricultural husbandry on TV or in newspapers and 11.7% deny this (6.9% do not know). From those remembering a positive report, 67.2% state it was always/predominantly about small farms.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g003

3.3 Important attributes of an ideal farm

On an ideal farm, from which participants like to buy animal produce, farm size (‘small numbers of farmed animals’), range among the less important attributes, although 46.0% of respondents consider it as very or rather important ( Fig 4 ). Animal protection is considered as important by the highest share of participants (93.7%), followed by environmental protection (84.1%), location of the farm in the region (78.3%) and climate protection (78.0%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g004

3.4 Perceptions of sustainability dimensions on small and large farms

Sustainability dimensions (ecologic, animal welfare, social and economic) are perceived to be fulfilled differently depending on farm size.

Fig 5 shows how participants believe that different attributes related to ecology are fulfilled on small and large farms or independent of farm size. All aspects related to good ecology are perceived to be (rather) fulfilled on small farms. More than 80% of the sample believes that only/rather small farms are connected with nature, nearly 70% believe that only/rather small farms protect biodiversity and conserve nature. Also, more than half of the sample thinks that organic farms are (rather) small farms but around 30% consider organic farming not related to farm size. Around 40% also believe that environmental and climate protection is not depending on farm size, whereas nearly 60% trust that small farms have advantages. Whether farms comply with law is perceived as being independent from farm size by more than half of the respondents. Monoculture tend to be associated with large farms (45.4%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g005

The overwhelming majority of respondents perceives that animal welfare, care and esteem for animals are better on small farms ( Fig 6 ). Only for a few aspects, more than 20% of respondents assume that this is equally met on large farms. Animal health is the aspect where the highest share states that it is same on small and large farms (26.1%), followed by long life of animals (24.1%) and outdoor access (22.0%). But again, with high agreement, these aspects are also seen as more likely to be met on small farms.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g006

Product characteristics also differ between small and large farms, according to participants ( Fig 7 ). Naturalness of products is attributed to small farms by 83.6% and only 15.6% perceive naturalness independent of farm size. 75.5% also think that small farm products are more expensive. 66.7% assume that only/rather products from small farms are healthy, whereas 33.3% state this to be the same on small and large farms. This evaluation is similar for the taste of produce.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g007

Looking at economic sustainability, large farms are perceived as advantageous ( Fig 8 ). The majority of participants (more than 70%) believes that only/rather large farms put profit first and that these farms make a lot of money. Correspondingly, large farms are perceived by more participants as well-equipped to deal with crises and to offer farmers good financial protection compared to small farms. While half of participants believe that large farms receive many financial subsidies, nearly 40% perceive this to be the same on small and large farms. 45.0% of participants assume that good payment of employees is the same on small and large farms and 37.8% suspect this to be more the case on larger farms. 57.1% of respondents think that small and large farms are both depending on world market prices, 29.3% think this holds true more for large farms. In addition, the clear majority supposes that small farms are more likely to go out of business soon.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g008

3.5 Needs for regulations of farm sizes from a public point of view

Most of respondents felt that there is a need for regulations by law on animal numbers that should be allowed to be kept in organic as well as in a conventional stables (split a, n = 486) and on farms (split b, n = 499) (see Fig 9 ). There is no difference in respondents agreeing to a need for regulations on organic compared to conventional stables (t-value = 1.91, p = 0.06) but for farms there is a slightly higher whish for regulations on organic compared to conventional farms (t-value = 2.46, p = 0.01).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g009

Those participants that stated to be in favor of regulations were asked about the number of animals per stable or farm they think should be allowed. Fig 10 shows the results per stable and Fig 11 per farm. Displayed are the 90-percentiles. The numbers in a poultry stable should be limited to 1,000 animals in conventional, and 820 in organic stables. For pigs, a maximum of 300 conventional and 200 organic pigs should be allowed to live together. For cattle, the maximum number should be 200 for conventional, and 100 for organic cattle stables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g010

On poultry farms, a maximum of 3,000 animals for conventional, and 1,000 for organic is perceived as adequate by 90% of respondents ( Fig 11 ). In the case of pigs these numbers are a maximum of 600 for conventional and 382 for organic farms, and for cattle 500 and 250 heads per farm respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g011

3.6 Persuasion of scientific results on relationships between farm size and animal/climate protection

Participants were finally asked to read a short text about scientific findings on farm size and either animal protection or climate/environmental protection they were randomly assigned to. Fig 12 shows the results for animal protection. Around one third of participants do not perceive the scientific results that animal protection is not related to farm size as convincing, another third is undecisive and another third is convinced. The findings for trust in scientific results are similarly, with a higher share of partly/partly-answers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g012

In the case of climate and environmental protection, less people perceive the results as (rather) not convincing (21.3%) and more people are convinced (39.8%) ( Fig 13 ). The same holds true for trust in the results. In the latter case nearly half of respondents (46.0%) answer with partly/partly.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.g013

No differences between female and male participants regarding these questions could be observed. There are further no correlations between age or education and conviction as well as trust in scientific results neither for animal nor for climate/environmental protection.

4 Discussion

The public has, on average, a general preference for small farms [ 5 , 12 , 30 ]. This is supported by our findings showing that a large majority prefers small over large farms with a stronger manifestation in women, which however, converges to the mean value of men at the end of the questionnaire. Other studies also show that women are generally more critical of animal husbandry in agriculture [ 36 ]. However, the stronger alignment in a discussion of the topic, as it was the case during the survey, is a new result. It could indicate uncertainty in the initial assessment, but requires further investigation. The clear position of preferring small over large farms in general might be influenced by media reports surrounding agriculture. It is well known that media coverage influences opinion formation, e.g. in cases of scientific findings such as global warming [ 38 ] or vaccinations [ 39 ]. In case of scandals, media reporting might even influence behavior through popularizing meat scandals which lead to lower meat consumption [ 40 ]. An evaluation of reports about animal farming in German newspapers showed that the coverage is balanced between negative and positive topics [ 41 ]. This fits with the results of a survey in Germany [ 42 ] showing that reporting on agriculture is perceived as balanced by the public. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evaluation that considers farm size in reporting. Thus, our study is the first taking farm size systematically into account when analyzing people’s perceptions of media reports. The results clearly show that when reporting is remembered, large farms are more likely to be evoked with negative reports and small farms with positive ones.

However, when respondents select what constitutes an ‘ideal farm’, the number of animals per farm is of less importance compared to aspects related to animal and environmental protection or local and traditional production. These results indicate that it is mainly not farm size per se but rather the associated husbandry systems and production methods that shape the negative image of large farms. Indeed, all sustainability dimensions, except economic assessment, are perceived to be better fulfilled on small compared to large farms, especially with regard to animal welfare. This is in line with existing studies showing that large-scale farming or intensive livestock production is associated with animal cruelty, stress for the animals and a higher risk for animal diseases [ 7 , 27 , 31 ]. Large farms are perceived as primarily being profit-oriented. This image may contribute to the perception of these farms neglecting sustainability and the observed sympathy with small farms. It is known that, in the public’s view, profit-orientation is contrasting a company`s sustainable and responsible behavior [ 43 , 44 ]. Consumers often perceive profit-oriented companies as less sympathetic but more competent leading to a higher desire to buy products from large companies. However, this preference vanishes when small companies achieve high credibility values [ 45 ]. This seems to be the case for small farms as respondents assume small farms to comply more with existing laws. It is further known that people prefer buying products from small farms because they wish to support (allegedly) disadvantaged farmers [ 32 , 33 ]. Furthermore, due to the perceived better level of animal health and naturalness, products from small farms are expected to be more natural, healthier and of better taste. A relation between the assessment of husbandry systems and a perceived better quality of products was also found by others [ 46 ].

Summing up, small farms are perceived to be better for animal welfare, the environment and product quality. This leads to many respondents pleading for limited herd sizes at farm and barn level for conventional and organic production systems. The maximum number of animals per farm rated as appropriate by the majority is thereby far below the average number of animals per farm in Germany for pigs and especially for poultry. In 2020, the average number of animals per farm was 1,243 for fattening pigs and 71 for dairy cattle [ 47 ]. For poultry it is known that in the year 2016 almost 80% of broilers and more than 50% of laying hens in Germany were kept on farms with more than 50,000 animals [ 48 ]. This large gap between actual farm sizes and farm sizes accepted by the broader public points on either people having little knowledge about actual farm sizes and underestimating current sizes of production or that they really feel the current sizes to be larger than what is tolerable. Based on our results, we cannot answer this question comprehensively. However, the literature shows that even when knowledge is low, communicating information does not automatically increase acceptance [ 49 , 50 ]. Additionally, the fact that the majority of respondents state that there should be an upper limit of animals per farm or barn indicates that this topic is potentially conflicting.

Due to large economies of scale, farm sizes are expected to further increase [ 4 ]. This indicates that agricultural policy that aims to preserve small farming structures and keeping farm numbers stable will be expensive. The latter has just recently been recommended by the Future Commission Agriculture of the German government [ 51 ]. In order to maintain competitiveness of these farms, economic disadvantages on small farms would need to be compensated. Although participants in our study acknowledge differences in economic efficiency between different farm sizes, it remains open from this study whether real costs of subsidizing small farms and keeping farm numbers stable, are known and supported by the public.

However, next to economic advantages, larger farms might also increase sustainability through ecologies of scale, e.g., by a more efficient use of resources, i.e. the application of new technologies that are often not economical on small farms [ 15 ]. Moreover, there is no clear correlation between farm size and animal welfare or environmental protection. Production systems and management as well as farmers personality and attitudes are better indicators [ 29 ]. Thus, a return to small-scale agriculture or strict limitation of farm sizes are neither feasible nor desirable.

This issue might challenge public communications both for scientists as well as for the sector. Especially as our findings have shown that people have very heterogeneous attitudes towards scientific findings that disentangle farm size from sustainability. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: there is a group of about 21–32% that cannot be convinced by scientific argumentation, at least as it was conducted in this study. One explanation can be motivated reasoning in which peoples’ preferences affect their beliefs. This is grounded in that evidence is frequently evaluated dependently on existing preferences and beliefs [ 50 ]. In our case such motivated reasoning might have happened when judging the scientific evidence we presented. This makes especially sense when considering that the preferences for small farms seem to be quite stable as they did not change in the course of the survey for most participants. With regard to animal welfare, it seems to be even more difficult to detach society from the ‘small is beautiful’-perception. For small farms or farms with small herd sizes these results offer the opportunity to highlight farm size when selling their product.

Further, it should be remembered that in the past the strong focus on economic outcome and high specialization in animal farming led to a series of animal welfare problems [ 52 ], which now have to be improved. In society this may be strongly associated with large scale farming. Future sustainable farming systems will very likely involve large farms due to their advantages in being more specialized with high levels of knowledge as well as economies of scale. This makes it likely that such farms are more prone to adapting new technologies that enhance sustainability of animal farming, including animal welfare. This development is contrasting widely hold public perceptions of small farms being per se advantageous and might challenge social acceptance of future animal farming systems on large scales, although with improved animal welfare levels. This should encourage particularly larger farms to demonstrate their corporate social responsibility through a stronger commitment to animal welfare, and to further communicate these efforts publicly.

Supporting information

S1 questionnaire. full questionnaire in english language (translated from the german original)..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.s001

S1 Letter. Approval of the study by the Ethics Commission at Göttingen University.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000032.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 30. Schumacher EF. Small is beautiful. Economics as If People Mattered. Blond & Briggs, 1973 London.
• 36. Statistisches Bundesamt 2021a. Fortschreibung des Bevölkerungsstandes. Available at: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=previous&levelindex=0&step=0&titel=Statistik+%28Tabellen%29&levelid=1625741252431&acceptscookies=false#abreadcrumb
• 37. Statista 2021. Bildungsstand: Verteilung der Bevölkerung in Deutschland nach höchstem Schulabschluss (Stand 2019). Available at: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1988/umfrage/bildungsabschluesse-in-deutschland/

Research on Factory Farming and Its Implications—Feb. 21

New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies will host a series of presentations on factory farming and its larger implications on Fri., Feb. 21.

New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies will host a series of presentations on factory farming and its larger implications on Fri., Feb. 21, 1-6 p.m., at NYU’s Hemmerdinger Hall, Silver Center for Arts and Science, 100 Washington Square East (enter at 32 Waverly Place or 31 Washington Place [wheelchair accessible]).

Factory farming has come under increasing scrutiny, with its critics alleging it causes harm to humans, animals, and the environment. However, global support for factory farming is increasing, not decreasing, over time.

The event will feature five award-winning presentations from early-career scholars working on topics related to factory farming. The presentations will cover a wide range of areas—including production, consumption, and policy—from several disciplinary perspectives, including the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. The day will also feature Timothy Pachirat, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of Every Twelve Seconds , who will deliver the keynote address, “Our Own Souls to Damn: Scapegoating and Complicity in Industrialized Animal Agriculture.”

Other speakers and presentations include the following:

• Lingxi Chenyang (University of Michigan and Yale University), “Is Meat the New Tobacco?”
• Sydney Heiss (University at Albany), “The Moralization of Food Choice in Vegetarians”
• Natalie Rubio (Tufts University) and Kyle Fish (Tufts University), “Possibilities for Engineered Insect Tissue as a Food Source”
• Matti Wilks (Yale University), “Testing Potential Psychological Predictors of Attitudes Towards Cultured Meat”
• Allen Zimmerman (Georgia State University), “Organizational Non-Communication: The Art of Public Deception Through the Concealment of Factory Farming Practices in Modern Corporate Slaughterhouses”

The event, supported by the Animal Welfare Fund at EA Funds and the Brooks Animal Studies Academic Network, is free and open to the public.

Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. To register, please visit: https://bit.ly/372ZIio . For more information, call 212.992.7950 or email [email protected] .

Subway Lines: 6 (Astor Place); R, W (8th Street); A, B, C, D, E, F, M (West 4th Street).

Press Contact

Social Sciences

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Factory Farming and Potential Problems in International Trade

• January 2009
• Global Economy Journal 9(3):8-8

• University of Dundee

• Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Global Econ Q
• Andrew G. Long
• Justin J. Kastner
• Raymond Kassatly
• FOREIGN AFF

• J World Trade

• A. Gavinelli
• SOCIOL RURALIS

• Law Contemp Probl
• Gaverick Matheny
• Cheryl Leahy
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Factory Farming Versus Environment and Society. The Analysis of Selected Problems

PROBLEMY EKOROZWOJU – Problems of Sustainable Development, 2016, Vol. 12, No. 1, 143-156

14 Pages Posted: 21 Oct 2016

Ignacy S. Fiut

Independent

Marcin Urbaniak

Date Written: October 20, 2016

The thesis examined in the article is the argumentation against a popular belief that industrialised agricultural systems and intensive agriculture are beneficial. Objective facts, reports and commonly available data confirm such argumentation. Intensification in animal farming – in a long-term and multi-faceted approach – turns out to be a practice which not only abuses ecosystems and livestock, but also our health. When we consider all moral, medical and ecological controversies, it seems is meaningful and necessary to express doubts regarding the economic value of factory farming.

Keywords: factory farming, intensive agriculture, monocultures, fishmeal industry

JEL Classification: O13, Q20, Q32, Q41, R11, M14

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Ignacy S. Fiut (Contact Author)

Independent ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, food politics & sociology ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Environmental Economics eJournal

Food industry ejournal, development economics: agriculture, natural resources, & environmental impact ejournal, agricultural & natural resource economics ejournal, anthropology of agriculture & nutrition ejournal, agricultural economics ejournal, political economy - development: domestic development strategies ejournal, political economy - development: environment ejournal, agricultural food science & food groups ejournal.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

John Flesher, Associated Press John Flesher, Associated Press

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/factory-farms-provide-abundant-food-but-environment-suffers

Factory farms provide abundant food, but environment suffers

AKRON, Iowa (AP) — In recent years, Fred Zenk built two barns housing about 2,400 hogs between them — long, white, concrete-and-metal structures that are ubiquitous in the Midwestern countryside.

The Iowa farmer didn’t follow state requirements to get construction approval and file a manure disposal plan. But Zenk’s operation initially flew under the radar of regulators, as have many others across the United States because of loopholes and spotty enforcement of laws intended to keep the nation’s air and water clean.

Beef, chicken and pork have become more affordable staples in the American diet thanks to industry consolidation and the rise of farms with tens of thousands of animals. Yet federal and state environmental agencies often lack basic information such as where they’re located, how many animals they’re raising and how they deal with manure.

The animals and their waste have fouled waters. The enclosures spew air pollutants that promote climate change and are implicated in illnesses such as asthma. The stench of manure — stored in pits beneath barns or open-air lagoons and eventually spread on croplands as fertilizer — can make life miserable for people nearby.

READ MORE: Does modern society worsen allergies and asthma? Ask the Amish

For most of the nation’s history, meat and dairy products came from independent farms that raised animals in barnyards, pastures and rangeland. But the system now is controlled by giant companies that contract with farmers to produce livestock with the efficiency of auto assembly lines inside warehouse-like barns and sprawling feedlots.

The spread of corporate animal farms is turning neighbor against neighbor in town halls and courtrooms. Iowa, the top U.S. producer of swine and egg-laying chickens, has been a major battleground.

“It’s a fight for survival,” said Chris Petersen, who still raises pigs in outdoor pens.

Michele Merkel, a former EPA attorney who quit over the agency’s reluctance to punish polluting mega-farms and is co-director of the advocacy group Food & Water Justice, said the industry “has avoided any effective regulation and accountability for a long time.”

Industry groups say there are plenty of regulations and livestock agriculture is simply adapting to improved technology, equipment and methods.

“We’re responding to what the market is giving us,” said Brady Reicks, whose company runs numerous large hog structures in northeastern Iowa. “We’re doing it responsibly; we’re passionate about doing it. It increases growth in rural Iowa and it helps feed the world.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began to count the nation’s factory farms during the Obama administration but retreated when industry groups sued. Instead, the agency uses state data to produce annual statistics about only the biggest operations.

As of 2018, the nationwide EPA tally was about 20,300 — a roughly five-fold increase over nearly four decades.

WATCH: How these Massachusetts farmers are turning manure and food waste into power

Yet it’s a tiny fraction of all confined animal operations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates there are more than 450,000, most too small for inclusion in the EPA count.

Iowa has 80 million farm animals and 3 million people. Yet in 2017, regulators didn’t know how many livestock farms were in the state. Under federal pressure, the Department of Natural Resources pored over aerial photos, discovering 4,200 previously unknown facilities.

Zenk’s Plymouth County farm was among them.

“We knew nothing about his operation,” said Sheila Kenny, an environmental specialist with the state agency.

Zenk acknowledged breaking the rules but said no harm was done. He paid a $4,500 fine.

“You think you can get by with something once in a while and you can’t,” he said, strolling among his barns, tractor and feed bins.

To state regulators, such discoveries mean the system works. Critics say the Iowa experience shows how easily livestock operations can escape detection.

Putting thousands of animals in one enclosure produces huge amounts of manure. Unlike human sewage, which is treated and released to waterways, animal waste is stored, then spread on croplands as fertilizer.

Farmers insist they are careful.

“We take soil tests, we decide how much manure it needs and that’s how much we apply,” Reicks said.

Environmental groups say fields often can’t handle the volumes of manure produced, leading to runoff. Such pollution is exempt from regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act, even though agriculture is the biggest contaminator of rivers and streams, according to the EPA.

READ MORE: How more organic farming could worsen global warming

In Emmett County, Iowa, small farmer Gordon Garrison sued a nearby operation with 4,400 hogs, contending manure from its croplands fouls a creek that runs through his property and feeds the Des Moines River.

“They’re using me for a waste disposal site,” Garrison said.

Livestock farms generate about 70% of the nation’s ammonia emissions, plus gases that cause global warming, particularly methane. Yet they aren’t required to get permits under the Clean Air Act. The government hasn’t decided how to measure emissions from barns, feedlots, storage lagoons and croplands.

And under President Donald Trump, EPA has exempted livestock operations from requirements under other laws that industries report significant releases of air pollutants including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.

Critics say yesteryear’s barnyard whiffs were nothing like the overpowering stench from today’s supersized operations.

“You don’t want to be anywhere near them,” said Brad Trom, a crop producer in Minnesota’s Dodge County, who lives within three miles of 11 structures housing 30,000 swine. He says he’s been staggered by powerful odors barreling across his fields.

Farmers say they’re trying to reduce the smells but contend they’re a normal part of country life.

“I’ve never lived on a farm that didn’t have nature’s fragrances on it,” said Gary Sovereign, a swine producer in Iowa’s Howard County.

Research has linked proximity to factory farms to various health risks. But scientists acknowledge it’s nearly impossible to pin someone’s illness on a certain polluter.

Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf say after a hog mega-barn was built a quarter-mile from their home in northern Iowa, they developed burning and itching eyes, throat soreness and body rashes. They fear the manure odors are making them sick and ruining their home.

“Nobody’s going to want to buy it. We’re stuck,” Jeff Shwartzkopf said.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Factory Farming

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Public Health Ethics Follow Following
• Lean Manufacturing Follow Following
• Brand Management Follow Following
• Veganism Follow Following
• Business Management Follow Following
• Αναρχισμός Follow Following
• Κοινωνική οικολογία Follow Following
• Microbiology and Immunology Follow Following
• Animal Agriculture Follow Following
• Immunology Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Case Discussions
• Special Symposiums
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with Public Health Ethics?
• About Public Health Ethics
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Animals and influenza, antibiotic resistance, animal cruelty and public policy.

• < Previous

What’s Wrong With Factory Farming?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jonathan Anomaly, What’s Wrong With Factory Farming?, Public Health Ethics , Volume 8, Issue 3, November 2015, Pages 246–254, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu001

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Factory farming continues to grow around the world as a low-cost way of producing animal products for human consumption. However, many of the practices associated with intensive animal farming have been criticized by public health professionals and animal welfare advocates. The aim of this essay is to raise three independent moral concerns with factory farming, and to explain why the practices associated with factory farming flourish despite the cruelty inflicted on animals and the public health risks imposed on people. I conclude that the costs of factory farming as it is currently practiced far outweigh the benefits, and offer a few suggestions for how to improve the situation for animals and people.

Factory farming involves raising livestock in densely populated environments often called ‘concentrated animal feeding operations’. 1 Common practices include packing pregnant pigs into gestation crates so small they cannot turn around, placing egg-laying hens in cages stacked on top of one another in massive enclosed buildings and raising cows on feedlots rather than the grass pastures many of us associate with ruminants. 2 Because of the stress induced by these conditions, including the constant frustration of their natural instincts, many animals develop compromised immune systems, and without a steady course of antibiotics, many more would become sick and die of bacterial infections. Thus, antibiotics are often used to compensate for conditions that would otherwise make it impossible to raise animals ( Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials, 2010 ).

The practices that comprise factory farming evolved as a result of competition between firms to produce commodities—mainly milk and meat—at minimal cost. Competition usually benefits consumers. Factory farming has lowered the price of animal protein, and this is a real boon for poor and middle-class consumers. But there are at least three moral problems with factory farming, and none of them is factored into the price of the animal products they create. These include the spread of pathogenic viruses, the diffusion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria into our shared microbial environment and the immense cruelty suffered by animals in confined conditions.

Experts agree that most (and perhaps all) strains of the influenza virus that infect human beings originated from contact with other animals, especially domesticated birds and pigs in Asia ( Crawford, 2000 : 95). The advent of animal agriculture brought a steady supply of protein to people, but it also increased the transmission of viruses carried by animals, and spurred the evolution of existing viruses.

There are several reasons factory farms seem to elevate the risk of novel viral outbreaks—especially variations of avian and swine flu. First, crowding animals together in close confinement can induce stress and suppress their immune systems, raising parasite loads and making animals more susceptible to infections; second, as all of us have learned after catching a cold in school or at work, viral transmission is facilitated by animals being kept in proximity to one another; third, close contact between different species of animals gives viruses a continuous opportunity to mutate and reassort to create new strains; fourth, many factory farms confine animals to indoor spaces that lack adequate sunlight or ventilation, which allows viruses to survive longer without a host; and finally, because animals on factory farms are often genetically similar, they can be more susceptible to specific parasites ( Crawford, 2000 ; Greger, 2007 ).

The situation on factory farms is in some ways analogous to that of overcrowded prisons ( Schmidt, 2009 ). Infectious diseases flourish in prisons for some of the same reasons: high stress and poor nutrition can impair people’s immune systems, and crowding permits a quick transfer of microbes and a continuous supply of hosts. This is one reason many experts believe pathogenic viruses like hepatitis have spread more rapidly in crowded prisons than in the surrounding population ( Bick, 2007 ).

Most people already understand that crowding can spread sickness, and compromised immunity makes people more susceptible to infection, but few people understand how crowding different species together—as occurs on factory farms and in live animal markets—might hasten the evolution of new strains of virus. According to Dorothy Crawford, ‘[b]ird viruses usually lack the receptor binding protein needed to infect human cells, but some domestic animals like pigs and horses are susceptible to both bird and human strains. So gene swapping between human and bird strains often occurs in pigs or horses, causing a major genetic change in the virus make-up called an antigenic shift . Occasionally after this mixing a “new” virus strain emerges that can infect and spread in humans, and as the population is completely naïve to this “new” strain it can spark a pandemic’ ( Crawford, 2007 : 205).

Viruses have long jumped between species, but the advent of animal agriculture increased opportunities for viral transmission between animals and humans. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, which infected half of the world’s population and killed tens of millions of people, is thought to have arisen in farm animals. Although this particular strain cannot be blamed on practices that began in the late 20th century, our current practices increase the risk that new versions of existing viruses will emerge. It should be emphasized that in most cases, it is impossible to track the exact origin and evolutionary progress of any particular strain of flu. Scientists instead look for patterns of correlation between sites of initial infections, and rely on general knowledge about the conditions that facilitate the emergence and transmission of viruses.

Regardless of the origin of specific outbreaks of swine and avian flu, the general trend seems to implicate factory farming as a significant cause of many new strains: ‘there is no doubt that we are in the midst of the worst ever recorded flu pandemic in birds. The [H5N1] virus started life as a harmless infection in the intestines of wild birds and jumped to domestic chickens in the 1990s, where modern intensive farming techniques gave it the opportunity to adapt and evolve … . And now this virulent strain has not only crossed back into wild fowl but has increased its host range to include other birds … and even some mammals such as cats’ ( Crawford, 2007 : 208).

Although I have focused on different strains of influenza, animals share many other viruses, even if only a small number induce death or disease when they jump species. The morally interesting question is whether we can justify practices that increase the likelihood of new viral epidemics.

It is conceivable that new strains of viruses that arise on factory farms will eventually lose their virulence and strength. When viruses are confined to a specific population, they tend to become weakened as they co-evolve with the animals that host them. This occurs because from the virus’s standpoint—from the standpoint of the ‘selfish’ genes that comprise viruses—a host is better alive than dead, as a live host can create more copies of the virus and spread it to more people.

However, it can take many years for a virus to become benign ( Crawford, 2000 ), and in the intervening period, it can decimate populations. So the fact that in the long run viruses tend to lose their virulence—their ability to cause disease or death in the animals that host them—does not suggest that we should continue to allow factory farmers to house their animals in extreme confinement. 3

In recent years, awareness of the problem of antibiotic resistance has grown as bacterial diseases ranging from tuberculosis to gonorrhea have become increasingly costly or difficult—and in some cases, impossible—to treat by existing antibiotics ( United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013 ). Many people now understand the basic evolutionary principle that our increasing use (and misuse) of antibiotics fuels the evolution and dispersion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But fewer people are aware of the connection between the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock and the emergence of new patterns of antibiotic resistance in people.

Resistance to antibiotics arises in farm animals for the same reason it does in people. For billions of years, bacteria have been competing with each other and with plants, fungi and animals for scarce resources. Although most of these relationships have become mutualistic (beneficial to both parties) or commensal (neither harmful nor beneficial to both parties), some are parasitic relationships in which bacteria benefit at the expense of their host. When bacteria parasitize other organisms, natural selection rewards genetic mutations and immune responses that allow their victims to fight back. The arsenal that organisms have evolved to defend themselves against exploitation includes chemical weapons that destroy bacteria, and enzymes that disrupt DNA synthesis to prevent their replication. Bacteria have responded in kind by developing sophisticated defenses, including membranes that block antibiotic absorption ( Delcour, 2009 ), enzymes that degrade the efficacy of antibiotics ( Wright, 2005 ) and efflux pumps that eject antibiotics that have already been absorbed ( Kumar and Schweizer, 2005 ).

One might think that organisms with an adaptive immune system would eventually find a way to resist bacterial exploitation. To some extent this occurs, which explains the existence of endogenously produced antibiotics in many organisms, and natural immunity to the deleterious effects of some bacteria in others. But bacteria have responded with a creative way of evolving quickly. Horizontal gene transfer through conjugation and transduction allows bacteria to acquire genes from other bacteria, from phage viruses that parasitize them and occasionally from unwilling hosts. This allows bacteria to exploit mutations and gene sequences that arise in other organisms, which is one reason most scientists see no way of developing an antibiotic that permanently removes the threat of harmful bacteria. The challenge instead is to find specific antibiotics that kill harmful bacteria, undermine their virulence or prevent them from replicating long enough for an immune system to clear them from an animal’s body.

Nearly half of all antibiotics worldwide are given to farm animals to promote growth and prevent diseases in the crowded quarters in which livestock are increasingly kept, and in the US, an estimated three quarters of all antibiotics go directly to livestock on factory farms ( US GAO, 2011 ). For many years, public health experts have warned about the dangers of using large quantities of antibiotics in farm animals, especially when they are used at sub-therapeutic doses over long periods, as this creates an ideal environment for bacteria to evolve and spread resistance to antibiotics ( Gorbach, 2001 ). Antibiotics are administered at low levels because they can speed the growth of some animals by increasing nutrient absorption and preventing infections in cramped conditions ( McEwen and Fedorka-Cray, 2002 ). Using antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes gives farmers a small but significant advantage over those who decline to use them, thus creating a negative sum game in which the rational profit-maximizing choice for each farmer gives no farmer any particular advantage over others, but leaves nearly all animals and people worse off.

Animals are worse off because of the cruel conditions in which they are kept. Farmers are no better off using antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes if their competitors are also permitted to use them. People are worse off because antibiotic-resistant bacteria often find their way into human hosts.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria that arise on factory farms can spread to human hosts in a number of ways. First, those who work on farms and handle animals or raw meat can pick up antibiotic-resistant bacteria from animals who have it, and transfer it to other people; second, some bacteria survive in meat even after it is cooked, and are transferred directly to those who eat it; third, animal waste from factory farms that contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria is often used to fertilize crops, and some of these bacteria infect people who either work with crops or consume them; and finally, as bacteria do not respect physical or biological borders, some are transferred to animals and streams around factory farms ( McEwen and Fedorka-Cray, 2002 ; Casey et al. , 2013 ).

In a recent overview of antibiotic resistance on US farms, the Environmental Working Group found that among the most common meats bought in US supermarkets, 81% of turkey, 69% of pork chops, 55% of ground beef and 39% of chicken contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria ( Undurraga, 2013 ). By themselves, these numbers should not be alarming, as many bacteria have been carrying antibiotic-resistant genes for millions of years. It is possible for resistant bacteria to spread from animals to humans, or from humans to animals, so the misuse of antibiotics among people may be (at least partly) responsible for recent increases in resistance among bacteria that colonize farm animals ( Singer, 2003 ). However, recent increases suggest that factory farming practices are largely responsible for antibiotic resistance among farm animals, and thus in the meat that derives from them. While experts argue about whether most resistance comes from the misuse of antibiotics (such as their use for growth promotion), or whether it comes simply from the total quantity used, there is clear evidence that more use in people or animals creates more resistance in the bacteria that colonize them (Wegener, 2003a), and that reducing their use in farm animals in countries like Denmark has led to less resistance (Wegener, 2003b).

Although it is necessarily imprecise, we can measure the increased prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria over time. For example, between 2002 and 2011, multidrug-resistant Salmonella in raw chicken in the US has increased from ∼20 to 45%, and in turkey during the same period, it increased from ∼20 to 50% ( Undurraga, 2013 ). Human deaths from multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli derived from poultry are on the rise, and this is likely to be true for many pathogenic bacteria derived from farm animals ( Collignon et al. , 2013 ). Unfortunately, withdrawing antibiotics from animal feed does not work especially quickly. Just as it takes time for bacteria to acquire and spread genes that confer resistance, it often takes time for them to lose these genes when antibiotics are withdrawn ( Lenski, 1998 ). This is because although genes that confer resistance are costly to carry, the costs are often minimal and some genes can encode for the conditional expression of resistance, so that resistance genes are only phenotypically expressed in bacteria when antibiotics are present ( Andersson and Levin, 1999 ). And although the prevalence of resistance genes typically falls over time when antibiotics are withdrawn, it takes a long time to approach 0. So when antibiotic use is resumed, even a small number of bacteria with antibiotic-resistant genes can spread rapidly within and between different bacterial populations ( Salyers and Amabile-Cuevas, 1997 ). This suggests that it may take considerable time before removing antibiotics in agriculture restores their efficacy.

While most European countries have phased out the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock over the past decade, the US and other countries have been slow to respond—presumably because there are significant upfront costs to changing the way farm animals are fed and housed, and because farmers with lobbying power fear losing market share to less scrupulous farmers in other countries who continue to use factory farming techniques that necessitate antibiotics.

Philosophers argue about whether animals have rights, and if so where these rights come from. These are important arguments to have, but any plausible theory will hold that sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and frustration have interests that deserve protection. The problem is that the interests of animals and people can come into conflict. People have an interest in advancing medical research and consuming cheap protein, and animals have an interest in being able to exercise their instincts, or at least being free from gratuitous pain and frustration. When interests collide, the differences between various theories of animal rights will come to the fore. However, we can start with the assumption that any theory of animal welfare worth taking seriously will include a pro tanto obligation not to inflict cruelty on animals without sufficient justification.

Some think that rationality or consciousness is a necessary condition for moral standing. 4 Others suggest that sentience is sufficient for moral standing, so that all sentient animals deserve to have their interests protected. The claim that animals are equal in the sense of having their interests equally considered does not imply that they should be treated the same. Instead, the idea is that having an interest means that moral agents should take these interests into account when deciding what to do. The fact that a pig has interests does not imply that it should be given the right to own a home or drive a car, but rather that we should minimize unnecessary pain and frustration ( Singer, 1976 ), perhaps by according it legal rights, and by requiring farmers to abide by certain animal welfare standards.

There is no characteristic, or reasonably small set of characteristics, that sets some creatures apart from others as meriting respectful treatment. That is the wrong way to think about the relation between an individual’s characteristics and how he or she may be treated. Instead we have an array of characteristics and an array of treatments, with each characteristic relevant to justifying some types of treatment but not others. If an individual possesses a particular characteristic (such as the ability to feel pain), then we may have a duty to treat it in a certain way (not to torture it), even if that same individual does not possess other characteristics (such as autonomy) that would mandate other sorts of treatment (refraining from coercion). [ Rachels, 2004 : 169].

Some find this view unsatisfying because it fails to draw clear lines or to list off a single set of obligations that we owe to all creatures with moral standing. But the fact that our moral universe is more complicated than we would like it to be does not imply that pluralism is false. Regardless of their differences, pluralists like Rachels and consequentialists like Singer agree that farm animals should be guaranteed minimally decent treatment, and that using them as mere means to our ends is wrong.

Farm animals, such as domestic cattle, horses, sheep, swine and goats that are used for traditional, production agricultural purposes are exempt from coverage by the AWA [emphasis added]. Traditional production agricultural purposes include use as food and fiber, for improvement of animal nutrition, breeding, management or production efficiency, or for improvement of the quality of food or fiber. 5

The federal government has delegated this responsibility to state governments, and many states have created animal welfare laws designed primarily to protect the interests of meat producers, and companion animals like dogs and cats, while excluding farm animals of similar or greater sentience from similar protection. Most states make it difficult to prosecute violations of animal welfare laws, and have relatively weak anti-cruelty provisions, which count a practice as unacceptably cruel only if it violates existing practices.

In a rapidly growing trend, as farming practices have become more and more industrialized and possibly less and less acceptable to the average person, the farmed-animal industry has persuaded the majority of state legislatures to actually amend their criminal anticruelty statutes to simply exempt all ‘accepted’, ‘customary’ or ‘normal’ farming practices ( Wolfson and Sullivan, 2004 : 212).

These provisions would be considered outrageous if applied to humans. Imagine a world in which some humans are considered the property of others, and the question is how the property owners should be allowed to treat their subjects. Some owners argue that it would be costly to improve the already awful standards, so we should only regard acts as cruel if they violate practices that already exist. While there are clear differences between human and non-human animals, defining morally acceptable practices by reference to whatever is currently done is morally perverse, and it precludes virtually any improvement in existing standards.

In recent years, some states have extended more protection to farm animals. For example, in 2008, California voters passed the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which requires that ‘calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.’ 6 While this is a slight step forward, it may also induce farmers to move to other states to continue their cruel but cost-saving practices. States like Nevada have made significant efforts to lure farmers out of California. 7

In contrast to the US (and much of the rest of the world), the EU has enacted strong protections for farm animals, and some individual states have passed laws that exceed these standards. For example, while the entire EU has banned the use of gestation crates for pigs and battery cages for hens, Germany has banned cages and crates for all farm animals. In Germany, farmers are required to raise hens in large barnlike aviaries, to allow other animals to move around with some degree of freedom, and to have straw or grass bedding, rather than sleeping on concrete floors surrounded by metal cages ( Wolfson and Sullivan, 2004 ).

An advantage of the EU’s approach to animal welfare is that it establishes minimally acceptable requirements that states and farmers are free to exceed. Therefore, it reduces the collective action problem in which farmers who would prefer to provide an enriched environment for animals fear that other farmers will exploit this concern by using cheaper techniques that externalize the moral costs of production.

It might be argued that if people are concerned about the treatment of animals, or the threat of zoonotic epidemics and antibiotic resistance, they should change their consumption rather than using the power of the state to force producers to alter their production practices. While I agree that people who understand the costs of factory farming have a moral obligation to change the way they shop for meat (for example, to look for labels like ‘certified humane’ and ‘free range’), and that some people who do not understand the moral issues surrounding factory farming are culpably ignorant and have an obligation to familiarize themselves with the issues, I do not think we should simply assume that consumers will voluntarily change their habits.

First, some ignorance of morally repugnant practices is, in the economic sense, rational. Because we have limited time, and information is costly to gather and process, consumers are often rationally ignorant about how their actions and consumption choices affect other people and animals. It is difficult, and arguably undesirable from a social standpoint, to expect consumers to know everything about how the products they consume are made. In fact, this is the point of prices in a well-functioning market: consumers and producers do not need to understand how everything is made to act in ways that tend to make others better off ( Hayek, 1945 ). But this is only true when prices capture most of the costs and benefits generated in producing pencils and paperclips, and other consumer goods. When milk and meat are produced in such a way that the costs to people and animals are not factored into the price of production, we are not necessarily better off, and our ignorance can lead us to make choices that we would not make if we were aware of the harm they impose on others.

Second, the core function of a liberal government is to produce public goods and prevent people from imposing unwarranted harms on each other. Giving people the discretion to consume factory-farmed foods allows them to inflict cruelty on animals, and to inflict significant health costs—even death—on other people. While the harm to animals is direct, the harm to other people is probabilistic and diffuse. Each person’s consumption of meat from factory-farmed animals merely contributes to a process that significantly elevates the risk of harm to other people in the form of antibiotic-resistant infections, or new viral infections that arise in birds and pigs.

Since some people will continue to consume factory-farmed products because it is cheaper than the alternatives, or because they are ignorant of the harms associated with these products, we cannot rely solely on social norms and moral outrage to drive farmers to alter their practices, nor can we rely on farmers to voluntarily phase out factory farming, as most farmers who act this way will be driven out of business by less altruistic competitors. 8 Instead, governments should require factory farmers to change the way they raise animals.

An obvious starting point is for the rest of the world to follow the EU in banning the use of battery cages for hens (which typically involve stuffing half a dozen hens into cages so crowded they can barely move) and gestation crates for veal and sows. By requiring farmers to use straw or other bedding for animals and increase roaming space and access to fresh air, we can marginally increase their comfort and decrease the stress that leads to compromised immunity. This alone would significantly increase welfare and reduce the risk of zoonotic viral infections. It would also reduce the need to administer antibiotics to prevent infections brought on by crowding.

The US should also follow Europe in banning the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics to promote growth in farm animals ( Lessing, 2010 ), and should tax the use of antibiotics for therapeutic purposes, using the revenue to fund research into new vaccines and new antibiotics ( Vagsholm and Hojgard, 2010 ; Anomaly, 2013 ). One study suggests that when we tax pollution—in this case, the use of antibiotics that leads to antibiotic resistance—and use the revenue generated from the tax to address the source of pollution or compensate victims, public support for the tax increases ( Kallbekken et al. , 2011 ). It is also arguably more efficient and fair to tax practices that produce social costs rather than activities that are socially beneficial ( Anomaly, 2010 ).

At the very least, the US and other countries should prohibit the use of all medically important antibiotics when they are used simply for the purposes of growth promotion, or as a way of compensating for crowded and unhealthy conditions on factory farms. This is what the US Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act proposes, although even if it eventually passes, there is some worry that it may not go far enough because sometimes resistance to non-medically important antibiotics can also confer resistance to medically important ones. 9 Because we share a microbial environment, the overuse of antibiotics aimed at particular bacteria can increase the prevalence of antibiotic resistance among other bacteria that are likely to affect human health. Thus, instead of allowing farmers to decide on the kind and quantity of antibiotics to give to their animals, we might at least require veterinary oversight. Allowing farmers to administer antibiotics indiscriminately is tantamount to allowing them to decide how much harm they would like to inflict on other people.

One potential problem with banning antibiotics for growth promotion, and requiring veterinary supervision and prescription for administering antibiotics to sick animals (or as prophylaxis for potentially sick animals), is that farmers might pressure veterinarians to prescribe antibiotics when they are not really needed. More plausibly, in the absence of other requirements like increased roaming space, farmers might actually need antibiotics for sick animals—not because animals naturally get sick a lot, but because the conditions on factory farms ensure that animals will be infected with pathogenic bacteria. 10 This suggests the need to impose a complementary package of requirements on farmers that both improves animal welfare and decreases the transmission of disease.

It is impossible to say with precision what the total cost of imposing new requirements on farmers would be. If the cost was large, this could be a real loss for people with less income. But the argument from cost is not decisive.

Evidence from Europe indicates that the cost of complying with more stringent rules may not be as high as farmers anticipate. For example, in Denmark, the extra cost so far of implementing standards that increase animal welfare and decrease antibiotic use is estimated at $1 per pig ( Wegener, 2003b : 448). It is likely that forcing farmers in the US and China to switch from intensive methods would impose greater costs, as both countries currently use much more confinement and antibiotics than Denmark ever did. The problem with estimating the cost of changing methods is that organizations representing animal welfare advocates and factory farmers give different estimates, and it is too early to know precisely how new provisions in Europe and California will impact prices, as they are just beginning to come into effect.

Another reason to think the argument from cost is not decisive is that although meat has been a cheap and sometimes necessary source of high-value protein for humans throughout much of our history, a nutritionally adequate diet does not require the consumption of meat, and certainly does not require the amount of meat consumed by people living in Japan or the US ( Smil, 2013 ).

Finally, when the relative price of meat increases, markets will reward research into synthetically created meat, derived from stem cells, which may eventually be healthier and cheaper than ‘naturally’ created meat. 11

The argument that phasing out factory farming would unfairly harm the poor by increasing the cost of meat is not a sufficient reason for failing to act. Many poor people around the world would still be able to consume humanely raised animal products, and people in destitute poverty may have to turn to grains and legumes for most of their protein (as they already do). But being forced by circumstance to consume less meat than one would like does not give people the right to consume or produce food in a way that inflicts unwarranted harm on other people or animals.

1. According to the EPA, a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is a farm in which ‘animals are kept and raised in confined situations. CAFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields or on rangeland.’ http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7 [accessed 10 October 2013].

2. For a more thorough description of conditions on factory farms, see Singer and Mason, The Way We Eat ( 2006 ), the HBO documentary, Death on a Factory Farm (2009), and Wolfson and Sullivan, ‘Foxes in the Henhouse’ ( 2004 ).

3. My point here is more about the degree of animal confinement, or stocking density, rather than the size of the farming operation. It may be that larger animal farms that enclose the animals from contact with wildlife are safer, and make disease surveillance more cost-effective, than backyard chicken or pig farms.

4. Immanuel Kant is generally thought to have held this view, although he did acknowledge indirect duties toward non-rational animals.

5. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.php?policy=17 [accessed 10 January 2014].

6. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_2,_Standards_for_Confining_Farm_Animals_%282008%29 [accessed 10 January 2014].

7. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB126334191947626965 . Wall Street Journal [accessed 26 November 2013].

8. The biggest flaw in current US policy is that it sets recommendations rather than binding requirements for farmers to limit their use of antibiotics, and to alter their practices to increase animal health ( United States Government Accountability Office, 2011 ).

9. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1150 [accessed 10 January 2014].

10. There is some evidence that in Denmark, where non-therapeutic antibiotics were banned in 2000, farmers have steadily increased the use of antibiotics for therapeutic purposes, although net use is still down significantly ( United States Government Accountability Office, 2011 : 40). This problem could be minimized by requiring veterinary prescription, and by imposing modest taxes or fees on the use of antimicrobials. If the taxes were too high, this might lead to an increase in easily preventable animal suffering. But even a modest tax could deter superfluous use, force farmers to keep animals in better conditions and raise revenue for research into alternatives to existing practices, including the development of new kinds or classes of antibiotics.

11. The latest version of synthetic meat is being bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2384715/At-tastes-meat–Worlds-test-tube-artificial-beef-Googleburger-gets-GOOD-review-eaten-time.html [accessed 21 September 2013].

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1754-9981
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Home — Essay Samples — Economics — Industry — Factory Farming

Essays on Factory Farming

Factory farming and its indelible adverse impacts, factory farming and ethics in animal liberation by peter singer, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

How Industrial Farming Can Eliminate The Negative Impacts of Factory Farming

Evaluation of yields from organic farming vs. sustainable agriculture, the pluses of using combine harvesters in farming, the job of an agricultural mechanic, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Look at The Importance of Agriculture in The Community

Meat seller on the basis of training and occupation related factors, the implications of varying levels of cattle grazing, the impact of culture on consumer behaviour within the food industry sector, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

A Review on Precision Agriculture: Technologies and Challenges

Vegetarianism and an argument against factory farming, comparison of organic farming and conventional farming, advantages and disadvantages of organic and conventional farming, causes of animal abuse and its impact: a harsh reality, relevant topics.

• Real Estate
• Cosmetology
• Construction
• Coal Mining
• Non-Profit Organization
• Penny Debate
• Supply and Demand
• Unemployment

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research and design of a hybrid dv-hop algorithm based on the chaotic crested porcupine optimizer for wireless sensor localization in smart farms, 1. introduction.

• The RSSI algorithm is used to optimize the minimum hop count by comparing the received signal strength and hierarchical values of the nodes, thereby achieving fractional grading of the minimum hop count.
• The polynomial fitting method is employed to model the nonlinear relationship between the minimum hop count and distance in the DV-Hop algorithm, effectively reducing the distance estimation error.
• The chaotic crested porcupine optimizer (CACPO) is designed to replace the least squares method for intelligent optimization of the unknown node coordinates, which not only enhances localization accuracy, but also improves the computational efficiency of the nodes.

2. Related Work

3. materials and methods, 3.1. farm wireless sensor network model, 3.2. hybrid optimization dv-hop algorithm based on the improved crested porcupine optimizer, 3.2.1. dv-hop algorithm design, 3.2.2. hop count optimization based on the rssi algorithm, 3.2.3. distance optimization based on polynomial averaging, 3.3. optimization based on the chaotic crested porcupine optimizer, 4. simulation results and analysis, 4.1. modeling set-up and assessment of indicators, 4.2. impact of beacon node ratio, 4.3. impact of communication radius, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Qian, M.; Qian, C.; Xu, G.; Tian, P.; Yu, W. Smart Irrigation Systems from Cyber–Physical Perspective: State of Art and Future Directions. Future Internet 2024 , 16 , 234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soussi, A.; Zero, E.; Sacile, R.; Trinchero, D.; Fossa, M. Smart Sensors and Smart Data for Precision Agriculture: A Review. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 2647. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Polymeni, S.; Skoutas, D.N.; Sarigiannidis, P.; Kormentzas, G.; Skianis, C. Smart Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation: A 6G-IoT Perspective. Electronics 2024 , 13 , 1480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balyan, S.; Jangir, H.; Tripathi, S.N.; Tripathi, A.; Jhang, T.; Pandey, P. Seeding a Sustainable Future: Navigating the Digital Horizon of Smart Agriculture. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, C.; Yang, Z.; Li, P.; Liang, Y.; Fan, Y.; Luo, J.; Jiang, C.; Mu, J. Two-Stage Detection Algorithm for Plum Leaf Disease and Severity Assessment Based on Deep Learning. Agronomy 2024 , 14 , 1589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, L.; Yu, S. Application of Disturbance Observer-Based Fast Terminal Sliding Mode Control for Asynchronous Motors in Remote Electrical Conductivity Control of Fertigation Systems. Agriculture 2024 , 14 , 168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, L.; Dawod, A.Y.; Miao, F. Data Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks Based on Ant Colony Optimization Technique. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 5273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kandris, D.; Anastasiadis, E. Advanced Wireless Sensor Networks: Applications, Challenges and Research Trends. Electronics 2024 , 13 , 2268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, K.; Chen, Y.; Lin, R.; Liang, C.; Zhang, Q. A Portable Agriculture Environmental Sensor with a Photovoltaic Power Supply and Dynamic Active Sleep Scheme. Electronics 2024 , 13 , 2606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassan, E.S. Energy-Efficient Resource Allocation Algorithm for CR-WSN-Based Smart Irrigation System under Realistic Scenarios. Agriculture 2023 , 13 , 1149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahaman, M.; Lin, C.-Y.; Pappachan, P.; Gupta, B.B.; Hsu, C.-H. Privacy-Centric AI and IoT Solutions for Smart Rural Farm Monitoring and Control. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 4157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hassan, E.S.; Alharbi, A.A.; Oshaba, A.S.; El-Emary, A. Enhancing Smart Irrigation Efficiency: A New WSN-Based Localization Method for Water Conservation. Water 2024 , 16 , 672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hadir, A.; Kaabouch, N.; El Houssaini, M.-A.; El Kafi, J. Range-Free Localization Approaches Based on Intelligent Swarm Optimization for Internet of Things. Information 2023 , 14 , 592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Esheh, J.; Affes, S. Effectiveness of Data Augmentation for Localization in WSNs Using Deep Learning for the Internet of Things. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shen, X.; Xu, B.; Shen, H. Indoor Localization System Based on RSSI-APIT Algorithm. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 9620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhao, Y.; Li, Z.; Hao, B.; Shi, J. Sensor Selection for TDOA-Based Localization in Wireless Sensor Networks with Non-Line-of-Sight Condition. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2019 , 68 , 9935–9950. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lv, Y.; Liu, S.; Gao, Y.; Dai, J.; Ren, Z.; Liu, Y. An Ultra-Wideband Indoor Localization Algorithm with Improved Cubature Kalman Filtering Based on Sigmoid Function. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 2239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Obeidat, H.; Shuaieb, W.; Obeidat, O.; Abd-Alhameed, R. A Review of Indoor Localization Techniques and Wireless Technologies. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2021 , 119 , 289–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sankaranarayanan, S.; Vijayakumar, R.; Swaminathan, S.; Almarri, B.; Lorenz, P.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C. Node Localization Method in Wireless Sensor Networks Using Combined Crow Search and the Weighted Centroid Method. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 4791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Zhang, W.; Tan, C.; Liao, T. A Novel Localization Technology Based on DV-Hop for Future Internet of Things. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 3220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, G.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, C.; Duong, T.Q.; Guizani, M.; Karagiannidis, G.K. A Survey on Mobile Anchor Node Assisted Localization in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2016 , 18 , 2220–2243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jouhari, M.; Ibrahimi, K.; Tembine, H.; Ben-Othman, J. Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Localization Protocols, and Internet of Underwater Things. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 96879–96899. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, X.; Han, F.; Ji, W.; Liu, Y.; Xie, Y. A Novel Range-Free Localization Scheme Based on Anchor Pairs Condition Decision in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2020 , 68 , 7882–7895. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, S.; Zhang, B.; Chai, S. A novel auxiliary hole localization algorithm based on multidimensional scaling for wireless sensor networks in complex terrain with holes. Ad Hoc Netw. 2021 , 122 , 102644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaur, A.; Kumar, P.; Gupta, G.P. A weighted centroid localization algorithm for randomly deployed wireless sensor networks. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2019 , 31 , 82–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luomala, J.; Hakala, I. Adaptive range-based localization algorithm based on trilateration and reference node selection for outdoor wireless sensor networks. Comput. Netw. 2022 , 210 , 108865. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abu Alsheikh, M.; Lin, S.; Niyato, D.; Tan, H.-P. Machine Learning in Wireless Sensor Networks: Algorithms, Strategies, and Applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2014 , 16 , 1996–2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, W.; Qi, G.; Liu, M.; Zhou, J. A high accuracy localization algorithm with DV-Hop and fruit fly optimization in anisotropic wireless networks. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022 , 34 , 8102–8111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Xue, F.; Li, H.; Cui, Z.; Xie, L.; Chen, J. A Multi-Objective DV-Hop Localization Algorithm Based on NSGA-II in Internet of Things. Mathematics 2019 , 7 , 184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sabbella, V.R.; Edla, D.R.; Lipare, A.; Parne, S.R. An Efficient Localization Approach in Wireless Sensor Networks Using Krill Herd Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Syst. J. 2021 , 15 , 2432–2442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Phoemphon, S.; So-In, C.; Leelathakul, N. Improved distance estimation with node selection localization and particle swarm optimization for obstacle-aware wireless sensor networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021 , 175 , 114773. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, Z.; Sun, B.; Wang, G.; Xue, Y.; Chen, J. A novel oriented cuckoo search algorithm to improve DV-Hop performance for cyber-physical systems. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2017 , 103 , 42–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, L.; Xu, C.; Li, G.; Ming, Z.; Feng, Y.; Lu, N. A high accurate localization algorithm with DV-Hop and differential evolution for wireless sensor network. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018 , 68 , 39–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheikhrouhou, O.; Bhatti, G.M.; Alroobaea, R. A Hybrid DV-Hop Algorithm Using RSSI for Localization in Large-Scale Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 1469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ouyang, A.; Lu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, M.; Peng, X. An improved adaptive genetic algorithm based on DV-Hop for locating nodes in wireless sensor networks. Neurocomputing 2021 , 458 , 500–510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, W.; Yang, X. DV-Hop Location Algorithm Based on RSSI Correction. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 1141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Z.; Wu, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, S.; Guan, X. A Hybrid Localization Algorithm for an Adaptive Strategy-Based Distance Vector-Hop and Improved Sparrow Search for Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 8426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cai, X.; Wang, P.; Du, L.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, W.; Chen, J. Multi-Objective Three-Dimensional DV-Hop Localization Algorithm with NSGA-II. IEEE Sens. J. 2019 , 19 , 10003–10015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, D.; Wang, J.; Tang, C.; Weng, T.-H.; Li, K.-C.; Dobre, C. A multi-objective distance vector-hop localization algorithm based on differential evolution quantum particle swarm optimization. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2021 , 34 , e4924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abd El Ghafour, M.G.; Kamel, S.H.; Abouelseoud, Y. Improved DV-Hop based on Squirrel search algorithm for localization in wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Netw. 2021 , 27 , 2743–2759. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Wang, H.; Zhang, L.; Liu, B. Research and Design of a Hybrid DV-Hop Algorithm Based on the Chaotic Crested Porcupine Optimizer for Wireless Sensor Localization in Smart Farms. Agriculture 2024 , 14 , 1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081226

Wang H, Zhang L, Liu B. Research and Design of a Hybrid DV-Hop Algorithm Based on the Chaotic Crested Porcupine Optimizer for Wireless Sensor Localization in Smart Farms. Agriculture . 2024; 14(8):1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081226

Wang, Hao, Lixin Zhang, and Bao Liu. 2024. "Research and Design of a Hybrid DV-Hop Algorithm Based on the Chaotic Crested Porcupine Optimizer for Wireless Sensor Localization in Smart Farms" Agriculture 14, no. 8: 1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081226

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Meet some of the world’s cleanest pigs, raised to grow kidneys and hearts for humans

Companies are working to fill the organ shortage by engineering pigs to be more humanlike in hopes of xenotransplant clinical trials. See where those pigs are raised. (AP video/Shelby Lum)

A pig stands in a pen at the Revivicor research farm near Blacksburg, Va., on May 29, 2024, where organs are retrieved for animal-to-human transplant experiments. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

• Copy Link copied

David Ayares, president and chief scientific officer of Revivicor, looks at pigs at the company’s research farm near Blacksburg, Va., on May 29, 2024, where organs are retrieved for animal-to-human transplant experiments. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

Seen through a microscope, DNA is removed from a pig egg cell near Blacksburg, Va., on May 30, 2024, before a genetically modified cell is inserted. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

In this photo provided by the United Therapeutics Corporation, a genetically modified pig stands inside the protective barrier at the company’s designated pathogen-free facility in Christiansburg, Va., in May 2024. These pigs will eventually supply organs for clinical trials. (United Therapeutics Corporation via AP)

In this photo provided by the United Therapeutics Corporation, genetically modified pigs stand inside the protective barrier at the company’s designated pathogen-free facility in Christiansburg, Va., in May 2024. These pigs will eventually supply organs for clinical trials. (United Therapeutics Corporation via AP)

A worker at United Therapeutics’ designated pathogen-free facility in Christiansburg, Va., on May 29, 2024 retrives a UV sterilized item from behind a protected barrier within the facility. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

United Therapeutics’ designated pathogen-free facility in Christiansburg, Va., on May 29, 2024. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

Genetically modified piglets gather together at the Revivicor research farm near Blacksburg, Va., on May 29, 2024, where organs are retrieved for animal-to-human transplant experiments. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

PIgs stand in pens at the Revivicor research farm near Blacksburg, Va., on May 29, 2024, where organs are retrieved for animal-to-human transplant experiments. (AP Photo/Shelby Lum)

BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) — Wide-eyed piglets rushing to check out the visitors to their unusual barn just might represent the future of organ transplantation – and there’s no rolling around in the mud here.

The first gene-edited pig organs ever transplanted into people came from animals born on this special research farm in the Blue Ridge mountains – behind locked gates, where entry requires washing down your vehicle, swapping your clothes for medical scrubs and stepping into tubs of disinfectant to clean your boots between each air-conditioned barn.

“These are precious animals,” said David Ayares of Revivicor Inc., who spent decades learning to clone pigs with just the right genetic changes to allow those first audacious experiments .

Deeper reading

• Learn how one family’s choice to donate a body for pig kidney research could help change transplants.
• Research on pig-to-human organ transplants, or xenotransplantation, has yielded a surprising benefit for people with red meat allergies caused by the bite of a lone star tick.
• Read more about the latest in organ transplant research.

The biosecurity gets even tighter just a few miles away in Christiansburg, Virginia, where a new herd is being raised – pigs expected to supply organs for formal studies of animal-to-human transplantation as soon as next year.

This massive first-of-its-kind building bears no resemblance to a farm. It’s more like a pharmaceutical plant. And part of it is closed to all but certain carefully chosen employees who take a timed shower, don company-provided clothes and shoes, and then enter an enclave where piglets are growing up.

Behind that protective barrier are some of the world’s cleanest pigs. They breathe air and drink water that’s better filtered against contaminants than what’s required for people. Even their feed gets disinfected – all to prevent them from picking up any possible infections that might ultimately harm a transplant recipient.

“We designed this facility to protect the pigs against contamination from the environment and from people,” said Matthew VonEsch of United Therapeutics, Revivicor’s parent company. “Every person that enters this building is a possible pathogen risk.”

The Associated Press got a peek at what it takes to clone and raise designer pigs for their organs – including a $75 million “designated pathogen-free facility” built to meet Food and Drug Administration safety standards for xenotransplantation.

Creating pigs to ease the shortage of human organs

Thousands of Americans each year die waiting for a transplant, and many experts acknowledge there never will be enough human donors to meet the need.

Animals offer the tantalizing promise of a ready-made supply. After decades of failed attempts, companies including Revivicor, eGenesis and Makana Therapeutics are engineering pigs to be more humanlike.

So far in the U.S. there have been four “compassionate use” transplants, last-ditch experiments into dying patients — two hearts and two kidneys. Revivicor provided both hearts and one of the kidneys. While the four patients died within a few months, they offered valuable lessons for researchers ready to try again in people who aren’t quite as sick.

Now the FDA is evaluating promising results from experiments in donated human bodies and awaiting results of additional studies of pig organs in baboons before deciding next steps.

They’re semi-custom organs — “we’re growing these pigs to the size of the recipient,” Ayares noted — that won’t show the wear-and-tear of aging or chronic disease like most organs donated by people.

Transplant surgeons who’ve retrieved organs on Revivicor’s farm “go, ‘Oh my god that’s the most beautiful kidney I’ve ever seen,’” Ayares added. “Same thing when they get the heart, a pink healthy happy heart from a young animal.”

The main challenges: how to avoid rejection and whether the animals might carry some unknown infection risk.

The process starts with modifying genes in pig skin cells in a lab. Revivicor initially deleted a gene that produces a sugar named alpha-gal , which triggers immediate destruction from the human immune system. Next came three-gene “knockouts,” to remove other immune-triggering red flags. Now the company is focusing on 10 gene edits — deleted pig genes and added human ones that together lessen risk of rejection and blood clots plus limit organ size.

They clone pigs with those alterations, similar to how Dolly the sheep was created.

Twice a week, slaughterhouses ship Revivicor hundreds of eggs retrieved from sow ovaries. Working in the dark with the light-sensitive eggs, scientists peer through a microscope while suctioning out the maternal DNA. Then they slip in the genetic modifications.

“Tuck it in nice and smooth,” murmurs senior researcher Lori Sorrells, pushing to just the right spot without rupturing the egg. Mild electric shocks fuse in the new DNA and activate embryo growth.

Ayares, a molecular geneticist who heads Revivicor and helped create the world’s first cloned pigs in 2000, says the technique is “like playing two video games at the same time,” holding the egg in place with one hand and manipulating it with the other. The company’s first modified pig, the GalSafe single gene knockout, now is bred instead of cloned. If xenotransplantation eventually works, other pigs with the desired gene combinations would be, too.

Hours later, embryos are carried to the research farm in a handheld incubator and implanted into waiting sows.

Luxury accomodations for important pigs

On the research farm, Tom Petty’s “Free Fallin’” was serenading a piglet barn, where music acclimates the youngsters to human voices. In air-conditioned pens, the animals grunted excited greetings until it’s obvious their visitors brought no treats. The 3-week-olds darted back to the security of mom. Next door, older siblings laid down for a nap or checked out balls and other toys.

“It is luxury for a pig,” Ayares said. “But these are very valuable animals. They’re very smart animals. I’ve watched piglets play with balls together like soccer.”

About 300 pigs of different ages live on this farm, nestled in rolling hills, its exact location undisclosed for security reasons. Tags on their ears identify their genetics.

“There are certain ones I say hi to,” said Suyapa Ball, Revivicor’s head of porcine technology and farm operations, as she rubbed one pig’s back. “You have to give them a good life. They’re giving their lives for us.”

A subset of pigs used for the most critical experiments – those early attempts with people and the FDA-required baboon studies – are housed in more restricted, even cleaner barns.

But in neighboring Christiansburg is the clearest signal that xenotransplantation is entering a new phase — the sheer size of United Therapeutics’ new pathogen-free facility. Inside the 77,000-square-foot building, the company expects to produce about 125 pig organs a year, likely enough to supply clinical trials.

Company video shows piglets running around behind the protective barrier, chewing on toys and nosing balls back and forth.

They were born in sort of a porcine birthing center connected to the facility, weaned a day or two later and moved into their super-clean pens to be hand-raised. In addition to the on-site shower, their caretakers must put on a new protective suit and mask before entering each suite of pig pens — another precaution against germs.

The pig zone is surrounded on all sides by security and mechanical systems that shield the animals. Outside air enters through multiple filtration systems. Giant vats hold backup supplies of drinking water. Standing over the pig rooms, VonEsch showed how pipes and vents were placed to allow maintenance and repair without any animal contact.

It will take years of clinical trials to prove whether xenotransplantation really could work. But if it succeeds, United Therapeutics’ plan is for even larger facilities, capable of producing up to 2,000 organs a year, in several places around the country.

The field is at a point where multiple kinds of studies “are telling us that there’s no train wrecks, that there’s no immediate rejection,” Ayares said. “The next two or three years are going to be super exciting.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Advertisement

A Visual Timeline of the Trump Rally Shooting

By Leanne Abraham ,  June Kim ,  Elena Shao ,  Julie Walton Shaver ,  Anjali Singhvi ,  Christiaan Triebert ,  Karen Yourish ,  Lazaro Gamio and Amy Schoenfeld Walker

The Associated Press; Photograph by Doug Mills/The New York Times

Former President Donald J. Trump was whisked off the stage at his rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday after gunshots were fired toward the area where he was speaking. Mr. Trump could be seen bleeding from his right ear, and officials said that the shooting was being investigated as an assassination attempt.

Site of Trump rally the morning after shots were fired

Location of law

enforcement

snipers on roof

Location of gunman’s body

Location of a

wounded rally

Stage where

Trump was speaking

Butler Farm

Show Grounds

Pennsylvania

Location of

gunman’s body

By The New York Times; Aerial image by Doral Chenoweth/USA TODAY NETWORK, via Reuters

The rally took place on the grounds of the Butler Farm Show in western Pennsylvania, about 35 miles north of Pittsburgh. On Saturday afternoon, tens of thousands of rally attendees started trickling in after the doors opened at 1 p.m.

Mr. Trump was set to begin speaking at 5 p.m., but didn’t appear onstage until about an hour later. Here’s how the next 11 minutes unfolded based on footage of the rally.

6:05 p.m.   As the song concludes, Mr. Trump approaches the lectern and begins speaking. He spends the first six minutes talking about President Biden and the state of the country before focusing on immigration.

Eric Lee/The New York Times

TMX via Associated Press

Seconds later   A gunshot is heard, and Mr. Trump stops midsentence and flinches. He reaches for his right ear, as another two shots are quickly fired, and ducks behind the lectern. One male Secret Service agent is heard yelling, “Get down, get down, get down, get down!”

Photo appears to

capture the path

of a projectile

Blood on Trump’s

hand after he

touches his ear

Photo appears

to capture the

path of a projectile

Photos by Doug Mills/The New York Times

Secret Service agents surround Mr. Trump as a burst of five more shots is fired. Members of the crowd are panicking, screaming and crouching down. More security personnel run onto the stage, including several heavily armed law enforcement agents.

About 42 seconds after shooting began   Agents stay crouched over Mr. Trump until an agent can be heard saying, “Shooter down.” The Secret Service confirmed later in a statement that its “personnel neutralized the shooter.”

Doug Mills/The New York Times

A spectator who had been standing just outside the grounds said in an interview with the BBC that a few minutes into Mr. Trump’s speech, he noticed that someone was “bear-crawling up the roof,” clearly armed with a rifle, and that he tried to notify the police. Law enforcement officials later said that the gunman had opened fire from an elevated position outside the rally’s security perimeter.

After the shooting, the gunman’s body was seen on the rooftop of one of the buildings to Mr. Trump’s right. An AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle was recovered at the scene, according to law enforcement officials.

“I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear,” Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social, his social media platform. “I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin.”

Shortly after the shooting, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign said that the former president was “fine.” Mr. Trump will still attend the Republican National Convention this week, his advisers said in a statement.

One spectator at the rally, Corey Comperatore , a 50-year-old firefighter, was shot and killed. Two others were critically injured.

Scenes from after the shooting

Photographs by Eric Lee and Doug Mills/The New York Times

• Share full article