Corporate Intervention In Agriculture
One search of this feared (or endeared?) ‘F Word’ on google will bring up many very graphic images, and will automatically make a person think twice about they’re actions. Whips… beatings… chains… raw flesh… metal cages… superiority… even rape are all sure to be featured. However, what many don’t realize is that these images, videos, and shockingly vivid editorials are attempting (and more than likely succeeding) to manipulate your desires, planting perverted, unrealistic ideas in your head. The bottom line is that you are being lied to about where your food is coming from….
Perhaps we’re not on the same page here… this dreaded ‘F-Word’, the one that it took me over fourteen months of running Farming Truth to come out and admit I support… is Factory Farming.
Some background information: It was my trip to a corporate farm that began my retaliation against animal rights activists. Previously, I had never even heard of this new f-word, but considered myself an advocate for animal salvation and even supported PETA. However, in talking to the owner of the farm, I learned the ins-and-outs of the business, and also the difficulties that animal welfare cases were causing. The farm manager told me about one of his friends that went to court for alleged abuse. There was no proof of the crime, but, it being such a sensitive and relatively un-explored topic, the farmer got prosecuted, and lost everything. The farm owner I interviewed, who I knew to be someone with 50+ years of experience handling livestock, described the complications that arose from this fear of attack from animal rights activists. The company he worked for, Tyson, had put into place many restrictions to try and avoid these allegations. However, because the corporate workers had no exposure to livestock or knowledge of common methods, instead of promoting humane treatment, these restrictions just made it very difficult for the farmers to do their jobs. After visiting with this corporate farmer and touring his facility, I had a very long drive home where I began contemplating what this meant for the food on every Americans plate. This experience inspired further research and more conversations with many different types of producers about the challenges they face. Six months later, the Farming Truth project was started, and I still believe that corporate farming plays an important role in the agricultural industry.
What is it?
The term “factory farming”, or, as many ag-professionals and politicians call it, “corporate farming”, has a variety of interpretations, and will surely mean something different depending on who you talk to. However, it is generally understood that a corporate farm is a large livestock operation owned by a company that has a greater than normal number of head that are all destined for slaughter. This definition is both right and wrong. There are many producers that have contracts with large agribusinesses such as Cargill or Hillshire. However, in these instances, the producers—the people that actually grow and handle the livestock—own the facilities, equipment, and might even own the animals until they are shipped away. The farm is then required, by contract, to supply a certain number of head per interval to be shipped off to slaughter (for example, they might ship out 100 hogs/week). It is important to note that these farms are in no way associated with or connected to the slaughterhouses the animals go to.
However, this is not the only meaning of the term “Factory Farm”. Believe it or not, this same contract between companies and producers often exists in crop harvesting. Many of these are also experimentation labs where biotechnology and innovative pesticides or fertilizers are tested. They are even sometimes located indoors: in a sci-fi-like scene, there are greenhouses the size of small towns where crops are grown under fluorescent light to artificially fortify them with nutrients.
Is It Humane?
There is a belief among many that, when you begin producing livestock on such a massive scale, the values animal welfare go out the window. It is thought that, with hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of animals in one operation, farmers lose touch with the needs of their stock. This is not the case. Actually, industrial farms take great measures to ensure that each animal gets the care it needs. Some of these measures include veterinarians that live on-site and give all of their focus to that single farm, specialized nutritionists and feed mills on the property, climate controlled barns, haz-mat suits that workers must wear when around the animals to stop the spread of disease, ear tag or ear notch identification to aid record keeping so that each animal is accounted for, artificial insemination to avoid the stress of natural breeding (I plan to have a future blog post to address this point), automatic waterers to supply the livestock with constant, fresh water, and educating workers about basic animal health and symptoms of diseases so they can detect problems.
Furthermore, the companies that large-scale farmers are in contract with often have restrictions to promote animal welfare. However, as I learned on my visits to that first farm, these restrictions sometimes just make it harder for the producers to do their job because the people who make the rules have no experience with livestock. One example would be outlawing the use of whips or bats to move pigs around on Tyson farms. These are not large bull whips or baseball bats… instead, they are instruments designed specifically for the species to encourage the animal to move without any bodily harm. Anyone who has worked with pigs has probably learned that they are not the most cooperative animals, and you have to learn their mannerisms and utilize available equipment to get the animals to work with you, not against you. Without whips and pig bats, workers are likely to become more frustrated because they cannot get the animal to cooperate, and use force that could cause bodily harm with their hands or feet. Instead of outlawing the tools, corporates should encourage proper use of them through training and enact penalties for misuse. More communication is needed between the industries and the farmers to create restrictions that will genuinely promote animal welfare.
Another thing that’s important for consumers to understand is that major steps are taken to enforce these regulations. It’s one thing to make rules, but they are nothing unless there are systems in place to make sure the producers follow them. Enforcement measures include security cameras, health inspections, worker background checks, inventories of medicine and supplies on site, reviews of spending reports, and, most importantly, evaluating the stock that comes out of that farm. Because the animals are not slaughtered at the farm where they’re grown, corporate officials and the USDA inspect all of the animals, as well as the meat and by-products from them, looking for irregularities that could result from abuse. Too many red flags could mean serious penalties for the farmer who produced those animals, including even possible being shut down.
Additionally, for an operation of this magnitude to be successful, animal welfare must be the number one priority. As mentioned in my post, Why Veganism is Not More Humane, chronic stress during life hinders productivity, causing decreased weight gain, increased disease risk, less marbling, and less chance of reproduction… all factors that are directly linked with income. Thus, the horrible scenes that you see on google are not accurate… they are outdated or taken from developing countries where biological effects of stress are not understood and regulations are not enacted or enforced. Up-to-date farmers would agree with you that this abuse needs to be stopped.
Is It Sustainable?
Sustainability is another very valid concern of consumers. There is worry that, because these farms are closely tied to business matters, eco-friendly practices are avoided because they would cost more money. However, the opposite is true. Sustainable methods are great opportunities for farmers to maximize their profits. There are many reasons this is so. The most obvious is government subsidies for using approved products and methods. However, when it comes to big companies, they are not only concerned about being green, but also about showing their customers how they’re being green. The easiest way to do this is through labeling with slogans such as “Organic” or “Non-GMO”… now, whether these processes are really more sustainable, that’s a story for another time. But the point here is that producers take consumer opinions very seriously, and will suffer economically if they do not adjust to demand.
The biggest concerns about factory farming, specifically from the vegan community, is crap. No, seriously… poop. With hundreds of animals on a single plot of land, this is something that has to be planned for. Luckily, when livestock takes care of business, that is another way for farmers to expand their business. Manure is a great agricultural commodity because it can be sold as natural fertilizer (much cheaper than synthetic fertilizer that has to be produced at an industrial plant with many harmful chemicals- read more about that here), or even used to make electricity. Yes, you read that right… poop is power! Within the last two decades, new technology has been put into distribution that takes the manure, heats it up to release the methane, which then generates electricity. Whole farms are entirely self-run off of this energy, with some left over to sell. Many generator models even have the ability to produce two byproducts besides just the electricity: a liquid that can still be used as fertilizer, and a solid that can be used as animal bedding. That’s three outputs from one recycled input. However, there are some drawbacks. This generator only works with methane-producing ruminant animals such as cattle and sheep, and has no use in species such as pigs or poultry. Additionally, at this time, the technology is still expensive and takes up quite a bit of room, so only the larger farms are using it. As of right now, only large feedlots, dairies, and corporate beef farms are the ones using it, but hopefully, with innovations, the equipment can become more affordable and available to smaller cattle operations, too.
Is It A Threat To Smaller-Scale Farmers?
Consumers and animal rights activists are not the only ones who have concerns about corporate farms. Many smaller-scale farmers and ranchers believe that these companies threaten their livelihood because their products greatly outnumber those of family farms. This is true. There is no research to suggest exactly what percentage of the market comes from corporate farms, however, in the vegan community, the widely-used figure is an astounding 99%. This is even more shocking when you learn that over 97% of all farms in the developed world are family-owned and operated, meaning they don’t have contracts with mass-producing businesses. Keep in mind that this includes livestock and crop operations. Does this mean we should do away with corporate farming for good? Currently, nine states have prohibited or limited corporate farming because of it's threat to family farms. Proponents say that family farms deserve to have the majority of shelf space, but critics worry that smaller farms do not produce enough goods to keep up with demand. Should the needs of family farmers be put before the needs of consumers?
Smaller agribusinesses have, in response to being overshadowed by industrial farms, found new ways to put their products in high demand. These ways include transitioning to organic methods, selling their produce at farmer’s markets, offering specialized products such as meat or fiber from non-traditional breeds of livestock, offering only products from animals that were certified in a breed registry, and starting their own distribution companies. One could argue that the mass production of monotonous goods from corporate agricultural programs has resulted in consumer desires for local and specialized food that can only be offered by family farmers.
In Conclusion
Mistrust of big business is not unique to agriculture. However, public interest groups such as PETA are using a belief that companies are only motivated by profits to manipulate people into joining their cause. The truth, in contrast, is that it is this same desire to make money that holds farmers accountable to the desires of their customers. When you consider that factory farms are held to even higher standards of sustainability and animal welfare because of their increased public scrutiny and restrictions from company owners, it is easier to accept their role in feeding a growing population. Still, by no means are current corporate farms a perfect system. With more and more attention being shined on these issues, more reforms are sure to be made because of consumer pressure and government intervention. To make these reforms successful, increased awareness on all fronts (law makers, consumers, farmers, and company owners) must be achieved by open dialogue and open minds.
No matter if you believe that factory farms are essential or harmful, we all can agree that consumers need a broader understanding about where their food comes from and the methods used in producing it.
Perhaps we’re not on the same page here… this dreaded ‘F-Word’, the one that it took me over fourteen months of running Farming Truth to come out and admit I support… is Factory Farming.
Some background information: It was my trip to a corporate farm that began my retaliation against animal rights activists. Previously, I had never even heard of this new f-word, but considered myself an advocate for animal salvation and even supported PETA. However, in talking to the owner of the farm, I learned the ins-and-outs of the business, and also the difficulties that animal welfare cases were causing. The farm manager told me about one of his friends that went to court for alleged abuse. There was no proof of the crime, but, it being such a sensitive and relatively un-explored topic, the farmer got prosecuted, and lost everything. The farm owner I interviewed, who I knew to be someone with 50+ years of experience handling livestock, described the complications that arose from this fear of attack from animal rights activists. The company he worked for, Tyson, had put into place many restrictions to try and avoid these allegations. However, because the corporate workers had no exposure to livestock or knowledge of common methods, instead of promoting humane treatment, these restrictions just made it very difficult for the farmers to do their jobs. After visiting with this corporate farmer and touring his facility, I had a very long drive home where I began contemplating what this meant for the food on every Americans plate. This experience inspired further research and more conversations with many different types of producers about the challenges they face. Six months later, the Farming Truth project was started, and I still believe that corporate farming plays an important role in the agricultural industry.
What is it?
The term “factory farming”, or, as many ag-professionals and politicians call it, “corporate farming”, has a variety of interpretations, and will surely mean something different depending on who you talk to. However, it is generally understood that a corporate farm is a large livestock operation owned by a company that has a greater than normal number of head that are all destined for slaughter. This definition is both right and wrong. There are many producers that have contracts with large agribusinesses such as Cargill or Hillshire. However, in these instances, the producers—the people that actually grow and handle the livestock—own the facilities, equipment, and might even own the animals until they are shipped away. The farm is then required, by contract, to supply a certain number of head per interval to be shipped off to slaughter (for example, they might ship out 100 hogs/week). It is important to note that these farms are in no way associated with or connected to the slaughterhouses the animals go to.
However, this is not the only meaning of the term “Factory Farm”. Believe it or not, this same contract between companies and producers often exists in crop harvesting. Many of these are also experimentation labs where biotechnology and innovative pesticides or fertilizers are tested. They are even sometimes located indoors: in a sci-fi-like scene, there are greenhouses the size of small towns where crops are grown under fluorescent light to artificially fortify them with nutrients.
Is It Humane?
There is a belief among many that, when you begin producing livestock on such a massive scale, the values animal welfare go out the window. It is thought that, with hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of animals in one operation, farmers lose touch with the needs of their stock. This is not the case. Actually, industrial farms take great measures to ensure that each animal gets the care it needs. Some of these measures include veterinarians that live on-site and give all of their focus to that single farm, specialized nutritionists and feed mills on the property, climate controlled barns, haz-mat suits that workers must wear when around the animals to stop the spread of disease, ear tag or ear notch identification to aid record keeping so that each animal is accounted for, artificial insemination to avoid the stress of natural breeding (I plan to have a future blog post to address this point), automatic waterers to supply the livestock with constant, fresh water, and educating workers about basic animal health and symptoms of diseases so they can detect problems.
Furthermore, the companies that large-scale farmers are in contract with often have restrictions to promote animal welfare. However, as I learned on my visits to that first farm, these restrictions sometimes just make it harder for the producers to do their job because the people who make the rules have no experience with livestock. One example would be outlawing the use of whips or bats to move pigs around on Tyson farms. These are not large bull whips or baseball bats… instead, they are instruments designed specifically for the species to encourage the animal to move without any bodily harm. Anyone who has worked with pigs has probably learned that they are not the most cooperative animals, and you have to learn their mannerisms and utilize available equipment to get the animals to work with you, not against you. Without whips and pig bats, workers are likely to become more frustrated because they cannot get the animal to cooperate, and use force that could cause bodily harm with their hands or feet. Instead of outlawing the tools, corporates should encourage proper use of them through training and enact penalties for misuse. More communication is needed between the industries and the farmers to create restrictions that will genuinely promote animal welfare.
Another thing that’s important for consumers to understand is that major steps are taken to enforce these regulations. It’s one thing to make rules, but they are nothing unless there are systems in place to make sure the producers follow them. Enforcement measures include security cameras, health inspections, worker background checks, inventories of medicine and supplies on site, reviews of spending reports, and, most importantly, evaluating the stock that comes out of that farm. Because the animals are not slaughtered at the farm where they’re grown, corporate officials and the USDA inspect all of the animals, as well as the meat and by-products from them, looking for irregularities that could result from abuse. Too many red flags could mean serious penalties for the farmer who produced those animals, including even possible being shut down.
Additionally, for an operation of this magnitude to be successful, animal welfare must be the number one priority. As mentioned in my post, Why Veganism is Not More Humane, chronic stress during life hinders productivity, causing decreased weight gain, increased disease risk, less marbling, and less chance of reproduction… all factors that are directly linked with income. Thus, the horrible scenes that you see on google are not accurate… they are outdated or taken from developing countries where biological effects of stress are not understood and regulations are not enacted or enforced. Up-to-date farmers would agree with you that this abuse needs to be stopped.
Is It Sustainable?
Sustainability is another very valid concern of consumers. There is worry that, because these farms are closely tied to business matters, eco-friendly practices are avoided because they would cost more money. However, the opposite is true. Sustainable methods are great opportunities for farmers to maximize their profits. There are many reasons this is so. The most obvious is government subsidies for using approved products and methods. However, when it comes to big companies, they are not only concerned about being green, but also about showing their customers how they’re being green. The easiest way to do this is through labeling with slogans such as “Organic” or “Non-GMO”… now, whether these processes are really more sustainable, that’s a story for another time. But the point here is that producers take consumer opinions very seriously, and will suffer economically if they do not adjust to demand.
The biggest concerns about factory farming, specifically from the vegan community, is crap. No, seriously… poop. With hundreds of animals on a single plot of land, this is something that has to be planned for. Luckily, when livestock takes care of business, that is another way for farmers to expand their business. Manure is a great agricultural commodity because it can be sold as natural fertilizer (much cheaper than synthetic fertilizer that has to be produced at an industrial plant with many harmful chemicals- read more about that here), or even used to make electricity. Yes, you read that right… poop is power! Within the last two decades, new technology has been put into distribution that takes the manure, heats it up to release the methane, which then generates electricity. Whole farms are entirely self-run off of this energy, with some left over to sell. Many generator models even have the ability to produce two byproducts besides just the electricity: a liquid that can still be used as fertilizer, and a solid that can be used as animal bedding. That’s three outputs from one recycled input. However, there are some drawbacks. This generator only works with methane-producing ruminant animals such as cattle and sheep, and has no use in species such as pigs or poultry. Additionally, at this time, the technology is still expensive and takes up quite a bit of room, so only the larger farms are using it. As of right now, only large feedlots, dairies, and corporate beef farms are the ones using it, but hopefully, with innovations, the equipment can become more affordable and available to smaller cattle operations, too.
Is It A Threat To Smaller-Scale Farmers?
Consumers and animal rights activists are not the only ones who have concerns about corporate farms. Many smaller-scale farmers and ranchers believe that these companies threaten their livelihood because their products greatly outnumber those of family farms. This is true. There is no research to suggest exactly what percentage of the market comes from corporate farms, however, in the vegan community, the widely-used figure is an astounding 99%. This is even more shocking when you learn that over 97% of all farms in the developed world are family-owned and operated, meaning they don’t have contracts with mass-producing businesses. Keep in mind that this includes livestock and crop operations. Does this mean we should do away with corporate farming for good? Currently, nine states have prohibited or limited corporate farming because of it's threat to family farms. Proponents say that family farms deserve to have the majority of shelf space, but critics worry that smaller farms do not produce enough goods to keep up with demand. Should the needs of family farmers be put before the needs of consumers?
Smaller agribusinesses have, in response to being overshadowed by industrial farms, found new ways to put their products in high demand. These ways include transitioning to organic methods, selling their produce at farmer’s markets, offering specialized products such as meat or fiber from non-traditional breeds of livestock, offering only products from animals that were certified in a breed registry, and starting their own distribution companies. One could argue that the mass production of monotonous goods from corporate agricultural programs has resulted in consumer desires for local and specialized food that can only be offered by family farmers.
In Conclusion
Mistrust of big business is not unique to agriculture. However, public interest groups such as PETA are using a belief that companies are only motivated by profits to manipulate people into joining their cause. The truth, in contrast, is that it is this same desire to make money that holds farmers accountable to the desires of their customers. When you consider that factory farms are held to even higher standards of sustainability and animal welfare because of their increased public scrutiny and restrictions from company owners, it is easier to accept their role in feeding a growing population. Still, by no means are current corporate farms a perfect system. With more and more attention being shined on these issues, more reforms are sure to be made because of consumer pressure and government intervention. To make these reforms successful, increased awareness on all fronts (law makers, consumers, farmers, and company owners) must be achieved by open dialogue and open minds.
No matter if you believe that factory farms are essential or harmful, we all can agree that consumers need a broader understanding about where their food comes from and the methods used in producing it.
Share this: