Smithfield Foods, the largest and most profitable pork processor in the world, killed 27 million hogs last year. That’s a number worth considering. A slaughter-weight hog is 50 percent heavier than a person. The logistical challenge of processing that many pigs each year is roughly equivalent to butchering and boxing the entire human populations of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Columbus, Austin, Memphis, Baltimore, Fort Worth, Charlotte, El Paso, Milwaukee, Seattle, Boston, Denver, Louisville, Washington, D.C., Nashville, Las Vegas, Portland, Oklahoma City and Tucson (Jeff Teitz, Rollingstone 2008).
Introduction
In a report released in 2009, Greenpeace (2009) stated that the cattle sector in the Amazon is the single largest driver of global deforestation, responsible for 14 percent of world’s annual deforestation and 80 percent of all deforestation in the Amazon. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2006 study, Livestock’s Long Shadow, revealed that the livestock sector releases 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (measured in CO_ equivalent) _ more than the transportation sector (FAO 2006). The pollution, animal cruelty, and worker abuse resulting from factory farming are increasingly covered by the popular press, as illustrated by this chapter’s opening quotation. The rise of the global livestock industry has clear socio-political roots, and distinct ethical-environmental rami-fications. It demands closer scrutiny. The multifarious consequences of the global livestock industry are best viewed in the broad lenses of political ecology, for it is an industry that “combines the concerns of ecology and a broadly defined political economy” (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987: 17). Our focus will be on the livestock industry, in its industrial form where mass production is predicated on: the con-centration of live animals (pigs, poultry or cattle), manure, and urine to small spaces where feed is brought in (concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs or factory farms)); and operations involving large-scale deforestation, irrigation and improved genetics for “grass-fed” production of cattle. While mainstream discourses on factory farming and mass produced “grass-fed” beef have hitherto centered on the protection of human health and welfare in general, not least because of recent health
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
crises like mad cow disease and avian flu, there are significant repercussions to workers, animals and the environment as well. To put it simply, the global livestock industry is political, social and ecological (Walker 2005; 2007). This chapter outlines the key economic and ecological issues, particularly relative to factory farms; as well as the implications for human and animal well being. Using various cases, with a specific focus on pigs, this chapter will articulate a political ecology of the global livestock industry and critique the attempts (or the lack thereof) to minimize its negative ramifications.
The chapter is divided into three sections. Following this short introduction, the nature and development of the global livestock industry is briefly outlined. The second, substantive, section elaborates on the various ecological issues confronting production of animals for food. The third provides more detail about the pig sector of the global livestock industry. And the conclusion reflects on the possibility of enhancing workers and animal welfare, and ecological implications, despite the unceasing expansion of factory farming.
Intensification of the global livestock industry and factory farming
The “Livestock Revolution,” which began in the 1970s, on the wave of increasing average income in developing countries, has persisted unabated. Globally, farmers produced 276 million tons of chicken, pork, beef and other types of meats in 2006, four times more than in 1961 (Halweil and Nierenberg 2008: 61). The top three most popular meats in the world, by tons consumed, are (in descending order) pork, poultry and beef. Together, they represent 93 percent of global meat output. Such a dramatic increase in demand and supply is not possible without concomitant changes in the way meat is produced.
The defining feature of the contemporary meat industry is its unceasing concentration and intensification – fewer but bigger farms or factories, with more specialization of feed and other inputs, and fewer farm workers. For example, in the United States alone, the number of pig farms decreased drastically from 2 million in 1950 to 73,600 in 2005 while the production of pigs in the same period rose from 80 million to 100 million. This concentration is accompanied by other key developments in the livestock industry. First, the production of meat has increasingly relied on contract farming where different farms are contracted, by larger meat packing companies, to rear livestock at specific stages of the animals’
growth. Second, there has been a growing market consolidation of the top meat producers, particularly in developed economies, through expansion, mergers and acquisitions. For example, in the United States, several leading companies now control most of the supply of meat in the country. In 2005, the top three beef packers in the United States controlled more than 80 percent of the market while the pork packing industry was 64 percent controlled by four companies, up from 40 percent in 1990 (Hendrickson and Heffernan 2007). Some of these leading meat companies include Tyson Foods which saw sales of $26.9 billion in financial year 2008 (Tyson Foods 2009); and Smithfield Foods which netted sales of $11.3 billion in the 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
same period (Smithfield Foods 2008). More generally, food conglomerates have continually achieved high profits in the midst of global hunger. GRAIN, an inter-national NGO that promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity, reveals that the top four fertilizer corporations in the world (Potash Corp from Canada; Norwegian Yara; Sinochem from China and US-based Mosaic) saw their 2007 profits increased 44 percent–41 percent from 2006 (GRAIN 2008).
For leading meat companies and other investment firms too, the search for bigger markets to exploit and bigger profits to reap has extended beyond national boundaries in the past decade. The Brazilian beef packing company, JBS, has since 2007, bought out several leading meat packing companies in the US, and is now the biggest beef processor in the world. Brazil is now the biggest exporter of beef by volume (Australia is by value) and has the biggest cattle herd (some 200 million head). Goldman Sachs in the same year bought out the largest pig producer in China for USD 252 million. China’s case is particularly instructive. Although China is the world’s biggest consumer of pork and accounts for between 45–48 percent of the world’s pork production each year (Pig International 2007: 12), its pig industry is relatively undeveloped. Data released by the Chinese agriculture ministry in 2002 put the number of pig “farms” in China at an astounding 105,367,514 (Pig International 2005: 11). For the most part, such farms produced just 2–3 pigs for sale each year. As recently as 2002, only 4,132 farms produced more than 3,000 pigs a year (Pig International 2005: 11). By 2005, farms which produce less than 100 pigs a year still make up 70 percent of total output (Yin 2006:
22). In other words, China represents a gold mine for global meat processors to capture.
Besides China, other post-socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which are transitioning to a more market-based economy, offer immense possi-bilities for investment. Smithfield, the largest pig producing company in the world, has in the past 20 years made several investments in Eastern Europe. In fact, Smithfield can be found in countries such as Spain, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom and Mexico. The spread of these global meat producers has meant that more meat is being produced by fewer farms in fewer places. This in turn results in the daily transportation of millions of animals from one end of the world to another – an unsurprising phenomenon because, for the most part, many countries are not self-sufficient in meeting their demand for meat.
The changes in the intensity of the livestock sector reflect the economic logic of a Fordist regime and produce significant social-political and environmental ramifications too. In such a regime, production tasks are divided into minute detail and goods are mass produced. In fact, Henry Ford credited his idea for car assembly to swine disassembly in slaughterhouses in Chicago (Pew 2009). For the livestock industry, mass production has led to environmental ramifications at scales that were unheard of as recent as 30 years ago. The production of meat has continued to be predicated upon increasing productivity and standardization. For ease of transportation, slaughtering, packaging and consumers’ perennial demand for health and convenience, livestock animals in “modern farms” are reared to precise require-ments (Ukes 1998). In many cases, the animals are owned by the “processors” or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
slaughterhouse owners from birth to death – contract farmers are essentially hired hands. Increasing number of farmers are adapting to such “modern” production and organizational methods (e.g. a contract system of farming and highly mechan-ized and circumscribed modes of production) introduced by established meat companies. Beyond that, farmers are also more likely to accept such changes as beneficial to themselves given, for example, the proclivity of the “market” for
“standardized meat.” Commodification and intensification are thus presented as a
“natural” development and essential for survival to many less developed livestock producers. In his study of the Greek poultry system, Labrianidis (1995: 206) argues that while there is extreme flexibility in production (in terms of varying the quantity of meat produced) afforded by an intensified, subcontracting-based system, it is only flexibility accrued to the big processors. To sustain a system that “does not lead to an upgrading of work force,” previously independent producers essentially become cheap, albeit land-owning labor, for the principal firm. More importantly, such flexibility is often made possible by contract farmers drawing from their underpaid familial networks.
Intensification processes also involve the “economic colonization of the rural areas”. . .a colonization which should be resisted by rural people so as to “preserve their priceless rural culture. . .and to pursue a different strategy of “sustainable”
rural development” (Ikerd 2003:34–38; see also Whatmore 1994 for a European perspective). Anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt concurs. Reflecting on the intensification and concentration of the rural pig industry in Iowa, he noted that the “sense of community, the ideals of mutuality and the social value of civility”
are eroded by the changing systems of production (Goldschmidt 1998: 185).
Further, the welfare of the workers employed in big factory farms is another concern, as is the plight of animals in the midst of such economic transformations.
To illuminate these concerns, we will use the hog industry as our case study, following a more generalized description of the ecological impacts of the intensifying livestock industry.
Ecological impacts of livestock production and consumption
Industrial livestock production is one of the most significant generators of ecological impacts at the global, regional and local scales. Flooding the global markets with cheap meat, milk and eggs has huge implications for biogeochemical cycles and land cover change. Twenty-five percent of the earth’s surface is managed grazing, making it the biggest category of land use (Asner et al. 2004). Thirty-four percent of the world’s cropland is dedicated to producing feed for livestock. Counting grazing land, as well as lands in feed crop production, the livestock sector occupies 30 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet (FAO. 2006, 4).
Transformation of forest and grassland into range lands and fodder or grain crops is occurring at alarming rates, especially in South America (McAlpine et al. 2009).
Pastures and feedcrops account for a 70 percent decrease in forested land in the Amazon (FAO 2006). These land use changes generate carbon dioxide emissions, alter biodiversity and hydrologic cycles, and produce new pollutants. Concentrated 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
livestock production produces its own set of hazards to people and the environment, including serious nitrogen and phosphorous pollution of water resources, new viruses, and exotic new drug-laced pollutants. The FAO’s comprehensive study of the ecological effects of livestock production globally generated considerable press commentary because the authors found global livestock production respon-sible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, making it the single greatest anthropogenic source (Steinfeld 2006). The Pew Foundation followed FAO’s ground breaking study with its own expert-led examination of the industry in the United States. Its conclusion: “The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food” (2009: viii).
The primary types of ecological impacts we consider in this chapter include GHG emissions, water pollution and supply issues, air pollution, and biodiversity impacts.
These impacts differ according to the type of livestock considered, the type of production system involved (extensive or intensive), and the geography of the production sites (rural – urban, arid – temperate – tropical, coastal – interior, etc.).
While we are not able to consider all of the impacts, we briefly examine the broad impacts that are detailed in other sources. We discuss the implications of these impacts and briefly consider the mitigation measures proposed. Of course, it is difficult to limit ourselves to the ecological impacts because the intensification and expansion of this industry has many social, economic and ethical impacts that should be addressed simultaneously. The failure to combine the social, economic, ethical, and environmental impacts produces an ineffective and contradictory set of solutions.
GHG emissions
The livestock industry is responsible for generating between 4.6 and 7.1 billion tons of greenhouse gases each year, or between 15 and 24 percent of total global GHG emissions measured as CO2equivalents (Fiala 2008). This includes 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2emissions, 37 percent of methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) and 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) (FAO 2006). Livestock accounts for some 64 percent of global anthropogenic emissions of ammonia, and processing may be a significant source of high GWP gases (e.g. HFCs) as well as of CO2(FAO2006). GHG emissions are most pronounced from deforestation, enteric fermentation, and manure. Cattle production accounts for most of the deforestation and much of the enteric fermentation. Pig and cattle production account for most of the methane produced from manure. These emissions are expected to grow rapidly as “demand” for meat and dairy products doubles over the next 50 years (FAO 2006), and will continue to increase despite further intensification (Fiala 2008). According to Subak (1999) and Fiala (2008), producing 1 kg of beef has a similar impact on the environment in terms of CO2as 6.2 gallons of gasoline, or driving 160 miles in a mid-size American car.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Other air pollutants
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are big producers of air pollutants. Major air polluting gases include hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, airborne particulate matter and VOCs (Sneeringen 2009; Hoff et al. 2002). Particulate matter includes fecal matter, skin cells, feed materials, and the products of microbial action on feces and feed materials (Heederick et al. 2007). These are linked to respiratory infections, infant respiratory distress syndrome, perinatal disorders and spontaneous abortion. Sneeringen (2009) found that a doubling of livestock numbers in an area was significantly correlated with a 7.4 percent increase in infant mortality with damage to the fetus being the most likely promoter. In addition, acidification and nitrogen deposition arises from ammonia volatilization in the soil after deposition, a large part of which derives from animal excreta. This can produce forest die back and possibly other impacts although these are relatively understudied (Steinberg 2006: 83). Almost no consistent air pollution emission data exist for concentrated livestock production facilities, making ecological, public health and other implications virtually impossible to estimate or prevent (Sneeringen 2009;
Heederick 2007).
Water use and pollution
Global water use by the livestock industry is estimated at 16.2 km3per year with cattle using the largest quantity (11.4 km3) (see Table 4.4 in FAO 2006: 131).
Drinking and servicing requirements represent only 0.6 percent of all freshwater use, but when added through the food chain, estimated water requirements, still quite simplified to include only product processing (slaughterhouses and tanneries) and feed production, exceed 8 percent of the global human water use. Feed production constitutes the largest portion: 7 percent of total human use. Estimates of groundwater depletion from feed production total 15 percent of global water depleted annually (ibid. 167). Local depletion of groundwater aquifers from livestock production is prominent on the Southern High Plains of the United States and in parts of India, China and Botswana (Brooks et al 2000; other stuff). Seaboard Farms (one of the largest pork producers in the U.S.) in the Oklahoma Panhandle is primarily responsible for over three feet of decline in the nonrenewable High Plains Aquifer from 2001–2006 (OWRB 2007).
Water quality issues derive from both extensive and intensive livestock waste production. Animal waste can harm water quality through surface runoff, leaching into soils and groundwater, direct discharges, and spills. The more intensive the production process, the worse the brew of chemicals discharged. Nutrients (N and P primarily), sediment (erosion), pesticides, antibiotics, heavy metals, chemical disinfectants, and pharmaceuticals such as hormones are primary constituents of intensively produced animal facilities. Hormones, used to enhance growth, include testosterone, progesterone, oestradiol, zeranol, trenbolone, and melengestrol (the latter three are synthetic). Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBGH) is the most prevalent hormone used to stimulate milk in cows.1 Endocrin disruption in humans 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
is a hormone-based concern and aquatic systems are quite vulnerable (Raloff 2002).
Even under extensive production modes, streams and groundwater can be polluted by nitrogen from excreta.
Land application of animal manure can lead to the accumulation of heavy metals phosphorus in soil. And dairy soil has been shown to be a reservoir of multi-drug resistant bacteria in the transmission of infectious disease from farm animals to humans (Burgos et al. 2005). While metal accumulation in soil is context dependent, Ni, Co, and Cr are detected in most samples of swine slurry (Suresh et al. 2009).
Also, pesticides used in feed stock production pose threats to soil and water quality, as do fertilizers.
Biodiversity
Livestock production affects biodiversity in number of ways, depending upon the mode of production and cultural context. Wholesale deforestation impacts a vast array of plant and animal species. Pollution affects terrestrial and aquatic species.
Some of the biggest fishkill catastrophes in US history occurred from pig facility lagoon ruptures during large storms, e.g. a billion fish were killed in a North Carolina river in 1991 – bulldozers were used to clean them off beaches. 150 miles of Missouri’s streams were polluted from swine CAFOs, causing 61 fish kills and killing more than 500,000 fish. Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Texas experienced large fish kills in the 1960s and 1970s due to field run-off and discharges from cattle feedlots. Eutrophication may be the biggest threat to biodiversity (on the North Carolina Coastal Plain alone an estimated 124,000 metric tons of nitrogen and 29,000 metric tons of phosphorus are generated annually by livestock) where cyanobacteria blooms and outbreaks of avail botulism and avian cholera also occur (Schwarz et al. 2004). Concentrations of hormones fed to animals may have great implications for health of aquatic organisms as research shows that even low-level exposure to select hormones can illicit deleterious effects in aquatic species (Kolpin et al. 2002).
The pig industry
The development of the pig industry is a suitable case to ground the preceding discussion. Pig meat is the biggest category of global production in weight (over 100 million tons) although continuing increases have been thwarted by rapidly spreading diseases. A typical pig CAFO in the US might consist of several aluminum buildings with no windows housing tens of thousands of pigs. The pigs, smarter than dogs, with behavioral and social impulses of their own, are forced to live their lives out in crowded pens with slatted floors, standing and sleeping in their own waste (much the same as feedlot cattle). They produce prodigious amounts of waste (each adult pig produces ten times more than a human) and require very
The development of the pig industry is a suitable case to ground the preceding discussion. Pig meat is the biggest category of global production in weight (over 100 million tons) although continuing increases have been thwarted by rapidly spreading diseases. A typical pig CAFO in the US might consist of several aluminum buildings with no windows housing tens of thousands of pigs. The pigs, smarter than dogs, with behavioral and social impulses of their own, are forced to live their lives out in crowded pens with slatted floors, standing and sleeping in their own waste (much the same as feedlot cattle). They produce prodigious amounts of waste (each adult pig produces ten times more than a human) and require very