Probably 200 bison forded that stream as they moved to new grazing lands, and witnessing it was an unparalleled experience. Despite their powerful size, bison are graceful creatures and move almost daintily, but with speed and purpose. And they really do thunder.

In 1800, it was estimated that more than 40 million bison roamed the United States; by 1900, after an unprecedented and sustained massacre, fewer than 600 bison remained. Most of the bison you see today are descendents of a ragtag group of several dozen bison who had been saved by conservationists dedicated to their survival.

Historically, bison were the lifeblood of a number of Native American tribes, providing meat, skins, and other important supplies.  Indeed, bison meat has fed humans for thousands of years.  Six years ago was the first time I saw bison being farmed for meat. The animals were being raised on 13,000 acres in Texas and were roaming their homelands in family groups, just as nature intended. They were carefully overseen by skilled stockmen who knew that the best management for these magnificent creatures was to ensure that they had the space and freedom to utilize the land to their own advantage. The animals had no parasites and were totally in harmony with their environment – their only feed was grass and forage, the true and proper diet of a ruminant. At slaughter, selected animals, carefully chosen to be the least disruptive to herd structure, were taken for meat with a single, immediately fatal shot delivered under the supervision of the USDA inspector.

Shortly thereafter I saw the antithesis of that thoughtful, holistic system as I walked among bison on feedlots. Bison are wild animals; they have not been domesticated by man like cattle and sheep. That day, I saw thousands of these undomesticated animals react as their natural behavior dictated they should to any threat. They stood unmoving in defensive circles. When they did move, only to eat and drink, the closely packed feedlot left them unable to fight off any parasitic challenges and many required pharmaceutical treatments. They were fed an unnatural corn- and grain-based diet that is not only alien to them but which leads to unbalanced conditions in their digestive systems, which then acts as a haven for E. Coli O157:H7.  They looked neither strong nor majestic, but confused and defeated.

Must we continue to dominate and control and force our will on everything we see and touch? Must we now subject bison—wild animals—to a system that has already proven inhumane and unsafe?

Given the documented problems with the feedlot system, I wasn’t surprised to read about the recall of bison meat due to E. Coli that has caused the illness of five people in Colorado and one in New York. Although Rocky Mountain Natural Meat (the processor) and the retailers who stocked the product (including some well-known ones)seem to want you to believe their bison is a ”natural” product, in fact, what consumers were buying was feedlot meat with the inherent risks that such production has been shown to  generate.

Bison meat has often been promoted as the healthy alternative to beef. It has a far lower fat content than beef – 5 to 7 percent for bison compared with 25 to 30 percent for beef – and higher protein content. Before this recall most people would have thought of bison as a safe, healthy meat from animals roaming the ranges of the West. We can now see all too well that this isn’t the case.

The only reason to force these stately animals into confinement is to try to speed up their growth so a few greedy ranchers can profit. But by their very nature these kings of the prairie need space to roam in order to fulfill their natural behaviors and keep them healthy. Why on earth would we want to change that? Big Ag’s “improvements” in genetics for chicken and pigs have done little but shorten the lives of the animals, weaken their skeletons, remove maternal traits that have led to cages, and breed the flavor out of them.

Knowing what we know now about our failed attempts to force domesticated animals into unnatural industrialized farming systems, do we seriously need to do the same to a wild animal?  Why on earth do we want to put bison in feedlots just to make it more like beef, particularly when one of the attributes of bison is its lean, light meaty flavor? Why would you want your bison burger to taste like a beef burger?

Aside from the inexplicable need to force feed bison to make them more like cattle, feedlot confinement has the same ill-effects on bison as it can have on cattle.  Which means the revolting acid-resistant E Coli O157:H7 has been found in bison meat. At least six people have fallen ill and one person has instigated proceedings against Rocky Mountain Natural Meats, the bison meat processor. As we have highlighted in previous blogs, the cause of this particularly virulent E. Coli is related to the inappropriate grain feeding of ruminants, creating an unnatural environment in their digestive systems that allows E. Coli to flourish. Bison fed on pasture or range and raised slowly produce lean, healthy meat, free from acid-resistant E. Coli.

As consumers we can vote with our dollar and end the bison feedlot industry before it destroys this noble species. We can refuse to buy bison from feedlots which may in fact be bad for our health as well as for the health and well being of the animals. If you want to play Russian roulette with E. Coli, buy feedlot beef.

If you feel as I do, buy bison only from herds that live and forage on pasture or range. Demand that your retailer stops selling meats that can kill.  If there is no market for feedlot bison then bison will stop being subjected to feedlots. Let’s not make another mistake that will imperil this magnificent beast.

What a welcome to the beginning of the week when I can read a report that focuses on a real solution. Big Ag isn’t going to like the recent report issued by the United Nations one bit because it threatens its very existence. Big Ag wants you to believe that unsustainable farming practices that lock animals in barren cages and feedlots are the only way to provide enough meat, dairy and eggs. That arable systems only work if you spray the fields three or four times with poisons. That fruit farms require nerve gas linked to autism to produce a crop. That leaving mountains of poisonous manure and contaminated water that sickens our children is just the cost of doing business. That this abhorrent failing system that takes profit from farms and diverts it to corporate monoliths with no conscience or morality is just the way it has to be.

Yes, Big Ag really needs you to believe that this massive failed experiment called modern mono-agriculture is our only chance to stave off worldwide hunger. But, it turns out, it’s not.

The new U.N. report, “Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development,” made me smile. The report documents over 30 successful reforestation case studies and proudly proclaims, “Restoration is not only possible, but can prove highly profitable …” In one region alone, known as the “Desert of Tanzania,” agroforestry (planting trees and crops on the same parcel) increased household income by up to $500 U.S. a year. The average yearly household income for Tanzania is under $500 U.S. per year.

The approach recommended was a blend of the new and the old: pest management using natural predators, intercropping agroforestry, silviculture and green manure. The Animal Welfare Approved program has routinely held the position that scientifically sound humane and sustainable systems are the alternative to the failed experiment of Big Ag,and are the way to feed and water the world. Corporations manipulate science and the truth for corporate gain, so it’s refreshing then that the models profiled in the U.N. report are easy to implement, readily available proven successes.

A recent meeting on agroecology organized under the auspices of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, and featuring many world experts on the subject, also brought a smile to my face. Reporting on their findings, De Schutter said that governments and development agencies can help to promote fairer, more inclusive business models that support local small farmers and others in their relations with governments and investors.

The committee concluded that, “Agroecological farming, which improves food production and farmers’ incomes while at the same time protecting the soil, water and climate, could feed an estimated world population of nine billion people by 2050 and go a long way to save the climate, if implemented now.” This comes on the heels of, “Telling Porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production,” the recent report published in the U.S. jointly by AWA and the Soil Association showing that the previous estimates of food needs of the world were exaggerated by Big Ag by as much as 30 percent.

There is an overwhelming feeling among big thinkers, like the ones that make up De Schutter’s committee, that a new model of food production is the solution. It is time governments truly invest in the future and put money into sustainable systems that are better for the environment, better for the animals, better for the farmers and so much better for our children. It will be interesting to see how Big Ag reacts to this announcement. We can expect that in the coming months “scientists” will be publishing findings that attempt to refute the agroecology concept; you might look to see who is paying their wages directly or indirectly.

We’ve known for decades that we must stop building and exporting replicas of our own failing systems to fragile and impoverished areas of the world. Exporting U.S. agricultural models is modern-day colonialism at its worst. It rips profits from ever fewer local farmers who can ill afford it, disrupts local access to clean, fresh water and degrades crop land over the long term. In the most vulnerable regions of the world, agricultural monoliths are re-creating a cultural structure we have spent years dismantling. This time we can stop the spread of a dangerous system that uses money instead of guns to grab land and dominate the people.

In the words of Professor De Schutter “With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable techniques.” Even if it makes the task more complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time. Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.

The trouble began when Monsanto did an end run around the law by convincing the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS, the division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged with regulating genetically modified plants, amongst other things)  to approve its GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa without the mandatory environmental review (see note below). Consumer groups and farmers hauled them to court, which completely banned the sale and planting of Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa until APHIS completed the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a process that could take years.

On the surface, the Supreme Court ruling may seem like a victory for Monsanto. The Court lifted two injunctions issued by the Ninth Circuit Court: one stopped farmers from planting any Monsanto GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa seed. The other banned APHIS from performing a “partial deregulation” of the seed, which would allow restricted or limited planting during the time an EIS is being prepared. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that APHIS illegally approved Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa seed to begin with. In short, despite the furious spin from Monsanto and agri-business, GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa seed remains illegal.

The Supreme Court lifted the injunction banning a partial deregulation on the basis that the Ninth Circuit Court couldn’t ban something that hadn’t already happened. “Until APHIS actually seeks to effect a partial deregulation,” the Court explained, “any judicial review of such a decision is premature.”  As for banning any GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa seed, the Court held that less drastic measures were available. But it found that APHIS had broken the law when it failed to require an EIS before approving Monsanto GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa.

The Supreme Court ruling does give APHIS the right to preliminarily approve Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa for restricted planting, but it’s important to note that APHIS still can’t fully approve the seed without performing its duty to the citizens of United States—APHIS must file an EIS before complete approval of the seed can happen. But that’s not good enough. The genie of GM alfalfa is already out of the bottle and more restricted plantings will only make things worse.

We will have another chance to challenge APHIS if (more likely when) it announces a partial deregulation of Monsanto GM Roundup Ready™ alfalfa prior to the release of the EIS. And there are already pro-Monsanto rumblings coming from APHIS and the USDA following the Court’s decision.

That’s why the pressure on the USDA, APHIS and its regulators to follow their own rules can’t stop. The USDA must put the welfare of all American farmers and all American consumers before the welfare of Monsanto if we are to have any faith in the regulatory agency that oversees our most basic need—our food. The entire case is extremely interesting when other GM Roundup Ready™ crops are failing (by a long shot) to meet their original hype.

Note: Roundup Ready means the alfalfa withstands Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, which has created a whole new set of problems for farmers worldwide. See our blog, “GMOs and the Law of Unintended Consequences” for more.

Many farmers raising birds for meat operate under the 1,000 bird exemption, meaning that they are not required to have an inspector on-site at the time of processing. However food safety is even more important for the small farmer than it is for a large plant, and sanitation, biosecurity and recordkeeping were emphasized as important tools to ensure a safe product for the consumer. A very knowledgeable and gracious staff from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, including Don Delozier, State Director for the NCDA&CS Meat and Poultry Inspection Division and Compliance Officer Melanie Pollard, presented on the relevant regulations for on-farm processing, how to comply and where to go for more information. The attendance of state officials was sincerely appreciated and added a great deal to the workshop. The information learned will not only help to ensure that farmers are upholding the highest standards of food safety, but will also help them avoid costly mistakes. Composting Specialist Brian Rosa from the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources talked about how to properly compost processing waste while maintaining environmental quality and complying with state regulations. This engagement of state officials with farmers at the on-farm level was a much appreciated gesture of openness and approachability. As one farmer told us, “It was the information I needed.” To find out about future workshops and events, sign up for the AWA email list, join us on Facebook or visit our Upcoming Events page.

To be perfectly honest, I’m actually quite surprised at just how long this romance has lasted. Of course, the billions of dollars spent by the likes of Monsanto on PR, lobbying Congress and all the rest has certainly helped keep us all fixated on this glamorous technological panacea. But, like most whirlwind romances, our own niggling doubts and the sage advice from trusted sources (in this case independent scientists) is becoming difficult to ignore. Was it really all too good to be true?

Robert Kremer is beginning to think so. Kremer is a government microbiologist, based at the University of Missouri. He works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and has studied Midwestern farm soils for the last two decades. He is one of several scientists who have uncovered what appear to be hitherto unpredicted problems in plants and soils associated with the use of glyphosate-resistant GM crops and the glyphosate (1) herbicide.

Kremer’s main interest is general soil quality. Over the last few years, tests on soil and plant growth appear to reveal emerging problems in the root systems of “Roundup Ready” (2)  plants. He thinks that the use of glyphosate could be affecting root growth and root-associated microbes in the soil – and he is seriously worried about the possible implications.(3)

Recently, U.S. soil microbiologists working with soils associated with the use of Roundup and Roundup Ready crops have found reduced populations of beneficial types of soil microbes and a growth in pathogenic species. Subsequent soil tests for key micronutrients such as manganese, copper and, boron found levels were generally very low compared to samples taken three to four years ago, possibly due to die-off of soil bacteria. (4)  Other scientists have identified evidence of possible chelation (tie-up) of micronutrients in plant tissue associated with the widespread use of Roundup, while  still others have found increased incidences of plant diseases such as fungal root infections among Roundup Ready crops.(5)

The unintended impacts of GM crops are not just limited to U.S. farmers. In a paper recently published in the U.S. journal, Science, researchers in China have called for a complete reassessment of the long-term risks of GM crops after their 10-year field studies revealed an explosion in pest numbers around farms growing genetically engineered strains of Bt cotton, produced by Monsanto.

A recent report in the UK’s Guardian newspaper reveals that millions of hectares of farmland in northern China have been struck by pest infestations after the widespread adoption of insect-resistant GM cotton in the area. Originally designed to reduce the use of pesticides and save money for Chinese cotton farmers, GM cotton instead led to farmers becoming too reliant on the pesticide producing qualities of GM cotton rather than integrated pest management systems. The unintended consequence is an out-of-control infestation of mirid bugs. Formerly a relatively insignificant pest, the mired bug is not affected by the insect-resistant GM cotton and a lack of other pest controls has allowed it to flourish on GM farms and spread to non-GM farms, destroying a wide-range of non-GM crops. The newspaper reports that the pest infestations could be “potentially catastrophic for more than 10 million small-scale farmers who cultivate 26 million hectares of vulnerable crops in the region studied.”

While the cynic in me suggests that Monsanto probably couldn’t give a hoot about the livelihood of small farmers–especially those who choose to avoid using GM technology–what worries me more than anything is that these two pieces of independent research could actually represent the tip of a very large iceberg. Because the fact is that the patents that Monsanto, Du Pont and other biotech giants all hold on their GM crops effectively prevent any independent scientific study from using their GM seeds without prior permission. Indeed, in February 2009, over 25 leading corn insect scientists–all working at public research institutions located in 16 corn producing states–issued a public statement to the US Environmental Protection Agency, claiming that “As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”(6)

Is it the case that until we fully understand the potential environmental and health risks of genetically engineered crops or animals, we must keep this technology locked in research labs? We shouldn’t allow the likes of Monsanto to inflict this uncertain technology on those people who ultimately have the most to lose when it all inevitably goes wrong.

NOTES

1 Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and is the most used herbicide in the U.S. Initially patented and sold by Monsanto Company in the 1970s under the trade name Roundup, its U.S. patent expired in 2000.
2  Roundup Ready TM crops, such as soybeans and cottons, have been genetically modified to tolerate the chemical herbicide, glyphosate.
3 See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C2AJ20100413
4 See Tsuioshi, Kremer, de Camargo e Castro and Wood (2009). “Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability?”, European Journal of Agronomy, vol.31, no.3.
5 See No Till Farmer, March 2010 “Are We Shooting Ourselves in the Foot With A Silver Bullet?”
6 See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=2 and   http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648084de39.

Organophosphates are one of the most widely used pesticides across the world. Among other things, they are used as insecticides on grains, fruit and vegetables, to control parasites on farm livestock and pets, and for fly control in industrial and commercial premises. You might think that a product that has been around for more than 60 years–and which is used so widely–is safe and has no side effects. But sadly this is not the case.

We shouldn’t be too surprised that OPs are potentially harmful. These pesticides were originally developed in World War II for chemical warfare as nerve gases. Indeed, if we look further afield, it is clear that the side effects of these chemicals are already well known. Up until the late 1980s, it was compulsory in many parts of Europe to immerse sheep in an OP bath or dip to control parasites. But many of the shepherds who used these chemicals suffered horrific neurological and psychological damage, leaving them unable to farm. There is also a known link between OP toxicity and depression and suicide.

A recent report in a UK farming journal tells the story of a farmer who has been suffering from “OP poisoning” for more than 30 years. Residues of the OP chemicals from sheep dip that he used when helping his parents dip their flocks was found in the fatty tissue of his body, proving how persistent these chemicals are. So while some OP manufacturers such as Dow Agrosciences are not mentioned in the recent pediatrics research, we already know that there is clear evidence of the potential harm that all OPs can cause.

Animal Welfare Approved prohibits the use of organophosphates because of our concerns for both the health of farmers using them, and for the animals to whom these chemicals are directly applied. The fact that the metabolites of OPs are now being found in children from day-to-day low-level exposure shows just how important it is to have stronger restrictions on the use of these chemicals.

If you are unsure about whether or not your fruit and vegetables have been sprayed with OP insecticide, you should wash them thoroughly before eating them. And if you can, always try to seek out meat, dairy and other products from programs like AWA that prohibit the use of OPs in farming.

AWA Program Director Andrew Gunther moderated the discussion, beginning by posing this question to the panelists: “How does such a diversified group have an opinion on the future of agriculture?” Panelists’ responses highlighted the issues that affect all of us, including truth in labeling, fair and scale-appropriate regulation, overuse of antibiotics, environmental pollution and treatment of farm animals and workers.

Speakers also addressed the role of the consumer in ensuring the sustainability of our food system. Morison explained, “Consumers need to get more involved in their communities. You’re not only sustaining farms, but the communities as well.” Kirby commented on the disconnect between consumer expectation and the realities of the food we eat: “When you get your cheap yogurt at the mall you’re not thinking about how now someone can’t use their well water anymore.” Niman encouraged eaters to do their homework, understand the systems they support with their food dollars and offered the following rule of thumb:  “I want all my food to come from farms I want to visit.” Dr. Whisnant agreed, encouraging us to “start from the consumer side and demand change.”

We were honored to host such an accomplished and articulate panel.  Their work is creating a truly sustainable path forward – one that sustains farm families, animals and the communities that depend on them.

For more quotes from the event visit us on Twitter (@AWAapproved). We will be posting video footage soon!

The issue of environmental impact and meat production is a complicated one and open to misinterpretation and confusion. See our past blog, Beware of Bad Science. With my obvious interest in grassfed and pasture-raised production I am always looking to see what new evidence is being presented. After reading both pieces, however, I was left feeling rather disappointed.

These articles are interesting, but they are interesting for all the wrong reasons. While they appear to put forward a strong argument, with independent studies mentioned, if not always actually referenced, they actually expose the problems of scientific reductionism and a general lack of academic rigor.

Helene York’s piece does not make much of a distinction between beef production methods. According to her, from a global warming perspective, all beef is bad. One of her references is a 2006 study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, “Diet, Energy and Global Warming,” which compared industrially produced meat to a vegan diet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).  Eshel’s more recent article focuses on the alleged negative environmental impact of grassfed beef.

York’s contention is that beef is:

“The Hummer of foods—an excessive contributor to environmental ills including climate change, nitrogen blooms, pollution, and depletion of Midwestern aquifers—not to mention E. coli contamination that has sickened and scared thousands.”

Regular readers of our blogs will recognize that we too are aware of the environmental and E. coli risks of feedlot beef. But while it may not be obvious to York, it is clear to others that there is a world of difference between feedlot beef and pastured beef and the environmental, health and welfare implications of each system.

Dr. Eshel does recognize the difference between grassfed beef and feedlot beef but by his account grassfed comes out far worse than feedlot beef. I was pleased to see that Eshel understands that the meat of a “healthy thriving animal is clearly nutritionally superior to the biochemically compromised, microbiologically teeming ecosystem that is the bulk of the nation’s meat supply.” I was also pleased to read that, along with one or two farmers out there, Eshel is well aware of the unique ability of the ruminant to convert forage and other cellulose-rich foods into usable nutrients. As he says, “if it weren’t for the absorption of glucose liberated by bacteria mediated cellulose breakdown inside ruminant bodies, most of this energy would have bypassed the animal kingdom altogether.” So what is his problem with grassfed?

Well, when compared to meat from corn-fed cattle, Eshel argues that meat from grassfed cattle is more–not less–greenhouse gas intensive. He argues that grassfed animals emit two to four times as much methane (a potent greenhouse gas) compared to the more “efficient” corn and soya-based diet of feedlot cattle. This is because the non-forage diet is mostly simple sugars, which requires no rumination for digestion.

Eshel argues that the higher methane emissions of grassfed cattle, combined with the faster weight gain by feedlot animals, result in significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions per pound of meat by grassfed animals than by feedlot ones. He also argues that grazing animals produce “at most a quarter of the calories per acre typical plant based production systems do” and that, ultimately, “grass-feeding produces unnecessary low-quality calories at ostentatious environmental costs while displacing threatened wildlife.”

On face value, he makes a seemingly strong case. Grassfed cattle produce more methane than corn-fed cattle; they grow more slowly and are therefore more “inefficient” when compared to cattle fed a corn-based diet. As a result, they represent an inefficient use of land which could be used to grow corn for feedlot cattle systems.

However, there is one particularly big hole in Dr. Eshel’s argument – which is particularly surprising given that he was once a cattle farmer in Israel. This hole in the argument also applies to Helene York’s contention that there is little difference between grassfed and feedlot cattle. The point is this: while the grassfed cattle are busy munching the grass, the feedlot cattle are busy munching… corn and soya. This corn and soya is rather heavily reliant on regular applications of… nitrogen fertilizers and other agrochemicals. And nitrogen fertilizers and other agrochemicals are produced using… you guessed it…fossil fuels.

According to David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, a typical steer will in effect consume 284 gallons of oil in its lifetime. Why? Because the corn we feed to our feedlot cattle requires artificial fertilizer and other agrochemicals, which require staggering amounts of fossil fuel energy to produce. And what about the growing body of scientific evidence which points to the benefits that grassfed farming systems offer in terms of soil carbon sequestration, and how the grazing process helps to the build the levels of organic matter in the soil, storing carbon in the process? Just two issues directly related to the climate change debate that both York and Eshel’s articles fail to even consider. But there are countless other aspects of the grassfed debate which fall outside of both their views on the issue.

For example, what about the animal welfare issues associated with feedlot production? What about the fact that although the corn may indeed make the cattle grow much more “efficiently,” cattle are “designed” to convert forage, and not copious quantities of grain? We know that when cattle arrive at feedlots, the change from a forage-based diet to the unnatural corn-based diet (intended to fatten them as fast as possible) must be managed carefully to avoid serious diet and digestive-related problems like acidiosis (a serious form of bovine heart burn which can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, liver disease and a general ill health) and “feedlot bloat.” Feedlot bloat is a major cause of sudden death in feedlots. It occurs when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, which affects the normal operation of the rumen, preventing the natural expulsion of gas (burping). As a result, the rumen literally inflates like a balloon–often very quickly –compressing the animal’s lungs and other internal organs. If the animal is not treated swiftly it can literally suffocate to death.

What about the routine diet of antibiotics used on feedlots to prevent the outbreak of diseases which would otherwise run riot among the immunologically weakened animals living in closely confined conditions? What about the routine feeding of low levels of key antibiotics to “promote growth” and which is leading to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria–meaning that essential antibiotics are fast becoming useless in the treatment of life-threatening human diseases, such as MRSA?

What about the human health implications of the corn-based cattle diet? York mentions E. coli as an issue of beef in general. But what about the fact that feeding corn creates an unnaturally acidic environment in the cattle’s digestive system which results in the growth of acid loving–and human health threatening–bacteria in the cattle’s gut, such as E. coli 0157:H7? We know that when these bacteria are exposed to low doses of antibiotics throughout the cattle’s life they can develop resistance and become “superbugs,” so when the bacteria are inevitably transferred to meat during the slaughter process, and a food poisoning outbreak occurs, the usual drugs no longer work. What about the financial cost of the regular resulting mass beef recalls and the associated human costs for those who are affected?

What about the nutritional advantages of grassfed beef? The fact that, when compared to feedlot beef, it contains far higher levels of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, higher levels of vitamin E and much higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) – a nutrient associated with lower cancer risk?

What about the environmental pollution associated with factory farms? Not to mention the cost of “storing” the millions of tons of manure produced by these feedlots? While grassfed farmers rely on the more modest levels of manure produced by their cattle in order to help maintain the natural fertility of their soils, feedlot farmers see it only as waste.

Science is a vital tool in unraveling the vast complexities of climate change, and the science is changing all the time. By all means, scientists should present their research and contribute to the debate. But while Eshel and I might agree on the need to cut down on our general meat consumption, and York and I might agree on the need to support better quality meats, unfortunately, the case each puts forward isn’t new; it’s based entirely on existing scientific research, much of which is highly contested. But what these articles really highlight is the fact that it really isn’t helpful to only consider one section of the full chain of production while ignoring other very significant areas of the debate.

Rick Dove is just one of the ordinary citizens-turned-activists that Kirby follows in Animal Factory, and he wisely lets the power of their stories drive the narrative. For Rick Dove of New Bern, North Carolina, Helen Reddout of Yakima Valley, Washington and Karen Hudson of Elmwood, Illinois, farming originally meant what we’ve all been taught to believe—happy animals standing in lush grasses with a welcoming red barn in the background. It’s not until Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, known as CAFOs, move nearby, complete with stench and large manure spills, that they begin to realize what today’s industrialized agriculture really represents. Polluted fields and waterways, cruelly confined and mistreated animals, dreadful working conditions, fish kills, stink, illness.

Kirby is an experienced investigative reporter, Huffington Post contributor and the author of Evidence of Harm, an investigation into the possible link between mercury in vaccines and autism. For the latter he won the 2005 Investigative Reporters and Editors Award. In Animal Factory he skillfully weaves the personal and political to expose a world where profit and efficiency come at a steep price to people, animals and land. In Kirby’s capable hands, Animal Factory reads like a political thriller, but the stakes are hardly imaginary.

Corporate agriculture maintains that you can’t feed the world, much less the United States, without CAFOs to make meat, dairy and eggs plentiful and affordable. While Michael Pollan and others have talked about the “true” cost of food, Animal Factory plainly illuminates the incomprehensibility of industrialized animal farming. It’s a system where seemingly no one but the parent company profits yet all are at risk. Not only do the regions where CAFOs are located experience an alarming rise in pollution and reciprocal loss of quality of life, but the systems lead to increased and more deadly risk to humans from diseases such as antibiotic resistant E. coli and mad cow disease (BSE).

At its core, Animal Factory is a personal story—a story of individuals coming together to protect their land, the health of their community, the dignity of the farm animals and the safety of the nation’s food supply. Kirby uses the activists’ stories as the backbone of his book, weaving in science, statistics and politics to enhance but not overwhelm the reader’s experience. No doubt it’s been an unwelcome surprise to industrialized agriculture that three such disparate people as Rick, Karen and Helen would ever find each other, much less build a movement that is forcing them to be accountable, but they did. Using their compelling stories, Kirby shines a light into the dark corners of industrialized agriculture and what he finds isn’t pretty.

The article is one of an increasing number of investigative pieces which have highlighted the massive pollution problems caused by intensive livestock farming systems – and the fact that we, as taxpayers, are the ones who are currently picking up the bill.

Farming today
Ask the average man or woman in the street to describe a modern farm and it is pretty likely that you’ll still get a rose-tinted description of a traditional family farm, as it was some time ago. Many people still have no idea how the vast majority of their food is produced today. And big farming business wants to keep it that way, believe me.

Before the industrialization of our farming systems in the 1940s-50s, U.S. farming mainly consisted of small family farms working in relative harmony with their surrounding environment. In the spring and summer months, farmers would grow crops and grass to feed their families and livestock, selling the excess to local communities and businesses. The crops would take up nutrients from the soil, which would be utilized by the livestock to produce milk, eggs or meat for human consumption. Over the winter months, the animals would be housed in barns with straw bedding and fed hay. In the spring, the farmers would clear out the straw bedding – now thoroughly mixed with manure – and spread it on the land, thereby returning some of the nutrients that the cattle had consumed back to the soil for the following season’s crops and pasture.

Sustainable family farms do still exist. And, thanks to mounting consumer interest in how food is produced, their number is growing. Animal Welfare Approved farmers across the U.S. seek to work in balance with their environment. They grow grass to feed their livestock, returning manure back to the land. It’s called the natural nutrient cycle.

Spread manure on healthy pastures at the right levels and the worms and micro-organisms that live in the soil will quickly break it down into a more stable form of nutrients, readily available to growing plants. This is a natural process, one that has happened since time immemorial. It’s what the soil critters are designed to do.

Problems with the system
The system described works amazingly well. However, spread too much manure and things quickly start to get out of hand. The soil life cannot cope and the manure is no longer absorbed into the soil. Instead, it sits on the surface, creating increasingly toxic conditions for the friendly soil critters below. Exposed to the weather, the soluble nutrients in the manure – particularly nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous – start to leech away, finding their way into streams and waterways. And this is exactly what is happening on intensive livestock units across the U.S. on a truly massive scale.

The trouble is that these industrial farming units aren’t designed to work with Mother Nature. Gone is the concept of the “natural nutrient cycle”—instead, these industrial units, with their tens of thousands of housed pigs or cattle, or hundreds of thousands of chickens, are now producing so much waste manure that they simply don’t know what to do with it. It’s happening on a scale that is almost impossible to comprehend. And we are all paying for it.

According to the National Hog Farmer’s latest State of the Industry Report, over 116 million hogs were slaughtered in the U.S. last year. But even this figure is dwarfed by the total number of chickens raised for meat and egg production: in 2007, U.S. farmers produced 8.9 billion broiler chickens, while the national flock produced over 90 billion eggs.

Smithfield–the world’s largest pork processor–slaughtered and processed over 27 million pigs in 2005 in the U.S. alone. The Washington Post article reports that livestock produce three times more excrement than humans, so just one of Smithfield’s 500,000 pig units will produce more excrement than the 1.5 million humans living in Manhattan. And we are now learning that the way this manure is stored and managed is having a profound effect on the environment.

Most factory farms collect their waste manure in huge nearby open tanks or cesspools. Some of these lagoons are as big as several football fields, each holding hundreds of thousands–if not millions–of gallons of putrefying manure. Being exposed to the elements, they emit toxic gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as methane, a key greenhouse gas.

As the waste is expensive to store–and even more expensive to transport–some industrial systems periodically pump the waste out of the lagoons and spray it on the surrounding fields. The problem is that it is often sprayed at such high rates–or at such frequencies–that the soil and plants cannot even begin absorb it.

This “over-application” leads to run-off, where the water-soluble nutrients find their way into our waterways and groundwater systems in vast quantities, polluting our drinking water and rivers, leaving our waterways dead–and directly contributing to the 230 recognized oxygen-deprived dead zones along the U.S. coast.

For various reasons, the regulatory system just hasn’t been able to keep up. The industrial farming lobby is very quick to pull out the “financial threat to the family farm” card and run cap in hand to the government whenever they come under pressure to adopt more environmentally friendly techniques. Yet it is clear that most farming today is about as far from the traditional family farm as you can get.

Who’s paying?
With all this fresh in your mind it might infuriate you to hear that the factory farms aren’t the only ones who are paying to clear up the mess. In fact, taxpayers are contributing significant sums of money, too.

For example, Maryland Department of Agriculture’s manure transport program is a government-funded service for intensive livestock farmers. Under the program, “farmers who have inadequate cropland to fully utilize their manure may apply for grants to transport excess waste to other farms or alternative use facilities that can use the product safely.” So although the factory farming system is effectively designed to fail when it comes to its own waste management, the taxpayer is still expected to help subsidize the disposal of waste manure. Go figure…

So what is the industry doing?
One green solution put forward by the intensive poultry industry is to convert the excess waste manure into fertilizer pellets for sale to homeowners. In 2001, Perdue Farms, one of the leading poultry processors in the US, opened the Perdue AgriRecycle plant in Blades, Delaware, after environmental regulations around the Chesapeake Bay were tightened when research showed that phosphorus in agricultural runoff was polluting the waters of the Bay.

This development sounds like a good idea until you find out that this plant–the largest in the region–handles less than 10% of the poultry manure on the Delmarva Peninsula alone.

So why don’t Perdue and other companies just build more plants to deal with the waste problem they have created? Well, the fact is that Perdue isn’t planning on building any further facilities in the very near future because people just aren’t buying the pelleted manure fertilizer. In addition, there is no more taxpayer money available to help pay for the construction. (The kind taxpayers of Delaware contributed a significant portion of the cost to help build Perdue’s flagship manure processing plant.)

Ok, so you might argue that I’m being a little harsh on these multi-million dollar companies and their failure so far to take any real responsibility for the mess they are making of this planet. In a world of diminishing oil reserves and the threat of climate change, you could argue that it is important to see farming move towards better use of its wastes. But while some might regard such poultry manure processing facilities as a step in the right direction, the reality is that it’s a bit like using Scotch tape to patch a crack in a dam.

The fact is that when your farming system involves feeding huge quantities of feed to massive concentrations of animals in a very small area, it’s pretty obvious that you’re going to get a massive output of manure as well as huge animal welfare issues–and all of the other problems associated with factory farming that I’ve mentioned many times before.

My question is this: why are we spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to help prop up an unsustainable factory farming industry? We shouldn’t be spending more taxpayers’ money to help these factory farms to dispose of the billions of gallons of putrefying waste manure they are producing each year. Instead, we should be looking at ways of getting rid of the centralized, industrial farming systems which produce it in the first place, and helping the remaining family farms to adopt truly sustainable farming practices.

Photo courtesy of Reclaiming Food & Farming.