The Common Denominator of Environmental Destruction:

Why Animal Agriculture is Not Sustainable

Students Protecting the Environment and Animals through Knowledge

University of South Florida

Brian Brown
Gabriella Goldring
Andrew Bresnahan
Paige Atchison
Juliette Martin

January 30, 2015

Introduction

The advancement of technology and industry in our society has culminated to a point at which our
way of life would be unimaginable in ages prior. The level and sophistication of industrial
production is truly astounding and provides immeasurable benefits to humanity, but unfortunately
the various costs accrued to specific groups of people, humanity as a whole, and the earth itself
are often unknown, misunderstood, or simply ignored. The question becomes that of
sustainability: what set of conditions is requisite to sustain our way of life – or, on a more grave
and ultimately more authentic level, how will our way of life need to change in order to sustain
life and the earth as we know it?

A cursory understanding of sustainability issues reveals water resource depletion, global climate
change, pollution, natural habitat destruction, misuse of land, and overpopulation as a few
examples among countless others of issues of serious import to the challenge of global
sustainability. Often, efforts to combat these problems focus on underlying issues such as carbon
emissions from fossil fuels, household water use, garbage accumulation, and other such
causes. While the merit of these efforts is sound, there is curiously little discussion about an
underlying issue which affects countless subjects of global sustainability to a degree radically
higher than most even consider. This issue is animal agriculture.

Human civilization has relied on animal agriculture for sustenance since prehistory. In the nascent
days of civilization, the farming of animals was sustainable due to the comparatively low
populations required to be sustained. As civilization advanced, populations became larger and
more intensive farming methods became necessary. The twentieth century brought about
unprecedented population growth as well as economic growth and technological advancement, and
with them came the means and necessity for yet more intensive farming methods. The method
which became the de facto standard for cost-effective, intense animal farming is the factory farm
model. This model has facilitated the production of animal products on a scale scarcely imagined
a century ago.

This scale of production has, unfortunately, resulted in consequences of such variety and
magnitude that common sense would suggest that it should be the highest priority in the global
sustainability discussion, and that the relatively miniscule attention given to it in favor of other
topics is absolutely baffling. While the consequences of animal agriculture which threaten the
environment, humanity, and society and severely undermine global sustainability are numerous
and broad in scope and interaction, our foci for the purpose of this paper are primarily
deforestation, water resource depletion and destruction, pollution, misuse of land, global climate
change, poverty proliferation, labor maltreatment, and animal abuse. Each of these topics
individually present a strong argument for a reduction in animal production, and together they
form an inextricable web which clearly elucidates the fact that the most obvious and
comprehensive solution to the most pressing issues in global sustainability is a drastic curtailment
in animal agriculture.
What is a Factory Farm?

The factory farm model is a term used to describe a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
(CAFO), which is defined by the EPA as being an Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) – which is
an operation in which animals are confined for at least 45 days within a 12 month period in a
facility where no grass or vegetation exists during the normal growing season, and which meets
certain criteria based primarily on the number of animals confined in the facility (EPA,
“Regulatory Definitions”). CAFOs are highly industrialized methods of agriculture with the goal
of raising the largest number of animals possible in the space given. The ASPCA asserts that this
method of mass agriculture leads to copious amounts of waste runoff which “...pollutes the water,
land and air in neighboring communities, compromising both human health and quality of life
(ASPCA, “What is Factory Farming?”).

The EPA estimates that CAFOs make up 15 percent of all AFOs in the United States (EPA,
“Region 7 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations”), but such a figure is misleading, as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture estimates that as of 1997, 65 percent of all cattle in the United States
was slaughtered in plants where more than 500,000 animals were slaughtered annually (this figure
is 80 percent for steers and heifers), and 88 percent of hogs were slaughtered in plants where one
million animals were slaughtered annually (Macdonald et al. 9). This proportion has risen
significantly from the same figures in 1977 which were 12 percent for cattle and 38 percent for
hogs (Macdonald et al. 9). The proportion of animals being slaughtered in large operations has
risen concomitantly with the proportion of animals slaughtered in the four largest firms in each
industry, with 80 percent of steers and heifers slaughtered by the four largest firms in 2004, up
from 36 percent in 1980, and with 64 percent of hogs slaughtered by the four largest firms in 2004,
up from 34 percent in 1980 (USDA, “Agricultural Concentration”).

Water

A general topic of grave importance herein is the squandering of finite resources resulting from
the continuation of animal agriculture at its current scale. The resource which is abused to the
greatest magnitude and which presents the greatest consequence for humanity in its absence is
fresh water. Although water may seem to be an abundant resource, evidenced by the prevalence
of the color blue on any world map, it is not available in a form usable to humans in as large
quantities as we would often like to imagine. Ninety-six and one-half percent of the earth’s water
is located in oceans, and one percent is brackish, leaving just 2.5 percent of the earth’s water fresh
and fit for human consumption; however, 70 percent of this fresh water is inaccessible, as it is
confined to glaciers, permanent snow, and the atmosphere (Steinfeld et al. 125). All of the water
that humans use and thrive on consists of this relatively tiny sliver of the total water on the earth.
Of this tiny sliver, agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the total water use, and 93 percent of
water depletion globally (Steinfeld et al. 126). A very significant amount of this water use in
agriculture is accountable to animal agriculture. It is rather obvious that animals must be given
water and that their waste must be removed from the facilities where they are raised. A commonly
overlooked factor of their water consumption is their consumption of feed.
Two hundred fifty-three million tons of grain, which require approximately 66 trillion gallons of
water to produce, are fed to livestock each year (Pimentel et al. 913). Cattle, in particular, require
a large amount of water to raise due to their sheer size. One pound of beef requires approximately
25,000 gallons of water to produce (Pimentel et al. 911).1 Lamb is even more water intensive, at
30,800 gallons of water per pound of meat. This is compared to 160 gallons per pound of millet,
370 gallons per pound of potatoes, 930 gallons per pound of rice, and 1,160 gallons per pound of
soybeans (Pimentel et al. 911). Already we can see that food from cattle and lamb requires
between 22 and 193 times the amount of water required for production than food consumed
directly from crops.

A commonly cited issue with these analyses is that the figures for water consumption do not
account for rainfall as a factor in livestock feed production. While this may be the case, it matters
little as a counterpoint. Approximately 40 percent of food worldwide is obtained from irrigated
cropland (Pimentel et al. 911), and 55 percent of food in the United States is obtained from
irrigated cropland, according to the USDA (“Irrigation and Water Use”). According to the United
States Geological Survey, 37 percent of total freshwater withdrawals were attributed to irrigated
farmland, 58 percent of which was encompassed by surface water withdrawals (Kenny et al. 29).
A particularly striking example is the High Plains aquifer, one of the most expansive aquifers in
the country, which extends through eight western states over an area of 111 million acres. This
aquifer provides potable drinking water to most of the people who live within its plane of access.
However, 97 percent of all withdrawals from this aquifer are used for farmland irrigation. Over
time, this has caused diminutions in the water levels of some areas of the aquifer of more than 150
feet (Reilly et al. 57). UNEP has estimated that 50 percent of crops worldwide are used to feed
livestock as opposed to being used to feed people directly (“Assessing the Environmental Impacts”
66). This indicates that animal agriculture is responsible for half of the staggering amount of water
resource withdrawals due to agriculture. Considering that 70 percent of all water resource
withdrawals are non-recoverable (Pimentel et al. 911), these figures quickly become rather
alarming.

Extrapolating the above figures, we can see that consuming a quarter-pound hamburger (excluding
bread and condiments) requires 6,250 gallons of water, whereas one half-pound baked potato
requires 185 gallons of water. Thus, a person consuming a hamburger effectively consumes 34
times the amount of water in one meal than a person who consumes a baked potato. To put this
into further perspective, consider measures commonly implemented to curb water use in the home
– reductions in toilet flushing and shower time. A conventional toilet requires approximately 4.75
gallons of water per flush, and a five-minute shower with a typical showerhead uses approximately
4.75 gallons of water as well (Environment Canada). In order to catch up with the potato eater in
terms of water savings for this one meal, the burger eater would need to avoid flushing his or her
toilet (assuming five flushes per day) for 255 days, or avoid showering for 3.5 years. Our
organization formally recommends declining consideration of these measures in favor of the
potato.

1
This figure was obtained from Pimentel et al. (2004). A commonly cited figure is that of George Borgstrom in "Impacts on Demand for and
Quality of Land and Water," presented to the 1981 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as that
of the Water Education Foundation in their 1991 publication "Water Inputs in California Food Production," which concluded that the amount of
water required for one pound of beef production was 2,500 gallons and 2,464 gallons, respectively. The figure from Pimentel et al. (2004) was
chosen as their study took into account the various factor inputs of meat production, it was peer-reviewed, and it was conducted far more recently
than either of the previous studies.
While the above example primarily serves as an interesting thought experiment, it also underlines
a rather curious trend in recommendations for sustainable water use. In terms of overall reduction
in water use, it seems rather counterintuitive to avoid recommending a reduction in meat
consumption in favor of the more common recommendations of taking shorter showers and
avoiding excessive lawn watering. While those measures do certainly have their merits, and they
have a greater impact on local water systems as opposed to aggregate water use, it is severely
imprudent to avoid recommending a vegetarian diet in discussions of regional and national water
use policy, considering that the potential water savings from a switch to a vegetarian diet are many
orders of magnitude greater than from a switch to a low-flow showerhead.

According to the UNEP’s report, Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and
Production: Priority Products and Materials, the American agricultural system was identified as
the main contributor of ecotoxic impacts in the U.S. with feed grains contributing 15 percent of
the total freshwater ecotoxicity (40). In 2008 alone, 2.2 billion tons of grain, 391.5 million tons
of oilseed, and 120.5 million tons of cotton were produced globally (UNEP, “Assessing the
Environmental Impacts” 41). This staggering amount of crop production demands a large supply
of freshwater, a resource that, as stated earlier, is not in abundant supply. In 2009, 70 percent of
the global freshwater consumption was utilized by agricultural practices; however, the amount of
available freshwater is already much lower than most people likely realize (UNEP, “Assessing the
Environmental Impacts” 42).

As previously noted, only 2.5 percent of all water resources are fresh water, and agriculture is
responsible for 93 percent of water depletion worldwide. Not only is agriculture causing a decrease
in the amount of fresh water available in the country, but it is polluting the remaining water
supplies with inorganic fertilizers, manure, and wastewater from cattle (Steinfeld et al. 136). Feed
grains alone contributed to 8 percent of the total emissions of eutrophying substance in the U.S. in
2002 (UNEP, “Assessing the Environmental Impacts” 39). Large amounts of pollutants in water
systems cause an increase in algal growth which can accelerate the natural process of
eutrophication and in turn, create “dead-zone” areas as they utilize large amounts of oxygen,
making it no longer available to other organisms (Steinfeld et al. 138; Biello). This pollution of
water systems can also pose a threat to human health as high levels of nitrate in drinking water
increase the risk of human infants developing heart defects as part of the “blue baby syndrome”
and can cause stomach cancers in adults (Steinfeld et al. 139). Additionally, pathogens and
parasites previously carried by livestock are swept into water systems via runoff and are readily
available to infect human drinkers if given the opportunity (Steinfeld et al. 140). As drug residues,
antimicrobials, and heavy metals, such as those contained within hoof disinfectants, have also been
discovered in various water systems, the potential exists for humans, wildlife, and plant life to be
increasingly exposed to inorganic materials that can be disruptive and damaging to the overall
health of the environment (Steinfeld et al. 143).
Fertilizer

There was once a time when humans survived mainly on plants and fishes, when two or three days
of hunting yielded enough meat for the week, and when food was so abundant that bushmen could
easily withstand droughts that endangered even the most successful communities in South Africa,
with proper planning (Pretty 27-30). Hunting and gathering activities occurred during 90 percent
of human history and eventually transitioned into a bartering system to obtain products such as
furs, honey, and medicine in Asia (Pretty 44). It was not until humans realized that animals and
plants could be domesticated to fit human needs that agricultural practices became a more popular
method of obtaining food (National Geographic, “Development of Agriculture”).

Gradually, our current system developed to one constantly under pressure from increasing demand
for meat products. To accommodate this demand, farmers have resorted to fast-acting fertilizers to
help crops grow faster and absorb more nutrients. While the effectiveness of chemical and organic
fertilizers have been proven in today’s agricultural market, the increasing demand for meat
products, and therefore produce, calls for quick fixes that not only damage the soil, but that also
introduce harmful substances into water systems, promote further land use, disrupt American
ecosystems, and even pose health threats to the human population.

In order to successfully discuss the effects of fertilizers, one must understand the terminology and
basic concepts surrounding the soil in which the fertilizers are working. Soil serves a variety of
purposes as it “support[s] plant growth, recycle[s] dead material, regulate[s] and filter[s] water
flows, support[s] buildings and roads, and provide[s] [a] habitat for many plants and animals” (Soil
Quality, “Soil Functions”). Healthy soil is soil that is able to withstand changes in the environment
over long periods of time (Soil Quality, “Soil Functions”). Healthy soil also stores, cycles, and
releases nutrients and other elements which become available to plants and to the surrounding
environment via air or water (Soil Quality, “Nutrient Cycling”). Soil quality indicators such as
pH, available water capacity, and earthworms are used by scientists to determine the overall health
of a soil sample (Soil Quality, “Indicators”). One such indicator, total organic carbon (TOC), is
important when it comes to agriculture because it represents the “carbon (C) stored in soil organic
matter (SOM)” (Soil Quality, “Total Organic Carbon”). When plants and animals decompose,
organic carbon (OC) enters the soil and becomes soil organic carbon (SOC), which serves as the
main energy source for soil microorganisms. SOCs derived from different sources have different
turnover times, becoming available for use at varying speeds (Soil Quality, “Total Organic
Carbon”). Labile carbon is carbon that is produced within a 5 year timeframe from “’new’ organic
matter contributed annually and has a significant role in microbial nitrogen turnover and supply”
(Soil Quality, “Labile Carbon”). Additionally, the “quality of organic matter inputs” influences the
ability of microorganisms to produce nitrogen (N) that is available to plant life. Thus, animal
health and plant health are integral to soil health which is, in a cyclical manner, integral to animal
and plant health (Soil Quality, “Labile Carbon”).

It is no wonder that various types of fertilizers have been used since the development of the modern
agricultural system; fertilizers have increased root growth, crop yield and productivity around the
world. Unsurprisingly, manure was the first fertilizer to be used as it is seen in Roman manuscripts
as far back as the 2nd Century BCE (Wilson 7). In Roman farming scientist Cato writes, “’What is
the first principle of good agriculture? To plough well. What is the second? To plough again. And
the third is to manure’” (Wilson 7). As the agricultural system began to grow, synthetic fertilizers
were developed to produce higher crop yields. Nitrogen and phosphorous-based fertilizers are now
the most commonly used and a study in Iran showed that different fertilizer types had “significant
effect[s] on the grain yield, biomass, thousand grains weight, plant height, number of grains on
panicle, number of panicle and panicle weight” (Sanati et al.). This study showed that both Azolla
composts and N-based fertilizers were able to obtain similar results in each of these categories.

While fertilizers have been proven to be effective in maximizing crop yields, their effects on the
soil are just as noticeable. According to an article in the Forest Ecology and Management Journal,
“forest soils store more than 70 percent of all soil organic C (SOC) worldwide; therefore, small
changes in the forest soil C pool size may substantially affect the atmospheric CO 2 concentration”
(Li et al. 121). Thus, unhealthy soil may mean an unhealthy environment in terms of CO 2
emissions from the soil. The same article pointed out that the intensive management practices
related to the growth of Moso bamboo in China cause “negative ecological consequences such as
the decrease of soil microbial functional diversity and the increase in CO 2 emission rates.” Not
only did the intensive management techniques change the quality of the soil, but it changed the
organic C chemical composition of the soil, making it less able to support the bamboo crops after
a certain time period. Inorganic fertilizers change the composition of the soil so that it is unusable
after a few growth cycles and then more land must be utilized, beginning a vicious cycle of
extensive land usage.

Other long-term effects of chemical fertilizer use include water pollution, habitat loss, and
potential health problems for humans. After the fertilizers sink into the soil, adequate rainfall will
flush these chemicals into the nearest water system, pouring tons of nitrogen and oxygen molecules
into the water (Biello). These nutrients are used as a food source for algae blooms which, in turn,
decrease the amount of oxygen in the water system until organisms can no longer survive within
(Biello). Unfortunately the bacteria that would otherwise eliminate the excess nitrates are being
overworked and are therefore are unable to do their jobs (Biello). Another aggravator of the
situation is the increasing amount of corn crops being planted. According to David Biello of
Scientific American, “last year, U.S. farmers planted more than 90 million acres (35 million
hectares) of corn for the first time since the 1940s”. Biello summarizes an excerpt by the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, writing that “the only way to increase ethanol
production from corn and reduce nitrogen runoff would be for Americans to stop eating meat,
thereby freeing up corn used as livestock feed for other uses.” The large amount of “dead zones”
being created as a result no doubt poses threats to the local wildlife populations as the fish must
relocate and their predators must find new prey elsewhere. The larger ramifications of these
disturbances are beyond the scope of this paper but should be considered when discussing
sustainable agriculture as a whole.

An overlooked consequence of using fertilizers is the potential threat to human health. For
example, the cadmium in phosphorous fertilizers has been linked to cases of renal dysfunction and
osteoporosis in patients that had a high dietary exposure to the metal ( Pizzol et al. 475). According
to Pizzol et al., low-level exposures to Cadmium in food crops can also have a negative effect on
human health “contributing to conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and cancer” (475). The
same article also points out that Cadmium can be picked up from both inorganic and organic
fertilizers so merely switching to animal manure will not solve the problem so therefore other
solutions will need to be considered.
As UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of UNEP Achim Steiner stated in the
UNEP report released in 2010, “there is a clear need for more action to provide the scientific data
and to find common ways to gather and process it so that our priorities can be assessed and
determined at a global level” (UNEP, “Assessing the Environmental Impacts” 2). Much more
research has to be done however, it is important to assess the information we already have that
provides a strong argument for why our current agricultural system is unsustainable. In terms of
fertilizers, water systems are polluted, wildlife is displaced, the soil is slowly destroyed and
therefore more land is being used, all for the main purpose of satisfying an ever-growing desire
for meat products. Already, “50% of the world’s crops are used to feed animals and not people”
(UNEP, “Assessing the Environmental Impacts” 66) – this is a staggering figure not to be
overlooked. As populations increase, so will the demand for crops, fossil fuels, and more meat
products. A system must be set in place to alter this growth or else our water systems and land may
eventually become too overworked and drained to the point of uselessness.

Deforestation

Deforestation has been a significant problem attendant upon animal agriculture historically and it
continues to be one presently. In the following analysis, we will discuss how animal agriculture
both directly and indirectly causes deforestation, the extent of the deforestation caused by animal
agriculture, and the implications of this deforestation.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as of 2010
South America and Africa were the world leaders in annual deforestation (FAO, “Global Forest
Resources Assessment” 18). In the case of Africa, deforestation cannot in general be attributed to
animal agriculture simply because industrial animal farming does not exist in Africa nearly on the
scale that it does elsewhere in the world. The same cannot be said for Latin America, however,
which is home to three of the world’s top ten beef and veal exporting nations, including Brazil, the
world’s leading beef and veal exporter (USDA, “Livestock and Poultry” 7).

Between 1990 and 2000, better than forty percent of the total area of forest in Latin America was
converted into large-scale agricultural land (FAO, “Livestock Policy Brief” 2). According to the
World Bank, a staggering ninety-one percent of the deforestation that has taken place in the
Amazon since 1970 has been due to cattle ranching (World Bank 36). The FAO estimated in its
2006 Livestock Policy Brief that between 2000 and 2010, more than 60 percent of the total area
of deforested land in both Brazil and Paraguay – also among the world’s top ten beef exporters
(USDA, “Livestock and Poultry” 7) – would be converted into pasture (3). Other countries such
as Guyana, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Costa Rica were expected to boast rates of greater than 80
percent during that same time span. (FAO, “Livestock Policy Brief” 3).

There is also the issue of soy production, which has accounted for millions of hectares of
deforestation in the Amazon and in South America as a whole. Soybeans are typically associated
with products like tofu and other meat alternatives, and in general with a plant-based lifestyle. In
fact, however, such products account for only a very small portion of global soy production: the
overwhelming majority of the global soy crop – upwards of 80 percent (Soyatech) – goes directly
into animal feed, for which soybeans are the world’s largest protein source. Thus we find animal
agriculture again as a significant driver of deforestation, with some 2.35 million hectares of land
being cleared in Argentina for soy production between 2000 and 2009, and another 2.73 million
cleared in Brazil during the same time (Center for Global Development 14). In Bolivia, a global
deforestation hotspot, soybeans and cattle ranching were again found to be the primary drivers of
deforestation (Muller et al. 900).

It is undeniable then that animal agriculture, namely in the forms of cattle ranching and soy
production, has historically been the single most significant cause of deforestation in the Amazon
and in South America as a whole. Critics will cite the recent dramatic decline in deforestation rates
in the Brazilian Amazon – between 2004 and 2011 rates fell by 77 percent (Godar et al. 15591) –
as evidence that cattle ranching and animal agriculture in general are becoming increasingly
sustainable. However, since that time annual deforestation rates have stabilized and are no longer
decreasing, which suggests that government policies lose their ability to slow deforestation past a
certain point (Godar et al. 15591). Furthermore, government policies are only effective insofar as
the meat industry abides by them. It has been estimated that as much as 60-80 percent of
deforestation taking place in the Amazon is illegal (Van Solinge, 272). Given the enormous stakes
in question – the preservation or destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and all that that entails – it
seems unwise to rely on government policy to resolve the problem. The only way to resolve it with
absolute effectiveness is to alter our patterns of consumption by removing animals from our diet.

Thus, the question arises, what is entailed by the destruction of the Amazon? This analysis, so far,
has focused on deforestation in South America, but far from being an issue contained to the
Amazon region, beef-driven deforestation in the Amazon is a global issue. Rainforests are crucial
carbon sinks: the Amazon alone absorbs over a billion tons of CO2 annually (Laurance,
“Reflections” 110). As deforestation takes place, however, the carbon sequestered in the trees is
released into the atmosphere (Fearnside 71), and the Amazon alone may be the source of as much
as a quarter of all anthropogenic emissions (Laurance, “Reflections” 110). Continued destruction
of rainforests will thus exacerbate the already urgent crisis of global warming: any attempt to limit
global warming must include dramatic efforts to preserve them. Furthermore, rainforests must be
preserved on a large-scale basis, as fragmentation causes them to lose their effectiveness as carbon
sinks (Laurance, “Gaia’s Lungs” 96) – in other words, they must be preserved as whole as possible.
Thus, the solution is not in national parks or other partial conservation efforts. There is no middle
ground between preservation and destruction.

There is also the problem of biodiversity loss. The Amazon is estimated to contain 20-30 percent
of the world’s biodiversity (Van Solinge 266), but this number is significantly threatened by animal
agriculture. One case study conducted in a community in Brazil found that only six percent of
plant species remained after a section of forest was converted into pasture (Fujisaka et al. 20).
Given that less than one percent of the earth’s plant species have been investigated for their
medicinal utility (Cox & Balick 83), it would be a tragedy to compromise the world’s richest and
most diverse ecosystem before we know what it might contain. There is also the threat to endemic
species to consider: in Brazil’s Atlantic forest it is estimated that less than eight percent of original
primary habit area remains, while a mere 20 percent remains in the Cerrado (Brooks et al. 922).
With so little habitat remaining, we cannot afford to lose any more.

Furthermore, the footprint of animal agriculture in deforestation is hardly limited to Brazil. In

addition to the aforementioned Central and South American countries (Brazil, Paraguay, Guyana,
Ecuador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Bolivia) whose deforestation is being driven in large part by
cattle ranching and soy production, Australia, the world’s third leading exporter of beef and veal
(USDA, “Livestock and Poultry” 7), is also suffering considerably from beef-driven deforestation.
Bradshaw suggests that nearly seventy-five percent of Australia is unsuitable for forest growth
(109), leaving only a small portion forested or with forest potential, and this forest is rapidly
disappearing. McApline et al., note that Queensland is a global deforestation hotspot largely
because of the demand for cattle pastures, which now comprise approximately 81 percent of the
state (23).

It should be clear then that animal agriculture is a globally significant driver of deforestation, and
is the most significant driver of deforestation in one of the world’s most vital, most threatened
ecosystems: the Amazon rainforest. The problems associated with animal agriculture upon said
deforestation (exacerbation of global warming, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, etc.) are
urgent and must be addressed immediately. As a global society that promotes the consumption of
meat – per capita consumption of meat has more than doubled since 1950 (McApline et al. 23) –
we are all complicit in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest until we address our consumption
of meat.

Climate Change

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of growing concern in efforts to alleviate the effects of the
climate crisis. Emissions are currently increasing at a rate faster than that of the worst-case
scenario predicted the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment
Programme’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2000 (Plumer). Human activity has
caused emissions of CO2 that have reached nearly 64 billion tons per year (Goodland et al. 11).
Without elimination or extreme reduction, the global sea levels and temperatures will continue to
rise to a degree that would inflict unimaginable damage on human civilization and perhaps
permanent deterioration of the diversity of life that inhabits the world’s melting polar environments
(The Guardian, “Greenland Ice Melt Underestimated”).

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 18 percent of
anthropogenic GHG emissions were attributed to animal agriculture, more than all forms of
transportation combined which accounted for 13 percent (Steinfeld 112). This took into
consideration fossil fuels used on farms for both feed and livestock-related purposes,
desertification of pasture, enteric fermentation (methane emitted from the digestive process of farm
animals), and properties of manure (indirect emissions, application/deposition, management)
among other considerations (Steinfeld 113). Worldwatch Institute released such a figure in their
2009 report Livestock and Climate Change, in which livestock respiration, overlooked land use,
undercounted methane and industrial/pastoral livestock populations, and other sources that failed
to be mentioned at all in the U.N.’s report (such as fluorocarbons needed to cool livestock products,
the “carbon-intensive medical treatment” of illnesses caused by animal product consumption, etc.)
were included (Goodland & Anhang 11-14). These corrections showed that, in actuality, 51
percent of worldwide GHG emissions are caused by livestock and their byproducts (Goodland &
Anhang 11).

The GHGs that the studies mention are primarily as follows: carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4),
and nitrous oxide (N2O). The means of measuring their respective impacts on climate change is
via assigning them a Global Warming Potential. This is done first by designating carbon dioxide
as having a GWP of 1; GWPs of other gases can then be calculated relative to the impact of carbon
dioxide for given timeframes of either 20 or 100 years. In Worldwatch Institute’s report, methane
and nitrous oxide have GWPs of 72 and 296, respectively (Worldwatch Institute’s reasoning for
the use of methane’s 20-year rather than 100-year GWP is the relatively short time frame in which
methane emissions begin to increase the rate of climate change, which is supported by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (Goodland & Anhang 13). In other words, methane
is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide 296 times. Goodland & Anhang
(14) estimate that 44 percent and Steinfeld et al. (114) estimate that 65 percent of anthropogenic
emissions of these respective gases are attributable to animal agriculture.

While transportation and other sources of anthropogenic emissions are necessary for many humans
to meet the demands of daily life, the consumption of animal products is not intrinsically essential
to human survival and health. Pollution could be greatly reduced by focusing on the causes that
are not only larger contributors to GHG emissions but also much more viable to eliminate in the
near future.

Poverty

The reason that animal agriculture has become the industrialized monstrosity that it is today can
essentially be consolidated into a matter of economics. A firm, by nature, seeks to maximize
profits subject to constraints on the price and availability of labor and capital. The advent of the
factory farm model presented an opportunity to increase the output of animal products per unit of
labor and capital inputs; in other words, more could be done with less. Because animal products
are homogeneous goods – that is, each unit of product is more or less identical to another unit of
the same type across the entire market – perfect competition can be approximated, and firms will
produce an output such that the market price for each type of animal product will be equal to the
marginal cost of production. This means that two primary means of increasing profits exist: to
lower the cost of production and to increase demand for the product.

Economics can explain the source of industrialization in animal agriculture rather simply, but the
economic consequences of these operations is more complex. Specifically, we are addressing the
extent to which these operations contribute to global poverty. Agriculture is necessarily prevalent
in rural areas due to the large amount of land required. In such areas, distance to alternate
economic activity is much greater than that in urban areas.

In the years prior to industrial agriculture, family-owned farms often produced a variety of outputs,
and rural areas enjoyed a relatively diverse array of economic activity due to the smaller scale of
production. Industrial agriculture brought about extreme economies of scale, such that these
operations increased in size dramatically, and reduced the number of competing farms in areas
where they operated. These industrial operations also reduced the variability of outputs, instead
focusing solely on one output. Thus, the economic leverage of these large-scale operations in rural
areas created a situation whereby there existed little diversity in rural economies, and a lack of
economic diversity reduced alternate opportunities for workers, and thus reduced their overall
economic value resulting in low wages and high unemployment. Furthermore, the industry
became heavily dependent on contracts, such that previously small-scale farmers would have little
choice but to sign and participate in these operations to remain economically relevant. These
contracts require large capital investments on the part of the farmers who sign them; these
investments are nearly always financed, which results in farmers being unable to pursue other
economic opportunity for the duration of the loan. While it is tempting to argue that the increased
scale of production has increased profits across the animal agriculture industry, this profit has not
been received with a wide distribution. In fact, due to the aforementioned systems of
industrialization, the wealth of rural communities tend to be siphoned away where these operations
exist (Pew Commission 3-17).

The poverty proliferated by animal agriculture is nowhere more apparent than in the developing
world. The occupation of 50 percent of the impoverished people in the world is in farming and 65
percent of those people live in low-income countries. Seventy percent of the world’s poor live in
rural areas, and 85 percent of these poor rural dwellers are occupied in agriculture (Cox, 2007).
That such a staggering proportion of the world’s poor relies on agriculture for employment is a
clear indication of the appropriate area of focus in addressing poverty in the developing world.

As the pattern of globalization continues, animal agriculture firms have availed themselves of the
opportunity to lower their cost of production by exporting their operations to developing countries
where the cost of labor and capital inputs is much cheaper than the domestic cost, and also where
animal welfare and environmental regulations are much less strict (Cox, 2007).

When industrialization is thrust upon agriculture in a developing country, capital in the form of
machines, fuel, and fertilizers are immediately required, all of which must be imported from
elsewhere, most often from already developed countries. This reduces the self-sufficiency of the
affected country and adds to its trade deficit. Furthermore, competition from industrial agriculture
forces local farmers to either join the industrial operations – creating a situation identical in
construct but far more severe in magnitude as the situation thrust upon local farmers in the
developed world discussed previously – or to switch production to cash crops for export at the
expense of production of crops for the consumption of the local population. This reduces the food
security of the region as food for the local population is required to be imported from elsewhere in
the country or from another country altogether (J. Cox 15-16). In the case of Haiti, the local
communities are simply pushed to less agriculturally desirable areas, making way for the best land
to be used for feed crops for export to the United States (Cudworth 330-331).

These deleterious effects on local economies in developing countries do not remain isolated. As
income in rural areas falls, greater migration from rural to urban areas takes place. This migration
increases the supply of unskilled labor in urban areas, which in turn reduces their income (J. Cox
9-10). Thus, the industrialization of animal agriculture contributes to the reduced income and
increased unemployment of the poor in developing countries as a whole, regardless of geographic
location or sector of employment. This proliferation of poverty is often implicitly for the benefit
of the developed world and the already wealthy in the developing world, as is evidenced by the
destruction of the Amazon rainforest for the purpose of beef production (which is very frequently
exported rather than consumed in the home country), and the dedication of significant portions of
agricultural land for feed crop production for export in Brazil and Mexico, exacerbating each
region’s food insecurity (Cudworth 330-331).
A very grave consideration in our discussion of the developing world is water scarcity. Water
depletion, as previously discussed, has profound impacts on the availability of food and other
resources, not the least of which is water itself, and can be a potential cause of political and social
instability. An analysis completed by the International Water Management Institute forecasts that
33 percent of the global population will be living in areas of “absolute water scarcity”, including
Pakistan, South Africa, and much of India and China (Steinfeld et al. 127). Under conditions
where current and projected demand is met, global water withdrawal is expected to rise by 22
percent by 2025, more than half of which will be due to growth in livestock use. This will coincide
with a potential loss of 350 million tons of food, which is near the current total U.S. grain crop
production. Ultimately, countries which will exist under the conditions of absolute water scarcity
will rely on imports for their cereal consumption, which will be dependent on their ability to
finance such imports. Poorer countries which cannot finance these imports will be subject to
widespread malnutrition or famine (Steinfeld et al. 127).

Given the amount of water required to produce animal products, combined with the amount of
food required to raise those animals (food which otherwise could be used directly for human
consumption), it becomes clear that demand for animal products is a driving, if not central force
in the problem of food and water scarcity in the developing world. The opportunity cost of meat
in terms of food and water is astonishing, and these opportunity costs must be considered in any
comprehensive analysis of food and water scarcity and poverty in the developing world.

Labor and Human Rights

The question of animal agriculture’s sustainability can include the human cost of producing animal
products: that is, the damage done regarding the health of laborers and the progress of human rights
as a whole. In the modern world, with excessive consumption comes exploitation of the poor. The
ceaselessly growing demands of the developed world create strain on markets that have yet to
develop to the extent that working conditions are thoroughly regulated. While consumers in
developed countries will almost inevitably consume more resources and produce more waste than
those in the less developed countries, these consumers can greatly reduce their net consumption as
well as staggering demand that leads to exploitation by adhering to a diet free of animal products.

Incredibly large populations of livestock require vast amounts of feed. Much of this feed comes
from soy; at least 80 percent of soy and 50 percent of corn grown worldwide is fed to animals that
will be processed into food products (Koneswaran & Nierenberg 579). Brazil, a top exporter of
soy, is home to many farms owned by internationally recognized companies. The rapidly
increasing demand for animal products and, consequentially, soy used for feed requires cheap,
easily replaceable labor to perform such tasks as felling trees and clearing land of tree roots for
planting crops. It is now known that farms in Brazil, even those owned by large companies, can
obtain this labor via debt bondage (Greenpeace 31-33). Poor villagers from rural communities are
promised well-paying jobs and, upon arrival at the remote farms, have their documents taken from
them. They are told that they must repay the debt that their costs of living incur and work without
pay. They receive no treatment for their illnesses. They work at gunpoint and are often beaten
(Greenpeace 31-33). These conditions are clearly a setback to protection of human rights efforts
and can potentially be significantly mitigated by a reduction in demand on the consumers’ part.
A more inclusive approach to addressing the concern for the well-being of the workforce and how
it relates to those involved with animal agriculture would cover more general elements of the
experience of working in factory farms. Respiratory illnesses are more prevalent in animal
agricultural workers than in the general population (Pandya & Bhavesh 233). This is largely due
to chronic and acute exposure to toxic gases such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide,
methane, and fumigants that are common aspects of the working environment (Pandya & Bhavesh
235-236). Anhydrous ammonia used to increase the nitrogen content of soil, enclosed manure pits,
and inorganic and organic dusts are also common respiratory irritants associated with large
populations of animals in confined spaces (Pandya & Bhavesh 235-236).

Although poor working conditions are not exclusive to the meat and dairy industries, they can
generally be indirectly alleviated by reducing demand. Without the requisite demand for animal
products, addressing seemingly unsolvable issues like reforming the almost inevitably hazardous
aspects of a confined space with a large population of animals will be irrelevant and unnecessary.

Animal Welfare

According to the USDA, the average American consumes 57 more pounds of meat per year than
was the case 50 years ago (USDA, “Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002” 15). Global meat
consumption is on the rise, demanding greater and greater production from meat farms. The
question then arises, under what conditions do meat production/factory farming take place? Peter
Singer requests that we phrase it differently, that is – what is it that we are willing to allow in order
to sustain meat production and meet the rising demand for products of animal agriculture?
Environmental considerations aside, meat production is only sustainable if we allow it to be, that
is, if we accept the conditions under which it takes place. Let us investigate at the conditions that
currently sustain our consumption of meat and animal products – the following is drawn from
Singer’s “Animal Liberation”.

Chickens, the animals slaughtered more than any other in America, are confined by the thousands
to sheds when they are only a day old (98). Living conditions such as lighting are artificially
manipulated so that chickens will feed as often as possible, thus gaining maximum weight in the
shortest amount of time (99). As they grow, still confined by the thousands, they become
increasingly stressed, and in some situations will even resort to cannibalism. Because such
behavior can negatively affect profits, the birds are often “debeaked,” meaning their beaks are
painfully cut off with hot blades at a very young age (99-102). They are slaughtered, hung by their
legs on a conveyor belt, when they are only 7 weeks old (99). Laying hens are hardly better off,
and are often crammed four at a time into cages one foot square. (113).

Pigs are also confined extremely closely, without straw or other natural bedding (124-125), and
like the chickens will become aggressive toward each other under such conditions, often chewing
on each other’s tails (121). To prevent this, tail docking has become standard practice, that is,
removal of the piglet’s tail “with side-cutting pliers or another blunt instrument,” because “the
crushing action helps to stop bleeding” (121). Mass confinement is also problematic in regard to
pig waste. Accumulated ammonia is often so significant that it damages the pigs’ lungs, so much
so that farmers must give them antibiotics to curb the damage (123-124). Farrowing cage
confinement, in which a sow will be confined to a space barely larger than her own body for
months at a time, is also not uncommon (125). This results in unimaginable stress. Common
responses to cage confinement include violent attempts to escape, screaming, whimpering,
groaning, chewing the bars of the cage, etc. (127). The animals are obviously in agony.
Dairy cows, much like humans, must be pregnant or nursing in order to produce milk. Thus it is
necessary to impregnate them every year (136). Their calves are taken from them at birth – which
is extremely painful for both mother and calf – and sent to be fattened for slaughter as beef or veal
(136). Dairy cows are milked 2-3 times a day, every day, for ten months (137). The process is
repeated with each pregnancy. After about 5 years, the cows are spent and are sent to slaughter
(137).

Cows raised for beef are not typically confined in the same way the preceding animals are, however
they suffer many horrors uniquely their own. Most cows are dehorned, meaning their horns are
painfully cut off at an early age (145). Horns are not merely bone, but have arteries in them as
well, making the process extremely painful (145). Cows are also branded and castrated, to make
them easier to handle. Castration rarely involves anesthetics, and essentially amounts to yanking
the animal’s testicles causing them to tear free (145).

The actual process of slaughter is equally horrifying. Pigs are stunned with an electric shock, hung
by their back legs, and bled to death (150-151). Because this process is so gruesome, employee
turnover is extremely high, meaning animals are often being slaughtered by inexperienced workers
(151). The situation of cows is little better, except that a barbaric attempt is made to render the
animal unconscious first by hitting it in the head with a sledgehammer (152-153). This is hardly
an exact science, and often requires multiple hits before the goal is accomplished (153). If
unconsciousness is not fully rendered, the cows will be suspended by the rear legs – which will
often break, as cows are such heavy creatures – just the same, and bled to death on a conveyor belt
(154).

These, then, are the conditions we must be willing to own and accept if we are to continue
producing and consuming animal products at this rate. Furthermore, as Singer repeatedly
emphasizes, these are merely the conditions necessitated by the demand. Conditions for animals
in factory farms could conceivably be less horrifying than they are, but they are the way they are
for maximum efficiency and productivity. Thus the cruelty suffered on animal farms is a direct
result of the rising demand for meat and other products of animal agriculture. If this is the nature
of what we are going to call sustainable production, then perhaps the color we associate with
sustainability should not be green, but red.
Organic Animal Agriculture

In a well-intended attempt to curtail the looming threats of climate change, consumers have turned
to the labels of “organic” “all natural” “cage-free/free range” and “grass-fed” for solace. Along
with these methods may come miniscule improvements in regards to feeding people healthier
products, but the overall environmental implications of these labels are not as optimistic and
progressive as portrayed by marketers. Vague requirements and little research enables marketers
to brand these methods of animal agriculture as environmentally friendly alternatives.

According to the USDA standards “grass-fed” simply means that animals must have a diet strictly
consisting of grass, forbs, and grain or cereal crops in their vegetative state. Though the terms often
appear synonymous, grass-fed does not mean organic. These animals are only guaranteed access
to free grazing during growing season and there are no restrictions on the use of pesticides on the
pastures (USDA, “Grass Fed Marketing Claim Standards” 58631-58637). Meanwhile, over-
crowding often results in the use of antibiotics to avoid illness.

The impact of grass-fed beef on climate change is also counterintuitive. It may be assumed that
grass-fed means less crowding, less transport, and thus less greenhouse gas emissions. On the other
hand, there are no crowding limitations which differ from that of the average method of farming.
Further, Dr. John Camerford reported to Pennsylvania State University that grass-fed cattle takes
30 percent longer to reach its aspired weight for harvest. This results in a 500 percent increase in
greenhouse gas emissions for each pound of beef produced from grass-fed cattle in comparison to
grain-fed cattle, as well as a 35 percent increase in water use, and 30 percent more land use
(Camerford).

Over-grazing is also a serious issue with grass-fed cattle. Though the idea of animals grazing on
an open pasture is aesthetically pleasing, the result of unleashing the 94 million heads of cattle the
U.S had last year alone would be an environmental catastrophe (Beef USA). The Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United States assert that over-grazing has been responsible for the
deforestation of an area the size of India in the last twenty-five years alone (FAO, “Livestock
Policy Brief” 1). We simply do not have the land and resources to sustainably grass-feed the
amount of animals we consume. The United Nations reports that 70 percent of the Amazon
rainforest have already been converted to grazing land, and livestock already uses 30 percent of
the earth’s land surface (New Harvest). In order to even consider this as a less disruptive option,
aggregate meat consumption must be drastically reduced.

The branding of “all-natural” and “organically raised livestock” is very misleading, as it only refers
to what the animals are fed. While these animals are said to have access to quality outdoor time,
the definition is undefined, allowing their animals to be treated in the same environmentally
destructive manner as traditional factory farm animals – with overcrowding and lagoons of waste
– while being categorized differently by virtue of a loophole (Humane Society). However, while
attempts are being made to reduce pesticides and antibiotics that pollute our waterways and soil,
they aren’t enough. Currently, the labels “all natural” and “organically raised livestock” are
entirely fallacious and do not promote the better environment they advertise, and instead skirt
around the structural problems of agriculture.
Aquaculture has been posited as an alternative to the devastating effects of commercial fishing.
But that is again false: it does not effectively solve the problem of over fishing. Aquaculture can
lead to invasive species from escaped fish, spreading of parasites and diseases to wild fish, and
excessive chemical inputs which harm the natural ecosystem. In addition 1/3 of the global fish
harvest goes towards feeding the fish in commercial fish farms (WWF). So instead of curtailing
fishing, commercial fisheries have targeted different groups of smaller fish to produce fish oil and
fishmeal (Food and Water Watch). Methods to catch smaller fish are equally as disruptive to the
environment, with practices such as bottom trawling which dig up everything on the surface of the
ocean floor, including coral reefs (Murray).

See the Appendix for a breakdown of different aquacultural systems and their environmental
implications.

No matter how it is labeled, raising animals for food is a leading cause of environmental
destruction on all levels. At the very foundations of “organic,” “all natural,” and “grass-fed” animal
agriculture is the goal of producing the most amount of meat for maximum profit. An enormous
number of animals inevitably produces an exorbitant amount of animal of waste, methane, and
pollution. The diets of these animals may change, but this does not mean that the effects of mass
production halt. In short, even if we curtailed the use of pesticides, growth hormones, and
antibiotics, the mere quantity of animals is leading us to a path of global food insecurity. These
labels have only worsened the problem by serving as a distraction, and buyers are being misled to
feel as though they can consume at the same alarming pace without leaving a footprint on the
environment. Sustainable meat is an item of fiction without first reconsidering the amount of meat
we consume.

Public Policy

Given the severely negative impact that animal agriculture has on so many environmental, social,
and ethical issues, it would seem that government policy would reflect a desire for its diminution.
However, this is not the case. Animal agriculture is supported intensely by government subsidy,
which raises the output of all animal products affected directly or indirectly by the various subsidy
programs. For example, the dairy industry was awarded $994 million in U.S. government
subsidies in 2009, and the industry is also continually under domestic price support programs and
incentive programs for dairy exports. The industry even benefits from income loss contracts,
whereby producers will receive taxpayer-funded payments whenever the market price for milk
falls below a predefined rate (Winebarger 1009-1014).

In addition to direct subsidies to animal agriculture, indirect subsidies benefit the animal
agriculture industry to a similar degree. In 2009, the federal government awarded corn, soybean,
and sorghum producers $4 billion, $1.72 billion, and $270 million, respectively. As previously
discussed, most of these crops are currently allocated to animal feed, thus the animal agriculture
industry enjoys a massive discount on their most significant input cost (50-65 percent of total
operating cost), estimated by the USDA to be 15 percent across the animal agriculture industry
(Winebarger 1014).
A fact particularly telling about the status of government oversight in the industry is that activism
to expose the horrific treatment of animals and unsanitary practices in factory farms are met not
with whistleblower protections and increased regulations on the subject industry but with strict
legal punishments on the activists themselves. These measures are known as ag-gag laws, and
they permeate many states where agriculture is the primary industry. These laws prohibit camera
footage of the inner-workings of factory farms to be recorded without the express permission of
the owner of the facility (Tauber). Such camera footage has been, in a manner of speaking, the
frontline of whistleblower action against factory farming. The laws strongly imply that public
knowledge of food production systems is economically damaging, and animal welfare is not seen
as a factor worthy of consideration. Take, for example, a Mercy for Animals investigation into
Bettencourt Dairy in Idaho. The severe abuses caught on film were met with ag-gag legislation
immediately after its release, a poignant display of the priorities of the Idaho state lawmakers
(Idaho Statesman, “Idaho’s Ag-gag Law Challenged in Federal Court”).

Clearly, any environmental policy worth its salt would place top priority on reducing animal
agriculture activity. Policies which ignore animal agriculture as a leading culprit in environmental
devastation, which constitute our current policies, become strangely bereft of any real meaning
when confronted with these realities. Perhaps this is due to industry pressure, or perhaps it is due
to a general unwillingness among the aggregate population to reduce their consumption of animal
products. The former is an issue in the vein of corporate influence in politics, which is outside the
scope of our research. As to the latter, we simply hold the position that palate preference is not a
sufficient justification for continuing environmental destruction, poverty proliferation, labor
maltreatment, and animal torture.

We recommend several initiatives as part of a broader policy reform in regard to animal

agriculture:

1. Reverse subsidies directly to animal product producers in favor of producers of plants for
human consumption, and reduce subsidies for feed crops in favor of a broader spectrum of
plant-based agricultural endeavors.

2. Impose a carbon tax on animal agriculture firms, using similar criteria that a carbon tax on
the automotive industry would have.

3. Impose a tax on domestic animal agriculture firms operating internationally.

4. Institute dietary recommendations that favor a reduction in animal products, and stymie
propaganda campaigns that favor animal products (Got Milk, Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner,
etc.).

5. Impose stricter regulations on waste management, with particular attention given to

deleterious effects on local water supplies.

6. Impose stricter regulations aimed at improving worker safety conditions and overall mental
health.
 7. Legislate vastly higher standards, with comprehensive enforcement, on animal welfare,
and institute whistleblower protections – which must override state-level ag-gag laws – for
those who document abuse on agricultural operations.

While public policy is not often altered swiftly, significant effort must be made to make an
exception in this case. The profound effects that animal agriculture has on the environment have
led us to the verge of catastrophe. Furthermore, the contribution that the current system of
industrial animal farming makes to global poverty and to systemic human rights violations and
animal abuse cannot be ignored any further. Recommending sanctions on farming of any variety
is very seldom a favorable position for any public official, but if we as a nation and as members
of the human race are to be consistent in our ethical convictions, we must act according to the facts
at hand.

We at S.P.E.A.K. would like extend our sincerest gratitude to Colleen Mulcahey and Marcella
Goldring for their tireless help and consult. Their assistance was a driving force that saw this
endeavor to completion.
 REFERENCES

"Agricultural Concentration." United States Department of Agriculture. Web. 10 Jan. 2015, Farm
Bill Forum ed. Print.

ASPCA. “What is a Factory Farm?” American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Web. 20. Jan. 2015.

Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and
Materials. Rep. UNEP: International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management, N.d.,
June 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
Baluyut, Elvira. Selected Review: N.d., Aquaculture Systems and Practices. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, N.p., 1989. Web. 7 Jan. 2015.

"Beef Industry Statistics - Beef USA." National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 1 July. 2014. Web.
15 Jan. 2015.

Bielle, David. "Fertilizer Runoff Overwhelms Streams and Rivers--Creating Vast "Dead Zones”
Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2008. Web 10 Jan. 2015.
Bradshaw, Corey J.A. “Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since
European colonization.” Plant Ecology 5.1 (2012), 109-120. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Brooks, Thomas M, et al. “Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity.”
Conservation Biology 16.4 (2002): 909-923. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Cattle Ranching and Deforestation. Livestock Policy Brief No. 3. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department.
N.p., 2006. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

Center for Global Development. Trading Forests: Quantifying the Contribution of Global
Commodity Markets to Emissions from Tropical Deforestation – Working Paper 384.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development, 2014.

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

Comerford, Dr. John. Telling the Grass Fed Beef Story. Pennsylvania State University, n.d., Web.
22 Jan. 2015.

Cox, Janice. “Industrial Animal Agriculture: Part of the Poverty Problem” World Society for the
Protection of Animals. N.p., (2007). Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

Cox, Paul Alan, and Michael J. Balick. “The ethnobotanical approach to drug discovery.”
Scientific American 270.6 (1994). Web. 26 Jan 2015.
Cudworth, Erika. “Climate Change, Industrial Animal Agriculture, and Complex Inequalities.”
The International Journal of Science in Society 2.3 (2011). Pp. 323-334.

Emissions Scenarios: Summary for Policymakers. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, 2000. Web. 8 Jan. 2015.

Environment Canada, “Wise Water Use.” Government of Canada, 23 July 2013. Web. 24 Jan.
2015.
“The Environment.” New Harvest. N.p., 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.

Fearnside, Philip M. “Brazil's Amazon forest in mitigating global warming: unresolved

controversies: unresolved controversies.” Climate Policy 12.1 (2012), 70-81.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment
2010. Rome: FAO, 2010.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock Policy Brief 03: Cattle
Ranching and Deforestation. Rome: FAO, 2006.

Fujisaka, S., et al. “The effects of forest conversion on annual crops and pastures: Estimates of
carbon emissions and plant species loss in a Brazilian Amazon colony.” Agriculture,
Ecosystems, & Environment 69.1 (1998), 17-26. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Godar, Javier, et al. “Actor specific contributions to the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian
Amazon.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 111.43 (2014): 15591-15596. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Goodland, Robert, and Jeff Anhang. "Livestock and Climate Change. What If the Key Actors in
Climate Change Are… Cows, Pigs and Chickens." The Worldwatch Institute November -
December (2009): 10-19. Print.

“Grass Fed Marketing Claim Standards - Federal Register Notice.” Agricultural Marketing
Service. United Stated Department of Agriculture. 16 Oct. 2007. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

“Greenland Ice Melt Underestimated, Study Says." The Guardian. Press Association, 15 Dec.
2014. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Greenpeace, “Eating Up the Amazon.” Greenpeace USA. N.p.,(2004). Web. 24 Jan. 2015.

“How to Read Meat and Dairy Labels.” The Humane Society of America. N.p., December 18,
2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

“Impacts of Aquaculture.” World Wildlife Fund. N.p., N.d., Web. 15 Jan 2015.

“Indicators.” Soil Quality for Environmental Health. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 Jan. 2015.
Kenny, Joan F.; Barber, Nancy L.; Hutson, Susan S.; Linsey, Kristin S.; Lovelace, John K. &
Maupin, Molly A. “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005.” U. S. Geological
Survey Circular 1344 (2009). Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

Koneswaran, Gowri and Danielle Nierenberg. "Global farm animal production and global
warming: impacting and mitigating climate change." Environmental Health Perspectives
116.5 (2008): 578. Web. 24 Jan. 2015.

“Labile Carbon.” Soil Quality. Web. 7 Jan. 2015. (Collaboration from a variety of Australian
governmental agencies).

Laurance, William F. “Gaia’s lungs: are rainforests inhaling Earth’s excess carbon dioxide?”
Natural History 108.2 (1999): 96. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Laurance, William F. “Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis.” Biological Conservation

91.2 (1999): 109-117. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Li, Yongfu, et al. “Long-Term Intensive Management Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Pools and
Chemical Composition in Moso Bamboo (Phyllostochys pubescens) Forest in Subtropical
China.” Forest Ecology and Management 303. (2013):121-130. ScienceDirect. Web. 10
Jan. 2015.

Macdonald, James M. et al. “Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking” Food and Rural Economics
Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural
Economic Report No. 785. Feb 2000. Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

McAlpine, C.A., et al. “Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global
change: A call for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia
and Brazil.” Global Environmental Change 19.1 (2009): 21-33. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Muller, Robert, et al. “Policy options to reduce deforestation based on a systematic analysis of
drivers and agents in lowland Bolivia.” Land Use Policy 30.1 (2013): 895-907. Web. 26
Jan 2015.

“Nutrient Cycling.” Soil Quality for Environmental Health. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 Jan. 2015.

Pandya, Robert. "Agricultural respiratory diseases." Agricultural Medicine a Practical Guide.

Springer. New York: 2006. 233-59. Print.

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. “Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial
Farm Animal Production in America”, The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health. N.p., 2008. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.
Pimentel, David; Berger, Bonnie; Filiberto, David; Newton, Michelle; Wolfe, Benjamin;
Karabinakis, Elizabeth; Clark, Steven; Poon, Elaine; Abbett, Elizabeth & Nandagopal,
Sudha. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54.10
(2004) Pp. 909-918. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.

Pizzol, Massimo, James C.R. Smart, and Marianne Thomson. “External Costs of Cadmium
Emissions to Soil: A Drawback of Phosphorus Fertilizers.” Journal of Cleaner Production
(2014): 475. Academic OneFile. Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

Plumer, Brad. "Global CO2 Emissions Rising Faster than Worst-case Scenarios." The Washington
Post. N.p., 4 Nov. 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

Pretty, Jules N. Sustainable Agriculture and Food. London: Earthscan, 2008. Ebook Collection
(EBSCOhost). Web. 4 Jan 2015.

"Rearing Cattle Produces More Greenhouse Gases than Driving Cars, UN Report Warns." UN
News Centre. N.p., 29 Nov 2006. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

"Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs." Environmental
Protection Agency. N.p., Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

“Region 7 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).” Environmental Protection

Agency. N.p., Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

Reilly, Thomas E.; Dennehy, Kevin F.; Allwey, William M. & Cunningham, William L. “Ground
Water Availability in the United States.” U. S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources
Program Circular 1323 (2008). Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

Sanati, Bahram Eshghi, et al. “Study of Organic Fertilizers Displacement in Rice Sustainable
Agriculture.” International Journal of Academic Research 3.2 (2011): 789-791. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 6 Jan 2015.

Sharma, Ravi Chandra, and Pabitra Banik. “Arbuscular Mycorrhiza, Azospirillum and Chemical
Fertilizers Application to Baby Corn (Zea Mays L.): Effects on Productivity, Nutrient Use
Efficiency, Economic Feasibility and Soil Fertility.” Journal of Plant Nutrition 37.2
(2014): 209-223. Environmental Index. Web. 10 Jan. 2015.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Harper Collins, 2002 ed. 1975. Print.

“Soil Functions.” Soil Quality for Environmental Health. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 Jan. 2015.

Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio & de
Haan, Cees. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 29 Nov. 2006. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

"Soy Facts." Soyatech. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.

Tauber, Steven C. “Navigating the Jungle: Law, Politics, and the Animal Advocacy Movement.”
Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2015 forthcoming.

“The Development of Agriculture.” The Genographic Project. National Geographic. N.d., Web.
24 Jan. 2015.

The End of the Line. Dir. Rupert Murray. Docurama Films, 2009. DVD.

The World Bank. World Banking Paper No. 22: Causes of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2004.

“Total Organic Carbon.” Soil Quality for Environmental Health. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 Jan. 2015.

United States Department of Agriculture, “Irrigation and Water Use: Background.” U.

S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 7 June 2013. Web. 23 Jan.
2015.
"Unsustainable Approach: Factory Fish Farming." Foodandwaterwatch.org. Food and Water
Watch, June 2011. Web.

United States Department of Agriculture. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade.
Washington, D.C., USDA, 2014

Van Solinge, Boekhout, Tim. “Deforestation Crimes and Conflicts in the Amazon.” Critical
Criminology 18.4 (2010): 263-277. Web. 26 Jan 2015.

Wilson, Clare. "Manure Matters: Historical, Archaeological, and Ethnographic Perspectives."

Agricultural History 88.4 (2014): 607-8. ProQuest. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.

Winebarger, Lisa. “Standing Behind Beastly Emissions: The U.S. Subsidization of Animal
Agriculture Violates the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
American University International Law Review 27.4 (2012). Pp. 991-1,035. Web. 17 Jan.
2015.