Farming for the Future

2012-02-13T13:56:00.001-06:00

A friend of mine posted a YouTube video onto Facebook of a commerical addressing the issue of factory farming. I feel like voicing my opinion, which I do in the form of a paper I wrote for college. Keep in mind this draft still has some grammatical and wording errors:

Meet Bob. Bob is an average American consumer whoenjoys the ease that modern life in the United States affords him. He is a great appreciator of the Americanlove for convenience, and he has no reservations about taking the quick andeasy route in any situation, as long as he doesn’t have to know about or cleanup the mess which that philosophy generally creates. Herein lies the problem, however. That decadent mentality has led to thecreation of technologies and practices which, while supplying the demands of apopulace which craves convenience, do more damage than good. Among these practices is a method of farmingreferred to as “factory farming”, which is, essentially, the practice ofturning a plot of land into a production facility for animals and/or plants,with little regard for things like the safety of the animals involved or thelong-term ecological effects, but perhaps an excess of regard for concepts suchas output and market value. In reality,this means of production is causing great harm to the very things the Americanpeople hold dear: their fellow man and their home. Factory farming is an unsustainableecological practice, and for the American people to save themselves and theirenvironment from further damage, they have to alter not only their methods offood production, but their mentality towards life in general.

The first concept which should beconsidered by anyone interested in educating themselves on the topic should bethe health of the people that food will feed. There’s very little point to producing food if no one will eat it becauseit is ridden with diseases. The spreadsof swine flu, mad cow disease and avian flu have all been associated with thepractice of factory farming (“Human Health” n.d.). It is self-defeating, in a sense, to producefood to feed the masses if your methods of producing that food are unhealthy orotherwise undesirable for those involved. Neighbors of production facilities often have to deal with polluted air,water and soil conditions, and a generally decreased quality of life (“HumanHealth”, n.d.). The polluting of soiland water are often associated with the spread of diseases such as E. coli,salmonella and listeria. This is due tothe conditions the animals are kept in. To explain, if an animal were infected with E. coli and the ground wateris not properly treated, it will become polluted with waste from the animal,which can present a health hazard in the form of ground water that is used formany things, from bathing to drinking. This problem is only made worse in factory farms, as “high speed processingof livestock can result in meat contaminated as a result of contact with fecalmatter and any associated pathogens from the animals’ intestines.” (“HumanHealth”, n.d., p. “Pathogens”: para. 1). This “high speed processing” is indicative of the root problem whichlies at the core of the situation as a whole, which is the American need forease – the craving for convenience. Itis this acceptance of anything that makes life easier which lies at the heartof the issue, and this lifestyle has been associated with American tragedy inthe past. During WWII, the Americans andthe Japanese were involved in what might be called skirmishes in the Pacificprior to the attack at Pearl Harbor. These minor battles might have been the summit of the military actionsin the Pacific theater had it not been for the Japanese impression of theirAmerican adversaries. The Japaneseviewed the Americans as a decadent people, weak and unfit for battle. The United States proved Japan incorrect intheir assumptions, of course, but the atrocities associated with that part ofthe war might never have taken place if the American love for ease were not soprevalent.

Just asJapan assumed that they could proceed however they wished seemingly withoutregard for those they share the world with, Americans go about the business ofliving the life they have built for themselves without much thought for theother forms of life with which they share their home. The fact that they do not recognize theaforementioned problems precludes that they cannot realize that these samefactors are as damaging to their environment as they are to the people. However, before exploring that, one must understandthat the “environment” includes the animals, as well as the land and plants, inany given area. The other animalssharing our planet, as well as those directly involved with the farmingprocess, must be taken into consideration. Without other animals, the human race does not survive, yet weconstantly look past the harm we do to them and their environment. MichaelPollan (2006) writes of how parts of the US have become a “monotonouslandscape, vast plowed fields relieved only by a dwindling number offarmsteads…” (p. 39). People generally attribute this condition to farmingthings like corn or wheat, yet it is this very same farm land that used toserve as pastures for all sorts of domesticated animals, and homes for anarrangement of wild species. What existsnow is neither prairie nor desert – it is something in between. The argument could even be made that a desertis better off, as those inhabitants have had thousands of years to adapt totheir environment. The American peoplehave transformed this land in a fraction of the time. Pollan (2006) writes, “…the winds blow more fiercely in Iowa today than they once did.” (p. 39) In these ominous words, he illustrates howthe American people have powerful influences over their environment; manytimes, of a negative variety.

In thatpower, however, they will find the first step in solving the factory farmingproblem, and that is to change their perspective. Most Americans would rather push a buttonthan turn a crank, drive a car than ride a bike, and have their food made forthem than cook it themselves. ManyAmericans are simply in love with the concept of “fast food”; they can pull up to the side of a building,shout out an order and drive away with a piping-hot meal in less than 10minutes (ideally). The food tastes good,is not prohibitively expensive, and it entertains the kids. What they do not know is where that foodcomes from. Sure, a burger from BurgerKing is probably safe, if one considers a 1,200 calorie meal consisting ofmainly greasy meat and cheese (Bernstein, 2011) to be “safe”. However, rarely do they ask themselves, “Whatis the opportunity cost of this burger?” Or, put another way, “What am I giving up by buying this?” The answer is not immediately obvious, butone might say that they would be giving up the future for convenience now. Rather than going to the supermarket andbuying a prime cut of meat to cook at home, they take the easy route and orderprepared foods or buy frozen dinners, which are, when examined properly, notvery different from one another. Thishas to change. The need for convenienceand ease has grown out of control. Theylook to technology to make their lives easier, but they do not consider thelong-term consequences of their actions. They do not think about what will happen when the topsoil in America’sMidwest is no longer surpassingly fertile. They give little consideration to the possible genetic abnormalitieswhich will undoubtedly occur in cattle due to their treatment in cattleprocessing facilities. The very act ofshipping them from place to place can kill them (Welfare, 2006). Assuming Darwin is correct, this mistreatmentcould have unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences on futuregenerations of cattle. However, none ofthis potentially disastrous activity is considered. All that is considered by the masses is howlong they have to wait in line. Thismanner of thinking must change. Tochange one’s perspective is not extraordinarily difficult, but to change thebehavior of the masses is a daunting concept, indeed – but it must bedone. Accomplishing this goal is no easytask, but the process is actually quite straightforward. It is in the individual that the differencemust be made. Each person must decidefor themselves that the road down which American society and/or culture istraveling is the wrong one, and resolve themselves to living a life lessselfish. Simply giving to one’s fellowman is not enough – they must want less for themselves, and in that sense, itcould be equated to sacrificing a night of eating out to feed a hungry family,except instead of feeding a physical person which exists today, they would beextending the period of time in which our society will be able to feed itself.

After thischange has taken place, and people become more concerned with their environmentand less concerned with convenience, a decrease in demand for the types ofproducts supplied by factory farms should be seen; specifically, low-grademeat should see a vast decrease in demand. The land previously used for the factory farming of cattle, pigs andsuch could then be used for more traditional farms. The output seen, however, might not beenough. To resolve this dilemma, a newtechnology must be employed, one which would allow crops to be grown on farless land, allowing traditional farms to replace many farms which produceplants, as well. The technology inquestion is the vertical farm. Thebenefits of a vertical farm over a modern, say, corn farm are legion. For starters, it eliminates run-off withrecycling; there is year-round crop production, so one acre outputs the same asroughly thirty “normal” acres; no weather-related failure, since the crops areindoors; it reduces transmission of infectious diseases and is grown withoutherbicides, pesticides or fertilizers; and it actually produces energy bycomposting organic materials and producing methane. Making use of this one technology could radically change the face of the UnitedStates, literally.

If thistechnology is employed, both urban and rural areas will change radically. In cities, massive greenhouse-type buildingswould dot the exterior, giving the skylines a distinctively organic look. Besides being aesthetically pleasing and theaforementioned benefits, many jobs would be produced by keeping such structuresaround, requiring everything from farmers to maintenance crews. In rural settings, the land which is nowessentially barren (save the selected crops) could be reconverted intotraditional farmland, allowing production of meat to remain high amid a marketwhich will, no doubt, not see a major decline any time soon. These rural farms promote natural ecologicalgrowth, as the habitats they maintain are closer to the natural conditions ofthe area. That is to say, grasslandsseparated by hedge/tree-rows is a better promoter of wildlife than acres ofdirt parted only by barbed wire fences.

Bob findshimself in a rather precarious position. He likes the life that he has grown accustomed to. He enjoys the convenience that moderntechnology affords him. What he does notappreciate are the ramifications of these concepts. Damaging the environment and marring thelandscape are not what he had in mind. With the knowledge and technology he has, however, he can exact a changeupon the situation and see that the future his children will live through is abright one. All he has to do is alterhis perspective.

References

Bernstein, S. (2011, February 2). ‘Eat less,’ U.S. says as fast-foodchains super-size their offerings. LATimes. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/02/business/la-fi-fast-food-calorie-20110202

Despommier, D. (n.d.). The Vertical Farm: Reducing the impact ofagriculture on ecosystem functions and services. Retrieved from http://www.verticalfarm.com/ more?essay1

Human health. (n.d.). BeyondFactory Farming. Retrieved from http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get-informed/health/human-health

Pollan,M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York, NY:

ThePenguin Press

The welfare of cattle in beefproduction. (2006, April). Farm Sanctuary. Retrieved from http://www.farmsanctuary.org/mediacenter/beef_report.html

Randoms

2012-02-05T14:20:00.000-06:00

Random pictures I've taken lately (catching up to current).

MEN AT WORK

2012-02-04T15:13:00.001-06:00

Good movie. ;)

Blog (if you can call it that) is being changed into a photo blog. Work in progress... as are my photography skills. Note the noise; too high an ISO setting.

2009-03-30T01:25:00.001-05:00

I walked the line from here to there
Without a care or fans of fare
They could not help but stop and stare
The day I touched the moon

Alter Your Perspective

Farming for the Future

Randoms

MEN AT WORK