1

Factory Farming
Impacts on the Environment and Animal Welfare
Kristyna Stodulkova
April 14, 2014

Consumption of animal products in the world is alarmingly increasing. The increase of
real incomes and a growing population along with the change of eating habits lead to
skyrocketing rise in demand for animal products. In comparison with the fifties of the last
century, the meat consumption increased about five times (Profiling Food Consumption). The
treatment of livestock animals is another issue which is supported by the growing demand for
animal products.
The conditions and treatment of livestock is a serious problem, and humans have to start
taking actions against such abuse. Animals are not ours to exploit and use in any way we desire.
They are not machines or things, and people must stop treating them as such. They do suffer
from the treatment they are exposed to. Humans have to take responsibility and face the terror
these animals are put through on a daily basis. Humans are supposed to be the most intelligent
species on this planet. It is time to start acting like it and stop speciesism from happening.
Jens Holm and Toivo Jokkala, in The livestock industry and climate, explain that by
2050, it is expected that, in comparison with 1999, meat consumption will double - from 229
million tons to 465 million tons. Global consumption of milk is expected to increase over the
same period of time from 580 to 1043 million tons. The consequences of such an increase in
2

consumption are serious because factory farming belongs to one of the three major factors that
create environmental issues on a global level.
Firstly, factory farming is a significant source of greenhouse gases which can cause a
climate change. When greenhouse gases are mentioned, most people think of carbon dioxide
(CO
2
). When carbon dioxide is mentioned, first what people think of is the burning of fossil
fuels, such as for transportation purposes. They are usually not aware of the enormous amount of
carbon dioxide released from factory farming (Holm).
Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide, but these exhalations of CO
2
are normally
absorbed by plants as a part of the biological cycle while emissions from fossil fuels or factory
farming generate a growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the situation is much
more complicated for the greenhouse gas emissions released from industrial factory farming
because it has also effected forests which previously absorbed carbon dioxide. The forests were
cut down and now, taking their place, there are pastures and land to grow food for livestock
animals. It is a vicious circle.
For a complete picture, in a lifetime, one cow produces, directly or indirectly, the
equivalent of 4.5 tons of carbon dioxide. Moreover, greenhouse effect is also reinforced by the
methane released during digestion. Tied to emission release are also other activities related to
livestock, such as planting and harvesting crops or the subsequent transport of them. A person
that buys one kilogram of beef contributes to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect as if
instead he or she drove 250 kilometers by car with average fuel consumption or left switched on
a one hundred watt light bulb for twenty days (Ogino).
3

Furthermore, given that an intensive animal production has been expanding in recent
decades in Japan, Japanese experts from the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland
Science examined the life cycle of regular cow for slaughter, including all breeding requirements
and needs. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the environmental impacts of
factory farming. In addition, together with the amount of methane released was monitored also
the energy consumption. The acidification and eutrophication of water resources could not
remain unnoticed because while those occur, there is a decrease in oxygen concentration in the
water and less carbon dioxide can be absorbed (Ogino).
After counting all partial indicators, it was calculated that the life cycle of one cow
pollutes the environment at an equivalent of 4550 kilograms of carbon dioxide, 40.1 kilograms of
carbon monoxide, and 7 kilograms of phosphates. Energy intensity is 16.1 gigajoules. It is
possible to conclude that one kilogram of beef is redeemed not only by a violent death of the
animal, but also by the deletion of potentially harmful substances which have an effect of 36.4 kg
of carbon dioxide, 340 grams of carbon dioxide, and 59 grams of phosphates . Furthermore, 169
mega joules of energy are being consumed (Ogino). The whole process of raising a cow for a
slaughter consumes a huge amount of energy given all the electricity used for stalling and
slaughtering purposes. Continuously, such waste of energy has negative impacts on the
environment.
Scientists came up with several ways how to make those impacts less drastic. Shorter
intervals between calving cows (about 1 month) or a greater number of calves born per cow
would reduce the energy consumption and environmental impacts from 5.8 to 5.7 percent, even
though these calculations do not include emissions from the transportation of meat.
4

Recently, one of the most beneficial procedures for the control of emissions is organic
farming. Cows grazing on pasture in comparison with industrialized farming cost much less
energy (about 85 percent), and significantly lower (40 percent) is also the production of
greenhouse gases. Scientists are trying to find other ways to reduce the carbon footprint, but
maybe one of the easiest things people could do is simply to stop eating meat and stop
consuming animal products in such enormous amounts. Making a cow pregnant more often is not
going to solve the problem.
Yes, factory farming has a negative impact on the climate change and contributes greatly
to the amount of emission released in the atmosphere. But what about the ethical approach and
the animal welfare? This issue can be linked with Utilitarianism and the Natural Law Theory. In
Utilitarianism, people seek to be happy, and if it is the consumption of meat that brings them
happiness, it does not matter how that meat (or any other animal product) got on their plate. The
means are not important; it is the ends that bring about pleasure that matter. About 75% of the
world population consumes meat and animal products. The goal is met because the consumption
of animal products brings happiness to greatest amount of people 75% of world population.
The remaining 25% - such as vegans and vegetarians (even though vegetarians still consume
animal byproducts dairy) - are the minority. The majority of people is pleased. People increase
their benefit and pleasure and decrease suffering. Unfortunately, the suffering is passed onto
different species the animals. That is when ethics and morality step in. What is so morally
wrong with factory farming?
Lets look at a cow. The purpose of cows is to obtain milk. Today's "dairy" cows are so
overbred that they create five to ten times more milk (almost 50 liters a day) than regular cows
5

bred for consumption. Their udders are not built for such a senseless amount of milk; therefore,
the udder often gets sore and inflamed. Incidentally, this overbreeding causes that today's cows
cannot even stand up straight because of the tremendous udders, they are often limping, or their
legs break.
The life, if it can be called life since cows and other livestock animals are handled more
as things than living beings, of a cow is full of suffering from the moment it is born. Typically, a
cow is impregnated every 2 months. When the calf is born, it is immediately taken away from its
grieving mother (so it does not drink any of the milk which is intended for humans who are
interestingly the only species that drink other species milk), and it is either killed or sent for
slaughter (in the case that it is a male) or raised to be another milk machine. Factory farmed
cows do not get to see the outside of the factory or eat fresh grass. Actually, they do get to see
the outside of the factory, and that is when they are sent for an auction or transported for a
slaughter.
Moreover, the cows and mostly all of the livestock animals (if not certified organic or
grass-fed which can be also misleading) are fed genetically modified soy and corn which is then
reflected in the quality of the product (Rifkin). People have to realize what they actually
consume. It is not only dead corps of animals who suffered, but while eating their flesh, together
they are also consuming the antibiotics and hormones that the animals fed on. These antibiotics
and hormones are deposited in the flesh of the animal.
The low quality of life is also supported by the conditions that those cows have to live in.
As mentioned earlier, do they not only get to see the outside of the factory, they are also caged in
a little space where it is impossible to turn or lie down. Such conditions cause the cow sores,
6

broken legs, and a constant stress which is also supported by the brutality and abuse inflicted by
the factory workers. Cows are exposed to pain since the day they are born because, in order to
avoid potential injuries of other cows or factory workers, the horns are burnt out with a hot steal
device. The dehorning process is extremely painful and agonizing.
When a cow does not produce as much milk as desired, it is sent to a slaughter where it
has to go through a stressful experience until a bullet is shot straight in its brain. Cows are
usually lined up in a queue, so they can see what happened to the cow before. They watch as the
cow ahead of them is being slaughtered, and they can hear the wailing. The reason why this
experience seems especially cruel is because cows are very compassionate and group oriented
animals, and it has been proven that they can grieve for a lost member of a herd or a lost calf
(similarly to elephants). Being exposed to such picture is very stressful for the cows as they can
see that the other cows are being killed (Day).
Not only cows have to endure such abuse. Pigs, poultry, sheep etc. are exposed to very
similar conditions. If it is pigs that are the second smartest animals on earth, chickens whose
beaks are cut off to prevent pecking, sheep whose tails are cut off without any anesthesia to
ensure better quality of wool, such treatment is definitely against animal rights. But why is such
treatment of animals wrong? Do they have any rights? If so, what actually are those animal
rights?
In his book, Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality
does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Singer says, When
these [interests] are similar to ours, or their pain is on a similar level, why give them less
consideration? Singer also supports words of Jeremy Bentham who stated that when deciding
7

on a beings rights, The question is not Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they
suffer? He points out the capacity for suffering which should be the reason to give any living
being an equal consideration. The point is that, unlike a stone that is for example being kicked,
animals have the same interests as humans. They do not want to suffer. They have an interest in
not being tormented or abused because such treatment causes suffering. There is no reason to
differentiate between human and animal suffering because they both have the same effect;
therefore, it is not essential whether the living being is a human or an animal, and, therefore,
animals should have the same right of being spared of suffering as humans do. Not because of
their species, IQ, skin, or their intelligence, but simply based on the fact that they have the ability
to suffer. If the right to live a life without suffering was based on such factors, it would mean that
it is be absolutely fine to abuse or kill any human who does not meet the standards. And again,
where do people take the right to determine what these factor are and what level of each factor is
considered acceptable? How do they decide what is acceptable? They cannot because such action
would be inhumane and immoral to other humans. The same scenario applies to animals. People
do not have the right to decide how an animal should be treated or what the animal feels, but,
unfortunately, most of humans do which makes them speciesists (Singer).
Basically, a speciesist thinks that his or her interests are above the interests of the
members of other species. If reflected on factory farmed animals, it is clear that they are treated
as their interests are not important. In order to cover the demand for meat and dairy products, the
animals are kept in conditions that allow to produce extreme amounts of those without any
consideration for how the products people eat got on their plates. There is no consideration for
the living being thats interest is definitely not suffering, being abused, and finally being killed
8

for consumption purposes. Such practices are not necessary for humans to survive, they are
practiced to fulfill their tastes and cravings. For humans, the consumption of flesh is just a form
enjoyment; for the animal, it is life itself. To avoid speciesism, it is a must to stop such treatment
of animals. There is not any relevant reason to support the right that humans give themselves
the right to end a life. It is not important whether it is a humans or an animals life; it is still a
life. Of course, it is hard if not impossible for the animals to actually live a life when they are
treated as machines without any rights to live a life without suffering. Their life is already
predestines by the desires of humans to consume them (Singer).
As mentioned earlier, organic or cage-free labels can be very misleading and even
false. People go to a store and buy cage-free eggs. There, they leave the store with a nice feeling
that they did something for the animals. Maybe, if they were interested enough, they would
investigate that a cage-free egg is exactly the same as a regular egg. They only difference that
allows companies to put such label on their product is the fact that the chickens are not crammed
in cages, but they stomp on each other in a huge space full of feces and torsos of dead chickens.
These chickens are fed modified food full of hormones to speed up the growth. Consequentially,
they are not able to take such weight and many times their legs and wings brake, and all they can
do is to wait to die. Anybody who calls that acceptable living conditions must be deluded,
ignorant, or out of his mind. As Singer said, animals should get the same consideration as
humans because they have the capacity to suffer, and they share the same interest to avoid
suffering.
Furthermore, as it is not a natural condition for humans to live in feces and crammed on
top of each other, it is not natural for chickens either. Pictures of happy cows eating grass on the
9

milk boxes or a laughing cow on a box of cheese is there to deceive people and make them feel
good about themselves. If those people ever stepped in a factory farm, it is for sure that they
would not see a laughing cow. Probably they would not be laughing themselves either.
Todays factory farming reflects the ideas of the Natural Law Theory which claims that
everything exists for the sake of human existence. The world was made for man; man must
conquer the world. In a book Ishmael, Ishmael criticizes the Natural Law Theory. He talks
about Takers and Leavers, where Leavers are pictured as the primitives, the native people who
hunt just for their need. Takers, on the other hand, are very similar to todays society. They are
defined by significant population growth and rearrangement of their surroundings, allowing to
live only such species that they can in any way benefit from not taking in consideration the
welfare and needs of the other species (Quinn 146, 147, 155, 156).
Nowadays, the consumption is much higher which is also supported by the fast growth of
the population. Continuously, such growth is causing a higher demand. The carrying capacity
could be reached very soon because the resources on this planet are not infinite. Such behavior of
humans consuming more and more has a name gluttony and ignorance. Humans act as superior
species who, for some reason, feel that they have the right to define how other species should be
treated. It is a very arrogant and self-centered approach because they are not effecting just their
own species.
Humans have to realize and take in consideration that animals are feeling sentient beings.
The fact that people treat them as machines is very alarming for society as whole. If the society
does not respect the life of other species, it says a lot about how it cares about the environment.
As said before, factory farming contributes greatly to the emissions of greenhouse gasses which
10

are known as factors that have an impact on climate change. Therefore, the treatment of livestock
animals is not only immoral and cruel, but excessive consumption of animal products by humans
also endorses negative impacts on the environment. Humans must stop treating animals as milk,
eggs, and meat machines and stop using stupid and empty arguments such as but if we did not
eat meat, the cows would be set loose and destroy habitats or God made animals for us to use.
That is just pure nonsense and coward buck-passing. Everybody can reduce the amount, if not
leave out totally, of the animal products he or she consumes. The fact is animals suffer from
human intervention. It should be our duty to stop such injustice. After all, we are supposed to be
the humanKIND.

11

Works Cited
Day, Amanda. Winning Helium.com Essay: The Effect of Factory Farming on the
Environment. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 2008. Web. 24 February.
2014.
Holm, Jens, and Toivo Jokkala. The livestock industry and climate. European United Left/Nordic
Green Left, 2008. Print.
Ogino, Akifumi, Hideki Orito, Kazuhiro Shimada, Hiroyuki Hirooka. Evaluating
environmental impacts of the Japanese beef cowcalf system by the life cycle assessment
method. Animal Science Journal. 78.4 (2007): 424-432. Web. 25 February. 2014. Quinn,
Daniel. Ishmael. New York: A Bantam/Turner Book, 1995. Print.
Rifkin, Jeremy. Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. New York: Penguin
Group, 1992. Print.
Singer, Peter. A Utilitarian Defence of Animal Liberation. Ed. Louis P. Pojman and Paul Pojman.
Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. Web. 15 April.