Aliza Lieb, Gavin Lue, Tatiana Nunez, and Michelle Pelan

Chapter H: Impact of the Industrial Meat System on Land

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter explores the impact of the meat industry on land. This industry not

only constitutes a major portion of land usage, but it has detrimental effects on the land it

uses. To illustrate this, the chapter discusses the amount of land consumed by Confined

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). More specifically, it focuses on the size of CAFOs

and how much of the land in the United States is used by CAFOs in comparison to the

total landmass of the country. The amount of land consumed in non-CAFO animal raising

is presented as well. In this case, the animals are not confined; they are allowed to graze

freely, which takes up a significant amount of land. The chapter additionally discusses

the negative effects of CAFOs and the raising of animals for the meat industry on the

land, focusing specifically on soil erosion and biodiversity loss. Soil erosion has several

damaging effects on the land; the decline in biodiversity, which is due to numerous

factors including soil erosion, desertification, and habitat destruction, is equally as

harmful. Overall, this chapter reveals one of the major environmental problems of

industrial agriculture: its impact on the land. It ends with suggestions to mitigate these

effects as well as alternate farming methods that cater to the preservation of the land and

the maintenance of its biodiversity.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. CAFO Land Usage

1. History of the CAFO

“Farming on a large, factory scale escalated in the United States following World

War II. Larger machines already were replacing laborers who had been moving to the

nation’s cities to work in expanding factories and offices.” (Food & Waterwatch) Over

time and along with the development of new and more efficient machines and tools for

farming, the situation only continued to escalate.

Over the course of the late 1960s, ‘70s, and accelerating during the 1980s and ‘90s,

shifting federal agriculture policy and the growing power of the agribusiness

corporations and traders that control world markets for the major commodity crops

–– think corn, wheat, and soybeans, which go into much of our processed food and

feed products –– gradually overlaid a production, assembly-line framework onto

food and farming. It encourages the employment of labor and time saving

machines to plant, cultivate, and harvest crops, and the use of petroleum-based

synthetic chemicals to sustain them. Instead of raising livestock, a variety of grain

crops, vegetables, and fruit on, say, 200 acres or fewer, farmers sacrificed their

farm diversity. In general, they began to focus either on raising thousands of live-

stock animals in crammed quarters or on growing a limited variety of corn,

soybeans, wheat, and other commodity crops on hundreds or thousands of acres.

Large global agribusiness processors such as Cargill then buy the food and feed

grain from farmers at low prices. (Food & Waterwatch)

2. CAFO Usage Today

“With a growing number of consumers switching from red meat to poultry, the

chicken and turkey industries are booming. In addition to the expanding U.S market,

poultry companies are also benefiting from expanding markets around the world.”(Farm

Sanctuary 2009)

Record numbers of chickens and turkeys are being raised and killed for

meat in the U.S. every year. Nearly ten billion chickens and over a quarter

billion turkeys are hatched in the U.S. annually. These birds are typically

crowded by the thousands into huge, factory-like warehouses where they

can barely move. Each chicken is given less than half a square foot of

space, while turkeys are each given less than three square feet. Shortly

after hatching, both chickens and turkeys have the ends of their beaks cut

off, and turkeys also have the ends of their toes clipped off. These

mutilations are performed without anesthesia, ostensibly to reduce injuries

that result when stressed birds are driven to fighting. (Farm Sanctuary

2009)

B. Non-CAFO Land Usage in Animal Raising

Throughout the past ten decades or so, the food industry in the United

States has changed dramatically. It is certainly safe to say that most of us

belonging to the generation graduating college in the United States in the 2000s

have never tasted a hamburger made from grass-fed cattle. In the past, raising

cattle on sunshine and green pastures was fairly typical. Before the introduction

of the CAFO, animals were raised and butchered locally, and meat was much

harder to come by. (Gabaccia 1998) However, as countries became wealthier,

and the demand for meat grew, farmers began to industrialize in order to meet

the rising demands.

Food manufacturing requires huge amounts of land. Studies have shown

that a mere 31% of the global soil surface can be used for crop growth, as well

as an added 33% that may be used for grassland that is suitable for cattle

grazing. (Gerbens-Leenes, et al, 2002)

According to agricultural studies on food security done across the world,

due to a shift from a vegetarian diet to a diet rich with meat has lead to a

threefold increase in the land required. (Gerbens-Leenes, et al, 2002) Based on

findings done in 1990, due to raised consumption rates of certain food products,

land requirements for food increased from 72 units in 1950, to 100 units in 1990,

showing us an escalation of 38%. However, despite the rise of land consumption

between the years 1950 and 1960 for food products overall, the land requirement

for meat products merely doubled. This was due to the change from beef

consumption, with a fairly large specific land requirement, to poultry, with a

fairly small land requirement. In 1990, the amount of land requirements for

livestock food was 47% of the total amount of land consumed for all food

products.

Although this may be the case, it should be noted that the size of the beef

industry has declined somewhat over the past 15 years. However, the amount of

cattle raised for meat consumption, 11.9 million, in 1992, has relatively stayed

the same when compared to 11.8 million in 2001. The amount of beef cows has

remained at approximately 33 million head (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 2005).

The cow-calf operation is the management unit that maintains a breeding herd and

produces weaned calves. In many cow-calf operations, enterprises called feedlots are

used, in which cattle are fed grain and other concentrates for approximately 90-120 days.

They vary in size from less than 100-head capacity to the thousands (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 2005). Different feedlot sizes and structures can, and often, have an

effect on the amount of land used for the cattle on a specific farm.

C. Negative effects on the land

1. What is the relationship between overgrazing and land degradation/soil erosion?

In her essay “Application of Herbivore Optimization Theory to Rangelands of

the Western United States,” Elizabeth L. Painter and A. Joy Belsky discuss how grazing

can actually be beneficial to land, because it leads to compensatory growth. Although

this might seem to contradict the point of this chapter, it shows how bad inappropriate

farming methods are, because they do not make use of “grazing optimization.”

The authors cite a study by Owen and Wiegert that supports the theory that the

loss of plant tissue to herbivores results in increased total productivity. This came to be

known as the “herbivore optimization hypothesis,” and it was argued that components

in the saliva of herbivores stimulate plant growth. There is much dispute over this idea,

but it is still important to note. It relates to this chapter because it exposes the fact that

grazing does not have to be harmful to land. In order for overcompensation to occur

though, it is advisable that there be monocultures, rich soils, and a continuously wet

growing season. It is the second demand that is most difficult to fulfill, especially in

western U.S. rangelands, where much of soil erosion occurs.

According to “Soil erosion in the UK initiated by grazing animals: A need for a

national survey,” by R. Evans, overgrazing is responsible for 35.8 percent of all forms

of degradation, and it is especially prominent in Australia and Africa, where it accounts

for 80.6 and 49.2 percent respectively and least so in Europe, where it accounts for 22.7

percent. Evans writes about the argument that degradation is only a short-term

phenomenon, because it causes animal populations to decline. This then takes the

pressure off the land enough so that it can recover. Evans also writes about the negative

effects of the grazing animals’ actual hooves on the land. The problem with soil is that

once it is exposed, the effects of wind and rain do the rest of the work of eroding it. The

soil protects itself naturally once enough erosion has occurred, by revealing a surface

better suited to colonization or one that is more resistant, such as hard rock. The hard

rock is not useable, though.

2. What are the long-term effects of soil erosion?

In Saving Our Soil, James Glanz writes that wind and water erosion cost the

United States $44 billion annually. He distinguishes between “on-site” and “off-site”

losses. An on-site loss is the value of nutrients lost with the soil, while an off-site loss

refers to the damage inflicted on the surrounding environment. Some of the examples he

provides are: the silting in of reservoirs, harbors, recreational lakes, and water treatment

facilities, as well as negative health consequences for the people living in these areas.

Further, a result of heavy sedimentation is flooding. Glanz claims that tillage-based

agriculture is the source of the problem of erosion. He quotes William Mullen, saying

that, “The plow was to the prairies what the chain saw is to the rain forest.”

Countering this argument are the authors of “The Threat of Soil Erosion to Long

Term Crop Production,” who write about how soil erosion was once beneficial. Before

the cultivation of crops, erosion allowed for the creation of fertile deltas and valleys.

Soil is also responsible for most of the qualities that plant growth is contingent upon:

light mechanical support, heat, air, water, and nutrients. Thus, production levels will

decrease significantly as a result of soil erosion. The authors also mention the same idea

from Evans’ article, about the importance of subsoil. A subsoil with favorable

characteristics can be the deciding factor in how severe the effects of overgrazing and

other forms of land degradation are. The rate of erosion also increases significantly if

the slope of the area is steeper. Conservation efforts should then focus on areas where

the damage from the erosion is the most severe, rather than where the greatest amount

of it occurs.

W.E. Larson et al. also discussed how decreased productivity will affect the

future needs of the United States. In 1977, the United States had 168 million hectares in

crop production and an additional 51 million hectares with high or medium potential for

conversion to cropland, for a total base of 219 million hectares. According to a USDA

study, though, the entire cropland base would have been in use by the year 2000.

Additionally, more than half of the 51 million hectares of potential cropland in the

United States is susceptible to erosion.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) seems to have anticipated these

problems. According to “Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability,” by David R.

Montgomery, the USDA established soil-loss tolerance values back in the 1950s, in

preparation for accelerated erosion under modern industrial agriculture.

3. What is biodiversity?

Biodiversity, which is an abbreviated version of biological diversity, is a term

describing the variety of life on Earth. It refers to “the variety of genes, species, and

ecosystems that can be found in the environment.” (Steinfeld et al. 2006). It contains

three levels of variation. The first is genetic diversity, or variation, within and between

the gene pools of individuals, populations of the same species, and different species. The

second is species diversity, representing the number of plant and animal species in a

given area. Globally, this is the total number of species that inhabit the planet. Third, it is

ecosystem diversity, or the amount of habitats and ecological processes in the world. In

general, then, biodiversity is defined as “the variety of life on Earth at all its levels, from

genes to ecosystems.” (Wood, Stedman-Edwards and Mang 2000).

4. The value of biodiversity

Biodiversity loss has been widely studied and acknowledged as a global problem,

requiring an international response to combat it. Biodiversity is extremely important and

has value for both the environment and for human beings. On the first level, genetic

variation has countless advantages. Genes are the sources of adaptation, and genetic

variety is what enables species to survive and, consequently, evolve over time to endure

changing conditions and habitats. For example, certain genes may be responsible for

disease resistance. Even for industrial agriculture, having a high degree of genetic

variation can be valuable, then, because it allows genetic improvement and adaptation,

increasing the chance of the species surviving. (“Loss of Biodiversity in Livestock”

2006).

On the second and third levels of biodiversity, species and ecosystems provide

ecological services that life on Earth, including humans, depends on for survival. For

example, ecosystems regulate the major cycles, such as the water cycle and the carbon

cycle. Every organism requires these key resources in order to survive. Other services

include pollution removal, such as the recycling of nutrients and carbon, water filtration,

erosion control, and even the providing of oxygen. A variety of species, functioning

together in an ecosystem, provide these crucial services. In addition, ecosystems with

higher levels of biodiversity are more resilient and more capable of adapting to new

conditions, not only ensuring their own survival but the survival of all the other life forms

that depend on the services they provide. (Steinfeld et al. 2006)

Specifically for humans, species and ecosystems provide innumerable goods and

services, including food, water, and energy. Their medicinal use has been and can

continue to be invaluable. Over 30 percent of medicines have come from plants and

animals. (Diaz et al. 2006). It is unknown which gene or which species will be able to

provide cures and treatments for any number of diseases and conditions in the future.

Maintaining biodiversity, then, has the potential to benefit humans in unimaginable ways.

Additionally, it has aesthetic as well as recreational value, such as during camping or

hiking. It is worth mentioning that biodiversity also has value in itself and should be

preserved for its own sake. (Steinfeld et al. 2006).

III. RESEARCH DESIGN

A. CAFO Land Usage

Data concerning the land usage of CAFOs in the United States of America is not

readily available to the open public, if available at all. After researching for hours, we

realized that the data that we were looking for might not even exist, and we would have

to approach the problem in a different manner. We found a flash based map on a website

which showed which of the states in America had the most types of animals per CAFO

and the relative locations and densities of each different CAFO and state. Looking

through the methodology link in the map led to the USDA website which had links to the

PDFs of the 2007 US Agricultural Census. Through the census, we were able to obtain

the number of CAFOs per state and also an approximation of how many animals of each

kind there are in CAFOs in each particular state throughout the country.

Because land usage data wasn’t readily available, we had to approximate our own

land usage estimates and averages through the use of the two previously mentioned

sources. We took the total number of animals of each type per state, and divided that

number by the amount of CAFOs in the state of that type in order to get a general

estimate of the animal population of each CAFO. We then researched the general size

requirements of each animal in square feet at the bare minimum, the conditions they

would be subject to in a confined animal feeding operation. We then multiplied this

number by the approximate size requirement of each adult animal and converted that

result into acreage. At the end of this process, we obtained a rough estimation of the acres

of land that each CAFO in that state consumed. This figure only takes into account the

amount of land consumed by the actual animals in the average CAFO per state and does

not take into account other facilities within the operation such as storage.

We obtained the average square footage that cattle and a calf together use in a

cramped living area from the Ohio State University website regarding Cattle Handling.

“Allow 20 square feet for each cow and 14 square feet for each calf. The area of a square

or rectangular pen is equal to the length times the width. For example, a pen with an area

measuring 30 feet by 40 feet equals 1,200 square feet. This will accommodate about 35

cows with calves.” (Stephen Boyles)

“Mother pigs (sows)—who account for more than 6 million of the pigs in the

U.S.—spend most of their lives in individual “gestation” crates.(9) These crates are about

7 feet long and 2 feet wide—too small for them even to turn around.(10)” (PETA 2009)

“These birds are typically crowded by the thousands into huge, factory-like

warehouses where they can barely move. Each chicken is given less than half a square

foot of space,…” (Farm Sanctuary 2009)

We did not utilize all of the information about farming operations that were

documented in the United States because the 2007 census included farming that was not

solely livestock based. It also included typical cattle ranching and farming as opposed to

cattle feedlots, which is also an alternate name for CAFOs and other forms of livestock

farming such as sheep and goat farming and aquaculture. Each page of graphs represents

each of the different types of CAFOs and their average size by state. Some of the entries

are blank, such as Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, and Louisiana because they failed to

provide either the number of feedlots or the number of actual cattle in their inventory.

Lastly, we collected the approximate acreages of the different types of CAFOs

that we researched and added them together to get a total CAFO acreage figure for the

country. We then took that figure and divided it by the total acreage of the United States

to obtain a percentage of the country's landmass that is being consumed by CAFOs. We

also took the total CAFO acreage figure that we obtained and divided it by the total

usable land area of New York City for a comparative view of the amount of land.

B. Non-CAFO Land Usage

In order to go about answering the question of how much land is consumed in the

raising of animals, we had to do a number of things. We researched online for different

tables and charts listing the different amounts of land used for the different types of

animals, such as cows, pigs, and poultry. We found many websites, government

documents, and books describing the amounts of land consumed for the raising of the

different animals, as well as the 2007 Agricultural Census with many tables relating the

amounts of land consumed for the different animals.

We also were able to conduct interviews with several local, organic, non-CAFO

meat farmers at the Greenpoint Farmer’s Market in McCaren Park. We interviewed Dan

Fort from DiPaola’s Turkey Farm located in New Jersey, and Anthony Laurant from

Laurant’s Meat Farm located in Goshen, New York.

Lastly, we had to calculate the amount of land per animal, or how many animals per

acre or so of land. As it would be quite difficult to list the amounts of land consumed by

each farm, much of the information we will be presenting will be estimates based on the

amount of a certain animal on a national level multiplied by the amount of land per

animal.

C. Negative effects on the land

In order to discover the negative effects on the land used in this manner, we

utilized Google Scholar and found a variety of scholarly articles containing information

about overgrazing and its effects on land. Most of the articles dealt with issues within the

United States, but we were also able to find some useful pieces containing information

about soil erosion abroad. The New York Public Library was another good resource,

although it was more difficult to find books on the topic. However, we were able to find

some literature on the soil itself, and the environmental consequences of abusing it.

Throughout the research process, we tried to locate literature that was current, but much

of what we found was from the 1990s. One article was even from 1937, so it was nice to

have that perspective. Land degradation is not a modern issue that is simply tied to

industry; rather, it has always been an issue. The industrial agricultural system did not

invent the concept of overgrazing, it just perpetuated it.

Similarly, researching and reading through various types of sources have provided

the framework for understanding the connection between CAFOs and the loss of

biodiversity. Extracting information from these sources has shown the ways in which the

raising of livestock for industrial agriculture decreases biodiversity. There are various

types of sources that reveal this information. The first category includes scientific books

and journal articles written for the scientific community about the effects of livestock on

biodiversity. The second includes magazine articles and web pages designed to raise

awareness about the issue. The data and information from these sources was gathered and

organized to present the results, which will state the contributions of livestock raising to

biodiversity loss. The results presented represent the interpretation of all of the data

gathered, thus portraying one conceptual model, or perspective, for understanding this

issue.

IV. RESULTS & FINDINGS

A. CAFO Land Consumption

1. Cattle CAFO Land Consumption

Our research on the land consumption of CAFOs led to certain unexpected

conclusions such as the fact that the size of CAFOs varied greatly depending on where

they were located. There were also major outliers on the Cattle CAFO charts because of

North Carolina’s seemingly large average CAFO size per state. We added all of the

approximate acre sizes for cattle CAFOs together and obtained a result of a 10.7 acre

average of cattle CAFO size in all of America. Realistically, the average would be closer

to approximately four to five acres per CAFO without the inclusion of the five outlying

data points. As can be seen in the first cattle CAFO table, Arkansas had an approximate

CAFO size of 21.6 acres and Alabama had an approximate CAFO size of 46 acres of

land, both of which are not typical of the rest of the country at all. In the second cattle

CAFO table, the three other outliers can be seen: Tennessee at 44.8 acres, North Carolina

at 213.4 acres, and Nevada at 17.2 acres. Granted, there should be a discrepancy between

the data from the census and the sizes, but a 213 acre CAFO is not a likely

possibility.

2. Hog & Pig CAFO Land Consumption

Through the second part of our research, we also discovered the average acreage

of a pig CAFO as compared to the average of a cattle CAFO which was almost 4 times as

large on average. Once again, just as in the cattle CAFO graphs, North Carolina is an

outlier in CAFO size, which could imply that North Carolina simply builds CAFOs of all

sorts on massive scales in order to fit as many animals as possible in them. Because we

can’t actually document the number of CAFOs in North Carolina, there was no way to

prove those data conclusive or not.

3. Total CAFO Land Consumption

The total of all of the acreage of the CAFOs in our data range was 93,804.115

acres of land across the country. This figure is relatively small when compared to the

acreage of the entire United States, which is 9,631.42 square kilometers (2,379,975.71

acres) of land. (Energy and Environment Data Reference Bank 2005) When turned into a

percentage, it is shown that the total land area of CAFOs across the country uses

approximately four percent of the entire surface area of the Unites States or

approximately 125,072 football fields worth of land. According to the the New York City

government website, the total area of usable land in NYC is approximately 154,000 acres.

(NYC Department of City Planning 2009) If all of the CAFOs in the country were put

into New York City, they would cover over sixty percent of the usable land area.

B. Non-CAFO Land Consumption

Item Farms Number

CattleandCalves 963,669 96,347,858

Farmswith‐

1to19 407,596 3,548,797

20to99 376,092 16,862,441

100to499 150,427 3,013,148

500to2499 26,706 24,418,732

2500to5000ormore 2,848 21,386,407

Figure 1: Cattle and Calves Inventory 2007 Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007

HOGS AND PIGS FARMS NUMBER Total hogs and pigs 75,442 67,786,318 Farms with- 1 to 24 45,047 260,154 25 to 49 4,292 146,672 50 to 99 3,182 215,206

100 to 199 2,590 354,203 200 to 499 4,524 1,467,383 500 to 999 3,588 2,488,234 1000 to 1999 4,013 5,527,798 2000 to 4999 5,356 16,532,918 5000 or more 2,850 40,793,750 Figure 2: Hogs and Pigs Inventory: 2007 Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007 POULTRY FARMS NUMBER Total poultry 145,615 349,772,508 Farms with inventory of- 1 to 49 125,195 2,006,251 50 to 99 10,648 651,314 100 to 399 5,001 785,699 400 to 3,199 785 783,776 3,200 to 9,999 626 4,691,571 10,000 to 19,999 1,373 20,218,149 20,000 to 49,999 1,292 35,972,247 50,000 to 99,999 261 18,129,706 100,000 or more 434 266,533,795 Figure 3: Poultry- Inventory, 2007 Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007 In the United States, as of 2007, there is approximately 473,212,960 acres of land used as pastureland of all types.

OPERATIONCOST TOTALACRESOPERATED %USEDFORBEEF,HOGS,SHEEP

Low‐cost 2,477 86Mid‐cost 1,000 83High‐cost 849 67Figure 4: Cow-Calf Operator & Operation Characteristics, by production cost group, 1996 Source: USDA Agricultural Resource Management Study, 1996

ENTERPRISESIZE TOTALACRESOPERATED %USEDFORBEEF,HOGS,SHEEP

Fewerthan50 340 7850‐99 1,008 80100‐249 2,403 81250ormore 8,744 90Figure 5: Cow-calf operator and operation characteristics, enterprise size, 1996 Source: USDA Agricultural Resource Management Study, 1996

REGION TOTALACRESOPERATED %USEDFORBEEF,HOGS,SHEEP

NorthCentral 364 91SouthernPlains 1,030 93NorthernPlains 2,148 64

Southeast 318 64West 3,282 75Figure 6: Cow-calf operator and operation characteristics, by region, 1996 Source: USDA Agricultural Resource Management Study, 1996

C. Soil Erosion

1. Already existing examples of the effects of soil erosion

In his article, “The Menace of Soil Erosion,” Elspeth Huxley defines erosion as a

loss of soil fertility due to changes in the physical nature of topsoil, combined with the

effects of wind and water upon the land. Erosion is caused by the removal of protective

vegetation, such as grass. Grazing is of course responsible for much of this removal. Like

some of the aforementioned authors, Huxley says that erosion depends largely on the soil

and climate of a region; in England, it is not a huge risk, while in North America and

Africa, conditions are much more suitable for soil erosion.

Huxley lists overgrazing as one of the main factors leading to erosion, because it

results in the destruction of grass and bush by trampling, and by the continual eating off

of young herbage. Erosion causes land to become desert-like, and he describes it

succinctly: “The first stage is a decline in crop yields or stock carrying capacity, the

finale a waste of shifting sand.” Erosion does not always happen gradually, either.

Huxley offers examples in Australia and the American North West, where land buried

under sand drifts eroded down to bare rock supported sheep and cattle just two decades

before. Soil erosion is problematic because it becomes irreversible after a certain point,

and the land loses its capacity for fertility entirely. Thus, it needs to be attended to as

soon as it is detected in order to prevent such catastrophes. Unfortunately, much of the

initial damage that soil erosion does is not visible.

Huxley uses examples from the past to illustrate how harmful soil erosion can be.

He writes about how enormous desert areas on the planet were once fertile enough to

support and provide for rich civilizations. He writes, “Ur of the Chaldees was not built

upon the sand from which its ruins were excavated but out of the wealth derived from

abundant crops; the port of Carthage grew fat on exports from the wheatfields and

vineyards of Algeria and Morocco; and Athenian greatness had its roots in the

productivity of hills now eaten down to dry and barren rock.” Huxley has a hypothesis

that it was the degradation of the land that caused these ancient civilizations to collapse,

because they weakened the cities and made them more vulnerable to invasions, and the

effects of internal political or social unrest.

This article was published in 1937, so it is not surprising that Huxley claims that

North America has the most severe soil erosion. At the time, the Midwest was suffering

from the effects of the Dust Bowl.

2. What conditions foster soil erosion?

Huxley writes that the predisposing climate factors to erosion are: extremes of

climate, notably long dry periods followed by heavy downpours, much rolling or hilly

land, a low proportion of forest to open country, baking sun and high winds in the dry

period, ignorant cultivators, and the presence of livestock. Even if an area does not

possess any of the natural qualities a farmer that does not manage it properly can do just

as much damage.

D. Biodiversity Loss

1. Livestock contribute to biodiversity loss because they add to the competition for resources, contribute to land degradation and habitat destruction, and alter conditions for species survival through the release of greenhouse gases and pollutants

Livestock represent 20 percent of the total land biomass. They monopolize the land

that wildlife had once occupied. The use of land for livestock has a huge effect on

biodiversity because they take away land that other species could use and add to the

competition for resources. For example, the raising of animals for industrial agriculture is

one of the leading consumers of water in the U.S. (Segelken 1997). According to one

source, 8 percent of the global water supply and half of the water used in the U.S. is used

in some way for livestock raising. (Hoffman and Hoffman 2008). With fewer resources

available for other species, they may begin to die out.

Second, the land used by the livestock contributes to land degradation to a very large

extent. Land used for things, such as grazing, causes soil erosion and compaction,

desertification, and habitat destruction, eliminating native plant and animal species.

Because of livestock activity, for example, 70 percent of grazed land is deemed degraded.

(“Livestock impacts on the environment” 2006). In terms of soil erosion, 13 tons of soil

per hectare, or 10,000 meters squared, are lost per year on land used to raise crops for

livestock, and 6 hectares per year are lost on pasture lands. (Segelken 1997). Soil erosion

and desertification render the land infertile, and so unusable for other species and crop

growth. It reinforces itself as well because the biodiversity loss makes the area less

resilient to the desertification process. (Schlesinger et al. 1990).

Moreover, however, the raising of livestock has caused habitat destruction,

eliminating different species. In fact, 85 percent of all threatened species are in that

situation because of habitat change. (Steinfeld et al. 2006). A major form of habitat

destruction due to industrial agriculture is deforestation. For instance, 260 million acres

of forest in the U.S. have been cleared in order to use the land to grow crops to feed the

animals. (Hoffman and Hoffman 2008). Deforested land is frequently converted into

pastureland or cropland. The clearing of the forest destroys habitats that once supported

many different species. Besides this wholesale land use conversion, habitat fragmentation

also decreases biodiversity. Fragmentation is the process by which certain areas of a

habitat (for example, a forest) are destroyed or converted into another use. It has been

found that fragmented forests support less biodiversity than continuous, complete forests.

This is true for several reasons. Fragmented areas of the land have fewer varieties of

habitats, allow for invasive species to enter and compete for existing resources, and

disrupt the equilibrium and balanced connections of the ecosystem and its various species

populations. All of these factors combine to decrease the ability of the land area to

support the range of species, resulting in a loss of biodiversity. (Steinfeld et al. 2006).

So far, the connections between livestock raising and biodiversity loss have been

direct. There are also indirect correlations between industrial agriculture and biodiversity

levels. First, livestock are large contributors to climate change. They are responsible for

18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, in carbon dioxide equivalents, which is a

larger input than that from the transportation system. Additionally, 37 percent of methane

emissions are attributable to livestock; methane is 23 times more intoxicating than carbon

dioxide. Another strong greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more

intoxicating than carbon dioxide, is released from manure “off-gassing,” which is the

evaporation of chemicals, and from nitrogen-based fertilizers, totaling 64 percent of its

emissions. (Motavalli 2008). Every phase of industrial agriculture, from raising crops to

running the factory farm to transporting the meat releases these global warming gases.

Because of climate change, it is estimated that 15 to 37 percent of species will be

threatened with extinction. This is because species have a climate range in which they

can survive. When the climate changes, species will either die out or be forced to move to

a different habitat. (Steinfeld et al. 2006).

Similarly, the release of pollutants into the environment from livestock also alters

conditions for species survival and adds to biodiversity loss. One of these releases is

ammonia; livestock adds two-thirds of the ammonia to the environment. Ammonia adds

to acid rain and acidifies ecosystems. (“The curse of factory farms” 2002). Some species

cannot adapt to changing acidity levels and can become extinct. Livestock also

continually release nutrients. Excessive discharge of nutrients eventually ends up in the

water stream, which spurs the growth of algae. Algae deplete oxygen levels in the water,

consequently lowering species diversity. The release of contaminants from animals on

CAFOs can penetrate the soil and pollute groundwater. For example, several heavy

metals, such as zinc, are present in feed additives and wind up in livestock waste, which

either builds up or is used as fertilizer. These heavy metals are toxic to many plant and

animal species. (Stubbs and Cathey 1999). Furthermore, the raising of livestock is

responsible for 50 percent of antibiotic use and 37 percent of pesticide use. (“Livestock

impacts on the environment” 2006). These substances can build up in soil and water, and

consequently, accumulate as the food chain is ascended. This has very detrimental effects

on the health of many species. All of these pollutants alter habitats, both in water and

soil, and kill off species.

2. The raising of livestock diminishes genetic diversity

The explanation of the contribution of the raising of livestock for industrial

agriculture on biodiversity includes another important component: the loss of genetic

diversity within livestock themselves, which is often referred to as “agrobiodiversity.” As

certain breeds of high-production livestock become more preferable, whether it is for

economic or dietary reasons, genetic diversity is diminished. According to one source, six

breeds die out per month, and 30 percent of breeds on a global scale are threatened with

extinction. (“Loss of Biodiversity in Livestock” 2006). Species that are raised intensively

increase the uniformity of the gene pool. For example, in the poultry industry, a small

number of international companies are responsible for the raising of chickens, which

results in certain breeds dominating production. (Notter 1999). This biodiversity loss is

equally as important as the loss of species and ecosystems.

3. Extinction rates

To demonstrate the current decline in biodiversity, many scientists are referring to

the potential loss of species as the “sixth mass extinction,” as five have occurred in the

history of the globe. Based on the fossil record, the base level of extinction is

approximately between 10 and 100 species per year. Currently, however, based on the

reduction rates of the forest, 27,000 species per year are being lost in forest habitats

alone. (“The Current Mass Extinction” 2001). Another source claims that over 50,000

species are lost per year; that extinction rate is similar to what it was 65 million years ago

when a mass extinction took place. (Olson 2005). There are difficulties in determining

these statistics, however. It is virtually impossible to document every species; it is

unknown how many species are actually in existence. It is equally as difficult to

determine if a species is fully extinct. Most of these statistics are based on the rate of

habitat loss. Similarly, often, it cannot be determined what percentage of biodiversity loss

is due to the different causes of biodiversity loss. Clearly, not all of the declines are

directly related to industrial agriculture, but it does play a huge role. For instance, one

source explains that “the grazing of livestock is considered a serious threat to 23 of the

Conservation International’s 35 global hotspots for biodiversity.” (Olson 2005).

V. DISCUSSION

A. CAFO Land Consumption

In doing the research for this chapter and taking the time to extrapolate unique data

from two already existing sources, we have learned a lot about the system of factory

farming and how animals are treated on their way from being born to slaughter ready. We

have also learned that the total CAFO land usage is not that great compared to the total

surface area of the United States. The sheer animal density of those 94,000 acres is

astounding, though, when compared to the typical animal density of a normal farm,

where from what we have seen in person on non factory farms, is at least three times less

dense.

B. Non-CAFO Land Consumption

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 461 million acres of land

are being used as pasture and grazing land for the various meat and dairy products

produced. An additional 66.9 million acres are used for growing crops, grain, and fodder

that go to feeding the livestock animals. In all, the meat industry uses approximately 528

million acres of land across the United States. The meat industry takes up about 24% of

the earth’s entire land mass (Lewis, 1994).

As shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3 in sub-section B of results and findings, there are

quite a large number of farms with quite a large number of the various types of animals

revealed. Non-CAFO farms generally use more land than CAFO farms, as they need

more of it for the animals to graze. As mentioned before, it would be impossible to

precisely obtain the correct information for every farm out there in the United States, and

the information we are providing are simply estimates.

Figure 1 shows that of the 963,969 cattle-calf farms, there is a total of 96,347,858

cattle on these farms. While conducting an interview with Anthony Laurant of Laurant’s

Meat Farm in Goshen, New York, Laurant stated that most non-CAFO farms contribute 2

acres per cow. Laurant himself has a farm of 136 acres, 50 of which are for cattle grazing.

Laurant’s farm has a total of 25 cows. That being said, if most non-CAFO farms supply 2

acres per cow, with a total of 96,347,858 cows across the United States (as of 2007) the

total amount of land being consumed for beef cattle is 192,695,716 acres.

Laurant’s Meat Farm contains 30 pigs in a 5 acre field, and four pigs per pig pen. If

most non-CAFO farms have similar settings, then there would be six pigs to every acre,

or each pig would receive one-sixth of an acre. According to Figure 2, out of the 75,442

hog and pig farms across the United States, there is a total of 67,786,318 hogs and pigs in

the US. If every pig or hog is given one-sixth of an acre then the total amount of land

consumed for pigs would be 11,293,200.58 acres.

Figure 3 shows us the total amount of poultry over 145,615 poultry farms is

349,772,508. Laurant has stated that his farm uses 4 acres for 150 chickens. If most non-

CAFO farms have similar chicken settings, then there are about 37.5 chickens per acre, or

each chicken would receive one-thirty seventh of an acre. Therefore, if every chicken is

given one-thirty seventh of an acre, the total amount of land consumed for poultry would

be 9,327,266.8 acres. However, it should be noted that while conducting an interview

with Dan Fort of DiPaola’s Turkey Farm in New Jersey, he revealed to us that their

turkey farm has only 5 acres, with 9,000 turkeys. That means DiPaola’s Turkey Farm

contains 1800 turkeys per acre. If most poultry farms follow this setting, as opposed to

Laurant’s, then a total of 194,318.06 acres of land are being consumed.

The cost of the farm, or operation, can also have an affect on its size. Figure 4 shows

cow-calf operation characteristics by production in 1996. In low-cost operations, the

average amount of total acres operated was 2,477. Beef, hogs, and sheep took up 86% of

that land, or 2130.22 acres for low-cost operations. In medium-cost operations, the

average amount of total acres operated was 1,000. Beef, hogs and sheep took up 83% of

that land, or 830 acres for medium-cost operations. In high-cost operations, the average

amount of total acres operated was 849. Beef, hogs and sheep took up 67% of that land,

or 568.83 acres for high-cost operations. Clearly, the more expensive the operation, the

less land and animals can be afforded.

Figure 5 shows cow-calf operation characteristics, by enterprise size, or number of

cows bred in 1996. The total amount of land used by farms with less than 50 animals was

340 acres. Beef, hogs and sheep took up 78% of that land, or 265.2 acres. The total

amount of land used by farms with between 50 and 99 animals was 1,008. 80% of that

land, or 806.4 acres, was occupied by beef, hogs and sheep. The total amount of land

consumed by farms with between 100 and 249 animals was 2,403 acres. Beef, hogs and

sheep took up 81% of that land, or 1,946.43 acres. The total amount of land consumed by

farms with 250 or more animals was 8,744. 90% of that land, or 7,869.6 acres, was

occupied by beef, hogs and sheep.

Figure 6 shows cow-calf operation characteristics by region in 1996. In the North

Central region, the total amount of acres operated was 364. Beef, hogs and sheep

occupied 91% of that land, or 331.24 acres. In the Southern Plains region, the total

amount of acres operated was 1,030. Beef, hogs and sheep took up 93% of that land, or

957.9 acres. In the Northern Plains region, the total amount of acres operated was 2,148.

Beef, hogs and sheep took up 64% of that land, or 1374.72 acres. In the Southeast

region, the total amount of acres operated was 318. Beef, hogs and sheep occupied 64%

of that land, or 203.52 acres. In the West region, the total amount of acres operated was

3,282. Beef, hogs and sheep occupied 75% of that land, or 2461.5 acres.

C. Mitigation options of the negative effects on land

1. How could soil erosion be mitigated, or prevented altogether?

According to “Prairie Conservation in North America,” by Fred Sampson and Fritz

Knopf, the best solution to soil erosion revolves around the concept of sustainability.

However, this requires a fundamental shift economically, and a willingness on the part of

land managers to use less-damaging technology, even if it is not as efficient.

According to Land degradation and Society, by Piers M. Blaikie et al, land

degradation is defined as a reduction of capability. This can be controlled by land

management, which applies known skills to land in order to minimize or even reverse the

effects of degradation. Rotational grazing and shifting cultivation are some of the

simplest land management methods, but they are methods of avoidance rather than

control. These strategies allow for natural repair, rather than doing anything proactive.

However, utilizing control strategies in conjunction with these methods is effective.

Slope control, water control, and fertilizer can all be combined with shifting cultivation.

Rotational grazing is effective when animals are fenced in or tethered.

According to Land Degradation and Society, a land manager is responsible for

limiting the negative consequences of natural processes. Purposive plant growth and

removal saps soil of its most vital elements too quickly, and does not give these elements

adequate time to reproduce. The problem with natural replacement, though, is that it

requires a rest period or the planting of crops and trees that are not very useful. Not

enough importance is placed on reproduction of the capability of the land itself,

especially because of the amount of labor that it requires.

In his essay, “The Effect of Overgrazing and Erosion Upon the Biota of the Mixed-

Grass Prairie of Oklahoma,” Charles Clinton Smith discusses how much of a problem the

overgrazing of pastures is in the state of Oklahoma. He laments the fact that most people

do not realize how important it is to allow plants to have a growth period in the spring so

that reserves can be replaced. Land managers should also reduce the number of animals

pastured in order to allow for the new growth in the spring. This would ensure the

continuing existence of the best types of vegetation on grazing lands.

It is in the spring that such action is necessary, because that is when the fundamental

growth occurs. The growth of unpalatable species of plants is especially important

because these plants protect the soil and keep it from eroding. When overgrazing is

intense or of long duration, erosion is capable of removing the topsoil entirely before

inedible plants get the chance to form a protective layer. According to Smith, prairies in

Oklahoma sometimes appear overgrazed even when they have not necessarily been. He

defines weather as the factor that decides how many animals an area of land can actually

support.

Smith refers to his plan for Oklahoma as “deferred rotational grazing.” He believes

that farm pasture areas should be separated into three parts. One third of the area would

be grazed each spring, so any portion would be grazed only once every three years. The

grazed portion would not be used that summer, in order to decrease the pressure on the

land. The other two portions would either both be grazed in summer and fall, or one

would be grazed while the other would be used for hay land. Under this plan, perennial

plants would be given two springs and one complete summer to replenish their resources

after each spring grazing. It is important for these plants to be given time to properly

recover, because they mitigate the effects of erosion.

2. How could biodiversity loss be mitigated?

The results show the current trend: the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing and

becoming an ever-present problem that will have global effects. Biodiversity loss has

important consequences both for the environment and for human beings, which is why

this issue is of utmost significance. The necessity and advantages of biodiversity that

have been previously discussed are currently threatened by this decline. Not only will the

world lose the essential ecosystem services that various species presently provide, but all

of the potential hidden within the variation will be lost. For example, it is unknown what

other medicinal purposes certain genes or species can serve. Loss of biodiversity

destabilizes entire ecosystems and affects every member of the food chain, which

includes human beings.

There are several recommendations for combating the trend of biodiversity loss. It has

been proven that livestock can have a positive impact on biodiversity. First of all, there

are certain technologies that increase livestock production and encourage biodiversity.

For example, mixed species grazing at sustainable levels increases diversity and improves

the habitat. (Collins and Qualset 1999). Integrated agriculture of crop production and

livestock moves away from monocultures and reduces pesticide and fertilizer use.

Improved management of the interactions between resources and livestock could lead to

more sustainable resource use and could restore the soil and habitats. Regulating laws and

policies could help to ensure that the approach of industrial farming takes into account

native species and works to maintain a positive symbiotic relationship between them and

the livestock (Steinfeld et al. 2006). What might be most difficult, however, is changing

the mindset of people from a focus on profit to a focus on the environment and the future

of the planet.

VI. CONCLUSION

It is evident that industrial agriculture uses a large portion of land, resulting in

detrimental effects for that land. Although the findings reveal that CAFOs consume a

relatively small amount of land, once non-CAFO animal raising is factored in, this land

consumption becomes quite vast. Soil erosion and biodiversity loss, as discussed in this

chapter, are only two of the negative consequences of this land usage. Industrial

agriculture has numerous other broad-ranging results for both the environment and for

human beings.

Bibliography

2002. The curse of factory farms (cause environmental effects). The New York Times August 30, 2002. 2006. Livestock impacts on the environment. In Spotlight. 2007. Big footprints (livestock industry and environmental concerns). In Science News, 30-31. (2007). Cattle and Calves - Inventory and Sales: 2007 and 2002. 2007 Census of Agriculture. D. o. Agriculture. 1.

(2007). Farms by North American Industry Classification System: 2007. 2007 Census of Agriculture. D. o. Agriculture. 1.

(2007). Hogs and Pigs - Inventory and Sales: 2007 and 2002. 2007 Census of Agriculture. D. o. Agriculture. 1.

(2007). Poultry - Inventory and Sales: 2007 and 2002. 2007 Census of Agriculture. D. o. Agriculture. 5. Collins, W. W. & C. O. Qualset. 1999. Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. Danvers: CRC Press LLC. Diaz, S., J. Fargione, F. S. Chapin & D. Tilman (2006) Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being. Public Library of Science Biology.

Elizabeth L. Painter, A. J. B. 1993. Application of Herbivore Optimization Theory to Rangelands of the Western United States. Ecological Applications 3 (1):2-9.

Energy and Environment Data Reference Bank (2005). "Energy and Environment Data Reference Bank (EEDRB)." Retrieved 10/18/09, 2009, from http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-ga.html. Evans, R. 1996. Soil erosion in the UK initiated by grazing animals: A need for a national survey. Applied Geography 17:127-141.

Farm Sanctuary (2009). "Factory Poultry Production." Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/poultry/.

Food & Waterwatch. "A Brief History of Factory Farming in the U.S.". 2009, from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/world/africa/africa/history-of-industrial-factory-farming-in-the-united-states.

Fred Sampson, F. K. 1994. Prairie Conservation in North America. BioScience 44:418-421.

Gabaccia, Donna R. We Are What We Eat. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1998. Gaechter, L. (2003). "Environmental Implications of Modern Animal Agriculture: Save the Planet with your Fork." Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/gaechter.html Glanz, J. 1995. Saving Our Soil. Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Printing.

Hoffman, M. T. & F. L. Hoffman. 2008. Animal Agriculture Equates to Wasted Resources and Environmental Degradation. Huxley, E. 1937. The Menace of Soil Erosion. African Affairs 36:357-370. Lewis, S. (1994). "An Opinion in the Global Impact of Meat Consumption." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: 1099-1102. Montgomery, D. R. 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (33):13268-13272. Motavalli, J. 2008. The meat of the matter: our livestock industry creates more greenhouse gas than transportation does.

Notter, D. R. (1999) The importance of genetic diversity in livestock populations of the future. Journal of Animal Science, 77. NYC Department of City Planning (2009). "New York City Land Use." Retrieved 10/23/09, 2009, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/landusefacts/landusefactshome.shtml. Olson, D. 2005. Species extinction rate speeding up. In Minnesota Public Radio. St. Paul.

P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, S. N. (2002) Consumption Patterns and Their Effects on Land Required for Food. Ecological Economics 42, 185-189

PETA (2009). "Pigs: Intelligent Animals Suffering in Factory Farms and Slaughterhouses." 2009, from http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=119. Piers M. Blaikie, H. C. B. 1987. Land degradation and society. New York: Methuan & Co. Ruben N. Lubowski, M. V., Shawn Bucholtz, Alba Baez, and Michael J. Roberts. 2006. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002. In Economic Research Service Economic Information Bulletin. Washington, DC.

Sapp, A. (2001). Production and Consumption of Meat: Implications for the Global Environment and Human Health. Boston, Harvard Medical School of Public Health: 1-24. Schlesinger, W. H., W. M. Jarrell, R. A. Virginia, W. G. Whitford, J. F. Reynolds, G. L. Cunningham & L. F. Huenneke (1990) Biological Feedbacks in Global Desertification. Science, 247. Segelken, Roger. 1997. Future water and energy shortages predicted to change face of American agriculture. Cornell University Science News August 7, 1997.

Short, S. D. (2001). Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Cow-Calf Operations: 1-26. Smith, C. C. 1940. The Effect of Overgrazing and Erosion Upon the Biota of the Mixed-Grass Prairie of Oklahoma. Ecology 21 (3):381-397 Steinfeld, H., M. Rosales, C. d. Haan, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar & V. Castel. 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Stephen Boyles, J. F., Gary Fike. "Cattle Handling and Working Facilities." Bulletin 906, from http://ohioline.osu.edu/b906/index.html. Stubbs, K. & K. Cathey (1999) CAFOs Feed a Growing Problem (Concentrated animal feeding operations). Endangered Species Bulletin, 24.1. Tom Vilsack, C. Z. F. C. (2009). 2007 Cencus of Agriculture. D. o. Agriculture: 1-739. U.S. Environmental Protection Angency. "Beef Glossary." Retrieved October 9, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/beefglossary.html W.E. Larson, F. J. P., R.H. Dowdy. 1983. The Threat of Soil Erosion to Long-Term Crop Production. Science, New Series 219:458-465. Wood, A., P. Stedman-Edwards & J. Mang. 2000. The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.