sign in sign up
<<
Home , Food system

LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011

FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION BACKGROUND READING 5 The way the United States raises animals for has changed dramatically in recent decades with the development of industrial food animal production (IFAP), an outgrowth of the overall industrialization of the nation’s . The trend in animal agriculture has been toward fewer operations, more animals raised on each one and fewer corporations controlling most aspects of the —from breeding to feed production to slaughter to the marketing of , milk and eggs. Although IFAP has some economic benefits, much of the burden of producing animal products in an industrialized system is externalized in the form of public , environmental and social costs. Some farmers raise animals using alternative methods that strive to be more sustainable. These farms raise animals primarily outdoors, in more diversified operations that tend to be smaller-scale, allow more space per animal and avoid feed additives such as hormones and . Some of the issues seen in land-based animal production are also present in the production of aquatic animals, though this type of production also presents unique problems and opportunities.

How the current system developed Industrialization Before the 1950s, most , hogs, and other land-based food animals were raised on small-scale, independently owned farms. Animals generally had access to pasture or a barnyard when weather conditions permitted.1 Farms were often diversified, meaning they produced a variety of crops and several species of animals.2

Following the industrialization of crop production (refer to History of Food), the traditional model of raising animals began disappearing as food animal production in the United States became industrialized.3 The slaughtering of hogs was the first stage of the meat supply chain to undergo this transition; by the 1930s, the industry came to resemble a mechanized assembly line.1 Henry Ford even credited these hog “disassembly” lines with inspiring the idea for his automobile manufacturing plants.4

The industrialization of the cattle and poultry industries later began in the 1950s, with swine production following in the 1970s.5 Abundant production, along with more efficient transportation and other technological developments, made it profitable to move food animals off of pasture and into large-scale, confined facilities for all or part of their lives.5 Shipments of feed (made primarily from inexpensive grain) could be affordably shipped to these facilities, while it became common for the animals’ waste to be transported to nearby cropland and sprayed as TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 1 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 . Alongside other aspects of agriculture, food animal production was becoming increasingly specialized. Diversified farms gave way to operations that handled a single species of animal during a particular period of its lifespan;6-8 these facilities were usually distinct from the farms that grew crops for their feed. The animals themselves also became more specialized, as advanced breeding techniques—coupled with diets of specially formulated feeds—decreased the time it took for them to reach market weight.1 Broiler (meat) chickens, for example, grew to almost twice the weight, in less than half the time, using less than half as much feed in the 1990s compared to broilers in the 1930s.9

Specialized, large-scale operations benefited from greater economic efficiency, and could more easily afford to adopt the latest technology. By raising more animals, they achieved economies of scale, lowering their cost per unit of production. Smaller operations, meanwhile, often struggled to compete. As a result, many facilities in the food animal production industry became consolidated,6 or larger and fewer in number.10 For example, there were close to 2 million hog farms in the United States in 1959, but as of 2007 there were just over 75,000. During that same period that average size of U.S. hog operations grew from 36 to almost 900 animals.11,12 Excluding the smallest farms (those with fewer than 25 hogs), the average hog operation today has closer to 4,500 animals.8 Similar trends have been observed in the poultry and cattle industries.1,13

Today, meat, dairy and egg production in the United States—and increasingly in other parts of the world—has become largely industrialized. This prevailing system is called industrial food animal production, or IFAP. In the IFAP system, large numbers of animals are raised in confined facilities where they are fed specialized, largely grain-based diets.1 These animals are bred almost exclusively for maximum production. The vast majority of animal products produced in the United States come from IFAP facilities.

Larger IFAP facilities are sometimes called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).1 Whereas small farms might raise several dozen hogs or a few hundred chickens, a CAFO might at any one time be raising thousands of hogs8 or hundreds of thousands of chickens14 in crowded indoor facilities. In the IFAP system, cattle spend most of their lives on pasture eating grass and other forages; before slaughter, the animals are shipped to outdoor feedlots where they gain additional weight on largely grain-based diets. Large feedlots—a type of CAFO—house upwards of 1,000 cattle.15 Although some dairy cattle have access to pasture, most dairy operations have shifted to raising animals indoors or in feedlots.16-18

Refer to History of Food and Agriculture and for more on industrialization.

Industry concentration As food animal production became increasingly industrialized, it also became concentrated under the ownership of fewer corporations. Just a few companies largely control the production and slaughter of food animals in the United States, and there is similar market domination in the

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 2 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 production of milk and eggs. For example, the top four beef packing firms controlled 81 percent of the market in 2001. In , the top four packing companies controlled 66 percent of the market as of 2006. In the chicken industry, the top four broiler producers controlled almost 60 percent of the market in 2006.19 Fewer than 200 large egg companies raise about 95 percent of the egg-laying hens in the United States, down from about 2,500 companies in 1987.20 This level of industry concentration often results when large corporations takeover or merge with other businesses competing in the same type of enterprise. This is called horizontal integration.

In the hog and poultry industries, large companies are often vertically integrated controlling successive stages along the supply chain for a particular product.21 For example, the top pork producer and processor in the United States owns the rights to raise a particular breed of hogs, oversees how the animals are raised, slaughters them, processes their meat and markets the finished pork products.21,22 In the hog and poultry industries, these companies are referred to as integrators. They enter into contracts with growers, people who own indoor facilities in which they raise hogs and chickens until they are ready for slaughter. Integrators typically own the animals, supply specially formulated feed and specify how animals will be housed and maintained.23 Growers have little or no autonomy over how animals are raised, but bear responsibility for handling concentrated animal waste and the carcasses of animals that die during production— along with the environmental and health risks associated with these materials.1

Refer to History of Food for more on industry concentration.

Effects of industrial food animal production Under the IFAP model, the price of animal products in the United States has dropped over recent decades.1 Chicken meat, for example, once cost as much as lobster at a time when birds were typically raised on small rural farms.9 The industrialization of food animal production, however, may not be entirely responsible for its economic success: The industry benefits from inexpensive and widely available corn and soy crops, made possible in part by government policies that encourage overproduction.1 IFAP facilities also benefit from weak enforcement of environmental regulations by government agencies.24

These benefits of IFAP came alongside public health, environmental, social and costs. Because these costs are not reflected in the price of food, they are said to be hidden or externalized. Some of the costs associated with IFAP are discussed below.

Public health impacts IFAP presents a number of opportunities for the transmission of disease, directly and indirectly, from animals to humans.25 Many of these risks stem from the practice of confining large numbers of animals in IFAP facilities, where they produce enormous quantities of concentrated waste that harbors pathogens, antibiotics, hormones and other contaminants.24 Confined food animals in the

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 3 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 United States were produce close to 300 million tons of dry waste each year—over 40 times the amount of human solid waste leaving treatment plants. In some cases, IFAP waste is stored as a slurry in outdoor cesspits called manure lagoons. It is also sprayed on fields as fertilizer.1 Unlike human waste, there is no requirement that animal waste be treated (to remove pathogens and chemical contaminants) before it is applied to cropland or otherwise disposed of.26

Humans can be exposed to pathogens and chemical contaminants in animal waste through produce that was fertilized with untreated manure.1,27,28 Meat can also become contaminated with waste- borne contaminants during slaughter and processing.29 Feeding large amounts of grain to cattle may increase the risks from animal waste by altering the animals’ digestive systems in ways that promote larger populations of a disease-causing strain of E. coli.29 Refer to Food Safety for more information.

Workers in animal houses, slaughterhouses and crop fields can also be exposed to wasteborne contaminants through airborne particles or contact with soil where manure was applied.30 Gases emanating from concentrated animal waste can cause serious illness or death among IFAP workers and animals that are exposed to it.1

Communities near IFAP facilities also face health risks. When it is sprayed on fields, animal waste from IFAP operations can contaminate nearby waterways with excess nutrients, heavy metals, antibiotics and hormones (see Environmental impacts, below).1 These materials can contaminate drinking water, putting people at risk for various health harms. Air pollution from IFAP practices can also affect nearby communities. Numerous respiratory and mental health problems among residents living near IFAP operations have been documented, including elevated rates of asthma in children.1 Depression, anger and fatigue have been associated with odors from nearby large-scale hog operations.1,31

Under the IFAP system, animal feed may contain antibiotics, animal waste and ground up parts of animals. Many of these feed ingredients heighten concerns about the health risks posed by animal waste from IFAP facilities. Their use can also introduce pathogens and chemical contaminants into our food supply.32 Antibiotics, for example, are routinely fed to healthy food animals to speed up their growth. Government data indicate that nearly 80 percent of all use in the United States is for food animals.33 Many of the antibiotics used in IFAP are of the same type used to treat infections in people.34 The widespread use of these drugs in food animals has been shown to cause bacterial pathogens to become resistant to many antibiotics, ultimately eroding the ability of these drugs to treat infections in humans. Antibiotic-resistant infections are more difficult and expensive to treat.35 People can be exposed to antibiotic-resistant organisms by consuming meat or produce that carry these bacteria36,37 or through contact with contaminated soil, air and water.

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 4 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 Environmental impacts Although manure is an invaluable resource in promoting soil fertility, the volume of waste generated by IFAP facilities often overwhelms the capacity of cropland to absorb it.5 The resulting runoff from fields sprayed with large quantities of animal manure pollutes waterways with excess nutrients. This can create dead zones—places where most aquatic life cannot thrive because of a lack of oxygen (refer to Agriculture and Ecosystems).38,39 In some cases, IFAP waste storage systems may fail, or overflow during severe weather events. When this occurs, downstream water bodies can become polluted with enormous amounts of animal waste, causing algal blooms, bacterial contamination and massive kills.5

Although it is efficient in some respects, the IFAP system can be particularly resource-intensive in terms of energy and freshwater use.1 In the case of cattle, this is partly due to the fact that enormous quantities of grain must be produced, processed and shipped to animals during the last several months of their lives. It requires an estimated seven pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef; the ratios for hogs and chickens are 4:1 and 2:1, respectively.40 Some researchers question whether the land, water and energy used to grow feed for food animals might be better used to produce food for direct human consumption, particularly given the growing population.41,42 In contrast to grain-fed animals, pasture-raised beef and dairy cattle eat mostly grass and other forages throughout their lives;43 in doing so, they convert something that is indigestible for humans into products that we can digest (meat and milk).

Another waste product from IFAP—and animal agriculture in general—is greenhouse gases (GHGs), which contribute to climate change (refer to Agriculture and Ecosystems). The production of red meat and dairy accounts for almost half of the total GHG emissions from the field to retail portion of the U.S. food system.44,45 Major sources of GHGs from the production of animal products

include cattle belching (a source of methane, or CH4), animal manure (a source of CH4 and nitrous oxide, or N2O) and the application of synthetic (a source of N2O) in growing feed crops.1,44

IFAP operations are also a significant source of carbon dioxide (CO2) because they depend on fossil fuels, particularly in the production of feed crops. is used, for example, in manufacturing synthetic fertilizers; mining potash, phosphates and other mineral fertilizers; operating irrigation pumps, tractors and other farm machinery; and transporting grain to IFAP sites.46-48

Social and economic impacts to rural communities IFAP operations require fewer workers and rely less on local businesses for supplies compared to smaller-scale, independent producers.49 It is estimated that most poultry growers earn wages that put them below the poverty level.24 Profits are transferred to corporations and do not stay in the community. These conditions have contributed to the social and economic decline of many rural towns. When IFAP operations are proposed for siting in rural communities, community protests often ensue and there is often a great deal of social conflict between supporters and opponents of the proposed facility.50

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 5 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 Animal welfare impacts Animals raised under the IFAP model are often subjected to physical and mental harms, and are restricted from performing many of their natural behaviors. Laying hens, sows and cattle, for example, may be confined to crates or cages that allow for only minimal movement.1 Most IFAP animals are physically altered without pain relief: Laying hens may have their beaks clipped, bulls are typically castrated, and hogs have their tails docked to stop them from biting each other in crowded conditions.1 Feedlot cattle are fed a predominantly grain diet, even though their digestive systems are meant to process their natural diet of grass and other forages; this can cause painful liver abscesses.51 In response to consumer demand, certain retailers have called for minimal animal welfare standards in the industry. These standards are largely voluntary; only minimal legislation exists to protect food animals from these and other harms.1

Trends in consumption and production Consumer demand is among the forces driving IFAP. The United States is among the top meat- consuming countries, per capita, in the world.52 In 2009, the average American in one year consumed an estimated 41 pounds of poultry, 38 pounds of beef and 27 pounds of pork.53 To meet domestic and export demand for animal products, U.S. industries house over 2 billion food animals at a given time and slaughter over 9 billion (30 per U.S. citizen) each year.54,55

Since 1970, U.S. poultry production increased by nearly 170 percent while beef production declined by nearly 30 percent;56 this may reflect a growing consumer preference for poultry, likely due to cheaper prices per pound than other meats57 and consumers’ perception of chicken as a healthier option.58

Global demand for meat is predicted to rise by more than 55 percent between 1997 and 2020, with most of the increase occurring in developing countries. China alone will account for more than 40 percent of this increase. Even with this growth, per capita meat consumption in developing countries is expected to remain far below levels in the developed world.59 Despite the harms associated with it, the IFAP model is being exported to many parts of the world, including China, India and Brazil.60-62

Partly because of the health, environmental and social impacts resulting from the prevailing model of food animal production, global initiatives such as the Meatless Monday campaign are are encouraging consumers to moderate meat consumption. Among numerous other benefits, substituting the typical U.S. portion of meat and dairy consumption with plant-based once a week could reduce more than adopting an entirely local diet.44

Alternatives to IFAP: Raising animals on pasture In contrast to the IFAP system, some farmers raise food animals primarily on pasture. When managed properly, animals that graze or forage outdoors can improve farm ecosystems. This is

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 6 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 partly because their manure is a form of organic matter that helps build fertile soil. When animals are not raised in large-scale, confined facilities, their manure typically does not become a waste problem because it is generally not more than what the farm’s land can absorb.63 Well-managed pasture systems keep animals away from waterways to avoid pollution and limit the number of animals grazing in any one area to prevent soil erosion.64 Practices such as rotational grazing help to further prevent erosion, promote pasture growth and spread manure evenly over land.65

When managed properly, pasture-based systems can offer environmental, public health, economic and animal welfare benefits, and consumers claim pasture-raised animal products taste better.66 Animals experience less stress, are free to exhibit natural behaviors and generally show lower rates of disease.66 The odors and environmental contaminants that are typically associated with IFAP are minimized or avoided in pasture-based systems.66 The benefits of pasture-based farming over IFAP also extend to human health, since antibiotics are not routinely administered to animals and some pasture-based animal products—such as grass-fed beef—contain a healthier fatty acid profile than their grain-fed counterparts.43,66 Although operating pasture-based systems requires greater knowledge and closer management, farmers have greater autonomy over how to raise their animals as compared to an IFAP operator working on contract with an integrator. Farmers also generally earn greater profits per animal because of lower feed costs, use of family labor and consumers’ willingness to pay more for pasture-based animal products.66

For more information on alternative production, refer to Agriculture and Ecosystems and the film Out to Pasture: The Future of Farming?

Seafood harvest and production Wild-caught seafood Seafood harvests from wild sources (creatures caught in their natural settings, in rivers, lakes and oceans) have been declining for many species in recent decades. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that, as of 2007, about 52 percent of the commercial fish species in the ocean were considered fully exploited. FAO also identified 19 percent of wild fish stocks as overexploited and 8 percent as depleted, and blamed excess fishing pressure.67 Not all wild harvests are excessive; rather, seafood can be harvested sustainably. Sustainable seafood has been defined as being caught in ways that can be practiced for years to come without compromising aquatic ecosystems or putting any species in danger of extinction.68

Aquaculture During the 1980s and early 1990s there were dramatic increases in the production of seafood via , which refers to the commercial farming of aquatic organisms for food, using tanks, constructed ponds or enclosures where their living conditions and feeding are controlled. The aquaculture industry is growing at a slower pace today, but as of 2006 it accounted for 47 percent of all seafood available for human consumption.67 TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 7 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 One type of aquaculture is called open ocean aquaculture (OOA), which means raising fish in offshore pens or cages that are free-floating, secured to a structure, anchored to the ocean floor or towed by a boat.69 OOA has parallels with the IFAP model but also has its own unique problems.

It takes up to five pounds of wild caught fish to raise a pound of farmed fish, because many farmed fish, such as salmon, are carnivores. To feed these farmed fish, producers often rely on wild-caught fish such as anchovies and sardines as the source of fish feed protein. This practice can severely deplete wild stocks of these small fish species—which are an important part of the ocean food chain—while claiming to take pressure off wild fisheries.70

Since fish are concentrated in a small area, their waste is also concentrated. If the surrounding waters have slow currents, domesticated fish pens can contribute to a localized pollution problem.71

Fish escapes from OOA facilities are common, and escaped fish can create problems for their wild counterparts. The harms they cause can include increased competition for mates, living space, and food. When they interbreed with wild fish the resulting offspring are less fit to survive in the wild than a purely wild fish would be.72

As in IFAP facilities, cramped conditions in open-ocean pens make disease more likely. These circumstances lead to the use of antibiotics that may impact surrounding ocean life. Residues of those drugs can accumulate in fish raised in aquaculture and pose risks for people consuming them.73-75

Alternative systems Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) have been proposed as an alternative to open-ocean aquaculture. In these closed-loop systems, water flows from the fish tank to a treatment process and then back to the tank. Because it treats water and reuses it, an RAS uses about 20 percent as much water as pond aquaculture while also solving the waste management problem that exists in other aquaculture systems. It also benefits producers by allowing them to maximize production in a small area of land, and by helping them avoid conflicts over scarce water supplies.76,77

Conclusion The dominant model of food animal production in the United States, known as industrial food animal production, or IFAP, has been highly productive (in some respects) and highly profitable for many different kinds of companies in the agriculture sector. The model has also been followed in many other countries and continues to be replicated around the world. This system, however, is causing serious public health, environmental, social and animal welfare harms. Some farmers are pursuing alternative methods of production that attempt to avoid or minimize these negative outcomes and create a more sustainable system of production.

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 8 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 References 1. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. 2008. 2. Nebel BJ, Wright RT. Environmental Science: The Way the World Works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Professional; 1993:630. 3. USDA Economic Research Service. Growing a nation: the story of american agriculture. 2000. Available at: http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/crops_livestock.htm. 4. Williams A. Disciplining animals: sentience, production, and critique. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2004;24(9):45-57. 5. Mallin MA, Cahoon LB. Industrialized animal production — a major source of nutrient and microbial pollution to aquatic ecosystems. Population and Environment. 2003;24(5):369-385. 6. Key N, McBride WD. Technology, larger farm size increased productivity on U.S. hog farms. Amber Waves. 2008;April. 7. Ikerd JE. Corporate agriculture and family farms. In: Crisis & Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2008. 8. Key N, Mcbride W. The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production. 2007. 9. Striffler S. Chicken: The Dangerous Transformation of America`s Favorite Food. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2005. 10. Ollinger M, Nguyen SV, Blayney D, Chambers B, Nelson K. Structural Change in the Meat, Poultry, Dairy and Grain Processing Industries. USDA ERS; 2005. 11. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. The Census of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. 12. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture Historical Archive. Available at: http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/AgCensus/homepage.do. 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Overview of the United States Cattle Industry. 2010. 14. Perry J, Banker D, Green R. Broiler Farms` Organization, Management, and Performance. 1999. 15. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, part 122. 2010. 16. Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production. The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Technical Report to the Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Production. 2008. 17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ag 101: Dairy Production: Lifecycle Production Phases. 2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/dairyphases.html. 18. Blayne DP. The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production. 2002. 19. Hendrickson M, Heffernan W. Concentration of Agricultural Markets. 2007. 20. United Egg Producers. General US stats: egg industry fact sheet. 2011. Available at: http://www.unitedegg.org/GeneralStats/default.cfm [Accessed June 2011]. 21. Martinez SW. Vertical Coordination in the Pork and Broiler Industries: Implications for Pork and Chicken Products. 1999. 22. Martinez SW. A Comparison of Vertical Coordination in the U.S. Poultry, Egg, and Pork Industries. 2002. 23. Silbergeld EK, Nachman K. The environmental and public health risks associated with arsenical use in animal feeds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008;1140:346-57. 24. Graham JP, Nachman KE. Managing waste from confined animal feeding operations in the United States: the need for sanitary reform. J Water Health. 2010;December:646-70. 25. Jay P. Graham, Leibler JH, Price LB, et al. The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production: rethinking and biocontainment. Public Health Reports. 2008;123(3):282- 299.

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 9 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 26. Graham JP. Statement at senate HELP committee hearing on June 24, 2008. 2008;(Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions). 27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli 0157:H7. 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/ecoli_o157h7/index.html#where. 28. Solomon E, Yaron S, Matthews K. Transmission of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 from contaminated manure and irrigation water to lettuce plant tissue and its subsequent internalization. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2002;68(1):397-400. 29. Callaway TR, Elder RO, Keen JE, Anderson RC, Nisbet DJ. Forage feeding to reduce preharvest Escherichia coli populations in cattle, a review. Journal of Dairy Science. 2003;86(3):852–860. 30. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Occupational and Community Public Health Impacts of Industrial Farm Animal Production. 31. Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC. Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middle-school students to air emissions from confined swine feeding operations. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114:591-596. 32. Sapkota AR, Lefferts LY, McKenzie S, Walker P. What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007;115(5). 33. Loglisci R. New FDA numbers reveal food animals consume lion’s share of antibiotics. Livable Future Blog. 2010. Available at: http://www.livablefutureblog.com/2010/12/new-fda-numbers-reveal-food-animals- consume-lion?s-share-of-antibiotics/. 34. Collignon P, Powers JH, Chiller TM, Aidara-Kane A, Aarestrup FM. World Health Organization ranking of antimicrobials according to their importance in human medicine: a critical step for developing risk management strategies for the use of antimicrobials in food production animals. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2009;49(1):132-41. 35. Roberts RR, Hota B, Ahmad I, et al. Hospital and societal costs of antimicrobial-resistant infections in a Chicago teaching hospital: implications for antibiotic stewardship. Clinical Infectious Diseases Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2009;49(8):1175-84. : An Official 36. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. NARMS Retail Meat Annual Report, 2007. 2007. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResista nceMonitoringSystem/ucm164662.htm [Accessed June 1, 2011]. 37. Waters AE, Contente-Cuomo T, Buchhagen J, et al. Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US meat and poultry. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 52(10):1227-1230. 38. Howarth R. Coastal nitrogen pollution: a review of sources and trends globally and regionally. Harmful Algae. 2008;8(1):14-20. 39. Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science. 2008;321(5891):926-9. 40. Horrigan L, Walker P, Lawrence RS. How can address the environmental and public health harms of . Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;110(5). 41. Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Food, Energy and Society. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2008. 42. Cohen JE. How Many People Can the Earth Support? New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company; 1995. 43. Clancy K. Greener Pastures: How Grass-fed Beef and Milk Contribute to Healthy Eating. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists; 2006. 44. Weber CL, Matthews HS. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology. 2008;42(10):3508-13. 45. Engelhaupt E. Do matter? Environmental Science & Technology. 2008;42(10):3482. 46. Brown LR. Beyond the oil peak: the oil intensity of food. In: Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. W.W. Norton & Company; 2006.

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 10 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 47. Pelletier N. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agricultural Systems. 2008;98(2):67- 73. 48. Koneswaran G, Nierenberg D. Global farm animal production and global warming: impacting and mitigating climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007;116(5):578-582. 49. Weida W. The CAFO: Implications for Rural Economies in the US. Colorado Springs, CO; 2004. 50. Stofferahn CW. Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: An Update of a 2000 Report by Linda Lobao. 2006. 51. Nagaraja TG, Chengappa MM. Liver abscesses in feedlot cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science. 1998;76:287-298. 52. Speedy AW. Global production and consumption of animal source foods. In: Animal Source Foods and in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: Journal of Nutrition; 2003:4048-4053. 53. USDA Economic Research Service. Loss-Adjusted Food Availability. 2010. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodGuideSpreadsheets.htm [Accessed July 2011]. 54. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Poultry Slaughter. 2011. 55. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Slaughter. 2011. 56. USDA Economic Research Service. Livestock, dairy, and poultry outlook. 2011. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/LDPTables.htm. 57. USDA Economic Research Service. Data sets: meat price spreads. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/MeatPriceSpreads/. 58. Haley MM. Changing Consumer Demand for Meat: The U.S Example, 1970 - 2000. 2001. 59. Rosegrant MW, Paisner MS, Meijer S, Witcover J. 2020 Global Food Outlook: Trends, Alternatives, and Choices. Washington, DC; 2001. 60. Smithfield Foods Incorporated. Smithfield 2010 Annual Report. 2010. 61. Cargill Incorporated. A Commitment to Growth: 2010 Cargill Summary Annual Report. 2010. 62. Tyson Foods Incorporated. Savor a World of Difference: Tyson Foods, Inc. 2008 Annual Report. 2008. 63. Union of Concerned Scientists. CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations. 2008. 64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations - Best Management Practices (BMPs). 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/anprgbmp.html [Accessed June 30, 2011]. 65. White SL, Sheffield RE, Washburn SP, King LD, J. T. Green. Spatial and Time Distribution of Dairy Cattle Excreta in an Intensive Pasture System. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2001;30:2180–2187. 66. Clancy K. Greener Eggs and Ham The Benefits of Pasture-Raised Swine, Poultry, and Egg Production. Cambridge, MA; 2006. 67. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Wild Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. 2009. 68. Iles A. Making seafood sustainable: merging consumption and citizenship in the United States. Science & Public Policy. 2004;31(Number 2):127-138. 69. Upton HF, Buck EH. Open ocean aquaculture. Congressional Research Service; 2010. 70. Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, et al. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature. 2000;405:1017-1024. 71. Black KD. Environmental Aspects of Aquaculture. In: Culver K, Castle D, eds. Aquaculture, Innovation and Social Transformation. Springer; 2008:97-113. 72. Naylor R, Burke M. Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the sea. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2005;30(185-218):185-218.

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 11 FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION | BACKGROUND READING LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 73. Food and Water. Fishy Formula: Why the European Strategy Doesn`t Add Up to Sustainable Aquaculture. 74. Rogstad A, Hormazabal V, Ellingsen OF, Rasmussen KE. Pharmacokinetic study of oxytetracycline in fish. I. Absorption, distribution and accumulation in rainbow trout in freshwater. Aquaculture. 1991;96(3-4):219- 226. 75. Halweil B. Farming Fish for the Future. Washington, D.C. 2008. 76. Helfrich LA, Libey G. Fish Farming in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech 77. Losordo TM, Masser MP, Rakocy J. Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: an overview of critical considerations. 1998;451:1-38.

TEACHING THE FOOD SYSTEM | A PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE 12