Unsustainable Factory Farms in Path Valley, PA: Environmental, Economic, Moral Issues | Papers Environmental Science

Are the current factory farms in Path Valley, Pennsylvania sustainable? If not, what can be done

differently to make them more sustainable? [interesting question]

Path Valley is very rural area that is surrounded by the Appalachian Mountains and located in

the headwaters of the Potomac and Susquehanna watersheds. No towns of any size are located in the

valley, and many of those living there have very limited income. More significantly, there is a wealth

of natural beauty and fertile farmland.

My ancestors first settled in Path Valley more than 250 years ago; currently, my grandparents

live there. As a child, I visited them often and liked to fly my purple kite in a large field behind their

house. However, I remember one day in particular when I did not want to fly my kite. The wind had

changed, and the stench of pig manure overwhelmed the smell of hay that I was accustomed to,

compromising my enjoyment of the outdoors. My grandmother told me that pig manure from local

“factory farms” had recently been sprayed on a nearby field. I was only distantly aware of the

existence of “factory farms” at that time. However, my vague awareness as a child has recently been

translated into an intellectual grasp of these farms’ unsustainable practices and the effect they have on

communities and the environment. In truth, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOS), also

commonly referred to as “factory farms,” as currently operated are not sustainable for Path Valley, PA.

[nice job of setting the context and then stating your thesis]

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defines “sustainable

development” as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

the future to meet its own needs.” [you need a citation whenever you quote] For raising livestock, the

term “sustainability” has specific economic, environmental, and societal components. First, meat

production must be economically viable [yes, but economically sound in what context and over what

time period?]. Second, it must be environmentally sound. Finally, it should not affect the surrounding

community in an adverse fashion. Methods of meat production are considered “sustainable” only

when they meet all of the aforementioned criteria, unlike the CAFOs in Path Valley.

The production of corn for consumption by animals living in CAFOs negatively impacts the

environment. The methods of dissemination and production of industrial corn are fossil fuel intensive.

In contrast to traditional family farms where corn is grown on-site, corn consumed by factory farms is

usually grown elsewhere and must be transported to the site [where is the corn used in Path Valley

grown?]. Moreover, it takes between a quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow a bushel of corn

when one considers the fossil fuels it takes to make pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and

transport the corn1. Finally, pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizer used in corn production have

the potential to enter nearby waterways as run-off, thereby decreasing the health of the water.

Within the farms themselves, the profuse amount of antibiotics fed to the animals decreases

their effectiveness, which consequently jeopardizes human health. For a farm to be considered a

CAFO, there must be more than 1,000 “animal equivalent units” under one roof2. Animals living in

such close proximity are highly vulnerable to disease. Therefore, about half of the 50 million pounds

of antibiotics produced in the U.S. each year is used for animals on factory farms, according to the

Humane Farming Association 3. The continual exposure of bacteria to these antibiotics causes them to

become more resistant to their effect, thus making humans more vulnerable to the ravages of disease.

The enormous amounts of manure that accumulate from these farms pose several

environmental problems. Currently, the USDA estimates that there are more than 335 million tons of

1 Pollan, Michael. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Pg. 45. New York: The Penguin Press, 45

2 “DEP Fact Sheet: Understanding CAFOs.” PA Department of Environmental Protection's eLibrary. 23 April 2007.

<http://164.156.71.80/WXLogin.aspx?dp=%2fWXOD.aspx%3f>

3 The Humane Farming Association. April 23, 2007 <http://www.hfa.org/factory/index.html>

Partial preview of the text

Download Unsustainable Factory Farms in Path Valley, PA: Environmental, Economic, Moral Issues and more Papers Environmental Science in PDF only on Docsity!

Are the current factory farms in Path Valley, Pennsylvania sustainable? If not, what can be done differently to make them more sustainable? [interesting question] Path Valley is very rural area that is surrounded by the Appalachian Mountains and located in the headwaters of the Potomac and Susquehanna watersheds. No towns of any size are located in the valley, and many of those living there have very limited income. More significantly, there is a wealth of natural beauty and fertile farmland. My ancestors first settled in Path Valley more than 250 years ago; currently, my grandparents live there. As a child, I visited them often and liked to fly my purple kite in a large field behind their house. However, I remember one day in particular when I did not want to fly my kite. The wind had changed, and the stench of pig manure overwhelmed the smell of hay that I was accustomed to, compromising my enjoyment of the outdoors. My grandmother told me that pig manure from local “factory farms” had recently been sprayed on a nearby field. I was only distantly aware of the existence of “factory farms” at that time. However, my vague awareness as a child has recently been translated into an intellectual grasp of these farms’ unsustainable practices and the effect they have on communities and the environment. In truth, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOS), also commonly referred to as “factory farms,” as currently operated are not sustainable for Path Valley, PA. [nice job of setting the context and then stating your thesis] The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defines “sustainable development” as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future to meet its own needs.” [you need a citation whenever you quote] For raising livestock, the term “sustainability” has specific economic, environmental, and societal components. First, meat production must be economically viable [yes, but economically sound in what context and over what time period?]. Second, it must be environmentally sound. Finally, it should not affect the surrounding community in an adverse fashion. Methods of meat production are considered “sustainable” only when they meet all of the aforementioned criteria, unlike the CAFOs in Path Valley. The production of corn for consumption by animals living in CAFOs negatively impacts the environment. The methods of dissemination and production of industrial corn are fossil fuel intensive. In contrast to traditional family farms where corn is grown on-site, corn consumed by factory farms is usually grown elsewhere and must be transported to the site [where is the corn used in Path Valley grown?]. Moreover, it takes between a quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow a bushel of corn when one considers the fossil fuels it takes to make pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn^1. Finally, pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizer used in corn production have the potential to enter nearby waterways as run-off, thereby decreasing the health of the water. Within the farms themselves, the profuse amount of antibiotics fed to the animals decreases their effectiveness, which consequently jeopardizes human health. For a farm to be considered a CAFO, there must be more than 1,000 “animal equivalent units” under one roof^2. Animals living in such close proximity are highly vulnerable to disease. Therefore, about half of the 50 million pounds of antibiotics produced in the U.S. each year is used for animals on factory farms, according to the Humane Farming Association 3. The continual exposure of bacteria to these antibiotics causes them to become more resistant to their effect, thus making humans more vulnerable to the ravages of disease. The enormous amounts of manure that accumulate from these farms pose several environmental problems. Currently, the USDA estimates that there are more than 335 million tons of (^1) Pollan, Michael. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Pg. 45. New York: The Penguin Press, 45 (^2) “DEP Fact Sheet: Understanding CAFOs.” PA Department of Environmental Protection's eLibrary. 23 April 2007. http://164.156.71.80/WXLogin.aspx?dp=%2fWXOD.aspx%3f (^3) The Humane Farming Association. April 23, 2007 http://www.hfa.org/factory/index.html

manure produced annually on factory farms^4. Whereas manure is usually utilized as a natural source of nutrients for crops, the excessive amount produced by factory farms is treated as waste. Air pollution generated by farms is attributed to this immense quantity of manure. A combination of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, particulate matter, Endotoxins, carbon dioxide, and methane produced by the manure enters the air from factory farms, causing higher levels of respiratory problems in community members^5. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions also contribute to the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Moreover, the sheer amount of manure puts nearby waterways at risk of being polluted. As there is no formal water system in most rural communities, manure that seeps into the ground water pollutes household wells, preventing families from gaining access to safe water. For instance, my grandparents recall a time when manure was sprayed onto one of the fields nearby without their permission. It was a cold, snowy day, and the ground was still frozen. Unfortunately, the manure easily ran off the field and seeped into nearby wells, putting families in the surrounding area at risk. Finally, factory farms do not benefit the community’s local economy. According to a University of Missouri study, “for each 12,000 slaughter hogs, 9.44 jobs would be created, 4.25 on the farm, 5.19 in the community but 27.97 would be displaced, 12.6 on the farm and 15.37 off the farm^6 .” [These stats are interesting and relevant by need a bit more explanation. How are the hogs displacing farms? Is the assumption that this is replacing hogs grown in a smaller-scale operation?]. Evidently, factory farms usually displace more jobs than they create. Furthermore, CAFO profits usually go to outside investors. People who do not live in the immediate vicinity largely own the factory farms in Path Valley. It is also more likely that meat produced in a factory farm will travel directly from farm to packer to supermarket. Local community members are not able to purchase meat that is produced directly in the valley. Overall, factory farms are less likely to stimulate the local economy, and the future of the community is therefore more controlled by outside interests. Although issues of morality are difficult to consider objectively, a humane moralist would argue that factory farms also subject animals to way of life that is inexplicably unnatural [how do these arguments regarding the position of a humane moralist bear on your discussion of sustainability. Do you identify with this position? What about a land-ethic perspective? It is not clear the reader why you are choosing to explain the situation from this perspective]. As Michael Pollan describes, “Animals are treated as machines—“production units”—incapable of feeling pain^7 .” For example, a pigs’ tale must be snipped before entering a CAFO because these normally intelligent animals develop a tendency to bite each others’ tales in such close quarters. Animals are demoted to living on top of their manure in aluminum sheds that get little, if any, light and ventilation. According to humane moralists, evil is akin to pain [or pain is akin to evil]. Although animals may be deprived of reason, speech, and forethought, they are conscious beings that are capable of suffering^8. Therefore, humane moralism dictates that humans violate a moral code when they subject animals to unnecessary agony. Taken as a whole, factory farms are not intrinsically evil [you need to explain your logic here. Are you still speaking from the perspective of a humane moralist?], but they represent a method of raising livestock that is unsustainable. They are an economically viable way of producing meat; but, they are not economically sound or beneficial to the surrounding community. [see comment at close on economics]. (^4) USDA Agricultural Research Service. FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct Utilization , 31 May 2006 (^5) McBride, A. Dennis, M.D. M.P.H., North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment: The Association of Health Effects with Exposure to Odors from Hog Farm Operations, December 1998 (^6) ICRP Discussion Points:Family Farms vs. Hog Factories April 23, 2007 http://www.farmweb.org/b/icrppoints.htm (^7) Pollan, Michael. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Pg. 317. New York: The Penguin Press (^8) Callicott, J. Baird. “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair.” Environmental Ethics Vol 2. (1980).

Grading criteria for your question:  Is of appropriate breadth for a 3-4 page essay – question must be narrow enough in scope to be answerable within limitations. Y  Focuses on one particular issue related to your own experience (e.g. land use, power generation, human relationships, the economics of small businesses, life in Oberlin dorms and coops, etc.).Y  Addresses issues of sustainability at multiple scales, including the local scale. Y Grading criteria for your answer:  Provides a thoughtful and tailored definition of sustainability for the particular issue addressed. Be certain that this definition is specific to your topic; do not provide a generic definition that applies to all things. Y, but see comment  Draws extensively (and correctly cites) readings used in class. Use at least three references from class readings. If you draw on other sources, be certain to cite these as well. (Note that neglecting to cite ideas or text that come from other sources is a violation of academic ethics and of the Oberlin honor code). Y  Considers aspects of both scientific and human dimensions of sustainability. Y  Writing is of high quality: logic is well organized; each paragraph contains a clear topic sentences; assertions and opinions are supported with evidence, conclusion draws together ideas and follows from essay; grammar is used correctly, references are appropriately cited, spelling and typographical errors are minimal. Y  Writing conforms to standards outlined in “ENVS101 Writing guidelines” (also linked on home page of website). You do a nice job of linking as situation that you have an obvious connection with to the larger issue of farming. You also do a fine job of drawing on class readings as well as other literature in making compelling arguments. You get to some of the economic issues late in the essay, but you might have explored the economic context a bit deeper here. For example, one might argue that the economic system that renders the CAFO approach to farming successful at the moment is based on factors that are fundamentally ecologically unsustainable (i.e. fossil fuels and soil erosion) and for this reason they are not economically sustainable long term. You discussion of ethics also seems a bit out of place in that you present only one ethical viewpoint. Frankly, from the overall focus of your essay, I wonder if Aldo Leopold’s land ethic might not be a more relevant view to apply in evaluating sustainability than the humane moralist view. But the essay is generally well organized and well written.

Unsustainable Factory Farms in Path Valley, PA: Environmental, Economic, Moral Issues, Papers of Environmental Science

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Unsustainable Factory Farms in Path Valley, PA: Environmental, Economic, Moral Issues and more Papers Environmental Science in PDF only on Docsity!