Affirmative's Case Study: Factory Farming

There is a call for the ongoing advancement of agricultural techniques. This, the affirmative side agrees upon. However, in order to do so, the current practices must be looked at from a critical standpoint and flaws must be recognized. Presently, standards only observe short-term returns and often ignore the superseding impact felt globally. Throughout the affirmative’s case, certain aspects of modern agriculture were portrayed as beneficial. Two main critiques that will flow throughout is the overall cost-benefit analysis was not taken into account and the level of implementation of the positive aspects.
One area of modern farming promoted by the affirmative is factory farming. The intention of this method is the increase output of livestock through concentrating the area used and more closely watching over the animals. However, studies of the implementation of this highlights severe ethical, humanitarian, and ecological concerns. In the majority of corporations that utilize this design, animals are packed tightly to the degree where
they are frequently unable to walk around or lie down. In addition, general well-being of animals is lessened by practices such as intensive growth hormones, cutting off of beaks, and other unnecessary, cruel measures (Nierenberg 2003). Nierenberg conducted an intensive study of the overall practices used by the majority of today’s livestock industry and found that in addition to these ethical errors, many foodborne and animal diseases run rampant due to the crowded, unsanitary conditions and over-use of antibiotics. In combination with these other two concerns, the large output of animal excrement has polluted many waterways and is the cause for many fish kills (Nierenberg 2003). In the larger picture of this industry, current methods have been empirically proven to be environmentally destructive, ethically violating, and a risk to humanity.
Taking a closer look into the meat industry to specifically analyze the fisheries, more issues are shined a light on. The main argument made by the affirmative is that it provides food and employment and attempts to reduce over-exploitation and boost diversity. With a cost-benefit approach to modern methods of fish farming however, no true larger benefit was shown to be attributed to this over more traditional fish harvesting. Wu (1995) conducted a large study and found that excess of phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon occurred frequently and greatly negatively impact the surrounding environment. These wastes occur through fish excretion, respiration, and feed wastage. High organic nutrient loads have had an overall negative environmental effect. In addition, chemically engineered therapeutants and antifoulants used in commercial fish farming have introduced new pathogens and damaged the greater, overall ecosystem. By taking a more complete, critical standpoint on the issue of modern commercial fish farming, it can clearly be seen that while farmed fish may do well and have a short-term economic benefit, the larger aquatic ecosystem is quickly being damaged and degraded.
The affirmative next looks at the methods currently used in feeding grazing livestock. The dominating practice involves multiple large lots where livestock are systematically rotated through. The intention is to allow for sustained growth of grasses and to permit root strengthening. However, empirical studies found that different systems of grazing for livestock used throughout the world have little variance in outcome. Any benefit attributed to a certain approach of grazing for the pasture or animal can be considered negligible (Gammon 2010). Specifically, intensive systems with more rotations and larger plots have failed to show any advantage over small scale rearing of livestock. Extending conclusions drawn from this study, it can actually be said there may be an overall negative impact to current, more intensive practices. This is, while more land is being taken over to raise livestock and habitat fragmentation, destruction, and modification is occurring more and more, benefits are not proportionally being seen. Therefore, the intended benefit of intensive rotational grazing is not found, only the consequences of the expansions of commercial agriculture.
The next area of focus from the affirmative’s case is how modern intensive agriculture implements sustainable practices.
Through this, food prices are meant to be kept low and provide necessary nutrition for the world. However, clearly this is not the case. In much of the world, proper amounts of caloric intake are not reached. In addition, while cost may be comparatively low, current practices cannot provide long-term sustainability. Woodhouse (2010) argues that the existing approaches to modern agriculture are unsustainable. If present dominating practices continue at the rate in which they are used, any benefits currently seen will eventually be lost. In addition, negative impacts will inherently be exacerbated. Already every year, 12 X ha of arable land is lost as a consequence of current farming practices. In addition, only 10% of farmland in the United States is retaining soil composition at a sustainable rate (Pimental
1995).
Lastly, the affirmative makes an argument in favor of intensive farming due to its high yield rates. The goal of modern practices is to have an agriculture approach that has the highest return crop rate and meet global food demands. In current commercial farming, large areas of land are mechanically managed and quantitatively provide more bulk of food. However, extensive research conducted by Woodhouse (2010) and others finds that smaller farms are better able to provide food security to the poor and utilize more cost effective factors such as labor over costly ones including machinery and fossil fuels. The percent return was found to be statistically more significant in small farm crops in comparison to large, intensive crop production through these studies.
The world faces many serious issues, and agriculture is one of them. Analyzing current intensive farming practices, it can clearly be seen that the costs outweigh benefits derived from these methods. The affirmative attempts to highlight the positive aspects, however, in doing so loses sight of the overall picture and serious negative impacts intensive farming has had. Agriculture must continue to advance, improve, and create a sustainable practices to adapt to the every growing world and its demands.