“The world wants to imagine that it’s a lot more idyllic than it actually is” says Mike Mack, chief executive of the agricultural chemicals and seeds giant Syngenta about contemporary attitudes to agriculture and farming. This outlook, some argue, is the cause of the difficulties we face with regards to feeding a growing global population [Ref: The Times]. Those who argue against the increased industrialisation and intensification of agriculture and farming suggest a change in our attitudes toward animals and the environment must take precedence over bringing Western levels of consumption to the rest of the world, and of corporate profits [Ref: CIWF]. In the UK this disagreement has recently been aired through protests against two proposed intensive farms units: a pig farm in Derbyshire which planned to raise 100,000 pigs a year; and a 8,100 cow mega-dairy in Lincolnshire, both of which were described by opponents as inhumane, environmentally disastrous and an unnatural way to produce food [Ref: Ecologist]. The Observer food columnist, Jay Rayner, agrees that factory farms can be an ugly business but argues that most people want and need cheap food and cannot afford to develop middle-class ‘foodie’ obsessions that many of the arguments against intensive agriculture represent [Ref: Guardian]. Whilst some are willing to overlook the concerns raised by protesters, others see a much broader problem. The current trajectory of farming, argues renowned philosopher Peter Singer, represents society’s moral decay as we choose to treat animals and the environment unethically [Ref: Minnesota Daily]. Others, like Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers Union, suggest that emotive arguments against increased productivity in the agricultural sector are a consequence not of concern for animal welfare, but of ignorance [Ref: Guardian]. Larger farms, it’s argued, are best placed to increase animal welfare standards, protect the environment and sustain the world’s population [Ref: Global Harvest Initiative].

Animal Welfare
Opponents of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory farms, claim that animal welfare standards are lower on these farms than on conventional ones [Ref: Daily Mail]. Intensive farming treats livestock as machines on a production line, breeding chickens that display psychological damage, pigs contained in pens where they do not have enough room to turn around [Ref: WSPA] and dairy cows that are milked at an unnatural rate and live shorter lives as a consequence [Ref: CIWF]. Dr. Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University,  has described conditions on modern pig farms as, “like being stuffed into the middle seat of a jam-packed jumbo jet for your whole adult life, and you’re not ever allowed out in the aisle” [Ref: Ecologist]. Others counter that although some farming practices can appear cruel and unnecessary there are good reasons for doing so and such practices are common on farms of all sizes. Farrowing crates, for example, restrict the movement of a pregnant sow for welfare reasons as she may easily kill the piglets to which she is giving birth simply by moving and crushing them to death, and therefore the welfare of the animals is paramount [Ref: UK Agriculture]. In addition, larger farms are able to employ full-time vets who care for livestock around the clock which is impossible on smaller, traditional farms [Ref: Innovation Centre for US Dairy]. However, opponents argue that constant veterinary attention is only necessary because of the problems caused to animals by being raised in intensive units and the intensive use of unnecessary antibiotics [Ref: Der Speigel].

Environment issues
According to the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) report, ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’, the livestock sector generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, 37 percent of all human-induced methane and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain [Ref: FAO]. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops [Ref: FAO]. These contaminate the water supply, cause soil erosion and endanger human health, although critics, have argued the report is full of errors and its claims are fallacy [Ref: ILRI]. So the potential ‘unforeseen consequences’ of large scale agriculture raises concerns but technological development, it’s suggested, is the practical solution to overcoming these objections with innovations such as anaerobic digesters, which allow farms to avoid the potential controversial practice of muck spreading and the resulting runoff which can pollute streams and rivers [Ref: Too Much Slurry]. But these technologically advanced solutions are only likely to be available on larger farms with a much higher income to invest in new technologies [Ref: Energy Justice Network]. Whilst some critics of factory farming can see the benefit of technological innovation within the industry, they argue factory farms are just going in the wrong direction as they treat food production in the same way as industrial production, such as making a car on a production line [Ref: VIVA]. The modern dairy cow is a case in point, they argue: with its engorged and cumbersome udder, developed through decades of industrial breeding, the dairy cow been reduced to a mere machine. All but five percent of the 280 million hens in the US egg-laying flock are raised in battery cages with each bird having a living space smaller than a single sheet of letter-sized paper. In this argument, technological innovation is part of the problem, and we should consider a return to older, more traditional ways of farming [Ref: Worldwatch Institute].

Feeding the planet
While many argue that intensive production is the only way to feed the world efficiently others counter that small-scale local initiatives are best [Ref: Guardian]. Organic farms and even household allotments are seen as an alternative method of feeding ourselves ethically and cheaply [Ref: spiked]. Opponents argue that such alternatives are not really alternatives at all, with the global livestock sector providing livelihoods to roughly 1.3 billion people around the world [Ref: Royal Society of Biological Sciences] and if society wants to reduce the amount of land given over to farming in order to protect the environment,  then larger, more intensive farms are the way forward as small traditional farm holdings contribute relatively little to overall food stocks [Ref: Peak Energy]. The growth of a Western-style, high protein diet, in China and other emerging economies, means more food needs to be produced efficiently [Ref: Guardian]. Agriculture operates in a world market and on a global scale [Ref: USDA] and farms must produce food ever more efficiently in order to be competitive. The application of science to farming has had spectacular results since the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. For example, between 1950 and 2000 the number of dairy cows in the United States fell by more than 50 per cent, yet during that same period the average annual milk yield more than tripled [Ref: CQ Researcher]. However, others agree that factory farming may be efficient but ask, ultimately, is it right? [Ref: Minnesota Daily].