It's true, I mean it.

[Farmed Animal Watch: N.2, V.9‏ -- farmedanimal.net]:

Farmed animal production in the U.S. is trending to much larger enterprises, according to a new report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS). (See also: http://tinyurl.com/cs3bmc ) Between 1987 and 2002, the median farm size, based on annual sales, increased by 60% for those raising chickens for meat, 100% for cattle-feeding operations, 240% for dairies, and 2,000% for pig farms. Recent surveys indicate that this trend in farm structure is continuing, due in large part to economies of scale.

According to the report, the structural change has brought about increased productivity, lower costs of production, and lower prices for consumers. However, “industrialized livestock production has external costs. High concentrations of animal manure can lead to increased air and water pollution, with adverse health and environmental consequences. Concentrated livestock can also create odors that offend neighbors and reduce property values. A heavy reliance on antibiotics for growth promotion and for disease prevention may spawn antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, with human health risks. Changes in farm structure are intertwined with these concerns because larger operations concentrate manure more and rely more heavily on growth promoting antibiotics than smaller operations” (PDF link): http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB43/EIB43f.pdf

The report goes on to say that animal agriculture is very competitive and little incentive may exist for individual producers to take costly actions to reduce the harmful effects of industrialization. However, states ERS: “The evidence adduced so far suggests that steps can be taken, at modest aggregate costs, to limit the external costs associated with antibiotic use in industrialized operations.” These steps include sanitation measures and testing, to prevent disease and promote growth.


Meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (see: http://tinyurl.com/26atm7 ). Last year, Rajendra Pachauri, the United Nations climate chief, said that having a meat-free day every week was the biggest single contribution people could make to reduce climate change in their personal lives. Now Germany's federal environment agency, UBA, has strongly advised people to eat meat only on special occasions and to routinely adhere to a more Mediterranean-style diet: (see: http://tinyurl.com/cyxeqf ). Although meat consumption has dropped significantly in Germany since 1991 and, according to VeBu, Germany’s vegetarian association, the number of vegetarians has grown from 0.4% in 1983 to 10% today, Germans are still among the highest meat consumers in Europe.

Food consumed in the U.K. is the source of nearly a fifth of the country’s emissions, with meat and dairy products accounting for a little over half of it, according to the Food Climate Research Network. The Guardian newspaper notes: “The government estimates that, kilo-for-kilo, compared with bread, emissions linked to poultry farming are more than four times as high, to pork six times as high, and to beef and lamb 16 times. Besides this, tropical forest is cleared to allow feed-crops, also a source of emissions.” As part of the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) strategy to cut global warming emissions, the organization is recommending that hospitals offer fewer meat and dairy products. (NHS is “the world’s largest publicly funded health service.”) Its strategy document, entitled Saving Carbon, Improving Health, states: "Unless we all take effective action now, millions of people around the world will suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the climate changes."