Putting Meat on the Table
Industrial Farm Animal Production in America
I have witnessed dramatic changes in animal agriculture over the past several decades. When I was growing up, my family operated a dairy farm, which not only raised cows to produce milk, but crops to feed the cows and wheat as a cash crop. When I took over management of the farm from my father in the mid-sixties, on average we milked about 40 cows and farmed about 800 acres. We were one of some 30 such dairy operations in Saline County, Kansas. Today in Saline County and most Kansas counties, it is nearly impossible to find that kind of diversified farm. Most have given way to large, highly specialized, and highly productive animal producing operations. In Saline County today, there is only one dairy farm, yet it and similar operations across the state produce more milk from fewer cows statewide than I and all of my peers did when I was actively farming.
Industrial farm animal production (IFAP) is a complex subject involving individuals, communities, private enterprises and corporations large and small, consumers, federal and state regulators, and the public at large. All Americans have a stake in the quality of our food, and we all benefit from a safe and affordable food supply. We care about the well-being of rural communities, the integrity of our environment, the public's health, and the health and welfare of animals. Many disciplines contribute to the development and analysis of IFAP —including economics, food science, animal sciences, agronomy, biology, genetics, nutrition, ethics, agricultural engineering, and veterinary medicine. The industrial farm has brought about tremendous increases in short-term farm efficiency and affordable food, but its rapid development has also resulted in serious unintended consequences and questions about its long-term sustainability.
I initially hesitated to get involved in the work of the Commission, given that the nature of partisan politics today makes the discussion of any issue facing our country extremely challenging. In the end, I accepted the chairmanship because there is so much at stake for both agriculture and the public at large. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best about American agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability for the future. Our work focuses on four areas of concern that we believe are key to that future: public health, environment, animal welfare, and the vitality of rural communities; specifically, we focus on how these areas have been impacted by industrial farm animal production.
The Commission consists of a very diverse group of individuals, remarkably accomplished in their fields, who worked together to achieve consensus on potential solutions to the challenge of assuring a safe and sustainable food supply. We sought broad input from stakeholders and citizens around the country. We were granted the resources needed to do our work, and the independence to ensure that our conclusions were carefully drawn and objective in their assessment of the available information informed by the Commissioners' own expertise and experience. I thank each and every one for their valuable service and all citizens who contributed to the process.
Finally, we were supported by a group of staff who worked tirelessly to ensure that Commissioners had access to the most current information and expertise in the fields of concern to our deliberations. We thank them for their hard work, their patience, and their good humor.
John W. Carlin
Over the last 50 years, the method of producing food animals in the United States has changed from the extensive system of small and medium-sized farms owned by a single family to a system of large, intensive operations where the animals are housed in large numbers in enclosed structures that resemble industrial buildings more than they do a traditional barn. That change has happened primarily out of view of consumers but has come at a cost to the environment and a negative impact on public health, rural communities, and the health and well-being of the animals themselves.
The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) was funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to investigate the problems associated with industrial farm animal production (IFAP) operations and to make recommendations to solve them. Fifteen Commissioners with diverse backgrounds began meeting in early 2006 to start their evidence-based review of the problems caused by IFAP.
Over the next two years, the Commission conducted 11 meetings and received thousands of pages of material submitted by a wide range of stakeholders and interested parties. Two hearings were held to hear from the general public with an interest in IFAP issues. Eight technical reports were commissioned from leading academics to provide information in the Commission's areas of interest. The Commissioners themselves brought expertise in animal agriculture, public health, animal health, medicine, ethics, public policy, and rural sociology to the table. In addition, they visited broiler, hog, dairy, egg, and swine IFAP operations, as well as a large cattle feedlot.
There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing its review and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industry is not monolithic, and the formation of this Commission was greeted by industrial agriculture with responses ranging from open hostility to wary cooperation. In fact, while some industrial agriculture representatives were recommending potential authors for the technical reports to Commission staff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those same authors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding for their college or university. We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, government regulation, and enforcement.
At the end of his second term, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation about the dangers of the military-industrial complex—an unhealthy alliance between the defense industry, the Pentagon, and their friends on Capitol Hill. Now, the agro-industrial complex—an alliance of agriculture commodity groups, scientists at academic institutions who are paid by the industry, and their friends on Capitol Hill—is a concern in animal food production in the 21st century.
The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food.
The story that follows is the Commission's overview of these critical issues and consensus recommendations on how to improve our system of production.
Robert P. Martin
Executive Director, PCIFAP
How the Current System Developed
Industrial farm animal production (IFAP) encompasses all aspects of breeding, feeding, raising, and processing animals or their products for human consumption. Producers rely on high-throughput production to grow thousands of animals of one species (often only a few breeds of that species and only one genotype within the breed) and for one purpose (such as pigs, layer hens, broiler chickens, turkeys, beef, or dairy cattle). IFAP's strategies and management systems are a product of the post–Industrial Revolution era, but unlike other industrial systems, IFAP is dependent on complex biological and ecological systems for its basic raw material. And the monoculture common to IFAP facilities has diminished important biological and genetic diversity in pursuit of higher yields and greater efficiency
(Steinfeld et al., 2006).
The origins of agriculture go back more than 10,000 years to the beginning of the Neolithic era, when humans first began to cultivate crops and domesticate plants and animals. While there were many starts and stops along the way, agriculture provided the technology to achieve a more reliable food supply in support of larger human populations. With agriculture came concepts of personal property and personal inheritance, and hierarchical societies were organized. In short, crop cultivation led to a global revolution for humankind, marked by the emergence of complex societies and the use of technology.
The goal of agriculture then, as now, was to meet human demand for food, and as the population grew, early agriculturalists found new ways to increase yield, decrease costs of production, and sustain productivity. Over the centuries, improved agricultural methods brought about enormous yield gains, all to keep up with the needs of an ever-increasing human population. In the 18th century, for example, it took nearly five acres of land to feed one person for one year, whereas today it takes just half an acre (Trewavas, 2002)—a tenfold increase in productivity.
There is reason to wonder, however, whether these dramatic gains, and particularly those of the last 50 years, can be sustained for the next 50 years as the world's human population doubles, climate change shifts rainfall patterns and intensifies drought cycles, fossil fuels become more expensive, and the developing nations of the world rapidly improve their standards of living.
Read Full Section: How the Current System Developed (PDF)
The potential public health effects associated with ifa p must be examined in the context of its potential effects on individuals and the population as a whole. These effects include disease and the transmission of disease, the potential for the spread of pathogens from animals to humans, and mental and social impacts. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being” (WHO, 1992). This definition is widely recognized in the developed world and is increasingly being adopted by American employers.
In IFAP systems, large numbers of animals are raised together, usually in confinement buildings, which may increase the likelihood for health issues with the potential to affect humans, carried either by the animals or the large quantities of animal waste. The IFAP facilities are frequently concentrated in areas where they can affect human population centers. Animal waste, which harbors a number of pathogens and chemical contaminants, is usually left untreated or minimally treated, often sprayed on fields as fertilizer, raising the potential for contamination of air, water, and soils. Occasionally, the impact can be far worse. In one recent example, farm animal waste runoff from IFAP facilities was among the suspected causes of a 2006 Escherichia coli outbreak in which three people died and nearly 200 were sickened (CDC, 2006).
Read Full Section: Public Health (PDF)
Industrial farm animal production (IFAP) stands in sharp contrast to previous animal farming methods because of its emphasis on production efficiency and cost minimization. For most of the past 10,000 years, agricultural practice and animal husbandry were more or less sustainable, as measured by the balance between agricultural inputs and outputs and ecosystem health, given the human population and rate of consumption. IFAP systems, on the other hand, have shifted to a focus on growing animals as units of protein production. Rather than balancing the natural productivity of the land to produce crops to feed animals, IFAP imports feed and medicines to ensure that the animals make it to market weight in the shortest time possible. Animals and their waste are concentrated and may well exceed the capacity of the land to produce feed or absorb the waste. Not surprisingly, the rapid ascendance of IFAP has produced unintended and often unanticipated environmental and public health concerns.
Storage and disposal of manure and animal waste are among the most significant challenges for IFAP operators. By any estimate, the amount of farm animal waste produced annually in the United States is enormous; the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates around 500 million tons of manure are produced annually by operations that confine livestock and poultry—three times the EPA estimate of 150 million tons of human sanitary waste produced annually in the US (EPA, 2007b). And in comparison to the lesser amount of human waste, the management and disposal of animal wastes are poorly regulated.
Until the late 1950s, manures typically were either deposited directly by animals on pastures or processed in solid form and collected along with bedding (usually hay or straw) from animal housing facilities for application to the land as a crop nutrient. There were no regulated rates of application, seasonal restrictions, or requirements for the reporting, analysis, or monitoring of applied manures. This lack of protection may have been without consequence before iIFAP because animal farmers managed fewer animals, widely dispersed among agricultural lands, and relied on natural ecosystems for attenuating pathogens and absorbing or diluting nutrients. But as the number of animals on individual farms increased, the need for more efficient and regulated methods of manure management grew in importance.
As in large human settlements, improper management of the highly concentrated feces produced by IFAP facilities can and does overwhelm natural cleansing processes. Because of the large concentrations of animals and their manure, what was once a valuable byproduct is now a waste that requires proper disposal. As a result, animal feeding operations in the United States, whether IFAP or not, now use a number of manure management strategies depending on the type of operation and state and federal regulations.
Read Full Section: Environmental Risks (PDF)
Before the emergence of industrial farm animal production systems, the ethic of animal husbandry held that good care of animals was wholly consistent with the interests of the farmer. Most animals were raised on diversified farms that produced both crops and several species of animals, which generally had access to the pasture or barnyard whenever weather conditions permitted. For the most part, husbandry was considered the responsibility of the producer.
More than 100 years later, farms in the 21st century have become highly specialized systems and no longer produce more than one crop and several species of livestock. Farms producing both crops and livestock still exist, but they are no longer the norm. Now, crop growers sell to feed mills that formulate engineered feeds to sell to farmers who raise and feed livestock. The supply chain has thus evolved to a series of distinct production processes connected through economic transactions. Consumers are now at the extreme end of this supply chain, yet they are increasingly concerned that farm animals are afforded a decent life. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to define what actually constitutes a decent life for animals because doing so includes both ethical (value-based) and scientific (empirical) components.
Increasing public awareness of the conditions prevalent in confinement agriculture (e.g., gestation and farrowing crates for swine, battery cages for layers) has led to consumer demand for changes in animal treatment. A poll conducted by Oklahoma State University and the American Farm Bureau Federation found that 75% of the public would like to see government mandates for basic animal welfare measures (http://asp.okstate.edu./baileynorwood/aw2/aw2main.htm). Possibly as a defensive response, the food animal industry has made changes that are easily marketed and that are aimed at changing public perception. Smithfield, for example, announced recently that it would eliminate the use of gestation crates in its hog-rearing operations, and the United Egg Producers have published standards for the treatment of laying hens.
Read Full Section: Animal Welfare (PDF)
Asked to describe rural life, people are likely to talk of pastoral landscapes, open spaces, a slower pace of life, a place where people are friendlier. In short, “rural” evokes an idyllic image of life, a counterpoint to the intense pace of urban life.
But the realities of rural life are somewhat different. A dominant feature of life in much of rural America is persistent poverty. In 2005, more than 15% of the rural population (73 million people) earned family incomes of less than $19,800, which is below the official poverty line. Most of the nearly 400 US counties that are classified as poor are also rural (USDA-ERS, 2008).
Read Full Section: Rural America (PDF)
Toward Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainability is a futuristic concept. Webster's dictionary defines the verb “sustain” as “to maintain,” “to keep in existence,” “to keep going.” By definition, then, sustainability is a journey, an ongoing process, not a prescription or a set of instructions. So when we ask, “How do we sustain animal agriculture?” we are asking how to manage animal agriculture so that it can be maintained indefinitely and what changes are necessary to accomplish that goal.
Sustainable animal agriculture requires that we envision the challenges and changes the future will bring. In his extensive studies of past civilizations, Jared Diamond has observed that civilizations that correctly assessed their current situations, anticipated changes, and started preparing for those changes were the ones that thrived—they were sustainable. Civilizations that failed in these efforts were the ones that collapsed—they were not sustainable (Diamond, 1999; Diamond, 2005).
Read Full Section: Conclusion (PDF)
The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production was charged with examining the current US system of food animal production and its impact on public health, the environment, animal welfare, and rural communities. The Commission's recommendations are intended to ensure that the system is able to provide safe, affordable meat, dairy, and poultry products in a sustainable way. Commissioners recognize that the current system, like agriculture as a whole, has achieved a remarkable record of increasing productivity and lowering prices at the supermarket, with the result that Americans' expenditures for meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs as an inflation-adjusted share of their disposable income were lower in 2007 than in 1950.
But as industrial farm animal production (IFAP) systems have increased cost-efficient agricultural food production, they have also given rise to problems that are beginning to require attention by policymakers and the industry. Given the relatively rapid emergence of the technologies for industrial farm animal production, and the dependence on chemical inputs, energy, and water, many IFAP systems are not sustainable environmentally or economically.
Much of the basis for concentrated animal production originally derived from inexpensive corn and other plentiful feed grain crops, cheap energy, and free, abundant water. Inexpensive corn, for example, allowed the development of specially formulated feeds that increase growth rates and shorten the time required to get animals to market. But the emerging market for biofuels has changed that equation because the value of corn and other commodity crops is now tied to their energy value, often resulting in higher prices. Similarly, IFAP systems also depend on abundant freshwater resources and on inexpensive fossil fuels for energy. As supplies of both become scarce, their rising costs raise questions about the sustainability of the current production process. Sustainability will require new approaches that use less water and energy.
Industrial farm animal production systems are also highly dependent on intensive animal confinement, which commonly requires the use of antimicrobials to prevent disease, not just to treat it. Together with the use of antimicrobials to promote animal growth, these practices accelerate the emergence of resistant microbes, with obvious risks for both animals and humans.
In addition, intensive confinement systems increase negative stress levels in the animals, posing an ethical dilemma for producers and consumers. This dilemma can be summed up by asking ourselves if we owe the animals in our care a decent life. If the answer is yes, there are standards by which one can measure the quality of that life. By most measures, confined animal production systems in common use today fall short of current ethical and societal standards.
Furthermore, the concentrated animal waste and associated possible contaminants from ifa p systems pose a substantial environmental problem for air quality, surface and subsurface water quality, and the health of workers, neighboring residents, and the general public.
Finally, the costs to rural America have been significant. Although many rural communities embraced industrial farming as a source of much-needed economic development, the results have often been the reverse. Communities with greater concentrations of industrial farming operations have experienced higher levels of unemployment and increased poverty. Associated social concerns—from elevated crime and teen pregnancy rates to increased numbers of itinerant laborers—are problematic in many communities and place greater demands on public services. The economic multiplier of local revenue generated by a corporate-owned farming operation is substantially lower than that of a locally owned operation. Reduced civic participation rates, higher levels of stress, and other less tangible impacts have all been associated with high concentrations of industrial farm production.
Read Full Section: Recommendations (PDF)
(1965). Command Paper 2836. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animal Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems.
Her Majesty's Stationary Office: London.
(1977). The Family Farm in California: Report of the Small Farm Viability Project. Agriculture DoFa, Development DoHaC (eds). Sacramento, California: Employment Development Department, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, pp 229-30.
(1994). Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act. In: Code of Federal Regulations.
(2007 a). Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical
(2007 b). Veterinary Public Health Workforce Expansion
Act of 2007.
Abeles-Allison M, Connor L (1990). An Analysis of Local Benefits and Costs of Michigan Hog Operations Experiencing Environmental Conflicts. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
AHI (2002). Survey Shows Decline in Antibiotics Use in Animals. Animal Health Institute.
Andersen IL, Boe KE (1999). Straw bedding or concrete floor for loose-housed pregnant sows: Consequences for aggression, production and physical health. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A—Animal Science 49: 190-195.
Anderson AD, McClellan J, Rossiter S, Angulo FJ (2003). Public Health Consequences of Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Agriculture. In: The Resistance Phenomenon in Microbes and Infectious Disease Vectors: Implications for Human Health and Strategies for Containment Workshop. Knobler SL, Lemon SM, Najafi M, Burroughs T (eds). The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, pp 231-243.
Appleby MC, Lawrence AB (1987). Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behavior in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103-110.
Arbuckle KE, Downing JA (2001). The influence of watershed land use on lake N:P in a predominantly agricultural landscape. lo 46: 970-975.
Arbuckle TE, Sherman GJ, Corey PN, Walters D, Lo B (1988). Water nitrates and c ns birth defects: a population-based case-control study. Arch Environ Health 43: 162-7.
Arteaga ST (2001). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Challenges. In: American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting: St. Joseph, Michigan.
Bakr WM, Fawzi M, Hashish MH (2004). Detection of coagulase positive staphylococci in meat products sold in Alexandria using two different media. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 79: 31-42.
Batt AL, Snow DD, Aga DS (2006). Occurrence of sulfonamide antimicrobials in private water wells in Washington County, Idaho, us a . Chemosphere 64: 1963-71.
Beeman P (2007). Speakers Say Biofuel Boom Puts Pressure on Water. In: The Des Moines Register: Des Moines, Iowa.
Brennan JJ, Aherne FX (1987). Effect of Floor Type on the Severity of Foot Lesions and Osteochondrosis in Swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 517-523.
Brown LR (2006). Plan B 2.0. W.W. Norton and Company: New York.
Burkholder J, Libra B, Weyer P, Heathcote S, Kolpin D, Thorne PS, Wichman M (2007). Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ Health Perspect 115: 308-12.
CDC (2006). Update on Multi-State Outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 Infections from Fresh Spinach, October 6, 2006.
CDC/FDA/NIH (1999). A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance. Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance.
Centner TJ (2006). Governmental oversight of discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations. Environ Manage 37: 745-52.
Cole D, Todd L, Wing S (2000). Concentrated swine feeding operations and public health: a review of occupational and community health effects. Environ Health Perspect 108: 685-99.
Cook M (1998). Reducing Water Pollution from Animal Feeding Operations. In: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture. Representatives usho (ed). e pa : http://www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/10519971998/051398.htm.
Copeland C (2006). Animal Waste and Water Quality: e pa Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (c a fos). Service CR (ed). United States Congress: Washington, DC, pp cr s -1-cr s -23.
Cosgrove SE, Qi Y, Kaye KS, Harbarth S, Karchmer AW, Carmeli Y (2005). The impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26: 166-74.
Daly HE (1999). Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics. Edward Elgar: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Delgado CL (2003). Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. Journal of Nutrition 133: 3907S-3910S.
Delgado CL, Rosegrant MW, Steinfeld H, Ehui S, Courbois C (1999). The Growing Place of Livestock Products in World Food in the Twenty-First Century. In: m t i d discussion papers. (i fpr i) (ed).
DeLind L, Durrenberger PE, Flora CB, Flora J, Heffernan WD, Padgitt S (1995). Social Consequences of Intensive Swine Production: Some Effects of Community Conflict. In: Understanding the Impacts of Large-Scale Swine Production: An Interdisciplinary Scientific Workshop: Des Moines, Iowa.
Diamond J (1999). Guns, Germs, and Steel. W.W. Norton and Company: New York.
Diamond J (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Press: New York.
Do Pico G (1986). Workgroup report on diseases. Am J Ind Med 10 : 261-266.
DOE, FRA (2001). British Cattle Movement Service.
Donham K, Carsons T, Adrian B (1982a). Carboxyhemoglobin values in swine relative to carbon monoxide exposure: Guidelines to monitor for animal and human health hazards in swine buildings. Am J Vet Res
Donham K, Cumro D, Reynolds S, Merchant J (2000). Dose-response relationships between occupational aerosol exposures and cross-shift declines of lung function in poultry workers: Recommendations for exposure limits. J Occup Environ Med 42: 260-269.
Donham K, Gustafson K (1982). Human occupational hazards from swine confinement. Annals of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 2: 137-142.
Donham K, Haglind P, Peterson Y, Rylander R, Belin L (1989). Environmental and health studies of workers in Swedish swine buildings. Br J Ind Med 46: 31-37.
Donham K, Knapp L, Monson R, Gustafson K (1982b). Acute toxic exposure to gases from liquid manure. J Occup Med 24: 142-145.
Donham K, Merchant J, Lassise D, Popendorf W, Burmeister L (1990). Preventing respiratory disease in swine confinement workers: Intervention through applied epidemiology, education, and consultation. Am J Ind Med 18: 241-262.
Donham K, Popendorf W (1985). Ambient levels of selected gases inside swine confinement buildings. American Industrial Hygienic Association Journal 46: 658-661.
Donham K, Reynolds S, Whitten P, Merchant J, Burmeister L, Popendorf W (1995). Respiratory dysfunction in swine production facility workers: Dose- response relationships of environmental exposures and pulmonary function. Am J Ind Med 27: 405-418.
Donham K, Yeggy J, Dague R (1988). Health implications for workers and animals in swine buildings. Biological Wastes: 161-173.
Donham KJ, Wing S, Osterberg D, Flora JL, Hodne C, Thu KM, Thorne PS (2007). Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations. Environ Health Perspect 115: 317-20.
Dozier 1 1 1 WA, Lacy MP, Vest LR (2001). Broiler Production and Management. University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department of Poultry Science, Cooperative Extension Service: Athens, Georgia, pp 8.
Durrenberger PE, Thu KM (1996). The Expansion of Large Scale Hog Farming in Iowa: The Applicability of Goldschmidt's Findings Fifty Years Later. Human Organization 55: 411-15.
EPA (2006). Consumer Factsheet on: Nitrates/Nitrites.
EPA (2007 a). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. National Center for Environmental Publications, pp 393.
EPA (2007 b). US e pa 2008 Compliance and Enforcement: Clean Water Act. pp 1-3.
EPA (2003). n pde s Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Office of Water.
FAWC (2007). Five Freedoms. FAWC (ed).
FDA-CVM (2003). Guidance for Industry #152.
Frazão E, Meade B, Regmi A (2008). Converging Patterns in Global Food Consumption and Food Delivery Systems. Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America 6: 22-29.
Frenzen PD, Drake A, Angulo FJ (2005). Economic cost of illness due to Escherichia coli O157 infections in the United States. Journal of Food Protection 68: 2623-2630.
Gibbs SG, Green CF, Tarwater PM, Scarpino PV (2004). Airborne antibiotic resistant and nonresistant bacteria and fungi recovered from two swine herd confined animal feeding operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 1: 699-706.
Gilchrist MJ, Greko C, Wallinga DB, Beran GW, Riley DG, Thorne PS (2007). The potential role of concentrated animal feeding operations in infectious disease epidemics and antibiotic resistance. Environ Health Perspect 115: 313-6.
Gilles JL, Dalecki M (1988). Rural Well-Being and Agricultural Change in Two Farming Regions. Rural Sociology 53: 40-55.
Goldschmidt W (1946). Small Business and the Community: A Study in Central Valley of California on Effects of Scale of Farm Operations. In: Report of the Special Committee to Study Problems of American Small Business. 79th Congress, 2nd Session: Washington, DC.
Goldschmidt W (1978). As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. Allanheld, Osmun and Company: Montclair, New Jersey.
Gollehon NR, Caswell M., Ribaudo M., Kellogg R., Lander C., Letson D (2001). Confined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients. Service u e r (ed).
Graham JP, Boland JJ, Silbergeld E (2007). Growth Promoting Antibiotics in Food Animal Production: An Economic Analysis. Public Health Rep 122: 79-87.
Gray GC, Trampel DW, Roth JA (2007). Pandemic influenza planning: shouldn't swine and poultry workers be included? Vaccine 25: 4376-81.
Harris CK, Gilbert J (1982). Large-Scale Farming, Rural Income, and Goldschmidt's Agrarian Thesis. Rural Sociology 47: 449-58.
Harrison PF, Lederberg J (ed) (1998). Antimicrobial Resistance: Issues and Options. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
Heinberg R (2004). Power Down. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, bc, Canada.
Holm B, Bakken M, Klemetsdal G, Vangen O (2004). Genetic correlations between reproduction and production traits in swine. Journal of Animal Science 82: 3458-3464.
Horrigan L, Lawrence RS, Walker P (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ Health Perspect 110 : 445-56.
HSUS (2006 a). The Welfare of Animals in the Broiler Chicken Industry. In: An HSUS Report. hsus (ed). HSUS : Washington, DC pp 1-7.
HSUS (2006 b). USDA Reverses Decades-Old Policy on Farm Animal Transport. In: Press Release. HSUS : Washington, DC.
Huijsdens XW, van Dijke BJ, Spalburg E, van Santen- Verheuvel MG, Heck ME, Pluister GN, Voss A, Wannet WJ, de Neeling AJ (2006). Community-acquired MRSA and pig-farming. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 5: 26.
Idris U, Lu J, Maier M, Sanchez S, Hofacre CL, Harmon BG, Maurer JJ, Lee MD (2006). Dissemination of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter spp. within an integrated commercial poultry production system. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 3441-7.
IOM (1998). Antimicrobial Resistance: Issues and Options. National Academy Press: Washington.
Jensen J (2006). Carbon Credits: New Opportunities for US Livestock Industry. In: Ag STAR Conference. US e pa : Madison, Wisconsin.
Kelly N (March 20, 2007). Senate panel cool to feed-farm curbs. In: The Journal Gazette: Ft. Wayne.
Khanna T, Friendship R, Dewey C, Weese JS (2007). Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in pigs and pig farmers. Vet Microbiol: Article In Press.
Kilburn KH (1997). Exposure to reduced sulfur gases impairs neurobehavioral function. South Med J 90: 997-1006.
Kirschenmann F (2007). Potential for a New Generation of Biodiversity in Agroecosystems of the Future. Agronomy Journal 99: 375.
Kitai S, Shimizu A, Kawano J, Sato E, Nakano C, Kitagawa H, Fujio K, Matsumura K, Yasuda R, Inamoto T (2005). Prevalence and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus and enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus in retail raw chicken meat throughout Japan. J Vet Med Sci 67: 269-74.
Kleiner AM, Rikoon JS, Seipel M (2000). Pigs, participation, and the democratic process: The impacts of proximity to large-scale swine operations on elements of social capital in Northern Missouri communities. In:
Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society: Washington, DC.
Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, Petit S, Gershman K, Ray S, Harrison LH, Lynfield R, Dumyati G, Townes JM, Craig AS, Zell ER, Fosheim GE, McDougal LK, Carey RB, Fridkin SK (2007). Invasive methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. Jama 298: 1763-71.
Knol EF, Bergsma R, van Arendunk JAM, van der Lende T (2001). Genetic correlations between piglet survival, birth weight and performance traits. In: Genetic aspects of pig survival. Knol EF (ed). phd Thesis, Wageningen University: Wageningen, pp 57-74.
Kostraba JN, Gay EC, Rewers M, Hamman RF (1992). Nitrate levels in community drinking waters and risk of IDDM. An ecological analysis. Diabetes Care 15: 1505-8.
Krapac IG, Koike S., Meyer MT, Snow DD, Chou SFJ, Mackie RI, Roy WR, and Chee-Sanford, JC (2004). Long term monitoring of the occurrence of antibiotics residues and antibiotic resistance genes in groundwater near swing confinement facilities. In: 4th International Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Distrupting Chemicals in Water. National Ground Water Association: Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 158-174.
Lay Jr. DC, Haussmann MF, Daniels MJ (2000). Hoop Housing for Feeder Pigs Offers a Welfare-Friendly Environment Compared to Nonbedded Confinement System. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 33-48.
Leopold A (1999). The Outlook for Farm Wildlife. In: Aldo Leopold: For the Health of the Land. Callicott JB, Freyfogle ET (eds). Island Press: Washington, DC pp 218.
Lewis WJ, van Lenteren JC, Phatak SC, Tumlinson JH, 3rd (1997). A total system approach to sustainable pest management. Proc Natl Acad Sci us a 94: 12243-8.
Lund MS, Puonti M, Rydhmer L, Jensen J (2002). Relationship between litter size and perinatal and pre- weaning survival in pigs. Animal Science 74: 217-222.
MacCannell D (1988). Industrial Agriculture and Rural Community Degradation. In: Agriculture and Community Change in the US: The Congressional Research Reports. Swanson LE (ed). Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado.
Markowitz L, Hynes N, de la Cruz P, Campos E, Barbaree J, Plikaytis B, Mosier D, Kaufmann A (1985). Tick-borne Tularemia: An outbreak of Lymphadenopathy in children. ja m a Nov 22/29: 2922-2925.
Marmion B, Ormsbee R, Kyrkow M, Wright J, Worswick D, Izzo A, Esterman A, Feery B, Shapiro R (1990). Vaccine prophylaxis of abattoir-associated Q fever: Eight years' experience in Australian abattoirs. Epidemiol Infect: 275-287.
Martin A (2004). US venture hints at Brazil's hog farm potential. In: Chicago Tribune: Chicago.
McMichael AJ (1993). Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Changes and the Health of the Human Species. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.
McMillan M, Schulman MD (2003). Hogs and Citizens: A Report from the North Carolina Front. Ohio University Press: Athens, Ohio.
Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, Griffin PM, Tauxe RV (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5: 607-625.
Meatnews.com (2005). Europe Bans Antibiotic Growth Promoters.
Mellon MG, Benbrook C, Benbrook KL, Union of Concerned Scientists. (2001). Hogging it: estimates of antimicrobial abuse in livestock. Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mench JA, James H, Pajor EA, Thompson PB (2008). The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. In: Report to the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production: Washington, DC.
Merchant JA, Naleway AL, Svendsen ER, Kelly KM, Burmeister LF, Stromquist AM, Taylor CD, Thorne PS, Reynolds SJ, Sanderson WT, Chrischilles EA (2005). Asthma and farm exposures in a cohort of rural Iowa children. Environ Health Perspect 113: 350-6.
Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC (2006a). Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middle- school students to air emissions from confined swine feeding operations. Environ Health Perspect 114: 591-6.
Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC (2006b). Asthma symptoms among adolescents who attend public schools that are located near confined swine feeding operations. Pediatrics 118: e66-75.
Mississippi State University Extension Service (1997). Broiler Production in Mississippi.
Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, Fosheim GE, McDougal LK, Carey RB, Talan DA (2006). Methicillin- resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 355: 666-74.
Myers KP, Olsen CW, Setterquist SF, Capuano AW, Donham KJ, Thacker EL, Merchant JA, Gray GC (2006). Are swine workers in the United States at increased risk of infection with zoonotic influenza virus? Clin Infect Dis 42: 14-20.
Myers KP, Setterquist SF, Capuano AW, Gray GC (2007). Infection due to 3 avian influenza subtypes in United States veterinarians. Clin Infect Dis 45: 4-9.
NAS (1975). Understanding Climate Change: Report of the Panel on Climate Variations. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC.
NAS (1999). The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
NASDA (2001). Comments on Pollutant Discharge Regulation/Guidelines & Standards for Animal Feeding Operations. Graves L (ed). National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
NCSL (2008). Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: A Survey of State Policies. In: A Report to the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.
PCIFAP (ed). National Conference of State Legislatures: Washington, DC.
Neirenberg D (2003). Factory farming in the developing world: in some critical respects, this is not progress at all. In: World Watch 16: pp 10-19.
Nolan BT, Hitt KJ (2006). Vulnerability of shallow groundwater and drinking-water wells to nitrate in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 40 : 7834-40.
NPB (2005). Take Care: A Producer's Guide to Using Antibiotics Responsibly. Des Moines, Iowa.
Osbern L, Crapo R (1981). Dung Lung: A report of toxic exposure to liquid manure. Ann Intern Med 95: 312-314.
Rabalais NN, Wiseman WJ, Turner RE, Sen Gupta BK, Dortch Q (1996). Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries 19: 386-407.
Radon K, Schulze A, Ehrenstein V, van Strien RT, Praml G, Nowak D (2007). Environmental exposure to confined animal feeding operations and respiratory health of neighboring residents. Epidemiology 18: 300-8.
Rao PV, Bhattacharya R, Pant SC, Bhaskar AS (1995). Toxicity evaluation of in vitro cultures of freshwater cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa: I. Hepatic and histopathological effects in rats. Biomed Environ Sci 8: 254-64.
Reganold JP, Elliott LF, Unger YL (1987). Long-term Effects of Organic and Conventional Farming on Soil Erosion. Nature 330 : 370-2.
Reganold JP, Glover JD, Andrews PK, Hinman HR (2001). Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410 : 926-30.
Reynolds S, Donham K, Whitten P, Merchant J, Burmeister L, Popendorf W (1996). Longitudinal evaluation of dose-response relationships for environmental exposures and pulmonary function in swine production workers. Am J Ind Med 29.
Roberts P (2004). The End of Oil. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.
Russelle MP, Morey RV, Baker JM, Porter PM, Jung HJ (2007). Comment on “Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass.” Science 316: 1567; author reply: 1567.
Rylander R (1987). Role of endotoxins in the pathogenesis of respiratory disorders. Eur J Respir Dis Suppl 154: 136-144.
Peak N, Knapp CW, Yang RK, Hanfelt MM, Smith MS, Aga DS, Graham DW (2007). Abundance of six tetracycline resistance genes in wastewater lagoons at cattle feedlots with different antibiotic use strategies. Environ Microbiol 9: 143-51.
Peters JA, Blackwood TR (1977). Source Assessment: Beef Cattle Feedlots. e pa-600/2-77-107. US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Pimentel D, Houser J, Preiss E, White O, Fang H, Mesnick L, Barsky T, Tariche S, Schreck J, Alpert S (1997). Water Resources: Agriculture, the Environment, and Society. BioScience 47: 97-106.
Saenz R A, Hethcote HW, Gray GC (2006). Confined animal feeding operations as amplifiers of influenza. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 6: 338-46.
Schiffman SS, Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG (1995). The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Res Bull 37: 369-75.
Schiffman SS, Studwell CE, Landerman LR, Berman K, Sundy JS (2005). Symptomatic effects of exposure to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects. Environ Health Perspect 113: 567-76.
Schraft H, Kleinlein N, Untermann F (1992). Contamination of pig hindquarters with Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Food Microbiol 15: 191-4.
Schroeder CM, Naugle AL, Schlosser WD, Hogue AT, Angulo FJ, Rose JS, Ebel ED, Disney WT, Holt KG, Goldman DP (2005). Estimate of illnesses from Salmonella enteritidis in eggs, United States, 2000. Emerg Infect Dis 11: 113-5.
Seffner W (1995). Natural water contents and endemic goiter—a review. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 196: 381-98.
Shi Q, Cui J, Zhang J, Kong FX, Hua ZC, Shen PP (2004). Expression modulation of multiple cytokines in vivo by cyanobacteria blooms extract from Taihu Lake, China. Toxicon 44: 871-9.
Sigurdarson ST, Kline JN (2006). School proximity to concentrated animal feeding operations and prevalence of asthma in students. Chest 129: 1486-91.
Smith DL, Harris AD, Johnson JA, Silbergeld EK, Morris JG, Jr. (2002). Animal antibiotic use has an early but important impact on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human commensal bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci u s a 99: 6434-9.
Smith JL, Drum DJ, Dai Y, Kim JM, Sanchez S, Maurer JJ, Hofacre CL, Lee MD (2007). Impact of Antimicrobial Usage on Antimicrobial Resistance in Commensal Escherichia coli Strains Colonizing Broiler Chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 1404-14.
Song WL, Huang M, Rumbeiha W, Li H (2007). Determination of amprolium, carbadox, monensin, and tylosin in surface water by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 21: 1944-1950.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow— Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.
Stock R, Mader T (1985). Feed additives for beef cattle. In: NebGuide. University of Nebraska: Lincoln, Nebraska.
Stokstad ELR, Jukes TH (1958-1959). Studies of the growth-promoting effect of antibiotics in chicks on a purified diet. Antibiotics Annual: 998-1002.
Stolz JF, Perera E, Kilonzo B, Kail B, Crable B, Fisher E, Ranganathan M, Wormer L, Basu P (2007). Biotransformation of 3-nitro-4-hydroxybenzene arsonic acid (roxarsone) and release of inorganic arsenic by Clostridium species. Environ Sci Technol 41: 818-23.
Summer W (1971). Odor pollution of air—cause and control. The Chemical Rubber Company Press: Cleveland, Ohio, pp 310.
Suzuki S (1994). Pathogenicity of Salmonella enteritidis in poultry. Int J Food Microbiol 21: 89-105.
Tajtakova M, Semanova Z, Tomkova Z, Szokeova E, Majoros J, Radikova Z, Sebokova E, Klimes I, Langer P (2006). Increased thyroid volume and frequency of thyroid disorders signs in schoolchildren from nitrate polluted area. Chemosphere 62: 559-64.
Tao B (2003). A stitch in time: Addressing the environmental, health, and animal welfare effects of China's expanding meat industry. In: Georgetown International Law Review.
Soule JD, Piper D (1992). Farming in Nature's Image: An Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Island Press: Washington, DC.
Spellberg B, Guidos R, Gilbert D, Bradley J, Boucher HW, Scheld WM, Bartlett JG, Edwards Jr. J, America IDSo (2008). The Epidemic of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections: A Call to Action for the Medical Community from the Infectious Disease Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 46.
Starmer E, Wise TA (2007a). Feeding at the Trough: Industrial Livestock Firms Saved $35 billion from Low Feed Prices. In: Policy Brief 07-03. Institute gda e , (ed). Tufts University: Medford, Massachusetts, pp 4.
Starmer E, Wise TA (2007b). Living High on the Hog: Factory Farms, Federal Policy, and the Structural Transformation of Swine Production. In: Working Paper 07-04. Institute gda e (ed). Tufts University: Medford, Massachusetts, pp 30.
Tetreau ED (1940). Social Organization in Arizona's Irrigated Areas. Rural Sociology 5: 192-205.
Teuber M (2001). Veterinary use and antibiotic resistance. Curr Opin Microbiol 4: 493-9.
Thu KM (2002). Public Health Concerns for Neighbors of Large-Scale Swine Production Operations. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 8: 175-84.
Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677.
Trewavas A (2002). Malthus foiled again and again. Nature 418: 668-670.
USDA (2005). National Animal Identification System: Draft Strategic Plan. USDA (ed).
USDA (2006). National Animal Identification System (NAIS): Strategies for the Implementation of NAIS. USDA(ed).
USDA, APHIS (2006). National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
USDA-ERS (2001). Agricultural and Resource Management Survey.
USDA-ERS (2008). Data Sets: 2005 County-Level Poverty Rates. Gibbs R (ed). USDA Economic Research Service.
USGS (2006). Pharmaceuticals and Other Emerging Contaminants in the Environment—Transport, Fate, and Effects.
Van Loo H, Diederen BMW, Savelkoul PHM, et al., (2007). Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Meat Products, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis 13: 1753-1755.
Voss A, Loeffen F, Bakker J, Klaassen C, Wulf M (2005). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farming. Emerg Infect Dis 11: 1965-6.
Walker P, Rhubart-Berg P, McKenzie S, Kelling K, Lawrence RS (2005). Public health implications of meat production and consumption. Public Health Nutr 8: 348-56.
Washington State Department of Ecology (2006). Agency-Wide Notices, Orders & Penalties 1985–2005. Drop in inspections when authority given to Department of Agriculture in 2003, as compared with previous years when Department of Ecology had dairy inspection authority.
Webb J, Archer JR (1994). Pollution of soils and watercourses by wastes from livestock production systems. In: Pollution in Livestock Production Systems. Dewi IA, Axford RFE, Marai IFM, Omed HM (eds). CABI Publishing: Oxfordshire, England, pp 189-204.
Western Organization of Resource Councils (May 2006). National Animal Identification System: The Unanswered Questions.
WHO (1992). Basic documents. 39th ed. WHO : Geneva.
WHO (2000). Report on Infectious Diseases.
WHO (2002). Impacts of antimicrobial growth promoter termination in Denmark. In: International Invitational Symposium: Beyond Antimicrobial Growth Promoters in Food Animal Production. Panel WIR (ed). WHO
Department of Communicable Diseases, Prevention and Eradication: Foulum, Denmark.
Wing S, Wolf S (2000). Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect 108: 233-8.
Witte W, Strommenger B, Stanek C, Cuny C (2007). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus s t 398 in humans and animals, Central Europe. Emerg Infect Dis 13: 255-8.
Woolhouse ME, Gowtage-Sequeria S (2005). Host range and emerging and reemerging pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 11: 1842-7.
Woolhouse ME, Taylor LH, Haydon DT (2001). Population biology of multihost pathogens. Science 292: 1109-12.
Wright W, Flora CB, Kremer KS, Goudy W, Hinrichs C, Lasley P, Maney A, Kroma M, Brown H, Pigg K, Durgan B, Coleman J, Elias Morse D (2001). Technical work paper on social and community impacts. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
Zetola N, Francis JS, Nuermberger EL, Bishai WR (2005). Community-acquired meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an emerging threat. Lancet Infect Dis 5: 275-86.