F i n k e | 1
Jim Finke
Dr. Robert Murdock
ENGL1001
27 March, 2014
The Dangers of Our Current Livestock Farming Practices
Every day we eat meat, drink milk, use dairy in cooking our dinner. We take for granted the amount of work that goes into producing these food items and we rarely take the time necessary to think about the practices that go into the production of these astounding quantities of meat and dairy products. In a common mindset as long as we have these things to feed ourselves we turn a blind eye to the true nature of what we are eating and how these farming practices are endangering not only the animals themselves but us and our environment. What are these practices and how are they not only affecting the animals but our environment and, to a more important effect, our own health?
As we all know, we get our meat from farms. What do we normally think of when we picture a farm in our heads? For each person it's a different picture. For one person, it's your traditional movie screen farm complete with the red painted barn and the farmhouse with a few grain silos dotted throughout the farmstead. For others it's a field of corn, beans, or other vegetable. Another view is a ranch complete with cowboys corralling their steer into pasture. But the reality of a farm is much more scientific and mechanical. In terms of the modern day cattle farm, it's a completely indistinguishable image from the one we hold in our minds. The
"pastures" are nothing more than rows and rows of cattle shelters, and within these shelters are rows and rows of cattle in such close quarters that it allows virtually no movement. The website

F i n k e | 2 sustainabletable.org, cites the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of one of these
"farms" as follows,
Animal production has gotten so far from the traditional methods of farming that the government no longer refers to these operations as farms. They are now called
“Animal Feeding Operations” (AFO). According to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), AFOs are “agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations” and they “congregate animals, feed, manure, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area.” In order to be classified as an AFO, a lot or facility must have animals that “are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12- month period” and “crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility”.
These operations are the standard for large corporations that farm livestock and are often overcrowded and cramped. As we all know when we put large crowds together we end up increasing our risk of contracting an illness. The same holds true for cattle, pigs, and chickens.
As proof positive, A.M. Johnston calls to our attention "In a number of species, production is in large, confined rearing systems, the majority of which are indoors. With many animals and birds in close proximity any disease present will therefore spread rapidly" (Johnston 291). There are some industrial operations that have noticed this problem and have taken steps to prevent these types of issues from becoming a herd-wide epidemic. Johnston continues to state that some farming corporations have build self-contained buildings with biosecurity measures in place to help prevent diseases from spreading as quickly to the rest of the herd if these programs are followed (Johnston 291).

F i n k e | 3
With animals in such close quarters in both scenarios, disease is likely to spread and some of the herd will contract some form of pathogen at some point. Even with preventative measures in place, disease is guaranteed to strike the animal population. How the farmers go about tending to the issue is a matter of their own preference, although there is one that is gaining a foothold in the realm of sustainability. This new method of preventing disease and lowering the risk of injury to both the animal and ourselves is through the use of vaccines.
Across Europe they have actually ceased the use of antibiotics that increase the growth of the animals, and even in the United States their use is becoming more and more scrutinized by politicians and by regulatory agencies (Allen, Levine, Looft, Bandrick, Casey 114). This is because more often the use of antibiotics is creating more harm than good. The FDA now has regulations in place that state the use of antibiotics in cattle should be used for disease control and is no longer permitted for growth promotion, performance increases, and increasing the efficiency of feed (Allen, Levine, Looft, Bandrick, Casey 114). With these regulations in place it makes sense that some corporate farms have jumped on board with vaccines as an alternative.
Instead of having to constantly administer the medication to their entire herd of livestock, they now just have to give the animals one vaccine for some of the more common diseases contracted, increasing profits as well as ensuring the antibiotics are used in the control of diseases the herd has contracted through other means.
We can go even further in how antibiotics are invasive to animals in a sense more severe than just becoming immune to their effects. Allen, Levine, Looft, Bandrick, and Casey state clearly that antibiotics, "...may include a reduction in total bacterial load, suppression of pathogens, thinning of the mucosal layer, and direct modulation of the immune system" (115).
Frank Møller Aarestrup even roughly states the danger of bacteria in food animals being

F i n k e | 4 constantly subjected to the same antibiotic again and again makes them resistant to them through constant exposure. This is in large part the blanket approach that many AFOs take in dealing with pathogens in the herd. There's also the fact that administering antibiotics to animals increases their size artificially. In sustainabletable.org, "...antibiotics are routinely fed to livestock, poultry, and fish on industrial farms to promote faster growth and to compensate for the unsanitary conditions in which they are raised." The site continues to add that from the mid eighties throughout 2001, antibiotic use in livestock feed rose by an astounding 50 percent. This translates to 80 percent of all antibiotics developed in the United States are used to treat animals where only the remaining 20 percent are used to treat human illnesses. All these antibiotics being used on our livestock makes the case for different methods more clear in seeing how much we actually use on them as opposed to our own species.
There's also the fact that animal feed, although it's laced with antibiotics, is not what our livestock is naturally designed to eat. Industrial operations rely heavily on grain such as corn and soy, since these grains are grown by farmers who get subsidies from the government for growing them, making the cost of producing livestock feed cheaper for AFOs. There's also the matter of these grains being high in protein bringing a herd to market weight more quickly than grazing
(sustainabletable.org). But with this increase in weight gain and due to the nature of our livestock and their natural eating habits, eating so much of an unnatural food source is extremely destructive to the animals themselves. For instance, in cattle, eating corn-based feed does in fact increase their weight more quickly than grazing out at pasture, but since the digestive tract of the animal is designed to break down the grass due to their multiple stomachs, they develop liver abscesses and are prone to sudden death syndrome (sustainabletable.org). And that's just one example of how all of the animals we have domesticated for food sources react to being forced to

F i n k e | 5 go against their natural order react. The alternative to industrial feed lots is to buy locally from farmers who graze their animals in the natural order. This not only offers us a safer alternative to the antibiotic rich meat and dairy we buy at the grocer, but also promotes local farmers as well as decreasing the profit industrial organizations gain from using practices that are not only harmful to the animals but to us as well.
Talking about the risks industrial feed lots pose, we can look at how the antibiotics fed to animals can affect us, the consumer. With the massive amount of livestock kept in one place, we have to look at how they handle their waste. In some feedlots, careful management of waste products (manure) can lead to more profit for the feedlot, selling it to farmers as use for a natural fertilizer. "If stockpiles are carefully managed ensuring aeration as well as optimal water content and carbon to nitrogen ratios, manure may be composted in the process" (Khan, Roser, Davies,
Peters, Stuetz, Tucker, Ashbolt 840). This compost is used to create fertilizer due to its naturally high nitrogen content, and with the large amount of manure produced from feedlots per year, this is a cost effective and easily obtainable source of fertilizer. For those feedlots that do not have adequate waste management, this refuse decomposes and festers inside the pens before it's cleared away. With this lack of proper handling, there is higher risk for the livestock to be exposed to chemicals in the pens produced by the feces and urine left there (Khan, Roser,
Davies, Peters, Stuetz, Tucker, Ashbolt 840). This brings the system full-circle, exposing the animals to the bacteria decomposing in the pens leading to higher rates of disease in the herd and thus in turn leading to more extensive use of antibiotics to treat the animals.
Another topic of animal waste from feedlots is the runoff that seeps into the surrounding soils and water tables, with the more dangerous being the latter. As per the federal Clean Water
Act, feedlots are not to remove any livestock waste from the compound (Bernfeld). This ensures

F i n k e | 6 that the proper crews can come into the facility and determine the dangers that the waste can pose to the environment and then make an informed decision as to how best to dispose of said waste, whether it is to manufacture fertilizer or to dispose of it via a certified landfill area, depending on the chemical composition of the waste. When industrial operations don't follow the guidelines set forth by the Clean Water Act, major complications can follow in their wake.
Bernfeld stated that in Kansas, over the last ten years 38 feedlots, a relatively small portion of the over 800 in operation, incurred major penalties for their lack of proper waste management from the state health department. Even with such a small number of feedlots not within good standing of the law, the environmental impact was severe; farmland was damaged and waterways were contaminated, killing off fish and other water-centric life as well as contaminating the water table and drinking water. Some of the examples of Bernfeld's research are quite startling. Some direct facts from Kansas include;
A feedlot owner brazenly discharging 3.7 million gallons of wastewater out of his man-made lagoon and into a public creek, a feedlot permitted for over 26,000 head of cattle applying manure to surrounding fields improperly, resulting in the contamination of potable water wells in a sensitive groundwater area, an operation pumping excess waste into freshwater streams and ponds resulting in E. coli concentrations more than 24 times the rate typical of a Kansas freshwater body, and runoff from the application of manure from a feedlot permitted for 15,000 head resulting in measurements of ammonia more than 550 times the typical amount just two miles upstream of a creek whose waters are classified for use in drinking water supply (Bernfeld).

F i n k e | 7
These are some of the worst examples of environmental contamination in the last decade in
Kansas, which is just one state which is just one of many that have AFOs within their borders.
One of the largest dangers we face from the industrial meat market is the prevalence of resistant strains of pathogens in our meat due to administering the same antibiotics humans take to quell infectious disease as we give to livestock to do the same. In giving the same antibiotic to livestock, we create strains of pathogens that are resistant to these medications. Nobile,
Costantino, Bianco, Pileggi, and Pavia raise the alarm on poultry meat and unpasteurized milk in
Italy. One of the more common foodborne illnesses in humans is the Campylobacter spp. strain, in specific Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni.
These occur commonly in countries that have heavily invested in the industrialization of agriculture, using antibiotics to increase growth rates in livestock and treat disease outbreaks, causing these strains to become resistant to antibiotics when contracted by humans. Improper handling by not washing one's hands after touching or not thoroughly cooking raw poultry meat is the leading cause of these resistant strains (Nobile, Costantino, Bianco, Pileggi, Pavia 715). Also in their study, they found that not only was the chicken infected with antibiotic resistant pathogens, but that the handling in the slaughterhouse accounted for a significant portion of contamination (Nobile, Costantino, Bianco,
Pileggi, Pavia 716). While this may be a likely source of the disease when contracted by humans, the use of antibiotics in industrially farmed meat and dairy products has increased the amount of antibiotic resistant pathogens. And there are studies conducted all around the world for different pathogens resistant to bacteria, for example a study conducted by Ha Thai, Hirai, Thi Lan, and
Yamaguchi looked at pork and chicken meat samples originating from North Vietnam,
"Resistance to at least one antibiotic agent was found in 78.4% . . . of isolates" (Ha Thai, Hirai,
Thi Lan, Yamaguchi 149). Another study conducted measurements of Staphylococcus in

F i n k e | 8 fermented meats such as sausage, finding that "...49% of the investigated isolates showed resistance to at least one [strain]" (Marty, Bodenmann, Buchs, Hadorn, Eugster-Meier, Lacroix,
Meile 76-77), and this is resistance to at the very least a single strain. If infected with multiple strains of Staphylococcus the problem compounds with some samples increasing the risk of infection to humans.
So what does all of this data mean to you, the average consumers? Not to sound like a hypochondriac but this is dire news, especially in terms of general health and wellbeing. To put it in nicer terms all of the antibiotics we use on livestock create more resistant strains of dangerous pathogens. Bonnie Marshall and Stuart Levy say that since we use low doses of antibiotics on livestock for long periods of time this creates more resistant strains of bacteria and pathogens.
This is because the microbes are put under constant pressure and since the dosages are so low the microbes aren't all completely killed off (Marshall, Levy). The surviving fraction of these pathogens are then conditioned to come face to face with these medications and from that point onwards they and their offspring are attuned to fighting back against the use of these antibiotics.
In the American Journal of Nursing they also go as far to display the percentage of resistance these pathogens displayed in a study done looking at samples of raw meat in the Washington
D.C. area. " A full 84% of the isolates demonstrated resistance to at least one antibiotic, and 53% were resistant to at least three antibiotics. Resistance to tetracycline (80%), to streptomycin
(73%), and to sulfamethoxazole (60%) were most common, and resistance to ceftriaxone-used to treat salmonella infection in children-was noted in 16% of isolates" (American Journal of
Nursing Vol.102 No.2 p.57). The spread of these resistant strains is also transmitted in a multitude of ways including close contact to the animals themselves, through the food they produce, any runoff seeping into the water table, and through the animals' waste product

F i n k e | 9 converted into fertilizer for farmland (Marshall, Levy). With all of these ways strains can become further resistant to the antibiotics used to kill them off and all of the ways we can contract these diseases, it's a wonder as to why everyone isn't infected already. But the truth is that those who come in contact with these animals and those that are in close proximity to those workers are truly at the highest risk of infection. This means that the general population isn't at as high of a risk of infection as those who are in direct contact with the animals or their caretakers. This however does not mean that we as a general populace cannot contract these infections and microbes through direct contact while at places where these individuals have been, such as hospitals and local markets (Marshall, Levy).
A more likely source of general infection might come as a surprise. An average consumer is more likely to be exposed by eating or improperly handling the products of feed animals like meat and dairy (Marshall, Levy). The amount of contaminated product is also alarming in its own way, with "...
Escherichia coli was present on beef carcasses after evisceration and after 24 h in the chiller and in ground beef stored for 1 to 8 days" (Marshall, Levy), "...Campylobacter spp. from 10% to 14% of consumer chicken products" (Marshall, Levy), and the most alarming of all is that "...extensive antibiotic resistance has been reported for bacteria, including human pathogens, from farmed fish and market shrimp" (Marshall, Levy). Armed with this information we can surely see the need for more governmental regulation as to how industrial feedlots and
AFOs should approach the problem of widespread herd infection. One way we can assure our own safety pertaining to what we eat is to buy locally, taking the safer route and looking to the farmers in our own communities and ensuring that they follow more strict practices such as pasture grazing and by need basis antibiotic treatments as opposed to feeding their animals grain laced with the medication that then results in resistant microbes and resistance genes. Also by

F i n k e | 10 buying locally and eating within season you can assure that you're getting naturally grown crops and animal products that will increase your immune system as well as eating a more balanced, healthy diet.
With all of this talk of different bacteria and pathogens that we can contract we can often lose sight of what the bigger picture is. We as a consumer population have to keep ourselves free from harm and we also need to keep the companies who produce and distribute these products who know about the dangers they manufacture responsible for their oversights of consumer health while keeping a closer eye on profits. One way as a consumer you can do this is by looking for antibiotic- and hormone-free meat and dairy products in your local grocery stores.
There's also the option to buy from local butchers who receive their meat from local farmers who use natural grazing practices and keep fewer cattle per acre of land. Also realize that this is one side of the story and that not all AFOs and industrial feedlots use improper practices in their operations. There are always more that will follow the law producing a safe product at a slight loss of profit than those that attempt to shun it and hide from the responsibility of producing something that is safe for everyone.
In conclusion there is a lot of information to be afraid of in the last few pages. If we try to keep in mind that not every meat producer is shipping out product that is contaminated and that more and more AFOs are beginning to use natural methods, switching between feedlots and pasture feeding meaning that the animals have a chance to spread out lowering the risk of infection by confinement. Some AFOs are even going as far as not using antibiotics except in extreme cases of infection which decreases the amount of resistant strains of pathogens that make their way to our tables. If we as the general population of consumers write to our

politicians at the state and federal levels we can change the way the Food and Drug
F i n k e | 11
Administration and the Center for Disease Control to regulate the way industrial operations handle their practices and how we penalize those who don't adhere to the laws and regulations set forward by these two organizations. In the future, if we all work to better our practices and become more aware of how the actions we take effect our wellbeing and the ability to continue to grow and prosper, whether it's buying and consuming or it's producing and manufacturing, we can all come to a point where everyone is safer and we need not worry about the ways we obtain our food and the safety of ourselves and our families.

F i n k e | 12
Works Cited
"Industrial Livestock Production." Sustainable Table . Grace Telecommunications Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
"Infectious Disease: Antibiotics in Animal Feed." The American Journal of Nursing 102.2
(February 2002): 57. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
Aarestrup, Frank Møller. "Association between the consumption of antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry and the occurrene of resistant bacteria among food animals."
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Mar. 2014.
12.4 (August 1999): 279-285. Web. 15
Allen, Heather K. and Uri Y. Levine, Torey Looft, Meggan Bandrick, Thomas A. Casey.
"Treatment, promotion, commotion: antibiotic alternatives in food-producing animals."
Trends in Microbiology 21.3 (March 2013): 114-119. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.
Bernfeld, Jeremy. "Beef feedlots grapple with never-ending waste." Harvest Public Media:
Cultivating stories from the ground up . Harvest Public Media Mag., 11 Dec. 2012. Web.
21 Mar. 2014.
Elzen, Boelie and Frank W. Geels, Cees Leeuwis, Barbara van Mierlo. "Normative contestation in transitions 'in the making': Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry." Research Policy 40.2 (March 2011): 263-275. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
Ha Thai, Truong and Takuya Hirai, Nguyen Thi Lan, Ryoji Yamaguchi. "Antibiotic resistance profiles of Salmonella serovars isolated from retail pork and chicken meat in North
Vietnam." International Journal of Food Microbiology
Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
156.2 (15 May 2012): 147-151.
Johnston, A.M.. "Animals and antibiotics." International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 15.3
(September 2001): 291-294. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.

F i n k e | 13
Khan, S.J. and D.J Roser, C.M. Davies, G.M. Peters, R.M. Stuetz, R. Tucker, N.J. Ashbolt.
"Chemical contaminants in feedlot wastes: Concentrations, effects and attenuation."
Environment International 34.6 (August 2008): 839-859. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.
Marshall, Bonnie M. and Stuart B. Levy. "Food Animals and Antimicrobials: Impacts on Human
Health." American Society for Microbiology 24.4 (October 2011): 718-733. Web. 20
Mar. 2014.
Marty, Esther and Chantal Bodenmann, Jasmin Buchs, Ruedi Hadorn, Elisabeth Eugster-Meier,
Christophe Lacroix, Leo Meile. "Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci from spontaneously fermented meat products and safety assessment for new starters." International Journal of Food Microbiology
83. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
159.2 (1 October 2012): 74-
Nobile, Carmelo G.A. and Rosa Costantino, Aida Bianco, Claudia Pileggi, Maria Pavia.
"Prevalence and pattern of antibiotic resistance of Campylobacter spp. in poultry meat in
Southern Italy." Food Control 32.2 (August 2013): 715-718. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.