Jorge Castro

Professor McClure

Writing 39C

28 April 2018

Historical Conservation Project: Factory Farms- Cattle Industry Literature Review

Introduction:

I shall be reviewing a series and mixture of academic journals, studies and books that have

a hand in decision and understanding regarding the moral and ethical dilemma factory farms

specifically the arena of the beef industry faced in our modern United States. Before continuing or

developing any key points, there should be some giving points and forewarning in relation to the

evidence and complications that I am going to set up and lay put through parts of my paper. One

of the first concerning understanding or something to keep in mind is that these studies will not be

presented necessarily of chronological order in terms of the year it was publish but more so on the

bases of the content and time spam being discuss in the work themselves. The reasoning for this

is that much of the research and findings for this topic are somewhat nuanced and scattered

amongst the years by which at one point it could be studies about the harmful effects of the cattle

industry but then the next or following years are historical perspectives and scope of the situation.

So, upon trying to thread differences of publication years together, the content years will be the

goal and aim of the conservation. Second and final concern is that the evidence themselves can

switch from being general to narrow (vice versa). This is largely due to these papers mentioning

other animals and/or other parties that might be influenced by the adverse of industrial farming or

the specific animal I am interesting is in a same study that refers to the overall idea of factory

farms. With all that being said, through the review of the evidence, a majority of the argument and
dissent with the intensive produces of the industrial farms stem from an list of different reason

which in this review will be broken up to three parts: an moral/ethical stance, to what extent is this

justified or right for us to ‘participate’ in such practices; health disparity, questioning of hazard to

be us the consumers and the animal themselves being exposed to certain chemical and pesticides;

and economical, expenses of the cattle farms and the possible trade off if we’re going to switch to

more humane sustainable alternatives. Through the review, there will be two critical sections that

would be necessary to conduct for the topic to be understood thoroughly which the historical

outlook of said topic, how and why did it occur and the conclusive solution, a brief and foreboding

resolute that paves way an idea of what can be done to fix this issue. It becomes apparent and

comprehensible to know why this topic isn’t openly discussed or challenged very heavily since

there are existing implications for having industrial farms. However, by no means does that suggest

there is no need for critiquing because this problem of cattle industry and factory farms should be

addressed to the public and continue to be debate for to reach for possible changes for both

ourselves and the animal involved.

Historical Examination:

While there isn’t an exact date that indicated the start or beginning of the industrial beef

farms and the influence, the surge and popularity of the consumption of meat and motion in

development of these fields are correlated during the time of World War II. Wilson J. Warren

(2018) in his book, Meat Makes People Powerful: A Global History of Modern Era, came to the

idea and assumption that the meat itself have become a global phenomenon; a worldwide testament

to the political changes and shaping after this war (103). Warren devolves into the observation that

“A reordering of the global food regimes occurred immediately after the war, which facilitated the

structural expansion of meat production and consumption outside…” (103). The account serves as
the pivoting starting point of the historical lenses of the topic: the meat and idea of meat was

implemented as a sort of political lash and subversion from the outcome of the war itself. Warren

expands on the term, “Second Food Regime” that acts as the labeling era of how meat progressed

to attachment and necessity to people’s daily diet and eatery. Indeed, meat and the cattle industry

were proliferated and reinforce through the means of other increasing exportation such as grain

and livestock production after the WW2 (106). As Warren explained, “State support for agriculture

was a cornerstone of the second food regime; and government policies made meat production a

priority… (106). Thus, it’s explicitly throughout in the book and the observation that the ‘need for

meat’ was an increasingly sanction and absorbing tact as it was steadily transforming to the norm

of our everyday culture and as population density and such drove up, the cattle industry rose as

well and increased productivity through industrialization.

In that same light and political timeline, there was a great deal of socialization and

propaganda pertaining to that the popularity of the cattle industry and factory farms during those

pre- and post- WW2. Katherine Jellison, Get Your Farm in the Fight: Farm Masculinity in World

War 2 (2018) emphasized that during this time of the war, “the United States needed to raise a

sufficient military force while at the same time maintaining a sizable farm labor force to meet

increased wartime production goals” (5). Now, the evidence may seem vaguely general or perhaps

to general, but it is an important notoriety and fact to know about the tandem between our history

with meat and factory farms in a whole picture. Zeroing in on the specific start of the factory farms

for cattle industry has little or minimal amount of actual studies but rather a mixture and stretch of

a variety of prospects and examination of its association with factory farming.

Morality/Ethics:

Morals or morality has been generally understood and defined as concerned with the

principles of right and wrong behavior or reflectively the goodness or badness of human character

and nature of our actions. For the ethics portion of the discuss, it is referred to as the moral

principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. Moral and ethics go to

hand since the morals, values and beliefs in dissection guide the actual behavior and practices of

our ethics. In the discussion of cattle industry and of factory farms, it raises several red flags and

concerns that jeopardizes and tips the balance and framework of what is morally right and what is

the ethical action to approach this problem. Moral and ethical arguments are sort of an escapable

boundaries by which I mean there’s hardly a way out of it or avoiding even in the cases of a

research analysis or study of this topic. Much of the papers and evidence that will be presented

their own framework of what is morally justifiable and ethically comprehensible when dealing

with this issue. Now, in the review of these evidence there are patterns and existing consistency of

what might be the issue overall, so consensus is possible and valid to be seen.

Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farms (2010), Evelyn B. Pluhar in her abstract

stated that “Scientists have shown that the practice of factory farming is an increasingly urgent

danger to human health, the environment, and nonhuman welfare” (455). Pluhar already created

and generated key three points that can be seem in other academic journals and research of similar

topics- animal welfare, human health and environmental concerns. These are the foundational

basis for a moral/ethical discourse since the three pillars reveals readily standing concerns in

problems that these aspects revolve around. For instance, Pluhra did research on the investigating

results of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. She claimed that

“intensively confined nonhuman animals. Life is nasty, brutish, and (the one mercy) short. Who
of us would wish to change places for a day with a factory-farmed hen, ‘‘broiler,’’ turkey, veal

calf, foie gras duck, pig, or even a feedlot steer? Even if part of the exchange were amnesia about

one’s human life and commensurately decreased intelligence for a day, the pain, boredom, and

stress would probably be crippling”(457). The basis of this argument revolves around the premise

of the animal capability to be sentient- able to feel pain and emotion and subsequently can suffer

similarly to us. This moral value has been a continuum and constant pinpoint for signaling the

horrific practices of the industrial framing practice on cattle and animals such as castration and

stun pounding. The framework here creates the notion of sympathy- that we should feel a degree

of sympathy for the suffering and cruelty brought upon the slaughtering of cattle and animals in

general within the perimeter of the slaughterhouse backed by the industrialized farms.

This notion of moral sympathy is implemented in Concepts of Animal Health and Welfare

In Organic Livestock Systems,(2014) co-author by Metter Vaarst and Hugo F. Alroe. The idea of

caring morally for animals (cattle) in the industrial farms is “thereby closely linked to the idea that

animals are in certain senses equal to humans and therefore equally worthy of moral consideration

(Singer, 1975), and unlike the Kantian notion that we should treat animals humanely only because

‘tender feelings towards dumb animals develop humane feelings towards mankind’” (Vaarst and

Alroe 338). The preliminary basis of the argument is like Pluhra, is that cattle and animal welfare

are prominent features of the moral arena- that is we should try to fix the problems of the factory

farms not solely to makes us appear better but because it should be ethically corrected in our

behavior. At this point, moral sympathy builds the premise of the ‘care principle’ which sets up

the launching pad for forward improvements for the industry. Jonathan Anomaly, What’s Wrong

With Factory Farming? (2014), made the claim that a plausible theory and sturdy theory of moral

sentience is to maintain the assumption that animals are capable sentience of emotions that are
entitled or should have a level of protection or consideration of their treatment in the industry

(249).

Health Concerns:

As stated and discussed in the moral/ethical part of the review, health concern particularly

of the animals are another tension risen farce in terms of the condition the cattle (or animals) in

the industrial farms are living in. These conditions include the confinement and small spaces of

captivity and the feedlots procedure and practices involved with maintain the body size of a cattle.

Once more, in par with those procedure, the cattle are exposed to antibiotics of specific chemicals

to prevent viruses and diseases from infecting the animals. However, in current reaches, the

antibiotics used in animals with put them at great risk for it may cause unforeseen changes their

anatomy or livelihood as a species and the consumption of “chemically farmed” cattle may prose

a threat to our own health and safety. Animal health for cows refers to maintain a free-range or

reasonable species cage that allows for free movement and the subsequent changing from an

industrial farm to a sustainable one. I will be looking at detailed and meticulous evidence that

undergo research of the cattle health welfare and condition of the industrial farms.

Economical:

The final and essential characteristic that is in collaboration with concept of cattle industry

and problematic concepts is economical justification. One of the defending argument of any

industrial farm is that these practices and methods are deeply attached and ingrained to our culture

and economy that it would be rather impossible to let go of it. In addition to that, the cost of using

the industrial frames produces a large market of cheap products and produce that it can be tempting

to want to continue and leave the farms alone. The problem here is the lack of consideration and

factoring of cattle and their own welfare and rights. Insinuated in much of my reviewed evidence,
the research suggests that the costs of changing our society to a more sustain one is underwhelmed

by the long-term benefits it can produce and cultivate. The trade off losing cheap meat products

such as cattle or anything else such as poultry will be worth the disconnect from as the farms

become more suitable for the animals to be slaughter in and has many more healthy effects for us

as we consume properly raised cattle.

Conclusive Factor: Resolution

Prompted and seen through out the review in bits of segments and comments here and

there, were mentioning of stable sustainable agriculture. The fact remains that factory farms are

integrated into our society because of the line of production being made and demanded rate being

asked for it. Businesses and properties of one frequently seek out and grasp their hands on gaining

this benefit to sell the public. But as the public themselves have made increasingly small but

exponentially sizing voices regarding the cattle industry the it becomes clear that a change must

be made. It is uncomfortably so to know the horrific and injectates animals face themselves when

residing in these industries. Medical and health concerns are brought up when looking at tree

consumer-product relation between us buying these products and the animals going through the

process.
 Work Cited

Anomaly, Jonathan. What’s Wrong With Factory Farming?, Public Health Ethics, Volume 8,

Issue 3, 1 November 2015, Pages 246–254, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu001

Centner, Terence J. "Limitations on the Confinement of Food Animals in the United

States." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 23, no. 5, 2010, pp. 469

486. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/750069344?accountid=14509,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9225-y.

Jellison, Katherine. "Get Your Farm in the Fight: Farm Masculinity in World War

II."Agricultural History, vol. 92, no. 1, 2018, pp. 5-20. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/2017009168?accountid=14509,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3098/ah.2018.092.1.005.

McKenna, Erin. “Better Options Moving Forward: Examining Slaughter and Limiting

Consumption.” Livestock: Food, Fiber, and Friends, University of Georgia Press,

ATHENS, 2018, pp. 209–234. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1vhtrbh.13.

Pluhar, Evelyn B. "Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming." Journal of Agricultural

and Environmental Ethics, vol. 23, no. 5, 2010, pp. 455-468. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/750069225?accountid=14509,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x.

Rossi, John, and Samual A. Garner. "Industrial Farm Animal Production: A Comprehensive

Moral Critique." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 27, no. 3, 2014,

pp. 479-522. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1529723385?accountid=14509,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9497-8.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural

sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671-7.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01014

Warren, Wilson J. “The Political Economy of Meat after World War II.” Meat Makes People

Powerful: A Global History of the Modern Era, University of Iowa Press, IOWA CITY,

2018, pp. 103–129. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt201mq1r.10.

Vaarst, M., & Alrøe, H.,F. (2012). Concepts of animal health and welfare in organic livestock

systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(3), 333-347.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9314-6

Wagner, John & L Archibeque, Shawn & Feuz, Dillon. (2014). The Modern Feedlot for

Finishing Cattle. Annual review of animal biosciences. 2. 535-54. 10.1146/annurev

animal-022513-114239.