"free-range" and the environment

[CharityAJO]

I know all about the harmful effects of the meat, egg, and dairy industries on our environment.

But can someone help me out with some facts/stats on just how different the so-called "free-range" farms are?

Or maybe just some arguing points?

[Irizary]

I'm not fully sure what arguing points you're looking for, but one thing I'd like to point out is that, regardless of the conclusion environmentally, it wouldn't really be possible to supply americans with large amounts of free range animals anyway... Excerped from "How Free is Free-Range":

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php

How Free Is “Free-Range”?

...

Is a Truly Free-Range World Possible?

The U.S. animal agribusiness industry currently confines and slaughters more than ten billion land animals each year, the overwhelming majority of whom live intensively confined on factory farms where many cannot even turn around or fully stretch their limbs. Would it be possible to raise ten billion animals without intense confinement? Probably not.

If intense confinement operations were banned, it's highly unlikely producers could supply an entire nation of 280 million meat-, egg-, and dairy consumers with enough animal products to sustain the typical American diet. So, without even considering the ethical problems inherent in raising and slaughtering animals for food, from a practical perspective, completely humane farming and slaughtering methods aren't possible.

[meatless]

I think it's that even if an animal is "free range" he/she is still consuming the same amount of grain/soy as their non-free range counterparts and is an inefficient way to feed people for that reason.

So the environmental argument of consumption and waste of grain resources stands regardless of if the animal is factory farmed or not. For the most part, anyway. My dad raises his own chickens for food (i hate it hate it hate it) but feeds them mostly vegetable and fruit scraps that otherwise would have been thrown out/composted. That makes the environmental impact less (although I am opposed to raising animals for food, period.)

[CharityAJO]

Good point, meatless. I was thinking more along the lines of, like, when waste from these "farms" goes rolling off into the Potamac River... That's a really obvious environmental hazard. I was wondering how much waste is produced on one of those "traditional family farms."

Anyway, that is still true about grain consumption... Which I will surely bring up. Thanks. :)

[froggythefrog]

The environmental impact from a truly free-range farm would be a lot less, simply because you would have fewer animals per plot of land than you do on a factory farm. I suspect -- without any research -- that you would still have runoffs and lagoons just from the US' sheer demand for meat.

[nova]

The environmental impact from a truly free-range farm would be a lot less, simply because you would have fewer animals per plot of land than you do on a factory farm. I suspect -- without any research -- that you would still have runoffs and lagoons just from the US' sheer demand for meat.

I'm not sure if the environmental impact would be any less.

For one thing, the animals would eat more food because they're moving around (and probably less sheltered, therefore more energy expended keeping warm).

Grazing animals, e.g. cows, also have a detrimental impact on soil structure through trampling, which would affect amounts of runoff etc. - when the soil gets compacted there is more runoff as water cannot percolate through.

If the cows have access to a stream for water, an awful lot of faeces etc. is going to end up in there.

Granted, there are going to be fewer animals per meter squared, but the same amount of pollution will be generated, it will just be more diffuse. It will also be degraded naturally and percolation through the soil before it hits the water table will lessen the impact somewhat, but if animals are factory farmed isn't there legislation in place to ensure that the waste is responsibly disposed of, i.e. in landfill? I know this opens a whole new kettle of fish.

Sorry, not a very coherent post, just thinking 'out loud' fishing for ideas.

[Ludi]

The only "free-range" system which allows for safe organic disposal of the chicken poo is pastured poultry, in which the chickens are kept in moveable pens on grass. As far as I know, no large-scale commercial free-range chickens are raised this way, as it requires too much hand labor in moving the pens. "Free-range" just means the chickens are let outside in a dirt pen, doesn't mean they are less crowded or on grass or any of those nice things.

[Ludi]

but if animals are factory farmed isn't there legislation in place to ensure that the waste is responsibly disposed of, i.e. in landfill? I know this opens a whole new kettle of fish.



No, sadly in many cases the waste is put in holding "lagoons" which overflow if it rains too much, polluting groundwater and local streams.

[nova]

Yes but the slurry (if it doesn't rain too much) needs to be landspread (there are restrictions on when - due to rain etc. for runoff) or brought to a wastewater treatment plant (at least in EU).

I know illegal dumping into rivers etc. does occur.

With overflow - is there less of an impact since the overflow will presumably be diluted somewhat, also will be entering the watercourse in 'full spate' and so get diluted again, thereby minimising impact?

I know that with some wastewater treatment plants, they store sewage in lagoons like that to ensure a 'constant flow' into the plant. With higher than normal rainfall, some will escape to watercourses, but according to a lecturer (admittedly he works a lot with wastewater treatment, but seems very concerned about freshwaterways) there is not too much of an impact because of the dilution factor.

BTW, I'm not 'rooting' for factory farming here, just curious as to whether it is any worse for the environment than 'free range'.

[Irizary]

It's all good...


The manure slurry of factory farms is full of heavy metals like copper, nickel and manganese because the animals do not digest all that is in their feed as growth supplements. Spreading large amounts of these metals regularly over fields is dangerous. "Once there's a toxicity, you can't remove it," says soil scientist Fred Cox of North Carolina State University. "Plants won't grow there. The soil damage is permanent." But that's not the end of it. Runoff from the fields also flushes the metals, along with excessive nitrogen and phosphorus from the manure, into waterways and public drinking supply watersheds. Studies confirm that elevated levels of the heavy metals interfere with fish and wildlife reproduction. Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus also trigger overproduction of algae blooms, which can choke aquatic life, make drinking water smell bad and taste worse and, in some cases, release algal toxins that can cause gastroenteritis.

"Heavy metals won't break down," says Terry Spence, who has monitored the water around a neighboring Premium Standard Farms' facility. "The limit for manganese, for example, is 50 parts per liter. But it has run 170 times that" in the local stream.

Hog wastes contain parasites, bacteria and viruses, including salmonella, campylobacter, e. coli, cryptosporidium, giardia, cholera, streptococcus and chlamydia. Concentrations of hog manure in leaky lagoons increases the probability of drinking water contamination. Cryptosporidium and giardia, for example, resist conventional chlorination. These traveling pathogens come not only from leaky lagoons but also from on-site burial of thousands of dead pigs, according to the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service's swine odor task force.

Nine hog factory lagoon spills within just five months in 1995 brought home to Missourians the ecological and human health dangers that industrial livestock operations pose. The death toll for that spate of Missouri spills came in at a quarter of a million fish and 25 miles of stream habitat.

Other states reported spills and kills, too. In the first nine months of 1995 alone, four states reported a total of 16 spills.

Lagoon leaks are less visible but perhaps more common and threatening. Factory farm operators claim that the manure slurry commonly stored in earthen pits creates its own seal as solids sink to the bottom. But several scientific tests suggest that's not the case....
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/hwenv.html


Every year factory farms dump 220 billion gallons of animal waste onto farmland, much of which ends up polluting our waterways, posing a major threat to the environment and public health, according to a report released today by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and the Clean Water Network. The report, the most comprehensive one to date on waste lagoons, calls on the Bush administration to phase out waste lagoons at large-scale hog, dairy and egg farms, and ban the construction of new ones.
...

Citing scientific studies and documentation of air and water pollution, the report "Cesspools of Shame," documents the dangers posed by factory farm lagoons, which store massive quantities of animal waste in open-air lagoons. Lagoon wastewater contains viruses, bacteria, antibiotics, metals, oxygen-depleting substances and other toxins that run off the land, contaminate the groundwater, and pollute the atmosphere....
http://www.earthweshare.org/n/pr_lagoons072401.htm

[markc7]

The environmental impact from a truly free-range farm would be a lot less, simply because you would have fewer animals per plot of land than you do on a factory farm. I suspect -- without any research -- that you would still have runoffs and lagoons just from the US' sheer demand for meat.

The environmental effects might be slightly worse. As you said, there would be fewer animals per plot of land, but because the demand is unchanged, that means a greater area of land that would have to be used for agriculture.

Free range or not, organic or not, argiculture is devestating to biodiversity. Not just because of the chemicals or fetilizers used in modern farming, but simply because it forces native species (plant and animal) off the land.

[anthony11]

With overflow - is there less of an impact since the overflow will presumably be diluted somewhat, also will be entering the watercourse in 'full spate' and so get diluted again, thereby minimising impact?

Not enough to matter. When the spills happen, they tend to be massive -- tens or hundreds of thousands of gallons of concentrated waste.

[meatless]

the demand is unchanged

I think the demand would be less, because if people had no option of factory farmed meat and had to pay the price of organic meat people would eat a LOT less meat. A primary reason it is so prevalent in the north american diet is because it is cheap and plentiful. :|

[anthony11]

I think the demand would be less, because if people had no option of factory farmed meat and had to pay the price of organic meat people would eat a LOT less meat.|

That doesn't seem to have worked for tobacco or gas-guzzlers.

[meatless]

That doesn't seem to have worked for tobacco or gas-guzzlers.


Smoking is WAY down, at least in Canada. And gas-guzzling is thanks to the rich people who can afford luxury cars. If people have to pay $10 for a happy meal instead of $5 most people will think twice. If a whole chicken costs $15 instead of $7 at the grocery store, people WILL think twice. If a box of chicken nuggets is $20 instead of $8, same thing. People eat meat 2-3 times a day because it is cheaper than other alternatives. I just can't see most low-middle income people continuing to mindlessly consume as much meat if it's cost doubles. Most can't afford it, and others will think twice. It may not stop the affluent, but it will affect at least 50% of the North American population.

[Ludi]

Changing to an environmentally appropriate form of agriculture would require fundamental changes in large segments of our economy and way of life, so, it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.

[markc7]

Smoking is WAY down, at least in Canada. And gas-guzzling is thanks to the rich people who can afford luxury cars. If people have to pay $10 for a happy meal instead of $5 most people will think twice. If a whole chicken costs $15 instead of $7 at the grocery store, people WILL think twice. If a box of chicken nuggets is $20 instead of $8, same thing. People eat meat 2-3 times a day because it is cheaper than other alternatives. I just can't see most low-middle income people continuing to mindlessly consume as much meat if it's cost doubles. Most can't afford it, and others will think twice. It may not stop the affluent, but it will affect at least 50% of the North American population.

I think smoking is down mostly because of huge public health initiatives like anti-smoking campaigns, and greater restrictions on advertising and the places where smoking is permitted.

If meat were to increase in price by 50 or 100% overnight, your absolutely right that people would sit up and take notice. But just like gas, people will keep buying any product as long as the price increase is gradual. I really doubt that raising the price of meat would have much of an impact. Besides which, we know for certain that the gov'ts of Canada and the US would subsidize meat production anyways. :down:

Boy, I sound so cynical. I'm not, really! :)