Definitions:

•“Factory Farm” shall mean a ‘Confined Feeding Operation’(CFO) or ‘Feedlot’ where the high volume of enclosed animals require approval from National Resources Conservation Board(NRCB)

•NOTE: For the purpose of the debate, Family/Traditional Farms are all farms other than Factory Farms

Introduction: “Food on the Table”…… in more ways than one

For putting food on the table, the agricultural sector here in Alberta is at times overlooked and underestimated. When one thinks of Alberta, the oil and gas industry immediately springs to mind as our key economic driver, which it indeed is. However, not far behind, and nearly just as crucial economically, and arguably even more important culturally and socially, is the agricultural sector. Specifically, the livestock industry is interwoven into our economic, social, and cultural well being.

It took a certain spirit, determination, and mindset to head west and homestead. Once here, it was the beauty of the land, the respect for the environment, fused with an ethic of hard work which defined what it was to be Albertan. In that connection, we had to rely on yet respect the livestock that populated our lands. The farming symbolized who we were as Albertans. Even as Alberta has grown economically and technologically through the years, we have not lost that frontier, homestead spirit: Whether a cattle farm in Red Deer or a high rise on Stephen Avenue, the spirit is strong.

The livestock industry also socially stitches us together at the community and family level. Far beyond just earning a living, for many, it is a ‘labor of love.’ Whether it is a small family livestock farm, or a larger factory livestock operation, for the hard working men and women who make them viable and productive, it is part of them. Whether at the dinner table, boardroom table, or local community association hall table, this industry has a “social multiplier” effect and dividend that just cannot be quantified

A Key Economic Engine We Depend On:

.

How did the livestock industry become such a key economic cog creating billions in revenues? At first, the industry was a means of subsistence at the farm level to raise and feed the family. Beyond that, surpluses were sold and livings were etched out. As demand for Albertan meat grew, the entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity of Albertans was un-leashed. Accordingly, farming evolved, and an “industry” was born

Naturally, to meet the increasing demand for our fine locally raised meats domestically, and as international markets grew, the “family farm” had to be augmented by larger, more mechanized, and efficient operations(factory farms) that could attain both economies of scale and scope. While the family livestock farm still exists, it is because of the evolution, and some say revolution of the industry which has allowed Alberta to produce and export billions of dollars worth of proteins for domestic and international consumption at a competitive price. Larger scale farms typically invest in large capital assets that are used to reduce the dependence on labor. These investments can have an impact by increasing labor productivity, decreasing overall employment and reduce prices.

Is Cheaper Better ?

A large portion of the proteins of beef, pork, and poultry, are raised in factory farms that raise thousands of animals in a more efficient, cost effective manner. Although meat consumption at home and abroad has risen the past forty years, the real price per kg (how it hits us in the wallet) has actually decreased during that same span. This fact can be largely explained by labor productivity gains and more efficient farming techniques that can be had in larger factory farms.

However, despite the economic evidence, critics of factory farming say looking solely at the economics grossly excludes several other crucial factors. There are many costs more difficult to quantify, called “externalities.” Among them, factors of health, environment, impact on rural communities, family farms, and animal safety.

Can we afford to put our place in the international market in jeopardy by banning factory farming? Are we farming for quantity over quality? Is that a bad thing? Is traditional farming a viable long term investment for our economy? Should our economy be the primary focus when considering farming methods? Is it the provincial government’s place to put further restrictions and regulations on factory farming methods? Are consumers, both domestic and international, prepared to pay a higher price for proteins produced here in Alberta? Is there a happy medium between the two extremes of factory farming and family farming? Are family farms an “endangered species”?

These are but a few of the issues you are getting ready to explore.  What will be the optimal path for balancing Alberta’s livelihood with the well being of our rural communities, our environment, and our livestock? This will be for you, the Debaters, to decide!

The Issues

The proponents and opponents of factory farming rely on several issues to advance their respective positions. When you mix science, economics, politics, ethics, culture, and assess it through the lens of promoting and protecting Alberta’s vitality and heritage, there are no clear cut winners or losers. The following issues are but a few in this ongoing discussion:

Bigger is Better: Why we need Factory Farming

Our Wallets, our Jobs, Feeding ourselves and the World

Economically, beef and hogs put food on the table via the billions (2.5B of Value Add in Alberta alone) of dollars it generates from exports. Factory farming creates thousands of jobs for those directly and indirectly employed by the sector. Second, the revenues generated by the individuals and corporations both large and small, create the tax base. From that crucial tax base, we are able to create and fund the physical, social, and educational infrastructure that further perpetuates our economic prowess.

It also provides the Albertan economy with much needed diversification away from energy related taxes (like oil royalties and corporate taxes). In short, it not only helps pave the roads, it helps pave the way for us to have an enjoyable, healthy, productive, and happy life in our Albertan communities.

People, politicians, and pundits are likely to agree that the cheaper food, the better for the consumer. With rising costs, stagnant wages, inflation, and an economic crisis that hit in 2008 which we have yet to recover from, food prices are as crucial as ever. As families are working hard to make ends meet, cheap, quality proteins is a necessity. Alberta is not only putting affordable food on the table here domestically, but our exports to the world, namely the United States, China, Japan, and Mexico are also benefiting from our efficient, vibrant livestock industry.

There are a number of reasons why factory farms help:

•First, the use of large scale technology and economies of scale produce high volumes of beef, pork, and poultry at less cost than smaller farms. 

•Second, the expansion and prevalence of factory farms as production has increased with increasing demand, has resulted in increased employment opportunities for Albertans. However, employment per kg of meat produced has gone down because of productivity gains.

•Third, factory farms, like any other corporation, look to invest in the communities in which they operate hence add to the economic and social infrastructure.

Alberta is Canada’s second largest agricultural producer. Of our agri-food exports, fresh/frozen beef, pork, and live cattle are in the top five in terms of revenue generation. According to the government of Alberta, we lead Canada in cattle and calf inventories with cattle production roughly 40% of Alberta’s total farm cash receipts. Beef is Alberta’s number one agri-food export totaling close to one billion dollars in 2009. Due to this critical mass and organization of larger farms, Alberta also is able to commit tens of millions of dollars in research. For example, in 2005, Alberta committed $38 million to Prion research, the proteins best known for their link to mad cow disease.

Alberta has 14% of Canada’s total hog receipts. Stemming from this critical mass, the construction of a $14 million state of the art bio-containment lab was completed, putting Alberta on the cutting edge of animal disease detection and research.

In 2004, Alberta invested $13 million in the Alberta Poultry Research Center in a 5 year partnership with the University of Alberta and other industry and government stakeholders. 

Canada is export dependent when it comes to livestock. Albertans depend on the revenue, the rest of Canada benefits because of transfer payments, and the world relies on us too for affordable products. The ability to produce huge quantities of cheap food, while creating jobs and capital infrastructure in these economically turbulent times seems like a “no brainer.” Or is it?

“Cheap is in the eyes of the Accountant”

There is an old saying, “not everything that can be measured is important, and not everything that is important, can be measured.”

The sheer economics of factory farming tend to dominate discussion and debate. However, critics of factory farming contend that factors such as environmental, health, food quality, animal safety, and the “family fabric” of rural Alberta is being steamrolled by this factory farm machine, and is being silenced by the powerful, vested economic interests.

“Health is Wealth”:

First, the issue of water pollution: a 10,000 hog facility creates the waste equivalent to 25,000 people These farms create so much surplus manure, that it is very difficult to dispose of it all. The liquefied manure can leak into drinking water or spill over land spreading bacterial and viral pathogens, parasites, heavy metals, disinfectants, and insecticides. High levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in water close to factory farms has also been problematic. Not to mention, since factory farms use millions of gallons of water, groundwater depletion can become an issue.

Second, soil contamination occurs from the over-application of waste onto cropland. Since zinc and copper are added to animal feed to prevent disease and improve digestion, heavy metals can also foul the soil and water. Heavy metal buildup in soil stunts plant growth and can poison grazing animals.

Third, air pollution is caused from gaseous emissions from the mass of livestock. Hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia have an adverse impact on those in proximity to factory farms. Respiratory problems such as asthma, loss of lung capacity, chronic bronchitis, airway obstruction, and organic toxic dust syndrome can also occur.

Not to mention, the horrendous smell and odor that surrounds these operations. This can damage not only physical, but mental health as well as it is a constant nuisance. Air pollution also fundamentally alters eco-systems and habitats, and contributes to greenhouse gas and global climate change.

Antibiotic resistance is another health issue. In factory farms, antibiotics are fed to livestock to enhance growth and control disease. Excessive use of antibiotics can cause animals to retain strains of resistant bacteria which are then spread to other animals in the confined conditions. The transfer of resistant bacteria from animals to humans can also occur via contaminated meat or water.

However, the meat industry objects, saying no studies directly link drug resistance in humans to the use of antibiotics in animals. Also, they say consumers benefit from factory farms as these operations can afford to hire consultants who help create safer facilities. Smaller, family farms simply cannot afford these professional experts, and to boot, smaller family farms are not immune to the hazards than can afflict factory farms. Family farms also use hormones, antibiotics and other elements of mechanized farming. Perhaps the “family” is not so innocent after all?

Critics of factory farming also argue that meat produced by this process is cheap because it is of very low quality. In order to mass produce livestock, animals are confined in a smaller space as opposed to a roaming pasture and injected with hormones and a cocktail of other drugs to increase and speed up growth. The animals are also fed food aimed to promote fast growth rather than a “healthy” animal.

Critics also state that a cheap meat supply has an adverse impact on health by encouraging people to eat more of it!! North Americans already eat more protein than many guidelines require. According to a recently published Harvard School of Public Health study that followed 84,000 women over 26 years, found that women who ate two servings per day of red meat had a 30% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease than those who had half a serving per day.

Also, smaller quantities are needed when purchasing traditionally farmed meat as the nutritional value is much higher. In North America, there is a high incidence of people who are stuffing themselves into obesity, yet still coming away hungry. There are simply not enough nutrients in the meat they eat so they eat, and eat, and eat into obesity.

Does meat have to be that cheap? As a society, do we need to step back and ask this question? Is the cheap supply creating the demand? Would a “less is more” attitude be beneficial to us? Yes, prices would increase with decreased supply, but if we ate less of it, this would be offset.

Animal Safety:

Critics say factory farming is very cruel. Close confinement, lack of direct sunlight, lack of space to graze and roam are but a few of the arguments put forth. Further, the overcrowding frequently causes stress, frustration, boredom and joint pains in the animals. This can further saturate and soil the meat of the animal with toxins that are attributable to these conditions.

However, proponents of factory farming argue there is no more cruelty and suffering in factory farming, than there is in traditional family farming. Food has to be produced one way or another, and animals have been herded together, confined, killed and eaten since prehistoric times. Hence, this is not a product, or result of modern factory farming, rather just the method of how human beings eat meat.

If we are going to criticize factory farming on this front, family farming must also be placed under the same scrutiny. Further, the large corporations responsible for factory farming are more easily monitored and regulated, so the animals often are treated better, not worse. Some say animal rights activists have merely politicized the issue, ignoring facts, and have done a spectacular job in ensuring the few isolated incidents receive publicity disproportionate to their significance. Further, mortality rates in feedlots is only about one or two percent. Could traditional farming boast such a statistic?

Farming Decisions: Should be made at the Kitchen Table, Not the Boardroom Table:

With the rapid expansion of farming as a “big business,” players who can attain the critical mass, and access the capital, have squeezed out the “little guy” hence the traditional farm. In this “bigger is better” mindset, the small farmers have essentially been steamrolled by the big corporations and operations. One of the only ways to explain the lower prices of Canadian protein since the 1950s is because of labor productivity gains (or the loss of farmer’s jobs). Is this healthy for the industry?

Critics of factory farms argue that factory farms are not responsible stewards of the land, whereas traditional farmers are. Critics say corporate factory farms have little, if any loyalty or regard for neighbors, the community, or the environment. On traditional farms, the farmers get to know each animal individually and can care for them in a better manner whereas factory farms, the animals are left and ignored. Factory farming operations often target small isolated communities who heavily rely on agriculture and are vulnerable. Some say, all these corporations want is large amounts of cheap water and lax regulations and environmental standards. These corporations often take their profits and pay back shareholders, many of whom are often in other countries.

However, proponents of factory farming see the critical mass as a benefit: Larger farms can afford to have more labor and equipment which can only benefit the animals and the land. Large operations also have the resources and risk tolerance to try new methods, ideas, and technologies that can not only increase production, but increase health and safety for the animals and workers.

Old Macdonald’s Farm is No More? Or will saving it cost us more?

There is much more to this issue than a simple cost benefit analysis. The “family farm” is part and parcel to who we are as Albertans, and a crucial piece of our history and heritage. How do we put a price on that?

As traditional farms are squeezed out, so are communities. The urbanization of Alberta’s economy has a multitude of important effects and side-effects. When a local farm is no longer viable, or cannot compete, there is a negative social, economic, and cultural spinoff that we tend to ignore.

When “Old Macdonald’s” farm is no longer, what have we lost?

Are the days when cows lazily munched their way across green fields a thing of the past? If so, what will we have lost?

But some say banning factory farming will cripple our agricultural sector, and have catastrophic economic consequences. In saving “Old Macdonald’s” farm, what will be lost, and how much will it cost?

Debaters, there are several avenues and issues to explore here. Best of Luck!

Acknowledgements:

1) www.nrcb.gov.ab.ca  Natural Resources Conservation Board (Alberta)

2) www.idebate.org International Debate Education Association

3) www.efones.ca The Edmonton Friends of the North Environment Society

4) www.realtruth.org The Real Truth

5) www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-cheap-protein  The Chicago Tribune

6) www.agric.gov.ab.ca Government of Alberta, Agriculture & Rural Development

7) www.albertacanada.com Government of Alberta

8) www.albertapork.com Alberta Pork

9) www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06 Readers Digest

10) www.beyondfactoryfarming Beyond Factory Farming: Safe Food. Healthy Communities.