This paper examines the intricacies of factory farming by analyzing its social, political, economic, and environmental impacts in an age of capitalist consumption. Factory farming has become a pervasive institution with which most Americans engage on a daily basis by consuming meat and other animal derivatives. This mode of food production has vastly exacerbated the effects of climate change while creating a plethora of health, ecological and social problems. My research utilizes sentiment analysis to reveal the nature of factory farm discourse. Understanding the use of rhetoric is important because it brings to light the incongruity between action and speech. Oftentimes, institutional actors use carefully crafted rhetoric in order to shape public opinion in their favor. As such, the issue of factory farming can only be fully understood when we take care to assess the actors’ language. This approach helps illuminate how institutional actors deal with animal welfare and environmental concerns. In order to accomplish my goal, which is to explain the role of politics and discourse within the realm of factory farming, I apply a data-oriented approach by using natural language processing in Python to investigate institutional documents. My findings suggest that corporations and NGOs treat factory farming largely in positive terms, given their sentiment score. On the other hand, governmental bodies’ results show nearly neutral scores as they discuss the issue both in negative and positive terms. This reveals the potential for external variables which may influence the way in which these actors approach their discourse. Ultimately, I argue that this discursive analysis can inform the truth behind factory farming, while suggesting possible alternatives that value both human and animal wellbeing.
The topic of factory farming has come to be a very complex matter. Involving a plethora of actors and producing profound social, economic, health and environmental consequences, the subject holds relevance in many fields of study. Thus, my research will combine critical analysis and discursive study in order to examine the issue of factory farms. Moreover, I intend for this research to shed some light on the available literature as well as the institutional actors at play. However, prior to the details, I will provide some general background knowledge to set the scope of this paper. Throughout the paper, the terms factory farms and CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) will be used interchangeably. As such, The Cambridge Dictionary defines factory farming as, “a system of farming in which a lot of animals are kept in a small closed area, in order to produce a large amount of meat, eggs, or milk as cheaply as possible” (Factory Farming, n.d.). The advent of factory farms marked a prolific point in history due to the resulting production of massive quantities of food for a growing human population. However, it has enabled very costly ramifications for the environment and humans alike. Likewise, there are a variety of actors involved in this process, namely corporations, NGOs, governmental bodies, and lobbying groups. Therefore, I inquire, “What degree does the language of these actors reflect their true intentions? Moreover, what sentiment does each actor demonstrate in relation to CAFOs, and what other institutional factors may be at play?”
Of course, one must ask, “Why are these questions important in the first place?” They are important because language is a discernible marker of how actors attempt to portray themselves to the public. Likewise, asking these questions allows us to see how these major players view the issue (or non-issue) of factory farming and its subsequent effects. Ultimately, these questions are significant because their responses reveal the true extent of the alignment between the actors' underlying intentions and their public story. We must have a way to evaluate this relationship, which is precisely why I implement sentiment analysis, an objective form of data inquiry. This is done with the hope that we can highlight the institutional factors at play and their role in policy-making. This is a multifaceted issue, and my analysis attempts to bring various factors together. Ultimately, discourse and policy are intimately related, which makes language a powerful analytical tool. Thus, I will begin my analysis with a formal literature review and follow this with the research itself.As the prevalence of animal agriculture has increased in modern times, it has severely exacerbated the effects of global climate change. The primary evidence for this impact is through greenhouse gas emissions. Cole et al. (2009) note that, “meat and dairy products contribute more than 50% of the total GHGs emitted from the food chain,” (p. 162). Meanwhile, the FAO of the United Nations reports a figure of “18% as the global contribution of the animal farming sector to GHG emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006)” (Cole et al., 2009, p. 162). While this is not as significant as the energy sector, it marks an important contribution to the global climate. This is precisely why Garnett (2009) says, “[M]eat and dairy products are the foods carrying the greatest environmental burden” (p. 491). Moreover, this problem has proliferated at an accelerated rate because of the very structure of the capitalist system. Mass-scale efficiency is prioritized over smaller, sustainable modes of production. While the United States enjoys unprecedented outputs of food, it risks environmental calamity as climate change continues to worsen. GHG emissions are far from being curtailed, one study reporting that “[global] emissions could increase by a further 17 percent by 2050 (Bennetzen et al., 2016)” (Garnett, 2017, p. 33). Furthermore, accelerated climate change is not the sole consequence of factory farming.
With the increased demand for meat output, the animals themselves require increased input. This has resulted in detrimental environmental impact, as the farmed animals (specifically cattle) demand large quantities of soy and grain for feeding. Unsustainable practices such as the continuous production of corn and soy cause the land to become arid (Garnett, 2009, p. 493-494). Likewise, this endless production has caused vast swathes of forest land to be cleared (Garnett, 2009, p. 494). This is done on a massive scale, all for the raising and production of livestock (Garnett, 2017, p. 39). Coupled with overgrazing, this has caused desertification, which has effectively reduced the amount of usable land (Horrigan et al, 2002, p, 447). Animal agriculture has indirect impacts on water quality as well. Cassuto (2010) explains, “Worldwide, such livestock-related land use changes as deforestation and overgrazing cause desertification, ground water and soil contamination, and other environmental problems” (p. 9). CAFOs cause a myriad of environmental harms, each problem linked to another, such as sea level rise, increased natural disasters and loss of biodiversity. Of course, factory farms are only exacerbating these impacts. This is precisely why the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) called factory farming the “largest threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function of any single human activity” (as cited in Weis, 2010b, p. 136). Overall, the ecological footprint of CAFOs is potentially devastating if it continues at such massive rates. If we wish to prevent the worst of the consequences, we have to ask, “How has this problem manifested in the first place?” I argue that we must examine the nature of capitalism in order to answer this question.
Now that the link between factory farming, environmental degradation, and climate change has been established, I address the economic foundation that allows for it. Capitalism has achieved something amazing in that it revolutionized the means of production, so much so that we have evolved into a massive consumer society. Now more than ever, we can get anything we need with the upmost rapidity. However, this comes with a dire cost; there are severe biophysical consequences for such increased production (Weis, 2010a). This massive level of consumption requires an equally large amount of input, namely through natural resources. Thus, the capitalist class accumulates capital by exploiting the environment for its resources. A quintessential example of this exploitation is the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy. As Weis (2010b) points out, “The failure to account for the atmospheric burden associated with fossil energy, and its impact on the Earth’s climate system, represents one of the most fundamental biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalism” (p. 318-319). This contradiction is a fundamental aspect of our current climate crisis. There is an inherent conflict between the way in which the capitalist system produces mass goods for a consumer society and the way in which capital overuses the environment (Moore, 2016). Interestingly, this is why Moore (2016) claims that the world is not in the age of the Anthropocene, but the “Capitalocene.” He explains that world history is in “the ‘Age of Capital’—and the era of capitalism as a world-ecology of power, capital, and nature” (p. 6). Therefore, capitalism pursues its power through the co-production of nature by transforming it into a commodity. Although, it seems that the environmental consequences of production will eventually prevent the further accumulation of capital because these ramifications will create a limited supply of resources and fundamentally alter Earth’s climate system, thereby making it harder to produce goods.
Thus, we have found ourselves in a scenario akin to the tragedy of the commons. As corporations take natural resources or pollute the Earth so much so that we can no longer obtain resources, the system will hit an inescapable point of collapse. In theory, capitalism provides the best allocation of resources which in turn produces economic growth and social prosperity (Magdoff, 2015). However, the system does not function this way—capitalism has overexploited and endangered its very foundation of power. The Age of Capital relies on nature for its success, but if capital accumulation relies on the unsustainable depletion of natural resources, capitalism runs on a damning contradiction (Magdoff, 2015). The consequences for both the Earth and the future accumulation of wealth are disastrous. Referring to the tragedy of the commons, Magdoff (2015) states, “A rational economic decision for each individual farmer goes against the supposed capitalist economic logic and ends up being irrational for the entire group of farmers together” (p. 13). Similarly, as Weis (2010a) argues, all of the rational capitalists have overexploited in order to accumulate massive amounts of capital. Unfortunately, this has resulted in an irrational outcome for the entire group. Weis (2010a) states, “[T]he deceptive efficiency of industrial capitalist agriculture and its manifestation in cheap, bountiful food have long overshadowed the instability and inequalities of the system” (p. 317-318). So, the question that we must inevitably ask is this: “Can Capitalism solve a crisis of its own making?”
Unfortunately, the answer that I provide is not very optimistic. I say this because the United States’ excessive consumption and increased reliance on factory farms may make a capitalistic solution impossible. High rates of consumption contribute to growing levels of greenhouse gas emissions from the animal agriculture industry (Cole et al., 2009). Thus, I must analyze the issue of animal agriculture in relationship to the greater issue of mass consumerism.
To begin, Lavin (2009) argues that industrial animal agriculture rose to prominence as it integrated “the mechanization, division of labor, and intensified regulation of activities endemic to industrial manufacture” (p. 72). More so, the advent of factory farming came with the increased demand for meat and dairy while capitalist production continued to accelerate. In this way, farming became a factory system because its sole purpose was to exponentiate the production of goods for consumers (Lavin, 2009). Moreover, Lavin marks a second driving factor of consumption: capital concentration (p. 73). While the factorization of food production certainly sounds like an appropriate solution for a growing population, the incentive to factorize has been driven by the desire for more wealth. Lavin makes a compelling point as he analyzes various critiques of factory farming. Namely, “the common theme of these critiques, similar to others of industrial life, is that the pursuit of efficiency causes great harm to people, animals and the environment” (p. 76). Therefore, industrial life does not just produce negative outcomes for the animals, but also for the environment and the humans in it.
Perhaps the most important factor when it comes to the rise of animal agriculture in the age of consumption is the commodification of animals. Capitalism has transformed living beings into products that are bought and sold on the market. This fact is crucial to understanding the United States (and global) food system because it reveals the way in which capital can control what the public eats. As such, Gunderson (2013) explains that “the primary purpose of rearing livestock today is not to create food, but to make money – or, for exchange values, not use values” (p. 261). This is precisely why authors have been raising awareness about the possible health concerns associated with industrial animal agriculture (Horrigan et al., 2002). Production for exchange value is not a new thing, but rather, a historical fact of production that has emerged in tandem with mass consumerism. Likewise, this is not unique to factory farming. In fact, capitalism has relied on the categorization of exchange value as its basis for capital accumulation. Unsurprisingly, Marx pointed this out long ago: “Use-value, not exchange-value, is the purpose of the whole system of production, and use-values accordingly cease to be use-values and become means of exchange, or commodities, only when a larger amount of them has been produced than is required for consumption” (as cited in Gunderson, 2013, p. 261). Evidently, mass consumerism is only a new stage in the process of capital accumulation.
The process of commodification has accelerated over the years, resulting in unprecedented levels of meat and dairy consumption. As Lavin (2009) demonstrates, the power of food production now lies in the hands of corporations. Not only does this have ramifications for the animals themselves, but also for the consumers. Lavin explains how in becoming a consumer society, the burden of discipline now falls onto the consumers instead of producers (p. 85). It is no longer the obligation of corporations to engage in ethical production; this notion comes with a plethora of quandaries and injustices. This newest stage of commodification enables corporations and producers to move the blame to consumers. Meanwhile, Lavin argues that this has marked a transformation in the way corporations control their workers and the public. Quoting two prolific authors, Hardt and Negri, Lavin explains, “Now, individuals are monitored and regulated not only when they visit the factory, schoolhouse, or hospital, but also in more prosaic and ubiquitous ways in their daily activities; disciplinary power spreads across this space, with the result that coercive authority organizes subjects ‘in the totality of their activities’” (p. 84). Hardt and Negri demonstrate how corporations intervene by accumulating information on us. This is no surprise in the age of big data. However, the individual’s information is now collected in a more casual manner, through the products one consumes. It is this buying history that informs corporations about each person in society.
Furthermore, Lavin (2009) goes on to show the intense effects of mass consumerism. He states, “My position in cultural politics depends not on my status as worker or owner, but my preference for NASCAR or lattes. This is surely why the factory metaphor travels to so many domains of life: the concerns about alienation and control that inhere in the metaphor are not anachronistic in an age of casualized labor; they are instead generalized to work, leisure, and politics” (p. 85). In this sense, commodification has bled into all aspects of society, including politics. Corporations can now control consumer life through indirect and untraceable means. Likewise, commodification is intimately connected to the discourse corporations use to attract consumers. Under modern capitalism, this is the only means of control that corporations need. Corporations dominate the consumer narrative, selling people the idea that they need to eat more meat. They shape discourse in a way that appears to shift decision-making onto the consumers, while masking their true intentions. Gunderson (2013) explains how the notion of ethical consumerism is simply a means to defer decision-making to the individual without effecting significant change. “‘Ethical consumerism’ is a reflection of bourgeois market ideology that alienated individuals are expected to subscribe to,” he says. “The problem is that individualist ethical consumerism is not only limited and ineffective in the face of larger socioeconomic forces, but it also halts social justice movements from pursuing radical means of altering society because they have been co-opted” (p. 269). The author makes it incredibly clear that not only is the promotion of ethical consumerism a calculated move by capitalist powers, but it is also an extremely ineffective tool when it comes to creating meaningful change. Instead of trying to change the system that allows this, ethical consumerism reduces actions to the individual level. As we will later find out, this is reinforced by a manipulative rhetoric, furnished by corporations and rich investors to further their agenda.
Of course, many still argue that capitalism is not the cause of this crisis. Green investors and the like try to argue that a free market solution is just beyond the horizon. Corporations have now “greened” themselves by transitioning to more sustainable energy usage and more environmentally friendly practices. However, authors have rightly pointed out that these individuals are simply trying to capitalize on the downfall of fossil fuels. While the capitalists may be taking measures that seemingly benefit everyone, they are only attempting to gain wealth for themselves. Regardless of their prerogative, capitalism’s goal is endless growth, and that can never be compatible with sustainability (Guerrero, 2018). Likewise, Big Green (highly influential environmental organizations like the NRDC, Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy etc.) are not a great option either. All of these entities attempt to address symptoms of the climate crisis rather than the root of the problem: capitalism. Furthermore, Naomi Klein (2014) claims that these Big Green organizations are actually linked to fossil fuel companies. They attempt to implement policies that are seemingly better for the environment; meanwhile, they are sympathetic towards corporations (Klein, 2014, p. 198). This is no surprise considering Big Green has often taken funding from fossil fuel corporations. Klein goes on to explain that “several of these groups have consistently, and aggressively, pushed responses to climate change that are the least burdensome, and often directly beneficial, to the largest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet” (p. 198-199). Thus, environmental NGOs are attempting to institute a green capitalism that will only result in austerity and further environmental degradation.
This form of “sustainable capitalism” is an oxymoron in itself. Guerrero (2018) argues, “A growth-driven and market-dependent system is incompatible with environmental security” (p. 43). In actuality, corporations simply try to disguise their actions as green and eco-efficient so they can build public support while continuing their exploitative actions. For this reason, Magdoff and Foster (2010) assert that “a system that has only one goal, the maximization of profits, has no soul, can never have a soul, can never be green, and, by its very nature, it must manipulate and fabricate whims and wants” (p. 19). This two-faced nature of capitalism is seen in corporate rhetoric which disguises its sentiment towards factory farms as positive. The truly unsettling part is that many of these claims are nothing but ploys, just a means of masking the unethical exploitation. In fact, Clark (2012) explains, “[W]hat is perhaps most troubling of all about these practices is that an even shrewder, more calculating, and more ruthless efficiency is being celebrated as ‘ecoefficiency,’ greenwashing the underlying violence” (p. 120). This is in complete accordance with capitalism’s nature; it has always tried to hide its unjust and unethical practices. The oppression of animals and workers alike is simply a byproduct of capitalism. Just as I pointed out previously, the heart of this problem lies in the inherent contradiction between capital and the environment. This being said, the most significant aspect of green capitalism is not its contradiction, but the façade it creates. Capitalism has managed to co-opt discourse and maintain power by manipulating what the public hears.
While actions are a key indicator of how an actor regards a particular issue, discourse can be much more useful in showing how an underlying sentiment may define those actions. Therefore, I spend a considerable amount of time detailing the actions of factory farm stakeholders and highlighting how these various actors’ decisions are intertwined with one another. This coupled with a discursive analysis can reveal the political alignments of the actors as they pertain to animal agriculture. In other words, I will reveal the underlying coalitions that form around the issue of factory farming and greater environmental problems such as climate change. Moreover, this will help explain how our system comes to make decisions and whether confounding factors (such as increased capital) disrupt ethical policymaking. This section will fulfill two important roles within my analysis: it will establish the significance of discourse in politics, and it will demonstrate how current authors interpret rhetoric surrounding issues of the environment and animal welfare.
Foremost, I want to provide a discursive basis for why discourse within politics is even worth examining in the first place. Therefore, I will employ elements of Michel Foucault’s approach to discourse as a means of showing discourse’s power to shape society. Freeman (2009) helps offer some insight into Foucault’s philosophy as she explains, “Foucault felt discourse serves to define the limited ways that were suitable to talk about, treat, or engage the topic so its meaning is comprehensible to a society” (p. 83). It is important to understand that this has powerful political implications, as institutional agents have the means to decide how this information is conveyed to the public. In many ways, agents such as corporations, governmental bodies and NGOs have the power the shape perception and opinion. Furthermore, these actors can work to formulate a dominant ideology which controls how we view an issue. In this way, discourse analysis can be a very useful tool for delineating what constitutes suitable engagement or rhetoric when it comes to factory farming. Likewise, Leipold et al. (2019) believe that discursive analysis is especially useful for understanding why things happen and what sort of political motivations lie behind them. So how does this apply to our endeavor? Well, the way in which society approaches animal production is determined by how institutional actors talk about the issue (Freeman, 2009, p. 84). In addition, the public often adopts the same sentiment as its institutions through the things it reads. Thus, discourse acts as an important identifier of both actor and public attitude towards structures such as factory farms.
In order to better establish the role of discourse in politics, Leipold et al. (2019) offer the following explanation: “[T]hese patterns also determine the understanding of specific practices and events in the policy process, they are fundamental to the formation and expression of political truth claims, the engagement in, as well as the self-positioning of individuals and collectives for or against policy change” (p. 447). This seems especially pertinent to the issue at hand, as a careful analysis of the rhetoric of these actors reveals the underlying patterns of their attitude. Even more important, the discourse they use determines what policies are implemented and whom the policy decisions favor. Leipold et al. go on to explain, “The contributions to this special issue demonstrate that discourses can affect change or inertia at various levels of policy making – from discourse itself and its rules to policy outcomes and institutional settings (p. 452). Of course, all of this is contextual, and the rhetoric of an individual actor is largely dictated by the perception they want to create. Regardless, discourse has a clearly discernable impact on policy and on the associated decision-making. The way society’s various institutions treat factory farming informs the status quo and any potential alternatives to the current state of politics.
Unfortunately, language can have some negative effects in terms of policymaking and its consequences. While this discursive analysis is meant to shed light on the types of sentiment expressed by these actors, I must bring up prior assumptions that can help form my hypotheses. Firstly, as Glenn (2004) recognizes, corporations, and the U.S. government for that matter, tend to treat animals as objects rather than living beings. As the author states, “It is a recognizable discursive move that removes the ‘beingness’ or subjectivity of animals and replaces it with a word that morphs a subject for its own purposes into an object for consumption” (p. 69). As I suggested earlier, a corporation will employ positive rhetoric to create a benevolent persona that truly cares about the animals it kills. Meanwhile, this may prevent the public from realizing the truth – in other words, positive sentiment makes it less likely that people will recognize the animals’ pain (Glenn, 2004). Of course, one would expect this from corporations as they attempt to maintain their positive image and continue their profit-making. However, the position of NGOs is much different from that of the government. While I would expect the government to try to remain neutral on this position as it tries to provide just the facts, environmental NGOs are much more likely to be critical of the issue. This difference is predominantly because each of these actors occupies a different position within institutional politics. Accordingly, each employs a unique discursive strategy – though I do not suggest that this investigation is completely black and white, as the actors blend into one another at times.
I will undergo this research with the aforementioned expectations in mind. There is no doubt that actors of different categories have competing interests, which leaves them in a clash of discourses and public effect. Each category provides a different interpretation of factory farming. This is largely because each comports itself differently with regard to the issue. Moreover, each occupies a different perspective and has a unique goal when it refers to factory farming. For example, a corporation likely perceives CAFOs as a means toward profit, something that must be kept according to current regulations. However, corporations also want to retain public support to create more business; thus, they try to win over the public through their discourse. Manipulation of discourse allows them to paint the issue in their own terms while gaining public support. Alternatively, the government has no such agenda; its discursive strategy is to state the facts and explain the topic in its apparent truth. In doing so, government agencies provide an objective position based on the evidence they have. What is key is that the government is not attempting to win over the public with its discourse. NGOs are an interesting case because they certainly have an agenda, but one that is significantly different from corporations. They may try convincing the public that the issue of factory farming is important and needs comprehensive reform. Therefore, they depict CAFOs in a negative light, possibly highlighting their environmental harm in order to make the public see CAFOs as negative. Consequently, this creates a clash of discourses as one agent tries to make factory farming seem positive, the other negative, while the government remains ambivalent. Thus, with these discursive elements in mind, I formulate my hypotheses as such:
In order to undergo this discursive analysis, I will analyze a total of 62 documents, produced and published publicly by the actors outlined below. I haven noted a range of actors that hold salient information pertaining to industrial animal agriculture. As such, I have divided the actors into four categories: corporations, governmental agencies, lobbying groups, and non-government environmental organizations. These categories are thought to represent the actors’ goals as they pertains to factory farming. I should note that all these actors reside in the United States. Accordingly, I have chosen several from each category:
List of actors, by category, from which documents were taken for the purposes of this discursive analysis.
Furthermore, I have chosen these specific actors for differing reasons based on their category. The corporations were chosen based on their impact and levels of production in the animal agriculture industry. In short, these are the companies who produce the most meat and dairy for consumption in the United States (Sharma, 2018). Alternatively, the various government agencies were chosen based on their relation to the issue, the most pertinent being the FDA and USDA since they had the most available information. Similarly, there was a narrow range of lobbying groups that I could have used for this analysis, so I have chosen the few that have a measurable impact on Congressional lobbying. Finally, the environmental NGOs were chosen based on available literature related to factory farming as well as their discernable impact on U.S. politics.
In establishing the most relevant actors of this study, I will now move on to why I have chosen the outlined documents for my sentiment analysis. I should preface this by saying that I searched for specific buzz words that are related to the issue at hand, namely, words such as “factory farming,” “animal agriculture,” “climate change,” “industrial agriculture,” and “animal welfare.” For the purposes of this inquiry, I sifted through open access documents furnished by each actor on its respective website. In the case of the government agencies, I used their database of documents as it pertains to the issue of animal agriculture. The NGOs and corporations were rather different because they did not provide a list of their documents as PDFs. As such, I often resorted to referencing their webpages, as this provided a concrete (yet concise) depiction of their communications meant for the public. In each scenario, the documents detail the actor’s discourse as it approaches the issue of factory farming. Even at first glance, the actors’ discourses vary greatly according to their various institutional positions. Therefore, the following section outlines my approach to evaluating these texts through Nature language processing and text analysis.
To analyze the data, I use sentiment analysis in the coding language Python. Sentiment analysis is a branch of data science that uses natural language processing and text analysis to extract information from a given piece of text. This is predominantly used to categorize specific words in the text and assign them sentiment values which will ultimately determine the writer’s (or actor’s) attitude toward the topic. This method is incredibly useful for a variety of fields, and I believe it to be especially applicable to this one. Hutto and Gilbert (2014) provide insight on the cross-disciplinary nature of sentiment analysis, stating, “Sentiment analysis is useful to a wide range of problems that are of interest to human-computer interaction practitioners and researchers, as well as those from fields such as sociology, marketing and advertising, psychology, economics, and political science” (p. 216). Consequently, sentiment analysis is a very valuable tool to test my hypotheses because it will allow me to inspect documents from each individual actor and compare sentiment scores. Likewise, each of these actors is likely attempting to produce a distinct sentiment in its writing, which will become evident through this study. In undergoing this analysis, I will examine the discursive elements behind the actors’ language and consider what these elements mean for their attitudes toward factory farming.
I utilized Python with a variety of packages to facilitate this endeavor. However, the most important and integral of these is VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary for Sentiment Reasoning) (Hutto and Gilbert, 2014). This acts as the core sentiment identifier for this project by utilizing its lexicon to determine a positive to negative compound ratio. Hutto and Gilbert (2014) explain how they “use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to produce, and then empirically validate, a gold-standard sentiment lexicon that is especially attuned to microblog-like contexts” (p. 216). I should note that the VADER is a tool designed especially for social media contexts. However, there are three reasons why VADER is a sufficient mode of analysis for this project. Firstly, Hutto and Gilbert acknowledge that this engine can be used “across several domain contexts,” as this tool is extremely accurate in identifying sentiment regardless of the text’s origin (p. 216). Additionally, the authors note that VADER has been found to be even more accurate than individual human raters – the model has a 0.96 classification accuracy as opposed to 0.84 (p. 216). Finally, the focus content of this inquiry is very similar to that of the original VADER subject matter. These documents were produced for public eyes on an online domain, and the sentiment of each individual word is likely to remain consistent across platforms. With that being said, I will now provide a brief explication of the coding process.
I began by importing all the necessary packages, the most important being NLTK (Natural Language Toolkit), VADER, pandas, matplotlib and wordcloud. Next, I loaded the document (according to the category of actor) into Python and downloaded the VADER-specific lexicon. Then, I implemented the basic steps of completing sentiment analysis, in the following order: I tokenized the data (splitting it into individual words), put all words into lower case, stripped the text of punctuation, and eliminated all stop words. Next, I lemmatized the data, a process which removes plural forms and groups like words together (e.g. “great” and “greater”). Subsequently, I took the lemmatized text and removed characters that were not needed, such as numbers and any other forms of punctuation that may have slipped by. Finally, I created an Excel sheet to organize the list of sentimented words with their scores into a data frame using pandas. From here, I was able to obtain the list of sentimented words with their corresponding compound score as well as information about the dataset such as the mean and standard deviation. My final steps correspond to the way in which the data has been visualized, which includes an assortment of graphs and word clouds. For more information, the entire script is listed below in Appendix A.
From this analysis, we have gained several insights into the sentiment value of the cleaned words for each of the four categories. This includes the means, along with other notable data features as displayed in Table 2.1. The average value is the combined sentiment score of all sentimented words, which ranges from a score of -1 to 1. These words and their values were determined by the VADER lexicon and are further detailed in Hutto and Gilbert’s paper. As rendered below, one can see that all of the sentiment averages are on the positive side, ranging from 6.8% to 24%. This indicates that some types of actors were attempting to create more positive images in their rhetoric than others. Of course, corporations and lobbyists have the highest positive mean scores, which coincides with Hypothesis One. Likewise, the government discourse was positive but very close to 0, indicating that it has taken a near neutral stance with a slight lean toward positive. This supports Hypothesis Two. The one category that was predicted to be negative, however, yielded a positive score of 14.4%. The NGO score reveals that these actors were using predominantly positive language, but I believe this result must be examined with more context.
: The average sentiment score for each of the following categories (including all combined), along with the subsequent word count, standard deviation, maximum and minimum.
In an attempt to provide more details for these sentiment scores, Table 2.2 shows the top five negative and positive words used by each category. This is followed with each category’s corresponding word count and sentiment score. I should note that I omitted several words for being clearly unsentimental but high in count (“energy” under the “All” category (previously second most frequent), “energy” under “Lobbyist” (previously first) and “number” under “Government” (previously second)). While I believe the words in this table to be a strong indicator of the actors’ tones regarding CAFOs, it is possible that the positive words used by NGOs exist within a negative context. It is likely that the sentiment analyzer was unable to pick up on the underlying meaning behind longer strings of words. As such, I have manually gone through the documents, searching for these words, in order to discover the context in which they are used. I have taken ten random samples of each of the top five negative and positive words used by NGOs, using the random integer function on the TI-84. I placed these sentences into the sentiment analyzer and determined an average sentiment score. This data is displayed in Table 2.3, indicating each positive word and its nth use in the document along with its sentiment score. The averages are provided below. Contrary to expectations, these sentences are predominantly positive given their context. Thus, the results indicate that Hypothesis Three cannot be supported. I will provide further commentary on why this may be in the following section.
: A comprehensive list of the top five negative and positive words for each type of actor.
: This table was exported from Excel and shows the sentence number (generated randomly) with its corresponding sentiment compound score.
Furthermore, I have provided a set of histograms and word clouds at the end of the paper in order to better exemplify the data. Figure 1.1 shows the distribution of sentiment across the word counts for each category of actor. All four categories are displayed side by side to better represent the differences in their distribution. As one may notice, there is a significant difference in the frequency of negative words. Corporations and lobbyists have substantially more positive words with very limited instances of negatives. Not surprisingly, the government’s results are much more interesting, demonstrating a near balance in the spectrum, as is shown by its bimodal distribution. Alternatively, the NGO distribution is much less even, with a strong preference for positive words but with some examples of negative, thus lowering its average score. Additionally, Figure 1.2 provides more explicit detail for Table 2.2, representing the dominate words used by each category, calculated by frequency of usage. While they possess many words in common, the word clouds reflect each category’s unique sentiment toward factory farming. As such, the government tends to have a more even distribution of positive and negative words. Meanwhile, the other categories show that positive words dominate the word cloud with few instances of negative words.
Through this discursive analysis, we have revealed the true sentiment behind the rhetoric that is publicly used by various stakeholders in the factory farming system. This being said, what do these results indicate for meaningful change of the status quo and the state of policymaking? Well, I argue that these results support two of my initial hypotheses and provide evidence for the arguments asserted in the preliminary theory. Corporations and lobbyists are undoubtedly exhibiting a positive persona in order to garner public support while obscuring their actions. It is no surprise that these actors have such high sentiment scores, as their discourse is likely intended to show the benefits of their actions rather than the negative outcomes. By using positive language, corporations are able to overshadow the oppressive and exploitative nature of their production. Furthermore, the government has remained largely neutral on the issue of factory farming, providing both positives and negatives regarding the advent of CAFOs. This was to be expected, and it reveals the way in which the government attempts to maintain the appearance of objectivity and avoid staking value judgements. I believe this could be the case for many reasons, such as the desire to maintain scientific credibility or to mask the influence of corporate power and wealth – most likely a mix of both.
Finally, NGOs have exhibited surprisingly positive attitude, showing relatively little negative sentiment toward the issue of factory farming, a subject that they typically oppose. This could be because the organizations want to provide an optimistic outlook while envisioning and exploring the potential for a future that relies on alternative means of food production. However, I believe there may be another explanation for this positive tone: it is simply a disguise for the NGOs’ unequivocal support of market solutions, which ultimately favor corporations. In fact, I believe this sentiment analysis explains how these actors engage in a discourse dominated by green capitalism and its evident lack of solutions toward the issue of factory farming. This belief is supported by the various organizations’ use of market-oriented language when discussing solutions. Likewise, while much of their rhetoric presents factory farming as an issue, it lacks a coherent critique of the status quo, preferring neutral language to evaluate the problem and positive language in reference to solutions. The NGOs use words such as “improve” and “increase” to denote a need for change, but their calls for action reside within the market system. Throughout these instances, the organizations refer to policymakers as needing to improve sustainable production and practices; however, the language sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric expressed by green capitalists. On the other hand, much of their negative language is used in reference to market impacts —I note words such as "loss," "low," and "risk." These words are used largely in the context of economic consequences of the system of factory farming. Meanwhile, the NGOs often discuss CAFOs in a negative lens but fail to truly condemn the actions of any one institutional actor. Rather, the organizations utilize ambiguous language that leaves corporations and governmental bodies free from real criticism. I found that the NGOs’ discourse only analyzes factory farms on the surface level, mentioning a few problems that CAFOs create but nothing more. Likewise, they give no indication of how CAFOs became an issue, though corporate greed was their creator. Finally, the non-profits focus their rhetoric on superficial solutions that are seen as positive but only treat symptoms of the problem, not the issue itself. This is coupled by the fact that the NGOs only criticize an anonymous evil creator of CAFOs while failing to attack specific corporations or leaders. Thus, the organizations provide green capitalist solutions while making factory farms seem much more positive than reality proves them to be.
As I have suggested throughout the literature review, factory farming and the discourse surrounding the topic is largely dictated by power and wealth. Unfortunately, this discourse has significant ramifications for the way in which policy is produced. The sentiment of various actors regarding CAFOs is largely positive, which indicates that these actors do not realize the severity of the consequences. While factory farming creates an obvious ethical dilemma, it also manifests profound economic, environmental, and health risks. If society and its primary actors treat the issue as if it has predominantly positive implications, it endangers everything in the process. This is precisely because factory farming exacerbates a host of environmental problems while reproducing an inherently unethical hierarchy of labor. The animals themselves suffer as corporations and the like amass incredible profits. Yet, this wealth does not go toward supporting the local communities or solving the consequences it has caused. Rather, the wealth remains in the hands of those whose objective is to accumulate it. Capitalism enables this idea that endless growth and efficiency is more important than the environment itself. Meanwhile, the powerful are able to mislead the public by painting a positive image of animal welfare and profiteering, all in the name of green efficiency. I believe this sentiment analysis provides evidence for my claim. Corporate actors and the like attempt to convince the public of their “green” production, and this positivity is reflected in their language. In each case, the predominant actors favor capitalistic solutions that are insufficient to solve the true crisis we face. Thus, with my argument in mind, I will raise a few solutions with the hope that we can ultimately move toward a more sustainable means of food production.
While I advocate for many solutions, I choose none in particular because any approach to changing our food system and addressing issues of climate change must come from multiple sources. There is no one fix; although, some solutions may prove to be more effective than others. It is my aim to lay out options that policymakers could implement. As such, the most revolutionary and transformative change would come with changing the economic system. While this could take on many forms, I predominantly refer to reshaping the nature of capitalism and the power dynamics that it creates. The government ought to engage in a redistributive politics that diminishes the relationship between power and wealth. An obvious example of such a policy is a corporate and wealth tax which eliminates a portion of the profit associated with factory farms. This money could then be put toward the revitalization of the communities most harmed by CAFOs. Moreover, this must be coupled with a people-centered approach. This would provide the people a greater say in the political realm, allowing them to gain the power taken away from the wealthy. Of course, this solution may work in tandem with the promotion of small farms, which have become nearly extinct as industrialized farming takes over. I believe small farms will engage in far more ethical practices that are more beneficial for the environment and human health alike. Accordingly, the government may be able to assist in this process by providing increased subsidies and tax benefits to small farms. Meanwhile, the federal government can implement stronger regulations on factory farms. This could include more stringent animal welfare laws, as well as proper control of waste management and a carbon tax which accounts for the farms’ increasing emissions. This will allow small farms to become more integrated into the world economy while improving environmental health and reducing the power of corporations.
Finally, any solution must be accompanied by a change in the discursive narrative. This will be a gradual change, encouraged by constant awareness and correction of the language we use. If nothing else, this paper has demonstrated the façade that these actors create in order to make factory farming seem more positive than it is. This façade only hides the unethical practices and consequences of CAFOs. It is this truth that helps change the discourse. Likewise, the public must push institutional actors to treat animals as living beings rather than commodities that are to be sold on a market. As a result, the corporations ought to have a higher sense of accountability. Furthermore, the environmental damage from factory farms should be present in the media and public news. This environmental degradation cannot be hidden forever, and to continue to hide it is to cause greater harm. Lastly, rather than looking toward corporations, the public should look toward professionals, such as health experts or environmental officials, for information. People need to know what they are eating, and the ramifications associated with it. This requires a transparency that corporations do not provide. Ultimately, the dominant discourse is determined by how we treat the issue of factory farming, and that can be changed by pushing institutional actors to promote transparency and accountability.
I have used this paper to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current literature on factory farming and its subsequent relation to capitalism. Likewise, I have described the clear link between discourse and policymaking. Concurrently, sentiment analysis has revealed the true intentions of institutional actors and their disposition toward CAFOs. They try to portray a positive picture of factory farming in order to further their own agenda or to simply deny the truth of their actions. I find that this form of analysis is widely untapped and offers plentiful options for future research. Likewise, I argue that this approach is novel in that it combines the fields of computer science, discourse, and politics. Moreover, sentiment analysis allows one to find a deep and substantive comparison between actions and speech. I used this technique on a topic that has rarely been analyzed in these terms. The issue of factory farming is one that is intimately related to discourse and provides useful insights into the institutional framework of animal agriculture. In this sense, my research has utilized sentiment analysis in a field of study that has otherwise failed to acknowledge the potential benefits of its application. We must acknowledge the need for change in our food systems as well as in the rhetoric we use in relation to food. This is an incredibly complex matter, but the goal of this analysis is to shed light on the issue of factory farming and its surrounding discourse.
My approach certainly has its own limitations. Namely, the sources of data were limited to the information provided by the actors, which oftentimes was quite narrow in scope. Likewise, these documents were rather similar across specific entities within each category, which means there is relatively little diversity in the dataset. This is not to say that individual actors did not have their own unique aspects, just that the content of any one actor was of similar sentiment to the content of other actors of the same category. Alternatively, the lexicon of words and their correlating sentiment scores were limited by the VADER package and its predetermined categorization. While I believe the lexicon is accurate and effective, it may not be as nuanced and specific as a lexicon that was made specifically for this endeavor. Although, something of that stature would take much more time and research, likely an entirely new project. Finally, the last limitation I would like to acknowledge is the range of actors used in this paper. There are likely more types of institutional actors involved in the process of factory farming, such as state agencies, agricultural experts, and international bodies. These and many more most certainly play a role in navigating the discourse and policymaking when it comes to CAFOs and their environmental impact. Unfortunately, including all of these categories of actors in my research would have been incredibly demanding, and there are likely too many to account for, so I chose to limit my search to the main four. With that being said, these are only limitations of my methodological scope and do not take away from the validity of the process or results.
Despite these innate limitations, I have discovered that there is still a lot to learn from discursive analysis. In analyzing the language used by institutional actors, we can begin to understand the relationship between action and dialogue. Moreover, sentiment analysis acts as an important tool for analyzing language without the restrictions of manual linguistics. By automating the process, we have found valuable results, showing how corporations and lobbyists attempt to manipulate public discourse through positive sentiment. Of course, NGOs also show this, indicating that there are many factors that may hold more or less influence than the desire to paint an honest portrayal of factory farms. If anyone were to see the real conditions of CAFOs, they would be very amiss to call them positive. Moreover, this sentiment analysis is incredibly important for policymakers, who must recognize the inherent contradiction in the use of language versus action. In my literature review, it became very clear that this issue has exacerbated a host of environmental problems and is propagated by an economic system solely motivated by profit. Sentiment analysis has provided evidence for these conditions, showing that these leading actors will do whatever they can to protect their enterprise and downplay the actual effects of CAFOs. Finally, and most importantly, this process has revealed the importance of changing the way in which we all approach the food system and incorporate it into our discourse.
Ultimately, I think the field of sentiment analysis is ripe for further research and exploration. Its potential for application is expansive and can lead to unprecedented findings across many different academic fields. Likewise, there is much more to be learned on the topic at hand. This analysis of factory farming could be broadened to include a variety of other actors, as well as additional documentation on the issue. Further research could develop a methodology that analyzes the broader system of food production and includes research on countries other than the United States. The way in which a society produces food affects every person and may be examined within a variety of disciplines. With this being said, I believe there are still many unknowns, which are awaiting further research.
The article was written and researched by myself (Cael Jones), and copy edited by a fellow student, Sarita Gara. My mentor and advisor for this project was Professor Ramiro Berardo at The Ohio State University.
Cassuto, D. N., & Animals and Society Institute. (2010). The CAFO hothouse: Climate change, industrial agriculture and the law: policy paper.
Clark, J. L. (2012). “Greening”of thefactoryfarm. (4), 21.
Cole, M., Miele, M., Hines, P., Zokaei, K., Evans, B., & Beale, J. (2009). Animal foods and climate change: Shadowing eating practices. , , 162–167.
Factory Farming. (n.d). In . Retrieved from
Freeman, C. P. (2009). This little piggy went to press: The American news media’s construction of animals in agriculture. , (1), 78–103.
Garnett, T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. , (4), 491–503.
Garnett, T. (2017).Livestock and Climate Change. In D'Silva, J., & Webster, J. (Eds.), (pp. 31-51). Retrieved from
Glenn, C. B. (2004). Constructing consumables and consent: A critical analysis of factory farm industry discourse. , (1), 63–81.
Guerrero, D. (2018). The Limits of Capitalist Solutions to the Climate Crisis. In Satgar, V. (Ed.). (pp. 30-46). Wits University Press. https://doi.org/10.18772/22018020541
Gunderson, R. (2013). From cattle to capital: Exchange value, animal commodification, and barbarism. , (2), 259–275.
Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the
environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. (5), 445-456.
Hutto, C.J., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. .
Kim, B., & Neff, R. (2009). Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. food consumption via carbon calculators. , (1), 186–196.
Klein, N. (2014). 191-293.
Lavin, C. (2009). Factory farms in a consumer society. , (1/2), 71–92. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Leipold, S., Feindt, P. H., Winkel, G., & Keller, R. (2019). Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: Traditions, trends, perspectives. , (5), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462
Magdoff, F. (2015). A rational agriculture is incompatible with capitalism. , (10), 1.
Magdoff, F., & Foster, J. B. (2010, March 1). | What every environmentalist
needs to know about capitalism. Retrieved February 26, 2019, from Monthly Review website:
Parenti, C., & In Moore, J. W. (2016). 1-11. Retrieved from:
Sharma, S. (2018, April 10). . Retrieved from:
Weis, T. (2010). The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. , (3), 315–341.
Weis, T. (2010). The ecological hoofprint and the population bomb of reverse protein factories. , (2/3), 131–152.
Clark, J. L. (2012). “Greening”of thefactoryfarm. (4), 21.
Cole, M., Miele, M., Hines, P., Zokaei, K., Evans, B., & Beale, J. (2009). Animal foods and climate change: Shadowing eating practices. , , 162–167.
Factory Farming. (n.d). In . Retrieved from
Freeman, C. P. (2009). This little piggy went to press: The American news media’s construction of animals in agriculture. , (1), 78–103.
Garnett, T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. , (4), 491–503.
Garnett, T. (2017).Livestock and Climate Change. In D'Silva, J., & Webster, J. (Eds.), (pp. 31-51). Retrieved from
Glenn, C. B. (2004). Constructing consumables and consent: A critical analysis of factory farm industry discourse. , (1), 63–81.
Guerrero, D. (2018). The Limits of Capitalist Solutions to the Climate Crisis. In Satgar, V. (Ed.). (pp. 30-46). Wits University Press. https://doi.org/10.18772/22018020541
Gunderson, R. (2013). From cattle to capital: Exchange value, animal commodification, and barbarism. , (2), 259–275.
Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the
environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. (5), 445-456.
Hutto, C.J., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. .
Kim, B., & Neff, R. (2009). Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. food consumption via carbon calculators. , (1), 186–196.
Klein, N. (2014). 191-293.
Lavin, C. (2009). Factory farms in a consumer society. , (1/2), 71–92. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Leipold, S., Feindt, P. H., Winkel, G., & Keller, R. (2019). Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: Traditions, trends, perspectives. , (5), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462
Magdoff, F. (2015). A rational agriculture is incompatible with capitalism. , (10), 1.
Magdoff, F., & Foster, J. B. (2010, March 1). | What every environmentalist
needs to know about capitalism. Retrieved February 26, 2019, from Monthly Review website:
Parenti, C., & In Moore, J. W. (2016). 1-11. Retrieved from:
Sharma, S. (2018, April 10). . Retrieved from:
Weis, T. (2010). The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. , (3), 315–341.
Weis, T. (2010). The ecological hoofprint and the population bomb of reverse protein factories. , (2/3), 131–152.
Jones, C. (2021). "Problems and Solutions in Factory Farming: The Role of Institutions, Capital, and Rhetoric." , (01). Retrieved from
Jones, Cael. "Problems and Solutions in Factory Farming: The Role of Institutions, Capital, and Rhetoric." 13.01 (2021). < >
Jones, Cael. 2021. Problems and Solutions in Factory Farming: The Role of Institutions, Capital, and Rhetoric. 13 (01),
JONES, C. 2021. Problems and Solutions in Factory Farming: The Role of Institutions, Capital, and Rhetoric. [Online], 13. Available:
graduated in 2021 with a Bachelors degree in Environmental Policy and Political Science. Minor In Philosophy from in Columbus, OH. Journal Blog » » » »The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog.
to get updates from in your daily feed. Journal » » » » » » » » provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, 's large database of academic articles is completely free. | |
!--> Submissions -© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.
Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.
Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact
Forgot password? Reset your password »
New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies will host a series of presentations on factory farming and its larger implications on Fri., Feb. 21.
New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies will host a series of presentations on factory farming and its larger implications on Fri., Feb. 21, 1-6 p.m., at NYU’s Hemmerdinger Hall, Silver Center for Arts and Science, 100 Washington Square East (enter at 32 Waverly Place or 31 Washington Place [wheelchair accessible]).
Factory farming has come under increasing scrutiny, with its critics alleging it causes harm to humans, animals, and the environment. However, global support for factory farming is increasing, not decreasing, over time.
The event will feature five award-winning presentations from early-career scholars working on topics related to factory farming. The presentations will cover a wide range of areas—including production, consumption, and policy—from several disciplinary perspectives, including the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. The day will also feature Timothy Pachirat, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of Every Twelve Seconds , who will deliver the keynote address, “Our Own Souls to Damn: Scapegoating and Complicity in Industrialized Animal Agriculture.”
Other speakers and presentations include the following:
The event, supported by the Animal Welfare Fund at EA Funds and the Brooks Animal Studies Academic Network, is free and open to the public.
Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. To register, please visit: https://bit.ly/372ZIio . For more information, call 212.992.7950 or email [email protected] .
Subway Lines: 6 (Astor Place); R, W (8th Street); A, B, C, D, E, F, M (West 4th Street).
John Flesher, Associated Press John Flesher, Associated Press
AKRON, Iowa (AP) — In recent years, Fred Zenk built two barns housing about 2,400 hogs between them — long, white, concrete-and-metal structures that are ubiquitous in the Midwestern countryside.
The Iowa farmer didn’t follow state requirements to get construction approval and file a manure disposal plan. But Zenk’s operation initially flew under the radar of regulators, as have many others across the United States because of loopholes and spotty enforcement of laws intended to keep the nation’s air and water clean.
Beef, chicken and pork have become more affordable staples in the American diet thanks to industry consolidation and the rise of farms with tens of thousands of animals. Yet federal and state environmental agencies often lack basic information such as where they’re located, how many animals they’re raising and how they deal with manure.
The animals and their waste have fouled waters. The enclosures spew air pollutants that promote climate change and are implicated in illnesses such as asthma. The stench of manure — stored in pits beneath barns or open-air lagoons and eventually spread on croplands as fertilizer — can make life miserable for people nearby.
READ MORE: Does modern society worsen allergies and asthma? Ask the Amish
For most of the nation’s history, meat and dairy products came from independent farms that raised animals in barnyards, pastures and rangeland. But the system now is controlled by giant companies that contract with farmers to produce livestock with the efficiency of auto assembly lines inside warehouse-like barns and sprawling feedlots.
The spread of corporate animal farms is turning neighbor against neighbor in town halls and courtrooms. Iowa, the top U.S. producer of swine and egg-laying chickens, has been a major battleground.
“It’s a fight for survival,” said Chris Petersen, who still raises pigs in outdoor pens.
Michele Merkel, a former EPA attorney who quit over the agency’s reluctance to punish polluting mega-farms and is co-director of the advocacy group Food & Water Justice, said the industry “has avoided any effective regulation and accountability for a long time.”
Industry groups say there are plenty of regulations and livestock agriculture is simply adapting to improved technology, equipment and methods.
“We’re responding to what the market is giving us,” said Brady Reicks, whose company runs numerous large hog structures in northeastern Iowa. “We’re doing it responsibly; we’re passionate about doing it. It increases growth in rural Iowa and it helps feed the world.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began to count the nation’s factory farms during the Obama administration but retreated when industry groups sued. Instead, the agency uses state data to produce annual statistics about only the biggest operations.
As of 2018, the nationwide EPA tally was about 20,300 — a roughly five-fold increase over nearly four decades.
WATCH: How these Massachusetts farmers are turning manure and food waste into power
Yet it’s a tiny fraction of all confined animal operations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates there are more than 450,000, most too small for inclusion in the EPA count.
Iowa has 80 million farm animals and 3 million people. Yet in 2017, regulators didn’t know how many livestock farms were in the state. Under federal pressure, the Department of Natural Resources pored over aerial photos, discovering 4,200 previously unknown facilities.
Zenk’s Plymouth County farm was among them.
“We knew nothing about his operation,” said Sheila Kenny, an environmental specialist with the state agency.
Zenk acknowledged breaking the rules but said no harm was done. He paid a $4,500 fine.
“You think you can get by with something once in a while and you can’t,” he said, strolling among his barns, tractor and feed bins.
To state regulators, such discoveries mean the system works. Critics say the Iowa experience shows how easily livestock operations can escape detection.
Putting thousands of animals in one enclosure produces huge amounts of manure. Unlike human sewage, which is treated and released to waterways, animal waste is stored, then spread on croplands as fertilizer.
Farmers insist they are careful.
“We take soil tests, we decide how much manure it needs and that’s how much we apply,” Reicks said.
Environmental groups say fields often can’t handle the volumes of manure produced, leading to runoff. Such pollution is exempt from regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act, even though agriculture is the biggest contaminator of rivers and streams, according to the EPA.
READ MORE: How more organic farming could worsen global warming
In Emmett County, Iowa, small farmer Gordon Garrison sued a nearby operation with 4,400 hogs, contending manure from its croplands fouls a creek that runs through his property and feeds the Des Moines River.
“They’re using me for a waste disposal site,” Garrison said.
Livestock farms generate about 70% of the nation’s ammonia emissions, plus gases that cause global warming, particularly methane. Yet they aren’t required to get permits under the Clean Air Act. The government hasn’t decided how to measure emissions from barns, feedlots, storage lagoons and croplands.
And under President Donald Trump, EPA has exempted livestock operations from requirements under other laws that industries report significant releases of air pollutants including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.
Critics say yesteryear’s barnyard whiffs were nothing like the overpowering stench from today’s supersized operations.
“You don’t want to be anywhere near them,” said Brad Trom, a crop producer in Minnesota’s Dodge County, who lives within three miles of 11 structures housing 30,000 swine. He says he’s been staggered by powerful odors barreling across his fields.
Farmers say they’re trying to reduce the smells but contend they’re a normal part of country life.
“I’ve never lived on a farm that didn’t have nature’s fragrances on it,” said Gary Sovereign, a swine producer in Iowa’s Howard County.
Research has linked proximity to factory farms to various health risks. But scientists acknowledge it’s nearly impossible to pin someone’s illness on a certain polluter.
Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf say after a hog mega-barn was built a quarter-mile from their home in northern Iowa, they developed burning and itching eyes, throat soreness and body rashes. They fear the manure odors are making them sick and ruining their home.
“Nobody’s going to want to buy it. We’re stuck,” Jeff Shwartzkopf said.
Support Provided By: Learn more
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
PROBLEMY EKOROZWOJU – Problems of Sustainable Development, 2016, Vol. 12, No. 1, 143-156
14 Pages Posted: 21 Oct 2016
Independent
Date Written: October 20, 2016
The thesis examined in the article is the argumentation against a popular belief that industrialised agricultural systems and intensive agriculture are beneficial. Objective facts, reports and commonly available data confirm such argumentation. Intensification in animal farming – in a long-term and multi-faceted approach – turns out to be a practice which not only abuses ecosystems and livestock, but also our health. When we consider all moral, medical and ecological controversies, it seems is meaningful and necessary to express doubts regarding the economic value of factory farming.
Keywords: factory farming, intensive agriculture, monocultures, fishmeal industry
JEL Classification: O13, Q20, Q32, Q41, R11, M14
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Independent ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, food politics & sociology ejournal.
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
Food industry ejournal, development economics: agriculture, natural resources, & environmental impact ejournal, agricultural & natural resource economics ejournal, anthropology of agriculture & nutrition ejournal, agricultural economics ejournal, political economy - development: domestic development strategies ejournal, political economy - development: environment ejournal, agricultural food science & food groups ejournal.
Harm to humans, harm to ecology.
In the past, factory farming was regarded as a technological triumph that would sustain food sufficiency in the growing world population. Today, a growing concern from various experts, including agriculturalists, as well as scientists and policymakers, perceives factory farming as a dead end, a mistaken agricultural approach, and destructive invention to the living systems (Pluhar 455). Factory farming poses serious health threats that cannot be overlooked. Several scientific researchers have shown that the modern practice of factory farming is an increasingly acute danger to human health, the environment, and animal welfare. Until recently, animal welfare associations have avoided the controversial factory farming debates, focusing instead on other conventional aspects such as pet overpopulation and frequent instances of animal cruelty. However, a clash between the moral agents including the animal rights activists and the influential agribusiness businesses appears unavoidable.
Intensive animal confinement and mechanized production procedures generate an enormous volume of animal products used in human consumption (Williams 373). An urgent attention on effects of factory farming to human health, environment and animals is paramount to curb possible disastrous effects in future. Failure to contain and control these methods can lead to a global crisis. Despite the many merits associated with this method, the extent of danger it poses to humanity overweighs all outstanding advantages associated with it. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production investigation research 2008 on the impact of factory farming confirmed the harmful effect posed by products produced through this method and recommended a 10 year for the closure of the most intensive production techniques used in factory farming, including battery cages, force feeding birds to reap their fatty livers for foie gras and gestation crates (The Characteristics of Industrial Agriculture 1). The researchers concluded that the current factory farming is quite purely unacceptable due to its harmful effects on humans, environment, and animals. These findings came at a time when not only the United States but also the global demand for animal products, particularly meat, has risen to their highest point yet. Based on findings explored from a variety of ethical viewpoints, especially utilitarian and rights based perspectives, there is a need to consider other alternatives.
This short writing was meant to highlight that the world we live in today is highly dependent on factory farming and the deep, everlasting impacts it has on our society and lifestyles. Although highlighting the advantages that provide sustainability and economic stability is important, the aim of this paper is to bring forth the wide array of disadvantages and threats to the society and environment that these methods bring. But with all that being said, the industrial livestock production has become a very important part of how the world functions and how the food supply is dependent on it and is distributed across the globe.
Most of the issues that are connected with the factory farming effect on animals are caused by such factor as overcrowding. Large numbers of birds and animals are kept on small territories, which facilitates the spreading of infections. The fish population is also subject to this problem, as the long-term overcrowding may lead to the higher competition for food and result in stress and decline of the immune defense, which can cause the growth of disease rates (Gregory & Grandin, 2007, p. 136). Moreover, the inability of animals to live a natural life results in their shorter life span, which is also disadvantaging for humans as they do not receive enough proteins that could potentially be developed through more sustainable methods (Fick, 2008, p. 163). Thus, the conditions of flock and cattle raising are not only harmful to animals but they also strongly decrease the population, resulting in the lack of food for people.
The ways of keeping birds and animals used in factory farming are often cruel and causing pain. For instance, there is a practice of beak trimming of chicken that is done to prevent the cases of cannibalism among birds kept in small rooms (Poultry Hub, 2017, para. 1). Besides, most chickens are kept in cages for the most of their lives, which causes various health issues with legs and feathers since they are not adjusted to stand or rub against the wire. These birds need worms and other organic food found in the earth for their optimal growth and functioning (Healthy Eating Politics, 2017, para. 2). However, in the case of factory farming, it is almost impossible to keep an eye on the great numbers of chicken roaming the open ground. Moreover, not all countries have yet adopted the regulations that would allow slaughtering farm animals without them feeling stressed during the process.
It is not surprising that more and more people become concerned with the conditions in which farm animals are raised. Although it is true that the large portion of the world’s population is primarily concerned about the cost of products, most people in the developed countries are willing to pay more for food that has been produced in a sustainable way. This is one of the results of the grand survey conducted for ASPCA the last year (ASPCA, 2016, para. 5). Other key findings include the misconceptions about the popular labels regarding the industry and the small literacy in the field of monitoring the farm animal welfare. These results show that although people are concerned with the state of farm animals, they do not make much effort to study the subject in depth. Marketing is a powerful tool to make people believe that the food they consume is eco-friendly, yet a little portion of customers studies whether these claims are true. It is possible that the primary concern of people who choose sustainable food producers is to look better in public through supporting the modern ethical trends. However, even this artificial interest has already created a demand for the new agricultural techniques that would prevent the animal suffering. It may possibly occur in the future that the developed countries will pass the laws prohibiting the factory farming. In any case, the survey made for ASPCA clearly shows that people lack education in matters concerning animal cruelty in the field of the food production.
It is not only animals who suffer health issues from the factory farming methods. People who work on farms also go through the illness cases directly caused by the use of chemicals during their work. For instance, the study of the rice field workers in the Philippines has shown that they experience problems with sight, blood pressure, and digestion (Naylor, 1996, p. 64). The research connects these problems with the extensive use of pesticides for tackling weeds. Another evidence shows that the long-term exposure to the sun can cause problems with skin such as the early aging and melanoma cases (Ulimwengu, 2009, p. 1). Besides, people who work directly with animals are regularly exposed to viruses and diseases that can be transmitted to humans. While this issue can be present in natural farming, the intensive methods pose higher risks due to the larger numbers of cattle.
The spreading of diseases among other people is also influenced by the factory farming. The overcrowded facilities create perfect conditions for the development of viruses and pathogenic bacteria (Geer, 2014, para. 2). Because of a large number of animals, viruses can mutate to get new forms, which is happening every year. Studies suggest that the factory farming could lead humanity to the situation of the so-called “antibiotic apocalypse” when new viruses would be resistant to all forms of medicine (Woolfe, 2016, para. 1). This estimation seems particularly accurate, as scientists are currently observing the growing number of flu forms which become harder to treat each year. All the vaccines that are currently used in the healthcare system may become ineffective due to the rapid development of the new disease types, and humanity may need to rethink the whole treatment ways to tackle this problem along with changing the ways in the agricultural field.
Apart from the threat of the disease spreading, factory farming is a source of the population’s health state worsening, as the majority of meat and dairy products are full of antibiotics and hormones used on animals to prevent them from falling ill or to help them gain mass. When antibiotics are consumed by people, they can cause the extinction of the natural microflora in the digestion system, resulting in the malfunctioning of the whole body. Hormones are even more dangerous, as they change the vital processes in a body that can lead to such problems as diabetes and obesity. The recent survey made by the National Research Center shows that people become more concerned about reducing antibiotics in food production (National Research Center, 2015, p. 3). More than half of the respondents answered that they find this matter to be very important. However, it is impossible to reject the usage of medicine in factory farming since the large numbers of animals cannot be kept healthy if they live at the same place. It becomes evident that the current methods in agriculture are not satisfying as perceived by the majority of the American population. The problem is further deepened by the food producers who do not state on their products that animals were treated with antibiotics and hormones. It might be the task of the government that needs to address this issue and make the farming safer by obliging producers to regulate the amount of medication they use since ensuring the interest of citizens is the country’s top priority.
The fact of destroying the natural landscape by factory farming is probably the most pressuring issue caused by this industry. Such problem as deforestation is the biggest one, as it can be traced in the emerging states like Ghana, where there is an urgent need to create a more effective department of agriculture, as the country is suffering from the inappropriate land usage (Asante, 2005, p. 185). Asia is also suffering from the current practices. For instance, vast territories of the mangrove forests are suitable for shrimp farming, which is causing a gradual destruction of these areas (Barbier & Sathirathai, 2004, p. 56). It is easy to predict that if the current methods of farming continue to prevail, the state of the Earth will change in the next several decades. Forests provide oxygen and protect the planet from overheating. Failure to save these precious territories will result in the climate change.
Deforestation and changing of other areas lead directly to the shortage of fauna species. As animals lose their natural habitats, they have to adapt to the new conditions, which is impossible to achieve in the short run. The World Wide Fund for Nature claims that 50 percent of the world’s lands have been turned into farming territories, which is threatening animals living there (WWF, 2016). The fauna world is not the only one suffering, as plants are also endangered in the changing world. The growth of the population in the United Kingdom has caused the increase in the territories used for the farming purposes, which resulted in the extinction of hundreds of domestic species (Marshall, 2016). While people strive to feed themselves properly, they forget the importance of their surrounding and it may soon happen that humanity will find itself to be one of the few species left on Earth.
The issue of pollution is widely discussed in public. It is no longer surprising that farming causes water and soil contamination that heavily impacts the environment. However, it is much less discussed that pollution can harm the food production itself. The research made recently is based on the interview conducted with several farmers in Thailand who are growing rice (Khai & Yabe, 2013). One of the most peculiar answers given by the respondents is that water pollution is causing the production of rice to grow in cost. Contaminated water and soil prevent crops from the proper development, as many of them die. This information may serve as a reason for rethinking the modern ways of farming. Many regions of the world, and especially Asia, are dependent on rice, and the increasing cost of this product may lead to the starvation of millions of people. This fact undermines the initial idea of factory farming which lies in providing affordable food to as many people as possible through cheaper technologies and less workforce required to produce the product. It is possible that the problem of overpopulation is the primary cause to the fact that humanity cannot afford to switch to the more natural methods in agriculture. However, if things will be kept the way they are now, humanity may face famine along with the other problems already described in this paper. It is evident that the more lands are polluted by farming, the less territories can be used for food production in the future.
Summarizing all the factors stated above, it becomes clear that factory farming presents more disadvantages than offers benefits to people. Although this method of agriculture provides food for the large numbers of consumers, it cannot satisfy this need in the long run. Factory farming affects the whole planet and can no longer be supported if humans want to ensure they live in the healthy environment It becomes evident that, while this method of farming is extremely developed in the world and is currently the only option to produce large quantities of food, countries’ administration offices must thing of the new ways to eliminate the existing problems.
This paper has discussed in detail the issues caused by factory farming. Firstly, the cruel practices regarding animals can no longer be sustained in the modern world where people have come to an understanding of the life importance of every creature. Secondly, the impact of factory farming on the human health is also disturbing, as many people are currently suffering from diseases and viruses acquired through the consumption of meat and dairy products. Finally, the effect that the current methods in agriculture industry have on the environment are devastating as they destruct the land and sea habitats and cause many species of flora and fauna to go extinct.
It becomes evident that people are becoming more concerned with the situation. While the mass interest in the topic is essential, it should become the task of the governments to form laws and regulations that would change the current situation. Luckily, many administration representatives, especially in the developed states, have already paid their attention to the problem. It may be expected in the nearest future that factory farming would become much less harmful for people and environment since there are no real alternatives that could substitute this technique at the moment.
Nowadays, more and more businesses start campaigns to support the environment. Even food producers try to ensure potential customers their products are eco-friendly and good for health. The growing number of food suppliers who use natural farming methods supports the demand for the green technologies in agriculture. All of these trends can serve as a signal to the forthcoming end of such practice as the factory farming as it is known today.
Asante, M. S. (2005). Deforestation in Ghana: Explaining the chronic failure of forest preservation policies in a developing country . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
ASPCA. (2016). New research finds vast majority of Americans concerned about farm animal welfare, confused by food labels and willing to pay more for better treatment . Web.
Barbier, E., & Sathirathai, S. (2004). Shrimp farming and mangrove loss in Thailand . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fick, G. W. (2008). Food, farming, and faith . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Geer, A. (2014). 5 modern diseases on the rise because of factory farming. One Green Planet . Web.
Gregory, N. G., & Grandin, T. (2007). Animal welfare and meat production . Cambridge, MA: CABI.
Healthy Eating Politics. (n. d.). Free range chickens . Web.
Khai, H. V., & Yabe, M. (2013). Impact of industrial water pollution on rice production in Vietnam. In N. W. T. Quinn (Ed.), International perspectives on water quality management and pollutant control (pp. 61-85). Rijeka, Croatia: INTECH.
Marshall, C. (2016). Nature loss linked to farming intensity. BBC News . Web.
National Research Center. (2015). Natural food labels survey . Web.
Naylor, R. (1996). Herbicides in Asian rice: Transitions in weed management . Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Poultry Hub. (2016). Beak trimming . Web.
Ulimwengu, J. M. (2009 ). Farmers health status, agricultural efficiency, and poverty in rural Ethiopia . Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Woolfe, S. (2016, October 17). Factory farming could lead us to “antibiotic apocalypse.” The Canary . Web.
WWF. (2016). Farming: Habitat conversion & loss . Web.
IvyPanda. (2020, August 27). The Impact of Factory Farming. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-factory-farming/
"The Impact of Factory Farming." IvyPanda , 27 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-factory-farming/.
IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Impact of Factory Farming'. 27 August.
IvyPanda . 2020. "The Impact of Factory Farming." August 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-factory-farming/.
1. IvyPanda . "The Impact of Factory Farming." August 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-factory-farming/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "The Impact of Factory Farming." August 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-factory-farming/.
Home — Essay Samples — Economics — Industry — Factory Farming
Factory farming and its indelible adverse impacts, factory farming and ethics in animal liberation by peter singer, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.
Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences
+ experts online
Evaluation of yields from organic farming vs. sustainable agriculture, the pluses of using combine harvesters in farming, the job of an agricultural mechanic, let us write you an essay from scratch.
Meat seller on the basis of training and occupation related factors, the implications of varying levels of cattle grazing, the impact of culture on consumer behaviour within the food industry sector, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.
Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind
Vegetarianism and an argument against factory farming, comparison of organic farming and conventional farming, advantages and disadvantages of organic and conventional farming, causes of animal abuse and its impact: a harsh reality, relevant topics.
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
Essay Service Examples Business Industry
15 samples in this category
Factory farming one of the worst crimes in history, what are the problems with animal factory farming.
800+ verified writers can handle your paper.
Harming the environment: factory farming in the united states, should factory farming be banned.
Factory farming: development and its major environmental problems, aristotle, mills and kant's views on factory farming, the effects of factory farming on our environment, environmental impact of dairy farming in new zealand, actual problems in the current system of animal agriculture and the inability of the fda and usda to solve them, can the human body benefit from eating vegan or are we meant to consume animal products, farming today, and what it means for our tomorrow, animal farming as one of the primary contributors of major problems in the world.
Top similar topics
Fair Use Policy
EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].
We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.
120 samples of this type
If you're seeking a workable method to streamline writing a Research Paper about Farm, WowEssays.com paper writing service just might be able to help you out.
For starters, you should browse our large collection of free samples that cover most diverse Farm Research Paper topics and showcase the best academic writing practices. Once you feel that you've studied the basic principles of content structuring and drawn actionable ideas from these expertly written Research Paper samples, developing your own academic work should go much easier.
However, you might still find yourself in a circumstance when even using top-notch Farm Research Papers doesn't allow you get the job done on time. In that case, you can contact our experts and ask them to craft a unique Farm paper according to your custom specifications. Buy college research paper or essay now!
United Farm Workers of America, also known as UFWA was a result of the coming together of two lesser labor unions. These labor unions were led by two people, Cesar Chavez and Larry Itilong. Larry Itilong was the founder and organizer of Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, also known as AWOC whilst Cesar Chavez was the founder and organizer of National Farm Workers Association, also known as NFWA.
Introduction, good example of research paper on geography research.
<Put your full name here> <Put your professor’s / supervisor’s name here> <Put your course here>
Don't waste your time searching for a sample.
Get your research paper done by professional writers!
Just from $10/page
Free research paper about the four horsemen in the chicano movement, development of pearl aquaculture and expertise research paper examples, development of pearl aquaculture and expertise research paper samples, example of research paper on george orwell, research paper on the effects of the farm bill.
Public policy in the United States refers to legislature on the production, distribution and selling practices of food products. Ever since the Great Depression, the federal government came up with regulations known as the Farm Bill that would assist the farmers by increasing and stabilizing their farm earnings (Godwin, Mishra and Ortalo- Magne, 6). Over the history of the country, the government has used two tools, price supports and price control to ensure that the income of the farmers is not adversely or negatively affected.
In January 2014, Congress passed an act that would promote reform of agricultural programs in the United States which would become known as the Farm Bill (GPO.gov, 2014) and it was signed into law in February 2014 (NIFA.usda.gov, 2016). In addition to agricultural programs, the bill supports employment and research within the industry (YouTube, 2014). It also relegates funding for tribal institutions for Native Americans and black institutions such as Central State University in Ohio.
(School Affiliation)
Federal milk marketing orders (FMMO) hoist prices of fluid milk produce and decrease the values of manufactured dairy goods for example cheese and ice cream. What consequences do the prices alterations have on the welfare of a variety of groups of customers? Do the milk marketing orders favour the wealthy over the unfortunate? To vividly answer these questions it is better to have an understanding of the effect of Federal Milk marketing orders on possible Farm Milk Processing. This paper gives an overview of facts about the milk marketing orders presenting an understanding of it effects.
(Institution Name)
Executive summary, memorandum research paper example, animals farm research paper examples, migrant farmworkers research paper, good research paper on changes in the weather pattern, investigation into the causes of low agricultural production and productivity in sub-saharan africa, family winemakers: case study research paper example, factory farming research paper sample, factory farming, research paper on the farm bill, good example of the benefits of free trade agreement (fta) on cotton growers of brazil research paper, example of research paper on corn overproduction, corn overproduction, cesar chavez work with the community service organization research paper examples, managing a small business research paper samples, good research paper on the anthropology of food, henry ford and his continued relevance research paper, advertisement research papers example, free research paper on the life, death and legend of bonnie and clyde, bonnie and clyde, clowning for the camera in 1933, example of detailed business memo research paper.
I have reviewed your memo regarding our client Howdy Brewster describing his business activities and the recent events which have occurred that could have an impact on his 2011 tax returns. His business is a farm and dairy operation on 850 acres of land. The land has been in the family for close to 125 years. There are three existing houses on his property.
A-level research paper on conventional agriculture and its impact on the environment for free use, free research paper about deborah sampson-revolutionary war female soldier, free research paper about african women: a right to food, land, and fair employment, good example of research paper on reasons of migration.
The story is the story of the grandfather of David, one of my best friend. I knew that his family was migrated from Mexico, so I asked my friend to arrange my meeting with his grandfather. His name is George and now 90 years old. He told that they were six brothers, and he was the youngest one. He was graduated at that time.
Free research paper on the linkages and impacts of the, dust bowl in the great plains.
ABSTRACT The nineteen thirties was the time of great tragedy and crisis in America. Together with the recession that hit its economic fields, an ecological and agricultural problem came next as drought brought the Dust Bowl. It was caused by environmental changes and man-made land degradation. The effects of the Dust Bowl added to the recession and downfall of the American economy, but have resulted to the development of technologies that helped agriculture. It was a remarkable moment for the west as it moulded what it is and where it is in the map of the world today.
Research paper on effect of strict immigration policies on california agriculture, immigration policy effects on california farming., free animal rights activists: who is the most effective research paper sample, good example of research paper on name, ‘instructor’s name’, example of research paper on left-wing issues, alternative renewable energy solar panels research paper examples, alternative renewable energy: solar panels, acquiring healthy home market for competing charlotte supplements: exemplar research paper to follow, walt disney world orlando theme park logistics research paper examples, company history, good research paper about facilities management, good research paper on genetically modified foods, how the jamestown settlers of 1607 overcame the research paper samples, struggles of the new world, good example of flannery o'connor research paper, good example of the saga of afro-american slavery research paper, sustainable agriculture research papers example, sustainable agriculture 1.
Executive Summary: 3 Introduction 4 Goals and Objectives 5 Method Used 6 Key Trends: 6 Economic Trend 6 Culture and Social Trend 7 General Trends 8 Ecological Trend: 8 Agriculture 9 Data Analysis 9 Questionnaire Analysis: 10 Interview: 11 Focus Group Interview: 12 Data on Birds: 13 Recommendations 14 Limitations 15
Appendix: 17
Example of westward expansion research paper, changing eating habits to save the earth research paper examples, research paper – human changing eating habits to save the world, mathias v. accor economy lodging research paper example, social change, individual versus collective effort research paper sample, wind energy research paper, change from within and without research paper examples, prospects for change in america’s amish community, the struggle and cohabitation of research paper examples, australian aboriginal groups, the amish primary mode of subsistence and its impacts research paper sample, research paper on international agricultural trade and movement of labour, 1.0 introduction 1.1 background information, tactics used in saratoga campaign of the revolutionary war research paper to use for practical writing help.
Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]
Use your new password to log in
You are not register!
By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .
Now you can download documents directly to your device!
Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.
or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone
The sample is NOT original!
Short on a deadline?
Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED
No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline