Factory Farming vs. Small-Scale Livestock Production: The Effects of Industrialized Farming

By Mo Constantine. Copyright 2016 Mo Constantine. All Rights Reserved.

Meat production in the United States has changed drastically over the last century. The amount of land used for raising animals has decreased, while the amount of meat produced has increased. The United States has experienced a decline in the number of farms and skilled laborers in the industry. Small-scale operations have been replaced with factory farms, or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs first started appearing in the late 1800s, and their numbers exploded in the early 20th century with technological advancements that allowed animals to be kept indoors year round and grow unnaturally fast and large. They grew notably in the post-World War II era and have since taken over the animal agriculture business. Ninety-five percent of pigs, seventy-eight percent of cattle and nearly one hundred percent of chickens sold in the United States are raised on factory farms. [1] CAFOs, along with government subsidies, have made it possible to raise more animals at a lower cost than ever before, and have effectively eliminated small-scale farms from the market.

In this post-industrial age, it is difficult for small-scale farms to survive. Such farms, especially organic, grass-fed or pasture raised farms, face the extra cost of added acres and skilled workers and do not receive the extensive subsidies that factory farms do. These extra costs can increase prices in the markets and make it easy for CAFOs to dominate the industry. The transition from family farms to factories has been largely hidden from the public eye, so many people still imagine a red barn and an expanse of grass when they buy their meat at the store. The effects of this transition—both positive and negative—are extensive. While CAFOs can claim credit for low market prices and greater efficiency, they have also caused significant environmental damage and worsened the quality of life for thousands of people and billions of animals. They have taken the control away from the individual and handed it to corporations. Though consumers do have influence, they do not drive the market. Government subsidies and profit margins propel the meat industry forward and leave consumers to make assumptions about where their food is coming from and the impact it has.

Such large-scale operations with major environmental, social, and economic impacts demand to be more closely examined and brought to public attention. This paper will explore the ways in which CAFOs and small-scale, local farms differ from one another, including the assistance they receive from the government, their effects on the environment, and internal and external costs. It will also examine the sustainability of both methods, taking into account their potential to meet demand for animal products without harming the environment. A focus on the effects of factory farming in the United States will bring attention to the problems that arose when the country transitioned to industrialized agriculture.

The sustainability of raising animals for food has only recently come into question. For thousands of years, humans have been consuming meat as a means of sustenance. With the advent of agriculture came the system of raising animals instead of hunting them. Nearly every country currently raises animals for food and that is not in and of itself an issue. The issues arise when animal agriculture is used to turn a profit instead of feed a population, which usually occurs when land and resources are privatized. When property and resources are shared and everyone involved can obtain what they need, profit margins are not a necessary concern. In “The Critical Tools,” Paul Robbins discusses common property regimes (CPRs) and their potential for success. Writing from the perspective of those who present the notion of the “tragedy of the commons,” Robbins explains, “Under this logic, individuals, assumed to be seeking individual benefit, will invariably take as much as possible from collective resources. When enough individuals behave in that fashion, environmental destruction is inevitable. The only options are centralized coercion or privatization.” [2] However, evidence does not support this assertion. In fact, it is usually the interference of the state and the privatization and appropriation of land away from the locals, into the hands of CEOs and corporations, that result in the exploitation of resources. When the land is no longer used to sustain the community, but instead used to turn a profit, environmental degradation almost inevitably follows.

Community-Supported Agriculture (CSAs) is a somewhat similar system of agriculture to CPRs. CSAs are locally-based models of food distribution that consist of a network of people who support a certain farm or farms. This model was first developed in the late 1900s and the term “community-supported agriculture” was coined by Jan Vander Tuin and Robyn Van En, who created the first CSA in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Members of a CSA pay the farm at the beginning of the season and share the harvest, so if there is a bad year, they all bear the burden equally. Although the farms are privately owned, they are paid for and sometimes even worked on by the community, so they are similar to CPRs in many respects. The land is used to support only those who are part of the CSA and not meant to turn a profit, so exploitation of resources and environmental harm does not occur. Robbins explains, “small producers are faced with subsistence risks that help to create social systems of mutual assistance and tolerable exploitation.” The fact that something like a CSA can exist in this post-industrial capitalist society is an achievement to be celebrated. When discussing the role of capitalism in the agricultural system, Robbins refers to Marx: “workers, technicians, and engineers perform extra labor, the balance of which goes into the pockets of the owner, a non-worker. The same goes for nature; by expropriating nature’s capital and underinvesting in restoration or repair of impacted ecological systems, capitalist firms squeeze surplus from the landscape.” [4] CAFOs are a good example of a capitalist system of agriculture. CAFOs, unlike CSAs, are owned by companies that are far removed from production and are aimed at increasing the wealth of the company. The workers, animals, and land are exploited without concern for sustainability. Robbins rightly asserts that “No explanation of environmental change is complete, therefore, without serious attention to who profits from changes in control over resources, and without exploring who takes what from whom.” [5] CAFOs are not simply a product of increased demand for meat; they represent the ability and desire of corporations and the government to profit from the food system by hiding the means and the costs of production.

CAFOs—which produce nearly half of the world’s meat and account for 99% of the animals raised for food in the United States—are controlled by far removed executives interested mainly in profit margins, setting the stage for an unsustainable system. In “Seeing Like a State,” James C. Scott describes how a state’s view of resources or land is often oversimplified and therefore can result in environmental degradation. He writes, “In state ‘fiscal forestry,’ however, the actual tree with its vast number of possible uses was replaced by an abstract tree representing a volume of lumber or firewood.” [6] A similar thing happens in the livestock industry. Billions of animals are reduced to one abstract version of that animal and are no longer seen as individuals, but rather as something that exists to fill one specific purpose. Everything concerning agriculture is put into anthropocentric terms: “plants that are valued become ‘crops,’ the species that compete with them are stigmatized as ‘weeds,’ and the insects that ingest them are stigmatized as ‘pests.’ Highly valued animals become ‘game’ or ‘livestock,’ while those animals that compete with or prey upon them become ‘predators’ or ‘varmints.’” [7] Taking each individual plant and animal, assigning them a role, and condensing them into one entity creates a system at risk of being unsustainable. They are no longer seen in relation to one another or as part of a whole and their non-anthropocentric role, their undesired but inevitable effect on the environment, is not as clear.


Industrialized agriculture parses out nature into sections, creating regions that are devoted only to one type of plant or animal. Scott points out that “Monocultures are, as a rule, more fragile and hence more vulnerable to the stress of disease and weather than polycultures are.” [8]

There are five main areas of concern when it comes to CAFOs and the sustainability of animal agriculture: greenhouse gas emissions, resource use, waste management, and water use and pollution. In “Killing for a Profit,” Jody Emel and Harvey Neo discuss a report released by the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2006 that found “global livestock production responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, making it the single greatest anthropogenic source.” [9] No matter the agricultural technique, raising animals for food is going to contribute to global warming. “Cow burps” are often cited as one of the main sources because as cows digest food, they release methane, which is a greenhouse gas that has an impact 25 times greater than carbon dioxide over 100 years. [10] In fact, cow burps are found to be responsible for 26% of total methane emissions in the United States11. When raised on pasture instead of in a factory, cows actually release more gas because they are being fed their natural diet.

However, this is not a reason to start avoiding grass-fed beef. The real culprits when it comes to animal agriculture’s contribution to global warming are deforestation and the transportation of crops and animals. In one article, NASA reported, “The single biggest direct cause of tropical deforestation is conversion to cropland and pasture, mostly for subsistence, which is growing crops or raising livestock”. [12] Recent studies show cattle ranching, small-scale farming, and commercial agriculture to be collectively responsible for more than 90% of Amazon rainforest deforestation,[13] with the biggest sector being cattle ranching (Figure 1).

Figure 1

And there are no signs of it stopping. As long as the demand for meat continues to rise, more and more land will need to be cleared to grow more crops to feed to cattle and other natural resources will continue to be allocated to agribusiness; considering it can take as much as 33,000 liters of water, 12 kilograms of grain, and a great deal of fossil fuel energy to produce one pound of beef, this is problematic. [14]

As well as greenhouse gas emissions and land use, grain and water consumption are potential issues inherent to animal agriculture. Emel and Neo described in their article how “Twenty-five percent of the earth’s surface is managed grazing, making it the biggest category of land use (Asner ​et al.​ 2004). Thirty-four percent of the world’s cropland is dedicated to producing feed for livestock.”[15] Since published, those numbers have increased; nearly forty percent of the earth is devoted to farming, the overwhelming majority of which is used to grow crops for livestock or raise animals themselves. [16] David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported that “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million” [17] (Figure 2). Before CAFOs, most livestock were left to graze on fields, so it was unnecessary to grow and transport crops to give to animals. However, CAFOs demand that animals are kept in tight living quarters—hence the name—and therefore do not allow room to spread out on a pasture. Consuming grains such as corn and soybean, though harmful enough to the animal’s health to eventually cause their death, allows them to gain weight more quickly and therefore be killed and sold sooner, creating a more efficient system.

Figure 2

When livestock switched from a grass-based diet to a grain-based one, new problems arose, the most significant of which is waste management. When fed natural diets, such as on many organic, free-range small-scale farms, the livestocks’ waste cycles back into the environment. Wendell Berry, a well-known environmentalist and farmer, explained, “Once plants and animals were raised together on the same farm—which therefore neither produced unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial fertilizer.” [18] When fed grain and meat scraps, as livestock are in factory farms, their waste is not able to be cycled back in and instead must be stored in large vats or “manure lagoons,” as is the case with pig farms, or sprayed onto nearby fields. This can be rather problematic when the quantity and concentration of animals is considered; for example, “A typical pig CAFO of 100,000 animals can generate more waste than a city of 1 million people.” [19] The waste often carries harmful pathogens that can then leak or flood into streams and groundwater, contaminating the water supply and harming aquatic life (Figure 3). The Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium reported in 2014 that “Livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans.” [20] When the feces are sprayed onto fields, it can cause air pollution as well, resulting in reports of strong rotten-egg-like odors from neighboring towns.

Figure 3

Unlike human waste, waste from livestock is not treated and processed with strict standards, and can often find its way into the food we eat. Even worse, if someone becomes sick from bacteria in the feces, it is difficult to treat. This is because mass quantities of antibiotics are regularly administered to the factory animals as a preventative measure—to healthy and sick animals alike. In fact, roughly “80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock,” [21] and such constant exposure to antibiotics can cause bacteria in the animals to develop a resistance to the treatment. These “superbugs,” or antibiotic-resistant pathogens, then get transferred to the human population through the animals’ waste and direct consumption of the animal.

Fortunately, small-scale, diverse, pasture-based animal agriculture does not result in such issues. However, it would be impossible to meet the demand for meat with only small-scale agriculture, despite how much more sustainable it may be. There is simply not enough land on which to raise the cattle, chicken, and pigs. The USDA recommends a 1.8 acres-per-cow rule of thumb. [22] In 2015 there were 28 million cows being raised for food in the United States, 99% of which were kept in CAFOs where animals are made to live in spaces not much larger than themselves. Already, there is more land devoted to animal agriculture in the United States than for any other use. [23] Moving all the cattle out to pasture would be unrealistic, and that is not even considering pigs, chickens, turkeys, and other farm animals raised for food. Clearly, using industrial farms to solve the problem of land use is not a good solution either. As Paul Robbins states in “The Hatchet and the Seed,” “The experience of the green revolution, where technologies of production developed in America and Europe were distributed and subsidized for agrarian production around the world, led to what even its advocates admit to be extensive environmental problems: exhausted soils, contaminated water, increased pest invasions.” [24]

Government Involvement

The subsidizing of agrarian production is what made it possible for CAFOs to become so successful. Subsidies were first introduced into United States agriculture in 1933 under the Agriculture Adjustment Administration (AAA), created under the New Deal. The AAA paid farmers to not grow crops, let land lie idle, and dispose of livestock. The goal was to create “artificial scarcity”: the supply decreases, so the prices increase. This system worked, and farm incomes significantly increased over the first three years. However, in 1936 the AAA was declared unconstitutional and replaced with a program that paid farmers to grow soil-enriching crops. This was the beginning of modern subsidies. Now, crops such as corn and soy are heavily subsidized and the farmers are paid to grow a surplus of such products. These feed grains are the most highly subsidized product in the United States, responsible for 35.4% of the share and $2,841 million worth of subsidies as of 2004.25 The subsidy programs guarantees a price floor for farmers, meaning that they get paid by the government as well as the consumers and receive additional funds if that year’s market price falls below a certain amount. Heavy corn subsidies encourage farmers to feed their cattle corn instead of grass. Since most small-scale farmers raise cattle on pastures, they do not benefit as much from this system of subsidies.

The surplus that results from this system is then sold to the agriculture industry at low prices, making it so that CAFOs have a source of livestock feed that the taxpayers, not the owners, have to pay for. The cost of land for factory farmers is also significantly reduced by the government, and any surplus product is bought by the taxpayers and distributed through programs such as the National School Lunch Program. All of this comes together to create a system in which large, industrialized “farms” are able to boom while smaller, traditional farms find themselves unable to compete or keep up with cost.

Factory farms have taken over the farming industry and, as far as meeting demand and making money, have been a big success. However, “An increasing number of observers argue that such concentration has arisen as a direct result of intentional U.S. government policies that have allowed CAFOs to avoid paying the true costs of their operations.” [26] Concentrated animal feeding operations have an extensive negative impact on the environment, so it is curious as to why the government continues to support them over a more sustainable system. One likely answer is that those in charge of creating policy are able to profit off of the meat industry. The 1970s was the decade during which farms, already in the process of industrialization and consolidation, began turning into corporations. Jim Hightower, former commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture, wrote in 1975:

“While the USDA ignores the needs of small farmers, it gives rapt attention to the wishes of corporate agribusiness. From genetic research programs to Russian wheat deals, USDA is present to promote agriculture bigness, integration, and industrialization. There is a reason for that: USDA officials are themselves products of agribusiness. Prior to becoming Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, for example, served as a paid board member of Ralston Purina, Stokely Van Camp, and International Minerals and Chemical Corporation.” [27]

Since the policymakers are in a position to profit from the industry, they have little incentive to change anything, especially with the pressure from lobbyists.

Agribusiness is controlled by four major companies who are able to set prices and experience high profits. These companies are wealthy enough to spend millions of dollars annually on lobbying for or against certain bills, ensuring that production costs stay low and data about factory farming stays hidden. In recent years, the meat industry has successfully lobbied against acts that would have required greater food safety measures, greater transparency of antimicrobial use and livestock treatment, and greater regulation of the factory farms — all which would have been beneficial for consumers, but increased the costs of meat production. The lobbying efforts are extensive; as one reporter describes, “During 2011, agribusiness, including the food industry, employed 1,081 federal lobbyists who were working for 443 clients at a cost of $123.6 million” [28] (Figure 4). A nonprofit, D.C.-based organization called​ Center for Responsive Politics​ tracks the effects of lobbying on public policy and records the expenditures of major lobbyists. According to these records, the Agribusiness industry spent a total of $131,512,669 in 2015, making them the third highest spenders among other lobbying industries. The top lobbying industry is the pharmaceutical industry, which is an ally to agribusiness. The top contributor to the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying efforts in the 2014 cycle was Pfizer, Inc., one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. In 2014, Pfizer spent nearly $10 million on lobbying.

Figure 4

One of the bills the company spent money on was the Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act (DATA), which would require pharmaceutical companies to report antimicrobial sales to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who would then release the data to the public. [29] The bill did not pass. [30] This is just one example of a plethora of bills aimed at increasing safety standards and transparency of factory farms that were never passed. The pharmaceutical industry’s interest in the meat industry is peculiar, until one realizes that a large majority of antibiotics are sold to be used for livestock.

Costs of Production

The reason why agribusiness opposes policies aimed at making meat production more safe is because it adds costs that the corporations have to shoulder. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe explained in 2004 how “Industrial animal farming seeks out competitive advantage by shifting the costs of production onto individual farmers and the environment.” [31] Small-scale farmers face many additional costs that CAFOs do not have to deal with, such as the time and labor intensiveness of processing and slaughtering due to the decreased amount of slaughterhouses, tough USDA regulations and standards, traceability, lack of qualified labor, and access to capital. Since the industrialization of agriculture, “the number of farms raising cattle and swine has been in steady decline, although the number of animals produced has continued to rise…[and] the size of slaughterhouses increased.” [32[ Furthermore, “the number of facilities willing to work with small farmers has dwindled.” [33] Often, small farmers have to travel great distances to find a suitable slaughterhouse. Sean Stanton, who owns a small organic farm in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, describes the difficulties he faces when trying to prepare his meat for the market: “The nearest [slaughterhouse] site is 60 miles north…there is one closer, but it’s gross so we don’t go there.” They are able to slaughter their chickens on site, but the other animals have to go through a USDA approved site. “It costs between $300-$400 essentially to put a pig into a box,” Stanton explains. “Smithfield foods, it costs them like $15 or $25 or something insanely low.” Prices are also higher for farmers who must take their meat to small slaughterhouses. “Fee-for-service processing at small slaughterhouses is also expensive when compared to large processing facilities,” [34] because there are fewer animals being processed less efficiently and less often.

There is also a lack of skilled farm labor. The industrialization of agriculture made it possible for farms to turn into assembly lines. There is no longer a need for skilled labor; each factory worker has a simple, repetitive job to perform that takes minimal training. However, at a small farm, qualified labor is still a necessity. Stanton explained that “We are dependent on skilled labor which is great in many ways but it’s also challenging in many ways,” remarking on the “actual, physical connection to the process” that one can experience while working on a traditional farm. Finding skilled laborers to work on a farm, however, can be challenging.

Additionally, USDA regulations can be more of a burden on small-scale farms than CAFOs. Because smaller farms are less efficient and employ fewer people, the policies and standards that they have to meet in order to gain USDA approval can “disproportionately increase processing costs for small operators and decrease their ability to turn a profit” [35] The regulations can be complicated and confusing and require a great deal more work for independent farmers. Traceability is another concern that has a greater impact on small farmers. CAFOs share this concern, but less so, since their customers are not expecting an above-average standard. Local farmers, since they cannot hope to compete with industrial agriculture on efficiency or price, often “target high-value niche markets where their animal husbandry practices can garner a premium.” [36] To do this, they must ensure that the animal they send off to the slaughterhouse is the same animal they get packaged up in return. Usually, this is easier said than done.

Social and Environmental Justice Issues

The advent of factory farming has also caused a slew of social and environmental justice issues. Here especially, the “tight interconnections among the ‘ecological’ and the ‘social’”37 is apparent. As discussed earlier, CAFOs often have harmful impacts on the region in which they reside. They contaminate the soil and pollute the air, causing distinct, unpleasant odors. Often, these factories will be located in low-income communities or communities where the majority of residence are people of color. One study found that “Hog facilities are much more likely to be found near poor and non-white communities (Wing ​et al.​ 2000).” [38] Such occurrences have come to be associated with “environmental racism.” Environmental racism refers to the placement of low-income and minority communities in unsafe or degraded environments, such as neighboring a factory that causes lots of pollution or in an area home to toxic waste. Emel and Neo describe the effects that a pig farm in the United States had on its community: “Neighbors have…reported staph infections that will not heal, as well as groundwater pollution, psychological damage, infant mortality, and multiple other respiratory problems.” [39]

The placement of CAFOs in such communities is not accidental. Agribusiness is aware that the factories have significant negative impacts on the surrounding communities and so target areas in which the population does not have a means to fight against it: “Within the United States, a large number of local communities have been prevented from legislating or zoning against hog facilities,” [40] and so have to suffer the consequences of industrialized farming.

Other communities are also impacted by CAFOs, albeit indirectly. Corn and soy are heavily subsidized and mostly consumed by livestock. There is a massive surplus of corn in the United States because the government makes it profitable to grow the crop to no end. Julie Guthman describes in “Excess Consumption or Over-production?: US Farm Policy, Global Warming, and the Bizarre Attribution of Obesity” that the best ways to keep farmers in business are to “moderate over-production, to make them super-competitive through technological innovation, or to open new markets.” [41] Over-production of corn becomes especially problematic when substitutionism is introduced. [42] The genetically-modified, nutrient-free corn gets added to thousands of other food items, replacing a more expensive ingredient and decreasing their nutritional value as well as their cost. Meat and dairy products are also subsidized, receiving more money from the government than produce. This creates a food system in which it is often cheaper to buy a hot dog and a bag of chips than a fruit or vegetable, so low-income households are forced to choose the less healthy option.

In areas where a majority of the residents are in low-income households, something known as a “food desert” can often be found. A food desert is a region where there are no supermarkets, farmers markets, or fresh food available or accessible to residents. Their means of acquiring sustenance is limited to fast food restaurants, drug stores and gas stations. Taking into account agriculture subsidies and food deserts, it becomes easy to understand why the United States is home to so many obese yet malnourished, individuals. The USDA recommends that, at most, two-fifths of one’s meal includes meat and animal products, yet over 70 percent of the subsidies are directed at such products (Figure 5). Though the individual consumer does have some power to choose what they eat, it is not as simple as it may seem with the government and corporations making it so that nutritionally poor food is the most readily available. In the United States, food is for profit, not for people.

Figure 5


The invention and transition to concentrated animal feeding operations in the United States has been referred to as an unmitigated environmental disaster by most environmentalists worldwide. As Erik Millstone and Tim Lang point out in ​The Atlas of Food​, “The justification that industrial livestock production produces ‘cheap meat’ is undermined when the costs of dealing with pollution and disease are taken into account.”[43] However, industrial livestock provides more meat—regardless of price—than small-scale agriculture could ever hope to produce, and in that sense could be viewed as necessary in order to keep up with demand. The United States is one of the top meat-consuming countries, second only to Luxembourg (Figure 6). There have been conflicted reports about meat consumption in recent years; some speculate that in the next fifty years, there will be a continued increase in overall meat consumption, while other reports show that people are beginning to eat less meat. Most studies show a decline of red meat consumption and an increase in poultry sales (Figure 7). This can be attributed to recent health warnings concerning the negative effects of consuming too much red meat.

Figure 6

Figure 7

It is unclear if the demand for meat motivated the supply, or if the supply came first and created the demand. When the government and large corporations discovered that industrialized animal agriculture was especially profitable, they increased the production of animal products, thus driving down the price and increasing sales. It is possible that with increased awareness about the negative environmental, social, and health impacts of factory farming, meatconsumption will fall. Redirected subsidies would also cause sales to decline and be extremely beneficial for the population. If fruits and vegetables received more government aid, more citizens would be able to obtain the nutrients they need. Small-scale agriculture would also benefit from this change, since it is easier to grow fruits and vegetables than to raise animals.

In an interview, Michael Pollan estimated that in order to sustainably raise animals for food, each person would need to consume no more than two ounces of animal products (animal products including meat, dairy, and eggs) per week. Sean Stanton, when asked what he thought would be a good solution to the problems of industrialized farming, remarked “Eat less meat.” As it stands, agriculture as it was done for most of human history is more sustainable, yet cannot meet the demand, whereas CAFOs can, but are unsustainable. A dramatic decrease in consumption of meat is the only way to move toward a more sustainable, less costly way of feeding the rapidly growing population and tackling issues of social and political inequality.


[1] ​Marcus, ​Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money​, 1.

[2] ​Robbins, “The Critical Tools,” 51.

​[3] Ibid, 52.

​[4] Robbins, “The Critical Tools,” 51.

[5] ​Ibid, 52.

[6] Scott, “Seeing Like a State,” 12.

[7] ​Scott, “Seeing Like a State,” 13.

​[8] Ibid, 21.

[9] Emel and Neo, “Killing for a Profit,” 71.

[10] ​EPA, “Overview of Greenhouse Gases,” para. 1.

[11] EPA, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013,” ES5.

​[12] NASA, “Causes of Deforestation,” para. 2.

[13] Butler, “Amazon Destruction,” graphic.

[14] Barclay, “A Nation of Meat Eaters: See How It All Adds Up,” graphic.

[15]Emel and Neo, “Killing for a Profit,” 70.

[16] Owen, “Farming Claims Almost Half Earth’s Land, New Map Shows,” 1.

[17] ​Cornell University, “U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists,” para. 2.

[18] Imhoff, ​CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation): The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories, ​86.

​[19] Emel and Neo, “Killing for a Profit,” 74.

[20] ​Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Press Release, 2.

​[21] Andersen and Kuhn, Cowspiracy.

[22] NRCS, “Balancing your Animals with your Forage,” 1.

[23] ​Emel and Neo, “Killing for a Profit,” 70.

[24] Robbins, “The Hatchet and the Seed,” 10.

[25] USDA, “Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan,” 26.

[26] Imhoff, ​CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation): The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories​, xvi-xvii.

​[27] Hightower, “The Case for the Family Farmer,” 44.

[28] ​Flynn, Slicing Into Food Industry’s $40 Million Lobbying Efforts, 6.

[29] “Antibiotics in Feed Animals: Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act of 2013 (DATA),” 1.

[30] Govtrack.us, “Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act of 2013”

[31] Emel and Neo, “Killing for a Profit,” 77.

[32] Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, “(M)eat Local®: Market and Distribution Challenges in the Local Meat System,” 343.

[33] Ibid 363.

[34] Ibid 368.

[35] ​Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, “(M)eat Local®: Market and Distribution Challenges in the Local Meat System,” 370.

[36] Ibid, 361.

[37] Turner, “Environmental Science and Social Causation in the Analysis of Sahelian Pastoralism,” 160.

[38] Emel and Neo, “Killing for a Profit,” 76.

[39] Ibid, 74.

[40] Ibid, 76.

[41] Guthman, “Excess Consumption or Over-production?: US Farm Policy, Global Warming, and the Bizarre

Attribution of Obesity,” 54.

[42] Ibid, 58.

[43] Lang and Millstone, ​The Atlas of Food: Who Eats What, Where, and Why​, 37.


“Antibiotics in Feed Animals: Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act of 2013 (DATA).”​ STOP Foodborne Illness RSS​. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2016.

Barclay, Eliza. “A Nation Of Meat Eaters: See How It All Adds Up.” NPR. NPR, 27 June 2012. Web. 12 May 2016.

Butler, Rhett. “Amazon Destruction.” ​Mongabay.com​. N.p., 23 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 May 2016.

Cowspiracy​. Dir. Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn. 2014. DVD.

Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act of 2013, H.R. 820, 113th Cong. (2013). Print.

“Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum.” ​(M)eat Local®: Market and Distribution Challenges in the Local Meat System​. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.

Emel, Jody, and Harvey Neo. “Killing for Profit: Global Livestock Industries and Their Socio-ecological Implications.” ​Global Political Ecology​. By Richard Peet, Paul Robbins, and Michael Watts. London: Routledge, 2011. 67-83. Print.

Emel, Jody, and Harvey Neo. ​Political Ecologies of Meat​. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.

FAO. Livestock and Fish Primary Equivalent, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ​Current Worldwide Annual Meat Consumption per capita​. 2013. Web. 12 May 2016.

Flynn, Dan. “Slicing Into Food Industry’s $40 Million Lobbying Efforts | Food Safety News.” Food Safety News​. N.p., 02 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 May 2016.

Guthman, Julie. “Excess Consumption or Over-production?: US Farm Policy, Global Warming, and the Bizarre Attribution of Obesity.” ​Global Political Ecology​. By Richard Peet, Paul Robbins, and Michael Watts. London: Routledge, 2011. 51-66. Print.

Hightower, Jim. “The Case for the Family Farmer.” ​Food for People, Not for Profit: A Source Book on the Food Crisis​. By Catherine Lerza and Michael F. Jacobson. New York: Ballantine, 1975. 35-44. Print.

Imhoff, Dan. ​CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation): The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories​. San Rafael, CA: Earth Aware, 2010. Print.

“Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013.” (n.d.): n. pag. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 12 May 2016.

“Lobbying Database.” ​Opensecrets RSS​. Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 12 May 2016.

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. Press Release. ​Gulf Hypoxia​. N.p., 4 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 May 2016.

Marcus, Erik. ​Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, & Money​. Boston, MA: Brio, 2005. Print.

Millstone, Erik, and Tim Lang. ​The Atlas of Food: Who Eats What, Where, and Why​. Berkeley: U of California, 2008. Print.

“Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” ​Methane Emissions​. United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 12 May 2016.

Owen, James. “Farming Claims Almost Half Earth’s Land, New Maps Show.”​ National Geographic​. National Geographic Society, 9 Dec. 2005. Web. 12 May 2016.

Popken, Ben. “Why A Salad Costs More Than A Big Mac.”​ Consumeris​t. N.p., 04 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2016.

Robbins, Paul. “The Critical Tools.”​ Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction​. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 41-70. Print.

Robbins, Paul. “The Hatchet and the Seed.” ​Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction​. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 3-16. Print.

Scott, James C. “Nature and Space.” ​Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed​. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 11-52. Print.

The United States of America. The United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Services. ​Balancing Your Animals with Your Forage​. Print.

The United States of America. The United States Department of Agriculture.​ Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan​. 2006. Print.

“Tropical Deforestation : Feature Articles.”​ Tropical Deforestation: Feature Articles​. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web. 12 May 2016.

“U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists | Cornell Chronicle.” ​U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists | Cornell Chronicle​. Cornell University, 7 Aug. 1997. Web. 12 May 2016.