Jorge Castro

Professor McClure

Writing 39C

28 April 2018

Historical Conservation Project: Factory Farms- Cattle Industry Literature Review

Introduction:

I shall be reviewing a series and mixture of academic journals, studies and books that have Commented [NK1]: Collection, set, (series)--- best to use
one word and be concise
a hand in decision and understanding regarding the moral and ethical dilemma factory farms, Commented [NK2]: That offer perspective
That grant insight
specifically the arena of the beef industry, faces in the modern United States. Before continuing or That prove helpful in understanding [remove regarding]

developing any key points, there should be some giving points and forewarning in relation to the Commented [NK3]: I actually like this combination of
words.(keep it)
evidence and complications that I am going to set up and address through my paper. One of the
A useful vocab word to add to your arsenal might be:
stipulate-
first concerning understanding or something to keep in mind is that these studies will be presented to require as an essential condition in making an
agreement
in chronological order based on the content and time spam of the work and not the date that they Commented [NK4]: You just said that you’re going to tell
us some stuff about how to read the paper.
were published. The reasoning for this is that much of the research and findings for this topic are
Firstly, …
somewhat nuanced and scattered amongst the years by which at one point it could be studies about

the harmful effects of the cattle industry but then the next or following years are historical

perspectives and scope of the situation. So, upon trying to thread differences of publication years Commented [NK5]: I’m not sure I understand what you
are saying.
together, the content years will be the goal and aim of the conservation. Second and final concern
Nuanced and scattered are very different words.

is that the evidence themselves can switch from being general to narrow and vice versa. This is
largely due to these papers mentioning other animals and/or other parties that might be influenced
Perhaps you are saying that each piece to be discussed has
its own time span and that trying to analyze them
chronologically would require a lot of “bouncing” around
through time?

by the adverse of industrial farming or the specific animal I am interesting is in a same study that
refers to the overall idea of factory farms. With that said, through the review of the evidence, the
majority of the argument and dissent with the intensive produces of the industrial farms will be
Commented [NK6]: If there are two stipulations for your
paper, you should say that at the beginning instead of
“some giving points”. It will be easier to follow if you let the
reader know that there are two things to keep in mind
before continuing.
Commented [NK7]: Inductive vs deductive?
addressed in one of three parts: an moral/ethical stance, to what extent is this justified or right for

us to ‘participate’ in such practices; health disparity, questioning of hazard to be us the consumers

and the animal themselves being exposed to certain chemical and pesticides; and economical,

expenses switching to humane and sustainable alternatives. Through the review, there will be two

critical sections for conducting a historical exploration of said topic – why has the problem

manifested this way, and a resolution for the issues at hand. It becomes apparent and

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

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

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

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

ourselves and the animal involved.

Historical Examination:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

structural expansion of meat production and consumption outside…” (103). The account serves as Commented [NK8]: I’d cut “outside” from the quote

the pivotal starting point of the historical lenses of the topic: meat and idea of meat was

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

expands on the term, “Second Food Regime” that acts as the labeling era of how meat progressed
to attachment and necessity to people’s daily diet and eatery. Indeed, meat and the cattle industry

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

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

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

priority… (106). Thus, it’s explicitly mentioned in the book that the ‘need for meat’ was an

increasingly sanction and absorbing tact as it was steadily transforming to the norm of our

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

increased productivity through industrialization.

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

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

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

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

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

increased wartime production goals” (5). Now, the evidence may seem general, but it is an

important notoriety and fact to know about the tandem between our history with meat and factory

farms in a whole picture. Zeroing in on the specific start of the factory farms for cattle industry

has little or minimal amount of actual studies but rather a mixture and stretch of a variety of

prospects and examination of its association with factory farming.

Morality/Ethics:

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

principles of right and wrong behavior or reflectively the goodness or badness of human character
and nature of our actions. For the ethics portion of the discussion, it is referred to the principles

that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. Morals and ethics go to hand since

the morals, values and beliefs in dissection guide the actual behavior and practices of our ethics.

In the discussion of cattle industry and of factory farms, it raises several red flags and concerns

that jeopardize and tip the balance and framework of what is morally right and what is the ethical

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

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

or study of this topic. Much of the papers and evidence that will be presented hold their own ethical

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

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

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

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

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

key points that can be seen in other academic and research journals including animal welfare,

human health and environmental concerns. These are the foundational basis for a moral/ethical

discourse since the three pillars reveals readily standing concerns in problems that these aspects

revolve around. For instance, Pluhar did research on the investigating results of the Pew

Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. She claimed that “[for] intensively confined

nonhuman animals. Life is nasty, brutish, and (the one mercy) short. Who of us would wish to

change places for a day with a factory-farmed hen, ‘‘broiler,’’ turkey, veal calf, foie gras duck,

pig, or even a feedlot steer? Even if part of the exchange were amnesia about one’s human life and

commensurately decreased intelligence for a day, the pain, boredom, and stress would probably

be crippling”(457). The basis of this argument revolves around the premise of the animal capability
to be sentient- able to feel pain and emotion and subsequently can suffer similarly to us. This moral

value has been a continuum and constant pinpoint for signaling the horrific practices of the

industrial framing practice on cattle and animals such as castration and stun pounding. The

framework here creates the notion of sympathy- that we should feel a degree of sympathy for the

suffering and cruelty brought upon the slaughtering of cattle and animals in general within the

perimeter of the slaughterhouse backed by the industrialized farms.

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

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

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

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

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

only because ‘tender feelings towards dumb animals develop humane feelings towards mankind’”

(Vaarst and Alroe 338). The preliminary basis of the argument is like Pluhra, is that cattle and Commented [NK9]: Is it Pluhra or Pluhar?

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

of the factory farms not solely to makes us appear better but because it should be ethically corrected

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

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

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

sentience is to maintain the assumption that animals that are sentient of emotions are entitled or

should have a level of protection or consideration of their treatment in the industry (249).

Health Concerns:

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

of the animals are another tension risen farce in terms of the condition the cattle (or animals) in
the industrial farms are living in. These conditions include the confinement and small spaces of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

undergo research of the cattle health welfare and condition of the industrial farms. Commented [NK10]: You will be?

Economical:

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

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

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

economy that it would be rather disruptive to our livelihood to let go of it. In addition to that, the

cost of using the industrial frames produces a large market of cheap products and produce that it

can be tempting to want to continue and leave the farms alone. The problem here is the lack of

consideration and factoring of cattle and their own welfare and rights. Insinuated in much of my

reviewed evidence, the research suggests that the costs of changing our society to a more sustain

one is overwhelmed by the long-term benefits it can produce and cultivate. The trade off of losing

cheap meat products such as cattle and poultry will be worth the disconnect as the farms become

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

consume humanely raised cattle.

Conclusive Factor: Resolution

Prompted throughout the review in segments was the mentioning of stable sustainable

agriculture. The fact remains that factory farms are integrated into our society because of the line

of production being made and the consumer demands. Businesses and their properties frequently

seek out and grasp their hands on gaining this benefit to sell the public. But as the public

themselves have made increasingly small but exponentially sizing voices regarding the cattle

industry the it becomes clear that a change must be made. It is uncomfortable to know the horrific

and injectates animals face themselves when residing in these industries. Medical and health

concerns are brought up when looking at tree consumer-product relation between us buying these

products and the animals going through the process.

 Work Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pp. 479-522. ProQuest,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

animal-022513-114239.