Chapter 1

Environmental Impacts of Industrial

Livestock Production

Susan J. Kraham

Abstract Population growth, urbanization, changing economies and food prefer-

ences have increased pressure on the agricultural sector and on livestock production
and related feed crops in particular. The FAO expects an increase of 70 % in world
annual agricultural production from 2005/2007 to 2050 to feed the rising popula-
tion, which is expected to grow by 40 % over the period (Conforti, Looking ahead in
world food and agricultural perspectives to 2050, 2011). Much of the increase in
crop (cereal) production is expected to come about as a result of increased demand
for feed for livestock (Conforti, Looking ahead in world food and agricultural
perspectives to 2050, 2011). To keep up with the demand for animal products,
the method of production is changing. In the United States and increasingly around
the world, family farms raising small numbers of livestock have given way to
industrialized livestock practices often referred to as Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations or CAFOs. Livestock facilities confine ever increasing numbers of
animals indoors. Vitamin supplements allow livestock to be confined indoors
without sunlight and allow the production of offspring year round, while
subtherapeutic use of antibiotics allow livestock to be confined in greater numbers
and close quarters, raising the number of livestock that could be produced on a
given feedlot or facility (Steinfeld, Livestock in a changing landscape: drivers,
consequences, and responses, 2010). Genetics management and nutrition have also
allowed animal production operations to intensify, and for the productivity of each
animal to increase. For example, in the United States in 1957 it took a broiler
chicken 101 days and 17.7 pounds of feed to reach market weight, while in 2001 it
took only 32 days and only 5.9 pounds of feed. This has allowed US meat
production to skyrocket by over 250 % over the past half-century (Pew Commis-
sion, Putting meat on the table: industrial farm animal production in America,
2008). Huge amounts of animal waste are a consequence of industrialized livestock.
Inadequate regulation of manure deposition and disposal has resulted in significant
air, water, and soil pollution. Animal waste from intensified operations is often
disposed of on agricultural land year-round, and in far greater amounts than the land

S.J. Kraham (*)

Columbia Environmental Law Clinic, Columbia University School of Law, New York,
NY, USA
e-mail: skraha@law.columbia.edu

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 3

G. Steier, K.K. Patel (eds.), International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety
Law, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_1
4 S.J. Kraham

can absorb. Soils are over-fertilized thus releasing toxic runoff, and leaching
contaminants. The runoff can flow into water bodies causing severe ecological
harm, and decomposing waste can release dust particles, bacteria, endotoxins, and
volatile organic compounds, as well as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other
odorous substances into the air (Halden and Schwab, Environmental impact of
industrial farm animal production, 2008). Manure often contains many problematic
substances including high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, endocrine disruptors
that can interfere with hormonal signaling in animals and humans, antibiotics that
can nurture drug-resistant populations in the soil they are reach, resistant forms of
bacteria, and arsenic (Halden and Schwab, Environmental impact of industrial farm
animal production, 2008). As noted above, the increase in livestock production
increases demand for feed crops thus requiring intensification of agricultural land
use and resulting in a host of environmental costs on varying levels including
increased erosion, lower soil fertility, reduced biodiversity, pollution of ground
water, eutrophication of rivers and lakes, and impacts on atmospheric constituents,
climate, and ocean waters (Steinfeld, Livestock’s long shadow: environmental
issues and options, 2006). This chapter will address those impacts. It is organized
by medium of impact. Section 1.2 addresses air pollution and climate-change
related impacts. Section 1.3 provides background on water consumption and pol-
lution related to industrial livestock. Section 1.4 takes on the range of land-based
impacts including habitat, forestry and desertification. The text provides an over-
view of the impacts but offers specific examples from a number of countries. Many
of the impacts addressed are covered in more depth and/or with more specificity in
later chapters.

1.1 Introduction

Population growth, urbanization, changing economies and food preferences have

increased pressure on the agricultural sector and on livestock production and related
feed crops in particular. The FAO expects an increase of 70 % in world annual
agricultural production from 2005/2007 to 2050 to feed the rising population, which
is expected to grow by 40 % over the period (Conforti 2011). Much of the increase
in crop (cereal) production is expected to come about as a result of increased
demand for feed for livestock (Conforti 2011).
To keep up with the demand for animal products, the method of production is
changing. In the United States and increasingly around the world, family farms
raising small numbers of livestock have given way to industrialized livestock
practices often referred to as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or
CAFOs. Livestock facilities confine ever increasing numbers of animals indoors.
Vitamin supplements allow livestock to be confined indoors without sunlight and
allow the production of offspring year round, while subtherapeutic use of
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 5

antibiotics allow livestock to be confined in greater numbers and close quarters,

raising the number of livestock that could be produced on a given feedlot or facility
(Steinfeld et al. 2010).
Genetics management and nutrition have also allowed animal production oper-
ations to intensify, and for the productivity of each animal to increase. For example,
in the United States in 1957 it took a broiler chicken 101 days and 17.7 pounds of
feed to reach market weight, while in 2001 it took only 32 days and only 5.9 pounds
of feed. This has allowed US meat production to skyrocket by over 250 % over the
past half-century (Pew Commission 2008).
Huge amounts of animal waste are a consequence of industrialized livestock.
Inadequate regulation of manure deposition and disposal has resulted in significant
air, water, and soil pollution. Animal waste from intensified operations is often
disposed of on agricultural land year-round, and in far greater amounts than the land
can absorb. Soils are over-fertilized thus releasing toxic runoff, and leaching
contaminants. The runoff can flow into water bodies causing severe ecological
harm, and decomposing waste can release dust particles, bacteria, endotoxins, and
volatile organic compounds, as well as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other
odorous substances into the air (Halden and Schwab 2008). Manure often contains
many problematic substances including high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous,
endocrine disruptors that can interfere with hormonal signaling in animals and
humans, antibiotics that can nurture drug-resistant populations in the soil they are
reach, resistant forms of bacteria, and arsenic (Halden and Schwab 2008).
As noted above, the increase in livestock production increases demand for feed
crops thus requiring intensification of agricultural land use and resulting in a host of
environmental costs on varying levels including increased erosion, lower soil
fertility, reduced biodiversity, pollution of ground water, eutrophication of rivers
and lakes, and impacts on atmospheric constituents, climate, and ocean waters
(Steinfeld et al. 2006b).
This chapter will address those impacts. It is organized by medium of impact.
Section 1.2 addresses air pollution and climate change related impacts. Section 1.3
provides background on water consumption and pollution related to industrial
livestock. Section 1.4 takes on the range of land-based impacts including habitat,
forestry and desertification. The text provides an overview of the impacts but offers
specific examples from a number of countries. Many of the impacts addressed are
covered in more depth and/or with more specificity in later chapters.

1.2 Air Impacts

Animal agriculture produces air pollution and contributes to global climate change.
The sources of the pollution are varied. U.S. industrial farms produce more than
400 different types of gases—the odor from swine manure alone contains 331 sep-
arate chemical compounds. These emissions include several gases, such as hydro-
gen sulfide and ammonia, which are hazardous to human health. Moreover, the
6 S.J. Kraham

400 figure does not include the dust, particulate matter, and endoxins that are
released in the course of industrial farming (Sustainable Table 2009).
Perhaps more significant are the ways in which animal agriculture contributes to
global climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. Methane, nitrous
oxide, and carbon dioxide are all produced as byproducts of industrial animal
agriculture. In total, these gases account for approximately 14.5 % of global green-
house gas emissions, the equivalent of 7.1 billion tons of CO2 (Gerber et al. 2013).
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the agriculture sector was
responsible for 7.6 % of US greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 (EPA 2015). The
gases come from a myriad of processes, including methane released by animal
digestion (enteric fermentation) and the nitrous oxide emitted as a result of nitrog-
enous fertilizers used on animal feed crops (O’Mara 2011). The decomposition of
animal manure also releases methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide (O’Mara
2011; Sustainable Table 2009). Additionally, animal agriculture contributes CO2 to
the atmosphere through deforestation and fossil fuel use.

1.2.1 Air Pollution

The major issue is the scale of industrial livestock operations today. The huge
quantities of animal manure produced by these operations are the largest contrib-
utor to factory farm air pollution. According to the USDA, approximately 335 mil-
lion tons of manure are produced annually on farms in the United States. That
manure is stored in tanks and lagoons and then sprayed onto farm fields. As it
decomposes the manure releases toxic chemicals into the air. Because the waste
sites are often located next to the farms, employees, livestock, and neighboring
residents are all exposed to the airborne chemicals. “Hydrogen sulfide, methane,
ammonia, and carbon dioxide are the major hazardous gases produced by
decomposing manure” (Sustainable Table 2009). Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
are discussed in this section. Since they are green house gases in addition to
pollutants, carbon dioxide and methane are discussed in the following section on
climate change.

1.2.2 Ammonia: NH3

Ammonia, or NH3, is considered a nitrogen (N) fertilizer and a valuable resource.

However, NH3 that escapes into the atmosphere at excessive levels can have
negative effects on air quality, ecosystem productivity, and human health (Bittman
and Mikkelsen 2009). Livestock production is the largest source of ammonia
emission in North America. Livestock manure, specifically, accounts for about
80 % of U.S. ammonia emissions. In North Carolina the hog industry alone pro-
duces more than 300 tons of ammonia each day. Most ammonia comes from
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 7

chicken and hog facilities, and is produced during the decomposition of organic
nitrogen compounds in manure (Sustainable Table 2009). Excessively nitrogen-rich
feed may not be completely converted into animal byproducts (e.g. eggs, milk, etc.)
during the digestive process, with the remainder of nitrogen excreted in urine and
manure. The chemical and microbial processes of decomposition then break down
the waste, releasing NH3 into the air. Although barns capture some of the ammonia,
that amount is usually released when the manure is applied to the land. Liquid
manure has a high initial NH3 loss after application and, in general, a greater
application rate corresponds with a greater rate of loss of N compounds. Addition-
ally, elevated methane from digestion tends to produce a higher pH in manure
residue, which affects a higher NH3 loss. Of the NH3 lost to the atmosphere, about
40–50 % is from animal housing, 5–15 % from storage, and 40–55 % from land
application (Bittman and Mikkelsen 2009).
Atmospheric ammonia has hazardous effects on both animal and human health.
NH3 is an alkaline compound, meaning it is easily absorbed into surfaces. The NH3
that remains in the atmosphere reacts with acidic compounds (e.g. nitric and
sulfuric acids), which forms secondary airborne particulates. These particulates
are dangerous because their small size—a diameter of less than 2.5 μm (or PM 2.5)
means they are inhaled deeply into the lungs (Bittman and Mikkelsen 2009).
Exposure to ammonia can cause irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory and
cardiovascular tracts and is especially damaging to employees (Sustainable
Table 2009).
NH3 also, notably, has detrimental effects on the environment—both by the
formation of fine particulate matter (PM) and by uncontrolled Nitrogen
(N) deposition. The PM contributes to atmospheric haze, which occurs when
sunlight hits the airborne particles. Although the majority of the damage occurs
near livestock production sites, particulate ammonia is also carried by the wind and
redeposited in environments that may otherwise have remained pristine; this, in
turn, has negative effects on the ecosystem. NH3 that hits the soil is converted into
Nitrate (NO3
), a process that releases acidity (H+). Acidification of soil damages
sensitive vegetation, such as lichens and bryophytes. NH3 that falls on plants, either
entering directly through the stomata or as NH4+ (via dissolution in water), will be
also excrete H+ through the plant roots. As a fertilizer, NH3 can increase growth of
plants with high-N demand, which has a destabilizing effect on naturally occurring
plant species (Bittman and Mikkelsen 2009). In water, increased Nitrogen can
promote eutrophication (excessive plant and algae growth), which harms water
quality and impacts biodiversity (Chislock et al. 2013).

1.2.3 Hydrogen Sulfide: H2S

Hydrogen sulfide is primarily a byproduct of hog farming. Like ammonia, this

pollutant comes from livestock manure. As animal waste decomposes, sulfur-
containing organic matter produces hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is
8 S.J. Kraham

hazardous to heath because it limits the ability of cells to use oxygen. Exposure to
high levels of hydrogen sulfide can cause neurologic and cardiac disorders, sei-
zures, comas, and even death. Lesser reactions include skin, eye, and respiratory
irritation (Sustainable Table 2009).
The effects of these pollutants on employees are measurable. About 70 % of
CAFO employees suffer from acute bronchitis and 25 % from chronic bronchitis.
For some employees the effects of dust and gas inhalation are deadly. In one 5-year
study, at least 12 employees died from asphyxiation working in manure pits
(Sustainable Table 2009).
Residents of communities adjacent to factory farms are also put at risk by
airborne pollutants. Hospitalizations increase in people living near farms. One
study watched as a hog facility opened near one town in Utah: diarrhea-related
hospitalizations increased fourfold and respiratory-related hospitalizations
increased threefold over a 5 year period. In Minnesota, the Pollution Control
Agency measured hydrogen sulfide concentration in the air of neighborhoods
adjacent to industrial hog farms; the amount exceeded the maximum exposure set
by the World Health Organization. In Iowa, a 2006 study compared the health of
children at elementary schools—one adjacent to a CAFO, and one not. Children
who attended the CAFO-adjacent school were significantly more likely to suffer
from asthma. The effects of airborne pollutants can be felt in more unexpected
ways, as well. Psychological problems, like depression and mood swings, as well as
fatigue, are also associated with the airborne pollutants coming off CAFOs (Sus-
tainable Table 2009).

1.2.4 Particulate Matter

As CAFOs expand the scale of their operations, particulate matter (PM) becomes an
increasingly threatening pollutant. CAFOs located in arid and semi-arid environ-
ments are the most conducive to dust emissions. Emissions in these climates often
follow a diurnal pattern known as evening dust peak (EDP)—meaning emissions
are at their highest after sunset (Sakirkin et al. 2012).
Particulate matter is measured in terms of its aerodynamic diameter. Most
relevant to CAFO pollution is fine particulate matter, which has a diameter of
2.5 μm or less. PM2.5, as it is called, is the most threatening to human health,
because it is inhaled deeply into the lungs and, as a result, causes respiratory
problems (Sakirkin et al. 2012). PM can also cause haze, reduce visibility, and
carry bad-smelling odors (Bittman and Mikkelsen 2009).
There are several sources of dust emissions on livestock feedlots. Cattle walking
on uncompacted manure, vehicles driving on unpaved roads, hay grinding, grain
delivery, and combustion of gases and fuels all emit PM. These types of emissions
are considered primary PM, or fugitive dust, which is caused directly by mechanical
or chemical processes. When atmospheric conditions are stable these ground-level
emissions remain low to the ground (a phenomenon known as “inversion”). In order
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 9

to limit the amount of primary PM released on feedlots, uncompacted manure

should be regularly removed from corral surfaces—the thicker the layer of manure,
the higher the potential for dust emissions. Cattle, for example, drag their rear
hooves when they walk; the deeper the hoof penetrates into the uncompacted
manure, the more PM is released into the air. Alternatively manure kept around a
30 % moisture content also means less PM churned up from hoof contact (Sakirkin
et al. 2012).
Secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere. In CAFO operations, secondary PM
is most often a result of NH3 (ammonia) reacting with sulfate, nitrate, and/or
chloride ions in the atmosphere. Both primary and secondary PM negatively affect
environments beyond their immediate vicinity, and both carry consequences for
climate change. In Clean Air Act terminology, primary and secondary PM and fine
PM are regulated as one of the six major criteria pollutants with set National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Malodorous PM may also be regulated
under the doctrine of nuisance law (Sakirkin et al. 2012).

1.2.5 Climate Change

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
reported that green house gas emissions from livestock represent 14.5 % of all
human induced emissions, the equivalent of 7.1 billions tons of CO2 annually
(Gerber et al. 2013). Under a business as usual scenario, annual agricultural
emissions are projected to grow to 8.2 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030
(O’Mara 2011). Livestock emissions come in the form of methane, nitrous oxide,
and carbon dioxide. The discussion below outlines the major emission pathways for
these greenhouse gases.

1.2.6 Methane: CH4

With a global warming potential 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide,
methane is a significant contributor to climate change (Sustainable Table 2009).
According to the FOA, methane (CH4) accounts for about 44 % of the green house
gas emissions produced by livestock supply chains, more than any other single
source. The amount of methane released is the equivalent of about 3.1 billion tons
of CO2 and accounts for 44 % of all anthropogenic methane emissions. The primary
source of CH4 by far is a digestive process called enteric fermentation—it alone
accounts for nearly 40 % of total emissions (Gerber et al. 2013). Enteric fermenta-
tion is part of the process by which ruminant animals, such as cattle, digest plant
materials. In enteric fermentation anaerobic microbes decompose (and ferment)
food present in the animal’s rumen. This process breaks the food down into simple
molecules, allowing ruminants to digest complex carbohydrates that other
10 S.J. Kraham

non-ruminant animals cannot (Pew Center 2009; Gerber et al. 2013). One
byproduct of this process is methane.
This situation in exacerbated by the low-quality grain-based feed used by
commercial farms today (Sustainable Table 2009). Although such feed fattens
their livestock quickly and inexpensively, ruminants are not able to digest it easily,
causing the animals to emit more methane per unit of energy ingested (Sustainable
Table 2009; Gerber et al. 2013).
Animal manure is also a major source of methane emissions: as organic material
in the manure decomposes, some of it is converted into CH4. According to the FAO,
this “occurs mostly when manure is managed in liquid form, such as in deep
lagoons or holding tanks” (Gerber et al. 2013). Nonetheless, some methane is
also released from the deposition of manure on pastures (O’Mara 2011). In 2013,
the FAO estimated that each year manure management contributes enough CH4 to
the atmosphere to account for 4.3 % of all livestock section emissions, as compared
with a 39.1 % share contributed by enteric fermentation, making manure a rela-
tively smaller but still significant source of methane pollution (Gerber et al. 2013).

1.2.7 Nitrous Oxide: N2O

With a global warming potential 310 times greater than carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide (N2O) accounts for about 29 % of greenhouse gas emissions from animal
agriculture. The amount of nitrous oxide released is equivalent to 2 billion tons of
CO2 annually and accounts for 53 % of all anthropogenic N2O emissions. Like
methane, manure is a significant source of nitrous oxide emissions. During manure
management—i.e., the storage and processing of manure—N2O is produced “as
part of the N cycle through the nitrification and denitrification of the organic N in
livestock dung and urine” (EPA 2015). Manure management is also responsible for
indirect N2O emissions, as when animal waste releases nitrogen into the atmo-
sphere as ammonia (NH3) that can later transform into N2O. According to recent
FAO estimates, nitrous oxide emissions from manure management account for
5.2 % of all greenhouse gas emissions from livestock supply chains (Gerber et al.
2013).
More significant in terms of nitrous oxide pollution are the emissions related to
the production of livestock feed. First, N2O is released from manure applied to
pastures and feed crops. The use of nitrogenous fertilizers on feed crops also
significantly increases the amount of mineral nitrogen available in soils, and thus
the amount of N2O produced naturally by the N cycle (EPA 2015). According to
one study, the use of synthetic fertilizers was responsible for 68 % of all US nitrous
oxide emissions in 2004 (Sustainable Table 2009). Together, nitrous oxide emis-
sions related to feed production accounts for about one quarter of all livestock
greenhouse gas emissions (Gerber et al. 2013).
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 11

1.2.8 Carbon Dioxide: CO2

The carbon dioxide released in livestock production accounts for about 27 % of

sector emissions and 5 % of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest source of
CO2 emissions, about 20 %, is from the burning of fossil fuels along all stages of the
supply chain. Fossil fuels are used in the manufacture of fertilizers, as well as by the
machinery used to manage, harvest, process, and transport feed. Further down the
supply chain at the animal production site, fossil fuels are needed to run mecha-
nized operations (e.g., heating and ventilation systems), as well as in the construc-
tion of buildings and equipment. When the animals are slaughtered, fossil fuels are
needed to process and transport the animal products to retailers (Gerber et al. 2013).
The other major source of CO2, about 9 % of total emissions from livestock
supply chains, is from land use change. According to the FAO, these emissions
come mainly from the conversion of natural habitats for pasture and feed crops
(chiefly soybeans). The expansion of feed crops and pasture “causes the oxidation
of C in soil and vegetation” (Gerber et al. 2013). Deforestation also contributes to
climate change because forests play an important role in the carbon cycle by
absorbing carbon. One study found that tropical forests absorbed 1.4 billion metric
tons of carbon dioxide out of 2.5 billion metric tons absorbed annually (Schimel
et al. 2014).

1.3 Water Impacts

Industrial livestock has contributed to the degradation of the world’s water

resources in two principle ways: consumption and pollution. Consumptive use
includes direct animal consumption, feed crop irrigation, and the use of water for
processing and other hygiene and safety requirements. Industrial livestock is one of
the leading causes of water pollution globally. Animal waste, fertilizer runoff from
feed crops, and other sources of wastewater all result in significant adverse impacts
to water resources.

1.3.1 Consumptive Water Use

The agricultural sector uses more freshwater than domestic and industrial sectors
combined (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Within the agricultural sector, water used for
livestock production constitutes nearly one-third of water use (Swanepoel
et al. 2010). Most of the water used in livestock production is used for irrigating
feed crops, but some water is also used in caring for livestock and processing the
animal products. This heavy use of freshwater resources exacerbates water scarcity
12 S.J. Kraham

in many regions—a problem that also is intensified by the effects of climate change
(Pimental et al. 1997).

1.3.2 Animals: Care and Processing

Animals must be provided adequate water. A reduction in their water intake can
reduce meat, milk, and egg production, and may also lead to health concerns and
death. The amount of water used to care for animals will depend greatly on the
location and conditions of the facilities. For example, confined animals may
consume less water than free-ranging ones because of their lower activity level,
yet they may need more water for cooling where the facility’s temperatures are high
(Steinfeld et al. 2006b).
Water is also a major input when the animal or the animal product moves beyond
the farm to the processing facility. The amount of water necessary to process the
animal products depends on the products and the methods of production. For
example, the processing of poultry generally uses more water than the processing
of red meat, in part due to the procedures required to defeather the animals. Local
regulations regarding hygiene and quality in food processing activities generally
can also increase requirements for water use (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.3.3 Feed Production

The majority of water consumed in livestock production is used to grow feed crops.
However, the efficiency with which water is used for feed production depends on
the type of livestock and crops and the manner in which the livestock and the crops
are produced (Swanepoel et al. 2010). For example, the amount of water consumed
in a livestock production system relative to the amount of water available in an area
will differ greatly between systems that principally rely on rainfed crops from those
which principally rely on irrigated feed crops. Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations rely primarily on irrigated feed crops rather than grazing. Where
irrigated feed crops are produced in areas with a shortage of water, it leads to
additional water depletion and creates competition with important water uses
(Steinfeld et al. 2006b).
The water used for feed crop production contributes to problems with effects
beyond increasing water scarcity. Water consumption for feed crop production
reduces the amount of water available to a natural ecosystem, contributing to the
loss of ecosystem services, the loss of biodiversity, and the degradation of habitats.
For example, excessive withdrawals of surface water for irrigation may reduce river
flow, jeopardizing wetlands habitats and aquatic species downstream. Additionally,
repeated application of freshwater can lead to salinization. Although there is only a
small amount of salt in the water used for irrigation, this salt content accumulates
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 13

affecting the efficiency of plant growth and eventually causing soil infertility.
Another concern is waterlogging. When irrigated croplands are not properly
drained, excess water can become trapped in the soil. Severe waterlogging dis-
places oxygen in the soil, killing plant roots and soil microorganisms (Molden
2007).

1.3.4 Case Study: Incentivizing the Efficient Use of Water

Increased demands for water for food production and other uses, combined with
increased water stress due to climate change, require the agricultural sector to
efficiently use water resources if demand is to be met with the current limited
supply. Current water pricing structures, which tend to subsidize or undercharge
CAFO’s for water, encourage the inefficient use of water (Pimental et al. 1997). In
order to promote the efficient use of water, some regions have implemented a
pricing structure that incentivizes water conservation.
In the Paraı́ba do Sul River Basin of southeast Brazil, gradual price increases for
water motivated consumers to adopt water efficient technologies and processes and
provided an additional source of income that could be invested into the manage-
ment of the watershed (UNEP 2014). The water pricing reforms that were instituted
in Brazil in the late 1990s focused on the emerging practice of pricing water as a
resource, also known as “bulk or ‘wholesale’ water pricing,” rather than pricing the
service of providing water to consumers, also known as “retail water supply and
distribution” (Asad et al. 1999). By setting a bulk price for water, it should
encourage an economically efficient allocation of water between agricultural,
domestic, and industrial uses, and incentivize also consumers to efficiently use
water. Additionally, water pricing systems that internalize the costs of cleaning
water encourage the reduction of water pollution. Although water pricing may
encourage these benefits, they often are not prioritized over the main goal of
generating revenue (Asad et al. 1999). Where there is a focus on revenue genera-
tion, it is especially important that water-pricing policies are designed and applied
in a way that does not negatively affect the poor by depriving them of meaningful
access to this essential resource (Swanepoel et al. 2010).
The relative success in Brazil at incentivizing the efficient use of water and
discouraging non-compliance through water pricing is attributed to four factors.
First, the negotiation process with the public rather than a top-down implementation
allowed users from all sectors to contribute to the plan. Second, the revenues raised
through the water pricing system is required to be reinvested in the river basin.
Third, there was an emphasis on social responsibility, including a focus on incen-
tives rather than sanctions to encourage cooperation with the system. Lastly, there
was a strong focus on capacity building to implement the project (Formiga-
Johnsson et al. 2007).
14 S.J. Kraham

1.3.5 Water Pollution

Industrial agriculture has led to an increase in water pollution. Most significantly,

industrial agriculture produces large quantities of animal waste that cannot be
absorbed by the farms that produce them. The various methods used to store or
dispose of this waste are often mismanaged in a way that leads directly to water
pollution. However, the mismanagement of animal waste is not the only aspect of
livestock production that contributes to water pollution. Other elements of the
production process that also cause water pollution include the generation of waste-
water in the care of live animals or the production of animals products, the increase
in soil erosion, and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in feed crop
production. In the United States, most of these pollution sources are regulated
under the Clean Water Act. However, the effects of these pollutants could also be
reduced through improved waste, wastewater, and land management techniques
that reduced the amount of pollutants that enter the environment in the first place.

1.3.6 Livestock Waste

The most significant impacts on water pollution from industrial agriculture are
caused by the excessive production and mismanagement of livestock waste. Tra-
ditionally, livestock and crops were raised in an integrated system, where livestock
waste was utilized as a fertilizer resource in crop production and crop wastes were
used as livestock feed. However, the increased intensification of livestock produc-
tion in CAFOs has created a system where the production of livestock and crops has
been separated. Although CAFOs continue to apply livestock waste to crops as
fertilizer, the amount of waste created on a given farm can no longer be absorbed by
the surrounding cropland.
Livestock waste includes a number of contaminants, such as nutrients, heavy
metals, pathogens, antibiotics, and hormones, each of which causes its own harmful
effects on the environment and human health (Burkholder et al. 2007). Many of
these contaminants are intentionally given to the livestock in their feed or as part of
a medical treatment to promote growth. However, when the contaminant is not fully
absorbed or deteriorated within the animal, then it is excreted in the animal’s waste.
For example, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous are natural elements that
are found in animal feed. However, the amount of nutrients fed to an animal often
exceeds the amount that the animal can efficiently absorb. As such, large quantities
of these nutrients are still present in the animal’s waste. When the waste is not
properly disposed of, these contaminants enter surface water and groundwater
systems via runoff or leaching due to precipitation after ground application, and
leaks or other failures of storage facilities.
Large amounts of nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus, are introduced into
the environment via animal waste each year. Some nutrients created by livestock
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 15

production can be reused as fertilizer by applying the waste to crop fields, as these
same nutrients are necessary for plant growth. However, the amount of nutrients
produced usually far exceeds what the operation’s land can reabsorb (Vanotti and
Szogi 2008). Where there is a surplus of nutrients that cannot be absorbed, it is far
more likely that the nutrients will enter the environment via runoff or leaching.
When nutrients enter the water, they can lead to eutrophication, which is excessive
plant and algae growth. In freshwater and marine ecosystems, eutrophication leads
to an overconsumption of oxygen, unappealing flavor and odor of the water, and
increased bacterial growth. The overconsumption of oxygen is the most significant
of these impacts, as it can alter the balance of plant and animal species in an
ecosystem and increase the production of toxins by algae, interfering with human
utilization of the water course for recreational or commercial purposes. Phosphorus
has not been linked to any direct negative effects on human health. However, high
levels of nitrate, a certain form of nitrogen, can pose a risk to human health,
poisoning infants and causing abortions and stomach cancers in adults (Steinfeld
et al. 2006b).
Heavy metals in livestock production pose many of the same problems as
nutrients. Like nutrients, heavy metals are naturally occurring substances that plants
and animals require in certain levels for growth; however, the presence of high
levels of heavy metals may harm the ecosystem and human health. Heavy metals,
such as “copper, zinc, selenium, cobalt, arsenic, iron, and manganese,” are com-
monly added to livestock feed to promote health and growth. However, as
explained above, the animals do not absorb the full amount consumed, meaning
that most heavy metals are reintroduced to the environment via livestock waste.
Since heavy metals are not degradable, they can remain in the ecosystem indefi-
nitely and bioaccumulate through the food chain. Human exposure to high levels of
heavy metals has been linked to cancer, anemia, delays in growth, cardiovascular
and neurological problems, and many other problems (Vasey et al. 2011).
Livestock waste also contains large amounts, in volume and variety, of bacteria,
viruses and other parasites that can affect human health (Burkholder et al. 2007).
Some of these pathogens and their effects are well known, such as Camplyobacter,
E. Coli, Salmonella, Picornavirus (foot-and-mouth disease), Parvovirus, and giardia
lamblia. Each pathogen has its own method of transmission, but some common
methods of transmission to humans include transmission via contaminated water,
food washed with contaminated water, or food that is improperly prepared. Some of
these pathogens may harm livestock as well as humans (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).
The potential for pathogen related illnesses is one of the reasons why livestock
production heavily utilizes antimicrobials, including antibiotics. These pharmaceu-
ticals are used for “therapeutic purposes” to treat illnesses, “prophylactically” to
prevent illnesses during stressful events, and “routinely . . . to improve growth rates
and feed efficiency” (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). However, antimicrobials are not
entirely degraded within the animals, and therefore end up in the environment;
antimicrobials have been found in groundwater, surface water, and tap water. The
use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes has been linked to increased
16 S.J. Kraham

antibiotics resistance of the pathogen species present in the livestock population

and the waterways polluted with livestock waste (Burkholder et al. 2007).
Hormones are another pharmaceutical that may be used to increase the effi-
ciency of livestock feed conversion. Like antimicrobials, a significant portion of the
hormones used is excreted in livestock waste and can be found in groundwater,
surface water, and tap water. Hormones have not been proven to cause negative
impacts on human health or the environment, but they have been suggested as an
explanation for “developmental, neurologic, and endocrine alterations” in wildlife
(Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.3.7 Animal Care and Processing

There are many other activities related to livestock production that contribute to
water pollution, including the care of animals and the process of animal products.
For example, the production of dairy products uses a significant amount of deter-
gents and disinfectants. Also, wastewater from slaughterhouses and meat-
processing plants contains high levels of contaminants, such as blood, fat, and
solid waste, that could have negative effects on the environment if not properly
treated. Furthermore, regulations regarding hygiene and food safety may create
additional requirements that increase the amount of wastewater that is produced by
these activities (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.3.8 Soil Erosion

Another major cause of water pollution is soil erosion. Livestock production can be
linked to soil erosion directly through livestock impacts on grazing lands. The
impacts of the animals’ hooves can cause compaction of wet soil, loosening of dry
soil, the destabilization of stream banks, and the reduction of plant cover. Each of
these impacts increases soil erosion. Additionally, livestock production indirectly
contributes to soil erosion through land conversion and poor land management
practices in feed production areas, which destabilize soil and increase runoff.
Sediments transported due to soil erosion are the leading water pollutant in the
United States; they obstruct waterways, destroy aquatic ecosystems, disrupt water
flow and availability, and contribute to eutrophication (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.3.9 Feed Crop Related Impacts

Additionally, livestock’s demand for feed contributes to the use of chemical

fertilizers and pesticides, which are both common contributors to water pollution.
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 17

Chemical fertilizers and pesticides help combat the effects of decreased soil
fertility, increasing production on poorly managed and marginal lands. However,
these chemical inputs also migrate into water sources either through runoff into
surface waters or by leaching into the groundwater through the soil. Since fertilizers
contain high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and other nutrients, when fertil-
izers contaminate a water source, they cause many of the same negative effects as
nutrients in livestock waste as discussed above. Pesticides can damage the ecosys-
tem by affecting target and non-target species, and they also have adverse impacts
on human health when they are present in drinking water and in food (Steinfeld
et al. 2006b).

1.3.10 Case Study: CAFO Waste and Water Pollution

Hog farms often are cited as the principle contributors of animal waste to water
pollution, but dairy farms, cattle feedlots and poultry farms also use the same
lagoon and spray field system of waste management that commonly contributes
to water pollution. For example, a lagoon on a dairy farm in Lowville, NY burst in
August, 2005, spilling 3 million gallons of cow manure into the Black River,
roughly one fourth the volume of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (York 2005). This
incident alone polluted over 30 miles of the river. Lethal levels of ammonia and
very low levels of dissolved oxygen which led to the death of an estimate of
280,000—370,000 fish over 24 miles of the Black River (New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 2014). In response to this incident,
health inspectors began testing nearby wells for contamination, and a nearby town
that relied on the Black River for part of its public water supply was required to
cutoff intake water from the river all together (York 2005). Emergency crews
attempted “to dilute the contamination by increasing the water flow to a Black
River tributary,” (York 2005) but no other cleanup or primary restoration measures
were able to be implemented “due to the river conditions at the location of the spill”
(DEC 2014). Fortunately, as of 2010 the Black River had shown signs of significant
recovery (DEC 2014).
Reports of similar incidents have emerged from various other states as well. In
Wisconsin, a sinkhole opened up near a manure spray field, allowing an unknown
quantity of manure to leach into the water supply of over a dozen drinking wells of
nearby homes. Sixteen people became ill and one was hospitalized due to the
effects of this contamination. Contamination of drinking water is not limited to
this isolated incident. In one Wisconsin county it is estimated that nearly one-third
of private drinking wells are contaminated with high levels of bacteria, and over
20 % of drinking wells tested positive for bacteria in another county. Environmental
advocates contribute this contamination to the large farms in the area (Rodewald
2015).
18 S.J. Kraham

1.4 Land Impacts

Decreasing crop yield growth rates, population growth, urbanization, and a trend
towards more meat-intensive diets are resulting in an increased demand for crop-
land. Land used for agricultural purposes currently makes up around 33 % of the
world land area, and cropland specifically makes up 10 %. The United Nations
estimates an increase in global agricultural land of between 7 and 31 % until 2050.
By 2050 the population will grow to an estimated 9.6 billion, and 70 % of that
population will be living in cities (Bringezu et al. 2014). Urbanization and higher
incomes are both correlated with demand for meat (Steinfeld et al. 2006a). Trends
since the 1990s have already shown a rising consumption of animal based food and
leveling of vegetal food. By 2030, global meat consumption is expected to increase
by 22 % and milk and dairy consumption by 11 %. Developing countries with rising
income levels are driving much of this demand (Bringezu et al. 2014). We are
seeing a move to more industrialized production systems to keep up with this
demand. Industrialized systems currently account for production of 67 % of poultry
meat, 42 % of pig meat, 50 % of eggs, 7 % of beef and veal, and 1 % of sheep and
goat meat (Rischkowsky and Pilling 2007). The industrialization of livestock
production depends on feed being available at a relatively low cost (Rischkowsky
and Pilling 2007). Meat based food requires nearly five times more land per
nutrition value than plant based food does (Bringezu et al. 2014) and cropland
has thus become a crucial resource.
These changes in demand, coupled with a shift to industrialized agriculture or
the Green Revolution, have helped drive a transformation in the global agricultural
industry. The industry has shifted from a decentralized system where local farmers
grow food for their local communities to a highly centralized, global system of
industrialized agriculture (Barker 2007). The move is away from state-centered
national systems towards globalized, privatized systems and expanding trade
(Bringezu et al. 2014).
The increase in demand for land for agricultural purposes also sees countries
making large-scale land acquisitions in an attempt to guarantee their food security
(Bringezu et al. 2014). Wealthy countries lacking natural resources have been
acquiring farmland in resource-rich developing countries. Around 15–20 million
hectares of land were estimated to be the subject of negotiations from 2006 to 2009.
Countries engaging in these investments include India, Saudi Arabia, South Korea,
the United Arab Emirates and China (Robertson and Pinstrup-Andersen 2010). Abu
Dhabi, lacking the water resources to sustain its agricultural needs, for example, is
developing almost 30,000 ha of farmland in Sudan to grow alfalfa for animal feed,
in addition to maize, beans, and potatoes (Cotula et al. 2009).
China similarly faces water, land, and labor shortages, and only 12 % of its land
is arable. This makes it more costly to grow feed grain in China than to have it
grown abroad and shipped back to China. China produces and consumes nearly half
of all pork, so the demand for feed is pronounced. From 2011 to 2012 nearly 37 %
of Brazil’s total soy production was exported to China, and this demand is helping
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 19

drive the conversion of natural ecosystems and pasture to large-scale soy farming.
China has also been strategically investing in the international soybean supply
chain to strengthen its national security over food. In September 2013 it was
reported that China had signed a deal to lease 100,000 ha in Ukraine for 50 years
to grow crops and raise pigs. Chinese companies are also at various stages of
acquiring large tracts of land in Brazil and Argentina directly (Sharma 2014).
These large-scale acquisition contracts can lead to a number of negative social,
economic, and environmental impacts. Intensive agricultural techniques can leave
land irreversibly degraded when countries focus on short-term commercial yield
and ignore long-term consequences. Local farmers who are displaced will suffer
economic losses and turn to wage labor, resulting in a loss of indigenous farming
knowledge. The host country also risks food insecurity, since it has given up
valuable cropland to produce food for export to the leasing country (Robertson
and Pinstrup-Andersen 2010).

1.4.1 Intensification of Agricultural Production

The rising demand for meat is spurring land-use change globally as well as a shift to
more industrialized, intensive production methods. The FAO expects about 80 % of
projected growth in crop production by 2050 in developing countries to come from
intensification in the form of yield increases (71 %) and higher cropping intensities
(8 %), though in some regions arable land expansion is expected to account for up to
30 % of crop production growth. In developed countries, total area of arable land
has been declining since the mid 1980s, and increases in crop yield have accounted
for all production increases and compensated for declining land use during this time
(Conforti 2011). New techniques are being used to produce feed crops such as use
of high-yield crop varieties, fertilization, irrigation, and pesticide use. This change
brings with it a number of environmental impacts. Forests are being cleared,
production is being intensified and this is resulting in fertilizer and nutrient pollu-
tion, great losses to biodiversity, habitat fragmentation and destruction, and
overexploitation of species. These impacts will be discussed in this section.

1.4.2 Intensive Livestock Production

In contrast with the current globalized system where feed is grown in one continent
to feed livestock across the globe, livestock production historically relied on local
feed inputs. Livestock production took place on pastures, and animals were fed a
mix of local food, crop residues, and waste products of human foods. Due to the
increasing land scarcity and lack of arable land, however, the industry has relied
increasingly on technological advances and new alternative resources to keep up
with the demand for increased livestock production. Grazing systems currently
20 S.J. Kraham

predominate and cover 26 % of earth’s ice-free surface. For global ruminant

production, industrial feedlots make up just a small fraction of systems (as even
animals brought to feedlots are raised on pasture first) and are mainly located in
North America, and to a lessor degree in Europe and the Near East. However,
almost 50 % of pork production and 70 % of poultry production currently occurs in
industrialized systems. Over half of that production is happening in developing
countries (Steinfeld et al. 2006a).
To meet the increase in demand, meat and milk production is expected to double
by 2050 relative to 1999–2001 levels. Developing countries are expected to provide
78 % of the increase in production from 2011 to 2020. This increase will be made
possible by greater reliance on industrial farm animal production. These systems
are growing six times as fast as grazing systems and twice as fast as traditional
mixed farming systems (Humane Society International 2011).
Industrial systems typically involve highly concentrated systems where tens to
hundreds of thousands of animals are confined in welfare-depriving conditions
(Humane Society International 2011). They generally hold animals of a similar
genotype, raised for one purpose, that are fed nutrient-dense industrial feeds and
have a high rate of turnover. In the United States these operations are called animal
feeding operations (AFOs), and operations holding at least 1000 animal units
(where 1 animal unit ¼ 1000 pounds body weight) and where animals are confined
or stabled for at least 45 days in any 12 month period are defined by the EPA as
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) (Otte et al. 2007).
The GAO found that the number of large farms in the United States increased
from 3600 in 1982 to 12,000 in 2002. The number of animals raised on large farms
also increased. By 2002 almost half of livestock and poultry were being raised on
large farms GAO (2008). In the United States, 54 % of food animals are concen-
trated on only 5 % of farms (Halden and Schwab 2008). From 1980 to 2004 offtake
per unit of stock of pork, chicken and milk increased by 61 %, 32 % and 21 %
respectively. This intensification has resulted from an increase in inputs and
technological advances in livestock production techniques including genetics,
health, and farm management allowing greater output per animal (Steinfeld et al.
2006a).

1.4.3 Monoculture

Industrialized agriculture is dependent on feed, and due to modern intensive

agricultural practices, much of this feed is grown in highly specialized monoculture
systems. Monocultures for animal feed make up almost 40 % of global cropland
(UNCTD 2013). In these systems farmers produce only a single species of crop,
attempting to increase production through the use of high-yield varieties and
elimination of weed species. These systems suffer reduced agrobiodiversity. As a
result, they lose the benefits of a complex system where a variety of plants and
animals provide varying ecosystem services.
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 21

Agricultural intensification has led to a dramatic reduction in the types of crops

grown worldwide. Humans are able to consume 7000 species of plants, but of these
only 150 are commercially valuable. Only 103 species make of 90 % of food crops
grown worldwide, and Rice, Wheat, and Maize make up 60 % of the calories and
56 % of the protein people derive from plants. This loss of genetic diversity reduces
food stability by making farmers more vulnerable to climactic and other stressors
(Thrupp 2000).
Feed crop production’s reliance on monoculture systems has numerous ecolog-
ical impacts. Many species that are attracted to mixed farming systems, where a
diverse group of crops and livestock are produced, vanish from monoculture
systems (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Monocultures are more vulnerable to pests and
diseases and contain fewer soil organisms and nutrients (Thrupp 2000). They
require increased pesticide use to deal with more abundant pests. This can lead to
pesticide diffusion along the food chain, which builds pesticide resistance ulti-
mately creating a vicious cycle (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Heavy pesticide use can
also harm beneficial insects and fungi that would otherwise provide useful services
(Thrupp 2000). Crop diversity is also a key factor in nutrient use efficiency.
Monoculture systems harm soil diversity, which is important for nutrient cycling,
pest control, disease control, and superior soil structure (Jackson et al. 2005).
Monoculture systems also jeopardize pollination, an eco-system service wild
pollinators, especially wild bees, contribute to crops globally. Pollinators thrive in
farms where chemical use is minimized and where there are diverse cropping
patterns. Crop rotations, intercropping, and growing different varieties of a single
crop are all considered good practices resulting in better crop performance, nutrient
availability, pest and disease control, and water management (FAO 2011).
Monocultures lose the benefits agrobiodiversity can provide when different
species provide complementary effects. For example, growing mung beans or
sweet potatoes with maize can guard against weeds due to the effects from the
shade they provide (FAO 2011). An experiment conducted in Yunnan Province,
China showed how crop genetic heterogeneity offers greater disease resistance than
monoculture. The cool, wet climate of Yunnan Province makes rice grown there
particularly susceptible to blast disease. Farmers generally control the disease
outbreak through multiple foliar fungicide applications. In 1998 farmers were
planting mainly monocultures of a less commercially desirable non-glutinous
hybrid rice variety, because the more commercially desirable glutinous variety
had lower yields and was highly vulnerable to blast. In the first year of the
experiment in 1998, four varieties of rice, including the susceptible variety, were
planted in mixtures. Farmers only had to make one foliar fungicide application that
year. In the second year, the experiment was expanded and no foliar fungicide
applications were required. The experiment was a huge success. In the first year the
mixed system blast severity was only 1 % for the susceptible variety compared to
20 % in monoculture systems, and the second year showed similar results. The
varieties grown in mixtures additionally had yields that averaged 89 % greater than
those grown in monoculture (Youyong 2000).
22 S.J. Kraham

1.4.4 Soil Degradation and Erosion

Intensive agricultural techniques can result in depletion of natural resources such as

soil and water. Organic matter plays an important role in soil by providing substrate
for nutrient release and by forming soil structure that increases water-holding
capacity and reduces erosion. In intensive cropland in temperate zone agriculture,
however, there can be declines in soil organic matter within the first 25 years of
cultivation. This decline is typically 50 % of the original Carbon content. In tropical
areas losses can occur within just 5 years of conversion to intensive systems.
Additionally, as organic matter decomposes it releases large amounts of CO2 that
contribute to climate change (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Herbicide use and mulching
can also have long-term effects on soil microorganisms and processes (Wardle
1999).
Soil erosion rates are influenced by several factors including soil structure,
landscape morphology, vegetation cover, rainfall and wind levels, land use, and
land management including method, timing, and frequency of cultivation. Water
runoff has the greatest effect on erosion, with erosion increasing as infiltration of
water into the soil decreases. Croplands under intensive agricultural systems are
particularly susceptible to erosion due to the removal of the natural vegetation that
would otherwise bind the soil, protect it from the wind, and improve infiltration.
Intensive systems also lead to erosion through inappropriate cultivation practices,
the mechanical impact of heavy agricultural machines on the land, and depletion of
the natural soil fertility (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.4.5 Habitat Deterioration

Intensification of agricultural land use is accompanied by large increases in nitro-

gen and phosphorous fertilization that can pollute and degrade habitats (Steinfeld
et al. 2006b). Increased fertilizer use has accounted for one third to one half of
increased yield growth in developing countries since the Green Revolution, and
fertilizer use in developing countries has continued to grow at about 3.6 % over the
last decade. Globally, however, fertilizer use has stabilized due to a decline in use in
developed countries (Conforti 2011).
Crops can only take up a limited amount of the nitrogen and phosphorous that is
applied to them, and the rest can become pollution that contaminates habitats.
About 40–60 % of nitrogen that is applied to crops is left in the soil or lost to
leaching (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). When nitrogen and phosphorous leak into water-
ways, it can lead to eutrophication of estuaries and coastal seas, loss of biodiversity,
and changes in species compositions in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Nitrogen
leaching can also lead to groundwater pollution with nitrate and nitrite, increases in
the greenhouse gas N2O, increases in NOx and resulting tropospheric smog and
ozone, and acidification of soils and sensitive freshwaters (Tilman et al. 2001).
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 23

About half of the fertilizer nitrogen and phosphorous that is taken up by crops
ends up in human and livestock waste streams after consumption, turning livestock
waste into a potent pollutant as well. Livestock waste is rarely treated for nitrogen
and phosphorous removal, so the nitrogen and phosphorous inputs can eventually
end up in surface and groundwater, and nitrogen also volatizes into the atmosphere
as ammonia (Tilman et al. 2001). This problem is aggravated by the fact that
livestock manure is often poorly managed and unregulated.
In addition to fertilizer pollution, monoculture agriculture offers limited food
and shelter for wildlife, and as parcels of land are set aside for intensive agriculture
use, wildlife habitats become fragmented (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Agricultural
intensification has been linked to declining farmland bird populations (considered
good indicators of overall farmland biodiversity) due to practices such as fertilizer
and machinery use that harm habitats and availability of food for birds (Donald
et al. 2001).

1.4.6 Ecological Impacts of Reduced Agrobiodiversity

Agrobiodiversity encompasses all biological resources that perform services and

functions on which agriculture relies. It includes all crops and livestock, soil
organisms, insects, bacteria and fungi, all organisms that act as pollinators, symbi-
onts, pests, parasites, predators, decomposers, and competitors, and the environ-
ment in which they exist. It takes into account not just species and genetic
resources, but human methods and processes used to exploit these resources
(Thrupp 2000). Agricultural production is highly dependent on the eco-system
services such as pest control, pollination, soil fertility, and others, provided by
both “planned” (aspects of biodiversity controlled by the farmer) and “associated”
biodiversity in agricultural eco-systems (Tscharntke et al. 2012).
Increasing demand for livestock production and resulting demand for feed crop
has led to four trends that impact agrobiodiversity. First, expansion (extensification)
of area used for grazing or crop production, which can harm overall biodiversity by
degrading and destroying habitats when land is cleared to allow grazing and
farming to expand (Steinfeld et al. 2010). For example, in Latin America growth
of large-scale cattle ranching is driving deforestation (Brighter Green 2013).
Recently, however, extensification has been giving way to intensification, and
there has been increasing pressure on smaller amounts of land to produce greater
yields of livestock and crop.
Intensification has led to practices such as monoculture (discussed in-depth in
Sect. 1.4.3), and the resulting homogenization of agricultural eco-systems can have
a significant impact on the composition and abundance of associated biota such as
pests, soil invertebrates and microorganisms, which can in turn affect plant and soil
processes (Matson et al. 1997). Since there is a lack of eco-system services being
provided, there is a resultant need for increased pesticide and fertilizer use. In
systems with reduced agrobiodiversity, not only is there greater exposure to pests
24 S.J. Kraham

and diseases, but monoculture systems can be devastated by an attack. Homogeni-

zation on farms also results in fewer soil organisms and nutrients, and the increased
reliance on pesticides harms beneficial insects and fungi, which can lead to lowered
productivity. In Bangladesh, thousands of farmers were able to eliminate pesticide
use and increase yields by 11 % by incorporating fish into their rice paddies,
adopting other methods to restore the natural balance between insects and fauna,
and planting vegetables on dykes around the edges (Thrupp 2000).
The increasing reliance on greater pesticide use can also be toxic to birds,
mammals, amphibians, and fish. Pesticides can reduce the abundance of weeds
and insects that are food sources for other species and herbicides can change
habitats leading to population decline (Isenring 2010). Pollinators, that can be
harmed by pesticide use as well, play a hugely important role and are required for
reproduction of almost 90 % of angiosperms, improve production of 70 % of the
globally most important crop species, and influence 35 % of global human food
supply. There is evidence that having a diverse group of pollinators on site can
increase crop yields (Tscharntke et al. 2012).
The third trend is rangeland contraction. This trend positively impacts biodiver-
sity when lands are protected from crop farming or heavy grazing, but can adversely
impact biodiversity when it prevents light grazing that has the potential to increase
biodiversity (Steinfeld et al. 2010).
Finally, abandonment occurs when farmers abandon grazing areas to allow them
to return to their pregrazing vegetation. Abandonment threatens biodiversity in
Europe, where 26 out of 196 habitat types considered important due to their high
biodiversity value are threatened by abandonment of rural activities (Steinfeld et al.
2010).
Not only has intensification led to a direct erosion of the genetic diversity of
livestock, but the methods used to raise and feed livestock also impact biodiversity
directly and indirectly. The rest of this section will explore those impacts.

1.4.7 Livestock Genetic Diversity

Agricultural intensification leads to a loss of biodiversity as farmers rely more and

more on only a few livestock breeds that are the most productive. Of the 30–40
mammalian and bird species recognized as domesticated, fewer than 14 make up
90 % of the global livestock production (Steinfeld et al. 2010). The FAO classifies
around 20 % of total livestock breeds as “at risk.” In the 6 years leading up to 2007,
62 breeds went extinct, an average of almost one breed per month. This has been the
trend globally as the world moves towards intensive, industrialized production of
confined cattle, hogs and poultry. These industrialized systems are devoid of many
of the environmental stressors that would otherwise demand a more diverse set of
criteria in livestock selection. For example, there is less demand for livestock that
are adapted to thrive in local environments. There is similarly less demand for
livestock that are naturally resistant to disease because farmers rely instead on
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 25

veterinary inputs. In these systems feed can make up 60–80 % of production costs
so there is greater focus on breeds with high feed conversion ratios. There is also
greater demand for species that meet consumer preferences and technical require-
ments for uniformity of size, fat content, color, flavor, etc. Breeds that are special-
ized to thrive in these environments have helped lead to genetic erosion of other
breeds (Rischkowsky and Pilling 2007).
In contrast, in low to medium external input systems farmers still rely on local
breeds that are especially suited to the local conditions, highlighting the importance
of maintaining genetic diversity resources. Having diverse genetic resources allows
farmers to select from the pool those breeds that satisfy the demands of a particular
production system. Further, having access to diverse genetic resources allows
selection of particular characteristics that would be well suited to dealing with
upcoming environmental challenges—such as increasing demand for livestock
products, climate change, and emerging animal diseases (Rischkowsky and Pilling
2007).
There are three broad categories of threats to livestock genetic diversity: trends
in the livestock sector, disasters and emergencies, and epidemics and control
measures. The security of a breed is linked to its role in livestock systems, and a
breed can become threatened if its functions are no longer required. For example,
specialized draught breeds are being threatened by the shift to greater mechaniza-
tion in agriculture. The growing demand for livestock products is leading to a
replacement of local breeds by a small selection of high-yielding breeds. Farmers
may also cross-breed to produce higher yields, which can lead to genetic erosion.
Regulations concerning product uniformity and food hygiene can also reduce the
number of marketable livestock products. For example, it has been noted that the
current carcass grading system works against small animals and thus disincentives
production of certain indigenous cattle breeds. Consumer preferences, like a pref-
erence for leaner meat, can also lead to a decline of breeds without those charac-
teristics. Globalization also encourages high specialization in local regions, leading
to a decline in diversity (Rischkowsky and Pilling 2007).
Disasters and emergencies, such as natural disasters in addition to war and
political instability, can impact genetic diversity through several channels. First,
there is the immediate physical impact of the disaster on livestock. Second, social
changes that the emergency brings about and interventions that take place to
respond to it can have an effect. In particular, “restocking,” where external actors
provide livestock to a household can influence genetic diversity. Important factors
are whether the breeds provided are local or non-local, and whether farmers give
them preferential selection for breeding (Rischkowsky and Pilling 2007).
Finally, diseases threaten genetic diversity directly by causing death and indi-
rectly by farmers slaughtering or abandoning certain breeds when disease control
measures become too costly or burdensome. Genetic diversity is important to
conserve resources that could combat disease. Additionally, research has shown
that genetically diverse populations are less susceptible to disease epidemics
(Rischkowsky and Pilling 2007).
26 S.J. Kraham

1.4.8 Grazing Impacts on Biodiversity

Management of livestock grazing can also affect biodiversity of grasslands, with

potentially protective and damaging impacts. To some extent livestock grazing can
protect rangelands by preventing them from being converted to other uses less
suited to maintaining biodiversity, like crop farming and development (Steinfeld
et al. 2010). However, grazing also drives deforestation, woody encroachment, and
desertification (McAlpine 2009).
Grasses make up about half of the global biomass fed on by livestock and
grassland systems cover an estimated 32 % of the world’s land area. Grasslands
include rangelands, which are fragile ecosystems prone to degradation, loss of
biodiversity and water retention capacity, carbon emissions, and reduced produc-
tivity, if grazing is not managed properly (Hoffman et al. 2014). Experts disagree on
whether livestock grazing can cause changes to ecosystems and biodiversity on
rangelands. Factors that may have an impact include how frequently the livestock
are moved, the livestock’s longevity, and whether the rangelands have a history of
grazing. Livestock are more likely to alter biodiversity on rangelands when they are
heavily concentrated, graze year-round, or where the rangeland does not have a
history of grazing and is thus more sensitive to it.
Livestock grazing can encourage woody encroachment by discouraging the
growth of herbaceous plants like grasses and leafy herbs and encouraging the
development of woody plants like shrubs and trees in their place. Grazing can
also lead to development of non-native short-lived nitrogen-tolerant plants as a
result of livestock trampling vegetation and depositing nitrogen, phosphorus and
other nutrients near water points. In some instances, grazing can have positive
impacts on biodiversity. Light grazing, for example, can remove dominant species
that would otherwise control all the natural resources, allowing other species to
develop and thrive (Steinfeld et al. 2010).

1.4.9 Other Livestock Related Impacts on Biodiversity

More generally, livestock production threatens biodiversity by generating pollu-

tion, spreading diseases, introducing invasive species, and contributing to climate
change. Pollution is the greatest cause of loss of biodiversity globally, and livestock
are one of the greatest contributors to this pollution. Livestock deposit nitrogen and
phosphorous directly through manure and indirectly through fertilizer for feed
crops and pastures. This pollution can harm biodiversity directly by killing species
or indirectly by affecting habitats (Steinfeld et al. 2010). From 2000 to 2001 the
annual total pesticide usage in the United States consisted of 700 million pounds of
active ingredient, of which 77 % is used for agriculture, half of which is used for
production of grain to feed livestock. Nitrogen present in animal waste applied to
field crops for fertilizer can find its way into surface waters (Halden and Schwab
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 27

2008), such as the Mississippi where it contributes to eutrophication, and the Gulf
of Mexico where it creates dead zones and is responsible for massive fish kills.
Livestock also can impact biodiversity by spreading disease, either through
“pathogen pollution” where livestock spread a previously unknown disease to
wildlife, or “spillover” where domesticated animals outnumber wild animals, and
continually infect wildlife populations with a common disease until the wildlife
population goes extinct (Steinfeld et al. 2010). The disease Brucellosis likely was
introduced into America through cattle. It now infects elk and bison in Yellowstone
National Park and is considered a potential threat that can spill back to cattle that
graze at the park boundary (Daszak et al. 2000).
Livestock also can harm biodiversity by introducing nonnative species into
foreign environments. Because the nonnative species has no natural predators,
may be highly adaptable or do well in human-altered habitats, it can overtake the
native species. Livestock itself can be invasive. An example of this is when
livestock graze in grasslands that do not have a history of grazing and harm the
biodiversity that is present there. Farmers also may introduce nonnative plant
species to feed livestock, which outcompete native species and reduce biodiversity.
This might occur when farmers introduce certain grasses for pastures and the
introduced grasses outspread the natural vegetation (Steinfeld et al. 2010).
As mentioned before, livestock contribute an estimated 18 % of all Greenhouse
Gases and climate change already is having an impact on species populations. Feed
crop production is a major contributor to these emissions. Livestock production
contributes significantly to the three major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide. Livestock account for 9 % of total global anthropogenic
emissions of carbon dioxide, 35–40 % of methane emissions and 65 % of nitrous
oxide. Climate change is altering species distributions and population sizes and
affecting the timing of reproduction and migration as well as the frequency and
intensity of pests and disease outbreaks. In Marine ecosystems warming tempera-
tures can kill coral, a species vital for biodiversity because it provides a home to
25 % of marine species (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.4.10 Habitat Change

Livestock production, including growing feed for livestock, changes land-use in a

way that can lead to habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation. These
impacts form a major threat to biodiversity (Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Land used for
agricultural purposes currently makes up around 33 % of the world land area, and
cropland specifically makes up 10 %. The United Nations estimates an increase in
global agricultural land of between 7 and 31 % until 2050. This increase in pasture
and cropland comes at the expense of decreases in forests, natural grasslands, and
savannahs (Bringezu et al. 2014).
28 S.J. Kraham

1.4.11 Deforestation and Forest Fragmentation

Deforestation occurs as forest areas are cleared to use the land for livestock or crop
production. Forest fragmentation occurs when previously intact forest is broken up
and areas are used for livestock or crop production. The remaining forested area
becomes a series of isolated forest patches (Steinfeld et al. 2010). This results in
habit change and degradation. Deforestation has been occurring at an average rate
of about 13 Mega hectares (Mha ¼ ha  106) per year over the last 5 decades, and
cropland expansion has been the primary cause (Bringezu et al. 2014). Cattle
ranching in Latin America has been the impetus for the conversion of tropical
forest. The primary driver there has been clearing land for cattle grazing, but
recently conversion of forest to cropland tied to livestock intensification has
become a more significant force. Between 2000 and 2005, the Amazon has expe-
rienced an estimated 0.6 % rate of deforestation. It has been estimated that 17 % of
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon can be attributed to cropland expansion from
2001 to 2004, primarily for soya to be used for livestock (Steinfeld et al. 2010).
Deforestation can have a particularly destructive impact on species that require
large contiguous forests, species that require intact forests to survive, endemic
species, and species vulnerable to extinction due to small population sizes
(Steinfeld et al. 2010). As land is cleared around forest areas, those edges can no
longer support species. This eventually creates islands of forest that are too small to
support the populations and leads to extinctions. Forest fragmentation also makes it
harder for species to colonize due to the distance between patches (Rudel and Roper
1997). Populations that are particularly vulnerable to forest fragmentation include
birds, large predators, primates, butterflies, and solitary wasps. Forest fragmenta-
tion also contributes to forest degradation by turning areas with high biodiversity
into simplified shrub and grassland with induced flora. Deforestation can interfere
with ecological processes like wildlife territory expansion, plant pollination, and
seed dispersal (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Thus, the majority of species extinctions are
likely due to habitat destruction from tropical deforestation and forest fragmenta-
tion (Rudel and Roper 1997).

1.4.12 Desertification and Woody Encroachment

The United Nations broadly defined desertification as “land degradation in arid,

semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including cli-
matic variations and human activities” (Horrigan et al. 2002). It often refers to
instances where herbaceous cover is replaced with xerophytic shrub cover and bare
soil or just bare soil (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Desertification occurs because dryland
regions are incredibly vulnerable to over-exploitation and bad land management.
Climactic drivers include low soil moisture, changing rainfall patterns, and high
evaporation. Human drivers of desertification include over-cultivation, which
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 29

exhausts the soil, overgrazing land, which removes protective vegetation that
guards against erosion, deforestation, which removes trees that bind the soil to
land, and poor drainage of irrigation systems, which leads to soil salinization (Hori
et al. 2012). Thus poor land management during livestock production contributes to
desertification, especially when animals overgraze the land and trees and shrubs are
removed subjecting the land to increasing wind and water erosion.
Desertification leads to land degradation that makes the land unsuitable for
agriculture (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Land degradation at the biological level mani-
fests a “persistent reduction in biological productivity.” The biological productivity
reduced depends on the land use. In cropland it might be soil fertility and yield per
acre, in rangelands it might be the land’s carrying capacity for cattle, and in forests
it might be ecosystem services such as water filtration and retention (Welton et al.
2014).
Desertification affects the land’s topography, vegetation, and soil. Topsoil is
eroded, soil loses fertility, and original vegetation gives way to vegetation of poorer
quality Nicholson, (Nicholson et al. 1998). These changes affect the carbon and
nutrient cycling of the system. Desertification also results in hydrological changes
that make transfer of precipitation to soil less effective, and the net primary
productivity per unit of precipitation decreases. There is some suggestion that the
resulting increase in bare soil cover can change the ability of the surface to reflect
solar energy, resulting in regional and global climate impacts, such as reduced
rainfall (Asner et al. 2004). Desertification results in habitat loss affecting migra-
tory bird species, which depend on resources provided by drylands to give refuge
during their long flights (UNCCD 2013).
Reversing desertification is very difficult. It can take 500 years to restore just
2.5 cm of soil, which can be lost by erosion in only a few years. Steps that can be
taken to combat desertification include restoring soil nutrients, using synthetic
fertilizers or natural compost, reducing herd numbers, and giving land time to
recover. Diversifying crop and animal production can protect the land by
preventing the over-use of any one nutrient. This is because nutrient needs are
mixed and the resources removed from land in this case are complementary.
Irrigation and reforestation can also help restore land and make it productive
again. Installing wind barriers, planting vegetation with roots to fix and protect
soil, and a prohibiting grazing may also help recovery (Hori et al. 2012).
Woody encroachment occurs when herbaceous cover is overtaken by woody
plants. It differs from desertification in that it involves a smaller loss of herbaceous
cover, though herbaceous cover can still decrease (Asner et al. 2004). In the United
States the increase in woody cover in non-forest lands ranges from 0.5 to 2 % a year
(Anadón et al. 2013). Possible causes of woody encroachment are overgrazing of
herbaceous cover (decreasing competition for woody seedlings), fire suppression
that enhances woody plant survival, and increases in atmosphere CO2 and nitrogen
pollution that favor woody plant growth. The likelihood of woody encroachment
increases if woody plants are already present on the landscape. Woody encroach-
ment decreases quality of land for animal production, but enriches total Carbon and
Nitrogen stocks (Asner et al. 2004). Woody encroachment decreases quality of land
30 S.J. Kraham

for animals because the encroaching plants may be of lower nutrient or palpable
quality; can be a habitat for pests, parasites, and predators; and can reduce forage
production (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Woody encroachment can also affect ecosystem
functions like decomposition and nutrient cycling, biomass production, and soil and
water conservation. Habitats are affected and savannah like areas in wooded
landscapes can vanish due to woody encroachment (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).

1.4.13 Forest Transition and the Conservation of Pastoral

Landscapes

Forest transition is defined as the process of returning land used for agricultural
purposes to its former forest state. This phenomenon primarily occurs in remote
areas with poor soil, and is primarily characterized by pastures that are left to return
to forest (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Lands with productive soil in favorable locations by
contrast are more likely to remain in production. A study of the Chiguaza region in
Ecuador found net increase in forest cover from 1987 to 1997 as abandoned areas
reverted to secondary forests (Rudel et al. 2002). Forest transition can have mixed
effects on biodiversity. Secondary forests can provide viable habitats for species,
which can result in positive effects on biodiversity. However, the impact depends
on the species the abandoned agricultural land is replaced with (Meyfroidt and
Lambin 2008). Abandoned pastures can sometimes turn into fallow and shrubland
with little biological diversity. Thus, in some cases, allowing grasslands with bio
diverse resources to be abandoned can result in a loss of biodiversity (Steinfeld
et al. 2006b).

1.4.14 Invasive Species

People have been transporting species across habitats for millennia, both acciden-
tally and purposefully, but the fate of these species in their new habitats is difficult
to predict. Most do not survive. Of those that survive, only a fraction of species
becomes naturalized (forming sustainable populations) (Rejmánek et al. 2005), but
some of those naturalized then become invasive (Mack et al. 2000). The IUCN
(2000) has defined invasive alien species as “an alien species which becomes
established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change,
and threatens native biological diversity.” An alien species is one occurring outside
of its natural range or habitat (IUCN 2000). Invasive species form a major threat to
biodiversity (McGeoch et al. 2010). Invasive species alter eco-system processes,
change community structure, and alter genetic diversity. They also harm native
species through predation, competition, hybridization, by introducing pathogens or
parasites that can sicken or kill them, and by destroying or degrading their habitat
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 31

(Steinfeld et al. 2006b; McGeoch et al. 2010). The adverse impact of invasive
species on biodiversity has been increasing in recent decades (McGeoch et al.
2010).
Globally, threatened birds and amphibians are especially vulnerable to invasive
species. Thirty percent of threatened birds, 11 % of threatened amphibians, and 8 %
of the 760 threatened mammals for which data are available are affected by invasive
species. Islands and island species are particularly susceptible to invasive species
because of their isolated evolutionary history. Sixty-seven percent of oceanic-island
globally threatened birds are affected directly or indirectly by invasive species,
compared to 17 % on continental islands, and just 8 % on continents (Baillie et al.
2004).
Livestock production contributes to the introduction of invasive species through
habitat change, intentional plant invasion, and animal grazing. In addition, animals
may carry invasive species with them across locations. Invasive species can also
degrade pastures and have other negative effects on livestock (Steinfeld et al.
2006b).

1.4.15 Deforestation’s Impact on Invasive Species

Deforestation in tropical regions to clear land for agricultural use can spread
invasive species, including invasive disease species. For example, in South Amer-
ica, approximately 53 million hectares of humid tropical forest in the Brazilian
Amazon Basin alone have been converted to pasture, as has some 40 million
hectares of native tropical savanna in Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil. This results
in a loss of native vegetation, and in many cases the introduced grasses have spread
to and overtaken natural areas. Additionally, deforestation can contribute to the
transmission of viruses carrying haemorrhagic fevers that previously circulated
benignly in wild animal hosts. The use of irrigation in these areas raises the water
table and increases the number of breeding sites available for mosquitos. The
problem is exacerbated by agricultural pesticide use that builds pesticide resistance
in mosquitos. Infectious disease agents are typically invasive alien species that are
devastating to human health and local food and livestock production (Brand 2005).

1.4.16 Introduced Grasses as Invasive Species

Humans have introduced many non-native plant species to new areas in order to
feed livestock. Many grasses introduced by humans for pasture are biologically
adapted to spread quickly given their abundant and persistent small seeds, an ability
to survive under stressful situations, and a tolerance for burning and heavy grazing
(Steinfeld et al. 2010).
32 S.J. Kraham

Temperate grassland in Australia, South America, and western North America

has been permanently transformed by human settlement and transplantation of alien
plants. While livestock are not solely responsible for the introduction of invasive
alien species, they do play a significant role in the process. Two particular charac-
teristics make grasslands especially vulnerable—(1) the lack of large, hooved,
congregating mammals during the Holocene period or earlier and (2) dominance
by caespitose grasses, which are vulnerable to grazing and trampling. The lack of
large, hooved, congregating mammals allowed for the evolution of grasses that are
sensitive to grazing animals. In these grasslands the introduction of livestock has
resulted in the destruction of native grasses and the dispersal of alien plants through
the fur and feces of animals (Mack 1989).
In the United States, domestic livestock grazing and the introduction of weeds
have transformed rangelands’ plant ecosystems. The majority of weeds have been
introduced from other continents, but native species have also spread more rapidly
due to management practices such as fire suppression and overgrazing. These native
species can spread and reduce overall forage quality or quantity, and can be
poisonous to livestock. Before the introduction of annual grasses, the primary
native species in the rangelands west of the Rocky Mountains were perennial
bunch grasses. However, the native perennial grasses were over-grazed and over-
come by introduced winter annual grasses. In some cases the over-grazing has led to
increased unpalatable native woody or poisonous species. Suppression of periodic
wildfires has also led to an increase in shrub populations, which are typically
controlled by burning. Rangeland weeds can interfere with grazing practices;
lower yield and quality of forage; increase costs of managing and producing
livestock; slow animal weight gain; reduce the quality of meat, milk, wool, and
hides; and poison livestock. They can also reduce plant diversity, threaten rare and
endangered species, reduce wildlife habitat and forage, alter fire frequency,
increase erosion, and deplete soil moisture and nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000).

1.4.17 Livestock as Invasive Species

Livestock themselves can be considered an invasive species, especially when their

impact on native species is not minimized. Livestock (cattle) were domesticated
10,000 years ago from species found in Asia and northern Africa, and taken to other
continents that had no previous history of grazing (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Livestock
can compete with wildlife for water and food, and threaten the populations of local
vegetation as they feed on seedlings. They also play a major role in introducing
invasive alien species by dispersing seeds and transmitting disease organisms to
populations with no immunity. Many harmful feral populations have also resulted
from the introduction of livestock species of economic important to the Americas.
The IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) classifies feral cattle,
goats, sheep, pig, rabbits, and donkeys as invasive alien species (among a total of
22 invasive mammalian species) (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 33

Livestock can also play a positive role in managing invasive alien species
through prescribed grazing. The goal in this process is to manipulate patterns of
defoliation and disturbance to place a target plant at a competitive disadvantage
relative to other plants in the community. Achieving the desired outcome requires
extensive knowledge about how the herbivore’s grazing behavior will affect the
eco-system and target plant (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

1.4.18 Feed Crop Related Threats

Many of the impacts from livestock production discussed in this chapter are not
only direct livestock impacts but include indirect impacts from production of feed
crop for livestock. As discussed before consumption of nonruminant meats has
been on the rise and, at the same time, small-scale backyard production of livestock
has been decreasing and shifting to more-intensive, large-scale industrial systems.
These more intensive systems rely on cereals and processed concentrate feeds for
livestock, rather than the traditional household waste food, grass from natural
pasture, and other forages low-input systems utilized (Steinfeld et al. 2010). Land
devoted to feed crop production has been on the rise and makes up approximately
33 % of total arable land (Hoffman et al. 2014). An increasing amount of cereal
production is being used for feed crop. Global use of cereals as feed increased by
0.9 % annually between 1992 and 2002. Maize has been the prevailing feed crop in
developing countries, and soybeans have been the fastest growing feed crop with a
sixfold increase in total quantity fed to livestock between 1982 and 2002 (Steinfeld
et al. 2010).
At the turn of the twenty-first century, approximately 72 % of poultry and 55 %
of pigs were raised in global industrialized animal-production systems (Galloway
et al. 2007). The feed for animals in such systems often is produced in other regions
and thus livestock demand and production in one region can have serious conse-
quences for land-use and crop production in another, distant region (Bringezu et al.
2014). For example, a 7 % increase in crop acreage in Brazil would be required to
meet a 10 % increase in export of Brazilian soybeans used to feed chicken and pigs
in other regions (Galloway et al. 2007). Demand for feed has been one of the
primary drivers of deforestation in Brazil (Bringezu et al. 2014).
Production of feed crop leads to many of the land-degrading impacts discussed
in this chapter. The conversion of land for agricultural uses to produce feed crop
carries a multitude of impacts associated with intensive crop production such as
pesticide and fertilizer pollution, full-scale land conversion, and opportunity cost
(Galloway et al. 2007). Agricultural eco-systems face a threat from loss of genetic
diversity, soil degradation, nutrient depletion, and the loss of natural pollinators
(Steinfeld et al. 2006b). Globally, nitrogen fertilizers applied to feed crops make up
40 % of the total amount manufactured. This leads to emissions of 40 teragrams
(Tg ¼ kg  109) CO2, and vast amounts of nitrogen pollution from nitrogen lost to
surrounding air and water, or excreted in the urine and feces of livestock that feed
34 S.J. Kraham

on the crop. Industrialized livestock production relies on immense amounts of

water, primarily water used to irrigate the feed crop, as discussed earlier in this
chapter (Galloway et al. 2007). These changes in land-use for feed production
contribute to loss of wild biodiversity (Hoffman 2011). While ruminants convert
feed to meat less efficiently than nonruminants, the majority of ruminant feed is
forage from nonarable lands and is made up of elements that humans cannot
consume. Nonruminants, however, feed on crops grown on land that could be
used to grow foods for direct human consumption, and thus there is also growing
competition between feed crops and food crops for land use (Galloway et al. 2007).

1.4.19 Case Study: The Amazon and Cerrado in Brazil

Demand for soybean to feed factory farm raised livestock has led to extensive
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and the Cerrado, a savannah covering more
than one-fifth of Brazil. Only 20 % of the Cerrado is still intact, with agriculture and
cattle raising accounting for 50 % of its loss. Between 2002 and 2008 the annual
rate of deforestation was at 4 %. Not only is the Cerrado an important carbon sink,
but it is home to 5 % of the world’s species. The Cerrado is also an important water
source for the local community, and rivers generated electricity for 9 out of
10 Brazilians. Chemicals used in agriculture are polluting the rivers and affecting
the health of local people, who also fear the soy production and deforestation will
lead to water scarcity in the area (Lloyd 2011).
Between 2001 and 2006, 1 million hectares of forest in the Amazon were
converted directly for soy production. With pressure from retailers and NGOs, a
private sector initiative known as the Soy Moratorium was launched and major
soybean traders agreed to not purchase soy grown on lands deforested after July
2006 in the Brazilian Amazon. A recent study found that the Soy Moratorium was
effective in reducing deforestation for soy production in the Amazon. In the 2 years
before the agreement, almost 30 % of soy expansion occurred through deforesta-
tion; after the agreement only 1 % of soy expansion occurred through deforestation.
However, soy production still continued to increase by 1.3 Mha over this period. In
the Cerrado, additionally, where the agreement did not apply, annual rates of soy
expansion through deforestation have ranged from 11 to 23 % from 2007 to 2013
(Gibbs 2015).
The study compared the effectiveness of the Soy Moratorium to the govern-
ment’s official land use policy. The government implemented the Rural Environ-
mental Registry of private properties requiring all rural properties to register by
2016 in order to evaluate compliance with the Forest Code and other government
regulations. In Mato Gasso, where 85 % of Amazonian soy is produced, the study
found only 115 out of several thousand soy farmers violated the Soy Moratorium
since 2006, while over 600 violated the Forest Code over the same period. Thus the
study found farmers were more willing to comply with the private sector mecha-
nism rather than government regulations. The Soy Moratorium has the ability to
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 35

protect the up to 2 Mha of the estimated 14.2 Mha of forest in the Amazon
considered suitable for soy production that could be legally cleared under the Forest
Code. The study suggested the success of the Soy Moratorium was due to the “(i) a
limited number of soy buyers that exert considerable control over soy purchase and
finance; (ii) simple requirements for compliance; (iii) streamlined and transparent
monitoring and enforcement systems; (iv) simultaneous efforts by the Brazilian
government to reduce deforestation; and (v) active participation by NGOs and
government agencies.” (Gibbs 2015).

1.5 Overexploitation

Overexploitation occurs when renewable natural resources are used at a faster rate
than they can be replenished (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Species
can be overexploited when they are unsustainably harvested for food, medicine,
fuel, and material, and for cultural, scientific and leisure activities (Baillie et al.
2004). Examples of overexploitation include overfishing, overlogging, and
overgrazing. Overexploitation damages ecosystems and can lead to degradation.
Degradation is said to occur when the net supply of ecosystem services is so
damaged it is unable to recover on its own within a reasonable period after the
damaging action is stopped (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Overexploitation is one of the leading factors in biodiversity loss (Steinfeld et al.
2006b). It has been identified as a major threat affecting 30 % of globally threatened
birds, 6 % of threatened amphibians, and 33 % of the 760 threatened mammals for
which data are available (Baillie et al. 2004). Some of the most commonly
overexploited species include marine fish and invertebrates, trees, animals hunted
for bushmeat, and plants and animals harvested for medicinal uses and the pet trade.
Species that are especially vulnerable tend to be valuable, relatively easy to catch,
and to reproduce at relatively slower rates (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005).
Livestock can affect the overexploitation of biodiversity in several ways. First,
livestock can compete directly with wildlife. Herders’ conflicts with wildlife can
lead to the eradication of species as herders quell wild populations threatening
livestock through predation or spread of disease. For example, in the early history
of domestication herder’s feared large carnivores preying on livestock. This led to
widespread eradication campaigns that resulted in the local extinction of wolves
and bears in Europe. Livestock can also compete with wildlife for natural resources
and land access. Second, livestock production can lead to overexploitation of living
resources (mainly fish) for use in livestock feed. Finally, biodiversity can be
overexploited through the unsustainable focus on fewer, more profitable breeds,
leading to erosion of livestock diversity (Steinfeld et al. 2006b).
36 S.J. Kraham

1.5.1 Livestock’s Contribution to Overexploitation of Marine

Species

Fish have been exploited for fishmeal used in aquaculture and livestock feed. A
report from 2009 placed aquaculture as the largest user of fishmeal accounting for
46 % of fishmeal produced, with pig production using 24 %, poultry using 22 %, and
other livestock accounting for the remainder (Hasan and Halwart 2009).
Globally, fish production has been increasing over the last 5 decades. Food fish
supply has grown at an average annual rate of 3.2 %, faster than the world human
population growth of only 1.6 % FAO (2014). The rising demand for fish protein is
being met in part by an increase in aquaculture, which relies on wild-harvested fish
products to manufacture feed for captive fish (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005). Food fish aquaculture production has expanded at an average annual rate of
6.2 % from 2000 to 2012. In 2012, more than 86 % (136 million tons) of world fish
production went directly to human consumption, with the remaining 14 % desig-
nated for non-food uses, 75 % of which was produced into fishmeal and fish oil.
Fishmeal and fish oil are important ingredients in most aquaculture feeds to supply
necessary nutrients to farmed fish (FAO 2014). In addition to fishmeal and fish oil,
low value or “trash” fish are also used as components of feed, or complete feed for
farmed fish, crustaceans and molluscan species (Hasan and Halwart 2009). By one
estimate, the demand for fishmeal and fish oil are expected to grow along with the
expansion of aquaculture and stable global capture fisheries, leading to an 8 %
expansion in fishmeal production. However, there has been a trend towards an
increasing proportion of fishmeal coming from fish processing by-products, with
this proportion increasing from 25 % in 2009 to 36 % in 2010. This use of
by-products and waste means fewer whole fish must be used (FAO 2014).
Using wild-caught fish to produce fishmeal and fish oil can have serious impli-
cations for food security and aquaculture. As demand for fishmeal grows and as a
result prices increase, it can become profitable to shift from small pelagic fish
production to fishmeal production. However, in many areas small pelagic fish are a
significant, important part of local diets. Since local prices for fish as food cannot
compete with international prices for fish as fishmeal, this makes less available a
traditional source of cheap protein for the poor. It also incentivizes overfishing
stocks (FAO 2014).
Potential solutions to reducing the use of wild fish for feed for aquaculture feeds
include substituting terrestrial feed sources, increasing the use of fish-waste (35 %
of fishmeal is already produced from fish-processing by-products), greater reliance
on extractive species that naturally use available carbon and resources, promoting
herbivorous and omnivorous species, and increased investment in innovative tech-
nologies (FAO 2014).
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 37

References

Anadón JD et al (2013) Effect of woody-plant encroachment on livestock production in North and

South America. PNAS 111(35):12948–12953. doi:10.1073/pnas.132058511
Asad M et al (1999) Management of water resources: bulk water pricing in Brazil. World Bank,
Washington
Asner GP et al (2004) Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu Rev
Environ Resour 29:261–299. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142
Baillie JEM, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (eds) (2004) 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species: a
global species assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, UK
Barker D (2007) The rise and predictable fall of globalized industrial agriculture. International
Forum on Globalization, San Francisco
Bittman S, Mikkelsen R (2009) Ammonia emissions from agricultural operations: livestock. Better
Crops 93(1):28–31
Brand K (ed) (2005) South America invaded. GISP Secretariat
Brighter Green (2013) Industrial agriculture, livestock farming and climate change: global
social, cultural, ecological, and ethical impacts of an unsustainable industry. Brighter
Green and the Global Forest Coalition. http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/05/MM_Brighter-Green-and-the-Global-Forest-Coalition_WSF_Industrial_
Livestock-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
Bringezu S et al (2014) Assessing global land use: balancing consumption with sustainable supply.
UNEP
Burkholder J et al (2007) Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water
quality. Environ Health Perspect 115:308–312
Chislock MF et al (2013) Eutrophication: causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic ecosys-
tems. Nat Educ Knowl 4(4):10
Conforti P (ed) (2011) Looking ahead in world food and agricultural perspectives to 2050. FAO,
Rome
Cotula L et al (2009) Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and
international land deals in Africa. FAO/IIED/IFAD, London/Rome
Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD (2000) Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife--threats to
biodiversity and human health. Science 287:443–449. doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.443
DiTomaso JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci
Soc Am 48(2):255–265
Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural Intensification and the collapse of Europe’s
farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc Lond 268:25–29. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1325
FAO (2011) Biodiversity for food and agriculture: contributing to food security and sustainability
in a changing world. FAO and The Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research
FAO (2014) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: opportunities and challenges. Rome
Formiga-Johnsson RM et al (2007) The politics of bulk water pricing in Brazil: lessons from the
Parı́ba do Sul Basin. Water Policy 9:87–104
Galloway JN et al (2007) International trade in meat: the tip of the pork chop. R Swed Acad Sci 36
(8):622–629
GAO (2008) Report to congressional requesters: concentrated animal feeding operations
Gerber et al. (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions
and migration opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Rome
Gibbs HK (2015) Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science 347(6220):377–378
Halden RU, Schwab KJ (2008) Environmental impact of industrial farm animal production. A
report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. A project of the Pew
Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. www.ncifap.org/_
images/212-4_EnvImpact_tc_Final.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015
38 S.J. Kraham

Hasan MR, Halwart M (eds) (2009) Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture: practices, sustainability
and implications. FAO, Rome
Hoffman I (2011) Livestock biodiversity and sustainability. Livest Sci 139:69–79. doi:10.1016/j.
livsci.2011.03.016
Hoffman I, From T, Boerma D (2014) Ecosystem services provided by livestock species and
breeds, with special consideration to the contributions of small-scale livestock keepers and
pastoralists. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Hori Y, Stuhlberger C, Simonett O (eds) (2012) Desertification: a visual synthesis. UNCCD http://
www.unccd.int/en/resources/publication/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 9 Jan 2014
Horrigan L, Lawrence RS, Walker P (2002) How sustainable agriculture can address the environ-
mental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ Health Perspect 110
(5):445–456
Humane Society International (2011) An HSI report: the impact of industrial farming
Isenring R (2010) Pesticides and the loss of biodiversity. Pesticide Action Network Europe
IUCN (2000) IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive
species. Fifth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity,
Nairobi, Kenya, 15–26 May 2000
Jackson L et al (2005) Agrobiodiversity: a new science agenda for biodiversity in support of
sustainable agroecosystems. Diversitas
Lloyd DJ (2011) Crops for animal feed destroying Brazilian Savannah, WWF Warns. The
Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/11/meat-industry-food.
Accessed 26 Jan 2015
Mack RN (1989) Temperate grasslands vulnerable to plant invasions: characteristics and conse-
quences. In: Drake J et al (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, New York,
pp 155–179
Mack RN et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control.
Ecol Appl 10(3):689–710
Matson PA et al (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science
277:504–509. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.504
McAlpine CA (2009) Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global
change: a call for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and
Brazil. Glob Environ Chang 19:21–33. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.008
McGeoch MA et al (2010) Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity
impact and policy responses. Divers Distrib 16:95–108. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00633.x
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2008) Forest transition in Vietnam and its environmental impacts. Glob
Chang Biol 14:1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01575.x
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and
trends, vol 1. Island Press, Washington
Molden D (ed) (2007) Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan, London
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2014) Restoration and spending
plan: marks farm natural resource damages settlement. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_
marine_pdf/mfarmresplfin.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2015
Nicholson SE, Tucker CJ, Ba MB (1998) Desertification, drought, and surface vegetation: an
example from the West African Sahel. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79:815–829
O’Mara FP (2011) The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas
emissions today and in the near future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:7–15
Otte J et al (2007) Industrial livestock production and global health risks. Pro-poor livestock policy
initiative
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2008) Putting meat on the table:
industrial farm animal production in America
Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2009) Enteric fermentation mitigation. http://www.c2es.
org/docUploads/Enteric-Fermentation-09-09.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar 2015
1 Environmental Impacts of Industrial Livestock Production 39

Pimental D et al (1997) Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and society. Bioscience 47
(2):97–106
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2005) Plant invasions and invasibility of plant commu-
nities. In: van der Maarel E (ed) Vegetation ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 332–355
Rischkowsky B, Pilling D (eds) (2007) The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food
and agriculture. FAO, Rome
Robertson B, Pinstrup-Andersen P (2010) Global land acquisition: neo-colonialism or develop-
ment opportunity? Springer Science þ Business Media B.V. & International Society
for Plant Pathology 2:271–283. doi:10.1007/s12571-010-0068-1
Rodewald M (2015) Manure spills putting water supply at risk. Green Bay Press Gazette. http://
www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/investigations/2015/02/06/manure-spills-water-
supply/22983669/. Accessed 4 Mar 2015
Rudel T, Roper J (1997) Forest fragmentation in the humid tropics: a cross-national analysis.
Singapore J Trop Geogr 18:99–109. doi:10.1111/1467-9493.00007
Rudel TK, Bates D, Machinguiashi R (2002) A tropical forest transition? agricultural change,
out-migration, and secondary forests in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92
(1):87–102
Sakirkin et al. (2012) Dust emissions from cattle feeding operations. In: Air quality in animal
agriculture. Extension. http://www.extension.org/sites/default/files/Dust.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar
2015
Schimel D, Stephens BB, Fisher JB (2014) Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon
cycle. PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1407302112
Sharma S (2014) The need for feed: China’s demand for industrialized meat and its impacts. IATP
Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T, Jutzi S (2006a) Livestock production systems in developing countries:
status, drivers, trends. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 25(2):505–516
Steinfeld H et al (2006b) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome
Steinfeld H et al (eds) (2010) Livestock in a changing landscape: drivers, consequences, and
responses, vol 1. Island Press, Washington
Sustainable Table (2009) Air quality. http://www.sustainabletable.org/print/266. Accessed 6 Mar
2015
Swanepoel F et al (eds) (2010) The role of livestock in developing communities: enhancing
multifunctionality. University of the Free State and CTA, Cape Town
Thrupp L (2000) Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of
agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. Int Aff 76(2):265–281
Tilman D et al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science
292:281–284. doi:10.1126/science.1057544
Tscharntke T et al (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of
agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151:53–59
UNCCD (2013) Migratory species and desertification factsheet. http://www.unccd.int/en/media-
center/MediaNews/Pages/highlightdetail.aspx?HighlightID¼194. Accessed 9 Jan 2015
UNCTD (2013) Trade and environment review 2014: wake up before it is too late. United Nations
UNEP (2014) Assessing global land use: balancing consumption with sustainable supply. A report
of the working group on land and soils of the International Resource Panel
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2008) National wildlife refuge system. Prescribed grazing. Manag-
ing invasive plants: concepts, principles, and practices. http://www.fws.gov/invasives/
staffTrainingModule/methods/grazing/practice.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Agriculture. In: DRAFT inventory of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2013. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
pdfs/usinventoryreport/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-5-Agriculture.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar
2015
Vanotti MB, Szogi AA (2008) Water quality improvements of wastewater from confined animal
feeding operations after advanced treatment. J Environ Qual 37:S-86–S-96
40 S.J. Kraham

Vasey DE et al (eds) (2011) Heavy metals. In Berkshire encyclopedia of sustainability: natural

resources and sustainability. Berkshire Publishing Group, Great Barrington
Wardle DA (1999) Response of soil microbial biomass dynamics, activity and plant litter decom-
position to agricultural intensification over a seven-year period. Soil Biol Biochem
31:1707–1720
Welton S, Biasutti M, Gerrard MB (2014) Legal and scientific integrity in advancing a “Land
Degradation Neutral World”. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School
York M (2005) Workers trying to contain effects of big spill upstate. New York Times. http://
www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/nyregion/15dip.html. Accessed 4 Mar 2015
Youyong Z (2000) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406:718–722