Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of poultry farming on the enviroment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Imagine sinking your teeth into a t-bone steak that has come from a steer that was treated with hormones, or enjoying a glass of rBGH treated milk. The steak and milk may not taste any different from the same untreated products, but the hormones they contain could both, directly and indirectly, have an impact on your health. The hormones that farmers in the U.S. administer to the cattle are dangerous and have negative effects on the people and the environment. Although America admits hormone use in cattle, the fact that Europe has banned hormone use raises many questions about the possible health risks these hormones may have on consumers. America is one of the world’s largest producers of beef. According to Raloff (2002), approximately 36 million beef cattle are raised in America each year, and approximately two-thirds are treated with hormones (para.2). Farmers use these hormones to increase the rate of growth in their cattle. By increasing the cattle’s growth rate, the farmers can produce more beef and still making more money, they can sell it at an inexpensive rate to the consumers. The hormones that may be administered to beef and dairy cattle may already be produced, in small amounts, naturally in their own bodies or synthetic. According to the U.S. Department of Food and Drug Administration (2002), “the accepted naturally occurring hormones that may be administered to beef and milk producing cattle are estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, and the synthetic hormones that are accepted are zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate.” None of the hormones listed above are acceptable in the industries in Europe to give for the food and milk productions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is who the American gov... ... middle of paper ... ...y cattle are responsible for the largest amount of manure production amongst farm animals (see Table 1) (para. ). In a study conducted by Louis J. Guillette Jr. of the University of Florida and Ana M. Soto of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, hormonal activity of water from sites located both upstream and downstream of feedlots in Nebraska were tested by adding the water samples to cells that “react in various ways to hormonal steroids” (Raloff, 2002, para 17-18). The study (as cited in Raloff) found that: Concentrations of estrogenic pollutants at two of the downstream sites were sometimes almost double those at the upstream site. And water from all three downstream sites was significantly more androgenic than the samples collected upstream. One downstream sample exhibited nearly four times the androgenicity of the upstream water (para. 19).
The most pressing issue that is associated with CAFO’s comes from the amount of manure/waste they produce. The manure that results from CAFO’s contains a panoply of potential contaminants. The manure is filled with plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, pathogens such as E.coli, growth hormones, antibiotics, chemicals used as additives to the manure or to clean equipment, animal blood, silage...
The scientists are also concerned with the hormones being excreted in the manure. The scientists say, that the hormones that go into the body can be found in the soil and the water supply. The scientists also say that the hormones being used are affecting human development through the human reproductive system. “High levels of hormones can cause problems in the human body, but can hormones we ingest really alter our hormone levels.” (NYU Langone Medical Center)
Speed, in a word, or, in the industry’s preferred term, “efficiency.” Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and for a half a century now the industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef animal’s allotted span on earth… what gets a steer from 80 to 1,100 pounds in fourteen months is tremendous quantities of corn, protein and fat supplements, and an arsenal of new drugs. (71)
Pollan’s words, “You are what what you eat eats, too”, got me thinking about how not only am I eating my food, but I am also eating what my food ate (Pollan 84). For example, when I eat a hamburger, I’m not only eating cow meat and bread, but I’m also eating what the cow ate, which is now mostly corn and antibiotics. When I first learned that cows are mainly eating corn and antibiotics, I was appalled. Though many may say that animals are being fed antibiotics to combat all sorts of disease, an article written by Sabrina Tavernise, who wrote for the New York Times, even states, “Farmers learned that antibiotics helped animals grow rapidly, and they began to add the drugs to feed and water, with no prescriptions or sign of sickness in the animals” (Tavernise 2014). The main reason for cows being fed all of these antibiotics isn’t simply because the animals are sick. Instead the animals are being fed these drugs because these drugs apparently help shorten the amount of time for animals to be sent to slaughter
Every beef cattle produced is injected with steroids. With the injection of steroids it makes the cow grow at an alarming rate, and helps turn food into muscle at a quicker rate. But this is the obvious information. What are they putting into both dairy cattle and beef cattle that could cause harm to us? There is a harmful hormone called IGF. Now, this hormone is not directly put into the cattle. But, all cattle are given rBGH (to put simply it helps them produce more milk/meat). But, rBGH is directly linked to IGF, a hormone that mimics the effects of the growth of human hormones in dangerous ways. It is said that cattle containing rBGH produce 10 times to IGF than cattle without rBGH. “In a 2004 study, patients with above-average IGF levels had nearly a 50% higher risk of prostate cancer and a 65% higher risk of hormone-dependent premenopausal breast cancer than people with below-average levels.” says Carina Storrs of Health.com. Also, a lot of cattle are dosed with high amounts of antibiotics, like penicillin. It is said that a lot of the antibiotics that humans use become ineffective from being exposed to antibiotic resistant bacteria from eating beef! These are just a few of MANY drugs put into cattle. Do you see how consuming high amounts of beef could be harmful to
The commercial beef cattle industry is one of the strongest agricultural industries in the United States of America. Since the late fifteenth century, cattle have dominated the North American continent, especially the United States. Much has changed, however, since their first arrival to America. Breeds have evolved and practices have improved. Possibly one of the only things that has not changed is the hard work, time, and effort that the American farmers and ranchers spend each day tending to their herds. There is around 89.3 million head of cattle in America and about 315.1 million people. That means that for approximately every four people in the United States, there is one beef cow. Beef cattle help expand our nation’s relations by providing exports. Some of our top export markets include Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Hong Kong (Field, Thomas G.). An in-depth study of the commercial beef cattle industry reveals an industry overview, production and marketing phases, and products of beef.
In animal agriculture today, manure that is produced by hogs has the potential to do a lot
Santos J, Juchem S, Cerri R, Galvao K, Chebel R, Thatcher W, Dei C, Bilby C. Effect of bST and reproductive management on reproductive performance of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2004;87:868-881.
Humans throughout history and even dating up to today have relied on meat consumption for the simplest daily activities and bodily functions. In fact, Harvard University anthropology professor and researcher claims, “The story of evolution is one that is intimately tied to meat." From the earliest stages of life, people relied on meat to get energy, which allowed them “to become physically, anatomically, human” (R. Wrangham). Humans evolved so that meat has basically become an essential in every day life. However, with such a huge growing population, feeding the world has become a big problem in and of itself. In order to maintain a population of millions many resources are needed and used every day. Each year, more and more resources are becoming scarce for the never-ending need for food. “We’re emptying the oceans, turning the rainforest into ranches, and raising animals factory-style to satisfy our appetites”(NextNature). As the human race continues to rapidly increase to close to 9 billion, there needs to be an alternative to the resources we are using to acquire food, especially meat. There has been an abundance of research on what the next step is to creating a more sustainable food source. Since animals are being exhausted and there is more production of meat than reproduction of animals, scientists have turned to the petri dishes and have started producing in-vitro meat, which could be the stepping-stone towards a more sustainable society in the future. In-vitro meat is going to be a transformative solution that will work to combat the problems of food production and food scarcity worldwide due to the rapidly increasing population that is going to shock our society around 2050 if precaut...
Evidence provided to support these claims of human and wildlife harm is largely from laboratory studies in which large doses are fed to test animals, usually rats or mice, and field studies of wildlife species that have been exposed to the chemicals mentioned above. In laboratory studies, high doses are required to give weak hormone activity. These doses are not likely to be encountered in the environment. However the process of bioaccumulation can result in top-level predators such as humans to have contaminants at levels many million times greater than the environmental background levels (Guilette 1994). In field studies, toxicity caused by endocrine disruption has been associated with the presence of certain pollutants. Findings from such studies include: reproductive disruption in starfish due to PCBs, bird eggshell thinning due to DDT, reproductive failure in mink, small penises in alligators due to DDT and dicofol (Guillette 1994, Colburn et al 1996). In addition, a variety of reproductive problems in many other species are claimed to be associated with environmental contamination although the specific causative agents have not been determined. One recent discovery that complicates the situation is that there are many naturally occurring "phytoestrogens", or chemicals of plant origin that exhibit weak estrogenic properties.
Like antibiotics, hormones can be produced and placed in animal feed, for example Bovine Somatotropin, which is given to cows to increases milk production.2 The use of hormones and antibiotics in animal feed has been a controversial topic for many years. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages with the use of such products. Farmers see hormones and antibiotics as a major advantage as the increase their profits and gain the maximum out of their livestock.
An abundance of Americans have no idea that most of the food that they consume are either processed or altered in one way or another. “Almost all beef cattle entering feedlots in the United States are given hormone implants to promote faster growth. The first product used for this purpose is DES (diethylstilbestrol) it was approved for use in beef cattle in 1954. An estimated two-thirds of the nation's beef cattle were treated with DES in 1956. (Swan, Liu, Overstreet, Brazil, and Skakkebaek)” Many people enjoy the various meats that comes from a cow, but that would probably change if the consumers knew that cattle is one of the most processed meat source in the market today because of the synthetic hormones that the cows are given. “ The three synthetic hormones are the estrogen compound zeranol, the androgen trenbolone acetate, and progestin melengestrol acetate. (Swan, Liu, Overstreet, B...
In less than 30 years when the world population reaches its carrying capacity how will we feed everyone? Unless we start planting crops on the moon or go all out for cannibalism, we’ll need some new technology to feed the world. A large portion of humans’ diet is meat. In vitro meat or artificial meat offers a way to undo our food and environmental setbacks caused by traditional meat. Someday it will be in stores and if it’s a hit it might be the solution to solving how to feed people. Meat cultivation uses more land, water and resources to house, transport, and slaughter animals and their grain and food than it would cost to fund in vitro meat studies.
Consuming foods that have been genetically altered have serious health risks based on research done on rats by The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), an international organization of physicians. Risks include infertility, immune system problems, accelerated aging, disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation, gastrointestinal problems and organ damage. Many AAEM physicians have prescribed non-GMO diets for all patients to improve health conditions. Jeffrey M. Smith, an advocate for non-GMO, says scientific research shows the link of GM food to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; thousands of toxic and allergic reactions in humans; and damage t...
The United States felt that banning hormone treated beef was unfair, since there was no scientific proof that it was a danger to a person’s health. So the US went to the WTO to eliminate this ban on an export that the US values. So the World Trade Organization imposed a committee to test whether the beef was harmful or not to the consumers, which they found no solid evidence that the beef caused any harm (Seidman 2000). Therefore WTO ruled in favor of the US that Europe’s ban was unfair international trade policy. Europe than appealed the WTO decision. Then a study released by the European Union on May 1st, 1999 stated that the six growth hormones in the US cattle pose health threats of differing severity, putting children at the highest risk. According to the European Union the worst hormone, is oestradiol-17B, a natural hormone, but some of the lesser dangerous hormones consist of testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone, and meglangestrol acetate. (Birchard 1999) So Europe states that by imposing this ban they were actually trying to protect their country by imposing food safety standards.