Absolute nonsense! Factory farming is the problem not the solution. Vandana Shiva's research has established that small bio diverse farms in India using ecological inputs produce three to five time more food than industrial monocultures. The author seems to assume that the majority of objections to factory farming will come from animal right activists, however, even if animals are treated extremely well there are still problems with factory farming. Factory farming moves farming into the corporate world which in turn means that the farms need to generate a profit. One way to ensure profits is to encourage an increased consumption of meat. Meat is a valuable source of protein but by no means the only source of protein - legumes will generate more proteins per hectare than any source of animal protein. If we have increased population (which the author takes as a given) then we need to use limited land more efficiently - we may well have to give up on the idea of a a daily supply of meat and use the increasingly limited land space to produce a wide variety of vegetables that will enable us to still have a balanced diet. Of course we could also work towards reducing the world's population but to assume that we can have both population increase and a regular supply of meat is simply wrong.

This article assumes that that demand for meat and eggs will continue its inexorable rise and that liquid fuels will be in abundance to deliver the feed to the factory farms and to take away the products. On the first point, with any luck, population may be peak below 8 billion rather than rise to 9 or 10 billion so there will be some increase in demand but not massive. I'm afraid, however, the imminence of peak oil will throw a spanner in the works about the second point - agriculture is so dependent on oil that price rises in oil will see agriculture affected in ways we can't predict.

A more likely scenario, and a better one for pigs and chickens, is a return to the land by many people as is happening in Greece today as the economy falters. More labour on the land allows pigs and chickens to free range. I know my own chickens lay much better when I allow them out to scratch around in the grass and catch insects.

Balderdash! Exactly what you would expect from someone who is a fan of the benighted heartless Ayn Rand.

Two sites which comprehensively repute the authors claim that animals do not suffer or feel any pain.

http://animalliberty.com

http://www.jeffreymasson.com/books/the-face-on-your-plate.html

David, I don't think I'll get you to write my speeches.

The first part of this article reads like it agrees with the save the world lobby. And then it turns around mid stream and has a go at them!

They will be very angry David and I can't blame them. You know as well as I do that Australia exports $46B worth of food per year and we import $6B through reciprocal trade agreements. We are actually exporting more food than we every did.

Will this go on forever? Probably not. As population growth slows (which is another problem), markets will slowly contract. That's not really fab but that's another story.

While population growth is slowing throughout most of Europe, in Africa it is still booming. David might have directed his comments on how we will feed them but I get the feeling David is more on the supply side rather than on the consumption side.

Surely a better idea would be to confine humans in cages allowing conjugal visits once ever lifetime.
After one reproduction the human would then be humanely destroyed and the meat used to feed the remaining humans.
This would allow the earth to recover and sustainably continue.
Animals would be allowed to live natural lives undisturbed by human interference with nature.

We could argue for fish farms, where the sanitation is good and the systems are large enough for fish to swim freely! It's said that a single fish farm the size of the Eagle Farm international runway, would replicate the income produced by 10,000 acres of sustenance grazing?
Frost, drought and salt tolerant native wisteria; produces a very high protein seed. And will grow on land considered barely marginal grazing land! Being a legume it fixes nitrogen, improving fertility. It also fixes carbon, which can be incorporated into the soil as trash.
The seed contains very useful quantities of oil, which is a very fine bio-diesel almost as is?
The ex-crush material has a high enough protein content to replace fish pellets as fish food; although, old Charley carp and a few other feral species could be added?
We can create fodder factories; that inside a modest shed, will produce as much animal fodder as thirty acres of graze; and, for a tiny fraction of the water!
We could also make better use of recycled water in food production. It doesn't make a lot of sense sending millions of litres of reusable water and tons of often expensive plant nutrients seaward every year, while the MDB degenerates into a series of algae laden cesspools!
Factory farming? No thanks, I completely concur with the other anti-factory farming posters!
I'd just as soon see small scale animal husbandry projects introduced into the suburbs! And bush tucker, fruit and nut trees replacing the ornamental shrubs that line our highways and byways; and, enough companion planting to minimise unwelcome predation.