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.

Tell me your just joking Rhrosty! If not tell me about your methods in getting something to eat.

I have many fruit trees, exotic & native, it makes the house paddock colourful, but not productive. Yes colourful, but not from fruit, but birds.

If you want production of edible fruit there are a few things you must do.

1/ you must spray the things every 7 & 14 days to control fruit fly grubs & diseases.

2/ you must water profusely most years, or most small fruit will drop off, & what remains will be small & hard.

3/ You must fertilize regularly & often, or the fruit will definitely not be palatable.

You must cover the trees with nets, or the lorikeets, king parrots crows, magpies & possums will make sure you have nothing to harvest.
I get particularly annoyed the way crows will decide to have some lemon.

They will pick a hole in one, decide it's nor very nice, then try another. This goes on until every lemon is destroyed. The magpies do something similar to mandarins.

Even if you like eating around what all these pests have left you, it will have cost you multiples of the cost of buying the same fruit, produced by one of those dreadful factory farmers, [orchardists] who knew what they were doing, & produced something edible.

I've got some backyard chooks, just 5 hens. Enough for eggs for two homes but not meat.

I grew up on a farm with a mixture of livestock but having the chooks has been a reminder of just how much personality they have and how much they love getting out in the garden and having a scratch around. The enclosure they live in has space to scratch in, it has shelter, constant access to food and water, it get's sunlight and has plenty of room but when I open the door to go in they come running to try and get out that door.

Come nightfall they will be back in snuggled together ready for sleep and when the door is left open during the day they wonder in and out. I don't know what happens in their heads but it is clear that they love being out in the open scratching up some ground to look for bugs (despite having plenty of food available). It's clear that when they don't get out they miss it.

Anyone thinking that keeping chickens/hens/chooks in a permanently cramped barn or even worse a small cage is not committing a massive act of cruelty needs to find a way to spend some time with some chooks who do get outside.

The answers to the worlds food needs won't be easy, the pretense that factory faming is not going to bother the animals involved won't help us come up with the best possible answers.

R0bert

Unfortunately it is a silly article. There are substantial drivers for intensive animal raising, not least the ability to provide meat at a reasonable cost to consumers. However, that comes with very substantial issues about how it is done. Sadly, this article didn't really address either.

I think those opposed to so called factory farming, had best come to terms with some realities.

Firstly, within ten to twenty years, farmers wil be paying someone $50 an hour to collect eggs. The packers will be similar money, the truck driver, the shop assistant and so on. Unless of cause we accept the fact that food must be affordable, or alternatively, if you have strong opposition, you can grow your own, thats assuming you can afford the water.

I am of the opinion that if you are strongly opposed to factory farming, then buy free range, but leave the rest of us alone.

Personally, I don't have a problem with factory farming as these Animals are purpose breed.

Sarnian,

I normally applaud displays of irony; but in your case (having read you before) I'm just not sure if it is!

The underlying assumptions here are that:

a) cities MUST GROW in numbers of people presumably so the author, vested interests in tow, can get even richer

b) food is the only factor in the WELL-BEING and SURVIVAL of large populations, when FREE-ENERGY is that X-Factor. When the main free-energy source, oil, becomes scarce around 2025, feeding large populations will be the least worry. People killing each other in Mad-Max petrol queues and hunting down and revenge-killing politicians as a favourite sport will be front and centre.

c) that this cycle of bigger cities, more people, bigger disregard for life can go on INFINITELY on a finite resourced planet. Presumably the author will endow his descendants in perpetuity with the right to determine the future of all others by up-sizing their their cities too.

The only people interested in larger populations are selfish women and sexually insecure men. We need politicians who can assure us that any factory farm will be exclusively staffed by those who proclaim a wish for bigger populations. Barry O'Farrell should be responsible for hamburger mince from cows as a testament to his belief in sustainable large populations for Sydney. Sydney, whose current air pollution problems, without his extra 2 million Indians, reflects a pure Grieneresque wickedness.

What all this says about our current crop of Big Australia, BIG leaders and their big sycophants is TELLING. And I thank the author for bringing it to all our attentions.

Geez, we already have factory education which is failing us miserably & they now want factory farming as well ? What else don't some people want to function ?

Sarnian, if your plan was to come to pass there would be a very great number of animals living much shorter, uncomfortable, hungry lives, dying much younger, & in great pain.

Really good sensible article on factory farming (for a change). It gets right to the heart of the issue, hobby farms run as if we lived in the Victorian era will not feed the world, or even a small village for that matter. Naive anthropomorphism and caricatured descriptions of what are productive businesses are hurdles anyone interested in ending world hunger must overcome.

from auther,..""the world..will be consuming
two-thirds more animal protein
in 2050..than it does today...

The report estimates..meat consumption will rise by 73%..
and dairy consumption..by 58%..over current levels...""

BY..2050
ie in 38 years

""The last forty-five years..[45 years]..
has seen..*a significant increase..in world animal protein production.""

compare the persentage
38 years=58%
over the last 45 years= 700%
[350%..200%...180%]...[all at least double
THE REQUIRED..58%...[so we are going to cut it?]

the scare is obvious
look at the authers own words

""Since 1967..global production of poultry meat
has increased by around 700%,..eggs by 350%,..pig meat by 290%,
sheep and goat meat by 200%,..beef and buffalo meat by 180% and milk by 180%."""

noting that fishing isnt mentioned[yet]

""Livestock are increasingly important..to the food security of millions of people.""

and they are happy to live off grass
that god grows for free[heck they could happily live off your front lawn/clippings]..but can life near anywhere..

with no extra greenhouse
or energy imputs[they can be walked to market if need be
[they follow the food]..

plus dont underestimate using sprouted corn etc
[it extends the corn 4 fold further..and the beasts love it]

but heck we are asking for everyone concerned..to injcrease their production by half

too easy..with better managment practices
[unless you grow them in airconditioned luxury]
using their methane...to grow permaculture in high rises

where the members of the commune
work for a fair share..plus accomidation and entertainment
[remember the rule is location location location

locate them in the right place
and..just build it..'they will come''

anyhow
dont panic

we are wasting 45%..of what we now got
so we dont really need extra..just less waste

The world will NOT be consuming two-thirds more animal protein
in 2050.than it does today... for the simple reason that it will not be available to consume.
There will not be enough oil, water, and soil to grow it.
There will be too many people trying to survive on a pillaged land.
The warning is there and has been ever since the “Limits of growth”.
Yes I know it has been rubbished for being wrong but it is not and never has been wrong, just the timing was out.

Hasbeen, Those lemon sipping crows are probably trying to find where you've planted the salt and tequila?
Fruit fly are a real worry; but, I think we're getting on top of this one, with an annual release of sterile males. A little irradiation of eggs and very precisely controlled temps in the hatching rooms produces sterile males, who being bigger and stronger than their naturally produced counterparts, win most of the mating rights, which produces mostly infertile eggs.
A few more seasons and they will have all but eliminated themselves; ditto, disease carrying mosquitoes.
Other studies have shown that most spaying is counter productive; given, it indiscriminately removes/kills a whole range of farmer friendlies like the assassin bug.
One NZ orchardist I've heard about, virtually eliminated moth strike, with a few strategically placed UV lights and trays of kero topped water?
Small grids in the concrete of kerbing, will allow all run-off storm water; to peculate into a number of Ag pipes, which then distribute water normally wasted and or washed out to sea. And there's case for using tertiary treated effluent, which is chock full of plant nutrient; to water mop crops? Again, a better result than sending it to sea to destroy much of the marine habitat.
Hawk and eagle cut outs that move convincingly/naturally, with the wind; are a useful bird deterrent as is the replay of recorded distress calls, which can often be elicited, with the occasional backside full of bird shot?
You know what they say, where there's a will; there's always a relative.

I watched a programme on the good old teev some time ago which, amongst other things, assessed the protein level of meat from free-range farm animals as opposed to meat from intensively-farmed animals.
It was my understanding, from this programme, that the protein level of meat from free-range animals was vastly superior to that of intensively-farmed meat.
If the content of this programme was indeed correct,and I can see no reason why it was not, there would be a need to produce far, far greater numbers of intensively-farmed animals than stated in this article purely to address the required levels of protein cited by the author.
On this basis, if free-range farming was utilised instead of intensive farming, the amount of meat required by consumers would drop as the level of protein would be able to be supplied through smaller meal portions.
It would seem to my perhaps idealist self that it would be far more efficient, protein-wise, to have areas of free-range animal production allocated to some of the green belt areas surrounding most cities. Surely it would be more pleasant to walk through indigenous-lightly-treed paddocks containing cows (or pigs or chooks)than to walk through a grassed park containing imported breeds of plants or flowers which, although pleasing to the eye, have very little added-on value.
As I grow older, I continually try to ascertain the justifications put forward by those with vested interest in outcomes of that for which they argue, regardless of the subject - and if ever I saw a vested interest it was found in the argument put forward by the author of this article, of whom I know nothing.