Unit 8 [NS430 Whole Foods Production] AssignmentDet.docx

Unit 8 [NS430: Whole Foods Production]
Assignment Details and Rubric
Unit outcomes addressed in this Assignment:
Course outcome assessed/addressed in this Assignment:
NS430-3: Discuss various influences on whole foods
production.
Instructions
Going back to your recognition of the disconnect between
consumers and producer, you may decide
to explore animal production practices. When considering
yourself as a consumer educator, you may
feel that this is an area you need to include in your efforts.
Scientific research is a great place to start!
Submit to the Dropbox a 1-page summary and critical review of
the Seigford, 2008 article (see
reading assignments). This summary should include an overview
of the article that identifies the key
points and provides examples of the issues related to food
animal production being presented by the
authors. You should also provide your thoughts as a critical
review (not necessarily negative) of the
article. Consider how the information presented in the article
influences food animal production

decisions. (Bring thoughts to the Discussion Board!)
Requirements
–2 page, APA
formatted paper with references
as appropriate.
Please be sure to download the file “Writing Center Resources”
from Doc Sharing to assist you with
meeting APA expectations for written assignments.
Submitting Your Work
Put your responses in a Microsoft Word document. Save it in a
location and with the proper naming
convention: username-CourseName-section-Unit
8_Assignment.doc (username is your Kaplan
username, section is your course section, 8 is your unit
number). When you are ready to submit it, go
to the Dropbox and complete the steps below:
1. Click the link that says “Submit an Assignment.”
2. In the “Submit to Basket” menu, select Unit 8: Assignment.
3. In the “Comments” field, make sure to add at least the title of
your paper.
4. Click the “Add Attachments” button.
5. Follow the steps listed to attach your Word document.

Unit 8 [NS430: Whole Foods Production]
To view your graded work, come back to the Dropbox or go to
the Gradebook after your instructor
has evaluated it. Make sure that you save a copy of your
submitted Assignment.
Unit 8 Assignment Grading Rubric = 60 points
Assignment Requirements Points
possible
Points
earned by
student
Provide a summary of the article. 0–15
Identify the authors’ key points. 0–15
Provide examples of issues related to food
animal production.
0–15
Offer a unique critical review of the article. 0–15
Total (Sum of all points)
Points deducted for spelling, grammar,
and/or APA errors.
Adjusted total points

Instructor Feedback:
Outcome Assessed
Integrate policies and processes that promote a diverse
workforce.
Grading Rubric for Assignment # 3 - Petty v. Metropolitan
Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County
Criteria
0
Unacceptable
20
Developing
30
Competent
40
Exemplary
1. What were the legal issues in this case?
Did not complete the assignment or the legal issues were
identified with less than 70% accuracy and some information
was inappropriate.
The legal issues were identified with 70 to 79% accuracy and
some information was inappropriate or was not identified.
appropriate information was identified.
all appropriate information was identified.
2. Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA
were violated in this case.
Did not complete the assignment or How the reemployment
provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case was
explained with less than 70% accuracy and some information

was inappropriate.
How the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were
violated in this case was explained with 70 to 79% accuracy and
some information was inappropriate or was not identified.
violated in this case was explained with 80 to 89% accuracy and
appropriate information was identified.
violated in this case was explained with 90 to 100% accuracy
and all appropriate information was identified.
3. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for
discrimination under USERRA.
Did not complete the assignment or Why the court concludes
that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA was
explained with less than 70% accuracy and some information
was inappropriate.
Why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for
discrimination under USERRA was explained with 70 to 79%
accuracy and some information was inappropriate or was not
identified.
accuracy and appropriate information was identified.
accuracy and all appropriate information was identified.
4. Explain what the police department should have done
differently.
Did not complete the assignment or What the police department
should have done differently was explained with less than 70%
accuracy and some information was inappropriate.
What the police department should have done differently was
explained with 70 to 79% accuracy and some information was
inappropriate or was not identified.
explained with 80 to 89% accuracy and appropriate information

was identified.
explained with 90 to 100% accuracy and all appropriate
information was identified.
5. Clarity
Did not complete the assignment or explanations are unclear
and not organized.
(Major issues)
Explanations generally unclear and not well organized.
(Many issues)
Explanations generally clear and/or organized. (Minor issues)
Explanations very clear and well organized.
(Added helpful details.)
6. Writing – Grammar, sentence structure, paragraph structure,
spelling, punctuation, APA usage.
Did not complete the assignment or had 8 or more different
errors in grammar, sentence structure, paragraph structure,
spelling, punctuation or APA usage. (Major issues)
Had 6 - 7 different errors in grammar, sentence structure,
paragraph structure, spelling, punctuation or APA usage. (Many
issues)
paragraph structure, spelling, punctuation or APA usage. (Minor
issues)
paragraph structure, spelling, punctuation or APA usage.
Environmental Aspects of Ethical Animal Production1
J. M. Siegford,*2 W. Powers,* and H. G. Grimes-Casey†

*Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University,
East Lansing 48824; and †School of Natural Resources
and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109
ABSTRACT Livestock and poultry producers face a
number of challenges including pressure from the public
to be good environmental stewards and adopt welfare-
friendly practices. In response, producers often imple-
ment practices beyond those required for regulatory com-
pliance to meet consumer demands. However, environ-
mental stewardship and animal welfare may have con-
flicting objectives. Examples include pasture-based dairy
and beef cattle production where high-fiber diets increase
methane emissions compared with grain feeding prac-
tices in confinement. Grazing systems can contribute to
nitrate contamination of surface and groundwater in
some areas of the world where grazing is the predominant
land use. Similarly, hoop housing for sows, an alternative
to indoor gestation crates, can increase the risk of nutrient
leaching into soil and groundwater. Direct air emissions
may also increase with unconfined animal production as
a result of less opportunity to trap and treat emissions,
as well as the result of increased cage space and greater
surface area per mass of excreta. Coupling welfare-
friendly and organic production practices may require
Key words: environment, ethics, animal welfare, animal well-
being, extensive
2008 Poultry Science 87:380–386
doi:10.3382/ps.2007-00351
INTRODUCTION
Livestock and poultry producers face a number of chal-

lenges including pressure from the public to be good
environmental stewards and to adopt welfare-friendly
practices. In both arenas, producers often implement
practices beyond those required from a regulatory stand-
point to meet the demands of consumers. Animal welfare
and environmentally friendly are emotionally laden, so-
cially acceptable terms that are often used in the market
as buzzwords to sell niche products. Often, consumers
do not have accurate or specific definitions for these
terms, but rather have a vague idea that these terms char-
©2008 Poultry Science Association Inc.
Received August 22, 2007.
Accepted October 4, 2007.
1Symposium paper from Bioethics Symposia at the 2007 Joint
Annual
Meeting of ADSA-PSA-AMPA-ASAS.
2Corresponding author: [email protected]
380
greater nutrient inputs to reach the same production end
point, resulting in less efficient nutrient use and greater
losses to the environment. Dual systems might addition-
ally increase environmental contamination by pathogens.
When swine are housed in welfare-friendly huts, Salmo-
nella may cycle more freely between swine and their envi-
ronment; however, population numbers of pathogenic
bacteria may not be different between the indoor and
outdoor systems evaluated. Alternatively, these dual pur-
pose systems may reduce antibiotic and hormonal re-
leases to the environment. Finally, intensity of resource
use may be different under welfare-friendly and organic
practices. In most situations, welfare-friendly production
will require more land area per animal or per unit of
product. Energy inputs into such systems, from feed pro-

duction to rearing to product distribution, may also differ
from prevalent industrial production practices. Clearly,
consumers and producers considering the benefits and
costs of ethical animal production practices need to un-
derstand the system-wide environmental impacts of these
approaches to meeting demand for animal products.
acterize agricultural practices that promote quality of life
for animals and healthy environments. Many consumers
picture pastoral, nonconfined systems when they picture
agriculture that is environmentally sustainable or pro-
motes good animal welfare. On the other hand, consumer
ideas related to sustainability include the notion that in-
tense animal production systems are inherently linked
with environmental degradation and poor animal welfare
(Petit and van der Werf, 2003). Producers would likely
prefer to adapt their current model of production to ad-
dress such problems while maintaining production
yields, but the public may prefer to see alternative pro-
duction models developed to address these issues (Petit
and van der Werf, 2003).
In some cases, the different aims of environmental
stewardship and animal welfare can create conflict within
a production system. As an example, many organic stan-
dards for food product certification have goals aimed
at promoting environmental health and animal welfare
(USDA, 2007). One typical environmental aim is to reduce
BIOETHICS OF FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION 381
or eliminate synthetic and chemical inputs used in pro-
duction. A typical animal welfare-related aim is to allow
animals access to pasture. Yet, many organic standards

and producers using the standards do not have clear
strategies for meeting these goals simultaneously because
it assumed that working toward meeting one goal will
lead to fulfillment of the other. Systems designed to pro-
mote good animal welfare do not always promote good
environmental health and vice versa. There may be con-
flicts related to the most appropriate rearing practice rela-
tive to allowing expression of the innate behavior of the
animals, to reducing the risk of pollution from produc-
tion, and to the ultimate aim of producing animal prod-
ucts in sufficient quantities (Hermansen et al., 2004).
This paper reviews and compiles the relevant environ-
ment, ethics, and animal behavior literature to consider
the potential for recent environmental and ethical animal
production goals to result in conflicting impacts to the
animal-based industrial system and the environment.
The Impact of Animal Behavior
Pasture-based systems that promote the natural behav-
ior of animals have the potential to increase environmen-
tal degradation and pathogen exposure, depending on the
species, design, or location of the system. In all situations,
animal behaviors and their environmental impacts must
be considered when designing facilities to accommodate
animal welfare and environmental goals. Some factors
related to facility design that must be considered include
consideration of appropriate stocking densities, appro-
priate vegetative ground cover or forage options; terrain,
soil, and climate conditions; and design and location of
shelters, drinkers, and feeders.
In the end, systems that meet welfare and environmen-
tal goals may be easier to create for some species than
others due to incompatibilities between animal behavior,

environmental stewardship, and production. Pasture-
based systems for raising beef and lamb are likely similar
or better in terms of their environmental impact relative to
confinement operations while typically promoting good
animal welfare (Kumm, 2002). Conversely, the most com-
mon outdoor systems used for intensive organic produc-
tion of pigs and poultry have significant environmental
impacts, including increased risk of nitrogen-leaching
and ammonia volatilization, as well as negative conse-
quences for animal welfare, such as nose-ringing of pigs
(Hermansen et al., 2004).
Consider some of the problems associated with com-
mon outdoor systems used for intensive organic produc-
tion of pigs. Pigs spend a great deal of their time foraging
and exploring—and engage in rooting as part of these
behaviors. Pigs on pasture can spend up to a quarter of
their day rooting, which is an important foraging and
exploratory behavior. Pigs appear highly motivated to
root, and when prevented show evidence of frustration
(Jensen and Toates, 1993; Studnitz et al., 2003a,b). Pigs
that are kept outdoors will also wallow in mud or water
to utilize evaporative cooling to thermoregulate in hot
weather (Culver et al., 1960; Huynh et al., 2005). Rooting
and wallowing behaviors result in bare, compacted
ground in pastures, intensifying nutrient leaching (Her-
mansen et al., 2004; Eriksen et al., 2006). Overstocking of
pigs in outdoor production systems further increases the
damage to soil and vegetation in paddocks caused by
rooting, wallowing, and grazing (Eriksen et al., 2006).
These natural behaviors have environmental conse-
quences when pigs are kept on pasture, including in-
creased risk of nitrogen-leaching and ammonia volatil-
ization.

Nose ringing of pigs on pasture is often assumed to
be essential to maintaining good grass cover in pastures
(Hermansen et al., 2004). However, nose ringing presents
several welfare problems by causing frustration in pigs
by preventing them from rooting, and by causing pain
to the animal as well as creating a possible site of infection.
Several studies recently have found that nose ringing
does not prevent sows from reducing the grass cover in
pasture (Larsen and Kongsted, 2000). Ringing may also
not be related to the content of highly soluble nitrogen
in the soil (Hermansen et al., 2004). Therefore, ringing
may not be effective at maintaining grass cover or reduc-
ing leaching of nutrients from soil. Thus, alternatives such
as reducing stocking density of pastures or providing
sows with foraging material high in fiber such as straw
to fulfill their need to engage in rooting and exploratory
behavior may be more effective (Brouns et al., 1994;
Braund et al., 1998; Hermansen et al., 2004).
All agricultural production systems, even those in bu-
colic pasture settings, have impacts on the environment
including nutrient loading and leaching, air emissions,
and pathogen transfer. The environmental impacts of ex-
tensive, pasture-based systems may be different than
those of confined operations. In some cases, the environ-
mental impacts may be greater, and in other cases the
impacts may be less relative to those of intense confine-
ment operations.
Nutrient Loading and Leaching
Combined welfare-friendly and organic systems may
require greater nutrient inputs to reach the same produc-
tion end point, resulting in less efficient nutrient utiliza-
tion and greater losses to the environment. For example,
animals in pasture-based systems often require supple-

mental feed to optimize production (Williams et al., 2000;
Hermansen et al., 2004). There are energetic and land-
base requirements for producing this additional feed, and
in many cases surplus nutrients from supplemental feed
can also be lost to the environment.
Nutrients from supplemental feed can be responsible
for much of the environmental impact of outdoor pig
production units (Eriksen et al., 2002; Hermansen et al.,
2004). When nitrogen inputs, outputs and losses from
different outdoor pig farming systems are examined, ni-
trogen inputs exceed outputs and losses in all cases and
result in nitrogen surpluses in the systems (Williams et
al., 2000). These surpluses are hypothesized to exacerbate
SIEGFORD ET AL.382
nitrate leaching losses from the soil in future seasons
(Williams et al., 2000). Grazing systems can contribute to
nitrate leaching to groundwater in some areas of the
world where grazing is the predominant land use or
where soils are susceptible to leaching (Burden, 1982;
Fraters et al., 1998; Stout et al., 2000; Verloop et al., 2006).
However, beef cattle congregation sites such as mineral
feeders, water troughs, and shade areas in Florida pas-
tures did not contribute more nutrients to surface or
groundwater supplies than other pasture locations (Sigua
and Coleman, 2006). Additionally, a study in the North
Appalachian Experimental Watershed in Ohio has dem-
onstrated that in unfertilized grass pastures, both rota-
tional grazing and removal of grass as hay can effectively
reduce high NO3-N concentrations resulting from high-
fertility, high-stocking-density grazing systems (Owens
and Bonta, 2004). These findings suggest that site specific

factors may be influential in determining groundwater
pollution potential.
Nutrients released on pasture during grazing can result
in surface water and stream contamination as nonpoint
sources of emission are more difficult to contain or control
on pasture than when they are emitted into a fully con-
tained facility (Howell et al., 1995; Quinn and Stroud,
2002). Surface water impacts are of issue when grazed
animals have unrestricted access to streams. In such cases,
there can be direct contamination of water by excreta in
addition to well documented damage to stream banks
and beds causing erosion, reduced water clarity, and eu-
trophication of streams (Kauffman et al., 1983; Belsky et
al., 1999; Zaimes et al., 2004). It may be possible to reduce
such impacts by providing animals on pasture with off-
stream water sources or by restricting access to streams.
In fact, providing off-stream water sources for grazing
cattle can effectively reduce erosion, nutrient contamina-
tion, and presence of fecal coliform and fecal Streptococcus
in adjacent streams (Sheffield et al., 1997). Cattle prefer
to drink from a water trough when one is provided, even
in pastures that lack stream bank fencing (Miner et al.,
1992; Clawson, 1993; Sheffield et al., 1997). As a conse-
quence of shifting their drinking from the stream to a
trough, the cattle spend less time standing on the stream
bank or in the stream, reducing their opportunity to de-
posit urine and feces directly into the stream (Miner et
al., 1992; Clawson, 1993).
Outdoor production of pigs can increase the risks of
nutrient leaching into soil and groundwater contamina-
tion (e.g., Jongbloed and Lenis, 1998; Petersen et al., 2001;
Eriksen et al., 2002). Hoop housing for sows, as an alterna-
tive to indoor gestation crates, increases the risk of nutri-
ent leaching into soil and groundwater contamination if

sites are not suitably prepared. However, even in inten-
sive systems designed to be nondischarge operations,
there are still problems associated with nutrient leaching
into surrounding catchments and water supplies (Karr et
al., 2001).
In sum, low nitrogen-use efficiency and adverse effects
of nitrogen leaching on the environment conflict with
the sustainability of outdoor pig production. Changes in
management are therefore needed to improve the effi-
ciency of nitrogen use and lead to less surplus nitrogen
being excreted and lost in outdoor pork production. Man-
agement changes could include moving feeders and sheds
to evenly distribute manure and allow it to be taken up
by forages or crops in the pasture (Eriksen and Kristensen,
2001), reducing dietary nitrogen from supplemental
sources (Eriksen et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2000; Her-
mansen et al., 2004) and lowering stocking densities (Wor-
thington and Danks, 1992; Eriksen et al., 2002).
Emissions into Air
Emissions into the air by any animal production system
can be problematic in terms of pollutants and toxicity
and in terms of odor and perception of air quality by
human neighbors. Methane (a greenhouse gas) and am-
monia are 2 of the most widely studied air emissions
for animal agriculture. At the system level, methane and
ammonia emissions from pasture-based systems can in-
crease relative to confined systems because it is harder
to trap and treat emissions released in outdoor settings
vs. those released in confinement buildings. Additionally,
increasing the available space per animal increases sur-
face area per mass of excreta, which also leads to increased
emissions (Monteny et al., 2001). At the level of the ani-

mal, emission of methane and ammonia gases can be
impacted by diet, stress, and genetics of the animals
(Smits et al., 2003; Leifeld and Fuhrer, 2005; Hegarty et
al., 2007).
Typically cattle grazing on pasture have diets high in
fiber, which increases methane production compared
with grain feeding practices in confinement (Johnson and
Johnson, 1995; Harper et al., 1999). However, The Swiss
REP program (required standards for ecological perfor-
mance), which promotes integrated agricultural produc-
tion with limits on stocking densities as well as organic
farming, has been linked to a decline in overall methane
from animal agriculture (Leifeld and Fuhrer, 2005).The
authors hypothesize that trends of declining forage and
increasing grain and oilseed-based feed will further re-
duce methane production (Leifeld and Fuhrer, 2005). An-
other animal agriculture trend in feeding also may reduce
methane production. Cattle selected for lower residual
feed intake are managed such that the difference between
actual intake and expected feed requirements is mini-
mized for greater feed efficiency, resulting in lower daily
methane production rates (Hegarty et al., 2007). In Austra-
lia, use of residual feed intake-selected bulls is estimated
to decrease methane production by cattle by 3.1% in 2025
compared with levels in 2002. More efficient cattle that
need less feed will also produce less manure, which could
potentially reduce the amount of nitrous oxide, another
greenhouse gas, and other gaseous emissions liberated
from the manure of these animals.
Finally, ammonia emissions are reduced when cattle
are grazed rather than confined. This is largely because
urine deposited on pasture by grazing cattle is quickly
absorbed into the soil, reducing the chance that ammonia

will volatilize to the air (Webb et al., 2005). Thus, while
some gaseous emissions may be reduced in animal wel-
fare friendly systems, others may increase, requiring a
thorough evaluation of the air quality impact when as-
sessing production systems.
Pathogenic Release
Pasture-based systems with organic and welfare-
friendly aims might increase environmental contamina-
tion by pathogens. Theoretically, with equal total inputs,
less Escherichia coli should pollute surface water from
daily small grazing inputs to a pasture than from a single
large slurry input (Vinten et al., 2004). However, practi-
cally, the proportion of E. coli actually entering surface
water from grazing inputs spread out over time appears
equal to that from a single application of slurry (Vinten
et al., 2004). This may be due to the fact that slurry is
typically stored before being applied to the land, during
which time the E. coli initially present in the feces die off
(Larsen and Munch, 1983; Vinten et al., 2002). Addition-
ally, E. coli removal from soil becomes more difficult as
time from deposition increases (Vinten et al., 2004). This
reduces the relative longer term risk of E. coli continuing
to leach into surface water from a single slurry application
compared with grazing because inputs of fresh feces will
daily deposit E. coli that are more readily mobilized.
Cattle excrete more E. coli in spring and late summer,
and though this seasonality is not fully understood,
changing feed from hay to grain and general stress have
both been found to dramatically increase the presence of

virulent strains of E. coli, such as E. coli O157, numbers
in cattle feces (Diez-Gonzalez et al., 1998; Jones, 1999;
Russell and Rychlik, 2001). Thus pasture-based systems
could have conflicting effects on the amount of harmful
E. coli excreted. On the one hand, cattle kept on pasture
year round will be fed more natural diets and will not
be subjected to the stresses of confinement or changes in
housing. On the other hand, manure containing E. coli
will be excreted directly onto the pasture, which could
increase contamination rates. Further research is needed
to elucidate the relationship between E. coli and pasture-
based management of dairy cattle.
Regular use of antibiotics on dairy farms could increase
the levels of E. coli O157 found on farms. A study of
Wisconsin dairy farms found that antimicrobial use could
be a risk factor associated with shedding of E. coli O157
into the environment and that this hypothesis required
further research (Shere et al., 1998). Additionally, feeding
cattle grain-based diets can increase the incidence of E. coli
O157 and increase the number of acid-resistant bacteria
capable of surviving the acidity of the human stomach
by 1,000- to 1,000,000-fold. Feeding cattle hay even for
a brief period before slaughter can significantly reduce
shedding of E. coli and reduce numbers of acid-resistant
bacteria (Russell and Rychlik, 2001). In contrast, there
may be some basis for hypothesizing that E. coli O157
could be less common in organic than in conventional
livestock systems because several core practices and prin-
ciples of organic farming could be expected to reduce the
levels of O157 on organic farms (Patriquin, 2000). Such
practices include the infrequent use of antibiotic and the
emphasis on probiotics and maintenance of healthy mi-
croflora in livestock (and people) and of high levels of
microbial activity in soils (Mäder et al., 2002).

Sows housed outdoors for farrowing form wallows
near their farrowing huts. These wallows become contam-
inated with pig feces and can harbor organisms such as
Salmonella and E. coli that can cycle between the environ-
ment and the pigs (Callaway et al., 2005). However, popu-
lation numbers of pathogenic bacteria were not different
between the indoor and outdoor systems evaluated.
In organic and many welfare-friendly systems, there
are restrictions on the use of supplementary, synthetic,
or recombinant hormones and antibiotics, or a combina-
tion of these, resulting in little or no release of these
compounds to the environment through excreta. In con-
ventional swine production, antimicrobials can be used
for purposes of growth promotion and prophylaxis. How-
ever, despite the common use of antimicrobials in animal
agriculture, the impact of these practices on antimicrobial
resistance only recently has been examined. The evidence
suggests that as little as 10 parts per billion of antimicro-
bial drugs can increase the resistance of an indicator or-
ganism, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 9144 (Kleiner et al.,
2007). When the organism was exposed to multiple drugs
at the same time, the resistance to the antimicrobial drugs
in general increased dramatically (Kleiner et al., 2007).
Organic and welfare friendly systems, by restricting or
prohibiting use of these substances, could result in trans-
mission of fewer microbes with antimicrobial resistance
to the environment. Samples collected near lagoons for
manure storage and treatment at swine confinement facil-
ities reveal higher detection rates for tetracycline-resistant
genes near and down-gradient from the lagoons than at
distant sites (Mackie et al., 2006). In a similar study, fecal
Streptococcus bacteria were detected in the groundwater
near swine confinement facilities, suggesting that the fil-
tration of bacteria by soil surrounding deep-pit manure

storage systems may not be as effective as is commonly
assumed. Together, these results suggest that the ground-
water at swine confinement facilities may persistently
harbor tetracycline-resistant genes, which could affect the
safety of this water (Krapac et al., 2002; Mackie et al.,
2006). In a comparison of resistance against 2 common
antimicrobials on conventional and organic swine farms,
conventional farm samples had the highest levels of resis-
tance despite differences in antimicrobial usage among
farms (Jindal et al., 2006). In contrast, the levels of resis-
tance in organic farm samples, where no antimicrobials
were used, were very low (Jindal et al., 2006). Interest-
ingly, the resistance levels at the conventional farms re-
mained high throughout the waste treatment systems,
suggesting a potential impact on environmental levels of
resistance when treated wastes and waste treatment by-
products are applied to agricultural land (Jindal et al.,
2006). In a comparison of antimicrobial resistance at con-
ventional vs. organic dairy farms, samples from conven-
SIEGFORD ET AL.384
tional dairy farms had E. coli with significantly higher
resistance to 7 common antimicrobials, including ampicil-
lin, streptomycin, and kanamycin than samples from or-
ganic dairies (Sato et al., 2005). Similarly, conventional
dairy farms were more likely than organic dairy farms
to have Salmonella isolates that were more resistant to
streptomycin and other antimicrobial agents (Ray et al.,
2006).
Resource Intensity
The intensity of resource use relates total consumption

of a resource to the amount of output enabled by its use;
higher resource intensity implies greater inputs of energy,
water, nutrients, etc. are required to provide a unit of
product. When these inputs are scarce or associated with
toxic, hazardous, or otherwise detrimental processes or
by-products, resource intensity can be linked to environ-
mental damages.
A recent paper acknowledges the damages caused by
utilizing 40% of the world’s land area to food production,
including damages such as deforestation, loss of biodiver-
sity, and soil and water pollution and degradation (Elfer-
ink and Nonhebel, 2007). The authors consider opportuni-
ties to reduce the intensity of land use in producing typi-
cal, industrialized animal food products in the
Netherlands. They find that optimizing feed composition
for highest yield feed crops and choosing high-yield re-
gional sources for feed will reduce land area requirements
for pork, chicken, and beef, but acknowledge that the
world’s optimal feed production regions are insufficient
to meet the world’s meat demand with reduced land use
intensity (Elferink and Nonhebel, 2007). Therefore, the
results suggest that moving toward an animal-friendly
agriculture system of reduced confinement and more
“natural” diet while maintaining demand for animal
products will require greater land resources than conven-
tional animal systems.
It has already been noted that producing higher quality,
high-yield feed crops for improving animal diets could
reduce some air emissions and reduce overall land re-
quirements in animal agriculture. However, these crops
generally require greater inputs of fossil-fuel-based fertil-
izer, pesticides, and irrigation water to achieve high yields
(Ward et al., 1993). These upstream inputs of chemicals
and energy will contribute to the environmental, human-

health, and ecological impacts of an animal-based produc-
tion system.
Clearly, if welfare-friendly production systems require
more land units per animal or per unit of product, conflict
could arise where open land is scarce, where land and
habitat conservation is a factor, or where human habita-
tion or recreational use compete with use of land for
agriculture. Extensive pasture-based systems also make
existing practices of collection and beneficial reuse of ani-
mal waste materials much more difficult. However, pas-
ture-based systems, particularly those that are organic,
in general may also promote greater biodiversity in soils
as well as greater soil fertility, reducing the need for
fertilizer and pesticide inputs (Mäder et al., 2002).
Cleveland (1995) notes that energy productivity of in-
dustrial agriculture in the United States (the reverse of
energy intensity, measured as output per unit of energy
input) was lower as of the 1990s (although on an increas-
ing trend since the 1970s) than at the turn of the century,
despite great improvements in farm product yields. Fossil
fuel inputs in farm equipment production, farm operation
and maintenance, and product distribution increased
much faster than the physical or economic yields of ag-
ricultural products. Whether environmental or ethical ap-
proaches to animal-based agriculture can significantly
change the trends for energy and resource intensity will
depend on how these alternative animal product systems
vary relative to the norm for conventional animal agri-
culture.
DISCUSSION
Consumers, producers, and even government organi-

zations are becoming more interested in the ecological
footprints left by animal-based agriculture and the conse-
quences for animal and human welfare. Recent and forth-
coming organic, environmental, or animal-friendly certi-
fications may be shifting the practices and components
of production, distribution, and land use that make up
animal product systems. A variety of animal products
are now available to many US consumers, and the systems
that provide them are themselves being showcased as
“locally farmed”, “small farm”, “sustainably harvested”,
“organic”, and numerous variations on those themes.
These systems may eschew machinery, fossil fuels, and
commercial distribution in favor of human labor and re-
newable energy for a “slow food” approach, or alterna-
tively celebrate their highly automated, efficient, global
operations. The preceding review highlights the opportu-
nities for improved environmental and ethical manage-
ment and for even greater degradation under animal-
friendly or organic guidelines, or both, for animal food
products. It also illustrates the need for better understand-
ing of how these concerns and benefits will be manifested
under existing and future animal production models. It
will therefore be imperative to develop measures of prod-
uct and system level performance given environmental,
ecological, and social sustainability requirements) to as-
sess and compare the ability of conventional, organic, and
other extensive systems to meet the needs of our animal
and human populations.
CONCLUSIONS
As with conventional agriculture, we must be aware
that agriculture that meets goals of social responsibility
in terms of animal welfare or other societal concerns may
also have some negative impacts on the environment that
must be recognized in order to be addressed. Therefore,

when considering ethical animal production practices,
special consideration needs to be given to the impacts of
the system on the environment. In some cases, environ-
mentally friendly management practices will need to be
deliberately incorporated into organic or welfare-friendly
systems. Stocking densities of animals must be appro-
priate for soil characteristics, vegetation, terrain, and
weather conditions. Feeding practices must minimize
waste and external inputs while maximizing intake. Vege-
tative cover should be maintained continuously in pas-
tures to prevent erosion and nutrient leaching.
In addition, different approaches need to be considered
to develop sustainable agricultural practices for livestock
that are both environmentally and welfare friendly. As
an example, the behavior of animals can be approached
from a perspective of using behaviors that animals are
strongly motivated to perform in constructive ways rather
than from a perspective of controlling behaviors viewed
as undesirable. Systems could be designed to take advan-
tage of the natural behavior of animals in ways that pro-
mote productivity of the animals as well as the productiv-
ity of other crops incorporated into the systems (Her-
mansen et al., 2004). As an example, the rooting
tendencies of pigs could be harnessed to help cultivate
land in preparation for a crop, whereas the pecking drive
of geese and chickens may be used in orchards to control
weeds and insects. Ultimately, analysis and research at
the interface between the environment and animal wel-
fare are now needed to determine the environmental vs.
welfare costs through the lifecycle of animal-based prod-

ucts to gain a better understanding of the environmental
costs of ethical animal production.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Department of
Animal Science and College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources at Michigan State University, the School of
Natural Resources and Environment at the University of
Michigan, and the Alcoa Foundation for their support.
We would also like to thank Richard Reynnells of the
USDA for his support of bioethics.
REFERENCES
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of live-
stock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the
western United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54:419–431.
Braund, J. P., S. A. Edwards, I. Riddoch, and L. J. Buckner.
1998.
Modification of foraging behaviour and pasture damage by
dietary manipulation in outdoor sows. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 56:173–186.
Brouns, F., S. A. Edwards, and P. R. English. 1994. Effect of
dietary fibre and feeding system on activity and oral behav-
iour of group housed gilts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
39:215–223.
Burden, R. J. 1982. Nitrate contamination of New Zealand aqui-
fers: A review. N. Z. J. Sci. 25:205–220.
Callaway, T. R., J. L. Morrow, A. K. Johnson, J. W. Dailey, F.
M. Wallace, E. A. Wagstrom, J. J. McGlone, A. R. Lewis, S.
E. Dowd, T. L. Poole, T. S. Edrington, R. C. Anderson, K. J.

Genovese, J. A. Byrd, R. B. Harvey, and D. J. Nisbet. 2005.
Environmental prevalence and persistence of Salmonella spp.
in outdoor swine wallows. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2:263–296.
Clawson, J. E. 1993. The use of off-stream water developments
and various water gap configurations to modify the watering
behavior of grazing cattle. MS Thesis. Oregon State Univer-
sity, Corvallis.
Cleveland, C. 1995. The direct and indirect use of fossil fuels
and electricity in USA agriculture, 1910-1990. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 55:111–121.
Culver, A. A., F. N. Andrews, J. H. Conrad, and T. L.
Noffsinger.
1960. Effectiveness of water sprays and a wallow on the
cooling and growth of swine in a normal summer environ-
ment. J. Anim. Sci. 19:421–428.
Diez-Gonzalez, F., T. R. Callaway, M. G. Kizoulis, J. B.
Russell.
1998. Grain feeding and the dissemination of acid-resistant
Escherichia coli from cattle. Science 281:1666–1668.
Elferink, E. V., and S. Nonhebel. 2007. Variation in land
require-
ments for meat production. Cleaner Prod. 15:1778–1786.
Eriksen, J., J. E. Hermansen, K. Strudsholm, and K. Kristensen.
2006. Potential loss of nutrients from different rearing strate-
gies for fattening pigs on pasture. Soil Use Manage.
22:256–266.
Eriksen, J., and K. Kristensen. 2001. Nutrient excretion by out-
door pigs: A case study of distribution, utilization and poten-
tial for environmental impact. Soil Use Manage. 17:21–29.

Eriksen, J., S. O. Petersen, and S. G. Sommer. 2002. The fate of
nitrogen in outdoor pig production. Agronomie 22:863–867.
Fraters, D., L. J. M. Boumansa, G. van Drechta, T. de Haab, and
W. D. de Hoop. 1998. Nitrogen monitoring in groundwater
in the sandy regions of the Netherlands. Environ. Pollut.
102:479–485.
Harper, L. A., O. T. Denmead, J. R. Freney, and F. M. Byers.
1999.
Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and
feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1392–1401.
Hegarty, R. S., J. P. Goopy, R. M. Herd, and B. McCorkell.
2007.
Cattle selected for lower residual feed intake have reduced
daily methane production. J. Anim. Sci. 85:1479–1486.
Hermansen, J. E., K. Strudsholm, and K. Horsted. 2004. Integra-
tion of organic animal production into land use with special
reference to swine and poultry. Livest. Prod. Sci. 90:11–26.
Howell, J. M., M. S. Coyne, and P. Cornelius. 1995. Fecal
bacteria
in agricultural waters of the Bluegrass region of Kentucky.
J. Environ. Qual. 24:411–419.
Huynh, T. T. T., A. J. A. Aarnink, W. J. J. Gerrits, M. J. H.
Heetkamp, T. T. Canh, H. A. M. Spoolder, B. Kemp, and M.
W. A. Verstegen. 2005. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs
in response to high temperature and humidity. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 91:1–16.
Jensen, P., and F. Toates. 1993. Who needs “behavioural
needs”?

Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 37:161–181.
Jindal, A., S. Kocherginskaya, A. Mehboob, M. Robert, R. I.
Mackie, L. Raskin, and J. L. Zilles. 2006. Antimicrobial use
and resistance in swine waste treatment systems. Appl. Envi-
ron. Microbiol. 72:7813–7820.
Johnson, K. A., and D. E. Johnson. 1995. Methane emissions
from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2483–2492.
Jones, D. L. 1999. Potential health risks associated with the
persistence of Escherichia coli O157 in agricultural environ-
ments. Soil Use Manage. 15:76–83.
Jongbloed, A. W., and N. P. Lenis. 1998. Environmental
concerns
about animal manure. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2641–24648.
Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts
of cattle on streambanks in Northeastern Oregon. J. Range
Manage. 36:683–685.
Karr, J. D., W. J. Showers, J. W. Gilliam, and A. S. Andres.
2001.
Tracing nitrate transport and environmental impact from
intensive swine farming using delta nitrogen-15. J. Environ.
Qual. 30:1163–1175.
Kleiner, D. K., S. E. Katz, and P. M. Ward. 2007. Development
of in vitro antimicrobial resistance in bacteria exposed to
residue level exposures of antimicrobial drugs, pesticides
and veterinary drugs. Chemotherapy 53:132–136.

SIEGFORD ET AL.386
Krapac, I. G., W. S. Dey, W. R. Roy, C. A. Smyth, E. Storment,
S. L. Sargent, and J. D. Steele. 2002. Impacts of swine manure
pits on groundwater quality. Environ. Pollut. 1202:475–492.
Kumm, I.-J. 2002. Sustainability of organic meat production un-
der Swedish conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88:95–101.
Larsen, H. E., and B. Munch. 1983. Practical applications of
knowledge on the survival of pathogenic and indicator bacte-
ria in aerated and non-aerated slurry. Pages 20–34 in Hy-
gienic Problems of Animal Manures. D. Strach, ed. University
of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Larsen, V. A., and A. G. Kongsted. 2000. Sows on pasture.
Pages 99–105 in Ecological Animal Husbandry in the Nordic
Countries, DARCOF Report, vol. 2. J. E. Hermansen, V. Lund,
and E. Thuen, ed. Tjele, Denmark.
Leifeld, J., and J. Fuhrer. 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from
Swiss agriculture since 1990: Implications for environmental
policies to mitigate global warming. Environ. Sci. Policy
8:410–417.
Mackie, R. I., S. Koike, I. Krapac, J. Chee-Sanford, S. Maxwell,
and R. I. Aminov. 2006. Tetracycline residues and tetracycline
resistance genes in groundwater impacted by swine produc-
tion facilities. Anim. Biotechnol. 17:157–176.
Mäder, P., A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried, and U.
Niggli. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming.
Science 296:1694–1697.
Miner, J. R., J. C. Buckhouse, and J. A. Moore. 1992. Will a
water

trough reduce the amount of time hay-fed livestock spend
in the stream (and therefore improve water quality)? Range-
lands 14:35–38.
Monteny, G. J., C. M. Groenestein, and M. A. Hilhorst. 2001.
Interactions and coupling between emissions of methane and
nitrous oxide from animal husbandry. Nutr. Cycling Agroe-
cosystems 60:123–132.
Owens, L. B., and J. V. Bonta. 2004. Reduction of nitrate
leaching
with haying or grazing and omission of nitrogen fertilizer.
J. Environ. Qual. 33:1230–1237.
Patriquin, D. G. 2000. Reducing risks from E. coli O157 on the
organic farm. Canadian Organic Growers. Summer 2000.
http://www.cog.ca/efgsummer2000.htm#REDUCING Ac-
cessed Aug. 2007.
Petersen, S. O., K. Kristensen, and J. Eriksen. 2001.
Denitrifica-
tion losses from outdoor piglet production: Spatial and tem-
poral variability. J. Environ. Qual. 30:1051–1058.
Petit, J., and H. M. G. van der Werf. 2003. Perception of the
environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of
pig production by stakeholder groups. J. Environ. Manage.
68:377–386.
Quinn, J. M., and M. J. Stroud. 2002. Water quality and
sediment
and nutrient export from New Zealand hill-land catchments
of contrasting land use. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res.
36:409–429.
Ray, K. A., L. D. Warnick, R. M. Mitchell, J. B. Kaneene, P. L.

Ruegg, S. J. Wells, C. P. Fossler, L. W. Halbert, and K. May.
2006. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella from organic
and conventional dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 89:2038–2050.
Russell, J. B., and J. L. Rychlik. 2001. Factors that alter rumen
microbial ecology. Science 292:1119–1122.
Sato, K., P. C. Bartlett, and M. A. Saeed. 2005. Antimicrobial
susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolates from dairy farms us-
ing organic versus conventional production methods. J. Am.
Vet. Med. Assoc. 226:589–594.
Sheffield, R. E., S. Mostaghimi, D. H. Vaughan, E. R. Collins,
Jr., and V. G. Allen. 1997. Off-stream water sources for graz-
ing cattle as a stream bank stabilization and water quality
BMP. Trans. ASAE 40:595–604.
Shere, J. A., K. J. Bartlett, and C. W. Kaspar. 1998.
Longitudinal
study of Escherichia coli O157:H7 dissemination on four dairy
farms in Wisconsin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64:1390–1399.
Sigua, G. C., and S. W. Coleman. 2006. Sustainable
management
of nutrients in forage-based pasture soils: Effect of animal
congregation sites. J. Soils Sediments 6:249–253.
Smits, M. C. J., G. J. Monteny, and G. van Duinkerken. 2003.
Effect of nutrition and management factors on ammonia
emission from dairy cow herds: Models and field observa-
tions. Livest. Prod. Sci. 84:113–123.
Stout, W. L., S. L. Fales, L. D. Muller, R. R. Schnabel, and S.
R.
Weaver. 2000. Water quality implications of nitrate leaching

from intensively grazed pasture swards in the northeast US.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77:203—210.
Studnitz, M., K. H. Jensen, and E. Jørgensen. 2003a. The effect
of nose rings on the exploratory behaviour of outdoor gilts
exposed to different tests. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84:41–57.
Studnitz, M., K. H. Jensen, E. Jørgensen, and K. K. Jensen.
2003b.
The effect of nose ringing on explorative behaviour in gilts.
Anim. Welf. 12:109–118.
USDA. 2007. USDA’s National Organic Program. United States
Department of Agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/
NOP/FactSheets/Backgrounder.html Accessed Aug. 2007.
Verloop, J., L. J. M. Boumans, H. van Keulen, J. Oenema, G. J.
Hilhorst, H. F. M. Aarts, and L. B. J. Sebek. 2006. Reducing
nitrate leaching to groundwater in an intensive dairy farming
system. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosystems. 74:59–74.
Vinten, A. J. A., J. T. Douglas, D. R. Lewis, M. N. Aitken, and
D. R. Fenlon. 2004. Relative risk of surface water pollution
by E. coli derived from faeces of grazing animals compared
to slurry application. Soil Use Manage. 20:13–22.
Vinten, A. J. A., D. R. Lewis, D. R. Fenlon, K. A. Leach, R.
Howard, I. Svoboda, and I. D. Ogden. 2002. Fate of E. coli
and E. coli O157 in soils and drainage water following cattle
slurry application at three sites in southern Scotland. Soil
Use Manage. 18:1–9.
Ward, G. M., K. G. Doxtader, W. C. Miller, and D. E. Johnson.
1993. Effects of intensification of agricultural practices on
emission of greenhouse gases. Chemosphere 26:87–93.

Webb, J., S. G. Anthony, L. Brown, H. Lyons-Visser, C. Ross,
B. Cottrill, P. Johnson, and D. Scholefield. 2005. The impact
of increasing the length of the cattle grazing season on emis-
sions and ammonia and nitrous oxide and on nitrate leaching
in England and Wales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105:307–321.
Williams, J. R., B. J. Chambers, A. R. Hartley, S. Ellis, and H.
J. Guise. 2000. Nitrogen losses from outdoor pig farming
systems. Soil Use Manage. 16:237–243.
Worthington, T. R., and P. W. Danks. 1992. Nitrate leaching
and
intensive outdoor pig production. Soil Use Manage. 8:56–60.
Zaimes, G. N., R. C. Schultz, and T. M. Isenhart. 2004. Stream
bank erosion adjacent to riparian forest buffers, row-crop
fields, and continuously-grazed pastures along Bear Creek
in central Iowa. J. Soil Water Conserv. 59:19–27.

Unit 8 [NS430 Whole Foods Production] AssignmentDet.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Unit 8 [NS430 Whole Foods Production] AssignmentDet.docx

Similar to Unit 8 [NS430 Whole Foods Production] AssignmentDet.docx (18)

More from dickonsondorris

More from dickonsondorris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit 8 [NS430 Whole Foods Production] AssignmentDet.docx