Causes of Environmental problems

To start this lens off, I'll first focus upon factory and intensive farming methods, explaining their contribution toward environmental decline as well as utilising a corporate example to show exactly the kind of effect that such methods exact upon the environment, as it is imperative to view the causes of such decline before investigating the effects.

Factory farming and intensive farming are similar processes related to two distinct areas of the farming industry; factory farming refers to the production of livestock, and intensive farming is related to agricultural processes. Both are of course referring to the style of farming, designed to increase profit by maximising space used for production whilst minimising cost - in factory farming this may be achieved by cramped conditions, with animals tightly packed and with little room to manoeuvre, being fed the necessary vitamins and antibiotics to keep them healthy whilst producing eggs or simply whilst being fattened up. Intensive farmers utilise high volumes of capital and labour, whilst using alternative technologies such as pesticides or chemical fertiliser to maximise produce, with no thought of sustainability.

British factory farming is said to have begun in 1947, after a new Agriculture Act was put into place, granting subsidiaries to farmers that would produce more intensively, to cut the need for imported food sources following the war. Whilst this factory farming first began with chickens, by the 1960's pig and cow factory farming had spread from America, and the practices we have come to know today were put into place. By utilising land for factory-condition buildings rather than pure agricultural land, farmers manage to maximise their profits per square metre potential, however this is always accompanied by detrimental effects on the animals being farmed; in 2004, factory hens had less than an A4 page worth of room to themselves, but this has since increased; a recent EU change in law means that factory farming cages are against the law, in an attempt to put a stop to intensive factory farming.

Factory farming harms the environment, primarily thanks to being intensive in nature. As you can imagine, a large amount of waste product is produced; in factory farming this is reused as manure to produce feed for the farmed animals, however this waste will produce methane, nitrous oxide and other waste products that can cause nitrogen damage to agricultural land and give off harmful chemicals. This pollution causes unsustainability, land degradation and loss of biodiversity in the local area as food sources are killed off. A by-product of factory farming has been a dilution of worldwide genetic breeding stock as only the strongest heritages are chosen for production purposes, leading to inbreeding, genetic faults and a weaker bloodline some generations after.

In some cases, species become extinct thanks to livestock-related habitat destruction. Unfortunately, this is especially common, as even market giants such as McDonalds have taken advantage of this method in the past. It has been estimated that McDonald's and its suppliers are responsible for around 70,000km2 worth of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. The rainforest is used for agriculture to intensively farm soya, a key ingredient in feed for factory farmed animals around the world; McDonalds once denied feeding their chickens with soya from the Amazon, however it was discovered that they were in fact buying this produce from the supplier Cargill, who were also linked to slave labour, aggressive land grabbing and mass deforestation. Unfortunately, this is just one example of a corporation that has utilised these unethical methods to drive a stronger profit margin.

Intensive farming methods have increased in ethics and responsibility over the years, and methods are less damaging than they used to be. This is thanks to calls to stop the use of pesticides and chemical agents amidst fears of the effects that such additives were having on those people that consumed such produce. Modern intensive farming strategies are more heavily focussed on sustainable intensive structures, designed to maximise farming potential whilst simultaneously maximising lifetime and reusability of farmland. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the world's farmers are reliant upon those chemical-based methods, which often cause chemical pollution thanks to runoff, soil erosion and adverse health effects in the workers that tend the fields and produce, and the local wildlife that are often displaced by such operations.

Overall these two methods of farming take a very different kind of toll upon the environment, and thankfully the EU has been working hard to suppress and convert those farmers and companies that would make use of such methods, preferring a more ecologically minded and ethically sourced style of production. In other areas of the world however, such methods are still used as the primary source of production, and in many cases are the most viable option as well. In certain cases, pests or weeds have become immune to the various pesticides and herbicides used to destroy them, creating a stronger source of irritation and loss of profit to the producers; these methods are not fool proof and therefore there must always be a more viable, ethical option available.

Whilst intensive farming has a direct environmental impact, factory farming's effect on the environment is far more insidious; not only does it produce its own waste products that have a damaging impact on the environment, but the practice also promotes expansion in the farming market in order to produce enough food supplies, thereby promoting further intensive farming and causing a larger amount of environmental damage in the long term thanks to necessary growth in order to support such a practice. Only in eradicating these methods can we prevent the widespread environmental damage that spreads beyond the borders of the country such practices benefit, and in the long run we should aim to stop unethical and damaging practices being an option for profit-driven agricultural companies.

The most common theme that we can see whilst viewing the reasons for environmental damage is the usage of nature for humanity's own means. By burning fossil fuels, using unsustainable techniques and pushing our earth to the limits by spreading dangerous chemicals and greenhouse gases, we are causing the very problems that cycle round to cause us further problems in the long run, making us resort to more drastic measures to combat them. It becomes a vicious cycle that we have trapped ourselves in thanks to overindulgence and short-sightedness.

Our use of animals in our desire for self-sustainment has been cause for some of our more ethically-devoid choices in the past; fortunately, intensive animal testing is mostly a thing of the past, and is heavily scrutinised in the industry these days. We still use animals for a variety of other roles however, and it is this use and its impact on the environment in turn that I will be focussing on in this module.

In terms of farming, most processes in more developed countries have become automated or more reliant on machinery; no longer are ox or horse used to plough fields, as they still are in developing third world countries. Therefore, animals used in farming in developed nations will be farmed for production rather than used to produce a specific, sustainable produce; such as for milk or wool rather than crops such as wheat or rye, which in developed nations are farmed using machinery, allowing a much more intensive farming method which can be done far more quickly, allowing larger plots of land to be tended to reliably.

Where these animals are farmed for their produce using machinery, once again we see the trend of machinery allowing a larger intake of produce leading to a larger chain of production, with dairy or wool farmers utilising a larger number of stock animals for production. Naturally this leads to a larger amount of waste being produced, which has to be disposed of; in the meantime it will produce waste gases such as methane, a large contributor to warming in the atmosphere. Such intensive methods have caused problems in the past and as more of the world becomes developed, we can expect these methods to become the norm.

When it comes to production, animals used to provide a food product also have a large impact on the environment; those animals are usually kept for longer periods of time whilst 'fattened' for as long as possible. This leads to more waste production and the requirement for more land to be used for grazing, although this only matters to certain species such as cows or sheep. Pigs have less of a requirement for a large amount of space and much less need for varied pastures. The fattening process also indirectly causes pollution thanks to the chemical processes used to create the food for those animals being raised for slaughter. These feeds are normally designed to be low cost and high in necessary nutrients, vitamins and proteins to promote growth and facilitate better cost to profit ratio.

As the world's population increases beyond seven billion, the need for food sources increases exponentially. The need for milk, wool and meat products is increasing ever-more each day, meaning that we will continue to be intensively farming and breeding the strongest stock of animals in order to produce as much as possible, as cheaply as possible at the highest possible standards. Therefore, we can expect the future to have a very limited variety, if any at all, for breeding stock of produce animals, as the strongest stock are always bred together - much further down the line we can expect descendants to end up being bred, which will only harm the species in the long run.

When talking about the use of animals in furthering man's own progression, it would be naïve not to include animal testing; we've utilised animals in testing modern science to investigate the effects of zero gravity, pharmaceuticals and the latest in medical advances before using human subjects. Without this testing, we may have taken years more before sending a man to space, or creating vaccinations against disease. Scientific advances have shot forward thanks to the availability of animal testing, but many people believe that the cost of our humanity and abusing our power of stewardship far outweighs the gain. Even these naysayers have to admit that without such testing being available we might be decades behind in terms of modern science.

Animals that are used in testing environments, such as those used in vivisection, pharmaceutical trials or genetic testing cannot be reused as food sources and in many cases not even as pets, leading to the need to dispose of such subjects; once again, an environmental impact of the human use of animals.

This example may have the least amount of impact that I have mentioned so far in this lens. It does, however, highlight a very important fact that is a theme throughout my series of lenses on the topic of Environment - the nature of humanity demands a furthering of our own kind primarily above that of all others and in developing our own species we are the first species of our planet that is presenting a real danger to a majority of the rest of the planet's species and environment.

Despite this imperative, we are also the species with the strongest empathic connection to all other life on the planet, and our ability to have an ethical stance on anything enables us to become the kind of people that are interested and dedicated to the welfare and preservation of all other life on the planet. Unfortunately, the speed at which we can protect the ecosystems of the planet is not fast enough, and we are still seeing species and environment decline at increasing rates.

Following on from my last piece about human interaction and use of animals, today I'll be taking a closer look at some of the specific examples of this. Specifically, I'll be taking a look into the difference between broiler and layer chickens and how the distinction between the two has changed poultry farming from what it once was to the vast, intensive operation that it has become today.

Poultry farming can be categorised into two opposed styles; intensive and alternative. Intensive farming is characterised by low cost, high production cost driven methods that utilise the farmed animals to their limit before replacing them. Alternative methods adhere more to the welfare and well-being of the animals in question, aiming to promote longer care for the animals, raising them in a safer environment, utilising natural feed and methods rather than chemical and hormonal additives to promote growth.

Broilers are chickens raised for their meat. These broilers can be male or female, and have been bred over the years to have a high meat yield per chicken, meaning that profits increase per animal at a steady rate that doesn't decrease due to the amount needed to feed each chicken, as a little input is returned with greater growth. Intensively farmed broiler chickens are raised in large, indoor sheds where they are fed via automated systems. This feed is designed to provide all of the necessary nutrients required by the chickens to promote healthy and fast growth, allowing the chickens to be harvested between 5 to 8 weeks of age. By this time the chickens have grown to a considerable size, which will be familiar to you if you have ever bought a chicken from a superstore.

Non-intensively farmed broiler chickens take a little while longer to reach that critical size. Be it organic or free-range, the growth of a non-intensively farmed chicken is that little bit slower. Free-range chickens have the freedom to roam and feed in a wide environment in the great outdoors, which free-range supporters state allows the chicken to feel more comfortable and more importantly grow in a way that makes the meat taste fresher and healthier. Organic chickens are kept in a similar manner to the free-range chickens as mentioned above, however their feed is monitored closely to ensure no chemicals or hormones are placed as a part of the diet, as it is feared that feeding the birds such additives will affect the meat in negative ways.

Because of these different methods of farming, free-range and organic hens are ready for slaughter at different times. You can expect a free-range hen to be at the optimum size at around 8 weeks of age, whereas the organically raised chickens reach a slaughter weight at around 12 weeks of age. You can see a drastic difference between these and the intensively farmed chickens, which explains why, on average, the cost for an organic or free-range chicken will be markedly higher than that of a 'standardly' farmed chicken, as the time taken to raise the chickens equals higher costs in the long run.

Similar to the broiler chickens, layer chickens are hens that are raised explicitly to lay eggs. These can also be raised either intensively, free-range or organically, but typically produce for a longer period of time. Again, free-range and organic chickens are raised with half their lives spent outdoors as required by law before they can be categorised as such, and the organic chicken's eggs have a legal requirement to be free from chemicals and colourings. Battery farmed chickens however are handled differently in the egg-laying business.

When egg-laying hens are intensively farmed, the most common practice for this is to lock a large number of the hens into small metal mesh cages, sloped to allow faeces and eggs to roll onto a waiting conveyor belt. These chickens have limited room to move, stretch, flap or nest, and as such can become frustrated or bored. Food and water is usually supplied via a conveyor belt, although drip water systems are also utilised. Battery cages increase the profit per square metre for a farm to run, meaning that by cramping hens together in tiny cages you get more money for the area of farm that they use up, allowing you to fit more birds into a small area and produce more eggs. Every part of these bird's lives is controlled rigidly; even the lighting is operated under strict guidelines, designed to give them a maximum of around three hours sleep - in combination with timed heating this is designed to simulate dawn and promote the laying instinct. Whilst being profitable for business, this is harmful to the birds as it completely rearranges their internal timing instinct and causes fatigue, a detrimental state of being which causes a decline in the well-being and health of the birds over time.

Battery farmed chickens are often producing all year round quite intensively, to the extent where after approximately 12 months of egg production the egg-laying potential of the bird falters and the bird will be slaughtered as it is no longer useful. In free-range and organic farms, such birds may be handled similarly or taken and used for stewing instead. Egg layers are of course bought from a strong breeding stock that is well known for strength and regularity of egg-laying and so like broilers you can expect to see similar breeds of bird across the poultry farms around the world.

Just like any other style of farming, our care for the poultry market is varied and achieves differing things for the niches within the consumer market, but ultimately the farmer is obeying those trends within the market, making this topic a prime example of humanity's usage of animals in regards to the sustainment of our own species. Whilst free-range and organic styles of farming are designed to be kinder to the animals in question, ultimately the outcome is the same and the chickens inevitably end up served as food in one way or another.

Our methods of farming and sustainment are directly proportionate to our own growth as a species; in the UK alone we consume over 29 million eggs per day (taking into account that 'consume' in this instance involves any use of the eggs), and it was estimated that back in 2009 the annual world chicken population in factory farms was 50 billion. This trend is clearly increasing as years go by, and our consumption demands an equal input into the market in order to meet demand. Despite its support, organic and free-range ways of farming cannot meet such a high demand as it is due to timing constraints, and with a growing demand there will be a drastic increase in cost and decrease in supply should these methods become the norm for the market. As such, it is our own rates of consumption that demand a more intensive means of farming exists, no matter how unfortunate or cruel it may be.

This week my lenses have been specifically attuned to the overarching topic of human involvement and interaction with nature. Unfortunately, this week my topics have been heavily focussed upon how we have affected our environment and the damage we have wreaked thanks to the methods we have used in approaching our handling of the planet.

Despite this dour view, our methods can be understood. We're a developing world with powerful technologies that are constantly improving, and so our demand for natural resources, space and control are ever-growing; unfortunately the environment is suffering as a part of this. But can we blame the human nature, or is there something more to this issue?

So many of us are mindful of the environment in one way or another; recycling has become a norm in the developed countries of the world - metals, plastics and cardboard are reused, allowing us to rely less on newer sources of these materials and therefore be less reliant on the vigorous extraction processes to retrieve them.

We also have an affinity for those animals and areas of the world that are affected, and as such many of us donate to welfare and wildlife charities to help out where we can. It takes very little effort and many people may see such donations as a 'guilty conscience' action, merely given to make one feel better, but ultimately the act is put to good use by those in need and as every little bit helps, we cannot complain.

Human nature is what makes people set up charities designed to help those people, places or creatures in need, and shows that as a species we are not all bent on eradicating the worlds resources - in fact, many of us would prefer a healthier way of living if it were only more available. Electric cars, solar power and even vegetarian style diets are becoming more and more popular, and thanks to this popularity, in some cases even celebrity endorsement, the cost of such ways of living are dropping and becoming more available to the wider public.

In this regard we can accept that our nature is safety net for the environment, the sense of a need to act responsibly that drives us to help those places in need. On the other hand, it is our driven and focussed nature that has pushed us to this point, and with such momentum behind us it will be a long and arduous task to convince world leaders to put a halt to the damaging activities that occur in industry and other sectors that are damaging the environment faster than we can help it. Should we lobby hard enough to make a real change to laws and customs, we might be able to stop many more species disappearing before our eyes.

To wrap-up, I feel that we can all try harder, from each individual up to the very largest of companies, to help welfare around the world. By donating and volunteering our time and money, we can help the world one step at a time. Obviously this is a long term process, as we can't repair this level of damage overnight. Fortunately, we don't have to; people are already doing great work around the world, and having these building blocks from the very start we can continue to work towards a better future.

Join me next week when I'll be looking into the ways that the environmental damage has affected our environment through loss and endangerment of species and how public opinion has been changed by the differing views of the media. No doubt you and I have had our views changed by media perspective, so we'll be taking a closer look at exactly how the media has helped raise awareness of environmental disaster, and how that has helped shape public opinion on the companies and industries involved.