Norwood (2020) on Intensive Animal Agriculture

 F. Bailey Norwood, “The Economics of Intensive Animal Agriculture,” Chapter 10, pages 127-140, in The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics, Bob Fisher, editor, Routledge, 2020.

• Farms used to produce “a variety of foods [p. 127]” – it was economical, by spreading risk and combatting disease and maintaining soil quality. Crop rotation was one manifestation of this intra-farm diversification.

• Tech change (pesticides, feed…) undermined the economic advantage of farm diversification. 

• Farms also have become more intensified, with more product for a given area. Farm animals, many of whom used to need to graze outside to acquire a nutritious diet, can now be housed indoors all year long, receiving adequate nutrition thanks to advances in livestock feed.

• Again, the result of decades of technical change is specialization and intensification – and often, indoor-ization for both the animals and farm workers.

• Barns have changed, too – cages or slatted floors allow manure to be removed – and antibiotics can be added to feed; both of these measures reduce problems associated with parasites.

• Economies of scale emerge in the specialized farms, resulting in intense crowding for the animals – witness gestation crates.

• The old-style, extensive and diverse farms, became economically obsolete, and the new specialized farms often compromised animal welfare.

• The indoor work altered life for farmers, too, who became more like factory workers. Farmers often became contract employees, with processors owning the animals and providing inputs such as feed. The processors need uniformity in the “product,” and farmers have very limited choice among potential buyers.

• Consumers generally object to the conditions on factory farms (p. 130).

• Ameliorating the worst features of factory farms raises the costs of production, though not drastically – but retail prices for higher-animal-welfare products can easily double or triple. Why? Because currently, higher-welfare animal products are “a niche market serving affluent customers [p. 132].”

• Though most people don’t pay the premium for higher-animal-welfare products, those same people often want to ban slaughterhouses, a policy which would eliminate their ability to purchase meat. (Or do they just say they want to ban slaughterhouses, falling prey to “social desirability bias [p. 133]”?)

• As the behavioral economists note, virtually everything can affect individual “preferences” for animal products: are you in a grocery store or a voting booth (p. 133)?

• With inconsistent individual preferences (and internal conflicts), there is no way to unambiguously determine the costs and benefits of a policy change. Consumers simultaneously support (with their purchases) and protest factory farming.

• Some people want to remain ignorant about animal farm conditions.

• California’s Prop 2, in 2008, passed with 63.5% of the vote, required more space for hens, and (with an additional law that applied the more space rules to eggs produced out of state but sold in California) raised egg prices (in 2016) by some 10%. 

• A person who doesn’t purchase cage-free eggs might still vote for a ban on cages – maybe the ban serves as a commitment device for sophisticated, inconsistent consumers?

• "The cost of paying more for cage-free eggs is about the same regardless of whether it is voluntary or forced [by a ban on sales of caged eggs], but the benefits of it being forced can seem much larger because so many others are doing it also [p. 136]." 

• Referenda like Prop 2 [or now Prop 12] might permit consumers to coordinate in a way that they cannot easily achieve with their market purchases – even vegans, who don't purchase any eggs, can vote in the referenda!