McCullough

Samantha McCullough
D. Watkins
Comp. II: TR 11:30
23 February 2016
The Tools That Create Your Plate
Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the UK, once said, Surely we have the wit and
will to develop economically without despoiling the very environment we depend on. In other
words, surely humans have found ways to manipulate animal and crop agriculture in a way that
is not destructive, but efficient. The good news is we have developed ways to be more
resourceful and proficient in our use of animal products and crops through the establishment of
technology. However, there are some people such as Anne Lappe from the Small Planet Institute,
who wish for us to return to the way we manipulated farming techniques back in the days of
small family farming; essentially producing food naturally and organically instead of
mechanically and chemically. It sounds like a great idea, but being able to sustain our population
is going to require a lot more than a few backyard farming practices. We will need to utilize our
sustainable agriculture techniques which are defined as, farming systems that are capable of
maintaining their productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely (USDA). In order to feed
our population today and by the year 2050, we will need innovative technologies that will enable
us to produce food efficiently, keep our animals and crops healthy, and reduce the environmental
impact of human need on our world.
Efficiently producing enough meat, milk, eggs, and crops that humans depend on today is
going to require much more innovation and use of chemicals and mechanization than people

McCullough

would expect. Nina Fedoroff, who was the science and technology advisor to the Secretary of
State from 2007 through 2010, explains in her article Engineering Food for All that,
The use of chemicals for fertilization and for pest and disease control, the induction of
beneficial mutations in plants with chemicals or radiation to improve yields, and the
mechanization of agriculture have all increased the amount of food that can be grown on
each acre of land by as much as 10 times in the last 100 years (1).
Fedoroff makes her point when she addresses how much more food we have had to produce
using chemicals and mechanization just for todays population, not to mention the estimated
100% increase in food that we will have to come up with by 2050. Looking at the numbers, she
illustrates just how efficient we have become with the use of fertilization and mutation to
improve crop yielding strategies. Clint Krehbiel, an Animal Science PhD graduate of Kansas
State University, addresses innovations in the beef production industry in his published article
when he says, these growth enhancing compounds, such as steroidal implants and betaadrenergic agonists, increase production and improve feed efficiency of beef cattle. Krehbiel
uses the beef industry as an example and talks about how developments made in technology for
this department has led to the use of less cattle while obtaining more product from each cow
specifically. Overall, he reports that technologies used in beef production have been able to
increase product availability in spite of population growth. In accomplishing the increase in
product availability, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology reinforces Krehbiels
statement in saying that, since 1977 the average carcass weight per animal has increased from
274 kg to 351 kg (Capper et al.). Increasing the weight per animal by use of strategies such as
steroidal implants and transgenic animals, has allowed us to use less cattle and therefore, less use
of land and feed for those cattle to reach maximum efficiency (Krehbiel). One common

McCullough

misconception about agricultural efficiency is that people think we should go back to raising our
cattle and crops the way that we did back in the 1950s. Dr. Jason Lusk addresses this
misconception when he speaks in his 2015 lecture that what the 1950s farms actually looked like
was not green and lush, but barren and produced barely enough food to feed a family. Barely
enough is not healthier or more efficient, and therefore points todays agriculture in the direction
of technological influences to aid them in sustainability.
The media and iconic protestors of agricultural technology such as Anne Lappe, seem to
believe in many misconceptions such as the impression that hormones, steroidal implants, and
ionophores used in meat and dairy production are unnecessary and inhumane additives. If these
individuals actually knew what injections such as antibiotics do for a cow in particular, maybe
they would not criticize them so harshly. Similar to humans taking an Advil to relieve pain or a
decongestant to relieve a cold, antibiotics are administered to cattle for the same purposes, or are
used to prevent illness in the first place (Dep. of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences). In order to
keep herds healthy, farmers and ranchers are taking humane actions in aiding their livestock
when they need it. The use of antibiotics benefits the farmers in such a way that they do not lose
profits and so they can maintain a strong, proactive livelihood. Another important advantage of
the industrial use of antibiotics, is that the USDA requires ranchers to activate a withdrawl time,
which is defined by South Dakota States Veterinary Extension program as, a waiting period
after treatment that gives the animal time to reduce the concentration of the drug in its body, and
therefore in the meat (or milk or eggs) the animal produces. This designated amount of time is
put into effect so there are no remnants of antibiotic in the animals system prior to slaughter or
collection and therefore the traces of chemicals are absent in the meat and eggs that humans
consume. While the use of antibiotics is necessary for beef and egg production, milk requires

McCullough

similar industrial techniques. With regards to dairy cattle, the use of technology to measure
indicators on individual animals and the use of automation to perform tasks are envisioned to
increase efficiency and improve cow management overall (Haan). The ultimate goal to
improving cow management strategies is keeping cattle happy and healthy, because if they are
stressed or sick they produce dairy product unfit for consumption. Penn State Universitys
extension article on technology used in the dairy industry says that these dairy innovations are
used in order to improve cow health through automation or increased availability to
information. Milking these cows in parlors with efficient robotic milking systems is the most
efficient and stress free way to relieve the heifers and produce the milk humans require in their
everyday diets.
Ms. Lappe, being against corporate agricultural practices such as dairies, thinks that large
food production corporations produce too much carbon and waste and that they are polluting our
environment more so than a subsistence farmer. What she does not realize is that without the use
of the technology that these corporations have founded to manage the manure and residue of
agricultural production, we would have no way of managing the mass amounts of waste that
livestock animals produce. CAST Issue number 53, written in part by Dr. Jude Capper, addresses
the results of incorporating innovative compounds in livestocks diets when it reads, The
combination of the decreased number of animals in the national beef herd and the lesser number
of days for animals to reach slaughter weight decreased total feed use by 19%, land use by 33%,
water use by 12%, fossil fuel use by 9%, and the carbon footprint per kg of beef by 16%.
Capper et al. establish all the facts for readers who doubt the beneficial use of technologys
impact on our environment. Krehbiel offers a similar argument when he states that when we
match the required nutrients in livestocks diets with those that the animal in particular needs, we

McCullough

can decrease their excretion and potentially harmful environmental impacts. Agricultural
modernization has come so far as to enable us to pinpoint the exact nutritional requirements of
livestock in order for them to absorb maximum nutrients and therefore produce meat and biproducts that result in less manure and carbon emissions. Taking another look at the dairy
industry and its environmental impact, Capper et al. state that, Advances in genetics,
management, and nutrition, including the adoption of nutrient dense by-product feeds such as
soybean meal facilitated an increase in milk yield per cow from 2,074 kg/year in 1944 to 9,682
kg/year in 2011. Embracing the fact that technology is not only good for the animals health, but
also for our environment proves difficult for some understand. The use of machinery has enabled
us to determine exactly what livestock requires to develop efficiently, therefore increasing yield
per cow decreasing GHG emissions by 63% (10).
In light of what Mr. Tony Blair once said, humans have enabled the wit and will to
develop agronomically without despoiling our environment through the use of the
aforementioned technology. In order to base our agricultural progress off of a sustainable system
of farming, we are going to need production strategies more advanced than that of previous
generations. Developing ways to produce enough food for the people of today, tomorrow, and
years to come will require mechanization to efficiently yield enough quality food, maintain
happy and healthy livestock development, and decrease the impact that animal agriculture has on
our planets prosperity. Scientists, corporations, and universities alike have developed the means
and explanations to provide the most efficient and sustainable means of human nourishment. In
order for these developments to continue however, agriculturists will need to educate the public
and explain how the reality of the food industry actually works. We will need to introduce the
public to the farm.

McCullough

Annotated Bibliography

Capper, Jude L., et al. "Council for Agricultural Science and Technology." 2013. MS 53, Animal
Feed vs. Human Food: Challenges and Opportunities in Sustaining Animal Agriculture
Toward 2050. Ames, Iowa, Ames. CAST. Web. 8 Feb. 2016. <http://www.castscience.org/download.cfm?
PublicationID=278268&File=1030cf6de256708fb3fc869244459492695eTR>.

Jude Capper, Larry Berger, Mindy Brashears and Helen Jensen are the authors of this
manuscript and each are accredited with extensive degrees in the Department of Animal
Science ranging from the University of Lincoln to the University of Texas Tech. Ms.
Capper in particular is is a self-employed Sustainability Consultant and an Adjunct
Professor of Animal Sciences in the Department of Animal Sciences at Washington State
University. Their research is based off of the investigation that Animal agriculture
competes with human food production on a global basis. The paper begins by addressing
the hunger crisis we have currently while at the same time bringing up the theory that we
need a 60% increase in food production by 2050. People seem to think that in order to
solve these problems, we should decrease our use of animal products and partake in ideas
like meatless Mondays. The manuscript uses Dairy cows as an example in that they
produce far more than they consume and give out more human protein than they ever
take in. The researchers address the effects of human-inedible products vs. human edible

McCullough

food and subtopics that include food safety, food security, feed efficiency, and foods
environmental impact. In conclusion, Capper and her team addresses that the key to
sustainable agriculture is that humans waste less food everyday, efficiently use our
natural resources, and convince the media of spreading the truth about animal agriculture.

Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences. "Beef Procedures: Antibiotic Use." Diss.
South Dakota State University, n.d. Sdstate.edu/Veterinary Extension Hot Topics. SDSU.
Web. 15 Feb. 2016. <http://www.sdstate.edu/vs/extension/beef-proceduresantibiotics.cfm>.

South Dakota State University is well known for their plethora of research opportunities,
while their agricultural investment is one of high ranking according to the university.
Their article over antibiotics used in beef production answers a multitude of questions
about how and why injections are used in beef cattle today. It explains how antibiotics are
similarly used in cattle like they are in humans, they state that they are used to, relieve
the pain and distress due to the illness, help the animal feel better, and recover. It goes
on to address why antibiotics are used in cattle and cite the USDA in their restrictions. A
few examples of instances when antibiotic use is necessary in cattle production, such as
when calves are weaned from their mothers and are given an antibiotic to prevent a high
infection rate of pneumonia. In closing, the article discusses the health concerns
associated with the use of antibiotics in our beef. SDSU says that the rate of
metabolization in the cows bloodstream is relative to the specific antibiotic, but all drugs

McCullough

are required to be given a withdrawl time; which results in no trace of chemicals in the
meat/eggs/milk we consume.

Fedoroff, Nina V. "Engineering Food for All." The New York Times. N.p., 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 8
Feb. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/genetically-engineered-foodfor-all.html?_r=0>.

Nina Fedoroff, who was the science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State from
2007 through 2010, published "Engineering Food for All" with regards to misconceptions
on genetically altered food. She argues that the use of chemicals and the mechanization of
agriculture are the keys to feeding the world by 2050. Fedoroff states that genetically
modifying crops is the only way that we will be able to keep up with our growing
population while also keeping prices affordable and the environment in mind. She credits
"big biotech companies" with the production of the modified commodity crops that are
revolutionizing today's market. The benefits of these crops outweigh the "myths" that
people believe about G.M. food. In conclusion, Fedoroff uses reputable sources of studies
done by the E.U. and National Academy of Sciences that prove there is no harm to human
health in genetically altering consumable foods.

Haan, Mathew M. "Precision Technologies in the Dairy Industry." Diss. Penn State, 2013.
Extension.psu.edu. Penn State University, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
<http://extension.psu.edu/animals/dairy/news/2013/precision-technologies-in-the-dairyindustry>.

McCullough

Penn State University is a leading institution in rank according to the most recent
publication by the National Science Foundation of research expenditures. They come in
second in the nation for their number of fields being ranked in the top ten, agriculture
being one of them. Their article on tools used in the dairy industry accurately describes
the role of necessary chemical and mechanical technology that has been invented for the
benefit of dairies and the healthcare of the cows themselves. It begins by addressing the
robotic milking systems that are used and why they are used. For example, the article
says that mechanized milking tools are used to, increase labor and feed efficiency,
minimize environmental impacts, and improve cow health through automation. The
article goes on to discuss the benefits of technology that are used everyday in a dairy, and
that there are factors that limit the adoption of such technologies such as undesirable cost.
In conclusion, Penn State says that these technologies are only valuable if they are
actually put to use, so if they arent beneficial they wouldnt be using them at all.

Krehbiel, Clint. "The Role of New Technologies in Global Food Security: Improving Animal
Production Efficiency and Minimizing Impacts." Animal Frontiers 3.3 (2013): 4-7.
Animalsciencepublications.org. American Society of Animal Science, 22 Dec. 2014.
Web.8Feb.2016.<https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/af/articles/3/3/
4?highlight=&search-result=1>.

Clint Krehbiel is an Animal Science (ruminant nutrition) PhD graduate of Kansas State
University, who has experience working at the United States Meat Animal Research

McCullough

10

Center in Nebraska. In the beginning of his article, Krehbiel states that if we were to
withdraw the technology we use for beef production in cattle we will raise beef prices as
well as increase our use of resources and production of carbon emissions considerably.
Dr. Krehbiel makes his point in saying that the economic benefits of the technology we
use in agriculture far outweigh the costs of about 32 to 1. He says that the ability to
produce more with less is the reason for chemicals to be used in beef cattle, sheep, and
dairy cows, and not only here in America but in developing countries as well, such as
Uruguay. Without the use of vaccinations and hormones we would be using more cattle
while resulting in less beef, the effect being more arable land and water usage.
Technologies that reduce the environmental impact of livestock on our planet are
apparent globally, and Krehbiel gives examples of their efficiency by referencing Chinas
growing food animal industry as well as Brazils economy and feedlot situations. In
conclusion, he offers an educated and concise recap of what technology in the livestock
food industry does for human consumption/production worldwide.

Lusk, Jayson L. "Underlying Science Behind Food Production." Food Science 1113 Guest
Speaker. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 4 Nov. 2015. Lecture.

Jayson L. Lusk is a Regents professor and Willard Sparks endowed chair at Oklahoma
State University, he has his PhD in Agricultural Economics, and is also the author of a
few well-known books on agricultural innovation. He gives a brief introduction of his
books and other known authors who have written on the topic of todays food market and
the science behind it, such as Michael Pollan. Lusk makes a point that the science behind

McCullough

11

producing our food and what need to be done about it is becoming a more serious topic.
He addresses the problem as that we are spending too much on healthcare while our
country is obese, and agriculture is becoming too corporate. He says that Americans think
that the solution is to go local and eat more organic, however, they wont be willing to
pay the prices of organically grown food for long. Lusk goes on to explain how
sustainable farming methods can barely feed a family, not to mention an entire
population. He says that the technology humans have created in order to address this
problem include pesticides, growth hormones, and GMOs. All of this innovation that we
use to produce food today is being criticized by the media, while studies show that eating
foods that have been mechanically produced has less of an impact on a persons health
than drinking coffee everyday! Lusk concludes his lecture with reliable facts, appropriate
implications on the American food mindset, and by doing a great job of convincing the
reader that these technologies are essential in order for us to move forward in modern
food technology.

USDA. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. National Agricultural Library. By

Mary V. Gold. USDA, Sept. 1999. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
<http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/sustainable-agriculture-definitions-and-terms-1>.

The United States Department of Agriculture, the U.S. federal executive department
responsible for developing and executing federal government policy on farming,
agriculture, forestry, and food, express their standards on sustainable agriculture is this
particular special reference series. The section is titled Sustainable Agriculture:

McCullough

12

Definitions and Terms and these definitions are the basis for agriculture according to
United States government standards. Mrs. Gold being the representative that proposes
this publication in particular, breaks down what sustainable agriculture is considered
today as well as what it was back in 1994. Gold provides a brief introduction stating the
role that the USDA plays in sustainable agriculture and what this type of cultivation will
look like universally. She also provides a basis for the understanding of what sustainable
actually is as well as some background information regarding conventional farming.
Gold discusses the ecological, economic, and social concerns as to the consequences that
providing agriculture capable of feeding a growing world entails. In order to back these
observations up, she provides a sampling of perspectives from various accredited
authors and professors such as publications and research done on agriculture from
University of California Davis. In conclusion, Gold reinstates that the sustainable
agriculture topic is that of controversy and states different policies that government and
organization have proposed in order to accurately tackle the sustainability feat.