Despite the ongoing threat of bird flu, many homesteaders consider poultry a great place to start when raising your own livestock. There’s many things to love – poultry require less space than most other livestock, they can produce both eggs and meat, and they’re often allowed in residences where larger animals like cows or pigs couldn’t be kept. Even so, starting a journey in keeping poultry can be overwhelming – there’s a lot to learn, and some breeds have easier requirements than others. Here’s what you need to know if you’re looking to take flight into the world of poultry for the first time. 

Chickens

Chickens are likely the bird that first comes to mind when you consider domestic poultry. Often hardy and easy to care for, many chicken breeds make a perfect ‘beginner’ bird whether you’re interested in raising birds for meat, eggs or both. 

Chickens don’t have excessively large space requirements, making a small to medium-sized flock (think five to fifteen birds) perfect for beginners. Ideally, for the health and mental stimulation of the birds, outdoor runs should be provided; while chickens may not come to mind when you think of animal intelligence, multiple studies have shown that these birds do benefit from the ability to perform natural behaviors outdoors. “What you put into your animals – from clean stalls, fresh grown pastures, to clean food and attention makes the flavor better,” says Kate Osgood, who runs Birch Rise Farm, in New Hampshire, raising chickens and turkeys. 

For those who are new to keeping poultry, you may benefit from purchasing adult birds to start out your flock as raising chicks can make things more complicated. “Chicks may be very cheap to purchase, however they need more attention than sheep, cows or pigs. They are fragile and more susceptible to predators, says Osgood.” 

While there are hundreds of breeds of chickens, including rare and heritage breeds composed of only a few hundred individual birds, we’ve put together three hardy, easy to keep breeds perfect for any newcomer to chickens. 

RHODE ISLAND REDS

The Rhode Island Red is a handsome, easily recognizable chicken, with overall deep red-brown coloring and bright red combs. Originating from Rhode Island & Massachussetts in the 1840s, this breed has stuck around for so long for good reason (they’re also Rhode Island’s state bird!). This dual-purpose breed can be raised for both meat and eggs, with hens  laying up to 300 eggs in a year. This hardy breed has a lifespan of  five to eight years, so with proper care, your RIRs will be around for the long haul. This breed is known to thrive even in cold environments other chickens don’t fare well in, making them a good choice for farmers who face cold winters.

ORPINGTONS

The Orpington is a beloved breed originating from nineteenth-century Britain; they’re most commonly seen as the Buff Orpington, but they’re also found in blue, black, and white. While their egg production is lesser than Rhode Island Reds – about 160 per hen per year – their calm temperament makes them great for beginner owners, and reduces the chances of infighting in the flock. 

AUSTRALORPS

Australorps are beautiful sleek black birds with pinkish-red combs, and they’re treasured by many chicken enthusiasts. (Outside of the U.S., they’re available in other colors, too.) Most Australorp hens lay over 250 eggs a year, making them an excellent choice as a dual-purpose breed. They are popular as a 4H breed due to their notoriously sweet, docile temperament; even roosters are typically agreeable. Due to their black color, it’s easy for them to overheat in summertime, so be sure birds spending time outdoors have ample shade. 

Turkeys

Beloved as a Thanksgiving meal, the turkey is a somewhat more challenging bird to keep than the more common backyard chicken. Turkeys have higher space requirements than smaller poultry; generally,  six to 10 feet per bird is recommended, and it’s always better to aim for more space rather than meeting the minimum. 

Although some farmers have success with mixed flocks, it’s important to note that generally, turkeys and chickens are best kept seperately. Turkeys are easily susceptible to a potentially fatal disease – histomoniasis, also known as ‘blackhead’, which chickens can carry without showing symptoms. Additionally, male turkeys are often aggressive towards smaller birds, making mixed flocks of chickens and turkeys ideal only for experienced poultry keepers. There are many beautiful breeds to choose from,  but we picked out the best for beginners. 

BOURBON REDS

The Bourbon Red is an iconic heritage breed known for their beautiful coloration; overall reddish-brown coloration complimented with white flight and  tail feathers. They’re known for heavy breasts and flavorful, rich meat. The standard weights for Bourbon Reds are 23 pounds for young toms, and 14 pounds for young hens. They have the ability to mate naturally, which some newer breeds do not; this can make producing future generations for your farm that much easier. While toms are often aggressive with each other, the birds are typically sociable and docile with humans. These birds are also active foragers, and thrive with ample outdoor space to explore. 

BROAD-BREASTED WHITES

The Broad-Breasted White is the most popular commercial breed in the world; extensive selective breeding for their characteristic large breasts has rendered many of them unable to breed without artificial insemination, which can present a challenge for some farmers. This breed develops to adult size very quickly, which some argue can lead to less pleasing flavor; nonetheless, they remain a popular and easy to raise breed. These birds often mature to more than 40 pounds, making them a great choice to market for large Thanksgiving dinners. Sadly, even with proper care, these birds often have short lives due to health issues associated with obesity; however, as they’re used for meat production, they are typically slaughtered prior to any health issues becoming bothersome. 

ROYAL PALMS

The Royal Palm is a gorgeous turkey breed, even if you don’t find turkeys to be particularly pleasing to look at; their stark white coloration contrasting with the black edging on their feathers makes for an eye-catching bird. While they’re slow-growing in comparison to breeds like the Broad-Breasted White, their hardiness, foraging ability, and good temperaments make them a great choice for small-scale farms. Royal Palms’ standard weights are 16 pounds for young toms, and 10 pounds for young hens. They’re excellent as an exhibition bird in addition to being raised for meat. 

Ducks

As you might expect, keeping ducks (or any waterfowl) is often more complex than keeping other poultry. Although ducks only fundamentally need enough water to drink from and wash their faces in, it’s no surprise that ducks are happiest and healthiest when they have adequate water – a pond, or even a pool – to swim and splash in. Each duck needs about four feet of space inside their coop or enclosure; ideally, they should have 10 to20 feet of outdoor space to explore (to protect birds from predators, any poultry should be in securely fenced outdoor areas or supervised when outdoors). 

Ducks are often friendly and charming, and can be used for meat production, egg production, or both. They’re an especially great choice if you plan to open your farm to visitors – you may receive additional profits from guests who wish to feed them! Some are content with keeping domesticated versions of Mallards, while some prefer unique-looking breeds like Indian Runners, who stand upright, or Cresteds, who have an eye-catching ‘puff’ adorning their head. While there’s many good ducks to choose from, the three breeds we’ve selected are likely to give you the easiest start with raising ducks on your own.

MUSCOVY

Despite their goofy looks, due to the large caruncles above their bills, Muscovy ducks are treasured by many as a hardy – and very unique – duck. Some raise them as dual-purpose birds for meat and eggs, but they’re also wonderful at pest control, and they’ll chase off intruders much like Canada geese in any public space. They love to free-range and forage, and this ‘wild’ diet will improve the flavor of their large eggs. They’re defensive of their homestead, but typically loving and easygoing with human caretakers they’re familiar with. These ducks typically live seven to eight  years with proper care, although they have been known to live for a decade or more. 

PEKIN

The Pekin duck is typically raised for meat, but you’ve likely seen this iconic breed – all-white with an orange bill and legs – in petting zoos or at public parks. They’re also the most popular commercial duck breed in America. Their easygoing temperaments make them great for those new to raising ducks, and they’re also a popular choice for 4H or young poultry enthusiasts. They’re especially happy with a decently sized pond to spend time wading in. They typically live for  eight to12 years, making them long-lived in comparison to many other popular breeds. They grow fast and are overall hardy, but are prone to obesity, so be sure to watch what they eat and encourage foraging for natural food sources. 

KHAKI CAMPBELL

The Khaki Campbell, also known as the Campbell, is a British breed of domestic duck named for their distinct khaki-colored plumage. They’re lightweight birds that weigh about five pounds at maturity. That’s no problem – this breed is typically raised for egg production, not meat. Khaki Campbell hens are prolific layers, averaging anywhere from 250 to 340 eggs per year.  They’re energetic, curious birds who love to forage and spend time in the water, so any prospective owners should ensure they have adequate outdoor space & activities to keep these ducks stimulated. They’re typically hardy, adaptable birds that can deal with hot or cold temperatures as long as they’re provided with good care and plenty of shelter. 

Quail

Quail may not be the first bird that comes to mind when you consider raising poultry – but they can be an excellent choice for beginners without much space. Some folks even successfully keep quails wholly indoors, and while you might need to make a lot of lifestyle changes to have that work for your household, these small, quirky birds can make keeping poultry a breeze if you have a small space to work with. Quail need a minimum of one square foot per bird, but many recommend  closer to three feet per bird for your flock’s maximum health and happiness. 

Although quail eggs are tiny, they’re beloved by some and are used as specialty ingredients in some Asian dishes. Zack Greene, co-owner of Myshire Farms in Ohio, has been raising quail full-time since 2016, and he recommends the Coturnix above all else. “We did so many extra things in the beginning, and it turns out it really is that simple,” he said of raising quail. “They just need an enclosure that is predator proof, food, water, and shelter to get out of the elements, and then collect eggs. That’s simple.” 

 These are three quail species that shouldn’t give beginners too much trouble.

BUTTON 

The tiny Button quail is so fragile that one must take caution when handling them, particularly chicks. While this might sound daunting, with caution and proper care, these birds are actually quite hardy. Even when handled from chickhood, these birds are typically cautious and flighty, making them a good choice if you’d prefer a “look but don’t touch” style to managing your flock. Sadly, even with proper care, they have fairly short lifespans; in captivity, they live between three to six years. While it’s possible to sell them for meat, their small size means that most farmers prefer to sell their eggs, which are a delicacy despite being much smaller than a typical chicken egg. 

BOBWHITE

The Bobwhite, also known as the Northern Bobwhite, is actually native to the U.S.; their popularity as a gamebird is part of what drove demand for the species in captivity, for use in releases for hunting. While they’re still most commonly raised for release onto hunting preserves, increasing numbers of quail enthusiasts are raising these intriguing little birds for their meat and eggs. It’s important to note that, due to their history of being raised as gamebirds, these birds are typically aggressive with others of their species, and avoid human touch.

COTURNIX

There’s a good reason that the adorable but hardy Coturnix quail, also known as the Japanese quail,  is popular with many. “Quail are a great way to start a self-sufficient journey,” says Greene, who solely raises Coturnix quail. “We  specialize in Coturnix, as they are bred for meat and egg production, and are domesticated and not flighty. Most other quail are seasonal layers, but Coturnix lay year round.” These dual-purpose birds are often kept as pets, as they’re more sociable and tolerant of humans than most other common quail, although they’re still jumpier and less tolerant of handling than chickens. Coturnix are a good choice for small-scale farmers looking for a punchy, unique bird who won’t take up the whole yard. 

No matter what poultry you choose, remember that baby steps may make your journey easier. Try starting with a limited flock size as opposed to the maximum amount of birds you can house on your property. If you choose a more complicated breed of poultry, that’s not necessarily setting yourself up for failure–just be sure you’ve figured out shelter, food, and care for your birds so you’re ready for a smooth ride.

The post How to Choose the Right Backyard Bird appeared first on Modern Farmer.

This year, we looked at many stories of food access and equity, and what food means to people. From exclusive avocados and exorbitantly priced butter, to a microgreens farm and a community fridge, we took a look at all corners of our food system.

Here, we’ve collected our top 10 most read, shared, and commented on Food Equity stories for you to revisit. Let us know which stories you connected with the most in the comments.

The post Top 10 Food Equity Stories of 2024 appeared first on Modern Farmer.

From looking at the true cost of eating meat, to reckoning with just how much plastic we use even in our home gardens, we explored how we consume and participate in our food system.

Here, we’ve collected our top 10 most read, shared, and commented on Conscious Consumption stories for you to revisit. Let us know which stories you connected with the most in the comments.

The post Top 10 Conscious Consumption Stories of 2024 appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) of swine impact the air in Sampson County. Not only is the smell overwhelming, but the odor is an indicator of what these facilities are emitting—dangerous substances such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. CAFOs are densely populated in communities of color in eastern North Carolina, and the pollution and impact of them has been on the books for decades. The issue, and the environmental justice advocates in the community who have spoken out against it, are well documented in the film “The Smell of Money.” 

The EPA has air sensors deployed around the country to monitor air quality. When there’s documented pollution, it can enable the government to hold polluters accountable. But rural areas can get overlooked when it comes to air quality measurements—in Sampson County there is a gap in data collection. One of the aims of this project is to make the case for a federal air monitor in the county. 

“One of the end goals is to advocate for a federal air monitor within the county,” says Wall, Community Science Manager for CleanAIRE NC. “And that’s actually something that we’ve been able to do in the past.”

CAFOs and Air Pollution

On a broad scale, very large-scale industrial livestock operations (with tens of thousands of animals) have been getting away with air pollution for a long time. 

“These facilities have not been required to report their air emissions for almost two decades,” says Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney for the Sustainable Food & Farming Program at Earthjustice. 

This exemption to the Clean Air Act can be traced back to a consent agreement made between the EPA and thousands of hog CAFOs in the early aughts. The EPA decided it needed to establish reporting methodologies for CAFOs in order to enforce emissions regulations—and so it traded legal immunity to some of the country’s biggest producers in exchange for a few years of data collection. Those few years came and went, producing very little useful data. Two decades later, CAFOs still get a free pass to pollute the air.

Meanwhile, a study from 2021 reports that agriculture leads to 17,900 air quality-related deaths every year in the US. This has been an urgent environmental justice issue for decades now, but the EPA is no closer to regulating air emissions from CAFOs.

Organizations such as Earthjustice have been working to hold the government accountable. It sued the EPA, challenging the reporting exemption for CAFOs under EPCRA as unlawful. This is one of the few statutes that would give the public the right to this reported information. Part of the resistance, says Apfel, has come from the idea that this will burden small farmers with having to figure out their emissions impact. But it won’t —this law would only affect the largest of operations, a small percentage overall.

“There’s a lot of mythology out there about where our food comes from and what these CAFOs are and are not, and I think that Big Ag does everything it can to keep it that way,” says Apfel. “I think that a lot of this is a narrative battle just trying to explain that these are not farms…They’re factories, and they don’t resemble anything like farms.”

While big wheels turn, Sampson County is taking action.

Community-driven data collection

CleanAire NC has seen success with its air quality work before, in Charlotte, NC.

Charlotte’s Historic West End endured redlining—the practice of banks refusing loans to communities of color. This contributed to multiple polluting industries moving into the area and impacting air quality. Residents wanted to know to what extent. So, community members approached CleanAIRE NC.

Residents and ClearnAIRE NC partnered to install PurpleAir sensors at peoples’ homes. The air sensors automatically track and record air quality, mainly through measuring particulate matter in the air. You can see the dashboard of operating air sensors here.

But measuring particulate matter presents a limited picture, and that’s where volunteer airkeepers come in. When levels get high, they can record their observations of what they see and smell and they can take pictures and videos. This will help the data set reflect the differences between highway emissions, CAFO pollution, rock dust from a quarry, and more.

“Particulate matter is so variable, and so it’s hard to pinpoint what might be going on at a specific time,” says Wall. 

Thanks to the data collected by these air sensors, Mecklenburg County Air Quality installed an air sensor. 

Community leaders and CleanAIRE NC have partnered on other efforts to create a green district in the Historic West End, such as planting trees, installing electric vehicle chargers, and supporting green infrastructure.

Now, 30 sensors have been deployed in Sampson County. Just as the work in Charlotte’s Historic West End has been driven by community questions, input, and resources so, too, will be the work in Sampson County.

“That’s a way that we’re trying to fill the gap between these researchers that are coming in to be a part of our project, and maintaining our values on engaging communities,” says Wall.

The post In Eastern North Carolina, Community Science Aims to Fill an Air Quality Gap appeared first on Modern Farmer.

What she didn’t realize was that he was also against the factory farm system, having experienced first-hand the way it abuses farmers. What unfolded in the years after their first meeting was an initiative called The Transfarmation Project, which today works to help former contract farmers transition away from this system and into sustainable agriculture.

In her new book, Transfarmation: The Movement to Free Us from Factory Farming, Garcés takes a holistic approach to framing the issue of industrial animal agriculture. Not only does she detail animal rights abuses, she explores how factory farms create living and work conditions for humans that are unacceptable by any standard. Garcés takes the reader to North Carolina, Iowa, Texas, and beyond. She shows us what the conditions are like for animals and workers in slaughterhouses, and how living near hog farm sprayfields means you’ll inevitably have pig feces inside your home. 

In this book, Garcés shows that a more sustainable food system will never result from a fragmented approach, but requires a holistic view on the well-being of communities across the country.

Transfarmation: The Movement to Free Us From Factory Farming is available for purchase now. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Modern Farmer: You begin this book by recounting your first meeting with Craig Watts, a former contract poultry farmer. Historically, animal activists and contract farmers have been on opposite sides of the factory farming issue. But instead of finding an enemy in Craig, you found an ally. Can you tell me about how this discovery changed your perspective on how to fight the industrial animal agriculture system?

Leah Garcés: Before I met Craig, I was a vegan animal rights activist had perceived contract farmers, poultry farmers, in one way: They’re the enemy—they’re to blame. And through a mutual journalist, I was able to make contact with him and [was] eventually invited onto his farm to see his chicken farming practice.

And I went in there with the idea that I was going to go in, get footage and get out. But when I got there, everything changed. We sat down and started talking, and he has twins that are the same age as my oldest son. It turned out he hated factory farming as much as I did. And this, I realized, was my biggest blind spot I’d ever had in all of my activism, ever. And as I listened to him, I realized I had overlooked a very important ally. 

And then that made me realize, how many other allies have I overlooked? It absolutely transformed my strategy and activism. My job after that became about building bridges to other folks, other stakeholders, other groups. And I was most curious about the ones that I perceived as my enemy, and most curious about wanting to meet them and finding what common ground we could to build power—build power to bring down a very oppressive system that impacts so many in such a negative way.

MF: You started The Transfarmation Project to assist former contract farmers in transitioning out of industrial animal agriculture. Why were you moved to create pathways for farmers to get out of this line of work?

LG: I’ve been an activist working to end factory farming for about a quarter of a century now, and what I’ve noticed is we talk a lot about the problem and a lot about the solution, but not on how to get from problem to solution. We don’t look at the path in between. I really wanted to roll up our sleeves and try to create easy runways for farmers. And I don’t pretend that a small nonprofit could transition thousands of farmers, but what I wanted to create were models, demonstrations, prototypes to test if it was possible. And it is possible, and farmers do want to transition. So, now we know. Now we have the prototypes. It’s time to move forward with creating the plans for how farmers could off-ramp.

MF: Large-scale animal agriculture CAFOs are disproportionately built in communities of color. One of your chapters focuses on eastern North Carolina, where there is an abundance of hog CAFOs in majority Black communities. You also write that the industry there has a lot of influence on policy and even local law enforcement. Residents have become environmental justice advocates, sounding the alarm on how CAFOs impact neighboring communities. What did you learn from your time in this community about how CAFOs impact their neighbors and how people can organize against them?

LG: What is happening in North Carolina is happening around the entire country. I did dive deep, though, into one particular community’s experience in North Carolina, and I had the opportunity to meet two women who in particular have been fighting the system, René and Rosemary. 

Their families had established property ownership and economic freedom post-slavery, and this was huge for this population. It created freedom. It created mobility. And owning land was very significant in that sense. And it was only later that the pork industry started to move in around these communities. And in doing so, [it] not only negatively impacted their quality of life and their health, but [it] drove their property prices down. 

[It] might not seem obvious why a farm moving next door would cause property prices to drop and health to decline, but here’s why: These giant pig farms create a giant amount of pig waste. The pig waste goes into what is euphemistically called a lagoon. The lagoons are cesspools of pig feces. Those get to be too full, and so the solution is to pump out the waste onto adjacent fields—and not fields that are necessarily growing crops, just fields to absorb the pig poop. They’re in giant sprinklers, and those sprinklers spray into the air. That spray inevitably flows through the air and onto the neighbor’s homes, their mailboxes, through their keyholes, windows, ends up on countertops, microwaves, ovens. There’s scientific evidence where that’s been shown, that there is pig feces inside of homes like Rosemary and René‘s.

And if you look at where this is happening, it is happening in Black communities around the country. If you were to spray pig feces on a field next to a white suburban home, it would be shut down right away. The reason it’s not shut down is because these communities have less political, social, and economic power. 

People like René [and] Rosemary are fighting back. There’s still a lot of work to do, but they are not giving up. And it was very inspiring to meet these women who are fighting the pig industry, to protect their land, protect their economic mobility, and protect their power.

MF: You mention many important policy priorities in this book, such as the Farm System Reform Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, and work to reduce line speed in slaughterhouses. What are the most immediate policy priorities that readers should contact their legislators about?

LG: I think one of the policies that could make a difference on so many levels is to slow down the slaughter lines. One of the [slaughterhouse] workers told me, her name was Sandra, that on a daily basis, 10,700 pigs would pass through her hands, and that the crux of the problem, the thing that makes it dangerous and difficult, is the line speeds. And so, slowing down how fast they go would not only create better, safer working conditions, but [it] will result in higher animal welfare and less suffering of those pigs.

Same with chickens. There are three chickens every second that pass in a slaughter line. It’s so fast. If we slow those lines down, the chances of reducing their suffering during slaughter increases. The potential for less suffering increases for both the animals and the people working those lines. I also think that, as mentioned in the book, the main animals that are moving through our food and farming system, chickens, are excluded from federal protections. There are no federal laws protecting chickens that are raised for meat. They are specifically excluded from the laws that require humane slaughter. It’s unacceptable. There’s a lot we can do right away, just [on] the slaughter side of things [that] would reduce suffering and increase safety.

Beyond that, we need to provide the opportunity for farmers to shift away from factory farming. So many of them want to, but they are under the thumb of debt. The Farm System Reform Act laid out a plan for creating a transition for these farmers, if they wish to, and that involves debt relief for the farmers and transition money for them to move to better farming practices. 

This is not the first time we’ve done something like this as a country. We did it with tobacco, and when farmers were given the choice, overnight, many of them just shifted away from tobacco. It’s part of our history to adapt and adjust our agriculture policy according to the pressures that our country is under and the new information we have about the dangers of agriculture practices. Just like tobacco, this is dangerous, and it’s putting us under pressure, and we need to adjust.

MF: Industrial animal agriculture creates a cheap product. But you write that that’s because the real costs of this system are externalized to everyone but the industry itself. How do we begin to hold the industry accountable for the harm it causes to both human and animal communities?

LG: I think it’s really important for consumers to understand that cheap meat is only cheap at the register, but it is costing someone a lot. It is costing the animals suffering. It is causing people suffering. It’s causing our environment destruction, and it’s costing communities their health. And those have real prices to them. So, communities are paying medical bills. Communities are paying for environmental clean-up costs, and slaughterhouse workers are paying medical bills, and the animals are suffering. And there’s no price that can be put on that. 

But if you flip that and you say, if we take animals out of cages, that increases the cost by a percentage. That’s how we’re putting the cost back into the system, rather than the animal. If we slow down the line speeds, it means it will be a little less efficient, and it’ll cost a little bit more, but that’s where we’ve taken the cost out of the worker suffering and put it back into the meat, put it back into the system. 

MF: Last week, you got to open up the first Transfarmation demonstration hub. Can you tell me about what that experience was like and what you hope will come from it?

LG: Opening up the first Transfarmation hub was three years in the making. We had this idea that we needed to show and we actually needed to work out what a full transition would look like. We worked with consultants, we worked with architects, we worked with tech specialists, farm specialists, to help a farmer transition from growing chickens to growing microgreens in a greenhouse and mushrooms in a container. And last week, we had a launch party for that.

I was in these warehouses just after they had had chickens in them, and they smelled of ammonia. They had dust in them—the ghosts of the chickens were everywhere, and the smell of the chickens was still there. To enter this place of death and destruction and see it revitalized as growth and creation and innovation…It was so moving and gave me a lot of hope. It gave everyone a lot of hope that there are solutions. We just have to roll up our sleeves and work together towards them.

The post The Transition Away From Factory Farming appeared first on Modern Farmer.

In the spring of 2014, I found myself sitting across from a man who was by every definition my enemy. His name was Craig Watts and he was a chicken factory farmer, raising chickens for slaughter. My career is devoted to protecting farmed animals and ending factory farming. Until that point, I’d spent my whole life working against everything Craig Watts stood for. Now I was sitting in his living room.

As I sat there, a thousand questions were swirling in my mind. I’d been trying for years to get footage from inside a chicken factory farm at a time in our country when seeing inside a chicken farm was—and still is—nearly impossible. I’d failed every previous attempt.

That day, I’d driven from my home in Atlanta to Craig’s home in rural North Carolina. Before I left, I gave my husband the address and told him, “If I don’t come back, look for me rotting away in the chicken litter.” I was convinced I was heading into an ambush, not knowing my life would soon be changed forever.

Prior to our meeting, Craig Watts had been raising chickens for twenty-two years in factory farms for Perdue, the fourth-largest chicken company in the United States. When Craig was a young adult, he had searched for a way to stay on the land that had been passed down in his family for five generations, in one of the poorest counties in North Carolina. There were very few jobs in the area, so when Perdue came to town and offered him a contract to raise chickens, it sounded like a dream come true. He took out a $200,000 loan from the bank to build the chicken houses while Perdue agreed to pay him for each flock he raised. With that money, he planned to pay off the loan, as you would a mortgage.

But soon the chickens started to get sick—it was a factory farm, after all. Twenty-five thousand chickens were stuffed wall-to-wall in darkened warehouses, living on their own feces, breathing air thick with toxic ammonia. Many of the sick chickens died, and you don’t get paid for dead chickens. Craig started to struggle to pay off his loan. His paychecks got smaller, but the bills kept coming. Soon he wanted out, but he’d been trapped. Now he was all but an indentured servant, and if he stopped, he’d risk losing everything.

By the time he and I met, Craig had reached a breaking point. His payments seemed never-ending, and so did the illness, death, and despair of the chickens. He was ready for a change. Through late afternoon conversations, and much soul-searching, I realized that I had overlooked an ally. I learned that chicken factory farmers wanted to see factory farming change about as much as animal rights activists did. We had been over-looking each other all these years.

Throughout the summer of 2014, I came back many times with my filmmaker partner Raegan Hodge to learn from Craig. I walked those warehouses as Craig explained the problems, as he picked up the chickens who had died or had to be killed because they had messed-up legs, trouble breathing, difficulty walking. All of these horrors, all of our conversations, were captured on film.

In the winter of 2014, after months of filming and learning to trust each other, Craig and I did something neither of us expected to do. We decided to release the footage together. This was a huge risk. He feared losing his income, his land, and having his neighbors hate him. But he did it anyway. The New York Times broke the story. Within twenty-four hours, a million people had seen our video about the horrors of chicken factory farming. Our story went viral. Suddenly, we had a megaphone. Our unlikely alliance put the truth about factory farming on a global platform.

Too often we become so entrenched in our values, in our fight, that we don’t stop to consider what we might have in common with the so-called opposition. We jump straight to the differences. And it is often the tyranny of small differences that holds progress hostage. Craig was the very first chicken factory farmer I ever connected with, but there would be many more.

In the United States, we still hold close an image of a quaint, independent family farm. But what actually exists is industrial animal agriculture, a system that does more harm than good. If you cross the country, no matter what state you are in, you’ll find a similar story. There is a person in a poor rural county who is searching for a way to stay on the land that had been passed down in their family for generations, searching for a way to make their living off the land and live out their version of the American dream, one in tune with nature and set to the soundtrack of crickets, cicadas, warblers, and chickadees. With few jobs around, the chicken industry’s offer sounds like a dream come true. This farmer often ends up just like Craig.

Meeting Craig would change my trajectory as an activist. We’d become close friends, collaborators, and conspirators in the decade that followed, working to dismantle factory farming piece by piece. We’d see that we’d been fooled. As Craig said: “We were red ants and black ants trapped in a jar. And then someone would shake the jar and we’d start fighting each other. But we’d never stop to question—who’s shaking the jar?” And I’d ask, “Why are we trapped in this jar?” The years ahead, we’d look to smash the jar and remove the shaker’s power. We’d look to reform our food system away from industrial animal agriculture and remove the power of Big Animal Agriculture—the great monopolies with strongholds over our political and economic systems.

When it comes to the meat, dairy, and eggs we eat, the price at the grocery store or restaurant is never a fair reflection of the true cost. In factory farming, risks and liability are mostly externalized by the industry, and most often to the most vulnerable among us. This damage, this harm, is borne by many—from the workers to the animals to the farmers. The industry makes extraordinary profits off this harm by externalizing risk and liability. Externalities are the root of the business model, and they’ve driven the spectacular success, power, and wealth of this industry. But because these costs are hidden from those who purchase the products, consumers don’t affirmatively consent to the harm caused by eating animals and their products.

The workforce in slaughterhouses, the communities living around factory farming, and, in recent years, refugee communities who’ve been brought in as the next generation of farming communities are some of the most affected. These vulnerable communities lack political and social capital, and they have few choices and little ability to fight against the harm that factory farming imposes upon them. 

In slaughterhouses, some immigrant workers have documentation and some don’t, but regardless of their situation, if they complain they take risks. When people die on the job, the federal agencies don’t respond 85 percent of the time, according to Civil Eats. Agricultural work is some of the most dangerous work in the country, ranking third among all occupations in fatal injuries together with forestry, fishing, and hunting. According to Civil Eats, animal confinement workers are subject to long-term lung and acute respiratory injuries from their work environments and are exposed to asphyxiating gases from manure.

Black communities in the South, many of whom are descendants of enslaved people, are also disproportionately affected by factory farms. Maps of North Carolina clearly show higher clusters of factory farms surrounding historically Black and low-income rural communities. Studies indicate that in some communities in North Carolina, for example, there are ten times more concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in low-income and Black and Brown neighborhoods than in higher-income, whiter areas. This is a clear example of environmental racism, a form of institutional racism where environmental hazards and harms are disproportionately distributed in and around communities of color. Where once these communities enjoyed the land that meant so much to their families’ freedom and history, that enjoyment is now ruined. Now they are surrounded by hog and chicken farms, unable to even leave their homes without suffering the smells, flies, and even spray from the farm’s waste.

As the pool of people willing to take on the perils of working in factory farms and slaughterhouses diminishes, the industry has begun to recruit a new, unsuspecting crop of factory farmers: refugees fleeing persecution in war-torn countries. From Burma to Cambodia to Laos, families looking for opportunity and escape come to the US and take on factory farming, only to find themselves trapped and unexpectedly in danger again.

Though farmers, workers, and animals have been suffering for decades, the system responsible for their collective oppression was thrust into the public eye during the pandemic. The attention it received was unprecedented, as was the desire for change.

Transfarmation

During this time of great loss and uncertainty, the people closest to factory farming—farmers, slaughterhouse workers, and communities living next to factory farms—who had already begun to build a new way, accelerated their efforts. They were tired of feeling vulnerable to the fragility and oppression of factory farming.

In late 2019, Mercy For Animals, the organization I lead, launched a new project. We called it the “Transfarmation Project,” and it aimed to be a platform where we could support farmers wanting to make the transition from animal agriculture to plants. It built on the work Craig and I started all those years earlier. But it ended up being so much more. In the years that followed, I would continue my curious journey through rural America, meeting farmers and together rolling up our sleeves to set out a road map for a new rural economy—everything from hemp to mushrooms to lettuce and whatever other innovations we could dream up.

This book is about more than individual farmers going through a career transition. It is about how we transition away entirely from factory farming. Many times, when people are tackling systemic challenges, they write about either the problem or the solution. But a gulf is left in the middle—the complexity of how. This book peers deeply into that gulf, at the transitional moment, and shows how it might be done, through the experience of those who are already doing it. It is told in three parts from the perspective of those closest to factory farming: farmers, the animals, and vulnerable communities working in or near factory farms or slaughterhouses.

This book is about smashing the jar and changing the common narrative that this food and farming system is serving us well. It is about rebuilding our food systems so that we are not trapped in a container, controlled by a monopoly causing us harm. Instead, we are in a collaborative, community-built network that honors all animals and nature, unlocks our highest potential, and empowers everyone to thrive.

The post Transfarmation: The Movement to Free Us From Factory Farming appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The Lower Yakima Valley in Washington state has been home to large-scale animal agriculture for decades, but in 2008 when one dairy operation tried moving onto the Yakima Indian Reservation, the community balked at the proposition.

“The dairies at that time were very bad neighbors,” said Jean Mendoza, a resident of the Yakima Reservation. The community wanted to avoid the issues they’d heard about in Sunnyside, a small town about 50 miles east of the Yakima Reservation. “There was one [Sunnyside] family that had built an outdoor swimming pool for their grandchildren to enjoy, and one of the dairies came in and built a manure lagoon right next to the swimming pool,” she said. The smell from the lagoon made it impossible to enjoy their backyard.

The lagoons, huge pits of animal waste mixed with water, were one of the reasons Mendoza started organizing against the establishment of concentrated animal feedlots (CAFOs) near her home. She later became the executive director of the nonprofit Friends of Toppenish Creek, which advocates for improved oversight of industrial agriculture. 

Discharge from these lagoons into groundwater caused nitrate levels to skyrocket in the drinking water of small towns in the Lower Yakima Valley, where many residents get their water from private wells. Serious health effects like cancer and blue baby syndrome – a life-threatening condition that causes low oxygen levels in infants’ blood – can occur when nitrate levels exceed 10 milligrams per liter, the maximum contaminant level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Despite the health risks, regulating this pollution isn’t easy. Loopholes within drinking water laws and the agriculture lobby’s influence in Congress have prevented substantive policy reform to address the issue, according to food safety experts. 

“That lobby has consistently asked for and gotten policies that favor the large and the higher tech and the consolidation – and therefore corporate control – of agriculture,” said Amy van Saun, a senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety. A 2024 report from the Union for Concerned Scientists showed big agribusiness and other food interest groups spent $523 million on farm bill lobbying between 2019 and 2023 – more than what the lobbies for the oil and gas industry and defense sector spent during that time. 

Agriculture has become one of the most consolidated industries in the country. Across the board, farms have been merged into just a few big companies that control most food sectors.

The dairy industry is no stranger to this: Between 2002 and 2019 the number of licensed dairy herds in the U.S. dropped by half, but milk production increased, according to USDA data. This suggests that small farms are disappearing in place of concentrated animal feedlots operated by large corporations like Land o’ Lakes and Dairy Farmers of America. 

As the number of animals stuffed onto corporate farms increases, so has the amount of waste. And that waste is kept in manure lagoons that are built to leak, according to Adam Voskuil, a staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates. 

“Regardless of whether a manure lagoon is earthen-lined or clay-lined or concrete-lined, there is some acceptable amount of discharge directly to the groundwater, to the aquifer,” Voskuil said. 

As dairy operations have become more consolidated in the Lower Yakima Valley, it’s made it harder for grassroots organizers like Mendoza to advocate for drinking water regulation. “It removes decision-making from the ground level and sends it up the corporate ladder and makes it harder for neighbors, makes it harder for Friends of Toppenish Creek [to demand change],” she said. 

While Mendoza’s organization successfully stopped the 2008 dairy operation from moving onto the Yakima Reservation, they’ve had their work cut out for them because of seepage from other manure lagoons. In June of 2024, the EPA sued three of the area’s dairy operations for failing to comply with a 2013 legal agreement that they reduce nitrate leakage and protect the drinking water of nearby residents.

But it’s difficult to implement effective regulation because water pollution is technically legal under two major laws: the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

The Clean Water Act is the main apparatus used to protect the United States’ surface water. While its purpose is to prohibit the discharge of pollutants, the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System issues permits that allow exceptions to this rule. Most activities associated with farming, ranching, and forestry can be exempted from the Clean Water Act if the operator obtains a permit to pollute. 

The law directly regulates “point sources” of pollution, which is when there is a clear source of waste discharge like from a pipe, well, or even a manure lagoon from a concentrated animal feeding operation. 

But for “nonpoint sources” of pollution, the law relies on voluntary efforts to control pollutants from various sources that accumulate through runoff. A primary cause of these nonpoint sources is runoff from nitrogen fertilizer on cropland. 

This voluntary approach means the EPA and states don’t have the authority to require that landowners reduce runoff, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project. This leaves the work to advocacy organizations. 

“It seems like it has fallen to environmental and clean water and agricultural advocacy organizations to raise awareness and make sure people are protected,” said Leigh Currie, the chief legal officer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. 

The well issue

In eastern Oregon’s Morrow and Umatilla counties, more than 400 households have nitrate levels higher than 10 milligrams per liter, the maximum amount deemed safe by the EPA. All of these houses rely on well water, which is one of the least regulated sources of drinking water in the country. 

The counties’ pollution comes from food processing companies in the Port of Morrow. The companies produce nitrate-rich wastewater and funnel it into open-air irrigation ditches that water the area’s farmland. The water is overapplied on these farms and the excess leaches into the groundwater, which is what many local residents rely on for drinking water. 

Over the 30 years the state of Oregon has known about this problem, very little has been done to address it. That’s because no one wants to “own the issue,” according to Nella Mae Parks, a farmer and organizer for the nonprofit Oregon Rural Action. 

“The state doesn’t want it, the [Port of Morrow] doesn’t want it, and the county doesn’t want it, because it’s gonna be really expensive,” she said in a 2023 interview with the Daily Yonder. 

The Clean Drinking Water Act regulates “navigable waters,” which does not include groundwater. This leaves groundwater regulation to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which guarantees protections for municipalities that are on public drinking water systems. 

But the law leaves out protections for private wells that support fewer than 25 individuals. About 15% of the U.S. population relies on well water, and the vast majority of them live in rural areas. 

This means the well owner has to take on the cost to monitor and treat their water if they find it’s being polluted, a cost that many people can’t afford. A nitrate test costs between $35 and $60, and treating the water requires a reverse osmosis system, which is a filtration device that forces water through a membrane that removes nitrate. Depending on the system, the price can range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. 

Some counties will pay for these tests and filters, but this isn’t the case in every affected community. 

For example, in Wisconsin – the dairy capital of the U.S. – rural well owners often choose not to test their wells for nitrate. “That’s because if it comes back that it’s testing high for nitrates, it may not be financially feasible for them to rehabilitate or remediate or dig a new well,” said Voskuil from Midwest Environmental Advocates. 

The state’s well compensation grant program will only provide financial assistance to well owners whose water tests at or more than 40 parts per million of nitrate. That’s four times the amount the EPA says is safe to drink. 

A need for stronger regulation

Food safety experts say solving America’s nitrate pollution problem will require stronger regulation of the biggest players in the agriculture industry. 

“This industry has been able to externalize so much of their costs… so that it’s an artificially cheap product for the consumer,” van Saun from the Center for Food Safety said. 

The federal government provides farmers subsidies to protect them from fluctuating revenue year-by-year, but data from the nonpartisan Environmental Working Group shows that 78% of subsidies were given to the largest 10% of farm operations between 1995 and 2021. This means small and mid-size farmers received the fewest benefits, making it harder to stay afloat. 

Some bills have been proposed to address the squeeze of big agriculture, but there hasn’t been substantial progress made on the issue. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s Farm System Reform Act of 2023 proposed a moratorium on CAFOs, expanded country-of-origin labeling, and increased competition and transparency in livestock, poultry, and meat markets. The bill was first introduced in 2019 and reintroduced in 2021 and 2023, but all three times, it languished in committee. 

Most of the current reform is coming from more local efforts, like the community organizing in the Lower Yakima Valley that led to the 2024 lawsuit against three dairy farms. 

While these local efforts are important, van Saun said they have to occur in combination with federal regulations to effectively address drinking water contamination. “It’s the people who are the least well off in rural areas, and especially communities of color in rural areas, who are the ones paying the biggest price for this [pollution],” van Saun said. 

The post Rural Drinking Water Has a Nitrate Problem appeared first on Modern Farmer.

 Buying trends show that pet owners are gravitating toward human-grade ingredients. “Dog food” is regulated loosely compared to human fare, allowing even meat deemed unfit for human consumption due to things such as disease and contamination and moldy grains, a recipe for endless pet food recalls. 

The pet food industry traditionally relies on factory farm byproducts for its ingredients, a practice the industry touts as more sustainable as it produces less waste and cheaper food. But dog owners distrust this mysterious supply chain. 

As shoppers seek more wholesome foods for pets, some also try to make eco-friendly choices, which seems to contradict a diet of human-grade foods, especially meat. Agriculture contributes at least 11 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions, and meat is the biggest contributor among foods. 

Is there a way to make healthier dog food that won’t burden the planet so much? Here is how a few companies are dishing up new models.

Farm Hounds

Family farms often struggle to stay profitable as agriculture becomes more concentrated. There were 141,733 fewer farms in the US in 2022 than in 2017, according to the Census of Agriculture. 

Livestock farmers who practice regenerative farming, improving soil and biodiversity with methods such as rotational grazing, strive to waste nothing and can still wind up with leftovers. Like the hog tails, hides, organs, and hooves that aren’t always suitable for compost. 

“From our experience, most regenerative farms don’t have much of an active market for these products,” says Stephen Calsbeek, co-founder of Farm Hounds, a company that partners with regenerative farms to make single-ingredient treats for dogs.

“It is rare to meet a new farm and hear they are already capturing and selling something we are looking for,” he says. Where items like muscle meat and organs have a route to human markets, Farm Hounds looks for trim, miscuts and excess volume.

It started sourcing scraps from places such as White Oak Pastures, a farm in Bluffton, Georgia committed to regenerative and humane farming techniques. 

Customers couldn’t get enough of the local grass-farmed treats. With that, the store’s pup-loving proprietors launched Farm Hounds, dehydrating raw items in their home kitchen, which they now sell online as well.

Over time, collaboration with a single farm grew into a whole network, with new partners continually being added to meet the demand.  

“We are talking with very busy farmers, who then have to sort out how to capture and store the products we are looking for,” says Calsbeek. “It can take six to 12 months before we see our first order.” Farms that use an offsite processor have to ask the processor to return parts they aren’t used to capturing. “Depending on how strict the USDA inspector is, it can require the farm and the processing facility to update their HACCP plan just to capture something for us.” 

For most of the farms, the added revenue from using every part of the animal has been “impactful,” says Calsbeek. Some have changed their practices. Polyface, a renowned farm in Virginia, now breeds its birds on-site, having learned that Farm Hounds would purchase the roosters (male chicks are culled at hatcheries). At times, it’s a safety net if a human market is lost; during the COVID lockdown, for example, a key buyer for one farm stopped ordering products that had already been raised. “We’ve seen farms able to hire more workers in their community due to our purchasing.”

Today, in addition to a variety of treats and chews of all sizes, Farm Hounds sells items that even make use of their own leftovers. In recent years, the company, which now has a nationwide following, has landed on the Inc. 5000 list, ranking among America’s fastest-growing independent businesses. 

The Conscious Pet

No discussion of vanishing farmland or concerns about wasting human grade food on pets is complete without a mention of food waste—when 30 percent to 40 percent of the entire US food supply gets dumped in landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the US discards nearly 40 million tons of food every year, more than any other country. 

One solution is to upcycle it. The Conscious Pet, an Austin-based company started by Mason Arnold and Jessica Kezar Arnold, makes human-grade dog food and treats by dehydrating scraps from local restaurants, breweries, and food distributors.

This isn’t stuff they glean from trash cans. 

“Think of a kitchen that trims their steaks or chicken before cooking their meals,” says Arnold, a sustainability-minded entrepreneur who hosts a podcast with Kezar-Arnold called “A Mostly Green Life”—part of a community of people focused on “clean living” and environmental stewardship. 

Initially, they partnered with a composting facility, capturing suitable meat and vegetable scraps, which they now collect directly from a variety of sources. While composting helps keep waste out of landfills, they knew it wasn’t the best use of edible food. 

So, they experimented with recipes in their home kitchen, creating products to sell in the perfect incubator—Austin, home to 500,000 pups and owners who spend the most on dog food of any major city. A city ordinance requires restaurants to responsibly dispose of organic waste, which can mean a solution such as repurposed pet food.

“The first batches looked like dog food already, just not in the right shape as it was mostly powder with a few clumps,” says Arnold. “It took us six months or so to develop the first usable recipe and, honestly, it took over 1.5 years to perfect it.”

DoggieBag, the human-grade kibble, is lightly cooked and shelf stable. The recipe uses 85 percent sustainably sourced animal protein and about 15 percent organic vegetables. Only the vitamin additives aren’t from scraps.

The zero-waste company, which uses clean energy and compostable packaging, kicked off in 2022 by offering locals a chance to own a part of it. It is currently moving to a new facility and plans to relaunch its line of products this fall, says Arnold.

“It isn’t hard to get something going, but [it] does require investment in the machinery to accomplish the process,” says Arnold. Another challenge has been the stigma around food waste. People often imagine the ruins of meals in trash cans, not kitchen trimmings and dented packaging.

“That fresh product is still consumable and delicious and could be used to make soups and such for humans, but we take it and make pet food out of it.”

With the country’s ample supply of leftovers, it’s a model that could be used in other cities, says Arnold.

“We’re excited to start partnering with others who want to implement this technology, and welcome any inquiries from people or companies wanting to do it in their town.” 

Open Farm

A new national strategy for reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030 includes “raising and breeding insects as livestock.” 

Even meat giant Tyson Foods is getting into insects for use in the pet food, aquaculture, and livestock industries.

Vying to be the next big protein are crickets, black soldier fly larvae (grubs) and mealworms, all approved for use in dog food in the US. These tiny animals yield high-quality protein, can eat food waste, and can be eaten as food. Their excrement, frass, is a rich fertilizer for agriculture.

When it comes to sustainability, experts say insect farming uses less land and water, and it has fewer emissions. With their high food conversion rate, insects can convert two kilograms of feed into one kg of insect mass, while cattle require eight kg of feed to produce one kg of body weight gain. Crickets need six times less feed than cattle, four times less than sheep, and two times less than pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein. Black soldier fly larvae, among the most efficient insect species, develop in two to three weeks.

So far, consumers aren’t rushing in. Only one US company has developed an insect-based kibble, while one that started with a bang—Grubbly Farms—has switched its promising entry into dog food to backyard chickens.

But the infrastructure is growing. EnviroFlight, a company that produces black soldier fly larvae, opened the first US production facility in Maysville, Kentucky in 2018, while Oregon-based Chapul Farms is working on various aspects of insect agriculture. Tyson plans to build a US facility that supports every stage of insect protein production from breeding to hatching of larvae. All the companies, even leading dog food brands, see insect-based pet food as a growing market.

It’s similar to traditional dog food, trading ground-up meat or fish for insects as the main protein. Grubs, the most common source, provide all 10 essential amino acids dogs require.

Adding an insect kibble made sense to Canadian dog food maker Open Farm, which put grubs on the menu in 2022, sourcing protein for its black soldier fly larvae kibble with consideration of its environmental impacts and processing. Since there’s no animal welfare certification for grubs, it  sought suppliers that adhere to the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare, ensuring healthy living conditions. The grubs are humanely euthanized with high heat.

But it turned out that “the demand was a little low,” says spokesperson Bridget Trumper. The company has discontinued its Kind Earth Insect recipe. “We hope as these options become more popular, we will be able to bring this recipe back, and introduce additional insects.”

There was a twist, however, in pet owners snubbing the unconventional animal protein.

“Surprisingly, our plant-based recipes were more popular and we will be continuing to offer those,” says Trumper. The company thinks it has to do with greater familiarity with a vegetarian diet. For now, it plans to monitor the trends and educate pet owners on the environmental benefits of alternative proteins.

“We believe, in time, pet parents will come around to the idea,” says Trumper.

Innovations in pet food can make a difference on a local scale and beyond. Farm Hounds’ use of farm waste can be adopted in other areas, and the company has gone from selling products in its local stores to a nationwide online business with a network of farm partners that has extended to other states, including California—and it ranks as one of the fastest-growing independent businesses, making the Inc. 5000 list the past two years. Food waste is another resource that could be tapped around the country to improve pet health with human-grade by-products. As Mars, the world’s largest pet food manufacturer, Tyson, and other companies add insects to the menu while researchers seek ways to breed bigger insects faster, the potential grows for reducing the impacts of factory meat farming.

The post Your Dog’s Food Probably Comes From a Factory Farm. Meet Some Folks Who Want to Change That appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The post Farmers Fought a Factory Farm and Won appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Many labels that guarantee humane treatment of farm animals (e.g., “humanely raised”), do anything but and are largely meaningless. Only recently did the USDA announce that it might regulate some of these labels after a push from advocates (we aren’t holding our breath). If this is the case of animal welfare labeling, consumers are right to be concerned that it is likely true of “green” labeling as well, particularly for the dairy industry, which is one of the most environmentally intensive industries on Earth. 

Farm Forward recently published a major investigative report detailing systematic animal suffering and consumer fraud at Alexandre Family Farm—a leading large-scale organic dairy company with “well over 9,000 head of cattle,” according to co-owner Blake Alexandre—whose products are covered in certification labels. The details of this investigation and the facts about large-scale dairy production should call into question the idea that the industry can be compatible with a more sustainable and humane food system. 

Farm Forward’s investigation and deceptive labeling

One of the key findings of Farm Forward’s investigation into Alexandre was this: Certifications such as Regenerative Organic Certified and Certified Humane were, sadly, insufficient to stop widespread abuse of cows and apparent environmental violations of land and water. This means that the primary function of labels—to give consumers assurances that a given product meets their values—frequently fails. In other words, humane labels aren’t there to help the consumer find better products. They’re tools for the meat and dairy industry to market their products. It’s unlikely, for example, that when a consumer sees one of these labels on Alexandre milk products in a Whole Foods Market, they imagine a field of dead cows being used as compost, or decaying cow corpses dangling into waterways, likely violating state water quality laws. Yet that’s exactly what Farm Forward’s investigation found. 

And then there’s the halo effect. Other companies that use Alexandre as a supplier, whether for ice cream, cheese, or even toddler formula, have used marketing based off of Alexandre’s humanewashing and greenwashing, and reaped the benefits. For a long time, Alexandre—and companies that have Alexandre as a supplier—have touted the Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label, a certification with genuinely high standards for cow treatment. However, Farm Forward learned from its investigation that only a relatively small number of Alexandre cows (fewer than 300 of the more than 5,000 to 9,000 cows raised by Alexandre, or roughly three to six percent) actually qualify under the label. Yet, companies bathe in the good image of Alexandre all the same, touting Alexandre’s ROC certification whether or not the actual milk used in their products came from ROC cows (as of writing, Alexandre’s ROC certification was suspended after a February 2024 audit, pending conclusion of the investigation).

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides require that marketers “ensure that all reasonable interpretations of their claims are truthful, not misleading, and supported by a reasonable basis” and that environmental marketing claims “not overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental attribute or benefit.” The FTC itself states that “…sometimes what companies think their green claims mean and what consumers really understand are two different things.” A consumer buying milk adorned with labels such as ROC and “Certified Humane” ought to have confidence that those products were actually made from properly treated cows by a company following environmental guidelines and ordinances, and free from the systematic abuse documented in the investigation. 

Large-scale dairy is incompatible with net zero

In order to understand deceptive labeling, however, we have to go back to the beginning: Why do massive dairy companies feel a need to plaster their products with misleading labels that may violate FTC guidelines? There’s a simple answer: They know the reputation of industrial dairy is faltering and are desperate to remedy the problem with claims that their industry can both expand and save us from climate disaster. And if the recent industrial dairy ad campaigns are any indication, it would seem that they are quite desperate. 

On an ultra-small scale, a sincere commitment to regenerative agriculture is compatible with reducing many of the harms of industrial animal agriculture, including harms to the climate. However, Alexandre and so many other companies that want to rehabilitate dairy farms are not small-scale; they may have thousands of animals under their care. And recent research into the ability of large-scale “regenerative” cow operations to offset as much greenhouse gas emissions as they produce is quite clear: It won’t work. The authors conclude that soil-based carbon sequestration “has a limited role to mitigate climate warming caused by the ruminant sector.” According to the study, offsetting the methane associated with global ruminant farming annually—a massive 135 gigatons—with soil-based sequestration is biophysically impossible. 

And yet, for decades, the broader dairy industry has been pushing smaller farmers out of business, the very farm operations that can represent a legitimate attempt at a regenerative system. 

Playing dairy roulette 

Farm Forward’s investigation didn’t just reveal that one particular company eschewed these standards, but also that the entire dairy system is flawed. Several certifications failed to see animal abuse happening right under their noses. USDA Organic requires that producers that treat an organic cow with antibiotics must remove that cow from the organic program. In doing so, the USDA inadvertently creates a financial disincentive for producers to treat suffering cows with the proper care, since non-organic milk and meat is sold at a far lower price point (see the report’s appendix); and many companies have benefited from the halo effect of Alexandre’s deceptions. What makes this all especially sad is that there are labels—Regenerative Organic Certified and Animal Welfare Approved among them—that genuinely have high standards relative to many other labeling schemes on the market. They can represent a small piece of the path toward a more sustainable and humane food system. But in the context of dairy production, the findings of the investigation have led Farm Forward to think that guaranteeing proper care of thousands of dairy cows just isn’t possible, given the unique challenges of dairy at scale and given the bad incentives. 

Alexandre’s failures are just one example of the dairy industry failing to live up to its promises. It tells us it can save the planet while treating cows humanely, while raking in unprecedented profits with its mega-dairies. How many more instances of animal abuse and climate devastation do we need to see before we stop believing that the industry that creates these harms also somehow holds the key to fixing them?

When a consumer buys milk from the grocery store—milk that they cannot guarantee came from an ultra small-scale operation with high standards of care—they are playing a game of dairy roulette. And in a world of such extreme levels of consumer deception, it becomes an easy choice to try oat milk. 

Farm Forward is a team of strategists, campaigners, and thought leaders guiding the movement to change the way our world eats and farms. Its mission is to change the way our world eats and farms end factory farming by changing farming, changing policy, and changing the stories we tell about animal agriculture. Learn more at https://www.farmforward.com/

The post Opinion: Farm Forward’s Investigation Into Alexandre Farms and the Greenwashing of Large-scale Dairy appeared first on Modern Farmer.