Sustainability is a futuristic concept. Webster’s dictionary defines the verb
“sustain” as “to maintain,” “to keep in existence,” “to keep going.” By definition,
then, sustainability is a journey, an ongoing process, not a prescription or a set
of instructions. So when we ask, “How do we sustain animal agriculture?”
we are asking how to manage animal agriculture so that it can be maintained
indefinitely and what changes are necessary to accomplish that goal.
Sustainable animal agriculture requires that we envision the challenges and
changes the future will bring. In his extensive studies of past civilizations, Jared
Diamond has observed that civilizations that correctly assessed their current
situations, anticipated changes, and started preparing for those changes were
the ones that thrived—they were sustainable. Civilizations that failed in these
efforts were the ones that collapsed—they were not sustainable (Diamond, 1999; Diamond, 2005).

Commissioners’ Conclusions

The industrialization of American agriculture has
transformed the character of agriculture itself and,
in so doing, the social fabric of rural America. The
family-owned farm producing a diverse mix of crops
and food animals is largely gone as an economic
entity, replaced by large farm factories that produce
just one animal species or crop.
Research consistently shows that the social and
economic well-being of rural communities benefits from
larger numbers of farmers rather than fewer farms that
produce increased volumes. In rural communities where
fewer, larger farms have replaced smaller, locally owned
farms, residents have experienced lower family income,
higher poverty rates, lower retail sales, reduced housing
quality, and persistent low wages for farm workers.
The food animal industry’s shift to a system of
captive supply transactions controlled by production
contracts has shifted economic power from farmers to
livestock processors. Farmers have relinquished their
once autonomous animal husbandry decision-making
authority in exchange for contracts that provide assured
payment but require substantial capital investment. Once
the commitment is made to such capital investment, many
farmers have no choice but to continue to produce until
the loan is paid off. Such contracts make access to open
and competitive markets nearly impossible for most hog
and poultry producers, who must contract with integrators
(meat packing companies) if they are to sell their product.
Quality of life in rural communities has also declined,
partly because of the entrenched poverty and lack of
economic opportunity, but also because the linkages that
once bound locally owned farms with the community
have dissolved in many places and the social fabric of
many communities has begun to fray. These changes are
evident in negative attitudes about trust, neighborliness,
community division, networks of acquaintanceship,
democratic values, and community involvement, as well
as increased crime and teen pregnancy rates, civil suits,
and stress.
Although proponents of the industrialization of
livestock agriculture point to its increased economic
efficiency and hail ifap as the future of livestock
agriculture, the Commission is concerned that the
benefits may not accrue in the same way to affected rural
communities. In fact, best recumbent bike actually draws
investment and wealth away from communities with ifap
facilities. Along with the adverse social and economic
impacts, individual farmers often find themselves with
fewer options because of the capital investment required
to meet specifications and terms dictated by their
production contracts.