A new report from Bangor University suggests that intensive animal farming is better for the environment than extensive farming.
It is not the first time that researchers have claimed that intensive animal farming is more environmentally friendly than extensive methods. With intensive methods farmers can control the temperature of barns resulting in animals using less energy to keep warm or cool and thus having more energy to grow, and farmers can also better control manure and slurry. Intensive farming also uses substantially less land than organic methods.
On the other hand, environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, promote organic methods over intensive farming. Organic farming is much more in tune with nature and is thus better for biodiversity; it is less polluting as it does not result in massive amounts of waste which poison waterways with nitrogen and it also tends to use less energy than intensive methods. The energy efficiency of organic farming is due to the use of organic matter to put nutrients in to the soil rather than energy-intensive fertilisers.
Whilst farmers and environmental groups battle it out; the truth is clear. When it comes to animal agriculture there isn’t a sustainable, environmentally responsible solution. Both organic and intensive livestock farming methods are environmentally destructive in their own ways. For example, whilst organic milk requires less energy and eliminates pesticide use it also requires more land and results in higher emissions of greenhouse gases. Whilst organically raised chickens do not need high levels of anti-biotics to protect them from the diseases which spread like wildfire in broiler sheds, they also take longer to reach their slaughter weight, and thus consume more energy and produce more waste during their longer lives.
The best option for the environment is to eat a plant-based diet; no one can argue with that.



February 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Hi Sophie, that’s a great comment. Environmental organisations should stop peddling ‘humane’ animal exploitation: it’s not green or ethical or possible really. It’s a disaster on every count.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
i havnt a clue what anyone is going on about but hey.. keep up the good work guyss
xxx
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I have very strong views on this subject as i own a farm myself, however i think that it is wrong
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
i believe:
It is not the first time that researchers have claimed that intensive animal farming is more environmentally friendly than extensive methods. With intensive methods farmers can control the temperature of barns resulting in animals using less energy to keep warm or cool and thus having more energy to grow, and farmers can also better control manure and slurry. Intensive farming also uses substantially less land than organic methods.
On the other hand, environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, promote organic methods over intensive farming. Organic farming is much more in tune with nature and is thus better for biodiversity; it is less polluting as it does not result in massive amounts of waste which poison waterways with nitrogen and it also tends to use less energy than intensive methods. The energy efficiency of organic farming is due to the use of organic matter to put nutrients in to the soil rather than energy-intensive fertilisers.
Whilst farmers and environmental groups battle it out; the truth is clear. When it comes to animal agriculture there isn’t a sustainable, environmentally responsible solution. Both organic and intensive livestock farming methods are environmentally destructive in their own ways. For example, whilst organic milk requires less energy and eliminates pesticide use it also requires more land and results in higher emissions of greenhouse gases. Whilst organically raised chickens do not need high levels of anti-biotics to protect them from the diseases which spread like wildfire in broiler sheds, they also take longer to reach their slaughter weight, and thus consume