Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming and Its Applications

Abstract

Agricultural farming outputs are dependent upon the production type because different farming systems create different products. Intensive animal farming is widely used for the production of products that have societal importance, including meat, milk, wool, leather, fur, eggs, and honey. To ensure their timely production with limited cost, advanced technological processes, and chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in large amount) are carried out in this intensive factory farming. Amongst animal farming, the livestock sector is the fastest-growing agricultural sector. The global shift toward intensive animal farming for high productivity yield has rendered a negative impact on the environment and biodiversity and is now an alarming sign for global warming. It has also resulted in soil, water, and air pollution due to the emission of greenhouse gases from the waste generated by these animals. Rapid use of antimicrobials in these farming systems has led to the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, an integrated and comprehensive approach covering the nonmarket outputs of the farming system is required for monitoring these global trends.

Full text

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Open access books available
Countries delivered to Contributors from top 500 universities
International authors and editor s
Our authors are among the
most cited scientists
Downloads
We are IntechOpen,the world’s leading publisher ofOpen Access booksBuilt by scientists, for scientists
12.2%
176,000
190M
TOP 1%
154
6,500


Chapter
Global Perspectives of Intensive
Animal Farming & Its Applications
ShumailaManzoor, ZainabSyed
and MuhammadAbubabakar
Abstract
Agricultural farming outputs are dependent upon the production type because
different farming systems create different products. Intensive animal farming is
widely used for the production of products that have societal importance, including
meat, milk, wool, leather, fur, eggs, and honey. To ensure their timely production
with limited cost, advanced technological processes, and chemicals (pesticides, herbi-
cides, and fertilizers in large amount) are carried out in this intensive factory farm-
ing. Amongst animal farming, the livestock sector is the fastest-growing agricultural
sector. The global shift toward intensive animal farming for high productivity yield
has rendered a negative impact on the environment and biodiversity and is now an
alarming sign for global warming. It has also resulted in soil, water, and air pollution
due to the emission of greenhouse gases from the waste generated by these animals.
Rapid use of antimicrobials in these farming systems has led to the emergence of
drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, an integrated and comprehensive approach
covering the nonmarket outputs of the farming system is required for monitoring
these global trends.
Keywords: intensive animal farming, factory farming, high production, technological
processes, global warming
. Introduction
Intensive animal farming [1, 2] or livestock farming is an intensive agriculture
type that is destined to increase animal production by providing them all necessities
and a favorable environment while reducing the rearing cost [3]. The environment
provided to the animals here includes nutrition, shelter, water, optimum temperature
and humidity, and veterinary management. It is also known as factory farming [4].
The term Factory farming means “any globally adopted farming system where
flock of animals are kept under one roof in a confined setting, that is, a cage or stall”
[5]. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “a farm with
1000 cattle or 125,000 chickens is referred as factory farming system” [6]. However,
according to the European Union (EU), “farm carrying 40,000 chickens is referred
to as factory farm or macro-farm” [7]. The products of the animal farming industry
are milk, meat, egg, and other animal products which are readily available for human

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

consumption and are much-liked food amongst people across the globe. Feeding
the entire world is the sustainable development challenge in the coming few years.
Meat plays a major role in this. The demand for meat has increased rapidly over the
past 50years and it has tripled now [8]. According to the estimates of Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), approximately 68.1 billion
animals were slaughtered in 2012 for meat [9]. However, this figure increased to 80
billion in 2018. Poultry meat is the most popular meat worldwide [8].
Based on the above estimates, every individual on Earth is provided with an aver-
age of 42.9kg of meat. In developed nations, average 76.2kg of meat is consumed by
individuals and, on the contrary, in developing nations, 33.4kg of meat is consumed
by individual on average basis [10]. Asia (42.1%) is the largest producer of livestock
followed by America (31.4%), Europe (19.0%) [11], and Africa (5.5%). Besides
meat, animals also provided us with milk (5.7 billion tons) and eggs (72 million tons)
[11]. Chicken laid 1.25 billion eggs; other poultry laid about 87 million eggs. Much
of the animals’ products discussed above came from those animals who were raised
by someone else on our behalf and amongst them, the majority were reared using
intensive animal farming [11]. Factory, intensive, industrial animal farming, and
concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) all are used for a modern form of
intensively rearing of fowl, fish for their various edible products, including their meat
(i.e., flesh and fat) and other forms of animal protein (i.e., dairy and eggs). Intensive
farming can also be defined as an economic pursuit involving domestic animals
for human uses such as obtaining honey, fur, leather, wool, and fertilizer. The sole
purpose of this type of farming is to ensure maximum production with maximum
profit [12]. According to Archambeaud [13], intensive farming is a farming type
where agricultural machinery is employed for achieving higher productivity, that is,
the excessive usage of pesticides, fertilizer, or disease or weed-resistant chemicals.
This high productivity yield also renders a negative impact on the environment and
biodiversity [13] which will be discussed later in this chapter.
. History
Intensive animal farming is the most recent advancement in agriculture history
which is also the result of scientific and technological developments. In the late nine-
teenth century, innovations were made in mass production. Later, in early twentieth
century; vitamin discovery and their associated role in animal nutrition was the hall-
mark of Industrial Revolution because it allowed poultry to be raised at the domestic
level [14]. Moving further, antibiotics and vaccines discovery have further lightened
the livestock by reducing the number of disease-causing pathogens [15]. Chemicals
used in World War II gave the idea of synthetic pesticide discovery [14]. The develop-
ment of transport networks and technology enabled the distribution of agricultural
products over long distances.
The era of high-put farming began in Britain in 1947, when the new Agriculture
Bill provided subsidies to farmers to promote more production by introducing new
technologies to reduce Britain’s dependence on imported meat. According to United
Nations “the intensification of livestock production” was found to ensure food
security [16]. In 1966, the United States, Great Britain, and other developed countries
began large-scale farming of beef and dairy cattle and domestic pigs [17]. From the
heartland of America and Western Europe, factory farming became globalized in
the later twentieth century and continues to expand, replacing traditional livestock


Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271
farming practices in an increasing number of countries. In 1990, intensive animal
husbandry accounted for 30% of world meat production, and by 2005 this had risen
to 40% [17]. Worldwide meat production in 2020 was 328 million tons which suggests
that the demand for meat has reached 90% [18].
. Global perspectives
Globally, more than 70 billion animals are slaughtered every year for food. On the
basis of data provided by UN FAO, the five major groups of animals slaughtered are
cows, chicken, goats, sheep, and pigs [19]. It is expected that by 2050, intensive farm-
ing production will double with the major advancement taking place in less indus-
trialized countries. This expansion has had serious consequences because only the
livestock sector generates about 18% of greenhouse gas which is more than any kind
of transport. Moreover, 70% of the Earth’s surface is directly or indirectly involved in
livestock production leading to land degradation, environmental pollution, and other
health-associated issues [20]. These problems will not go away on their own if more
and more extensive farming systems are being shifted toward intensive animal farms
where animals are raised in confinement at high stocking density using advanced
machinery and biotechnology. Intensive farming production systems were the norms
of Europe and America, but now this practice is increasingly becoming common in
Asia and Latin America. According to UN reports, the global shift of farming systems
and environmental problems associated with these systems has not given much
importance which is why they now have become a serious concern [21].
There are numerous problems associated with intensive animal farming system, a
few of which is discussed below:
. Increased emission
As in intensive farming system, animals are raised indoors, therefore large amount
of energy is required for heating, cooling, and ventilation as well as for feed produc-
tion and transportation producing more emissions of carbon dioxide and anthropo-
genic nitrous oxide (which stays in the atmosphere for up to 15years) and has more
global warming potential leading to depletion of ozone layer. The livestock sector
generates 64% ammonia emissions thereby contributing to acid rain and acidification
of biodiversity [22].
Worldwide, farm animals are also a source of methane emission. Methane has 23
times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide. The operation of intensive
farm animals leads to increased emission of methane because of animal diet which
also causes diseases in animals and emits 50% more methane than animals feed on
grasses in open lands. The only reason is that in intensive system animals are raised on
a concentrated high-protein diet (made up of 50% corn and 80% soybean). This food
is cheap and easy to produce and animals by eating such diets put on weight faster.
This emission of greenhouse gases will continue to increase as the intensive farming
system spread to more and more developing countries [22].
. Climate changes
Developing countries suffer more from the impact of climate change because
of abrupt increase in hunger and disease. This is because developing nations have

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

limited coping capacities and they are dependent upon climate-sensitive food and
water supply chains. Climatic changes are responsible for food scarcity in developing
sectors. Excessive flooding, storms, loss in biodiversity, land degradation, and water
and air pollution affect developing countries mostly because of health, poverty, and
infrastructure constraints [23].
. Loss in biodiversity
Animal waste and droppings are not treated properly, as farmers often dispose
of their waste in rivers, where they pollute the water and impend the biodiversity of
the ecosystem. Waste products of poultry emit ammonia and nitrous oxide leading to
nitrogen pollution of water and soil [24]. Uneven use of pesticides and fertilizers can
also pollute soil, water, and air [25]. The continuous degradation of environment and
loss in biodiversity is an alarming sign for global warming [25].
. Land degradation
Land degradation due to deforestation is also one of the major problems. Animals
reared for meat, milk, and eggs production are already covering one-third of the
Earth planet surface. Cattle ranching is the primary cause of deforestation because
forested lands are cut and cleared for making proper room for animal grazing and
meat production [26]. The meat thus produced is exported to developed countries.
The high meat demand in developed countries is rendering negative impact on the
meat-producing country both due to deforestation and soil erosion. Besides grazing,
high-quality protein feed production is also putting pressure on land. The number of
those protein diets continues to increase as intensive farming increases. The employ-
ment of large area of land for feed production is resulting in loss of biodiversity, soil
erosion, and increased greenhouse gases emission [27].
. Antimicrobial resistance
Increasing demand for animal protein in intensive farming system has led to
an increase in antimicrobial use (AMU) leading to the emergence and spread of
antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [28]. Antimicrobials are mostly used in intensive
animal farming to prevent or treat infection and are also given in animal diets
for rapid growth [29]. Previous reported literature has shown that 73% of the
antimicrobials available locally are given to animals raised for food. AMU in food-
producing animals can also affect humans, leading to antimicrobial resistance. The
widespread use of antimicrobials in farms can also contaminate the environment,
leading to the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, monitoring the
global trends of antimicrobial use in intensive farming system is important to
track progress associated with antimicrobial stewardship programs carried across
regions [28].
. Types of livestock farming
Based on the production processes, livestock farming is of different types which
are described below in detail:


Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271
. Intensive animal farming
It is also known as conventional or high-put farming system [2]. In intensive
animal farming, to ensure healthy and faster animal production, animals are housed
with adequate nutrients, feed, and temperature. Breed selection in this system is made
up of different production types. It is both labor and capital-intensive. The primary
goal of intensive farming is the attainment of high production [30].
. Semi-intensive animal farming
In semi-intensive farming mode, animals are housed and fed but they are allowed
to move or graze around the farm to forage within a confined area inside the farm
premises [31].
. Extensive animal farming
It is also known as a low-intensity or low-input farming system. In extensive farming
systems, rearing is carried out on open areas of the lands, that is, pastures, meadows,
and mountains so that animals can get maximum benefit from the natural products.
The farming system is applicable to the animals who are intended to be adapted to the
field [32]. This system supports the preservation of the ecological unit. In this type of
farming, external resources like pesticides and fertilizers are used in low quantity [33].
. Organic animal farming
Organic farming is a type of animal farming system whose primary aim is to
produce high-quality food without the use of synthetic chemicals, that is, chemical
fertilizers or pesticides, etc. Additionally, animals are grown in open spaces and fed
on natural resources [34].
Livestock represents all animal types like buffaloes, cattle, goats, sheep, horses,
and pigs, etc. and they are reared primarily for milk, meat, and wool production.
Livestock farming is associated with the production of eggs, milk, and meat from
domesticated animals [35].
The basic purpose of these farming systems is the production of agricultural
products such as cereal, crops, rice, sheep, fish, and fowl. These all-farming systems
are dependent on plants as their primary food source, which in turn, rely on the soil.
Merely, the production of farming is influenced by the type of farming system and
agricultural action chosen. Figure  [36] depicts the typological classification of the
farming system.
. Pros and cons of intensive animal farming
Cattle farming has been an important part of society for years, ever seeing that people
started domesticating animals to improve the quality of their life. However, as with most
forms of farming, inclusive of agriculture, cattle farming too has strengthened, specifi-
cally in current many years. This has made livestock products more easily available and
cheaper to buy; that is especially important in case one assumes that staples along with
milk, honey, eggs, and meat are all merchandise in cattle farming [37].

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

However, intensive livestock farming practices have on several occasions raised
major concerns regarding food protection, animal welfare, and environmental
effects—to the extent that cattle farming is often called “factory farming” [38].
. Pros of intensive animal farming
The contribution of livestock farming to the country GPD (Gross domestic prod-
uct) is about 883 billion dollars, but this amount does not include the services availed
from retailers, butchers, and transport units and supplied to feed producers and
equipment producers. Besides its role in economic development, the livestock sector
increases the life expectancy of individuals by providing food security to about 1.3
billion people. Nowadays, it is the fastest-growing agricultural sector of the country’s
economy [39].
Figure 1.
Typological classification of major farming systems [36].


Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271
Intensive animal farming has been made possible by farming management prac-
tices that have helped to increase yield and production while bringing down the cost
at a confined place. For example, farming units employing the practice of concen-
trated animal feeding operation (CAFO) have enabled farm owners to rear more
animals in a restricted area, thereby maximizing the land potential [39].
. Cons of intensive animal farming
Though animal farming has efficiently increased the production of animal prod-
ucts at a limited cost, yet the external products (cost-saving techniques) that have
been used for ensuring the steady production of products have negatively impacted
health and the environment [39].
In a confined environment, where flocks of animals are kept under one roof
has increased the chances of animals becoming more susceptible to diseases. In
low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), livestock diseases have been trans-
mitted to about 2.4 billion humans. To reduce the burden of zoonotic diseases,
farmers frequently administered antibiotics to their animals leading to the evolu-
tion of drug-resistant pathogens [39]. Besides this, some farmers kept animals
to live in stressful conditions. Unfortunately, practices persist where animals are
transported long distances to the market in inhumane conditions or slaughtered in
painful ways.
Keeping in view the above-described pros and cons of intensive animal farming, a
few more advantages and disadvantages are listed in the Table  given below:
. Methodology
. Guidelines
A meta-analysis-based study was designed to review the intensive animal farm-
ing system in Pakistan. The study was carried out according to the guidelines of
“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRIMA)”
(Page etal., 2021).
Intensive animal farming
Advantages Disadvantages
Cheaper and better-quality food products Cost of external resources (pesticides and fertilizers)
Rational use of land Cost of technical equipment
Limited manual work Trained personnel are needed for technological operations
Faster production using the modern
technology
Machinery replaces labor; hence less people are involved in
agricultural operations
Global food safety and security Damage landscape, environment, soil, and wild-life
biodiversity
Table 1.
Advantages and disadvantages of intensive animal farming [40].

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

. Literature search
An online search of international database sources, that is, Google Scholar,
Research Gate, and Google was carried out to identify relevant studies reported from
Pakistan from 2015 to 2023. A total of 310 searches were carried out. The reference
list of the searched studies was further reviewed for any relevant publication. The
duplicate article found using the above-mentioned databases was removed using
EndnoteX7 (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA). The searched sources of 500
articles are given in Table .
. Keywords
The following keywords were searched: Livestock farming, intensive animal farm-
ing, and application of intensive animal farming in Pakistan.
. Studies inclusion criteria
The eligible studies were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis when the
following criteria were met. (1). Full-text articles available in English language.
(2). Studies reported from different regions of Pakistan. (3). Cross-sectional and
retrospective studies. (4). Sample size provided. (5). Studies reporting the effect of
climatic changes and antimicrobial use in livestock.
. Studies exclusion criteria
Studies were excluded based on the following exclusion criteria: (1). Duplicated
data or review articles and conference abstracts. (2). Articles without full text. (3).
Articles with abstract only. (4). Data reported from other regions of the world. (5).
Research articles conducted before 2015.
. Comparison of intensive and extensive farming system
For better understanding of the advantages of intensive farming system, a
comparison was undertaken for analyzing the efficiency of intensive and extensive
farming system. Different farming practices, that is, amount of milk production and
farming technical efficiency were measured between the two farming practices.
. Statistical analysis
This meta-analysis was computed using random effects model with Open-Meta
Analyst version 10.10. The heterogeneity of the studies was checked using Cochran’s
Source Number of Articles
Google Scholar 300
Google 10
Total 310
Table 2.
Number of articles obtained from searching international databases.


Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271
Q test. The variation across studies was observed by the forest plot as well as the
inverse variance index (I2). Values of I2 (25, 50, and 75%) were considered as low,
medium, or high heterogeneity, respectively. In this meta-analysis, the heterogeneity
value was >75%, therefore, the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models with
95% CI. Funnel plot analysis was carried out if heterogeneity was of moderate to high
level. Subgroup meta-analyses were then employed by publication year.
. Results
. Selection of studies
The aim of the present study was to determine intensive animal farming practices
employed in Pakistan and investigate the effect of different factors on livestock
production. Different international databases, including Google Scholar and Google,
were searched (from 2015 to 2023) to identify studies that addressed the intensive
animal farming activities in Pakistan.
For this meta-analysis, a total of 310 articles were identified in the initial search.
Out of 310 searches, 254 articles were excluded because of their irrelevance and not
being reported from Pakistan. Case reports, conference abstracts, and review articles
were also excluded. 50 articles were also excluded for reasons of being duplicates,
titles and not having full text. Six relevant articles were selected because they met the
inclusion criteria, and their full texts were reviewed. The flow diagram of the selec-
tion process of the included studies is shown in Figure .
The characteristic of the included study is shown in Table  given below:
Figure 2.
Flow diagram showing selection criteria of the selected studies.

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

Researcher Year Study aim Country Results Conclusion Study
Weigh t
Reference
Umair etal., 2020 To determine
trends of
antimicrobial
use in dairy
farm.
Punjab,
Pakistan
Defined daily
dose was 47.71
out of 1000 cows
tested.
Increased
antimicrobial
usage in dairy
sector.
16.87% [41]
Abid etal., 2016 Impact of
climate
change on 450
farms.
Punjab,
Pakistan
55% were
vulnerable
to extreme
temperature, and
insect attack,
and 35% are
vulnerable to soil
problems.
Limited
resources
and lack of
infrastructure
are
contributing
toward climate
changes.
16.82% [42]
Mohsin
etal.,
2019 Use of
medically
important
antimicrobial
in food-
producing
animals.
Punjab,
Pakistan
High consumption
of antimicrobials
was se en in 30
flocks. The annual
use of medically
important
antimicrobials was
250.84mg/kg.
The frequent
antibiotics
used were
colistin,
tylosin,
doxycycline,
and
enrofloxacin.
16.13% [43]
Habib etal., 2016 Analysis of
food supply in
livestock.
Pakistan Crop residues
(58.8%) were
the predominant
food source
for livestock
followed by
crude protein
(37.2%).
Indigenous
food sources
were rarely
available for
livestock.
16.65% [44]
Shahzad &
Abdulai
2020 Impact of
extreme
climatic
conditions on
crop.
Punjab,
Pakistan
540 farmers
were
interviewed.
It was found
that climate-
related risks
had (Extreme
temperature and
rainfall) severely
impacted soil,
crop rotation,
and farmers’
income.
Mitigation
strategies
should be
adopted to
cope with the
situation.
16.84% [45]
M. Riaz 2022 Livestock-
integrated
farming
practices.
Faisalabad,
Pakistan
105 responses
were collected
from farm
owners.
Livestock sector
is dynamic
for Pakistan’s
agriculture,
contributing
17% to energy
and 33%
to protein
consumption.
Farmers in
integrated
system
were using
traditional
methods
for milk
production.
Modern
practices and
procedures
were not
common in
integrated
rural systems.
16.67% [46]
Table 3.
Traits of the studies included in the meta-analysis.


Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271
. Forest plot
Significant heterogeneity values were observed in the forest plot built for intensive
animal farming activities carried out in Pakistan. included studies The heterogene-
ity values of the included studies was (Tau^2 = 0.178, P = <0.001, I^2 of 99.17%), as
shown in Figure .
For analyzing trends in intensive animal farming practices being overtaken in
Pakistan, a subgroup analysis was performed based on year. As depicted in Figure ,
substantial heterogeneity was seen during the study period.
. Comparison between intensive and extensive animal farming
The animal feeding pattern and milk production system were compared in a
study carried out in Sri Lanka where the author concluded that animals reared in the
intensive farming system had highest herd size (3.7 animal unit) with better feeding
level when compared with extensive farming system (2.7 animal unit). The aver-
age milk production under extensive systems was significantly lower (P<0.01) at
3.9 animal units per day compared to 5.41 animal units per day under the intensive
farming system. Livestock farming is an important source of income for peoples of Sri
Figure 3.
Forest plot of intensive animal farming and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled prevalence was
calculated using a random-effect model. Ev/Trt=No. of VRSA positive isolates/Total no. of samples.
Figure 4.
Subgroup analysis of intensive animal farming carried out in Pakistan in different time periods.

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

Author details
ShumailaManzoor1*, ZainabSyed2 and MuhammadAbubabakar1
1 National Veterinary Laboratory, Islamabad, Pakistan
2 Alama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan
*Address all correspondence to: smnvl786@gmail.com
Lanka and dairying under an intensive farming system is proven more profitable than
an extensive farming system [47].
In Bangladesh, performance traits of buffalo selected randomly from 14 farms under
both intensive and extensive systems were evaluated and it was found that dry milk yield
and live weight were considerably higher in the intensive farming system. Reproductive
traits were moderately higher under the intensive farming system. Intensive farming
system is currently under application in Bangladesh for better milk production [48].
. Conclusions
Intensive animal farming has both positive and negative impact on the environ-
ment and biodiversity depending upon the agricultural production. Intensive animal
farming has provided society with marketable goods which can also be exported to
foreign countries. The farming output uses market values which are limited because
positive and negative outwardness are created along with the product goods and ser-
vices in the agricultural activities. Therefore, the integrated/comprehensive approach
covering market and nonmarket farming system output is required.
Acknowledgements
Replace the entirety of this text with acknowledgments. Usually, the acknowledg-
ments section includes the names of people or institutions who in some way contrib-
uted to the work, but do not fit the criteria to be listed as the authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.

Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271

References
[1] Lusk J. Why Industrial Farms Are
Good for the Environment. Stillwater,
Oklahoma, United States; NY Times; 2016
[2] Zhukova Y etal. Milk urea
content and δ13C as potential tool for
differentiation of milk from organic
and conventional low-and high-input
farming systems. Turkish Journal
of Agriculture-Food Science and
Technology. 2017;(9):1044-1050
[3] White M. From Being to Thing:
Personhood, Animalhood, and
Deanimalization in the Human-Animal
Relationship [Thesis]. Williamsburg,
Virginia: William & Mary; 2018
[4] Mpofu I. Ecosystem services from
different livestock management systems.
In: The Role of Ecosystem Services in
Sustainable Food Systems. Cambridge,
United States: Elsevier; 2020. pp. 135-140
[5] Kondombo SR. Improvement of
Village Chicken Production in a Mixed
(Chicken-Ram) Farming System in
Burkina Faso. Netherland: Wageningen
University and Research; 2005
[6] Cockshaw R. The end of factory
farming: Alternatives to improve
sustainability, safety, and health. Voices
in Bioethics. 2021;:1
[7] Priekulis J, Melece L, Laurs A. Most
appropriate measures for reducing
ammonia emissions in Latvia’s pig and
poultry housing. Agronomy Research.
2019;(3):797-805
[8] Ritchie H, Rosado P, Roser M. Meat
and Dairy Production. Wales, England:
Our World in Data; 2017
[9] FAO. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012.
Rome, Italy: FAO; 2012
[10] Tosun D, Demirbaş N. What
are the problems of the red meat
processing industry?: A case study from
Turkey. Food Science and Technology.
2020;:522-528
[11] Furber M. Wrongs &
Responsibilities. Abu Dhabi, U.A.E:
Tabah Foundation; 2017
[12] Simon DR. Meatonomics: How the
Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy
Make you Consume Too Much–And How
to Eat Better, Live longer, and Spend
smarter. Massachusetts: Conari Press;
2013
[13] Archambeaud M. Conservation
Agriculture, a Way to High Efficiency
Farming Systems–A2C le Site de
l'agriculture de Conservation. France:
Agriculture Conservation; 2022
[14] Mitra S, Bhattacharya A, Roy S.
The History of Livestock Farming and
Future Perspective. United States:
Biotechnological Advances for Precision
Feeding; 2019
[15] Laxminarayan R etal. Antibiotic
resistance—The need for global
solutions. The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
2013;(12):1057-1098
[16] Pluhar EB. Meat and morality:
Alternatives to factory farming. Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics. 2010;(5):455-468
[17] Nierenberg D, Mastny L. Happier
Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat
Industry. Vol. 171. Washington D.C:
Worldwatch Institute; 2005
[18] Coetzee K. Predicting a straight-
line future. Farmer’s Weekly.
2021;(21029):28-28

Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic

[19] Sanders B. Global Animal Slaughter
Statistics and Charts. Olympia,
Washington, United States: Faunalytics;
2018
[20] Ilea RC. Intensive livestock farming:
Global trends, increased environmental
concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics. 2009;:153-167
[21] Pelletier N, Tyedmers P. Forecasting
potential global environmental costs
of livestock production 2000-2050.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. 2010;(43):18371-18374
[22] Sakadevan K, Nguyen M-L. Livestock
production and its impact on nutrient
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Advances in Agronomy. 2017;:147-184
[23] Rust J, Rust T. Climate change
and livestock production: A review
with emphasis on Africa. South
African Journal of Animal Science.
2013;(3):255-267
[24] Olivier S. CAFOs as Hotspots: Effect
on Ecosystem Services and Needed
Change in Environmental Leadership.
North Carolina: DukeSpace; 2012
[25] Machovina B, Feeley KJ, Ripple WJ.
Biodiversity conservation: The key is
reducing meat consumption. Science of
the Total Environment. 2015;:419-431
[26] Temesgen G, Amare B, Silassie HG.
Land degradation in Ethiopia: Causes,
impacts and rehabilitation techniques.
Journal of Environment and Earth
Science. 2014;(9):98-104
[27] Gashu K, Muchie Y. Rethink the
interlink between land degradation
and livelihood of rural communities
in Chilga district, Northwest Ethiopia.
Journal of Ecology and Environment.
2018;:1-11
[28] Tiseo K etal. Global trends in
antimicrobial use in food animals from
2017 to 2030. Antibiotics. 2020;(12):918
[29] Lhermie G, Tauer LW, Gröhn YT. The
farm cost of decreasing antimicrobial
use in dairy production. PLoS One.
2018;(3):e0194832
[30] Magne M-A etal. Managing
animal diversity in livestock farming
systems: Types, methods and
benefits. INRA Productions Animales.
2019;(2):263e-280e
[31] Salas MÁS etal. Assessing dairy goat
welfare in intensive or semi-intensive
farming conditions in Mexico. Journal of
Dairy Science. 2021;(5):6175-6184
[32] Poux X. Low input farming
systems in Europe: What is at stake.
In: Proceedings of the JRC Summer
University Ranco. Low Input Farming
Systems: An Opportunity to Develop
Sustainable Agriculture. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities; 2008. pp. 1-11
[33] Fess TL, Kotcon JB, Benedito VA.
Crop breeding for low input agriculture:
A sustainable response to feed a growing
world population. Sustainability.
2011;(10):1742-1772
[34] Sener S. Aspects of organic farming.
In: Introduction and Application
of Organic Fertilizers as Protectors
of our Environment. New Castle,
United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing; 2022. p. 37
[35] Tripathi A etal. Production and
consumption pattern of livestock products
in Meghalaya and its implications in
development of market strategies for the
state producers. Indian Journal of Animal
Sciences. 2019;(1):113-116
[36] Novikova A, Startiene G. The
advantages and disadvantages of intensive

Global Perspectives of Intensive Animal Farming & Its Applications
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112271

and extensive farming activities. Research
for Rural Development. 2018;:139
[37] Blount WP. Intensive Livestock
Farming. Amsterdam, Netherland:
Elsevier; 2013
[38] Anjum FM, Arshad MS, Hussain S.
Factory farming and halal ethics. In: The
Halal Food Handbook. New York, United
States: John Wiley & Sons; 2020. pp.
121-147
[39] Pillai M. Advantages and
Disadvantages of Intensive Farming.
Noida, India: Conserve Energy Future;
2008
[40] Novikova A, Startiene G. Analysis
of farming system outputs and methods
of their evaluation. Research for Rural
Development. 2018;:7
[41] Umair M etal. First case report
on quantification of antimicrobial use
in corporate dairy farms in Pakistan.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
2020;:575848
[42] Abid M etal. Climate change
vulnerability, adaptation and risk
perceptions at farm level in Punjab,
Pakistan. Science of the Total
Environment. 2016;:447-460
[43] Mohsin M etal. Excessive use of
medically important antimicrobials in
food animals in Pakistan: A five-year
surveillance survey. Global Health
Action. 2019;(Suppl 1):1697541
[44] Habib G etal. Assessment of feed
supply and demand for livestock in
Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Science
and Technology, A. 2016;(6):191-202
[45] Shahzad MF, Abdulai A. Adaptation
to extreme weather conditions and
farm performance in rural Pakistan.
Agricultural Systems. 2020;:102772
[46] Riaz M. Livestock integrated farming
in rural area of Pakistan. In: International
Conference on Improving Tropical
Animal Production for Food Security
(ITAPS 2021). Amsterdam, Netherland:
Atlantis Press; 2022
[47] Premaratne S etal. Feeding Patterns
and Milk Production of Small-Scale
Dairy Farmers under Semi-Intensive and
Extensive Cattle Management Systems
in Sri Lanka. United Kingdom: UK
Knowledge; 2019
[48] Momin M, Khan M, Miazi O.
Performance traits of buffalo under
extensive and semi-intensive Bathan
system. Iranian Journal of Applied
Animal Science. 2016;(4):823-831