Animals on Factory Farms / 55our current methods. Sustainability is, of course, defi ned in human
terms. For the animals who lose their lives, no agricultural prac-
tices are truly “sustainable.” According to the Pew report, sustain-
ability is “measured by the balance between agricultural inputs and
outputs and ecosystem health, given the human population and
rate of consumption.”^29 Intensive practices are neither economi-
cally nor environmentally sustainable. They focus on producing
more “units” through any means possible. In addition to the animal
welfare implications, the environmental and public health risks of
our current system are tremendous, even in normal times. The link
between livestock and environmental problems, including climate
change, has been well documented.^30 Making agricultural practices
sustainable would reduce the harm to animals and people under all
circumstances. The reports by the Pew Commission and the UCS
reports make numerous recommendations in several areas. Here I
focus on those having direct implications for disasters.
The Pew report recommends phasing out “the most intensive
and inhumane production practices within a decade to reduce
[Industrial Farm Animal Production] risks to public health and
improve animal well-being.”^31 These practices include veal crates
for calves, gestation and farrowing crates for pigs, and battery cages
for chickens. Indeed, Florida and Arizona have already banned veal
and gestation crates, and several producers have agreed to phase
out their use. Eliminating these practices would not take us back
to “Old McDonald’s farm”; but it does not mean that animals will
be “free range.” They will still be confi ned but will not be caged or
tethered, and they will have greater freedom of movement. This
step would greatly improve the odds for animals in a disaster. In
particular, it raises the possibility of evacuation, or at least escape
to what are known as “critter pads,” elevated areas to which ani-
mals can move during fl ood. In Washington State, such areas have
already saved cattle, chickens, and turkeys. To encourage the elim-
ination of these “most intensive and inhumane” practices, the Pew
Commission recommends that “the phase-out plan should include
tax incentives, such as accelerated depreciation for new and remod-
eled structures, targeted to regional and family operations.”^32 This