Reaping what we sow?
Factory farming, caring for animals, and livestock disease epidemics
Peter Carruthers
This article was posted on the website a few weeks ago, as an adjunct to my essay on the meanings of calamities, but was not circulated by email. Watching Brian May’s BBC documentary on badgers and bovine TB (broadcast originally on 23 August and available on iplayer) prompted me to revisit the article.
Christians are as divided as people in general on this issue, as they are on the wider questions of our moral responsibility for both farmed and wild animals. It is, therefore, essential that we seek a perspective on such matters that is first and foremost informed by the Bible, Christian theology and the teachings of Christian divines over the centuries, and a prophetic understanding of the times.
The article below and the accompanying essay on the meanings of calamities aim to contribute to that perspective - even though the prime focus here is on farmed animals kept in close confinement (ie factory farms) as against cattle, which at least in the UK are mostly not, and badgers, which are wild animals.
Please read both articles and use ‘comments’ to share your own views and insights.
This article takes as its starting point this statement from my essay on the many ‘meanings of calamities’.
“One contemporary (albeit contested) example of this effect [ie reaping what you sow] (relevant to Seeds for spring 2024), is the relationship between intensive livestock production (ie ‘factory farming’) and the spread of animal disease through domestic herds and flocks, from farmed to wild animals, and to human populations.”
My essential arguments are as follows.
Most of the world’s and the UK’s domestic livestock are reared in factory farms, and, in the UK and across the world, factory farming is increasing.
Keeping animals in this way, and the way they may be treated in such establishments, is, to varying degrees, unkind, immoral and contrary to biblical and Christian standards for the care of animals.
Rearing large numbers of animals in close confinement promotes the genesis and spread of livestock diseases amongst domestic livestock and from farmed to wild species and increases the risks of their transmission to human populations.
Biblical data (Exodus 9:1-7; Deuteronomy 28:15-18; Hosea 4:1-3) points to a causal link between moral sin and both animal disease and wider ecological degradation.
The case for a material and moral link between livestock disease and methods of production should, I believe, cause us to ‘consider our ways’ (Haggai 1:5-6) and allow ourselves, individually and corporately to be ‘weighed in the balance’ (Daniel 5:27).
Below, I set out my reasons for the above conclusions and the evidence and biblical teachings that support them. I hope this will at least prompt you to consider these matters for yourself, even if you end up at a different place as a result.
The scale and growth of factory farming
Defining factory farms as ‘concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), in which animals are confined for 45 days or more in a 12-month period with no access to the outdoors over this period, Our World in Data and the Sentience Institute concluded that the majority (74% of land animals; 94% of all animals including fish) of the approximately 100 billion animals killed for meat and other animal products every year in the world are factory farmed.
In terms of their scale in the UK, written evidence submitted to a Parliamentary committee in 2021 (citing research by Compassion in World Farming) stated as follows.
“It is estimated that around 73% of farmed animals in the UK are kept in indoor factory farms, with a 26 per cent rise in intensive animal farming in the UK in the last six years.
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) claims that there has been a 12% increase in the number of UK factory farms from 2016 to 2023, with a 20% increase of large pig and poultry units over this seven-year period. If you are interested to know where these are, you can find out from CIWF’s interactive online ‘Factory Farming Map’, which shows the number of farmed animals confined across the UK by county.
According to a report by World Animal Protection published in April 2024, 80% of all Britain’s farm animals, 90% of pigs and 95% of chickens killed for meat live in factory farms. The report also concluded that factory farming is on the increase across the UK. For example, in 2017 the UK had 800 USA-style ‘mega-farms’ (ie farms with over 125,000 birds, 2000 pigs or 750 breeding sows); by 2024, this had risen by 48% to 1176 farms.
The report goes on to note that there are “many smaller factory farms, that fall outside this definition, but rely on high yielding breeds, close confinement in barns, pens cages and high resource inputs such as water, animal feed and energy, that exist across the country and are also on the rise”.
Large pig and poultry units in the UK are required to hold a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). The thresholds are slightly different from the USA-style mega-farms above (40,000 places for poultry, 2000 for meat pigs, 750 for breeding sows). The number of EPR permits issued for pigs and poultry in the UK increased from 1612 in 2017 to 1821 in 2023, a rise of 13%.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigated ‘megafarms’ in 2017, reporting that the largest of these house more than 1 million chickens, 20,000 pigs, or 2000 dairy cows. The two largest farms recorded had the capacity to house 1.7 million and 1.4 million chickens apiece.
Environmental impacts
As the Bureau goes on to note this rise in intensive farming has been fuelled by the demand for cheap meat (especially chicken), but, they conclude, is inhumane, spreading disease, destroying the countryside, polluting air, soil and water, and putting small-scale producers out of business (see also here).
The environmental impact of intensive farming made headlines earlier this March, with the legal action being taken by thousands of people in the River Wye catchment against Avara, one of the UK’s largest food producers, for the pollution of the river caused by effluent from its producers’ industrial-scale poultry units. In April this year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that intensive livestock farms in England have breached environmental regulations more than three thousand times in the last few years.
Concentration and consolidation
The rise in large, intensive livestock production units partly reflects the broader consolidation and concentration of farming that has been underway for a long time. Over many decades, even centuries, farms have amalgamated and consolidated due to ‘economies of scale’, and many smaller producers and family farms have simply ceased operation.
The pervasive trend towards fewer and bigger farms looks set to continue worldwide. Using UN data and mathematical modelling, research at the University of Colorado concluded that the number of farms in the world will more than halve (from the current 616 million to 272 million by the end of the century) while their average size will double. Among the many concerns this raises are, “major risks in terms of animal welfare, which we have already seen with industrialisation of livestock systems”, notes Zia Mehrabi, who conducted the research.
Ironically, the climate change agenda could actually add to the pressure and be bad news for animals as this author argues.
In the biblical economy, land loss is a curse to both its perpetrators and victims.
“Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land.”
(Isaiah 5:8).But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you…. lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.”
(Leviticus 18:26,28)
But, having your own patch of land is a blessing.
“But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.”
(Micah 4:4)
Animal welfare or malfare?
The negative welfare effects of confining animals in intensive indoor units are well documented, and the reports linked above and many other sources provide graphic illustrations of the conditions to which animals are subjected. Since at least the publication of Ruth Harrison’s seminal ‘Animal Machines’ in 1964, the welfare of farm animals has been the subject of a much concern and advocacy, discussion and disputation, scholarship and research, and regulation and legislation.1
As good a summary of the issues as any is in an article by Tim Lornie published by the Jubilee Centre a few years ago.2
“At their best, factory farms confine animals in oppressive ways and prevent them from fulfilling simple natural desires like exercise, play and nesting. At worst, they are filthy, violent and stressful places where ill-trained staff perform painful mutilations and leave sick animals to die in agony with no medical attention. This may sound drastic, but it happens.”
And, it seems, UK standards are now falling, compared with several other western countries. Referring to the World Animal Protection report, in an article describing factory farms as creating a “living hell“ for animals, the Independent noted in May this year that “the UK has fallen behind seven European countries on farmed animal welfare”.
Lornie’s article above goes on to comment that “even ‘high animal welfare’ labels (eg RSPCA ‘Freedom Food’) permit systems where animals do not go outside, and are not always effectively enforced”.
This point was seemingly driven home earlier this year by an investigation by the activist organisation, Animal Rising (formerly Animal Rebellion). In the first four months of 2024, Animal Rising conducted 65 investigations on 45 ‘RSPCA Assured Scheme’ (previously ‘Freedom Foods’) farms in England and Scotland, revealing multiple breaches of RSPCA Assured regulations, 280 breaches of legal regulations and a further 94 breaches of DEFRA codes of practice. These, they report, were verified by a specialist barrister in animal welfare. The investigation prompted RSPCA President, Chris Packham, to call for the Scheme to be scrapped. The RSPCA responded by insisting that such breaches are ‘rare’.
As well as their written report, Animal Rising have published photos and videos of their investigations, many of which are very disturbing.
Biblical and Christian standards for the care of animals
In my recent article, I summarised biblical standards for the care of animals as expressed in the weekly sabbath, which was a rest day for both workers and livestock (Exodus 20:10), and in directives regarding the way both domestic and wild animals were to be treated.
“If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.”
(Deuteronomy 22:6)“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.”
(Deuteronomy 25:4)Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.
(Proverbs 12:10)“Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds.”
(Proverbs 27:23)
The Bible also reveals the Lord’s own care for His creatures, an example which we are, of course, to follow (Genesis 1:26; Ephesians 5:1-2).
“For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.”
(Psalm 50:10-11)“O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures…. These all look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.”
(Psalm 104:24,27-28)“The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.”
(Psalm 145:9)And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?
(Jonah 4:11)“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.”
(Matthew 10:29)
I also noted that Israel’s standards of care for animals were one of the many distinctives that distinguished them from the nations around them. God’s people, then and now, are enjoined not to follow the ways of the people around them nor to be conformed by the world, but to shine as lights in the darkness and ‘be transformed by the renewal of their minds’ (eg Jeremiah 10:2; Matthew 5:14-16; Romans 12:2) - including in the way they farm and eat. The struggle to be distinctive, ‘separate’, ‘set apart’, ‘holy’ is, of course, at the heart of the relationship between God’s people and the Lord God, as recounted in scripture and throughout history since.
The burgeoning of interest and activity in the care and welfare of animals as above has been accompanied by a flowering of Christian theological reflection, education and advocacy.
Major scholarly works include Andrew Linzey’s ‘Animal Theology’ (1994), David Clough’s two-volume ‘On Animals’ (2013 & 2018) and Philip Sampson’s Animal Ethics and the Nonconformist Conscience. David Clough leads the the Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare Project at the University of Aberdeen. The Project has published a ‘Policy Framework for Churches and Christian Organisations’, which sets out what churches and Christians need to do about farm animal welfare and why, accompanied by a short (7 mins) introductory video.
Christian organisations informing and promoting practical concern for animal welfare, include SARX, CreatureKind, the Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals, and Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals.
Caring saints and kind evangelicals
For Orthodox Christians, the teachings of the church fathers (‘patristics’) and the example of historical saints are valued almost as much as the Bible. A page at the Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals website draws attention to this.
“From the beginning of the Christian Church there were many saints in different countries, who loved animals. They lived with them, rescued them, nursed them and saved them from hunters. In turn, many saints were helped by animals.”
The page goes on to list stories about, and quotations from, saints from the earliest Christian centuries up to relatively recent times, including many from the British Isles, revealing an enduring tradition of companionship, care and compassion for animals.
Dostoevsky expresses this tradition is his monumental novel, The Brothers Karamazov’, through his character, Father Zossima (modelled on St Ambrose of Optina).
“Love all God's creation, the whole of it and every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things…
”Love the animals. God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy untroubled. Do not trouble their joy, do not harass them, do not deprive them of their happiness, do not work against God’s intent. Man, do not pride yourself on superiority to animals; they are without sin, and you, with your greatness, defile the earth by your appearance on it, and leave the traces of your foulness after you..”3
There is a similar strong tradition of kindness to animals among many evangelical divines of the past (although it is not particularly evident among evangelicals today).
As Philip Sampson observes in his 2015 article, ‘The curious case of the kind evangelicals’, “most evangelicals believe in kindness to animals, but few see it as an ethical priority”. He goes on to note that he has never heard an evangelical sermon on the subject.
Sampson contrasts such current evangelical attitudes with those of many ‘giants of evangelical history’, including Puritans such as Ralph Venning, Thomas Adams and John Owen, and, later, Wesley, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Spurgeon (and many others), who saw concern for animal well-being as a mark of ‘true conversion’. For example, John Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1691 - 1694, said, “there is nothing more contrary to the nature of God than a cruel and savage disposition towards both man and animals” (quoted in Sampson, 2015).
Sampson contrasts Spurgeon, who was arguably the most celebrated evangelical preacher of the late 19C and who preached several times a week, founded an orphanage, supported mission, pioneered education and whose collected works extend to 49 volumes, and still found time to preach and write against cruelty to animals, with contemporary evangelical leaders, who say they are far too busy to be concerned with animal welfare, which is anyway not a priority.
Both the Orthodox saints page and Philip Sampson’s article are well worth reading in full. As ‘wise children’, we would do well in this matter to hear and heed our (spiritual) fathers’ instruction (Proverbs 13:1).
Alternative views
There are, of course, alternative views.
Sampson quotes a survey of pastors in the USA published in 2013 which identified some ‘theological’ reasons for their indifference towards animal welfare: “animals do not have souls; humans have dominion; our focus is on souls; mercy does not apply to animals; I feel no mandate concerning animals”.
Sampson goes on to refer to the work of Stephen Vantassel, evangelical theologian and wildlife control consultant and author of ‘Dominion over Wildlife’ (2009), summarising Vantassel’s conclusions as follows: “animal suffering is not part of the problem of evil, and Christians may ‘inflict and/or ignore a fair amount’ of it without troubling their conscience”.
A 2013 article in Christianity Today celebrated the ‘blessings of factory farming’ (although the apparent tongue-in-cheek tone of the article makes it almost impossible to take it seriously).
“Make no mistake”, writes the author, “Christians around the world have derived substantial spiritual and financial benefit from factory farms and processed food. Those scorned links in the global food chain have freed up millions of people to do other things to create wealth in the United States and beyond.”
That wealth, he says, can then be used to pay pastors and missionaries to preach the gospel to people in poorer countries where the population are too busy producing and preparing food in more traditional, time-consuming ways to do anything else. He goes on to conclude that the only difference between factory farming and organic farming is the latter uses more labour. There is no mention of concerns for the welfare of animals.
Both the above commentators, in effect, justify ‘carelessness’ or ‘unkindness’ to animals, on the basis of their ‘theology’. I do not think many thoughtful Christians would explicitly espouse such a view. In the matter of factory farming, apart from the prevalent out-of-sight-out-of-mind position, a stronger argument is that, while factory farming can cause ‘unacceptable’ suffering to animals, it does not have to, or that the level of suffering is ‘acceptable’ in the light of the benefits to people. In other words, factory farming is not always bad; it is only so if it is not done properly.
Disease genesis and transmission
“Between 1960 and 2015, agricultural production more than tripled, resulting in an abundance of low-cost fare and averting global food shortages”, but “decades of industrial farming have taken a heavy toll on the environment and raised some serious concerns about the future of food production”, writes James Lomax., United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Programme Manager.
One of the detrimental spin-offs of industrial farming, Lomax notes, is its facilitation of disease transmission.
“While their genetic diversity provides animals with natural disease resistance, intensive livestock farming can produce genetic similarities within flocks and herds. This makes them more susceptible to pathogens and, when they are kept in close proximity, viruses can then spread easily among them. Intensive livestock farming can effectively serve as a bridge for pathogens, allowing them to be passed from wild animals to farm animals and then to humans.”
Regarding transmission of disease from farmed to wild populations, in 2022, Science reported, “this summer, seabirds in Europe, North America, and Africa suffered unprecedented high mortality as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) swept through their breeding colonies”. HPAI originated from farmed poultry, write the authors.
“The current HPAI virus originated in a commercial goose farm in China in 1996 and spread across the rapidly growing poultry populations in Asia, eventually substantially spilling over into wild birds in 2005.”
As the article notes, livestock diseases are not only an economic problem for farming, but a danger to human health and natural biodiversity. The spread of such diseases has been greatly aided by, “the burgeoning worldwide production [and intensification] and trade of farmed animals”.
Similarly, in 2023, CMS/FAO reported that “H5N1 high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) is currently causing unparalleled mortality of wild birds and mammals worldwide with threats to population levels for some species already under multiple anthropogenic pressures”. As the report notes, in common with other infectious diseases, “wild birds are both victims and vectors of a virus originating from within a poultry setting”.
In August last year, Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) published a report claiming, according to an article in the Grocer, that “contrary to popular belief, wild birds were typically victims of the disease rather than the cause and it is spiralling out of control due to the rise of factory farming”. As the Grocer goes on, the report’s claims immediately came under fire from the poultry sector [which is hardly surprising], with the British Poultry Council describing the assertion that farming was the main driver of the disease as “irresponsible” and insisting that avian influenza was carried to the UK by migratory birds [which is after all in line with the pattern described above].
CIWF drew on the work of the international Scientific Task Force on Avian Influenza, which was set up to advise governments of countries affected or at risk from avian influenza. According to CIWF, the Task Force reiterated in its July 2023 report that HPAI originated in the poultry sector, and not in wild birds. CIWF goes on to describe the vicious circle between wild bird populations and intensively farmed poultry, to the detriment of both.
“Wild birds are caught up in a cyclical situation where the disease, fuelled by the factory farming system, is spiralling out of control… Until recently, the bird ‘flu that circulated naturally in wild birds generally caused little harm… But when it enters the poultry sheds of factory farms, often carried into premises on contaminated shoes, clothes, machines, animal feed and bedding, it can evolve into the dangerous HPAI… This is because poultry production in factory farms creates ideal conditions for the spread of disease.”
CIWF claims that the latest strain of avian influenza has claimed the lives of over half 1 billion farm birds globally since 2021, and probably millions of wild birds. In addition, they argue, there is clear evidence that pigs can be infected by bird flu is and act as mixing vessels to create new pig bird and human viruses, a problem, they claim, already recognised by the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
To stop the spread, CIWF advocates mass vaccination of flocks, a radical restructuring of the poultry industry with much smaller flocks, lower stocking densities, more robust breeds with higher levels of natural immunity, and no longer locating poultry farms near each other, and changing the way pigs are farmed.
The finger of God
As with many other agricultural woes, there is, therefore, a case for arguing that the most immediate and prevalent cause of livestock disease epidemics is the way livestock are produced. Factory farming exacerbates the genesis and spread of disease pathogens, affecting both farm livestock and wild species and risking transmission to human beings. If we cram thousands of animals into confined spaces, then we should not be too surprised if disease breaks out and spreads sometimes.
As I aver above and in the accompanying article, there is also a ‘moral conduit’. Plagues and pestilences are the outcome of sin and transgression of God’s laws and God’s ways. In the case of avian flu and arguably other contemporary livestock diseases, an immediate moral driver is factory farming (which, I contend, is not ‘farming God’s way’). In other words, if factory farming is intrinsically immoral or practised in an immoral way, then we should not be too surprised if it gives rise to pestilences.
But, the biblical data (notably Hosea 4:1-3) also suggests an indirect ‘moral conduit’, a link between wider transgressions and agricultural and ecological calamities, including animal disease.
J C Ryle (1816-1900), Anglican divine and the first Bishop of Liverpool (before which his ministry had been exclusively rural!), grappled with this issue back in the 19C during the ‘Great Cattle Plague of England’ of 1865-1867.
The plague was caused by the rinderpest virus (RPV) (now eradicated). The disease is very aggressive and the death rate approaches 100% of animals infected. The outbreak of 1865-1867 resulted in the slaughter of 75,000 cattle.
For three years, the disease was sweeping across the farms of England, prompting Ryle to see in it the “finger of God”.
The plague was a heavy, widespread and perplexing calamity affecting national wealth, and private interests, and seemingly unresponsive to any medicines or remedies, Ryle wrote. But, he declared, it came from God, and was a judgement on the sins of the nation. Ryle goes on to enumerate these: covetousness, love of pleasure, neglect of the Lord’s Day, drunkenness, immorality, scepticism and infidelity (men in high places were ceasing to honour God or believe the Bible).4
The Cattle Plague was God’s punishment and wake-up call. Let the politicians, medical men and agriculturalists do all they could to hold back the disease, he wrote. But, the critical thing was that everyone needed to ‘consider their ways’, humble themselves before God, break off from their own besetting sins and check sins in others, and offer special prayer to God for the removal of the judgement that was upon them.
Ryle closed his tract with this prayer.
“Almighty God, who orderest all things in heaven and earth, and in whose hand is the life of man and beast, have pity on us miserable sinners, who are now visited with great sickness and mortality among our cattle. We have nothing to say for ourselves. We humbly confess that we deserve Thy chastisement, because of our many national sins. But spare us, good Lord, according to Thy many mercies. Deal not with us according to our sins. Withdraw from us this grievous plague, and restore health to our cattle. Above all, stir up amongst us true repentance, and increase true religion in the land. We ask all in the name and through the mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with Thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory.”
Weighed in the balance
We may not all agree with either Ryle’s analysis of the livestock pestilence of his time nor mine of those of our time. Nevertheless, we surely can see in livestock epidemics and other agricultural woes a call to ‘consider our ways’ and allow ourselves as God’s people, as those concerned with farming and food, and as a nation, to be ‘weighed in God’s balance’. As I argue here, I believe that if we do in the matter of factory farming (and much else) we shall be found wanting. Even if you do not agree, I hope I have provided some food for careful thought and a searching of the scriptures for yourself.
As with all our articles, the views expressed above are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the trustees or others associated with Village Hope.
In a previous role, I had the privilege of collaborating with Ruth Harrison in the early 1990s on several projects.
Jubilee Centre has undergone some changes since the article was published and it is no longer available on the website.
The Brothers Karamazov, Quoted in The Gospel in Doestoyevsky, “Conversations with Father Zosima.” Plough Publishing House, 1988, p. 246-247. (Orthodox Fellowship of the Transfiguration)
As a man of his times and a thoroughgoing reformed evangelical, who stood against the rising Tractarian movement, Ryle also named a “growing tendency to look favourably on the Roman Catholic Church” as one of the nations sins!