Factory Farms and their role in the spread of Bird Flu

By Ashley Rink

November, 2015

Professor Gaier

Factory farms and their role in the spread of Bird Flu:

Have you ever wondered where your meat comes from? Have you ever thought about

the lives and health of the animals that you are eating? Or what kinds of conditions these

animals live in? Whether one may know it or not, these questions play a very important role

when looking into the prevalence of factory farms and the increase in global meat production.

Truly, there are many risks associated with these factory farms, and they play a direct role in

our everyday lives as consumers of meat.

First of all, one must consider the prevalent role that the meat industry has throughout

the world in generating a greater need for more money, resources, and animals. Truly, the

meat industry is becoming more and more valuable. Following the article, “Foul Play: The role

of agribusiness in the Avaian Flu Crisis,” chicken production from 1971 to 2015 tripled from

300,000 to over 2,440,000 chickens (Kuyek, 2006). In addition to this fact, according to Pleasant

(2007), in the year 2006, global meat production increased 2.5% to 276,000,000 metric tons,

and 60% of the increase occurred in the developing world! These statistics allude to the fact

that global meat production has an increasing demand and the need for mass production of

meat is pertinent. Truly, following J.E. Hollenbeck in the article, “Concentrated Animal feeding

Operations as potential incubators for Influenza Outbreaks,” the higher demand for a mass

amount of meat production has driven livestock production away from mixed rural farms to

intensive urban production. According to Hollenbeck, Concentrated Animal feeding operations

or CAFO´s are defined as agricultural operations with the potential to house thousands of

animals in small, tight areas (Hollenbeck, 2013). According to Hollenbeck, from 1970 to 2010,

the number of commercial farms has increased from 14,500 to over 22,000, while small farms

numbers have decreased from 199 to only 19! Truthfully, many potential risks are associated

with the growth in factory farms and the tight conditions inside factory farms. Unfortunately,

these risks are not solely affecting factory farm animals, but the public as well!

In addition to the role that factory farms play in global meat production, one must also

look at the risk factors associated with these farms. One of the more significant risks associated

with the rise in global demand for meat production is the prevalence of the bird flu outbreaks in

factory farms across the world.

The ethical dilemma that becomes so pertinent here, is whether or not the CAFO´s have

a direct correlation with the spread of the bird flu (H5N1 virus) that is devastating many factory

farm animals worldwide. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) website, there have been approximately 650 cases in 15 different countries in which the

Bird flu has affected humans since 2003, and more than 60% of these people have died

(Flu.Gov, 2015)! This statistic shows that the bird flu does pose a threat to the public. However,

the greater question to consider is in which types of conditions the bird flu spread quickest,

causing danger to others. According to Pleasant (2007) at least 15 nations have banned free

range and backyard produce in attempt to deal with the bird flu, thinking that the backyard free

range birds are to blame for the quick spread of bird flu. Unfortunately, banning backyard

farming and proposing greater restrictions on small farms is producing the opposite effect.

Truly, according to the article, “Bird Flu explodes in factory farms again,” the avian flu has

existed for centuries, “but has never evolved into dangerous forms, until the increase in the

number of CAFO´s.” This is where the diseases spread the quickest. (Green Gazette, 2015).

Indeed, the direct connection between factory farms and the spread of diseases like the

bird flu is relevant to today’s society due to the large increases in meat production occurring at

national levels. In order to bring this issue to light in a more focused and manageable sense, I

chose to look at a local case study. This case of the bird flu outbreak occurred at The Jennie-O

factory farm, a sector of Hormel foods, located in various counties throughout the state of

Minnesota. The outbreak began this April, 2015 in which over 2.5 million turkeys were killed as

a result of the H5N1 virus that posed a significant threat to the lives of the turkey’s as well as

the lives of the employees at Jennie-O. The loss of profit, potential jobs, and lives of the turkeys

was extremely detrimental to the Hormel Company, and the state of Minnesota was forced to

stop selling Hormel turkey products to over 40 different countries! In order to further study this

case and the ethical issue that lies behind it, I will utilize the four-way method from the Rick

Kyte book, The Ethical Life, to explain some of the key problems in this case and its’ larger

implications.

According to the Kyte text, a useful and balanced way to analyze ethical situations is to

use the four-way method which includes looking at the truth, consequences, character, and

fairness of a situation.

According to Kyte (2012), truth entails: thinking in terms of all the facts of the situation,

seeing which laws or policies apply, seeing the overall context of the situation, and analyzing

what negative impact this could have. Consequences entails: thinking in terms of the results,

seeing who will be affected and how, and predicting the foreseeable outcomes. Character

entails: thinking in terms of peoples’ motivation and character traits and how this guides their

decision making process. Are people doing actions just for themselves or for means to and end?

Also, are people acting on intuitions or positive motivations? Will their character be affected by

the way they choose to act? Lastly, fairness entails: thinking about equity, considering the

golden rule, and putting oneself in the place of another person or being in the situation (Kyte

2012). In all, these 4 principles must be reflected on in order to make a decision that is well

informed. In terms of the Minnesota turkey farm case at Jennie-O, there are many facts,

opinions, and motives for the actions that were taken to prevent the spread of the bird flu. I will

further question and look into these using the four way method.

According to the Yahoo News article titled, “Minnesota Declares state of emergency

over bird flu in poultry,” Some of the facts are that the Minneapolis Turkey farm was hit by the

bird flu in early April of 2015. There was a confirmed pathogenic H5N1 strand that caused this

outbreak. This caused the loss of over 2.5 million turkeys and affected over 12 out of the 70

different Jennie-O barns that produce the turkeys (Huffstutter 2015). Furthermore, Minnesota

is the lead turkey producing state in the U.S., so the effects of the outbreak were detrimental to

this state’s economy. According to the article titled, “Hormel foods warns avian flu impacting

turkey supply,” the virus was first found in La Qui Parle County in which 66,000 turkeys were

exposed to the bird flu. Furthermore, according to the Center for Disease Control, (CDC) the risk

to the public is fairly low and the risk to humans is also low (McKoy 2015). So far, no human

infections have been found. According to the article by Star Tribune, “Bird flu epidemic takes

toll on health of Hormel’s Jennie-O”, 45 of the 600 overall turkey producing farms in Minnesota

have been hit by the bird flu, and at least 29 Jennie-O suppliers have been affected! Because of

this, Representative Collin Peterson, an emergency farm responder in Willmar County declared

a “state of emergency” throughout the state (Hughlett 2015). Furthermore, according to Yahoo

News, U.S. agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was sent to ensure that the company will not lose

too much profit. He stated that the USDA has already spent 20-30$ million to reimburse

farmers and bans have already been imposed on 40 countries to prevent further destruction to

the turkey industry (Huffstutter 2015).

Truly, these facts portray and overview of the numbers of turkeys killed, the amount of

profit loss, the potential future profit loss, as well as the amount of factories that were affected

or closed because of the bird flu. Although these facts do show the overall statistical evidence

as to how many turkeys have been affected, the statistics do not show the potential health risk

that could be posed to humans or turkeys in the future. I find it astonishing that neither of the

three news articles, nor any I found, mention the actual conditions in factory farms, the quality

of life of the turkeys, or the potential connection that there could be between the factories and

the outbreaks. Also, not one of the articles mentioned anything to do with the preventative

measures have been taken to ensure that this will not happen again. Although Dave

Frederickson, the Director of the Minnesota Farmers’ Union says that this problem could

continue for several years if the right preventative measures are not taken! Truly, not one of

the articles address the accurate precautions that will be taken to prevent the potential threat

that the bird flu poses. Lastly, some facts are missing in terms of looking into the credbibilty

from some of the people cited in these articles such as Tom Vilsack, U.S. agriculture secretary,

or Collin Peterson, an emergency farm responder. What are the motives or perspectives behind

the comments of these individuals? Does Tom Vilsack solely care about the profit of the Hormel

Company and the loss of profit when stating his concerns on spending and the USDA? What

about Collin Peterson? By calling it an “emergency situation,” is he convinced or concerned that

the bird flu does pose harm and must be prevented? What future preventative measures does

he propose? These questions bring up facts that need clarifying before fully understanding the

issues presented in these news articles. Overall, we do not have all the facts, and cannot begin

to accurately address the case without knowing more about the factory farms themselves.

In speaking of consequences, one can consider both the harm in terms of profit and

prosperity of the Jennie-O company as well as the loss of lives for the turkeys! According to the

article by Kare 11 news, “44,000 turkeys had to be killed in order to ensure that the disease

would not spread any further!” Also, in speaking of economic losses for the company, Dave

Frederickson stated that Minnesota’s 720$ million industry will be largely affected. 90% of

turkeys are sent out of the U.S. and nearly 14% of the product sold in the state is exported

(McKoy 2015). From these facts, one can see that the consequences are not only devastating to

the health of the turkeys, but on the economic loss of the company as well. In addition to this

fact, according to the Star Tribune, Jennie-O is one of the nations’ second largest turkey

processors and one of the most well-known turkey producers aside from butterball (Hughlett

2015). Truly, the devastating consequences of the bird flu will divert some of the public away

from supporting the Jennie-O company due to the largely unknown risk and perceived threat to

public health. Furthermore, current statistics already prove that profit has gone down since the

declared outbreak. From March 28 to April 11, the sales have dropped up to 14% and are

continuing to decrease (Hughlett 2015). Furthermore, according to Yahoo News, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture chief veterinary officer stated that, “The nation's poultry industry

may have to live with a deadly bird flu strain for several years, which would be "devastating"

(Huffstutter 2015). This goes to show that the loss of profit, loss of turkeys, and loss of trust in

the Minnesota turkey producing company, Jennie-O, have huge implications and effects. The

consequences, in all, are quite clear in this case, the loss of turkeys’ lives as well as the profit

loss to the company prove that this is an issue of concern for all involved.

In speaking of character, one could look at how the company plans to compensate for

the loss of the turkeys’ lives that have occurred as a result of the outbreak. Were the individuals

previously mentioned truly concerned about the health of the turkeys in the factories, or just

about the profit loss and company concerns? What about the character of the turkeys

themselves? Do animals deserve a say in what living conditions they have, how they are

treated, and what goes on in the factories? Also, what about the motives behind those who

shut down the factories in an effort to stop the spread of the bird flu. Were these people really

looking out for the turkeys, or for their own profit? These are all pertinent questions to look

into when analyzing the character behind the decisions made upon the outbreak.

Unfortunately, there is not enough relevant information about the company of what goes on at

Hormel foods for me to be able to understand and see the character of the employees and how

they treat the animals. It would be highly beneficial to look into what the employees have to

say about their jobs and the safety precautions (or lack of) that are taken at the company. Also,

in speaking of character, it would also be highly beneficial to look at interviews or one on one

conversations with the Governor of Minnesota, the Department of Agriculture Director, the

Chief Veterinarian officer, the CEO of Hormel foods, employees at Jennie-O, and other key

individuals to see what their drives, intentions and motives are for making the decisions and

taking the precautions they have done. Truly, intentions do matter when speaking of character,

and the lack of information available in these cases make it difficult to fully analyze the case.

Lastly, when utilizing the four way method, one must look at fairness to see if every

party involved was given an equitable chance or say in the decision. Some questions of fairness

arise when looking at the conditions inside the factories for these turkeys. Is it fair that these

turkeys have no say in what goes on in their daily lives? Is it fair that an extra 44,000 turkeys

had to be killed, just so that the flu wouldn’t spread anymore? Is it fair that the public is not

given any further information or clues as to what type of risk the flu poses to them and what it

could do in the future? Besides shutting down the infected farms and the nearby farms with

potential H5N1 viruses, Hormel did little to inform the public about the risk that the bird flu

could have on their meat, both now and in the future. Also, another key aspect of this case to

analyze in terms of fairness is the lives of the employees who work for Jennie-O. What about

the lives of the employees who will lose their jobs as an effect of the loss of profit from Jennie-

O? Is it fair that these employees should lose their jobs and income? Lastly, one of the most

important questions that arises when looking into fairness, is whether the outbreak and

preventative measures taken are fair for the turkeys. Should humans have to worry about the

risk that they may carry in eating an infected animal and contracting the flu? Should the turkeys

themselves have to die due to possible lack of adequate conditions in their living space? These

are all questions of fairness that must be answered to decide upon an ethical decisions in

moving forward.

After utilizing the four way method, one can see that the risk that the bird flu poses is

having a direct effect on the lives of the turkeys as well as the quality of life for employees,

directors of Hormel foods, and the general public. This is an ethical issue that must be further

explored to view what this outbreak could do or is doing to other factory farms in other

countries. Truthfully, this link between the role of factory farms such as Jennie-O and the

outbreak of disease must be addressed and analyzed. In doing so, it is essential for one to

analyze the statistics on factory farms around the world, the connection between the bird flu

and unsafe farm conditions for animals, and the possible future effects factory farms and the

bird flu spread may have on the environment. I will analyze these three points in order to make

clearer stance toward proving the connection between the spread of bird flu and factory farms.

First, looking into the statistics on the increase in the number of factory farms will help

one to see just how much traditional framing has decreased, while factory farming has

increased immensely. According to the article, “Factory Farms mainly responsible” Because of

unregulated zoning, CAFO’s are moving closer to major cities. (Pleasant, 2015) Truly, this is just

the beginning of the reason in which factory farms will pose a threat to the spread of disease.

According to the article, “Foul Play: the role of agribusiness in the Avaian Flu Crisis” in Nigeria,

the first cases of the bird flu were found in an industrial broiler operation, which then spread to

backyard flocks, and continued to infect 30 other farms” (Kuyek, 2006). Another worldwide

example of the direct impact and proximity of factory farms with disease spread occurred in

Laos, in which 45 outbreaks of the bird flu have occurred! Of these 45, 42 have occurred on

enterprises and factory farms! Lastly, another international case study that portrays the

connection between CAF´O´s with bird flu transmission has occurred in Cambodia in a broiler

operation called Charoen Pokphand, (CP) one of Thailand’s biggest producers of meat. This

company controls ½ of the industrial sector in Thailand and includes over 10,000 growers and

producers (Kuyek 2006). This fact goes to show just how strong of a purpose these large factory

farms have in generating income in a country. Once hit by disease outbreak, it can be very

devastating to the company, the consumers, and the animals themselves.

Lastly, a case of bird flu outbreak that occurred in Nigeria in 2006 points exactly to the

fact that factory farms play a direct and ever present role in the fast contamination and spread

of disease. In Nigeria, 40,000 birds died on a large factory farm. United Nations Food and

Agriculture (FAO) scientists pointed to migratory birds as the cause of the spread of the flu

throughout the factory. However, the factory farms were nowhere near wetlands where the

migratory birds would be present! (Kuyek, 2006) The bird flu in this case, worsened and

continued to spread to 150,000 more birds, affecting over 30 poultry farms in Turkey, the lead

country in producing hatched eggs (Kuyek, 2006). Indeed, these statistics alone demonstrate

the correlation between the factory farms and their role in the massive spread of the bird flu.

The next question one must look at is the general threat that these factory farms pose

as a risk to the animals themselves, and how these animals contract the diseases so rapidly.

One of the main health risks that causes the animals in factory farms to become more

weakened and exposed to the virus is through poultry litter. According to the article, “Factory

farms: it’s a life sentence,” poultry litter is a euphemism for whatever is found on the floor of

factories (Kuyek 2006). This can consist of feces, bones, waste materials, and other contagions

that chickens and turkeys must live in every day. In addition to this, bird flu virus can live in

feces for 35 days! This goes to show how easily the disease can be spread when the poultry

litter is scattered throughout the cages and the floor of the factories, which the animals are

subjected to live in (Kuyek 2006). In addition to posing a risk to the quality of life for the

animals, factory farming conditions are also posing a risk for the employees. According to

Hollenbeck (2013), in a study of swine confinements in Texas, 20% of workers suffered from

ODTS or organic dust toxic syndrome in which workers acquired influenza like symptoms after

being exposed to great amounts of agricultural dusts. Furthermore, these CAFOs are the perfect

environment to create vector-like conditions and increase the spread of viruses such as the

influenza and the bird flu (Hollenbeck, 2013). Furthermore, within crowded populations, mild

viruses spread more rapidly “towards more pathogenic and highly transmissible forms” (Kuyek

2006). By looking into what the turkeys and chicken must live through every day, once can see

how the disease can multiply at such alarming rates, and how unclean and unsafe conditions

are for these animals.

According to the article, “Down on Factory Farms” by Debra Probert, (2007) broiler

chickens and turkeys can live in huge sheds between 5,000-50,000 animals which live, sleep,

and breathe in their own waste. These chickens and turkeys often live a life of ailments such as,

litter burns, respiratory problems, weakened bones, calcium leaching’s, brittle bones, and the

inability to walk and/or move! Overall, one can see how the poor quality of life for these

animals is proving to be a direct link to the spread of disease.

Lastly, when looking at the spread of the bird flu and role that factory farms play, one

must look into the environmental effects that factory farms can have and their impact.

According to the article, “Bird Flu explodes in factory Farms again,” meat production

accounts for 18% of global methane emissions, 19% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 37% of

overall emissions of methane (Green Gazette, 2015)! This just goes to show that factory farms

not only pose a risk to the lives and health of animals, but meat production and consumption in

this manner will have a detrimental effect on our environment as well!

In considering the counterargument and a rebuttal, one must look into the idea that

backyard birds could also be to blame for the spread of the bird flu. Following Kuyek (2006),

backyard farming is an extremely important practice and is not just an idle pastime for

landowners, rather it is the primary source of income for many poor rural farmers in Asia. Meat

sold and produced by backyard farming also provides a third of protein intake for the average

household. Therefore, maintaining these small farms is critical for rural farmers in maintaining

an income while also maintaining genetic diversity among their animals. However, the debate

often arises as to whether or not backyard animals, which are not confined to small spaces, will

come in contact with migratory bird carrying the flu and spread it faster because of the lack of

confinement. Because these backyard farms allow free range and scattered birds, critics believe

that without confinement or practice such as culling, these animals will pose a threat to other

birds and other small farms. Truly, according to Kuyek 2006, in countries like Southeast Asia, it

is encouraged that farmers set up small mesh nets or bamboo enclosures for their animals to

prevent the spread of disease. However, the cost of these devices is out of reach for many small

farmers! In addition to the critical responses from Southeast Asian farmers in preventing many

small farms from operating and generating income, Egypt shares a similar distrust and fear in

considering the possibility that factory farms could be playing a potential role in the spread of

the bird flu. According to Kuyek, in 2006, Egypt had a large outbreak of the bird flu in which

over 50 percent of commercial farms were infected and over 25 million chickens were

slaughtered in order to prevent the spread to more factories. Because the Egyptian

government did not want to look unprepared or at fault for the spread of the bird flu, Egyptian

Prime Minister, Ahmed Nazif, stated that it was time to get rid of the idea of breeding chickens

on rooftops. In stating this, the Egyptian government called for an action plan to order the

culling of all backyard poultry farms. The government also banned the transport of live poultry

and ordered that slaughtering must occur in official slaughterhouses. However by calling for

these measures, according to Kuyek, (2006) in less than one month, the Egyptian government

effectively destroyed its multi-billion dollar poultry industry and ruined ancient practices of

biodiversity and backyard farming. Furthermore, it resulted that upon the outbreaks, the main

spread of the bird flu started in the large factory farm located in the regions of Ashmoun and

Almarg, in which 77,000 bird were culled to prevent further spread of the disease! It was found

that the outbreak started at, Venkateshwara, a large poultry farm in the region (Kuyek, 2006).

Truly, the outbreak of the bird flu in Egypt and the response from the Egyptian

Government and The Cairo Land Centre for Human Rights, display that there was resistance to

admit the probable and direct link between the spread of the bird flu and the extremely unsafe

conditions inside factory farms! Even in countries like India where bird flu outbreaks have

occurred, rather than following the evidence and tracing the probable start of the transmission,

the government ordered the culling in a 10 mile radius surrounding the infected sites, clearly

ignoring the major hatchery at the center of the city, Maharashtra, in which one huge outbreak

occurred (Kuyek 2006). Truly, the transmission rates throughout factory farms are astonishing

and must be taken seriously when looking at the link that factory farms play in allowing the bird

flu to continue spreading.

Truly, in refuting the claims that migratory birds are responsible for the spread of the

bird flu, one must view the actual rate of disease spread throughout farms to reasonably see

that there is actually a greater transmission are in factory farms! According to Kuyek 2006,

there is much evidence that wild bird are not vectors, but rather victims for the spread of highly

pathogenic strains of bacteria H2N1. Truly, backyard poultry are the victims of bird flu strains

often brought from elsewhere. Furthermore, according to the FAO, it may be that in crowded

and confined industrial populations that the bird flu, like other diseases, rapidly evolves and

amplifies. A perfect example of this was mentioned in the country of Laos in which, according

to the USDA, 42 of the 45 factories which found evidence of the bird flu were located on

commercial enterprises and in close proximity to commercial operations suffering the disease

already. Truly, this example leads to the fact that the key to preventing the spread of the bird

flu is not protecting factory farm birds from wild birds, but rather protecting the small farm

animals from the factory farm animals, which pose a greater threat!

In all, evidence shows that the government not only in the United States, but in

countries like Egypt and India fail to address the true threat and issue that factory farms pose in

spreading the bird flu. Because of the large demands for increase in meat production globally,

factory farms are becoming more prevalent and have generated a great amount of money in

the past 20 years. However, although there are economic benefits with the increase in meat

production, the quality of life for the animals and the conditions inside these factories continue

to worsen. It has become so dangerous, the health of workers, animals, and the public is at risk

because of the lack of safety, fair treatment of animals, and sanitary conditions inside these

farms. The unsafe conditions and treatment of the animals must not be overlooked!

In conclusion, one must look at the possible alternatives to buying meat from factory

farms and from supporting the production of meat from these large factories in order to help

prevent the potential further spread of disease. Some alternatives to consider would be eating

various kinds of free range meats and animals like game meats of venison, elk, or bison. In the

article, “Home on the range: Get in the game” by Matthew Kadey, (2015) the idea of eating

more safe alternatives to factory farm meat pose many greater health benefits. Game meats

are low in saturated fats and provide higher amounts of vitamin b12. In addition to this, free

range animals given plenty of space to roam and access to a steady diet of grass provide higher

levels of essential omega 3 acids which help with maintenance of health heart and skin tone.

Lastly, because game animals are often slaughtered later in life and are given longer time to

thrive and live without restraint, they often are richer in iron, an essential element for human

blood health. Also, according to John Riectkerk, a farm owner who owns free range elk, because

elk are not kept in holding pits, their manure is distributed naturally and poses less of an

environmental threat than the large amounts of manure displaced in factory farms. Finally,

According to Riectkert, supporting small scale farmers like his own elk ranch, “helps support

struggling farmers in a world dominated by corporate agricultural practices” (Kadey, 2015). In

all, considering free range animals or meat from local coops is one of the better ways to help on

eliminate some of the environmental impact, and at the same time support these large

companies who neglect to see the quality and value that must be considered in the lives of

animals.

In conclusion, there is a direct link between factory farms play on risking the lives of

animals, the environment, and the general public health. In looking at the specific case of the

Minnesota factory farm, Jennie-O, to analyzing the global spread and outbreak of the bird flu in

factory farms, one can see just how detrimental the conditions inside these factory farms are

and the damage that they are causing in contaminating global meat production,. As the amount

of factory farms rises, while small farms decreases, we must be willing to truly address the

health concerns and ethical issues that are taking place in these large companies that continue

to gain popularity. Truly, the bird flu is a large risk, and it is putting the profit, the environment,

and the health of animals and workers at risk! We must be willing to address this issue and give

it large importance in our lives. By trying some of the alternative suggestions mentioned like

eating free range meat, and stopping support of the large factories, we can divert so much

profit and growth away from these large factory farms which are main incubators of the bird

flu! By just making the switch from processed meat to eating more organic meat and free range

meat, once can largely decrease the amount of harm caused by supporting factory farms.

However, solely switching from eating more free range meat will not eliminate the spread of

the bird flu, nor stop the increase in global meat production. Truly, one must think in the

environmental impact that factory farms have to consider the possibilities of cutting out buying

meat from large producers completely in order to slowly make a change from large factory

farms to smaller farms! If many people, small stores, businesses, and even schools begin to

make the switch and refuse to buy meat from these large companies, a change will happen. The

numbers will decrease, and large factory farms will pose less of a threat in terms of

environmental impact. In order to prevent further environmental damage, loss of lives of

millions of animals, and further risk to public health, This switch must be made, and quickly!

Bibliography:

1. Pleasant, Barbara. “Factory Farms Mainly Responsible.” Newsview. EBSCO Host.

April, 2007. Vol. 135, Issue 2743. Date accessed: October 14, 2015.

2. Green Gazette. “Bird Flu explodes in factory Farms, again.” EBSCO Host. Mother

Earth News. Oct/Nov 2015, Issue 272: p. 11.

3. Hollenbeck, J. E. “Concentrated Animal feeding Operations as potential

incubators for Influenza 4. Outbreaks.” Academic Search Complete. Trakia Journal of Sciences,

NO. 2, 2013. P. 205-209. Date accessed: October 16, 2015. http://www.uni-sz.bg

5. Kadey, G. Matthew. “Home on the range: get in the game.” Academic Search

Complete. Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition. March 2006. P. 92-93. Date

accessed: October 13, 2015.

6. Murphy, Christine-Sophia. “Bird Flu and the Role of Factory Farms.” Academic Search

Complete. LILIPOH. Autumn 2006. P. 40-41. Date accessed: October, 13, 2015.

7.Probert, Debra. “Down on the factory farm, it’s a life sentence for animals.” Academic

Search Complete. Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition. August 2007. P. 40-43.

8. Hughlett, Mike. “Bird flu epidemic takes toll on health of Hormel’s Jennie-O.” Star

Tribune. April 26, 2015. http://www.startribune.com/bird-flu-epidemic-takes-toll-on-health-of-

hormel-s-jennie-o/301265641/

9. Kuyek, Devin. “Foul Play: the role of agribusiness in the Avaian Flu Crisis.” EBSCO

Host. Multinational Monitor. March/April 2006. P. 15-20. Date accesed: October 20, 2015.

10. McKoy, Blake. “Hormel Foods Warns Avian Flu impacting Turkey Supply,” Kare 11

News. April 21, 2015.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/2015/04/21/hormel-foods-warns-avian-flu-

impacting-turkey-supply/26129141/

11. P.J. Huffstutter. “Minnesota declares state of emergency over bird flu in poultry.”

Yahoo News. April 23, 2015.

http://news.yahoo.com/minnesotans-contact-avian-flu-birds-preventative-drugs-

204223508.html

12. Kyte, Richard. An Ethical Life: A Practical Guide to Ethical Reasoning. Winona, MN:

Anselm Academic, 2012. Print.

13. FLU.Gov. “H5N1 Avian Flu - H5N1 Bird Flu.” 2013. U.S. Department of Health and

Human services, (HHS.) Date accessed: November 10, 2015.

http://www.flu.gov/about_the_flu/h5n1/index.html