Antonescu 1

Annotated Bibliography

What are the effects of vegetarianism on the environment?

Adrian Antonescu

Professor Malcom Campbell

UWRT 1103 - H

15 October 2019
 Antonescu 2

Horrigan, Leo, Robert, S. Lawrence, and Polly, Walker. “How sustainable agriculture can address

the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture.” Academic Journal,

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 5 May. 2002,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240832/pdf/ehp0110-000445.pdf.

Accessed 22 Oct. 2019

In this academic journal, Horrigan explains that industrial agriculture is a major cause of

environmental degradation. He and his colleagues make the point that industrial agriculture is

dangerous and harmful to the environment by writing, “Industrial agriculture depends on

expensive inputs from off the farm (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer), many of which generate wastes

that harm the environment; it uses large quantities of nonrenewable fossil fuels; and it tends

toward concentration of production, driving out small producers and undermining rural

communities.” They go on to list in bullet form the more precise ways that industrial agriculture

harms the environment. The lead author of this journal, Leo Horrigan earned his Master of Health

Sciences in Health Policy from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Horrigan

worked in the newspaper industry for 20 years. Horrigan’s co-authors included Robert S.

Lawrence, who was a member of the Global Health Advisory Committee, as well as the board of

Trustees. He also graduated from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The final

co-writer is Polly Walker, an associate of the 2 other authors. The journal is backed by some

incredibly reliable authors, which ads to its integrity. The source itself is a little dated, but its

thoughts still echo today. Not much has changed in industrial agriculture from the 2002’s to now.

The authors of this document have formatted and written it very neutral, but it is obvious that they

believe industrial agriculture needs a large change for the environment to stop its degrading. Their

opinion is more based on facts from their research rather than biases beforehand. One of the many
 Antonescu 3

ways the journal describes some of the possible changes for industrial agriculture is in a quote

saying, “Sustainable agriculture systems are based on relatively small, profitable farms that use

fewer off-farm inputs, integrate animal and plant production where appropriate, maintain a higher

biotic diversity, emphasize technologies that are appropriate to the scale of production, and make

the transition to renewable forms of energy” This quote illustrates a more environmentally clean

way to farm. This source is a reliable source due to the achievements and history of its writers,

and its worth as an academic journal. The journal is professionally written and has relevant

information for my essay. I will be using this journal to back up the main points of my essay. This

source describes the threat of industrial agriculture, which is an effect from the demand of

vegetables and fruits going up. This itself is caused by the popularization of vegetarianism. Since

the article solely contains facts from research it is a wonderful source to use in my final essay.

Mitloenher, Frank. “Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the

climate.”, The Conversation, The Conversation, 25 Oct. 2018,

http://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-

killing-the-climate-94968. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.

Miltoenher explains how the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) made an

inaccurate assessment of livestock emissions, and ever since then scientists around the would

have been trying to fix the mess with actual information. The article also uses other certified

sources to support their argument that livestock are not the prime factor for climate change. The

author of this article is Frank Miltoenher, he is a professor in animal sciences and an air quality

extension specialist. He teaches and researches at the University of California. He is reliable due

to his resume. The article is not even a year old, making the information on it still relevant. The

information loosely fits into my topic, it is good background information. Its main idea is not spot
 Antonescu 4

on with my question. Miltoenher cites multiple professional and reliable sources, many of which

are government agencies. “For example, a 2009 analysis published by the Washington, D.C.-

based Worldwatch Institute asserted that 51 percent of global GHG emissions come from rearing

and processing livestock.” The author is biased towards livestock not being a major cause of

climate change. He makes his point very clear throughout the article with lines like, “A key claim

underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases

than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show.”

And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate

change.” cement the authors bias. Use of words like demonstrably illustrate the annoyance the

author has to the false claims of livestock changing the climate on its own. Miltoenher’s bias

allows me to view his point of view only, so all I have taken from this article is that there are

many more reasons climate change is occurring, and animals have a very low interference rate

with it. This is a respectable and reliable source, which is written well. I would like to use it in my

essay, but as of now I am not entirely sold on the idea, since the article itself does not describe my

topic as well as other potential sources.

Wanza, Serah. "What is the Environmental Impact of Agriculture?" Environment, WorldAtlas,

11 May. 2018, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-

agriculture.html. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.

With farm’s many benefits, come some downsides. These include an increase of methane, nitrous

oxide and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while pesticides and fertilizers are also released into

the environment. Methane, nitrous acid, and carbon dioxide are all harmful to the atmosphere in

large concentrations. “The most significant climate change associated with agriculture is brought

about by methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, all of which are greenhouse gases released
 Antonescu 5

into the Earth’s atmosphere from farming.” (Wanza) The increase of said greenhouse gases are

the leading cause of climate change. Other compounds like pesticides and fertilizers can cause

pollution and contamination of water or soil. “The widely used are pesticides and fertilizers,

which end up as pollutants in water run-off from the soil. This run-off can adversely affect more

people and animal wildlife.” (Wanza) Farming can also cause deforestation and degrade in soil

quality, which causes erosion. Erosion is when soil becomes loose and nutrient poor and becomes

loose in the ground. This leads to the loss of a large amount of soil, uprooting plants and

destroying habitats. Farming may have some unfortunate side effects, but we also must remember

that without it, everyone on earth would starve. The consequences of farming are unavoidable,

and until we discover a way to diminish them, we will just have to live with the damage to our

planet. The author of this article is Serah Wanza, she is a writer for WorldAtlas. WorldAtlas is an

organization that’s job is to map the world and document its findings. The company is a

professional organization that has been around since 1994. It is a website that has made it its goal

to inform readers about geography. The article is about 1 and a half years old, so it is relatively

new. It was updated in May of 2018, indicating that the article is being edited with current

information in the topic. The article is incredibly useful for my paper since it exhibits information

that is crucial for a lot of my points. I plan to incorporate it into my essay as a main contributing

source of backup information. However, the author is biased towards agriculture harming the

environment. In the article, she barely mentions any of the positives of farming. This is unfair to

readers since she only has an argument, with no counter argument. This proves that the author is

more focused on her agenda, rather than making a fair argument. She explains the problems with

farming, but names none of the pros of it. The article itself is here to explain the harm agriculture

inflicts on the environment, so it is solely based on the consequences of agriculture. This bias
 Antonescu 6

influences my evaluation of the article by assuming that agriculture causes more harm than good,

which is arguably not true. The article is a good source of information, but it is one-sided to say

the least, and is not the best source for my essay.