I wondered if I was the only person to lay at least some of the blame for the present or future spread of bird flu at the scaly three-toed feet of the high volume industrial chicken 'ranchers.' Apparently, others have made the same connection: stressed birds housed by the tens of thousands are a prime opportunity for disease. Literally tons of antibiotics are required to sustain factory farming conditions; in China, they fed their high-density chickens Amantadine--a drug that might have had some use against bird flu--to protect them from bird ghetto illness. It is a rearing method developed in the US, exported all around the world--and especially prevalent in southeastern Asia--the hotbed of most influenza viruses. Now, our chickens are coming home to roost.
Even apart from H5N1 or the next wave of virulent viri, there's a lot to dislike about this form of meat production where efficiency and profit are the overriding values. Consider some snips from two articles: 1) Agriculture at the Crossroads, from the Sustainable Agriculture Society; and 2) An article by Peter Singer, bioethicist from Princeton. (See also THE BIRDS: The Monster at Your Door, by Mike Davis, that discusses "Tysonization" and its costs.
Since the turn of the century farmers have been told to industrialize or face extinction. Earl Butz's "Get big or get out" was simply one of the most familiar refrains. This industrialization process put farmers on three treadmills. The "technological treadmill" (Cochrane, 1979) wherein each new technology adopted by farmers sets them up to need the next new technology. The "pesticide treadmill" (van den Bosch, 1978) wherein the use of a pesticide creates an environment that requires more pesticides, and the specialization treadmill. Specialization not only creates a need for more purchased inputs but it causes the over production of a few commodities thereby lowering the prices and creating the need to produce even more of that commodity in order to survive economically.
...Despite these trends farmers are currently being pressured into yet another round of industrialization. What is now being called the "Tysonization" of agriculture is being proposed as the next industrialization process farmers have to comply with if they want to survive. The term comes from the Tyson corporation's revamping of the broiler industry, first in Arkansas and then across America. (Note: this article seems to be from about 1994, so should be amended to spread this er, innovation, across the world.) 1
"The National Chicken Council, the trade association for the US chicken industry, recommends a stocking density of about 550 square centimetres per bird--less space than a standard sheet of typing paper. When the chickens approach market weight, they cover the floor completely. No chicken can move without having to push through other birds. In the egg industry, hens can barely move at all, because they are crammed into wire cages, which makes it possible to stack them in tiers, one above the other."
...Environmentalists point out that this production method is unsustainable. For a start, it relies on the use of fossil fuel energy to light and ventilate the sheds, and to transport the grain eaten by the chickens. When this grain, which humans could eat directly, is fed to chickens, they use some of it to create bones and feathers and other body parts that we cannot eat. So we get less food back than we put into the birds _ and less protein, too--while disposing of the concentrated chicken manure causes serious pollution to rivers and ground water.
On the contrary, it is only when these viruses enter a high-density poultry operation that they mutate into something far more virulent. By contrast, birds that are reared by traditional methods are likely to have greater resistance to disease than the stressed, genetically similar birds kept in intensive confinement systems. Moreover, factory farms are not biologically secure. They are frequently infested with mice, rats, and other animals that can bring in diseases.
What is now clear, however, is that such government spending is really a kind of subsidy to the poultry industry. Like most subsidies, it is bad economics. Factory farming spread because it seemed to be cheaper than more traditional methods. In fact, it was cheaper only because it passed some of its costs on to others--people who lived downstream or downwind from factory farms could no longer enjoy clean water and air.
Now we see that these were only a small part of the total costs. Factory farming is passing far bigger costs--and risks--on to all of us. In economic terms, these costs should be "internalised" by the factory farmers rather than being shifted onto the rest of us.
That won't be easy to do, but we could make a start by imposing a tax on factory-farm products until enough revenue is raised to pay for the precautions that governments now have to take against avian influenza. Then we might finally see that chicken from the factory farm really isn't so cheap after all. 2
The pull of music is compelling. It can draw something out of even the most reserved among us. The quietest and most timid person you know may open up to music, become engaged, animated, filled with rhythm. The roots of music go deep. Ever find yourself singing the lyrics of a song you didn't know you had ever known, much less remembered beat for beat? 
