Talk:Environmental impacts of fur farming

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2019 and 1 September 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JCarvalho34. Peer reviewers: Teresating.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kshea692.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Environmental Impact of the Fur Trade
Introduction

-Explain how Fur Farms are the largest producer of animal furs world wide and that the cultivation of animals, the methods used to preserve fur, and plant operations have a costly effect on our environment overall.

Components of the Fur Trade

-Fur Farms & Wild Trapping

-Raising of Animals

-Slaughter and Pelting

-Chemical Preservation of Pelts

-Auction

-Sale

-Insert Production Map (Pending whether non copy right photo can be found)

Environmental Effects

-carcass removal -cremation -atmospheric pollution

-Chemical preservation of Fur

-Atmospheric pollution -Adverse effect of chemicals on skin

-Fur Farm Operation

-Fossil Fuels -Animal Feed -Indoor Facilities

Long Term Solutions

-Discuss current movements to lower the demand for animal furs -Discuss synthetic fur -Areas where fur coats are hard to substitute

Sources -https://www.scribd.com/document/38836299/Toxic-Fur

-https://www.furfreealliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Factsheet_Environmental-impact-of-fur-farming-1.pdf

-file:///Users/kyleshea/Downloads/2220_defreportMBijMV.pdf -Bijleveld, M, Kortland, M & Sevenster, M (2011) The environmental impact of the mink fur production. CE Delft report

-file:///Users/kyleshea/Downloads/9789811021305-c2.pdf - Ramchandi, Mukta, Coste-Maniere, Ivan. "To fur or not to fur: Sustainable Production and Consumption Within Animal-Based Luxury and Fashion Products." Textiles and Clothing Sustainability: Sustainable Fashion and Consumption, 2017. Accessed 24th February 2019.

Kshea692 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft Peer Review
Hey Kshea692,

The structure of your draft is very clear and easy to navigate. The introduction works well as the lead of your article. You outline the main points regarding how fur is produced and its impact on the environment. Overall, the structure works very well and it makes a lot of sense to me as the reader.

I see in your outline what you plan to include the section titled “Components of the Fur Trade”. Your draft covers all these areas but very minimally. I am assuming that you plan to add more information into that section; even elaborating or adding more examples to each supoint would have a great effect. You do a great job structuring that section though, it flows very coherently as you go through the process of fur production. Also, your first section ties in well with you introduction, which makes the draft feel very organized.

Your second section is full of a lot of valuable data, which really impacts the credibility of your draft as a whole. I also liked how you included the effects of these gasses being released; instead of just mentioning what is being released into the environment by the fur industry, you specify how this impacts air, water, soil, and just the environment as a whole. Again, the contents in this section tie back into your introduction.

Your third section reminded me of how our textbook was laid out with the science, issues, and solutions. I think this works well within an article because it can function like a conclusion but allows your more room to provide crucial information without being repetitive. I would say that the lack of citation, compared to the way you had it in other sections, makes this last section feel a little weaker, but I’m sure you’re planning on adding those. Overall, this last section wraps up the article very well.

It is very obvious that the section on “Environmental Effects” has the most content and in reference to our training modules, you would want to have your article a bit more balanced, keeping each section approximately the same length. Also, your article seems to sound fairly neutral, I would however pay closer attention to the tone especially in your last section on “Long Terms Solutions” because it can sound like you’re trying to convince your audience to go in one direction. Granted, the fur industry seems to have more wrong with it than right but maybe by including more empirical data to that section it will make it sound more neutral. Also, if there are any “good” things about the fur industry, it would be interesting to add that into a section because it will add to the neutrality of the article, and can also strengthen your article because it allows the reader to decide for themselves what to do with your information.

As far as sources go, I only see two of them linked but multiple ones cited throughout the article. I think adding at least the links to these other sources could help the draft because it helps to see where all your information came from.

All in all, this is a very interesting topic and a great outline. Apart from linking sources, adding more information to balance out the length of each section, and make sure to sound neutral, this is an excellent draft!

MartaMarta.tkachuk (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Kyle,

Your introduction certainly packs a punch. I instantly get a sense of your topics significance. Your introduction faithfully presents what will be talked about further in the article without revealing too much information early on. Your lead instantly places a higher value on environmental effects than any other subject; I know your article is titled "environmental impact of the fur trade" but I feel spending a bit more time defining fur trading would be a positive inclusion. Overall, really strong introduction!

I notice you have based your structure in a similar fashion to the text book, which works well for this topic. Defining the topic, explaining the issues, then finally identifying potential solutions is probably the best structure you could use for this topic.

Nothing is off topic here; however, there is disproportional representation for each topic. I understand the environmental effects being the focal point of your article; but, I would recommend adding more to your other sections. An interesting perspective I feel is left out of this article is why individuals fur trade in the first place, and any possible benefits to fur trading. There could be no benefits to fur trading for all I know, I am not well versed in this subject; but if there exist a counterargument I would recommend including it. I do sense underlying tones of persuasion in your article; balancing out the arguments against fur trading with arguments in favor of fur trading might help this article reach neutrality.

You have what appear to be reliable sources and all your statements seem to be cited; however, a lot of your statements use the same source as a citation. I would recommend finding several more sources to avoid creating an unbalanced article. Overall, you have made really good progress a lot of my review consist of nitpicks. You have picked a really interesting article just work on obtaining neutrality. I look forward to seeing the final product!

-Nathan MarketBoiCYM (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Kyle,

Thank you very much for all of your helpful feedback!

To begin with, I skipped the lead for two reasons. 1. I was not aware that we were supposed to have a lead. 2. My content is going to be added into an already existing article which offers a great introduction. I am going to verify with Dr. Fulton to see if I also need my own lead, in which case I will produce in my final draft.

I relation to the subtopic of mobility, I had consciously decided to leave that part out entirely because I did not think I really needed it. With that being said, I should have probably deleted that part of my initial outline, but for clarification, the topic on mobility is no longer part of my article.

For my architecture section, I think I will take your advice and rename it. It's helpful to know that it sounds misleading, and I am glad you caught that! And I appreciate your comment on the section about homelessness; I was a bit nervous about adding that part in because I wasn't sure if related enough but I am glad it does.

I think any draft could use improvement in regards to neutrality. I wasn’t too concerned with it for my first draft but will definitely pay close attention and make it as unbiased as I can.

Thank you again. Marta.tkachuk (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC) marta tkachuk

Peer Review
Greetings,

I just wnated to start off by syaing that I realy enjoyed reading your article, I didn't know that there wer whole farms fro just animal fur. Im not sure why thist thought didn't come across my mind with all the fur used in fashion and decor. I also found it weird that they just burn the anmals after they get the furn and not use it in a more efficeient way.

Orginisation: I felt that your articale flowed very well. The intro giving light background than moving in more extensivly. This was done very well.

Credibilty: It seemse you don't have all of your sources liked but from the ones I have looked at the all seem pretty legit and like trustable professional. Great work!

Digestability: I feel that your article is easy for the average Joe to read adn understand. For wikipedia I feel that this is crutial. The point is to spread knowlege and understadnign of various projexts. One thing that I might suggest explainng a little bit would be the effects of the gases released from the inceneration.

Overal you did a wonderful job and I can't wait to see the finished project!

Bests, PleaseGiveMeAnA UwU — Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseGiveMeAnA (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fur Farming
Introduction

Fur is no longer always traditionally gathered through fur trapping but also through farms where animals are raised to be killed for their fur. These fur farming operations make up approximately 80% of the overall fur production within the market. Common sources for fur cultivation include the mink, raccoon, and fox. In fact, throughout North America, Europe, and Scandinavia up to 30 million mink furs are produced The production of pelts on these farms involves raising and killing animals, disposing of the carcass', and tanning the fur on a large scale. This burdens the environment with irregular levels of gas being released while fuel expenditures and chemical preservatives deplete and damage it further. However, conservationist argue that this diverts pressure being placed on wild populations which allows for the population of these animals to be unabated by trapping practices. Furthermore, the creation of Faux Fur fibers into synthetic fur requires the use of non-sustainable resources while fur farming mainly relies on sustainable resources which it can recycle to increase efficiency. Fur industries argue that their practices are a "green" agricultural activity relative to Faux Fur because they are simply enhancing a natural product rather than creating a new one.

Components of the Fur Trade

Whether fur is being acquired from the wild or from a fur farm, fur must be stripped from the animal, chemically preserved and exchanged at modern trading houses through an auction. From here, fur often undergoes further refining and may be dyed for clothing purposes before being sold commercially. Within a fur farm, animals are raised within cages, both inside and outside, and fed with artificial feed until they have matured enough to be slaughtered. From here they are killed through the forced inhalation of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. Before the animal is disposed of it is stripped of oils and fats which are processed for commercial products. Once the animal is stripped of fur and essential fats the carcass is frozen for transport to a facility where it is incinerated.

Environmental Effects

From the beginning of the fur trade process to the end, the cultivation of fur causes pollution. When the carcass of the animals are incinerated they cause atmospheric pollution due to gases being released in the air. The gases released include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and hydrochloric acid (HCI). Due to the production level of these fur farms, these animals are disposed of at high levels which leads to a concerning amount of gases being released as a result. The tanning and dressing process is another step in the production chain that contributes to pollution within the environment. During this process chemicals such as Formaldehyde, Chromium, Ammonia, Chlorine, Ethylene Glycol, Sulfuric Acid, and Zinc are applied to the pelt to inhibit putrefaction of the fur. The Chemicals Formaldehyde and Chromium have been placed on heath hazard lists such as EPA Toxics Reporting Industry (TRI), The American Apparel Restricted Substances List (AAFA-RSL), and the California Proposition 65 Super List of chemicals known to cause cancer. Overall, these chemicals pose a threat to the health of workers in the fur farms as well as the consumers who wear the product because they are potential skin irritants and have been deemed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as chemicals that have carcinogenic effects. The waste created by these animals can have an especially negative effects on nearby ecosystems because their manure contains high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. According to a 2003 study released by the Fur Rancher Blue Book of Fur Farming States, there is approximately 1000 tons of phosphorus released into the environment annually by fur farming in the United States. When the handling of manure is not done so properly and it is released into the surrounding environment this results in the damage of water and soil. A study conducted in the Netherlands found that Scots Pine or Pinus Sylvestris was directly affected by its proximity to fur farms operating in the area. Researchers found that the deposition of NH+4 or Ammonium led to the increased acidification of soil in the forest as well as to reduced concentrations of nitrates. This caused the cellular structure of leaves in the tree to change over time as the tree adapted to soil acidification. In areas with water, the increased presence of NH+4 can lead to nitrogen eutrophication which decreases the available amount of oxygen in the water. Overall, the use of Fossil fuels in conjunction with manure sourced energy to power the farm, the food used to feed the animals, the resources use to slaughter them and preserve their fur all expend resources which result in an uneven amount of gas and nitrogen being deposited into the surrounding environment.

Sustainability: Faux Fur versus Farmed Fur

Both fur farming and the creation of synthetic fur, commonly known as Faux Fur, place negative environmental impacts on the environment. While Fur Farms utilize natural fur to create commercial fur products, the creation of Faux Fur must be sourced from other resources. Fur Farms practice sustainable or efficient operating practices when maturing minks, raccoons, or foxes. These Farms use the bio-waste of the animals to create an additional fuel source to aid in powering the farm as well for powering biogas plants that process poultry and manure. Therefore, the energy used to create animal feed is partially sourced to create more energy which results in a positive feed back loop since one output is being used to increase the efficiency of another output. In contrast, the creation of faux fur requires the use of petrol chemicals which is a finite resource. Furthermore, the acrylic nature of faux fur requires a longer amount of processing time relative to natural fur before it is fully refined and ready for commercial use. Besides this process both Faux Fur and natural fur cause similar amounts of pollution during the tanning process in which chemicals are applied to the skin to prevent the fur from degrading.

Animal Welfare

From a practical perspective, it has been determined that the biological function of animals have been impaired once normal behaviors have become inhibited. Indications of this include: Increased morbidity, stunted growth, self-inflicted injuries, and abnormal behaviors. Five principles, known as the Five Freedoms, are used to determine whether the welfare of animals are being respected. These include: Freedom from hunger and thirst, Freedom from discomfort, Freedom from pain, injury and disease, Freedom to express normal behavior, Freedom from fear and distress. In 2009, the European Fur Breeder's Association launched a program called WelFur to perform on site assessments at fur farming locations to ensure that these five principles were being followed. The goal they have is to ensure that the animals are being treated humanely all the way to the last step in which they are to be humanely disposed of. Nevertheless, animals still experience abuse due to the nature of their confinements. For example, the minimum cage size for a mink is 0.85 meters by 0.30 meters by 0.45 meters (length x width x height) totaling in an area of 0.255 meters. This size will ultimately lead to discomfort for the animal. In short, the caging of animals on fur farming operations does pose ethical concerns which groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) use as reasons for the banning of fur farming all together.

Long Term Solutions

The use of fur clothing has practical applications in colder climates where it is effective in keeping the consumer warm. Synthetic fur is not as effective in keeping people warm in extreme cold climates. However, they can be marketed and sold as a substitute in climates where real fur is not necessary. Anti Fur campaigns such as those ran by PETA exists to help raise awareness of animal welfare and decrease the demand for real fur but powerful marketing and celebrity endorsements have countered these effects. Fur farming will continue to operate but organizations such as PETA will continue to be proactive in denouncing the use of real fur and raising ethical concerns about how animals are treated.