Argumentative Analysis

High intensity poultry production has come under intense scrutiny in both public and professional circles. The structure of modern caging systems, the high volume of chickens relative to caging space, and recent alterations in the laws concerning the interface of these two issues has the nation questioning current industry practices. As a veterinarian, the fundamental issue lies in whether I should act as an antagonist or advocate in relation to the modern structure of poultry production. It is essential that I act as an advocate for the animals used in poultry production, but that does not necessitate opposing the poultry industry as a whole, which complicates deciding what position to take. Consequently, all involved stakeholders must be

Serving as an advocate for the industry can encourage more students to pursue poultry-related careers and increase the variety of practical poultry-relating information being taught in animal science and veterinary medical curriculums. Being an advocate could, however, could harm future members of the poultry industry. By supporting the good elements of the modern production system the negatives may get under-taught or ignored altogether, sending an undereducated generation of new poultry professionals into a potentially flawed system that they believe needs no alterations. Acting as an antagonist can have tangential effects. If acting as an antagonist leads to actual legal changes in the poultry industry, these changes will most likely lead to a lower profit potential. The lower potential for profits and the greater infiltration of politics in production can be discouraging to those looking to participate in the industry in the future, leading to a loss of potential future leaders in poultry production. Future members could, however, benefit from me serving as an antagonist. By spreading factual information regarding the consequences of high intensity poultry production, future industry members could be encouraged to cause a positive change in the current system. It will also build a more well-rounded and educated pool of future professionals who are aware of the current flaws and failures

They would most obviously benefit from my serving as an advocate for the modern production system, which would prevent poultry prices from rising, keeping more money in the pockets of consumers. In addition, spreading accurate positive information about the poultry industry can lead to consumers viewing agriculture in a more positive light and decrease the perceived need for secrecy in production processes due to an ignorant public. Advocacy could, however, have negative side effects because the changes that need to be made in the industry could end up being under-advertised. This could, in turn, actually lead to a more ignorant public, causing voting consumers to vote against reform when it may, in actuality, be needed. Alternatively, consumers could benefit from me serving as a professional antagonist. Having credible information being preached to the public regarding the negative aspects of high intensity poultry production can create a more aware consumer population, and allow consumers to understand what occurs behind-the-scenes in large-scale production operations. This is especially important because the most famous current industry antagonists tend to be producers of over-sensationalized documentaries that often include falsehoods. Spreading only facts and no opinions can allow consumers to establish their own personal biases for or against current production systems. Consumers could suffer, however,