Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000

WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

2001

David Fraser University of British Columbia

Joy Mench University of California - Davis

Suzanne Millman The Humane Society of the United States

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/sota_2001

Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons

Recommended Citation Fraser, D., Mench, J., & Millman, S. (2001). Farm animals and their welfare in 2000. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001 (pp. 87-99). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Farm Animals and Their Welfare 5CHAPTER in 2000

David Fraser, Joy Mench, and Suzanne Millman

Introduction umans use far more animals a central role in determining how mals, human society, and the environ- for agricultural production farm animals are treated. As a conse- ment. At the same time, the public is Hthan for any other purpose. quence of real or perceived economic bombarded with polarized, simplistic Worldwide 1.9 billion cattle, sheep, constraints, people have developed depictions of animal agriculture both and swine, and 39.7 billion chickens many animal-production practices by its opponents and by its defenders. and turkeys, were slaughtered in that would not be considered accept- The result is a public misinformed 1998 (UN Food and Agricultural Or- able if used with other types of ani- about the issues despite their great ganization [FAO] 2000). Many other mals. For example, confining animals importance. In this chapter we review species are farmed for food or fiber in for many weeks at a time in such a the major changes that have occurred smaller numbers, including agouti way that they cannot walk or turn in animal agriculture since 1950, and capybara, alligators, alpaca and around would not be tolerated for zoo mainly in the industrialized coun- llamas, bison, deer, emus and ostrich- or companion animals but is a com- tries; the resulting implications for es, goats, iguanas, pheasants, pi- mon practice with pregnant sows. animal welfare; and the factors that geons, quail, rabbits, and waterfowl. Farm animals have been a tradi- have contributed to these changes. The most rapidly growing segments of tional concern of the modern animal the agricultural industry are probably protection movement. In the early aquaculture and mariculture (the 1800s, when the movement emerged The Revolution farming of fish, shellfish, and other as a significant sociopolitical force in aquatic animals), which now produce the United Kingdom, its first priority in Animal more than 20,000 metric tons of food was protection of farm animals, with annually, according to the FAO. Ani- particular emphasis on cattle and Production mal agriculture also generates many horses. Subsequently priorities important byproducts, including gela- changed, and throughout most of the Animal Numbers tin, hides, horn, inedible fats used for 1900s, animal protectionism in Eu- and Distribution industrial purposes, meat and bone rope and the English-speaking world The world’s human population has meals, manure, and medicinal prod- focused more strongly on the use of increased by about 2 percent per year ucts. In developing countries buffalo, animals for scientific research and on for the last forty years, with most of camels, and cattle are widely used for the rescue of abandoned or ill-treated that increase occurring in the devel- draft power as well as for food. companion animals. Today, however, oping countries. As the population From an animal welfare viewpoint, with vigorous public debate over ani- has increased, so too have the con- farm animals present unique chal- mal agriculture and its effects, farm sumption of animal products and the lenges. The primary purpose of farm- animals are re-emerging as a major numbers of animals raised for agricul- ing, whether of plants or animals, is subject of humane concern. tural production (Figure 1a,b). Poul- to produce abundant, high-quality, Such attention is timely. Animal try production has shown the largest and competitively priced products for agriculture is undergoing significant increase and, in the United States at human consumption. Consumer pref- restructuring worldwide, with major least, consumption of poultry has con- erences and economics therefore play and complex implications for ani- sistently increased as consumption of

87 produce about 30 percent of the total world production of milk, although the dairy cow populations in the Unit- ed States are actually low when compared with those of many other countries; high U.S. production is due to high production per cow. Overall, China produces one-third of the world’s meat supply, followed by the United States and the European Union, producing approximately 15 to 20 percent each (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] 2000). Animal products play a major role in the economy of many countries. In the United States for example, the value of farm animal products was more than $95 billion in 1999, with about $11.2 billion of that total due to exports (USDA Economic Research Service [ERS] 2000a). Housing and Handling Methods Until about 1950 farm animals in industrialized countries were raised using traditional methods that relied on labor to accomplish routine tasks such as feeding and manure removal, and that generally involved keeping animals in outdoor or semi-outdoor environments. (Beef cattle and sheep are still kept in this way, at least during most of their production cycle.) After World War II, however, there emerged a new generation of technology typically called “confinement” or “intensive” animal production. Inten- sive production systems use hardware and automation instead of human labor for many routine tasks, and the animals are generally kept in specialized indoor environments. In industri- red meat has tended to decline (Fig- Science and Technology 1999). alized countries, confinement rearing ure 2). Animal products currently Specific types of animal agriculture is now the norm for poultry and contribute 10 percent of the calories tend to be concentrated in specific swine, while dairy cattle are generally eaten by people in developing coun- countries or regions of the world. The kept in semi-intensive systems where tries and nearly 30 percent of the calo- United States produces about one- the animals have access to a paddock, ries eaten in industrialized countries fourth of the world’s beef and veal; cement yard, or pasture for at least (FAO 1994). By 2020 global demand China is by far the world’s largest part of the year. Worldwide, intensive for meat is projected to increase more pork producer (Figure 3). The United animal-production systems account- than 60 percent over current con- States produces more than 30 per- ed for 79 percent of the poultry, 39 sumption, with 88 percent of this cent of the world’s poultry meat, and percent of the pork, and 68 percent of increase resulting from higher total China and the United States are the the eggs produced during 1996 (Sere meat consumption in developing world’s leading producers of eggs. and Steinfeld 1996). countries (Council for Agricultural The United States and India together

88 The State of the Animals: 2001 J. MENCH Figure 4. Laying hens in a battery-cage system

ed in the United States by a nation- wide “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest) produced strains of chickens suited to either egg-laying (layers) or meat production (broilers). Cage housing systems were developed for layers that allowed better environmental control, including control of the amount of light necessary to stimulate higher levels of egg production. Most laying hens in North America are now housed in cages (Figure 4), although in response to animal welfare concerns, some countries have Poultry peratures, and predators. Egg pro- moved toward providing more exten- Poultry production is the most highly duction was largely seasonal, and sive housing, either on range or in intensified of all the agricultural in- poultry meat was available mainly housing systems similar to those used dustries. In the 1950s hens were kept when the hens were “retired” from for broilers. Wire “battery cages” are in small flocks outdoors on range. egg-laying and sent to the processing arranged in rows and tiers (or batter- The death rate could be high because plant. A major, and highly successful, ies), with sloping floors that allow of soil-borne diseases, extreme tem- push to use genetic selection (initiat- eggs to roll to the front for collection. There are many different designs, but a typical cage houses three to ten hens, and a typical house contains thousands to tens of thousands of cages. Feeding, watering, and egg and manure collection are all automated. Hens are housed in these cages from the start of lay at sixteen to eighteen weeks of age through one or more laying cycles. Egg production begins to decline as hens age, so if the hens are to be kept after the end of their first laying cycle (at around seventy weeks of age), they are stimulated to resume higher egg production by “forced molting,” which induces them to replace their feathers. Forced molting is accom- plished by depriving the hens of feed, usually for eight to twelve days or until they lose 30–35 percent of their body weight. Egg production ceases for a period of one to several weeks during

Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000 89 period to four to six hours per day. At twenty-two weeks of age, males and females are housed together, often in flocks of ten thousand birds, and hatching eggs are produced. As with table-egg production, hens may be force-molted for a second or third laying cycle. Turkeys are produced similarly except that artificial insem-

ination is necessary because the T. HARTSOCK HSUS/M. FOX Figure 7. Figure 5. males are so large, due to genetic Pregnant sows are commonly housed in Commercial broilers are usually housed in selection for growth, that they cannot "gestation crates"; this technology has now floor systems, sometimes in groups of mate normally. been banned in the United Kingdom. 10,000 or more birds. the molt, then the hens resume high- ing by other pigs. Male piglets are sur- er rates of egg production for a sec- gically castrated, without anesthesia, ond, or even a third, laying cycle. to prevent “boar taint,” an unpleas- Hens generally have the distal third ant odor in the meat. Piglets are usu- or half of their beaks removed (called ally weaned at three to four weeks of “beak trimming”) to prevent injuries age. Recently, however, there has due to pecking, and they may also been a trend toward “segregated early have part of their toes removed so weaning,” removing the piglets earli- that they do not scratch one another. er to an environment some distance from the sow. This isolates piglets Beak and toe trimming are usually HSUS/M. FOX performed when chicks are one to Figure 6. from many disease pathogens while two weeks of age, using a hot blade to A sow in a farrowing crate with her piglets. they are still protected by maternally cauterize the tissues. Male chicks derived immunity, thus reducing the have no commercial value and are Swine risk of disease and the associated considered a by-product of the egg Swine production in North America slowing of growth later in life. industry. In 1998 219 million chicks has seen a strong trend away from After the piglets have been weaned, were killed in the commercial laying pasture production on small farms the sows are bred by either natural industry in the United States (USDA toward large-scale confinement sys- mating or artificial insemination. NASS 1999c), usually in a high-speed tems. Pigs may be kept in one facility During pregnancy, sows are fed a lim- ited amount of food to prevent obesi- macerator or by gas within twenty- from farrowing (birth), through the ty. Formerly this was often achieved four hours after hatching. “growing” phase (to a weight of about by keeping sows in groups and mov- Broiler chickens are housed in ninety lbs.), to “finishing” (market weight), or different facilities may be ing them each day into individual large groups (usually tens of thou- feeding stalls where dominant animals sands) in either completely or partial- used for different phases. During farrowing each sow is usual- could not monopolize the food. Today ly enclosed buildings on a floor cov- individual feeding is usually achieved ly confined to a “farrowing crate” ered with bedding (Figure 5). Feeding by housing sows in individual stalls or large enough to permit her to stand, and watering are automated. Broilers “gestation crates” for most of their grow rapidly and are marketed at lie, and nurse the piglets, but not from three to twelve weeks of age. large enough for her to turn around Broiler chickens are usually not beak (Figure 6); the piglets, attracted to trimmed, although “broiler breeders” warmth, are induced to rest in a pro- (the parent birds that produce broil- tected, heated area to the side or ers) are both beak- and toe-trimmed. front of the crate in order to reduce Broiler breeders are reared to sexu- the risk of their being crushed by the al maturity in houses similar to those sow. Newborn piglets have their “nee- used in broiler production. However, dle teeth” (deciduous canines and to prevent fertility problems associ- corner incisors) clipped short to pre- ated with obesity, broiler breeders are vent injuries to other piglets; they severely feed-restricted. This can lead may be ear-notched or tattooed for HSUS/M. FOX to excessive drinking; hence, to pre- individual identification; and their Figure 8. tails may be clipped short (“docked”) Growing and finishing pigs are usually vent problems with wet litter, water is housed in groups until they reach market often restricted during the rearing to prevent later damage from tail bit- weight at about six months of age.

90 The State of the Animals: 2001 pregnancy. To conserve space in the barns in which each cow is confined the United Kingdom) but not by oth- facility, crates provide only enough to an individual stall and held by a ers. Tail docking of dairy cattle is room for the sow to take about one neck chain, strap, or stanchion such increasingly common in Australia, step forward and back and not that she can lie down but cannot turn New Zealand, and North America; it is enough to walk or turn around (Fig- around. The stalls are usually bedded usually performed by placing a tight ure 7). Boars are generally housed in or covered with a rubber mat. The rubber ring around the tail several individual pens or stalls to prevent cows may be released from the stalls inches below the base, whereupon the aggression. for milking, or they may remain in constricted portion of the tail dies Market pigs are housed in groups their stalls and be milked by a mobile and falls off after several days. The during the growing and finishing milker. In some regions of the United ostensible reason for tail-docking is phases (Figure 8), typically in totally States, dairy cattle are managed in to improve hygiene and udder health, or partially enclosed buildings, “dry lot” systems (Figure 9), where but there is little evidence that dock- although they may sometimes be fin- several thousand cows are housed in ing has these effects. Docking does, ished on pasture. The buildings typi- outdoor padocks with a central par- however, make milking easier in milk- cally have flooring constructed of lor for milking. ing parlors in which cows are milked concrete with slats (sections of solid Dairy cows are usually bred by arti- from the rear. floor alternating with slots that allow manure to fall into a pit below) cov- ficial insemination. Since the cow’s ering some or all of the floor area. milk production is intended for hu- Manure is usually moved as a liquid to man consumption, most calves are outdoor lagoons or sealed tanks and weaned within twenty-four hours of held for several months before being birth (USDA APHIS 1996). Heifers sprayed on the land. Bedding materi- (female calves) are often raised on als, such as straw, are not generally the dairy farm as replacement ani- used in these liquid-manure systems. mals for the milking herd. However, about one-fifth of large operations Dairy cattle (those with more than two hundred cows) contract the rearing of heifers HSUS/M. FOX Dairy cattle are usually housed in Figure 10. semi-intensive systems involving to other farms (USDA APHIS 1996). In the United States and Canada, most beef some combination of indoor and out- When young, calves may be kept in animals are born and raised on pasture or door environments. According to a group pens, in individual stalls that rangeland systems and are "finished" on a grain-based diet in large feedlots. USDA survey, 58 percent of dairy restrict movement and contact with operations pastured their lactating neighboring calves, or in individual cows for at least three months during hutches or cubicles that may be asso- 1995 (USDA Animal and Plant ciated with a small outdoor area. Beef cattle, sheep, Health Inspection Service [APHIS] Male calves are generally considered a and goats 1996). About a quarter of U.S. dairy byproduct of the dairy industry. Beef cattle, sheep, and goats are usu- operations house cows in free-stall Depending on economics and local ally kept on pasture throughout barns (USDA APHIS 1996); these are circumstances, these calves will much of their lives. Beef cows are loose-housing systems with bedded either be killed shortly after birth or bred either by natural mating or by stalls that the cows can enter and raised for meat. In the latter case, artificial insemination; embryos from leave freely. Roughly 60 percent of calves may be raised to an age of four preferred animals may be implanted U.S. dairy operations use tie-stall months or older on a grain-based diet into others considered of lower quali- and marketed as “pink veal” or “baby ty. Beef calves stay with their mothers beef,” or they may be fed a low-iron, until weaning at roughly seven milk-based or milk-like diet, and mar- months of age; they may then be keted as “white” or “special-fed” veal. shipped to a feedlot (Figure 10) These calves may be kept in small where they are fed grain for four to six groups, but white-veal calves are months until they reach market more commonly kept in individual weight. Early weaning of beef calves stalls that limit their movement and (at three to four months of age), fol- prevent them from turning around. lowed by feedlot finishing, is becom- To prevent injuries, dairy cattle are ing increasingly common. To de- dehorned at an early age, usually by

HSUS/M. FOX crease problems with aggression and Figure 9. the use of a hot iron to cauterize the to produce more tender meat, male In some states, such as California, milk is developing horn buds. Local anes- calves not to be used for breeding are sometimes produced on large "dry lot thetic is used for this procedure by castrated. Both surgical and nonsur- dairies" housing several thousand cows. some growers (for example, those in

Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000 91 gical castration methods are used, tant pathogens (National Research 1990 but only $58.70 in 1996. Farm- and all are performed without anes- Council [NRC] 1999). In the United ers have little control over the mar- thesia. Beef cattle are also dehorned States during 1994, 55 percent of gins charged by retailers for their pro- using several different methods and beef cattle and 59 percent of market ducts, and a combination of retail are usually individually marked by hogs were given antibiotics in their price increases and low farm profit hot-iron or freeze branding. Confine- feed (USDA APHIS 1995a,b). Low lev- margins no doubt contributes to the ment systems are uncommon for els of antibiotics are included in most pressure on producers to increase sheep and goats, although lambs are U.S. broiler and turkey feed rations to production efficiency. sometimes finished in feedlots or improve growth and feed conversion raised in cages. Sheep and goats are (North and Bell 1990). Broader Social castrated and dehorned using meth- Farm animals have also undergone ods similar to those used for beef cat- significant changes through genetic Effects tle. To prevent fecal contamination of selection for desirable production As animal production in industrialized the hindquarters and subsequent traits such as rapid growth, leanness, countries has become more mecha- infestation with flies, sheep are usual- high milk yield, high egg production, nized and more concentrated in larg- ly tail-docked through the use of tight and low feed requirements. In some er units, farm structure and the rubber rings, a crushing device, or a sectors the use of artificial insemina- sociology of rural communities has hot knife. tion has allowed males of high genet- changed as well. Fewer and fewer peo- ic merit for production traits to sire ple are directly involved in animal Other Methods huge numbers of offspring on many production. In some regions, notably different farms. The industrial infra- the United States and some of the for- of Enhancing structure of animal breeding has also mer Soviet countries, large corporate- Productivity been evolving. For poultry and egg ly or collectively owned units have production, much of the primary While changes were occurring in ani- replaced many traditional family- breeding is done by a small number of mal housing and handling methods, owned units. These changes have companies. Instead of producing other performance-enhancing tech- been most dramatic in the U.S. poul- their own breeding sows, many swine nologies, including developments in try industry, where five companies producers now buy replacement nutrition, veterinary care, and genet- now control 53 percent of the broiler breeding animals from specialized ic selection, came into widespread market, and one company, Tyson breeding companies. use. Vaccines, disease-eradication Foods, alone controls 24 percent of These and other changes have programs, and disease-prevention the market (Thornton 2000). Much resulted in a dramatic increase in the measures virtually eliminated some broiler production has become verti- productivity of animal agriculture previously common animal diseases. cally integrated: birds go from hatch during the last fifty years. Annual Several hormone products came into to slaughter under the control of one use to enhance productivity. In the milk yield per cow has doubled or company, which uses contract labor United States, more than 90 percent tripled in most developed countries to raise the birds to market age. For of beef cattle now are implanted with since 1950 (Putnam 1991). Broiler example, Tyson Foods currently pro- hormones or given hormones in their chickens now reach a market weight duces 98 percent of its broilers under feed to improve their rate of gain and of 4 lbs. in roughly six weeks—down contract, in approximately 20,000 feed efficiency (USDA APHIS 1995a). from twelve weeks in 1950—and they houses on over 6,000 farms, with 45.9 The United States has also approved require less than 2 lbs. of feed per million chicks started per week. The the use of recombinant bovine growth pound of live weight—down from egg-laying industry is less integrated, hormone (rBST) for injection into 3.25 lbs. in 1950 (Gyles 1989). but similar trends are apparent. In dairy cattle as a means of increasing By and large, these increases in pro- the 1950s the average hen flock con- their metabolic efficiency and boost- ductivity have not been reflected in tained fewer than a thousand birds; ing milk yield. In the United States in the prices paid to farmers for their now flocks of tens of thousands to 1996, rBST was administered to ap- products. According to the Consumer millions of hens are common. Recent- proximately 10 percent of dairy cows Price Index, retail costs to consumers ly the average U.S. flock size for lay- overall and to more than 30 percent for meat and dairy products in the ing hens was reported to be 63,000 of cows on farms with more than two United States have increased approxi- birds, and 17 percent of farm sites hundred cows (USDA APHIS 1996). mately 45 percent since 1982–1984, housed more than 200,000 birds An older and more widespread inter- but payments to farmers have not (USDA APHIS 1999). Such units vention has been the use of low do- increased at all (USDA NASS 1999a). account for a large fraction of the sages of antibiotics as feed additives In some cases they have decreased; market: by 1998 34 percent of the to enhance growth; this practice has for example, farmers in the United U.S. egg industry was owned by only raised human health concerns about States received an average of $74.60 seven companies (Smith 1998). the development of antibiotic-resis- for 100 lbs. of cattle marketed in Other U.S. industries are following

92 The State of the Animals: 2001 the model adopted by the poultry in- began to grow rapidly. Most of China’s common pathogens from flocks or dustry. In the 1970s approximately huge production of pork comes from herds. Newer feeding technology, one million U.S. farms raised swine backyard feeding operations, with 92 combined with advances in nutrition- (Gillespie 1998), but by 1998 that percent of farmers raising fewer than al knowledge, have made it more fea- number had dropped to 114,380 five pigs per year (USDA ERS 2000b). sible to meet animals’ nutritional (USDA NASS 1999b). This decline in However, multinational companies needs. Veterinary knowledge and the number of pig farms is expected are expanding into developing na- technology allow vaccination, medi- to continue, even though the number tions, with animal health companies cation, and other disease prevention of pigs being produced in the United like the Pharmacia and Upjohn Com- measures that would not have been States is staying relatively constant pany building complexes and Tyson possible a half century ago. (Figure 3). Consequently there has Foods investing in giant poultry facil- However, the various changes in been an increase in unit size; 77.5 ities in China. Developing nations are animal agriculture have also created percent of the 1998 U.S. hog invento- likely to face difficult adjustments if animal welfare problems. Some per- ry was raised in units with at least and as animal agriculture shifts from tain specifically to the confinement of a thousand pigs (Figure 11). Approx- small-scale labor-based systems to animals indoors. When large numbers imately 40 percent of pigs are now more concentrated, intensive systems of animals are confined in an en- grown by contract in the United that place heavy demands on water closed space, inadequate ventilation States, compared with only 3 percent and electrical supplies and require is common. Harmful levels of res- in 1980 (Martinez 1999). In contrast, reliable transportation and marketing pirable dust, heat stress (if the venti- much beef cow-calf production is still systems. As noted by Hursey (1997), lation system cannot generate ade- comparatively small-scale. Although the intensification of animal produc- quate air flow in hot weather), and beef cattle in the United States tend to tion in the developing countries will irritating or dangerous gases (arising be finished to market weight in large result in “a plethora of interlinked from manure in bedding or stored in feedlots with more than a thousand problems and challenges of far-rang- pits below the floor) can result. In animals, approximately half of the beef ing significance” (ii–iii). many confinement units, interrup- cows are on farms with fewer than a tion of the electrical supply can cause hundred cows (USDA NASS 1999b). complete failure of ventilation sys- We have concentrated on trends in Animal Welfare tems. Then heat and air-quality prob- the United States and other industri- lems can rise to deadly levels in a mat- alized countries, but developing na- Issues ter of hours. tions are also seeing rapid changes in Some changes in animal agriculture Agricultural buildings often use animal agriculture. China provides a have had positive effects on animal concrete as a durable, low-cost floor- particularly important example. From welfare. The use of indoor housing ing material, but concrete surfaces the early 1980s to the early 1990s, has eliminated some problems relat- have many possible drawbacks. Slip- China’s per capita consumption of ed to predation and harsh weather. pery concrete can cause accidents; meat increased by 8.3 percent per Confinement sometimes has been irregular concrete seems to predis- year, and animal production in China used to prevent disease by excluding pose hoofed animals to lameness; and concrete’s overall hardness may stress hooves and joints. Under cool conditions unbedded concrete ap- pears to be an uncomfortable lying surface and may disturb normal rest- ing. Metal flooring is sometimes used as an alternative, but many of the same comfort problems remain. Poor- ly designed flooring in laying hens cages contributes to discomfort and foot and leg problems and can even cause the hens to become trapped. Space in indoor units tends to be minimal. The recommended space allowance for laying hens in some countries is 60–80 square inches per hen, barely enough for the hen to turn around and not enough for her to per- form normal comfort behaviors; how-

Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000 93 ever, many hens are allowed less than problems, perhaps due to hunger. and repetitive manual labor typical of even that meager amount. Industry Among pigs some genetic lines more-traditional animal production codes recommend about 8–10 square selected strongly for rapid growth and systems. Retaining a reliable farm feet per market-weight pig—not muscle deposition show correlated labor force became difficult as more much more than enough space for all increases in excitability. Such animals lucrative employment opportunities animals in the pen to lie down at the may develop severe, even fatal, physi- arose in more mechanized sectors of same time. Commercial practice may ological stress responses during han- the economy. The availability of crowd animals above this level. dling and transportation. antibiotics and other measures Amenities such as bedding to improve Various other disease conditions allowed large numbers of animals to floor comfort or features of the nat- can arise from pushing animals’ body be kept close together without major ural environment such as perches and processes beyond their normal range. disease outbreaks. Moreover, for sev- dust-baths (for hens) or nest-building Dairy cattle with very high milk yields eral decades agricultural research material (for hens or sows) are usual- appear particularly prone to mastitis, and development focused on greater ly omitted. Consequently, there is lit- lameness, and other health problems. productivity, efficiency, and return on tle opportunity for animals to engage Pigs fed finely ground grains, which investment, while paying little explic- in some of their natural behavior, and help promote efficient feed use, are it attention to their impact on the this may in time affect their health. also predisposed to gastric ulcers. environment, worker health, rural Restricted space and barren environ- Fast growth in broiler chickens is communities, or animal welfare. ments may also lead to harmful be- associated with health problems such While all these factors have likely havioral abnormalities. Pigs in a re- as ascites (pulmonary hypertension). contributed, changes in marketing stricted, barren space sometimes A number of animal management and economic pressures played—and direct their foraging activities (root- practices also raise animal welfare continue to play—a dominant role in ing and chewing) to the bodies of concerns. Some, such as hot-iron reshaping animal agriculture. In ear- pen-mates to the extent that they branding, castration without anesthe- lier centuries food products made damage tails or other body parts, es- sia, and early removal of dairy calves from animals, being highly perish- pecially if tails have not been docked. from their mothers, are traditional able, tended to be produced and con- Chickens that are not beak-trimmed but have become controversial be- sumed locally. The twentieth century saw the advent of effective refrigera- may peck flockmates to the point of cause of public concern about caus- tion, fast freezing, and other innova- damaging or killing them. ing pain or distress to animals. Oth- tions in product preservation, com- Another set of problems has arisen ers practices, such as the tail docking bined with explosive growth in through genetic selection for produc- of pigs and the beak trimming of publicly subsidized road transportation efficiency. Typically, breeders of hens, are controversial because they tion. Meat, milk, and eggs now could farm animals have exercised intense are seen as stop-gap measures mask- be sold into ever larger markets— genetic selection for a small number ing basic inadequacies in environ- regional, national, even international. of commercially important traits. ment or management. Transportation Producers were in effect competing However, if genetic selection is based and management of animals after against thousands of other producers, on unduly narrow criteria, it can lead they leave the farm raise major ani- often in various regions of the world. to significant animal health and wel- mal welfare concerns that are covered The resulting price competition fare problems. Genetic selection of elsewhere in this volume. and associated need to reduce pro- laying hens for high egg production duction costs have had at least three and low maintenance requirements effects. First, price competition has can create birds that are prone to Understanding clearly contributed to the increase in osteoporosis because bone calcium is farm size. Larger farms often enjoy mobilized for egg shell formation. the Revolution economies of scale such as greater Selection for rapid growth in broiler in Animal bargaining power in purchasing feed, chickens has led to birds that appear and they can generally sell animal to gain weight too quickly relative to products at lower prices. Once larger their leg strength, resulting in leg Agriculture Why are farm animals kept the way units began to appear, other produc- abnormalities and lameness. Broiler they are? A mix of cultural factors and ers had to expand their operations in breeders, which live for much longer technology is no doubt involved. order to compete, even though expan- than do their offspring killed for Twentieth-century cultural values saw sion often involved greater debt and meat, show the same very high levels automation and mass production as workload. In extreme cases, such as of appetite. These birds have to be forms of progress. Perhaps in re- broiler production in the United kept on restricted diets in order to sponse to rising standards of living, States, the size of unit typically oper- prevent obesity, and aggression and farmers sought to avoid the arduous ated by a farm family ceased to be abnormal behaviors are common economically viable at all. Second,

94 The State of the Animals: 2001 production systems that avoided and protected environment for the major costs or losses have replaced Measures to newborn piglets. Enriched cages for systems that failed to do so. Many sec- laying hens keep the birds in small, tors have changed almost universally Protect Farm stable groups (thus avoiding the so- to confinement systems where labor cial stress of large flocks) while pro- requirements are reduced and certain Animals viding amenities such as litter, a common causes of death or illness are perch, and a nest-box. The European avoided. Third, it has become difficult Production Methods Community has announced that it in- for producers to provide animals with and Genetic tends to require all new cages for lay- certain traditional amenities. If profit Selection ing hens to be enriched in these ways per animal is sufficiently large, pro- by the year 2013. ducers are free to provide space, vet- One approach producers have used to A third alternative, still in its infan- erinary care, bedding, and other ame- address public concerns over farm cy, is to use electronics rather than nities beyond what is strictly in the animal welfare has involved returning physical restraint to solve certain ani- interests of profit; with very low profit to more traditional production meth- mal management problems. For ex- margins, the time and resources that ods. For example, “free-range” egg ample, gestation crates for pregnant can be devoted to each animal are systems give laying hens access to sows arose as a low-cost means of severely constrained. outdoor runs as well as to indoor shel- feeding sows individually to prevent In fact, many of the animal welfare ters with perches and nest-boxes; pas- bullying and over-eating by dominant problems commonly attributed to ture systems for dairy cattle allow ani- animals; now, however, with comput- confinement technology may actually mals to graze at pasture during the erized equipment, group-housed sows be problems of extreme price compe- summer months and walk to a parlor can enter an individual feeding sta- tition in a large market. By itself, the for milking twice a day; outdoor far- tion where they are recognized elec- practice of penning sows individually rowing systems house sows in a field tronically and receive an assigned during pregnancy may be a defensible with individual huts that provide a amount of food which they can eat way of promoting health and prevent- protected area for them to give birth without harassment. Similarly, new ing aggression; but restricting the and raise their litters. A common robotic milking systems allow cows to space allowance to a narrow, unbed- public perception is that these older be kept in open pens and enter the ded stall is a matter of economics. By systems of animal production neces- milking station at will to be milked. itself, the use of caging to keep hens sarily result in improved standards of Virtually all of these approaches re- in small stable groups, separated animal welfare and food quality. In quire research, testing, and develop- from their excreta, may be a defensi- reality, some of these systems gener- ment if they are to meet the health ble means of improving hygiene and ate significant welfare problems of and welfare needs of the animals and preventing social stress; however their own. For example, in the United the producer’s needs for convenient, crowding many hens into a small, bar- States, where sheep are typically safe, and reliable production meth- ren cage is a decision based on eco- raised on pasture or range, predation ods. Unfortunately, neither industry nomics. Because confinement meth- and weather-related losses together nor government invests significantly ods became the dominant technology account for about 85 percent of lamb in such research in North America, during a time of increasing market deaths (USDA APHIS 1995c). More- and even in Europe the amount of competition, these methods often over, some traditional systems lan- research is inadequate to keep pace minimize the space and amenities guished without research or develop- with the public’s desire to reform ani- provided per animal, but these nega- ment during a half century in which mal production methods. Thus, for tive aspects are more a reflection of they went largely unused. If these sys- example, when Sweden announced its market-driven economic constraints tems come back into use, they will intention to ban battery cages for than of confinement methods them- need to be developed and evaluated, hens, there was substantial concern selves. This may help explain why the and appropriate standards will need that available alternative systems debate over confinement agriculture to be set in order to ensure that the were not well enough studied and tends to run at cross-purposes. Pro- systems meet the needs of the ani- developed to ensure that the ban ducers defend confinement by citing mals and consumers’ expectations. would necessarily improve the welfare the health and other benefits it was A second approach is to retain the of the birds. designed to deliver, while critics at- advantages of confinement systems Partly because narrow genetic se- tack confinement by citing disadvan- but mitigate the negative effects, lection has contributed to many ani- tages to the animal caused partly by partly by restoring a more traditional mal welfare problems, more-appropri- cost cutting. level of space and amenities. Some ate animal breeding can partially indoor farrowing pens allow a degree improve animal welfare. Broiler chick- of freedom and comfort for the sow ens can be selected for both skeletal while providing a warm, draft-free, soundness and production traits; this

Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000 95 can decrease leg problems with only a um price for the producer. Austria has tion on a smaller scale. For many small negative effect on growth rate. taken a slightly different approach. years, pig producers in Alberta, Cana- Appropriate genetic selection can There a producer-initiated program da, have operated a system for insur- produce pigs that grow efficiently uses a numerical scoring system to ing producers against the death of without deleterious reactions to assess standards of hygiene, disease pigs during trucking. The premiums stress and hens that are less predis- prevention, animal handling skill, escalate markedly for producers who posed to cannibalistic behavior in con- and appropriate housing. Producers have a history of substantial claims; finement. Use of “polled” (genetically achieving a certain overall score can this incentive is credited with improv- hornless) cattle can obviate the need use a distinctive label to identify the ing the standards of trucking and for dehorning. For these changes to product. The program is credited with greatly reducing losses due to deaths occur, animal breeders, large breeding retaining consumer loyalty for small- during transportation. Incentives to companies in particular, will need to scale Austrian producers in the face improve animal welfare can also be be convinced to include animal wel- of lower-priced imports from coun- given to workers. In several countries fare considerations in their criteria for tries where animal production is catching crews that load and trans- genetic selection. more intensive. As these programs port chickens are given bonuses if the grow, there may be a need for inter- birds arrive at the processing facility Economic Incentives national standards and definitions in in good condition, with few bruises or order to avoid confusion. injuries, or alternatively are penalized and Policies Some economic policies appear to if bruising, injury, and death exceed Many alternatives to standard con- mitigate farm animal welfare prob- certain levels. finement methods involve higher pro- lems. In some countries, subsidiza- duction costs, which must be offset tion or price controls have kept the Legal Measures through economic incentives to pro- profit per animal at a reasonably tra- ducers. Additional costs can be sub- At the beginning of the twenty-first ditional level, with the result that pro- century, legal protection of farm ani- stantial if an alternative system ducers can afford to raise animals in involves more labor, less efficient use mals is in flux. Historically most ani- flocks and herds of traditional size mal protection laws were intended to of feed, or greater losses through dis- and to provide traditional levels of ease and death. If these problems are prevent animal suffering caused by space, amenities, and care. In Nor- unusual and socially unacceptable avoided, however, the cost of en- way, for example, price subsidies and hanced housing can be relatively behavior such as deliberate cruelty the decision to reject free trade with or gross neglect. Typically these pro- small. Generally, housing is a small other European countries have fraction of the total cost of animal visions do not apply to suffering allowed small farms with high levels caused by common agricultural prac- production—compared with feed, la- of care and reasonably spacious ani- bor, and utilities—so just a small in- tices. Many Canadian provinces and mal accommodation to remain eco- U.S. states, for example, forbid the increase in the retail price, if passed on nomically viable. to the producer, could support sub- fliction of unnecessary suffering The supply management system for on animals but exempt “generally stantial housing improvements. egg production in Canada provides One way to compensate producers accepted” or “normal” farm animal another example. Under free-market management practices from this pro- for using alternative systems is conditions, when egg prices are high, through labeling that identifies prod- hibition. The United Kingdom re- the greatest profit can generally be quires that captive birds in cages have ucts produced according to specified achieved by crowding extra birds into standards or methods. The European enough space to stretch their wings a cage system to the point of reduc- freely, but commercial poultry are Community has established standard ing their individual health and rate of definitions for alternative production specifically exempted from this lay, yet still increasing the total num- requirement. methods, such as free-range eggs, ber of eggs produced. However, the which normally sell at a premium In the late 1900s, however, a num- Canadian supply management system ber of European countries introduced price. A more comprehensive scheme limits the number of birds that a pro- is the Freedom Foods program in the legal measures to restrict the use of ducer can house but does not limit controversial agricultural practices. United Kingdom, originated by the the number of eggs that can be sold. Royal Society for the Prevention of In some cases, practices were specifi- The system tends to favor space cally banned or regulated. Several Cruelty to Animals. The program allowances that maximize the produc- requires certain standards and meth- countries now prohibit the use of bat- tivity per bird, thus largely eliminat- tery cages for laying hens; Sweden re- ods of animal production and in- ing the incentive for extreme crowd- spects subscribing farms for compli- quires that dairy cows be given access ing, and the price stability created by to pasture in the summer; and the ance. The products are then eligible the system has allowed smaller farms to carry the Freedom Foods label, United Kingdom does not allow veal to remain viable (Figure 12). calves to be kept in narrow crates. In which generally commands a premi- Economic incentives can also func-

96 The State of the Animals: 2001 trade agreements on farm animal welfare. When the European Community created directives on farm animal welfare standards, it was its stated intention to exclude imports from countries that do not require equiva- lent standards. If this intention can be realized, then international trade might provide an incentive for raising and harmonizing standards. On the other hand, some critics fear that trade panels will disallow trade restrictions based on animal welfare considerations. In that case increased international trade will likely expand further the size of the competitive market, making price competition even more severe and imposing further constraints on the level of animal care that producers can afford to provide. other cases, new animal housing sys- would vote “yes” on a measure legally The Debate tems must be approved for conformi- requiring that farm animals be pro- ty to animal welfare standards before vided with living spaces large enough about Animal they can be marketed or used; Swe- for animals to turn around and den, Norway, and Switzerland have stretch their limbs (Decision Re- Agriculture such provisions. In yet other cases, search 1997). In 1998 Coloradons No contemporary account of farm codes of practice have been created voted 2 to 1 in favor of a statutory animal production would be complete that have some recognition under the amendment to increase regulation of without mention of the acrimonious law. In the United Kingdom, it is an large-scale hog confinement facilities. clash of views to which it has given offense to cause unnecessary pain or Thus, the trend toward regulating rise. On one side are highly negative distress to farm animals in one’s care; farming practices may well spread to portrayals of animal agriculture, of- failure to follow established codes of North America and elsewhere. ten originating from vegetarian or practice, while not itself an offense, Where trade agreements require animal rights sources, including fa- can be used as evidence against a countries to accept each others’ agri- miliar works such as Peter Singer’s defendant accused of causing unnec- cultural products, one country’s pro- Animal Liberation and John Robbins’s essary pain or distress. In other coun- ducers can be penalized if they must Diet for a New America. These mate- tries, such as the United States and follow restrictions that do not apply rials generally make six interrelated Canada, industry codes of practice elsewhere. Swiss egg producers are claims about animal agriculture: (1) have been written, but compliance is not allowed to use battery cages, but farm animals live miserable lives, strictly voluntary. eggs from caged hens are imported partly because of confinement pro- The United States, Canada, and into Switzerland from countries duction methods; (2) greed for profit many other countries outside Europe where cages are allowed. Similarly has replaced traditional animal hus- have regulations designed to protect since the ban on veal calf crates took bandry ethics in determining how ani- the welfare of animals during trans- effect in the United Kingdom, many mals are treated; (3) animal agricul- portation and pre-slaughter manage- calves from British farms have been ture is now controlled by large ment, but not while they are being shipped to continental Europe to be corporations, not by individuals or raised on farms. However, surveys in raised in crates. Nothing prevents farm families; (4) animal agriculture the United States suggest that public their meat from then being sold in damages the environment through support for regulation is growing. For the United Kingdom. The need for pollution, use of natural resources, example, 67 percent of consumers international harmonization is clear, and destruction of natural habitats; polled said they would vote for addi- but international trade authorities (5) animal production causes in- tional government regulation of pro- have so far shown little inclination to creased world hunger by consuming duction practices (Animal Industry provide the necessary leadership. grain and other resources that could Foundation 1989). Seventy-one per- In fact, great uncertainty surrounds better be used to feed hungry people; cent of U.S. citizens polled said they the future effects of international and (6) animal products are un-

Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000 97 healthy for human consumers. lution in animal agriculture, to iden- Sere, C., and H. Steinfeld. 1996. On the other side of the conflict are tify better and worse options, and to World livestock production systems. highly positive portrayals of animal allow informed consensus building to Animal Production and Health agriculture, largely originating from guide future developments. Paper 127. Rome: Food and Agri- animal producers and their organiza- culture Organization of the United tions. These paint an entirely differ- Nations. ent picture of modern farming: (1) it Literature Cited Singer, P. 1990. Animal liberation. is beneficial to animal welfare, partly Animal Industry Foundation. 1989. Revised edition. New York: Avon because of the advantages of indoor Survey results on how Americans Books. environments; (2) it respects tradi- view modern livestock farming. Ani- Smith, R. 1998. Egg industry warned tional animal husbandry values; (3) it mal Industry Foundation, CR 2765, flock may be getting too large. is largely owned and operated by tra- April. Feedstuffs, November 9. ditional farm families; (4) it benefits Council for Agricultural Science and Thornton, G. 2000. Broiler company the environment by recycling nutri- Technology (CAST). 1999. Animal rankings. WATT PoultryUSA 1(1): ents back to the land; (5) it helps to agriculture and the global food sup- 30–40. reduce world hunger by creating food ply. Report No. 135. Ames, Iowa: UN Food and Agricultural Organiza- from materials not used in human CAST. tion (FAO). 1994. State of food and nutrition; and (6) it produces safe, Decision Research. 1997. Oregon agriculture, 1994. Electronic prod- nutritious food. statewide poll #4971. Washington, uct, November 1994. With an activity as diverse as animal D.C.: Decision Research. ——————. 2000. Statistical data- agriculture, proponents of each of Fraser, D., and M.L. Leonard. 1993. base. faostat.fao.org/default.htm. these highly simplified views can cite Farm animal welfare. In Animal pro- Accessed May and June 2000. facts and examples to support their duction in Canada, eds. J. Martin, USDA Animal and Plant Health claims, yet neither one provides an R.J. Hudson, and B.A. Young. Inspection Service (APHIS). 1995a. adequate or accurate description of Edmonton, Canada: University of Feedlot management practices. animal agriculture. Even within a sin- Alberta Faculty of Extention. Washington, D.C.: USDA. gle region, animal production meth- Gillespie, J.R. 1998. Animal science. ——————. 1995b. Swine ’95: Ref- ods can vary from intensive systems Albany, N.Y.: Delmar Publishers. erence of 1995 swine management such as layer barns to traditional ones Gyles, N.R. 1989. Poultry, people, and practices. Washington, D.C.: USDA. such as cow-calf ranching. Corporate progress. Poultry Science 68: 1–8. ——————. 1995c. Sheep and control is well established in certain Hursey, B.S. 1997. Towards the twen- lamb death loss 1995. Washington, sectors and regions, while families ty-first century—The challenges D.C.: USDA. and individuals remain the dominant facing livestock production. World ——————. 1996. Dairy ’96: Refer- owners in others. Environmental im- Animal Review 89: ii–iii. ence of 1996 dairy management pacts can be generally positive if ani- Martinez, S.W. 1999. Vertical coordi- practices. Washington, D.C.: USDA. mal numbers are commensurate with nation in the pork and broiler indus- ——————. 1999. Layers ’99: Ref- the land base and if manure is well tries: Implications for pork and erence of 1999 table egg layer man- managed; but environmental impacts chicken products. Agricultural Eco- agement in the United States. Wash- can be negative if animal production nomic Report No. 777. Washington, ington, D.C.: USDA. is highly concentrated and environ- D.C.: Economic Research Service, USDA Economic Research Service mental controls are lax. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (ERS). 2000a. U.S. agriculture and The debate over animal agriculture, National Research Council (NRC). food economy at a glance. despite the polemical and often mis- 1999. The use of drugs in food ani- www.econ.ag.gov/Briefing/agfood. leading way it has been represented mals. Benefits and risks. Washing- Washington, D.C.: USDA. Accessed to the public, has raised issues of im- ton, D.C.: National Academic Press. June 2000. mense importance. The revolution in North, M.O., and D.D. Bell. 1990. ——————. 2000b. China: Situa- animal agriculture during the twenti- Commercial chicken production tion and outlook series. Interna- eth century had, and continues to manual. Fourth edition. New York: tional Agriculture and Trade have, profound effects on farm ani- Chapman and Hall. Reports, WRS-99-4, March 2000. mals, on human nutrition, on rural Putnam, P.A. 1991. Demographics of Washington, D.C.: USDA. communities, and indeed on the glob- dairy cows and products. In Hand- USDA National Agricultural Statistics al ecosystem; moreover, the changes book of animal science, ed. P.A. Put- Service (NASS). 1999a. Agricultural have taken place with remarkably lit- nam. New York: Academic Press. statistics 1999. Washington, D.C.: tle informed public debate or com- Robbins, J. 1987. Diet for a new Amer- USDA. prehensive policy development. There ica. Walpole: Stillpoint Publishing. ——————. 1999b. U.S. livestock is an urgent need for careful analysis summary, statistical highlights to understand the effects of the revo- 1998/99. Washington, D.C.: USDA.

98 The State of the Animals: 2001 ————. 1999c. 1998 hatchery pro- Webster, J. 1994. Animal welfare: A duction summary. Washington, cool eye towards Eden. Oxford: D.C.: USDA. Blackwell Science. —————. 2000. Agricultural statistics 2000. Washington, D.C.: USDA. Further Reading Appleby, M.C., and B.O. Hughes, eds. Animal welfare. Wallingford: CAB International. Fox, M.W. 1984. Farm animals: Hus- bandry, behavior and veterinary practice. Baltimore: University Park Press. Fraser, A.F., and D.M. Broom. 1990. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. Third edition. London: Bail- lière Tindall. Grandin, T., ed. 2000. Livestock handling and transport. Second edition. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Hodges, J., and I.K. Han, eds. 2000. Livestock, ethics and quality of life. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Johnson, A. 1991. Factory farming. Oxford: Blackwell. Moss, R., ed. 1994. Animal welfare and veterinary sciences. Revue sci- entifique et technique, Office international des épizooties 13: 1–302 (special issue). Rollin, B.E. 1995. Farm animal welfare: Social, bioethical, and research issues. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Sainsbury, D. 1986. Farm animal welfare: Cattle, pigs and poultry. Lon- don: Collins. Sørensen, J.T., ed. 1997. Livestock farming systems: More than food production. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. European Association for Animal Production Publication No. 89. Wageningen: Wageningen Pers. Thompson, P.B. 1998. Agricultural ethics: Research, teaching, and public policy. Ames: Iowa State Univer- sity Press. Van Zutphen, L.F.M., and P.G.C. Bed- ford, eds. 1999. Genetics and animal welfare. Animal Welfare 8: 307–438 (special issue).

Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000 99