DOCSLIB.ORG

The Need for an 'Animal Ethics Turn' in Animal Husbandry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Need for an 'Animal Ethics Turn' in Animal Husbandry Lintner (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(1):17–22 DOI:10.3220/LBF1590334788000 17 POSITION PAPER The need for an ‘animal ethics turn’ in animal husbandry Martin M. Lintner1 Received: October 10, 2019 Revised: December 2, 2019 Accepted: December 19, 2019 Konrad Glombik Konrad © Martin Lintner KEYWORDS animal welfare ethics, animal turn, animal husbandry, livestock farming, consumption of meat and animal products, climate change In the following paper I argue that there is an urgent need for transporting them over thousands of kilometres throughout an ‘animal ethics turn’ in animal husbandry. There are various Europe and beyond. In response to this incisive statement, reasons for this demand, such as the negative impact of live- Koch generated a huge number of counter-reac tions from stock farming on climate change and the fact that current farmers’ representatives. Finally, the then Federal Agricul- animal protection laws only address minimum standards of tural Minister, Christian Schmidt, felt compelled to declare: animal welfare, which, in some cases, are systematically vio- “With all due respect to the voice of the Church, food produc- lated. Some animal ethics approaches such as abolitionism tion deserves to be considered and discussed in a restrained argue that the only moral solution is to completely renounce way. I am, therefore, very surprised at some of the state- the use of animals as resources or products. The present ments. I expect care for our animals, but also for our farmers.”2 paper, however, represents an animal welfare position. It Koch reacted somewhat meekly and said that he was aware rejects the reduction of animals to a mere means for human that the vast majority of farmers would carry out their work purposes as morally offensive and unacceptable. This does with great awareness of their responsibility towards God’s not mean to reject the use of animals in any form as ethical- creation and thus also towards the animals. ly objectionable, but demands that humans should always b) On 15 March 2019, the Ulm District Court sentenced a respect animals’ pursuit of a flourishing life by responding pig farmer from Merklingen in Baden-Württemberg to three positively to their species-specific and individual needs and years’ imprisonment without probation (Herrmann, 2019; capabilities. ZEIT Online, 2019). According to the court’s ruling, several hundred pigs had died as a result of the poor housing condi- 1 Introduction: two examples tions or had to be killed on the instructions of the veterinary office due to their acute injuries. Altogether, over 1,600 pigs a) While attending ‘International Green Week 2017’ in Berlin, died on the farm. The 56-year-old defendant is said to have the Catholic Archbishop of Berlin, Heiner Koch, sharply crit- killed two injured animals with a sledgehammer. The poor icised the poor conditions in large-scale livestock farming conditions of animal husbandry on the farm were uncov- (Öhler, 2017). He reprimanded pig farmers whose animals ered in 2016 by an animal protection association. Activists never see daylight, who treat the creatures like industrial had filmed the animals on the farm. The proceedings against mass-market goods and slaughter them under cruel condi- tions. The cattle breeders who brutally violate their animals by 2 All translations by the author. 1 Philosophical-Theological College Brixen, Chair of Theological Ethics and Spiritual Theology, Italy CONTACT: [email protected] 18 Lintner (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(1):17–22 them were suspended after a fine of 100 Euros was paid. The consumption. To feed these animals, huge areas of rain forest farm was closed. The court based its judgment on the argu- are cleared or burned. Soil degradation contributes signifi- ment that in this particular case of detected animal cruelty, cantly to global emissions of carbon dioxide. The produc- protecting animal welfare weighed more heavily than pro- tion of feed, which is often transported between continents, tection against trespassing. An interesting marginal detail requires enormous amounts of energy and synthetic fertil- revealed that the pig farmer’s produce had previously been isers. Soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and the pollution sold EU-wide using various quality seals, for example, ‘qual- of soil, water and air are some of the serious consequences. ity produce from Baden-Württemberg’ and ‘animal welfare Finally, orientation towards the criterion of economic efficien- approved’. The Federal Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner cy largely ignores animal welfare (Gottwald and Boergen, commented on the Ulm District Court ruling: “Our animal 2014). In order to radically change this system and to avoid protection laws do not constitute a suggested quality thresh- environmental trade-offs, there is a need for effective strate- old; they are there to be complied with. Anyone who treats gies and complex interactions. One aspect is the urgency to animals as though they are merely a commodity, lets them establish an animal ethics standpoint. An ‘animal ethics turn’ die in desolate conditions or torments them should not be in livestock would lead to the reduction of animal numbers allowed to keep animals. And it is right that those who tor- in farming and, therefore, change the use of land in many ture animals and do not obey our laws are punished. Farm- regions, which would consequently represent a significant ers who do not treat their animals properly harm not only climate change mitigation (Havlík et al., 2014; Stevanović et the animals, but the entire profession, and there are many al., 2017). farmers who behave in an exemplary manner.” These two examples serve to illustrate the same problem. 3 The ‘animal turn’ in our society and The livestock farming conditions that Koch reprimanded animal welfare in animal husbandry were neither invented nor exaggerated but correspond to a wide-spread reality. It is also noticeable that farmers’ associa- There is currently an ambiguous trend in our society. On the tions usually demonstrate an almost knee-jerk defensive one hand, a so-called ‘animal turn’ can be observed, i.e. an response in line with their policies; either they deny the issue increasing scholarly interest in animals, their abilities and entirely or they defend the farmers by lauding their personal functions, the relationships between human and non-hu- ethos and efforts in guaranteeing animal welfare standards. man animals, and in the role and status of animals in modern In my opinion, many farmers do indeed try to ensure the human society (Ritvo, 2007). Even a new scientific discipline welfare and health of their animals, but often the concrete has been established: Human-Animal Studies (Kompat- conditions and economic constraints do not permit appro- scher et al., 2017). On the other hand, although we know priate animal husbandry. The economic output required for much more than former generations about the behaviours, a farm to make a profitable income is often at the cost of needs, requirements, and sensitive, emotional and cognitive the health and welfare of livestock. The discussion is often abilities of animals, as well as how to keep and farm differ- confined to the question of the correct interpretation and ent animal species appropriately, the economic efficien cy of enforcement of legal procedures whilst disregarding the livestock farming is in great conflict with the goals of animal question of ethics. Legal requirements are largely based on welfare. Livestock farming is mainly orientated towards eco- minimum standards. There are, however, also cases of overt nomic efficiency and compatibility with technical systems. In pain and death-provoking cruelty to animals as the second other words, the technical systems in livestock farming are example shows. not adapted to the basic species-specific needs and behav- This introduction has already named a number of aspects ioural patterns of animals, but rather the opposite. which demonstrate the complexity of the issues within live- To clarify, this is not only a problem for farming, but also stock farming. I believe there is an urgent requirement for for trade and consumer behaviour. Wholesale and retail reform in agriculture. My two main reasons for this are out- trade as well as consumers are indeed co-responsible for lined below: the impact of livestock on climate change and the way animals are kept, treated and slaughtered. Owing animal ethical requirements. The focus of this position paper to the market dynamics of supply and demand, by buying will be on the second aspect. animal products, distributors, retailers and consumers not only implicitly approve of, but directly co-finance how these 2 Impact of livestock on climate change products are produced on farms and are treated at auctions, in transit and at abattoirs. Analogous to the basic principles According to the latest studies, intensive agriculture and of fair trade, it is therefore a matter of sensitising the pro- industrialised livestock farming account for up to 24% of ducers (farmers, butchers, and so on), distributors, retailers annual greenhouse gas emissions worldwide – particularly and consumers of animal products to the ethical concerns methane and nitrous oxide – and are thus significantly respon- of dealing with animals, and of motivating them to treat ani- sible for global climate change (PIK, 2016; Stevanović et al., mals fairly. Within the complex system of economics, no sin- 2017; Grossi et al., 2019). Furthermore, the livestock sector gle party is able to change things for the better by working requires a significant amount of natural resources. An esti- in isolation. Therefore, there is a need for strong collabora- mated 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo, 15 billion poul- tion between all parties. At the same time, there is a need to try and nearly 1 billion pigs are kept worldwide for human overcome widespread practices within the livestock industry Lintner (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(1):17–22 19 that still violate existing animal protection laws.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mink Farming in the U.S. Economics Animal Care & Welfare Sustainability Biosecurity COVID & Mink
    Mink Farming in the U.S. Economics Almost 3 million mink are commercially raised in 22 US states. In 2019, mink farming created over $85 million in taxable revenue in the U.S and supported thousands of jobs in our rural communities. U.S. mink farms are 100% family owned and operated businesses, often with 3 generations working on the farm. Animal Care & Welfare Animal health and welfare is the first priority of American mink farmers. Mink farmers have strict operating guidelines governing the humane care of animals. Farmers follow comprehensive animal husbandry practices developed with scientists, veterinarians, and welfare experts, with rigorous standards for nutrition, housing, biosecurity, veterinary care and humane harvesting. The mink farming standards in the U.S. have been certified by the Professional Animal Auditors Certification Organization (PAACO) and farms are independently inspected by Validus Verification Services. Like in all animal agriculture, mink farmers are subject to state and federal laws. Mink on U.S. farms are harvested according to humane practices and methods as recommended by the AVMA. Mink farms must also abide by all environmental regulations. Less than ¼ of 1 percent of all animals harvested in agriculture are taken for fur products. Sustainability Farmed mink consume food industry by-products not fit for human consumption, keeping it out of our landfills. Each animal will consume more than 20-times their body weight per year of human food production by-product, translating to over 300 million pounds of waste recycled. After harvesting, mink remains are used in organic composts, artisanal pet foods and rendered into oils for conditioners, cosmetic products, and even tire-care products.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock and Landscapes
    SUSTAINABILITY PATHWAYS LIVESTOCK AND LANDSCAPES SHARE OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN GLOBAL LAND SURFACE DID YOU KNOW? Agricultural land used for ENVIRONMENT Twenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production. Livestock contribute to seven percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions through enteric fermentation and manure. In developed countries, 90 percent of cattle Agricutural land used for belong to six breed and 20 percent of livestock breeds are at risk of extinction. OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SOCIAL One billion poor people, mostly pastoralists in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, depend on livestock for food and livelihoods. Globally, livestock provides 25 percent of protein intake and 15 percent of dietary energy. ECONOMY Livestock contributes up to 40 percent of agricultural gross domestic product across a significant portion of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but receives just three percent of global agricultural development funding. GOVERNANCE With rising incomes in the developing world, demand for animal products will continue to surge; 74 percent for meat, 58 percent for dairy products and 500 percent for eggs. Meeting increasing demand is a major sustainability challenge. LIVESTOCK AND LANDSCAPES SUSTAINABILITY PATHWAYS WHY DOES LIVESTOCK MATTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY? £ The livestock sector is one of the key drivers of land-use change. Each year, 13 £ As livestock density increases and is in closer confines with wildlife and humans, billion hectares of forest area are lost due to land conversion for agricultural uses there is a growing risk of disease that threatens every single one of us: 66 percent of as pastures or cropland, for both food and livestock feed crop production.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Schedule DI
    Schedule Wisconsin Dairy and Livestock Farm Investment Credit DI File with Wisconsin Form 1, 1NPR, 2, 3, 4, 4T, 5, or 5S Name Identifying Number 2010 Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1 Fill in the amount paid in 2010 for the following items if used exclusively for dairy or livestock farm modernization or expansion: a Freestall barns . 1a b Fences . 1b c Watering facilities . 1c d Feed storage and handling equipment . 1d e Milking parlors . 1e f Robotic equipment . 1f g Scales . 1g h Milk storage and cooling facilities . 1h i Bulk tanks . 1i j Manure pumping and storage facilities . 1j k Digesters . 1k l Equipment used to produce energy . 1l m Birthing and rearing structures . 1m n Feedlot structures . 1n o Fish hatchery buildings, fish processing buildings, and fish rearing ponds . 1o p Other (list) 1p 2 Add lines 1a through 1p . 2 3 Multiply line 2 by 10% (0.10) . 3 4 Fill in 2010 dairy and livestock farm investment credit passed through from other entities . 4 5 Add lines 3 and 4 . 5 6 a Maximum credit . 6a $75,000 b Enter credit computed for 2004 to 2009 (from 2009 Schedule DI, line 6b plus line 7) . 6b c Subtract line 6b from line 6a . 6c 7 Fill in the smaller of line 5 or line 6c. See instructions . 7 7a Fiduciaries - Enter amount of credit from line 7 allocated to beneficiaries . 7a 7b Fiduciaries - Subtract line 7a from line 7 . 7b 8 Carryover of unused 2004 to 2009 dairy and livestock farm investment credit . 8 9 Add lines 7 and 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Livestock Farming: Potential and Limitations of Husbandry Practice to Secure Animal Health and Welfare and Food Quality
    Organic livestock farming: potential and limitations of husbandry practice to secure animal health and welfare and food quality Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop 25-27 March 2004, Witzenhausen, Germany Edited by M. Hovi, A. Sundrum and S. Padel Sustaining Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic Farming (SAFO) Co-ordinator: Mette Vaarst (Danish Institute of Animal Science, Denmark) Steering Committee Malla Hovi (The University of Reading, England) Susanne Padel (The University of Aberystwyth, Wales) Albert Sundrum (The University of Kassel, Germany) David Younie (Scottish Agricultural College, Scotland) Edited by: Malla Hovi, Albert Sundrum and Susanne Padel Publication date: July 2004 Printed in: The University of Reading ISBN: 07049 1458 1 Contents Foreword M. Hovi, A. Martini, S. Padel 1 Acknowledgements 3 Part A: Organic animal health management and food quality at the farm level: Current state and future challenges Organic livestock production and food quality: a review of current status and future challenges M. Vaarst and M. Hovi 7 Animal health in organic farming defined by experts- concept mapping and the interpretation of the concept of naturalnessl T. Baars, E. Baars and K. Eikmans 17 Animal, welfare and health problem areas from an organic farmer’s point of view U. Schumacher 25 A veterinarian’s perspective of animal health problems on organic farms. P. Plate 27 Part B: Animal health and welfare: organic dairy production Swiss organic dairy milk farmer survey: which path for the organic cow in the future? E. Haas and B. Pabst 35 Animal health in organic dairy farming – results of a survey in Germany. C.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Whole Farm Planning • Marketing • Whole Farm Business Management and Planning • Land Acquisition and Tenure • Sustainable Farming Practices
    www.vabeginningfarmer.org Virginia Whole Farm Planning: An Educational Program for Farm Startup and Development Sustainable Farming Practices: Animal Husbandry The purpose of the Sustainable Farming Practices: Animal Husbandry module is to help beginning farmers and ranchers in Virginia learn the basic fundamental production practices and concepts necessary to make informed decisions for whole farm planning. This is one of five modules designed to guide you in developing the whole farm plan by focusing on the following areas: • Introduction to Whole Farm Planning • Marketing • Whole Farm Business Management and Planning • Land Acquisition and Tenure • Sustainable Farming Practices Each module is organized at the introductory to intermediate stage of farming knowledge and experience. At the end of each module, additional resources and Virginia service provider contact information are available to help continue the farm planning process. Authors: Cindy Wood Virginia Tech, Department of Animal and Poultry Science Cindi Shelley Virginia Cooperative Extension programs and employment are open to all, SUNY Cobleskill, Department of Animal and regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. An equal Plant Sciences opportunity/affirmative action employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Edwin J. Jones, Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; Jewel E. Hairston, Administrator, 1890 Extension Program, Virginia State, Petersburg. Funding for this curriculum is sponsored by the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) of the USDA-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Award # 2010-49400.
    [Show full text]
  • HOW DOES a LIVESTOCK AUCTION WORK? Paperwork That Goes to the Processor
    HOW DOES A LIVESTOCK AUCTION WORK? paperwork that goes to the processor. You need to contact the processor to process and package according to your needs When you arrive at the auction, you need to stop at the Sale Office located in the front • Standard processing only for chickens, turkeys and ducks. corner of the auction barn. Here you will register for a bidder number which will identify • Donate the processed meat the the Second Harvest Food Bank. You will also you to the auctioneer when you buy. Use the first line of the bidder registration card for the need to pay for the processing costs since they do not have the funds to pay for name you want to be announced as the buyer. Due to computer program limitations, space the costs. is limited. • Sell the animal back to the Livestock Sale Committee at the buyback prices posted on the day of the auction. Your cost is the difference between the amount You will also receive a copy of the Sale Catalog, which list the animals in the order to be that you bid, less the buyback. This does not apply to Grand or Reserve Champion sold, along with a lot of information for buyers. NOTE: All Grand and Reserve Champion Market Beef, Hogs, Lambs and Goats. market beef, hogs, lambs and goats must be slaughtered after the auction – BUYBACK IS • Donate the animal back to the exhibitor – except for any grand or reserve NOT AN OPTION FOR THESE ANIMALS. champion market beef, hogs, lambs and goats. As the auction starts, the auctioneer will announce what is being sold, either by the pound • Take the animal home - – except for any grand or reserve champion market beef, or by the lot.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock-Keeping and Animal Husbandry in Refugee and Returnee Situations
    LIVESTOCK-KEEPING AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY IN REFUGEE AND RETURNEE SITUATIONS A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT Acknowledgements Our genuine appreciation to The World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Gland, Geneva for their technical expertise and invaluable revision of the Handbook on Livestock Keeping and Animal Husbandry in Refugee and Returnee Situations. We extend our thanks to the UNHCR Field Environmental Coordinators and Focal Points and other colleagues for their very useful comments and additional inputs. Illustrations prepared by Dorothy Migadee, Nairobi, Kenya Background & cover images: ©Irene R Lengui/L’IV Com Sàrl Design and layout by L’IV Com Sàrl, Morges, Switzerland Printed by: SroKundig, Geneva, Switzerland Produced by the Environment, Technical Support Section, UNHCR Geneva and IUCN, August 2005 2 Refugee Operations and Environmental Management Table of Contents Glossary and Acronyms 5 Executive Summary 7 1. Livestock Management in Refugee-Related Operations 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Livestock-Keeping in Refugee-Related Operations 10 2. Purpose and Use of this Handbook 14 2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Using this Handbook 14 3. Livestock Management: Some Basic Considerations 16 3.1 Introduction 16 3.2 Traditional and Legal Rules and Regulations 16 3.3 Livestock to Suit the Conditions 17 3.4 Impacts Commonly Associated with Livestock-Keeping 18 3.4.1 Some Positive Impacts of Livestock-Keeping 18 3.4.2 Some Negative Impacts of Livestock in Refugee Situations 19 3.4.2.1 Impacts on Natural Resources 19 3.4.2.2 Social Conflicts 20 3.4.2.3 Impacts on Public Health 21 3.5 Disease Avoidance and Control 22 3.5.1 Common Livestock Diseases 22 3.5.2 Maintaining Animal Health 25 3.5.3 Avoiding Negative Impacts on Public Health 28 3.6 Housing 29 3.7 Carrying Capacity 30 3.8 Resource Competition 32 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Neolithic Report
    RESEARCH DEPARTMENT REPORT SERIES no. 29-2011 ISSN 1749-8775 REVIEW OF ANIMAL REMAINS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE OF SOUTHERN BRITAIN (4000 BC – 1500 BC) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES REPORT Dale Serjeantson ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Department Report Series 29-2011 REVIEW OF ANIMAL REMAINS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE OF SOUTHERN BRITAIN (4000 BC – 1500 BC) Dale Serjeantson © English Heritage ISSN 1749-8775 The Research Department Report Series, incorporates reports from all the specialist teams within the English Heritage Research Department: Archaeological Science; Archaeological Archives; Historic Interiors Research and Conservation; Archaeological Projects; Aerial Survey and Investigation; Archaeological Survey and Investigation; Architectural Investigation; Imaging, Graphics and Survey; and the Survey of London. It replaces the former Centre for Archaeology Reports Series, the Archaeological Investigation Report Series, and the Architectural Investigation Report Series. Many of these are interim reports which make available the results of specialist investigations in advance of full publication. They are not usually subject to external refereeing, and their conclusions may sometimes have to be modified in the light of information not available at the time of the investigation. Where no final project report is available, readers are advised to consult the author before citing these reports in any publication. Opinions expressed in Research Department Reports are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of English Heritage. Requests for further hard copies, after the initial print run, can be made by emailing: [email protected]. or by writing to English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD Please note that a charge will be made to cover printing and postage.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Agriculture, Livestock Farming and Climate Change
    Industrial Agriculture, Livestock Farming and Climate Change Global Social, Cultural, Ecological, and Ethical Impacts of an Unsustainable Industry Prepared by Brighter Green and the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) with inputs from Biofuelwatch Photo: Brighter Green 1. Modern Livestock Production: Factory Farming and Climate Change For many, the image of a farmer tending his or her crops and cattle, with a backdrop of rolling fields and a weathered but sturdy barn in the distance, is still what comes to mind when considering a question that is not asked nearly as often as it should be: Where does our food come from? However, this picture can no longer be relied upon to depict the modern, industrial food system, which has already dominated food production in the Global North, and is expanding in the Global South as well. Due to the corporate take-over of food production, the small farmer running a family farm is rapidly giving way to the large-scale, factory farm model. This is particularly prevalent in the livestock industry, where thousands, sometimes millions, of animals are raised in inhumane, unsanitary conditions. These operations, along with the resources needed to grow the grain and oil meals (principally soybeans and 1 corn) to feed these animals place intense pressure on the environment. This is affecting some of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems and human communities. The burdens created by the spread of industrialized animal agriculture are wide and varied—crossing ecological, social, and ethical spheres. These are compounded by a lack of public awareness and policy makers’ resistance to seek sustainable solutions, particularly given the influence of the global corporations that are steadily exerting greater control over the world’s food systems and what ends up on people’s plates.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensive Livestock Farming: Global Trends, Increased Environmental Concerns, and Ethical Solutions
    J Agric Environ Ethics (2009) 22:153–167 DOI 10.1007/s10806-008-9136-3 Intensive Livestock Farming: Global Trends, Increased Environmental Concerns, and Ethical Solutions Ramona Cristina Ilea Accepted: 14 November 2008 / Published online: 11 December 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract By 2050, global livestock production is expected to double—growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector—with most of this increase taking place in the developing world. As the United Nation’s four-hundred-page report, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, documents, livestock production is now one of three most significant contributors to environmental problems, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, water pollution, and increased health prob- lems. The paper draws on the UN report as well as a flurry of other recently published studies in order to demonstrate the effect of intensive livestock production on global warming and on people’s health. The paper’s goal is to outline the problems caused by intensive livestock farming and analyze a number of possible solutions, including legis- lative changes and stricter regulations, community mobilizing, and consumers choosing to decrease their demand for animal products. Keywords Agriculture Á Animals Á Environment Á Ethics Á Farming Á Livestock Á Meat Global Trends and Overview Approximately 56 billion land animals are raised and killed worldwide every year for human consumption (FAO, n.d.).1 By 2050, global farm animal production is expected to double—growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector—with most of those increases taking place in the developing world (FAO 2006b, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Farmland Not in an Exclusive Farm-Use Zone
    Information circular March 2014 Assessment of Farmland Not in an Exclusive Farm-Use Zone This information circular explains farm-use assess- • Propagation, cultivation, maintenance, and ments on farmland that is not in an exclusive farm- harvesting of aquatic, bird, and animal species use (EFU) zone. If you are not sure in what zone your allowed by rules adopted by the State Fish and land is located, check with your local planning of- Wildlife Commission; fice or your county assessor’s office. For information • Preparation, storage, and disposal by marketing, about farm-use assessment on land in an EFU zone, donation to a local food bank or school or see the information circular, “Assessment of Farm- otherwise, of the products or by-products raised land in an Exclusive Farm-Use Zone,” 150-303-644. on such land for human and animal use; Write: Publications, Oregon Department of Revenue, • Any other agricultural or horticultural use, animal 955 Center Street, NE, Salem OR 97301-2555. husbandry, or any combination thereof; or What land qualifies for farm-use assessment? • Growing cultured Christmas trees and hybrid hardwoods (cottonwoods) on cropland under If land is not in an EFU zone but is used as farmland, intensive cultivation. it may receive the same assessment given to all quali- fying EFU farmland. The qualification of farmland Farm use may also include: to special assessment is determined as of January 1. • Water impoundments lying in or adjacent to and To qualify, you must file an application with your in common ownership with farm-use land; county assessor on or before April 1 of the first year • A woodlot, not to exceed 20 acres, contiguous to you desire special assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock, Residential Shall Mean the Keeping Of
    Putnam County Land Development Code 3.02.25 Livestock, Residential a. Definition: Livestock, Residential shall mean the keeping of equines, cattle, swine, fowl, and/or goat on a residential lot that is five acres or less in size and located in an agricultural zoning district (AG or AE). This section also provides for the keeping of one horse in the R-2, and RE zoning districts as indicated in subsection c below. b. Supplemental Regulations 1. The residential livestock shall be kept in a fenced enclosure maintained to restrict the animals from being closer than 10 feet to a property line. 2. If a place of shelter is provided it must be 100 feet or more from a residence of different ownership. 3. The following minimum area requirements shall be maintained: (a) One (1) horse or other equine per acre. (b) One (1) cow or other cattle per acre. (c) Six (6) goats or sheep per acre. (d) Forty (40) chickens or other poultry per acre in AG and AE zoning districts, but only 1 rooster (male). (e) All swine/pigs shall constitute an intense agricultural operation and be required to obtain a Special Use Permit as outlined in Article 12, Section 12.12 of the Land Development Code. One (1) pig/swine is allowed temporarily without a Special Use Permit if the animal is for a 4H/FFA project connected to the Putnam County Fair. Length of stay of said animal shall be from birth to the end of the fair. Said animal shall be removed within 30 days of the end of the Fair.
    [Show full text]