DOCSLIB.ORG

Sheep and Goats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sheep and Goats Chapter 10: Sheep and Goats omestic sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hir- When barns or sheds are provided, adequate ventila- cus) are small ruminants, and, as such, their tion and clean, dry surroundings are necessary to im- Dgeneral care and management are often similar. prove air quality, reduce the incidence of disease, and However, because they are a different genus and spe- increase animal comfort. Poor ventilation has reduced cies, their behaviors, foraging practices, diet selections, the performance of dairy sheep, and recommendations uses, and several physiological characteristics can be for adequate ventilation have been published (Sevi et different. Thus, facility design and husbandry must be al., 2002, 2003a,b, 2006; Albenzio et al., 2005). Guide- consistent with the behaviors, nutrient requirements, lines for facilities layout and housing can be found in use, and physiology of each species. For optimal re- Management and Diseases of Dairy Goats (Guss, 1977), sults, the people who care for these animals should be Goat Production (Gall, 1981), Goat Farming (Mowlen, well trained, have appropriate education, certifications, 1992), Goat Husbandry (Mackenzie, 1993), Sheep Hous- and(or) relevant experience, understand the species re- ing and Equipment Handbook (MWPS, 1994), Sheep quirements, and have good observational and commu- Production Handbook (ASIA, 2002), Small Ruminant nications skills. Production Medicine and Management: Sheep and Goats In many countries, and states and provinces within (Faerber, 2004), and Hoop Barns for Horses, Sheep, Ra- countries, various laws and regulations define and gov- tites, and Multiple Utilization (Harmon et al., 2004); ern animal husbandry practices. Local Institutional An- Caroprese (2008) has discussed sheep housing and wel- imal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) and people fare. using sheep and goats in research and teaching should In range, pasture, or outdoor drylot conditions, har- be familiar with laws and regulations that govern ani- vested feed resources, desirable forage, and prevail- mal husbandry practices, and they should be certain ing weather conditions are key determinants of area that animal care and use protocols are in compliance. requirements. The space required per animal depends on the intent of the research and teaching, type and FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT slope of floor or ground surface, weather conditions and exposure, and group size. Floor or ground area require- Sheep and goats used in research and teaching may ments vary considerably among locations, depending be produced and managed under a variety of environ- on conditions, husbandry, and management. Estimated mental conditions, including completely or partially en- minimum area recommendations for confined sheep are closed buildings, drylots, pastures, and remote range- listed in Table 10-1 (MWPS, 1994), the Sheep Housing lands. Regardless of the production environment, the and Equipment Handbook (MWPS, 1994), and in Sevi management system should be appropriate for the re- et al. (1999). search or teaching objectives and must ensure that the Acceptable floor surfaces include well-drained com- animals are cared for properly. pacted soil, nonskid concrete, concrete-slatted floors, Because of their adaptability and the insulating value composition mats, wood, and expanded-metal or woven- of wool and hair, artificial shelter for sheep and goats metal flooring or other materials that allow for proper may not be necessary. Site-specific needs for artificial footing and comfort for small ruminants. When goats shelter should take into account the geography, local have access to outside lots or pastures, an adequate environment and climate, and anticipated extremes of sheltered area is 0.5 m2 (5.4 ft2) per goat (Kilgour and temperature. For shelter from wind, cold, or sun, sheep Dalton, 1984). Stall feeding of dairy goats requires 1.5 and goats typically seek shelter near terrain and struc- m2 (16 ft2)/goat (Kilgour and Dalton, 1984). Sheep and tures, such as trees, shrubs, swales, boulders, ridges, goats are relatively intolerant of mud, so access to well- and artificial windbreaks. Wind-chill effects can be pre- drained, dry shelter is desirable. Crushed stone or stone dicted for small ruminants (Ames and Insley, 1975). dust is a suitable surface for heavily trafficked areas. Shelter for goats to provide warmth, shade, and protec- Dust control in pens may reduce respiratory and other tion from wind and precipitation is important. health problems and improve fleece quality. The surface 129 130 CHAPTER 10 Table 10-1. Recommendations for minimum floor and feeder space for confined sheep used in research and teach- ing1,2 Ewes and lambs Feeder lambs Rams (65–90 kg, Dry ewes (65–90 (additional creep Lamb creep area (14–50 kg, 180–300 lb) kg, 150–200 lb) area required) (2–14 kg, 5–30 lb) 30–110 lb) Floor Facility type m2 ft2 m2 ft2 m2 ft2 m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Building floor area Solid 1.86–2.79 20–30 1.12–1.49 12–16 1.39–1.86 15–203 0.14-0.19 1.5–2.0 0.74–0.93 8–10 Slotted 1.30–1.86 14–20 0.74–0.93 8–10 0.93–1.12 10–123 0.14-0.19 1.5–2.0 0.37–0.46 4–5 Lot area Dirt 2.32–3.72 25–40 2.32–3.72 25–40 2.79–4.65 30–50 — — 1.86–2.79 20–30 Paved 1.49 16 1.49 16 1.86 20 — — 0.93 10 Feeder space cm in cm in cm in cm in cm in Limit-fed 30.48 12 40.64–50.80 16–20 40.64–50.80 16–20 22.86–30.48 9–12 22.86–30.48 9–12 Self-fed 15.24 6 10.16–15.24 4–6 15.24–20.30 6–8 2.54–5.08 1–2 2.54–5.08 1–2 1Adapted from MWPS (1994). 2Space requirements should be increased for fully fleeced or horned sheep and during hot weather. 3Increase space if lambing rate is >170%. of floors, pens, pastures, and other enclosures can af- of sheep or goats should be restricted to the cooler times fect hoof wear and health. Thus, an effective hoof care of day. Cold and cold stress should also be considered program is an important component of sheep and goat when using sheep and goats for research and teaching management and welfare, although this is occasionally (for discussions of environmental, heat, and cold stress, overlooked when sheep and goats are kept indoors for see Ames et al., 1971; Morrison, 1983; Webster, 1983; prolonged periods. Young, 1983). Provision of additional feed and protection from wind and precipitation should be provided if the animals Fencing may experience extremes in temperature. Relationships between environmental conditions and nutrition have Fences allow managers to keep their animals together been described (NRC, 1981). Within intensive produc- and isolated from unwanted animals. Proper fences and tion facilities, ventilation and structural design should the appropriate use of fences can improve nutrition, prevent moisture condensation during cold weather, health, and biosecurity, ensure the integrity of experi- provide cooling during hot weather, and ensure that air mental designs and protocols, and protect the physical quality standards are met. security of animals used in research and teaching. Be- Newborn lambs and kids and recently shorn sheep cause there are numerous research and teaching objec- and goats are susceptible to hypothermia, hypertherm- tives, and many sizes, ages, and behaviors of sheep and ia, and sunburn (see Shearing section). Frequency of goats, the appropriate fence design varies with experi- neonatal observations should be increased, and appro- mental or teaching objectives (Miller, 1984). However, priate shelter should be provided if natural conditions there are a few general recommendations for fencing: do not offer sufficient protection. The water requirements of sheep and goats increase 1) Understand the behavior of sheep and goats and during hot and humid weather, and it is essential that how they respond to, or cope with, fences. The animals have access to an adequate supply of potable agility, natural curiosity, and inquisitive nature water. Consideration for freezing of the water supply of goats can make some difficult to contain. should be addressed in cold environments. Even though Because of their behaviors, goats and the occa- an adequate supply of liquid water is preferred, sheep sional sheep will defeat traditional gate or pen will consume enough soft snow, as opposed to hard latching mechanisms. Thus, safeguards or re- crusty snow, to meet their water requirements (Degen dundant measures for securing entrance and exit and Young, 1981). Established equations can be used to points should be considered. Sheep and goats estimate water requirements under a variety of condi- may become entrapped in poorly constructed tions (NRC, 2007). Additional information is available or inappropriate electric fencing, and one must in the Feed and Water section of this chapter. consider this in the design and upkeep of any Small ruminants may need special attention when fencing with an electrical component. Sheep and respiratory rates increase in response to increased air goats frequently attempt to harvest forage that temperatures. During hot weather, handling or driving is beyond the perimeter of the fence. Sheep and SHEEP AND GOATS 131 especially horned goats can get their heads and (MWPS, 1994). A window area of 0.5 m2 (5.4 ft2) per legs trapped in an inappropriate fence. During goat can provide adequate light and ventilation (Colby, the breeding season, rams and buck goats often 1972). Although natural daylight ordinarily is sufficient attempt to escape from their enclosure to reach in most situations, supplemental light of 170 lx is rec- ewes and does. Rams in adjacent enclosures will ommended for ease of observation during lambing or attempt to fight, which often destroys the fence kidding.
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]
  • 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]
  • Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association Council
    G^r? NOVA SCOTIAVETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Registrar's Office 15 Cobequid Road, Lower Sackvllle, NS B4C 2M9 Phone: (902) 865-1876 Fax: (902) 865-2001 E-mail: [email protected] September 24, 2018 Dear Chair, and committee members, My name is Dr Melissa Burgoyne. I am a small animal veterinarian and clinic owner in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia. I am currently serving my 6th year as a member of the NSVMA Council and currently, I am the past president on the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association Council. I am writing today to express our support of Bill 27 and what it represents to support and advocate for those that cannot do so for themselves. As veterinarians, we all went into veterinary medicine because we want to.help animals, prevent and alleviate suffering. We want to reassure the public that veterinarians are humane professionals who are committed to doing what is best for animals, rather than being motivated by financial reasons. We have Dr. Martell-Moran's paper (see attached) related to declawing, which shows that there are significant and negative effects on behavior, as well as chronic pain. His conclusions indicate that feline declaw which is the removal of the distal phalanx, not just the nail, is associated with a significant increase in the odds of adverse behaviors such as biting, aggression, inappropriate elimination and back pain. The CVMA, AAFP, AVMA and Cat Healthy all oppose this procedure. The Cat Fancier's Association decried it 6 years ago. Asfor the other medically unnecessary cosmetic surgeries, I offer the following based on the Mills article.
    [Show full text]
  • Tail Docking in Dogs: Historical Precedence and Modern Views by Jill Kessler Copyright 2012
    Tail Docking in Dogs: Historical Precedence and Modern Views By Jill Kessler Copyright 2012 As everyone gathered in the kitchen to prepare for an extended family dinner, Mother took a large ham and cut off a big piece of the end and put it in another smaller pan to cook. As she prepared the two baking dishes, one of the grandchildren asked, “Grandma, why do you cut off part of the ham?” “Well, thatʼs the way I learned how to do it from my Mom, your great grandmother.” One of the Aunts says, “I thought it was because Dad liked to have his own separate piece.” An Uncle says “I thought it was because it made the meat more tender.” A different Aunt chimes in, “Mom said it was just the way it was always done.” Curious, they decide to ask Great Grandmother the reason why the end of the ham was separated. ************************************* History and Veterinary Standing Tail docking (amputation of the tail) has been done on dogs for hundreds of years. A variety of justifications have been offered, usually in accordance to the historical tasks of the breed. For instance, in hunting dogs, conventional wisdom said it was to prevent injury in the field from nettles, burrs or sticks; in herding or bull-baiting dogs it was thought to help avoid injury from large livestock. In truth, there are two primary historical reasons for docking. For our mastiff-based working dogs that accompanied the ancient Romans, it was believed that tail docking and tongue clipping would ward off rabies.i Obviously, this was before modern bacteriology and vaccines, when rabies was still a feared, lethal zoonotic disease that raced through cities and countrysides, infecting all mammals encountered in its path.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • State Legislative Update January 2020
    State Legislative Update January 2020 This State Legislative Update includes select summaries of bills and regulations tracked by the AVMA Division of State Advocacy in January 2020. For more information on bills and regulations, please see our full listing or contact AVMA. Numerous states consider bills to prohibit procedures Several states are considering prohibitions on declawing, devocalization, ear cropping and tail docking. Arizona’s HB 2537, Maryland’s HB 445, and West Virginia’s HB 2119 would prohibit declawing. New Hampshire’s HB 1683 would prohibit declawing, along with ear cropping, tail docking, declaw removal and devocalization. New Jersey’s A 1087 and S 920 and Rhode Island’s HB 7342 would prohibit declawing while NJ A 1211 would end ear cropping and tail docking. Hawaii’s HB 2163 and Washington’s HB 2317 and SB 6300 would prohibit ear cropping, tail docking, and devocalization. New York, a state which already prohibits declawing, is considering a bill that would prohibit devocalization (S 6904). Hearings have been held on bills that would prohibit declawing in Florida (SB 48) and New Hampshire (HB 1683). Measures would allow unlicensed persons to perform services West Virginia (SB 218) and Tennessee (HB 1945 and SB 1914) have bills that would permit consumers to hire unlicensed people, including those who practice veterinary medicine. The bills would require providers to disclose that they are not licensed. In Tennessee, a written agreement between the parties would be required prior to any work starting. Non-economic damages and expanded economic damages New Jersey is considering one bill dealing with non-economic damages and another with expanded economic damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle and Sheep
    ANR Publication 8530 | July 2015 http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu UNDERSTANDING WORKING RANGELANDS Caring for Cattle and Sheep to Provide Safe and Wholesome Meat he care and feeding of livestock : rrunaway/Fickr has a cyclic rhythm tied to the animals’ reproductive cycle and seasonal Thealth needs. Ranchers must perform numerous tasks to keep their animals healthy and reproducing. Photo Some of these, such as checking and maintaining water sources, are done throughout the year, while others that require handling the livestock, such as vaccinating STEPHANIE LARSON, University of and castrating (neutering) male calves and lambs, are done California Cooperative Extension only once or twice each year. Ranchers usually refer to County Director and Livestock these events as “working” cattle or sheep, and neighboring Range Management Advisor, ranchers often help each other, moving from ranch to ranch. Sonoma County; SHEILA BARRY, University of California Cooperative LIVESTOCK HANDLING Extension County Director and When it is time to work livestock, ranchers start by gathering them, known as a Livestock Range Management roundup. They collect their livestock either on horseback (cattle only), on foot, Advisor, San Francisco Bay Area; or by using all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), often accompanied by dogs that help LISA BUSH, Rangeland Consultant; herd the animals into corrals. Corrals include permanent or temporary pens and and DARREL SWEET, Rancher, for sorting livestock by age or status (e.g., breed, sex, health), water troughs, Livermore, California. and squeeze chutes for holding animals in place while they are being treated (e.g., vaccinated or branded). For efficiency, most routine care practices are done during these roundups.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill
    NSW Hansard Articles : LA : 06/04/2004 : #4 Page 1 of 3 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill. Second Reading Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.02 a.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian Veterinary Association, the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups have, over a number of years, been lobbying strongly to ban the cosmetic tail docking of dogs. In their view, such a procedure is unnecessary and inhumane. There are two methods of tail docking. The banding procedure places a rubber ligature over the tail. This is usually an orthodontic band placed over the tail when the puppy is two to four days old. This effectively cuts off the blood supply to the tail, which comes off after a few days. The other procedure involves severance of the tail, usually with surgical scissors. Following a number of representations from animal welfare groups, veterinary bodies and other concerned individuals, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council agreed in October 2003 to introduce a nationally co-ordinated ban on cosmetic tail docking by April of this year. It is vital that the States and Territories work towards a national approach to key issues, and this decision will bring New South Wales legislation into line with that of every other Australian government. This national ban was proposed at the first Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting that occurred after the current Minister took up his position. The Minister specifically asked that any action be held over until he had had the opportunity to fully consider the consequences and to canvass the viewpoints of all New South Wales stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Animal Protection and the Language of Rights in America, 1865-1900
    *DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION* “The Inalienable Rights of the Beasts”1: Organized Animal Protection and the Language of Rights in America, 1865-1900 Susan J. Pearson Assistant Professor, Department of History Northwestern University Telephone: 847-471-3744 1881 Sheridan Road Email: [email protected] Evanston, IL 60208 ABSTRACT Contemporary animal rights activists and legal scholars routinely charge that state animal protection statutes were enacted, not to serve the interests of animals, but rather to serve the interests of human beings in preventing immoral behavior. In this telling, laws preventing cruelty to animals are neither based on, nor do they establish, anything like rights for animals. Their raison d’etre, rather, is social control of human actions, and their function is to efficiently regulate the use of property in animals. The (critical) contemporary interpretation of the intent and function of animal cruelty laws is based on the accretion of actions – on court cases and current enforcement norms. This approach confuses the application and function of anticruelty laws with their intent and obscures the connections between the historical animal welfare movement and contemporary animal rights activism. By returning to the context in which most state anticruelty statutes were enacted – in the nineteenth century – and by considering the discourse of those activists who promoted the original legislation, my research reveals a more complicated story. Far from being concerned only with controlling the behavior of deviants, the nineteenth-century animal welfare activists who agitated for such laws situated them within a “lay discourse” of rights, borrowed from the successful abolitionist movement, that connected animal sentience, proved through portrayals of their suffering, to animal rights.
    [Show full text]