Loading...
The Rural Voice, 1982-05, Page 14Animal Welfare, a hot topic by Adrian Vos Reports from England say that some British chicken producers station armed guards at night to protect their chickens against so-called animal welfarists. Some fanatical anthropomorphists, (Persons who attribute human traits to animals) have apparently succeeded in releasing thousands of caged chickens during the night. A new curriculum in Minnesota for kindergarten through elementary school promotes vegetarianism. Five-year old tots are asked such questions as "who ate an animal today? What animal do you eat the most?" Emphasis is placed in the program that humans and pigs are both mammals and it follows that it is repugnant to eat animals. (not meat). Europe has been leading in the drive to treat animals as humans. Denmark has long placed restrictions on the size of laver cages for hens. The European Community has plans to phase out all two - and three -hen cages in favour of large 10 or 12 hen community cages. The change over is scheduled to be completed in about five years time. In North America the leading crusader for anthropomorphism is Dr. Michael Fox. Fox is a British veterinarian who now heads the Institute for Animal Problems, in the USA. Fox has made a chart on which meat is least desirable food, not for its quality, but for the way animals are raised. The meat from sheep is not acceptable for example, because it causes harm to predators (wolves and wild dogs). Eggs are okay if they come from free running chicks. Duck, rabbit, and veal are unacceptable as is pork, because of their rearing in confinement. Pork is less acceptable than the others because "breeding sows are subjected to unnecessary privation", which can be translated to lacking comforts common to others. Dairy products and range fed beef are alright. Dr. Stanley Curtiss, who teaches animal science at the University of Illinois. College of Agriculture, calls the ethical vegetarians "arrogant, naive, and narrow minded." He asks how far nature lovers are PG. 12 THE RURAL VOICE/MAY 1982 willing to go. Don't some plant lovers claim that plants feel pain when hurt and even grow better when spoken to in a friendly manner? Do we then look to a future where plant lovers will try to impose their bias on society, maybe by insisting on artifical (chemical) produced food? All this controversy was no problem a generation ago. Pigs were housed in pens with lots of straw; beef was all produced on pasture; and ducks and geese waddled freely around the farmstead, cheerfully hissing at all passers-by. However, the ever-increasing demand for more food for a mushrooming population changed all that. Putting cattle in a feedlot and bringing the feed to them, gave better results than letting them trample much of the grass. The development of corn silage, producing much more feed that the same field could possibly yield from pasture. demanded change. This is even more true of swine. One-tenth of an acre of land produces enough feed for a 220 pound market hog. A free -running pig would root this up easily, destroying his food source. One of the beefs anthropomorphists have about modern hog production. is the absence. in most cases. of straw for bedding. They claim that the nose movements of pigs indicate a need for bedding (some others go even further and claim a need for rooting). Scientists like Curtiss think this nose movement to be an instinctive movement with no real need for it. Fox says "If any element becomes distorted. you have disease. the lack of ease. distress." This must then be prevented or cured with vaccines and drugs. Curtiss replies that animals in confine- ment are better cared for than animals free running. "They have clean water and balanced feed. They are protected from wild carnivores who may attack and begin eating them while they are still alive." Modern slatted swine and beef barns also prevent the animals from eating their own dung, as rabbits and pigs will do. Any livestock producer who doesn't treat his animals humanely will eventually go under financially. Humane treatment and profitability go hand in hand, according to Dr. Curtiss, an opinion any livestock operator gladly endorses. But Dr. Fox is not so easily defeated. He maintains that anthropomorphism is scientifically sound. "If you don't put yourself in the pig's place, you wouldn't know when to feed. Animals have need for air, food, social companionship. a warm, dry place to lie, as most mammals" Opponents of Fox's view contend that humans are not pigs or rabbits, and don't want to be treated as such. The opposite is just as valid. A pig or rabbit treated as a human would not be happy. Just put a coat on the cat in winter time and see how happy she is. That the livestock industry is not indifferent to the problems is shown in the actions of the Egg Producers' Marketing Board and the Pork Board. Both these boards have commissioned Dr. J.F. Hurnik, an animal behavioralist at the University of Guelph, to help in designing a code of practice. as a guideline for producers in the treatment of the animals in their care. These boards find that they have a moral responsibility to give producers an opportunity to compare their operation against humane rules. A Mr. Duncan wrote in "Veterinary Professional": ' ....one common argu- ment put forward by the anti -factory - farming lobby is. "How would you like to be shut up in a battery cage all your life?" In fact, 1 would not like to be confined in a battery cage like a chicken, nor would I like regurgiated fish like a young sea -bird, nor would I like to eat my own feces like a rabbit! Man's personal likes and dislikes are of little relevance in the animal world." It is well known that chickens running free (like humans). have more disease. They show the stress of freedom by much more fighting among themselves than when confined with two or three other birds in a small cage. Let's hope we don't need armed protection to protect our livestock barns against raids from the "Animal Liberation Movement". in Canada.