The Rural Voice, 1988-05, Page 20small farms with a few laying hens."
From the point of view of animal
welfare, the problem with intensifi-
cation is that its overriding concern is
to convert feed into a saleable product
as quickly and as efficiently as possi-
ble. The costs involved in that con-
version have historically been defined
only in economic terms: the cost of
labour, feed, buildings, and overhead.
The animals themselves have been
reduced to economic factors. They are
converters of feed.
Under intensification, the animal's
life is controlled as much as possible
in order to maximize conversion
efficiency. Day length, temperature,
and air quality are all tightly regulated
in barns that exclude as much of the
outside world as possible. To reduce
building and overhead costs,
the number of animals per
unit area of barn is increased.
To reduce losses caused by
the increased animal density
(pecking, tail -biting, canni-
balism), the animals are
physically altered (tail -dock-
ing, de -beaking) or the
environment is modified
(decreased light intensity).
Under a highly intensive
system of agriculture, any
aspect of an animal's life
may affect its ability to
convert food to marketable
products, and is therefore
open to manipulation.
It is the reduction of the animal
from a living being to a converter that
has attracted the most attention from
animal welfare groups. Their con-
cerns arise partly out of perception:
the modern pig or chicken is seen to
be very far away from its natural (and
by implication, more happy) way of
life. In the mind of an animal welfar-
ist, chickens are meant to be scratch-
ing around outside, not confined in
cages. Pigs are meant to be rooting
around in the mud, not housed in
sterile, slatted pens.
This somewhat emotional
assessment of the situation detracts
from some very real and serious
questions that these groups raise.
There is no doubt that the introduction
of intensive methods has taken farm
animals very far from their "natural"
conditions. It is also quite reasonable
to assume that the further they get
from the "natural" state, the more
stress they will experience.
It's well-documented that for
humans "unnatural" conditions such
as crowding, restricted movement, and
long spells of boredom will cause a
great number of mental and physical
problems. Similar behavioural ab-
normalities appear in animals reared in
the crowded artificial conditions of in-
tensive agriculture. Animal welfarists
ask: if these conditions are not fit for
people to live under, why should we
force animals to live that way?
Welfarists believe that intensive
methods have gone too far, that the
level of suffering they impose on the
animal is too great. The price we ask
animals to pay so we can eat cheap
intensification methods have already
been looked at from an ethical point of
view, and been found wanting. Jim
Johnstone finds the American trend to
higher and higher bird concentrations
per cage a completely unacceptable
practice. He says Canadian egg
producers are less commercial than
their American counterparts, and tend
to follow the European standard for
space per bird. The ethical price paid
for American-style efficiency is too
high for Canadian producers.
But while the ethical costs of
some extreme methods may be easy to
assess, the ethical costs of many agri-
cultural practices are much more
difficult to ascertain. There are simply
not enough facts about the issue. This
has led to the current state of affairs
where opposing sides are
polarized largely on matters
of opinion. Dr. Hurnik says
it is very difficult to argue
when only opinions are used:
"facts," he adds, "will allow
the argument to take on a
rational tone."
There is no doubt, Dr.
Hurnik says, that the move
from the old methods to
intensive methods has de-
creased the quality of life for
animals in some ways, but
has improved it in others. As
an example, he compares a
1938 free-range chicken to a
1988 intensively reared
chicken. There are many factors we
can use to assess quality of life, but
three of the more important are air,
water, and food:
• The 1938 chicken is outside,
running in the fresh air. The 1988
chicken is inside, the air artificially
circulated. Air movement may be too
slow or the system may break down
— the 1938 chicken has beuer air.
• The 1938 chicken drinks surface
water, which is usually contaminated
by manure. Water may be unavailable
if it is frozen in cold months or dried
up in the summer. The 1988 chicken
has constant, fresh water — the 1988
chicken has better water.
• The 1938 chicken forages for
most of its food. Food quality and
availability is variable, and there may
be intense competition for that food
with other chickens. The 1988
food is too great. Not only do they
have to give up their lives for us, but
those lives aren't worth living in the
first place. If we are going to eat
animals, we should at least treat them
with respect while they are alive.
Challenges to intensive farming
have led to the development of a new
cost factor in animal agriculture:
ethical cost. According to Dr. Hurnik,
the concept of ethical cost arises from
three ideas: that animals can suffer,
than some suffering may be unnec-
essary, and that animals are worthy of
moral concern. Like the economic
costs of production, he says, ethical
costs should be considered before
implementing a new method or
continuing to use an old one.
This idea of ethical costs may be
new to many farmers, but it is not
completely new to the industry. Some
18 THE RURAL VOICE