The Rural Voice, 1988-05, Page 21chicken has an ideal food source, all
the time — the 1988 chicken has
better food.
Considering other factors, such as
liberty, the 1938 chicken is better off,
but when it comes to stress caused by
predators, the 1988 chicken is better
served. Dr. Hurnik says this example
shows how difficult it is to get a
measure of an animal's happiness. A
simple addition of pluses and minuses
will rarely yield overwhelming data.
Looking at the factors outlined, the
1988 chicken is slightly better off.
But some factors in the animal's life
may have more importance than
others, and a minus may override three
or four pluses. Liberty may be much
more important to a chicken's well-
being than freedom from
predators or food competition.
Until we know how to weight
each factor, we can't judge an
animal's well-being accurately.
But without that data there can
be no objective assessment of
animal agriculture. Any
criticism or defence will be
based on opinion.
This is the heart of the
problem. As humans, we can
never see the world through the
eyes of animals. We must rely
on some type of measurement
to give us an idea of what they
are thinking and feeling, but no
one measurement is sufficient.
Animal behavourists use
three principle signs when they
attempt to measure an animal's well-
being: physical health, physiology,
and behaviour. An animal can be
placed under certain conditions and
changes in these three aspects can be
monitored, but after the measurements
are taken there is still the problem of
interpretation. An animal may appear
to be healthy while it is in fact under
intense mental stress. An increase in
some hormone in the blood may indi-
cate a physiological change, but what
does the change mean to the animal?
An animal may show behaviour com-
patible with frustration or boredom,
but when does the behaviour indicate
an abnormal level of frustration and
how do you measure it?
How to measure and what the
measurements mean are the two big-
gest questions faced when trying to
define animal welfare. Despite some
of these problems, there are some
concrete statements that can be made.
Marian S. Dawkins, writing in In
Defense of Animals, proposes that we
"ask" animals for their opinion by
letting them choose between two or
more different things. How hard the
animal is willing to work to achieve
something is an indication of how
important it is to the animal's life.
The measurement of work can be
linked to desirability, and this can let
us measure different conditions and
grade the animal's preference. This
objective measure, in combination
with observations about the animal's
health, physiology, and behaviour, can
give a good indication of whether the
their animals are being well looked
after.
Several groups of producers
(poultry, swine, and veal) have drawn
up codes of practice for farmers. As
stated in the preface of the Recom-
mended Code of Practice for Care and
Handling of Pigs, the "voluntary code
is intended to be used by industry,
scientists, and animal welfare groups
as an educational tool in the promo-
tion of sound husbandry and welfare
practices."
The codes of practice were drawn
up in draft form by Dr. Hurnik, and
subsequently submitted to meetings
for approval by a wide range of people
involved with the various commodi-
ties. The groups that approved the
codes included: the Canadian
Federation of Humane
Societies (which acted in an
administrative role as well);
representatives of the livestock
industries in question; staff
from university departments
of agriculture, veterinary
medicine, and philosophy; and
representatives from the fed-
eral and Ontario ministries of
agriculture. The codes recom-
mend methods of treatment
from initial handling stages
through to transport and
slaughter.
Dr. Hurnik and Jim
Johnstone believe that these
codes of practice, negotiated
with moderate representatives
of both sides to find a middle ground,
represent the Canadian way of solving
problems. The Canadian codes of
practice are the envy of many other
countries faced with pressure from the
extreme wing of the animal rights
movement. The issue is especially
nasty in the U.S., where the animal
industries will not even talk to wel-
farists, and, in response, the radical
members of the liberation movement
harass farmers and attempt to force
them into a defensive position or out
of farming.
There are, however, obvious
criticisms of these codes of practice.
The first is that the cones are volun-
tary, not mandatory, allowing unscru-
pulous farmers to ignore them. But
Jim Johnstone counters that voluntary
codes are better than legislated rules
The Canadian codes
of practice are the envy of
many other countries faced
with pressure from the extreme
wing of the animal rights movement.
The issue is especially nasty in the
U.S., where the animal industries
will not even talk to welfarists, and,
in response, radical members of the
liberation movement harass farmers
and attempt to force them into a
defensive position or out of farming.
animal is unduly stressed or not.
Dr. Hurnik and his colleague Dr.
Hugh Lehman have made a proposal
that will circumvent some of these
steps. According to them, an animal's
overall well-being will be directly
related to its lifespan. So if a chicken
reared in a cage has all its apparent
needs met, but is stressed in some way
by being in the cage, it shouldn't live as
long as a chicken under free-range
conditions. Drs. Hurnik and Lehman
believe longevity studies will provide
the best way to assess agricultural
methods.
This research will take time to do
and interpret. Conclusive statements
like "yes, cages are bad for chickens"
may be years in coming, if they come
at all. But there are steps that farmers
can take (and are taking) to ensure that
MAY 1988 19