Alternate Reality

In a few days a new documentary will be stirring up the screens and sensibilities of HBO watchers, curiously named "Death on a Factory Farm".  It is not about farmers committing suicide as they go bankrupt across the country, it is about animal abuse.  Even though I have not seen it, it's premise is based on video footage and testimony by an undercover vegan activist who worked several weeks at a hog factory in Ohio.  Ultimately the case ends up in court due to what are termed "animal welfare violations" in the hog factory, and both the farmer, his son, and an employee are put through an arduous trial.  Part of the problem is that there are no nationwide animal welfare standards for farms or slaughterhouses, other than the fact that animals have to be alive and standing prior to being slaughtered.  But before we start creating a ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL animal welfare standard, let's think about this issue a little deeper.

In California, state senator Dean Florez thinks that animal welfare means not docking the tails of dairy cows.  It turns out this is such a minor practice, that even the dairy farmers don't care much about Florez's proposed legislation.  So why address such a minor thing?  Probably because regulating the most egregious practices will piss off too many of his constituents or require a complete restructuring of the industry.  Take tail docking in pigs, for example.  If this practice were outlawed, pigs would have to be given A LOT more space.  They probably would have to give them some outdoor access in addition to their barns so they could get away from another pig who had taken to biting on its tail.  Now I am a big fan of outdoor access, as you can see from our pigs above that ONLY live outside.  But most operations are not set up for this and would require significant investments to change over their operations and they would have to reduce their overall pig numbers such that they may become unprofitable.  For those that don't understand the economics of farming, an unprofitable farm is out of business before long.  That means less pork production, thus higher prices for consumers.  So get ready for higher prices- are consumers who want increased animal welfare ALL willing to do this?  Did every California voter who passed Proposition 2 banning caged layer production switch over to exclusively buying CAGE-FREE eggs?  The answer is no.  Numerous studies show that consumers will SAY they like to support organic, local, ethically produced foods but in ACTUALITY the majority of their purchases don't reflect their supposed values.  So what are farmers to do with consumers who say one thing and do another?  They can't build their businesses on that.

In my opinion, the worst violations of animal welfare aren't even being talked about by The Humane Society and others.  I am talking about the conditions in which animals are placed in an environment such that they CANNOT exhibit their natural behaviors and eating habits.  Pigs on concrete or slatted floors, omnivores such as chickens being forced to eat an all-vegetarian, grain-based diet and never having access to the outdoors, cows standing knee-deep in manure with no access to pasture, ruminants being fed a high-acid, rumen-destroying diet, dairy cows being pumped full of rBGH so that they produce more milk, putting enormous strain on their udders, hips, and increasing their susceptibility to mastitis (plus that mastitis milk ends up in your glass.....puss never tasted so good!), herbivores being fed meat scraps and omnivores being denied them, etc.....However, I don't  think most of these animal welfare issues, if any, can be dealt with via legislation.  The problem with legislation is that it is never flexible, it is slow to change and adapt, and it rarely is a transparent process- with last minute changes happening behind closed doors.  I will give you a similar example from the federal organic legislation.

Without going into too much detail or history, the National Organic Program was an attempt to harmonize the different organic standards around the country.  So they created a ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL approach to do this.  Even though it says in the organic rule that organic agriculture is "supposed to mimic nature", some of their rules do not. One in particular is the rule that denies omnivores the opportunity to eat mammalian protein.  In the case of organic poultry, because mammalian protein is not available as a feed source, a synthetic amino acid called DL- methionine has been supplied in trace amounts in poultry feed.  This amino acid is important for proper feathering, growth, and egg production.  Problem is, organic producers are supposed to phase out this synthetic amino acid by 2010.  Yet they still cannot feed mammalian protein to their flock.  Even though our pasture-raised chickens will happily tear apart any mouse that crosses through their field, technically, we are supposed to deny this feed source.  Even though we produce organic pork and could feed the pork scraps to the chickens, we are supposed to deny this.  If organics is to mimic nature, wouldn't omnivores such as poultry be given the opportunity to eat meat scraps if they would naturally eat meat on their own?  Yet this matter is not open to discussion in the NOP.  The case is closed on this, and consequently, when DL methionine is phased out, organic poultry producers are going to suffer.  A current study in California shows that laying hens not fed DL methionine produced 15% less eggs, ate 20% more feed, and ammonia levels increased in the manure, thus becoming a human health issue for workers (this is because you have to increase protein levels in the feed to make up for the loss of this critical amino acid, thus more ammonia is produced in the manure since protein equals nitrogen).  I use this complex issue as an example of legislation being inflexible and slow to adapt, in addition to being completely ignorant of biology and natural processes such as omnivory.

So what is better than legislation for improving the treatment of farm animals in this country?  Education and transparency.  As I mentioned in my last post, since there is little truth in advertising, consumers are being duped.  When they find out the truth, they are angry and sometimes irrational, often wanting legislation to come in and solve the perceived problem.  What if, for example, that eggs coming from caged layers actually said "Cage Produced Eggs" instead of showing cartoon depictions of hens dancing out in a field?  Consumers who don't care about animal welfare and who want cheap eggs could buy those, while consumers who wanted something different could choose another product that better represented their values.  What about if more farms offered tours to the public so they could educate them about actual animal production practices?  Of course, the main problem with this is that there are so many wackos out to destroy animal agriculture that they may secretly be taping the farm tour and then posting out-of-context clips on the internet, creating a backlash against the very farmers who are trying to educate the public.  In some ways, I can understand why most farms are closed to the public because the public has been so dumbed down regarding agriculture.  But the only way to change this is to get them back in touch with agriculture and get them back out on the farm.

Comments

[Carmelite]

Just wanted to throw in that my husband and I make very little money, but we spend almost half of our income on our food b/c we are willing to pay for quality. How do we do this? We have one car between us, but bike or walk everywhere that we can. We live in inexpensive housing by sharing space with roommates and by just living in cheaper areas, and we eat well so we have low healthcare costs:)

Sure, higher prices for good food does force some difficult decisions for low-income families. Nevertheless, I personally think that a lot of families would choose more ethically raised food if they were fully educated as to the health and environmental ramifications of their choices.

Oh, and there has been some research that seems to indicate that plants respond to injury as though they were experiencing some degree of pain. The line between what is and is not a sentient being is a fairly vague one, as far as I'm concerned. The fact of the matter is that life requires death. Domesticated animals, when they are raised humanely, can live very full and content lives and die very painless deaths. If they were wild and we weren't eating them, something else would be. I imagine starvation and/or death at the mouths of predators to be a lot more painful than the demise that we can offer them if we choose to.

Wolves and such can mostly be deterred from attacking domestic animals with livestock guardian dogs (like they do at TLC ranch), and the predators are then free to continue their natural predatory behaviors on wild animals (if we leave any around for them to eat, that is:)

OK, that's the last time I'm going to argue those points about omnivorous humans and domestication of animals on this blog. I know this discussion can get quite contentious, but I just had to throw my flag in there for the humane meat raisers.

Go farmers!

[Jacob L'Etoile]

I am late to the party, sorry. There are NO valid arguements to prohibit ownership of animals. Show me one, one that is rationaly derived, not circular (if you start with animals have rights and end with we shouldn't own animals because they have rights your arguement is circular). Wether we want to admit it or not we are animals, and nature is a part of us. She is "red in tooth and claw" and so are we. Wether you like it or not animal products that are less industrilizes are more expensive. Either you alow people to make a choice or you take the option away altogether. ie they can choose to buy cage free eggs (btw not always as nice as it sounds) or you price eggs to high for them to afford. Who is setting up a 'privilaged' class now?

[Jennifer]

Thanks, Rebecca, for being honest and patient with people, providing good information, and sensitive, and sensible opinions. As I've learned more about meat production, and have found thoughtful farmers like you to buy from, I'm glad your words are here to read.

I'm sorry you have to field so many comments from people who are conversing "to win", to push a certain agenda, rather than share ideas, as you do.

[adam]

---Whatever our "nature" is, I don't believe it should ever compel us to seize/control the bodies of other intentional beings.

---The sanctuary I worked on bought a custom mix of vegetarian feed and allowed animals to forage for grubs if they so wished (also the chickens ate their eggs to restore their bone calcium). They had access to outdoors all day and their shelters were cleaned every or every other day. The manure was then composted with the hay. The cows were rotationally grazing on fields that already existed prior to the sanctuary. Also, over half the visitors were omnivores, not vegans. I wouldn't consider the animals' lives any more "wasteful" of resources than, say, dogs or cats--or (gasp!) human children (who in the US consumes *way* more resources and pollutes the Earth much more than any cow will in her life--especially if he eat cows and their milk).

---What is your opinion on allowing "nature to take its course" so that wolves and coyotes can "exhibit their natural behaviors and eating habits" by eating your pigs and chickens? How would you handle such a threat?

---Perhaps Californians are more willing to cash out extra money on "honest" meat and eggs than people in other regions of the country. What I meant was that by letting shoppers "choose" between different products, one class has more **privilege** to comfortably make that choice--wouldn't it be better if the practices you object to were banned. Why let the welfare of millions of hens' lives be decided my shoppers who are generally self-interested?

[Rebecca T. of HonestMeat]

Adam- you know I believe in the omnivory of humans and our predation of other animals, as I believe we are firmly rooted in nature, instead of against it. So yes, I don't want to ban the slaughter of animals and I don't want animal agriculture be regulated into oblivion.
Just how would animal 'sanctuaries' educate the public? They completely deny that these creatures are products of human domestication for their use, plus they also deny the animals to act out their natural behaviors. For example, since pigs and poultry are omnivores, are they giving them meat scraps or allowing them to kill rodents and other creatures on their own, as they would 'in the wild'? Not to mention they are a vast drain on resources, feed, alfalfa, hay, etc. that take lots of land, fossil fuels, etc. to produce. All so they can stand there in their manure and look cute and allow vegans to feel good about themselves??

I think education and transparency, and ultimately the market, should and will sort much of this out. I never said anything about poor people not choosing products based on their values. Research actually indicates otherwise- poor people also support organic, local, and ethically-raised products when they can find them in their communities. The majority of our egg customers, for example, are working class folks, from college students to nurses, who will pay more for products that are nutritious and represent their values. Poor people, more so than rich, don't want to externalize costs onto the poor and powerless somewhere else....

[adam]

Rebecca, thanks for the always informative post. I agree that universal/general/standard codes of practices ought to be more contexualized. But I also have a few concerns in regards to your post:

1) "regulating the most egregious practices will piss off too many of his constituents or require a complete restructuring of the industry."
---What if the "most egregious" practice is the actual killing of pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. I suppose banning slaughter would certainly "piss" people off and restructure the industry.

2) "the main problem with this is that there are so many wackos out to destroy animal agriculture...creating a backlash against the very farmers who are trying to educate the public."
---Exactly how/why are animal activists "wackos" for advocating that humans should not own and kill animals as property? There are many extremely rational arguments for doing away with most, if not all, animal agriculture. And can't animal sanctuaries educate the public. After working on one as a tour guide, I know that many of the cows, goats, and sheep came from abusive/neglectful small family farms.
---As long as animals are considered food and property by the law their welfare is always secondary to profit (except on the most bizarre flesh farm).

2) "consumers will SAY they like to support organic, local, ethically produced foods but in ACTUALITY the majority of their purchases don't reflect their supposed values...Consumers who don't care about animal welfare and who want cheap eggs could buy those, while consumers who wanted something different could choose another product that better represented their values."
---So if "animal illfare" is willfully/indifferently supported by shoppers, so be it? In other words, people with enough money are privileged to buy products consistent with their values while low-income people are not? I suppose animal welfare comes secondary to conspicuous consumption and guilt-abjection.

[rich]

Well said. Some folks up here in OR are working on some home-grown feed options, but I'm wondering what the methionine component is going to be, as well as any other things that our poor soy producing region will cause them to lack.

[Diana Foss]

Thanks for your thoughtful blog. I'm enjoying so much my half pig and the eggs I get through Live Earth, although I'll have to stock up at your booth during the gap between the winter and summer CSAs.

I went to the SAFE panel discussion on butchering last night, up at UC Berkeley. There were at least 150 people there, all very enthusiastic about ethically raised pork and use of the whole animal. I got so inspired that I'm going to take a butchering class at Avedano's in San Francisco.

I hope you have farm tours again at Easter; my daughter was asking about it this morning.

[Doug Vincent]

Very well said, Rebecca. I've been distressed with the "tone-of-voice" on other lists. It's sad that we get painted with the "broad brush." As an animal scientist concerned about the well-being of livestock animals, we must recognize that for a time, the pendulum had swung toward one way - where we treated our animals strictly as economic entities - that we judged productivity strictly on how many chickens we could put in a cage and not affect eggs laid. In the pressure to provide cheap food and keep our costs of production low, farmers were forced to embrace these production practices without fully understanding the environmental impacts and the well being of the animals. But that trend is changing, albeit slowly. The wonderful example you set indicates that conditions are changing. Well done.

[Anna]

"Home-run" post, Rebecca, as usual. I'm so weary of people thinking that the Organic label, cage-free, or all-vegetarian feed is all they need to know or think about.

I'm a big fan of "backyard eggs", though my HOA won't let me have my own chickens (so I have to seek out backyard eggs to purchase). I thought it was hard enough to find eggs produced without soy in the feed, I had no idea about the DL-methionine issue. One more reason to find local "hobby" egg producers instead of buying eggs at the grocery store.