What is Humane?

A distinction must be made between medicating your livestock if they are ill, and using antibiotics as a prophylactic to prevent illness across the board throughout your herd/pen/flock/etc. Blanket usage of antibiotics in all animals, healthy and ill, is the kind that can lead to antibiotic resistance and excess antibiotics in the food we eat. This method has often been used in concentrated animal feeding operations when bacteria is transferred easily between animals. But treating an animal that is genuinely ill, in order to make it well and save its life, is perfectly within the limits of sustainable livestock raising.

Apparently not if they want to be certified organic, which, frankly, surprises me: http://www.agmrc.org/markets__industries/food/a...

But you know, that's why it's important to communicate with your farmers. If that means my meat isn't “certified organic,” I don't care (I buy and consume meat that isn't). I personally have NO problem eating meat that's raised sustainably that has been judiciously treated with antibiotics if ill. It's the “preventative” use, one size fits all, that I have some issues with.

Eating animals is not humane. Period. People have no reason to eat them, and there is no such thing as humane slaughter.

If you want to treat animals humanely, adopt a vegan diet. Visit ChooseVeg.com for more information.

Meredith is making an important point. The problems with antibiotics and livestock have to do with every animal getting antibiotics either as prophylaxis or too promote growth (though they are probably the same), independent of health status. I don't have a problem with giving antibiotics to animals if they are sick and could be treated by the judicious administration of an antibiotic medication. This may not be “natural”, but I think that we have to embrace science and technology somewhat. In human medicine we have also overused antibiotics and created many virulent strains of bacteria, we need to curb our prescribing practices, but still continue to give medications to those who actually need them.

A lot of sustainable Dairy Farmer's that I know are not “certified organic” and one reason is because of the antibiotic issue. These farmer's have practices that for the most part go beyond organic, but they will not withhold treatment from one of their sick animals. Usually they will try all of the homeopathic methods available, before using a medication. If they need the medication, they feel that would be inhumane not to use it. Plus in the Dairy business, these animals have the potential to live and produce for a long time, so not treating an infection and losing an animal would be costly.

In the pig example above, letting pigs eat each other to death doesn't really sound very humane to me. I don't know all that much about hog farming, but it sounds like these pigs were in some type of indoor facility that while providing more room, is still not ideal, and certainly isolating them into individual gestation crates where they can barely move certainly doesn't sound more humane. Do “free range” pigs eat each other too?

I'm echoing Meredith and the Dairy Show's sentiments on the antibiotic front; my family transitioned from conventional dairying to a pasture-based sustainable operation but maintained that we would treat 'the ladies' with antibiotics if they were sick or if it would save their lives. As we learned more about holistic approaches, we attempted those as well, but the welfare of the animals was always key.

It was hard for me to make the leap in this post from that of antibiotic use to the gestation pen discussion; I see them as two differing issues. Having raised hogs during high school and a bit on the family dairy, I'm aware of how they are traditionally kept; however, the whole business model of my 'future farm' relies on keeping those hogs on pasture, because I think they would be happiest (and tastiest!). But even when on pasture (since, like almost any other animal pigs are territorial and will create hierarchies), pigs need to have their shelters logically spaced so nobody feels encroached upon.

When Farmer Hayley questioned whether the 'pens' are more humane than the 'crates,' I googled 'gestation group pen' and came up with a few sites:

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/Leafle... – Shows a diagram and discusses crates vs. pens.

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/genetics-reproduct... – A study by a hog farmer, mostly about reproduction rates, but gives pros & cons about the pens.

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/genetics-reproduct... – Another study in the same site.

These hogs are still in 'confinement,' they just can move around a bit more. It seems the 'nature' of the gestation pens, I guess, still depends on the farmer keeping an eye on the 4 – 10 sows in that pen and determining the firestarters from the weak ones and separating when need be.

Sorry if it's TMI; I was curious and thought I'd share.

Zach,
On our farm we have had our share of losses too.
We hauled a goat with a too large dead kid inside of her quite a ways away to the vet. It was nightime, after-hours and cost us about 2x what her purchase price was. If we saved her we would make a lot more money off her milk that year. We took a chance and it worked. Thankfully! She was on antibiotics & painkllers for awhile after that & we kept her from the milk line for about a month. Turns out she is one of our best and most gentle milkers. Good save huh?
We had another tragedy where our prize young buck, Thor, jumped a gate and became tangled in it and broke his leg. We debated a vet trip, but knew that he was ultimately easily replaced. He is now in the freezer. We butchered him before he had any painkillers or antibiotics on purpose so that we could save his meat and honor his life.
To some, we're probably too tenderhearted (I couldn't stand by and allow an animal to suffer – we're either treating it or eating it), which in the long run may cost me more money than the farm in your post that just allows nature to do her thing. But I gotta sleep nights, and knowing that there is an animal suffering on my farm isn't conducive to that!
We use no other antibiotics, chemicals, wormers etc on our farm, but we do turn to natural wormers (garlic, black walnut etc) as needed.
We've taken kids from their mama's when they were abandoned & bottled fed them round the clock until they were big enough to introduce to the herd again. This meant I drove home at lunch every day & changed my clothes, fed the babies, washed up, changed my clothes and ate a sandwich in the car – every single work day for a couple months. It sucked. But the other option was letting them starve which I wasn't going to do! That said, mama goats have a remarkable talent for taking on other mama's babies if need be.
In our case it takes an entire herd to raise a kid
Best regards.
Heather

Also forgot to mention the sow gestation crate thing – Walter Jeffries of Sugar Mountain Farm has had great success with pasture farrowing pigs by allowing the sows to make deep hay nests for their little ones.
He has had very few losses – but he does eliminate sows that have repeated problems or are aggressive.
He's on the right track!

This is a difficult area but my thoughts are that any form of farming or food production is a compromise on the natural order of things. It is particularly difficult with livestock as the issues of life and death in all production methods are all the more poignant as described above. I believe that the best way forward is to use cultural methods where possible to mitigate some of the problems associated with stock production. Mixed farming and crop rotations can help with disease and worm issues. The use of drugs can be minimised but I do not think it is ethical to rule that use out. Talk to any woman about mastitis and you will not find much resistance to the use of prophylactic antibiotics to dry off cattle at weaning for example. I believe that by correctly managing stocking densities and rotations, the use of drugs can be minimised and thus the longevity of those drugs is maximised. Responsible use of the technology will enhance it's longevity.
With regard to the husbandry of farmed animals, I feel that, with respect, it is a cop out to say that animal was destined to die as an excuse for poor attention to detail. We all have disasters and some of them are due to our negligence, but whatever protocol you adopt as a farmer, there is no excuse for neglect. The only animals that it is fair to leave to fend for themselves are wild animals.
Consumers should be able to have an input into the method of production used to provide their meat and coupled with striving to maximise the sustainability of that method, the farmer will be able to move towards an optimum.
Finally 'humane' animal production is a subjective thing, but if farmers practice methods they personally believe in and can justify to anyone, then I suspect that some of the less desirable practices will disappear.

Thank u so much for thy really thoughtful and generous explication. I
would like to respond in full a bit later this evening. Again thank u
for your dialogue and for our always entertaining and enlightening
talks online
Z

Zack,

Reading back through my tweets that you posted here…. when you said to read the Tim Young article, your post along with it I assumed that you were meaning that all farmers should raise their animals that way. But now reading through your blog, and rereading the timeline I am not so sure, I now think that you are just interested in a discussion on best management practices but I could still be wrong.

First I want to say that this did not happen on my farm, we got out of the hog business in the 80's when times were very trying for farmers and we were forced to specialize our business to what we were best at. Second, the farm that this occurred on has always used group pens, that is his choice and he knows the risks and benefits of his decision. He is in no way a bad manager or farmer, and this is not a regular occurence everyday, I was just (un)lucky to be visiting that day. Now on to the discussion.

Best management practices, well it is a hard discussion to have lately with all the micromanagement farmers have been getting lately from the unknowing public (wich I thank you for the chance to help exlplain some things). I think most people will agree that hunting and gathering is no longer a way of life, therefore we must use some sort of modern technique to raise our food, thus civilization. Any system is going to have its problems, I pointed out one problem with gestation pens another is a higher abortion rate because the sows are getting beat around more, you posted Tim had a problem with a sow neglecting her piglets, others have had problems with sows eating her piglets. This is just part of nature and you are correct we cant best it, but we can find ways to help minimalize its impacts.

It is not for you or me, and definately not an animal rights group to decide what is the best management practice to use. There are laws against inhumane treatment of animals, and they to apply to livestock animals, it dont matter what kind of practices animals are raised in, bad management is always going to result in neglect, likewise good management in any system is going to create healthy and “happy” animals. Traditionally farmers had a social licence, but have recently lost publics endorsement because of their perception of our practices, therefore large livestock operations have become one of the most regulated industrys in this country. But this still is not good enough, now we want to force livestock procucersto change their welfare practices, fair enough but regulation comes with consequences.

What does regulation do? this may not always be the case but what I have seen happen in Ohio is it results in shutting down the small family farm and allows a chance for the larger farms to get bigger. One example is our veal industry, they made the choice as an industry to move towards group pens a couple years ago. The large veal farms are almost done adapting, The little guys could not afford to change their operations, it is easier for them to get a job somewhere else….there are only 2 small viel producers left in the state (to my knowledge) and one of them told me last week he is planning on shutting down because he cannot convert.

I understand I got off the subject a little so back to what I think its supposed to be about. My opinions: I dont care how you are raising your animals, the fact is that you have taken them out of a natural environment and domesticated them, even if its 75 acres. Therefore, if an animal is sick it is our moral obligation to doctor it. Is the animal industry using to many antibiotics? I dont know, I do know that in my cattle operation I do not! I treat sick animals, vacinate cows angainst viruses and bacteria that are a threat to them, and also feed antibiotics to calves for 2 weeks after weaning to help them get through that stressfull part of their life. Are pigs “happier” in a free range, gesteation pen, or gestation crate? Why dont we ask the pigs…..

Part of being a livestock producer is knowing when your livestock is disturbed or content. Good managers seek to find out why they may be disturbed and work to correct it, for instance I was checking my cows in a large pasture the other day, they had lots of grass, shade, trees, water, but they were not happy. After doing some investigating I realized I had recently switched their mineral and looked at the tag, and sure enough there wasnt enough salt in it, I gave them a salt block and they are content again. Back to the pig in a gestation crate, if her owner has made proper management decisions to ensure she is content, then most likely she is, my experiences and in my opinion when I see a sow in a gestation crate, she looks “happy”

Now as I said before, its not up to us. But somebody needs to make sure that livestock farmers are following best management practices. Who? good question, in my opinion the best proposal I have seen was having a livestock welfare board that has members representing the public, legislatures, humane societies, farmers, and large animal vetrinarians.

Again, I expressed alot of my own opinions here, and they are exactly that, therefore they may not be what is right. I also know that there is a segement of people that are going to severely disagree with me, but thats ok we are aloud to disagree right?

Bod Bless America!

Mike Haley

Zachary,

Nice post as always. Since it has not come up in the discussion, I wanted to add a comment on the economic component of the issue of alternative farm models, because it is so important. (I do not think your post deals strictly with the question, “what is humane?”; it is broader than that.)

Essentially, as it relates to sustainability, humaneness, and etc., economics functions as a constraint, a negative limit on the extent to which we can pursue any of those goals. Any farm model that purports to be sustainable must include within it (as long as we continue living within a capitalist system) the financial sustainability of a typical, ordinary, everyday farm, not just those farms that are either supported with pensions or other off-farm incomes, or those marginal farms whose farmers are marketing wizards. I have not been able to imagine a broadly applicable farm model that is truly sustainable without including interventions, either chemical, medicinal, and/or management to save animal lives. Economically-speaking, it is simply not possible on an average farm to just let animals die, or to limp along half ill for a month or two until they recover, even if the assumption is that over time such selection through attrition will lead to a farm flock that is genetically selected to thrive in that particular farm environment.

Most non-farmers (and many farmers) do not realize the extent to which the loss of even a single animal causes a financial set back. To illustrate, take sheep as an example. It costs about $100 to keep a ewe for a year. During that year she will have babies once, delivering on average, 1.5 to 1.7 lambs, as high as 2.0 lambs on well-managed farms with genetically prolific ewes. The sale of those babies needs to cover the cost to keep the ewe for the year, the cost to raise the lambs to slaughter weight, and provide some profit. If that ewe has 1.7 lambs, and one of them dies, say because it suffered a bout of coccidiosis, a treatable parasitic infection, there are only 0.7 lambs remaining to cover her cost, the lamb's cost, and to provide profit. In total, the cost of that 0.7 lambs is about $115-$120, including the cost to get it to slaughter weight. If you sell lambs on the hoof for $125, that 0.7 lambs would bring in only $87.50, $32.50 short of cost. In this scenario, it takes the profit from the sale of another lamb from another ewe just to cover the cost to keep that one ewe for the year. A worse scenario would be if a ewe had a single lamb that died. In that case the entire $100 to keep that ewe would need to be made up with the profit from the sale of lambs from other ewes, as many as four of them if your profit is only $25 per lamb (which is not untypical on non-direct marketing farms). If, however, the farmer intervened in the coccidiosis case, a dollar's worth of synthetic chemical drugs would have saved the lamb. The cost to raise the 1.7 lambs to slaughter weight would have been $125.50-$134, plus $1.00 for the drugs, and the gross income would have been $212.50. In this case, $1.00 worth of drugs is the difference between $82 in profit and a loss of $32.50. (Good management goes a long way towards making it possible to escape parasitic infections like coccidiosis, but the reality is that, again because of economics, most farms are stocked at high enough densities that even with intensely managed rotations, parasite problems will pop up — for instance, the weather might force the farmer to keep sheep in one place for longer than he or she would like, or force him or her to have the sheep cover ground again sooner than he or she, or to lamb on a recently used pasture, etc.)

A much more extreme example comes from my own recent experience. A bacterial infection whipped through one of my groups of pigs and killed two out of the thirteen of them before I could blink. Penicillin saved the rest that were sick. Six of them were immune to the infection and didn't get sick. Had I not treated them with penicillin, all seven that were sick would have died. Economically speaking, the worst part of this infection was that half of the group — those that got sick — were only a few weeks from slaughter weight. I had over $200 invested in each pig. The two that died therefore cost me $400. On average, my profit per pig is about $60. That means that this year I have to sell seven pigs just to cover the cost of those two pigs that died. So, with this group of thirteen, instead of making a profit of $780, I will make a profit of $240. Had I done nothing about it and let all seven pigs die, it would have cost me $1400, or the profit from the sale of twenty three (!) pigs, a catastrophic loss. As it is, the loss of just the two is enough that I had to put off my plans to purchase breeding stock this year.

The reality of economic constraint needs to be attended to in any and all of the various categories of alternative farming. It can, of course, be taken too far. The unbridled pursuit of “economic efficiency” is one of the main roots, the tap root, in fact, of the birth of factory farming. Nevertheless, if we are going to develop alternative models to industrial and factory farming that are truly sustainable, we will need to take the reality of this constraint very seriously. The key, and the trick, will be to make sure that we do our best to keep our values of humaneness and ecological concerns on the same level as our concern about economics. Economics is a constraint that limits our definitions of things like sustainability, humaneness, nature, etc., but, it is not a trump.

Liz Tim
We are listening. Thank you again. All great lasting change derives
from the people.
Z

Zach,

I'll try to make this my last post on this topic, as I don't want to monopolize the forum you have so graciously created for all of us.

Mr. Haley, your comments are thoughtful and you deserve a lot of respect for openly sharing your views in a positive manner. What our food culture needs, again, IMO, is discussion from varied points of view. The more we discuss, the more we will in fact develop a value-based food culture. I find that too often people reveal self-serving agendas, listen too little and preach too much. I enjoy listening to you and learning from your perspective, and look forward to hearing more from you in the future here, on Twitter and elsewhere.

Best regards,

Tim Young
http://www.naturesharmonyfarm.com

wow. just got reminded of this post from Food Renegade- what a fantastic discussion. One of the most respectful and well thought out comment section I've read in a while.
It was extremely heartening to read. This type of discussion is what opens the doors for consumers so that actual farmers are informing us and not the media.

Thank you so very much!

This was the first i heard fof not Treating animals when they are sickly.
to me, this is extremely inhumane.
Because as you explain, that ” nature must take it's course”.
Because Ani
mals, that are raised for consumption, aren't living “natural lives”
there is nothing natural about their conditions.
They are raised as live stock, and as long as they aren't living in Africa, where “nature can take it's course”
G-d

thanks mom

i think there is real validity to the point that once we take animals out of
nature we owe them something in terms of caring for them. I think that is a
compelling argument. I think the problem lies in that that is a slippery
slope, and it goes from treating animals who have become sick, to
proactively treating animals with medicines that might keep them from
getting sick in the future…but at what cost to their health, and ours

Appreciate the comment dear Mother!

The real hazard presented by giving antibiotics to livestock doesn't come from treating disease, but rather mainly from the practice of feeding steers massive amounts of antibiotics as a part of their feed so that their rumens will be able to digest corn, which is the industrial farm's feed of choice, since it fattens the animals up quickly. Beef cannot naturally digest corn, so the antibiotics are administered (again, in massive quantities) to trick their natural body chemistry into digesting feed that is utterly unsuitable for them.

In my view, if you wouldn't allow a child or a pet to die from an easily treatable illness then you should allow livestock to succumb to one either. That is the essence of humanity – compassion and care.

Sorry to butt in, but I really feel that I need to correct this. Beef can and do very easily digest corn. We run a natural pastured base beef cattle farm and have supplemented with corn, grain for decades. Our farm losses are nearly zero. I have never had a calf get this “acidosis” or whatever it's from feed or anything else for that matter. My grandfather also did this and his father.

We also run a USDA butcher shop where we market our beef directly to the consumer under the Kentucky Proud label. We also purchase quality livestock from area producers who use the same methods. None of us use antibiotics as routine, nor do we use growth promoting hormones, etc…

So basically, personal experience from several generations of beef cattle farmers leads me to request that we not throw this “beef cannot naturally digest corn” around so freely. I have simply never seen this problem.

Amy
KyFarmersMatter (on twitter)

I have never heard of acidosis until all the talk about Food Inc. It is virtually unknown in my area (and we are generations of beef cattle farmers). I live in Kentucky's “beef cattle country”. We are the largest beef producing state East of the Mississippi River and our County & Border County are the two largest Counties of beef production in the state.

Also, we do not routinely use antibiotics. Meaning, if I had a sick animal I would have no problem giving them the treatment they need. To me, this is humane. With that said, I have not had the need to treat cattle with antibiotics in so many years that I could not tell you when the last time I used it was. Would have to be a decade or better. Our herd is healthy. These are not needed, but I do not feel comfortable with the government taking away my right to give them when necessary. To me, that is inhumane (personally speaking, of course).

As for growth hormones, no we do not use them and our neighbors do not use them and we have no need to use them. Our herd grows fine on their own with Pastured based finishing (meaning, we do not use dry lots…our beef are on paddocks of grass with homegrown forage (hays) for their taking) and grain/corn/homegrown mix supplementation. They choose what they want to eat. We do not ration. The cattle have free choice.

So basically, as simple as it may sound…we don't use antibiotics or added growth hormones because we do not need them. However, if antibiotics are used and appropriate withdrawal periods are used prior to harvest…I see no food safety issue (speaking as a butcher this time).