PurdueAgricultures
Listening to the animals
Debate escalates over animal welfare
By Julie Douglas
Most U.S. citizens will forever remember the historic 2008 presidential election. Political pundits focused on the battle for our nation’s top offices, and some states experienced too-close-to-call congressional races. In California, however, a different type of battle was brewing, but it was one that was just as hotly contested.
In the ballot-initiative state of California, The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act—also known as “Proposition 2”—passed with 63 percent of the vote. The act, which had failed in several prior attempts, sets new animal welfare standards for veal calves, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs. The law requires that all of these species have the ability to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely in production facilities.
California joins Florida, Arizona and Oregon, states that already have similar laws on the books. In Colorado, industry groups avoided a ballot initiative by reaching a compromise with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which led the campaign in California. Talks are also under way between the HSUS and farm groups in Ohio.
Expedited by a changed economy
The issue of animal well-being and animal welfare is not a new one, but it’s been receiving substantially more attention from the public in recent years. With growing grassroots support, animal-rights organizations have been able to accomplish changes in the way animals are raised, due in part to the transition from small independently owned stores to big box stores and chains.
“There used to be many farmers raising animals and putting them on the market,” says Ed Pajor, a researcher at Purdue University through summer 2009. “Now, with the integration of the food system and big box stores, there aren’t many family ma and pa shops left.” This change is one of the reasons the United States has gone from a “push” economy, where farmers decide how animals are raised, to a “pull” economy, where the retailer tells the farmer how their animals will be raised and sent to the retailer, Pajor explains.
This transition has allowed animal rights groups to put pressure on retailers, such as McDonald’s, Burger King and Wal-Mart, and influence the production methods of hundreds of farmers who directly or indirectly contract or sell their products to retailers.
In 2007, Smithfield Foods announced it would require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in gestation crates. McDonald’s now requires cages for laying hens to be a minimum of 72 square inches of space, with a minimum of 4 inches of feeder space. And Burger King purchases 2 percent of its eggs from producers who do not confine laying hens in battery cages and doubled the percentage of cage-free eggs it uses to 5 percent.
The debate over how food animals are raised and treated reflects viewpoints at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. The success of Proposition 2 was not accomplished by activists alone. It was propelled by a growing number of concerned citizens who want to see animals treated more humanely. But do these actions, often driven by human emotion, always result in better care?
Science sets standards
A team of Purdue and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) researchers are working to further develop science-based, animal-friendly production practices in the poultry and swine industries. Purdue’s Center for Food Animal Well-Being and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Livestock Behavior Research Unit, located at Purdue, create the largest concentrated group of animal well-being scientists in the nation.
Bill Muir, a Purdue geneticist, is among the researchers who are examining animal well-being from many different specialty areas, including behavior, physiology, immunology and production.
Muir, who is internationally regarded for his poultry research, developed a tool to prove genetic group selection is better than individual selection. Muir’s discovery made it possible to design selective breeding programs to effectively reduce competition between animals.
“In their natural state, chickens are a highly territorial jungle bird—males compete for mates, and females compete for food and nest sites,” Muir says. “In the wild, they seek refuge from predators in sheltered areas.”
In domesticating chickens for production needs, many natural behaviors have been modified. However, not all behaviors, such as competitiveness, have been removed. “The major stressor of laying hens is not the cage they are in (it may be seen as protective) but the fact that they are with a lot of other laying hens,” Muir says. “Animals living in groups that are bred to be more passive sustain fewer injuries and are more productive than animals bred naturally. Basically, we’ve bred a friendlier laying hen.”
“The work that Bill Muir has done with group selection is important for the future husbandry of laying chickens,” says Gerard Albers, director of Hendrix Genetics BV Research and Technology Centre. “It’s an important development for our clients because they are the ones actually producing the eggs and chickens for the McDonald’s of the world and having to meet their requirements. The genetics we select for our birds today is the product that producers will have in three years.”
With headquarters in the Netherlands and 25 international locations, Hendrix Genetics-bred layers provide about 50 percent of the world’s egg production. In Europe, the majority of laying chickens are no longer housed in cages, but rather in floor-housing systems. Muir discovered a very important principle—that the fitness of the individual is not as important as the fitness of the group, Albers explains.
“His research definitely brings more progress to the breeding programs, which means a better product for our clients and a better, healthier bird,” Albers says. “We’ve seen a decrease in the mortality rate of our laying hens.”
If animals could talk
While Muir’s landmark study relied on genetics, other studies evaluate health and development of animals in their environment. Some studies even ask pigs to choose their preferred housing.
Pajor, who has had an interest in understanding why animals do what they do since he was in elementary school, leads a three-year project addressing the issue of sow gestation housing. In research funded by the National Pork Board’s Animal Welfare Committee, Pajor studies varying aisle spaces of 3 feet, 7 feet and 10 feet between crate rows for bred pigs to see if there is any effect on the welfare of the sow, as well as the piglet development in the uterus.
Another study he leads uses a preference test. “Essentially, the animals ‘vote with their feet’ on which type of housing system they prefer—a free-access stall or a closed gestation stall,” Pajor says. “The gilts walk down an aisle. On one side is a gestation stall in which they will be enclosed, and on the other side is a free-access stall with more space. They choose which one they enter.
“If they don’t like their choice the first time, the next time they will opt for the other side and then repeatedly return to their side of preference. So far, findings show that sows, regardless of their housing background (group or stalled), prefer the free-access stall.”
Researchers think that sow housing may also affect longevity. Don Lay, a scientist with the USDA-ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit, heads a team that is observing the effects of sow housing on prenatal stress, longevity, gastric ulcers and lameness.
“This is really the first chance we’ve had to look at how sow housing affects longevity,” says Lay, who was raised on a Virginia livestock farm. “Cartilage health, bone strength, hormone levels in the blood, lameness, the number of pigs born, the number of still births and mummified pigs, and the number of pigs weaned and weaning weight are all being taken into account.”
Lay hopes study results will help optimize the well-being of swine, shed light on the mechanisms of maternal behavior, identify alternative housing and management systems, and explain the effects of prenatal stress.
The Purdue-USDA animal well-being team has helped set new standards in the livestock industry.
•Animal husbandry guidelines were set for U.S. egg-laying flocks, including standards for space and beak trimming.
•The United Egg Producers adopted induced molting guidelines.
•Minimum space guidelines for grow-finish pigs have been established.
•Thermal limits have been set for various stages of swine production.
On the farm and in the classroom
The research not only brings changes to food animal production practices, but changes in how animal agriculture is taught in the classroom.
“It’s critical for students to learn about animal welfare and well-being in production agriculture,” says Pajor, who teaches applied animal behavior and animal welfare. “They are the ones who will be making decisions—as a farm owner or manager, as an agribusiness representative or as a veterinarian—in the future.”
Science: lean on me
Many practices in the animal industry are changing due to the economy, legislation, mandates from retailers and animal welfare and well-being organizations. As animal well-being becomes an issue in more and more states, scientific research will become more important for decision-makers, producers and citizens. Through scientific studies, animals can have a “voice” in how they are raised, and Purdue researchers are listening to what they have to say.
Purdue Agricultures / Story Link/
1