The Poultry Industry

The Poultry Industry is highly concerned with maintaining flock welfare. In 2006 welfare auditors began training to satisfy the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marking Institute’s welfare standards. These are realistic standards that can be divided into the three sections of the poultry industry: live bird production,  transport, and slaughter; and are concerned with the bird’s “major issues of freedom,” that is preventing hunger, thirst, discomfort from poor ventilation, pain, injury, disease, fear and distress while allowing birds to express normal behavior. These standards have been developed based upon the European Union’s standards, along with a panel of United States scientists and behaviorists. The American Association of Avian Pathologists’ welfare committee are currently adapting the standards to be more appropriate for American poultry production techniques, focusing on breeders, hatchers, grow-out, and processing plants specifically.

There are a number of “hot button” issues that are often criticized. Some of these issues such as litter quality and beak trimming apply to all sections poultry production, while others are limited to certain aspects of production such as Breeders, Broilers or Layers. Litter quality if often a concern in poultry houses because it directly affects the air quality. Litter should be dry and friable, able to be reduced to smaller sized with little effort; these traits are correlated with house management. Beak trimming is more controversial than many of the other topics, since beak trimming does cause pain to the birds. However, if trimming is done when the bird is less than one week old, this pain is believed to be outweighed by the benefits gained. The purpose of beak trimming is to prevent cannibalism amongst the birds, as well as feather pecking, egg eating,  and problems which occur when the male pulls on the female during breeding. Although the trim may cause initial pain, it is less than what may occur throughout the birds life time if they are attacked by the other birds in their house. There are various methods used to trim beaks, and the operators must be extensively trained to do so. These methods include mechanical removal, hot-blade removal, electrical removal, and infrared removal. Some studies have shown that the infrared method causes the least pain since it only causes damage to the tissue which then sloughs off at a later date, rather than removing the tip of the beak all at once.

The Breeder industry faces critiques for the use of plastic trans-septal pins, aka Noz-bones, which keep the male pullets from eating from the female feeders, and feed restriction programs. Feed restriction programs are important for female reproductive health, because overweight birds will not have normal ovary development; Under the two methods: skip-a-day, and restricted daily feeding, the birds are always provided with the amount of feed they need but not enough so that they can become overweight.

The Broiler industry is most concerned with skeletal damage, which can be related to gait scores, and with the stunning methods used at the slaughter plant. Skeletal damage can occur for many reasons towards the end of the grow-out stage when the birds are so heavy, but most often occur because of handling. It is very difficult to determine if the damage occurred ante-mortem or post-mortem from carcasses. In live birds skeletal damage and hock legions can be determined by the birds ability to walk “naturally.” Gait scores are assigned on a 6 point scale in the UK, and a 3 point system in the US.

The Layer industry is often criticized for the battery cages which the birds are kept in. There are disadvantages to the cages, such as a higher influence of disease, and some studies say there is a slightly higher incidence of fragile bones and blood spots in the eggs; however there are many advantages as well such as less labor, cleaner eggs, better feed efficiency and egg production, lower salmonella contamination and eliminated parasites, and a lower risk of disease introduction from outside of the house.

A Short Response

The first thing I noticed about the “Animal Cruelty” video was that the production company was called “One True Media” which may have swayed those who watched the video into believing that what they are seeing is true, simply because the word “true” is in the title. However, if you go to the company’s website you find that it is a site created “to provide consumers with easy-to-use tools to mix and share their own video creations” (1) and has no method of verifying the information in the videos produced. Many of the images presented were neither offensive nor showing any form of inhumane treatment, and were all without any explanation. None of the images were cited, so the context or even time period they were taken from could not be evaluated. The aim of the video was simply to evoke emotion against animal use, in any manner.

The second video was more thought provoking. Many of the clips seemed staged- especially the “hurt ‘em” portion which referenced PeTA, since the diction seemed forced and the entire thing was seemingly filmed without anyone in the barn noticing or either not caring, which seems very unusual. Even if the clips were not staged the context of the situation was not shown, like the downer pig being euthanized with a captive bolt or the reason for the smashing of the piglets and poultry, giving an incomplete view of the event so that a critical evaluation cannot actually be made. Furthermore, if these situations occurring when filmed, and not staged, why are the people supposedly in support of the ethical treatment of animals not doing anything to stop the treatment they are filming, or even more importantly why are they encouraging it? The lack of action seems quite contradictory to their purpose, and belief system.

It is also easy to realize that many of the “practices” depicted such as killing piglets and birds, and beating stock are not commonplace among the industry as the farmers would never receive enough profit to sustain their farms. Dead and injured animals do not enter the food supply, and any bruised or wounded meat is discounted at the slaughter house. If these practices were happening every day, then there would be no need try to convert people to vegans, since no farmers would be able economically maintain their farms.

Some of the quotes and references used by the video also raised questions. Many quotes are clearly slanted or biased towards the vegan/ vegetarian goals, such as Milksucks.com and Michael Pollan the “food activist” whom contributed to Food, Inc.(2) Whereas other quotes were altered, completely changing their meaning, such as the statement from the video:

“Ben Franklin’s definition of the “reasonable creature” was one who could come up with reasons for whatever he or she really wants to do! Will you just make up reasons you can’t help? If not you then who?...”

The actual quote, however, is:

“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” -from Franklin’s Autobiography published in 1868 (3)

In the actual context, the quote has an entirely different connotation. Franklin is not defining a reasonable creature as one who will come up with reasons for whatever he wants to do, but rather the quote seems to be more of a commentary about the use of “reason” as a convenient way for people to justify their actions to themselves. That is exactly what the video’s author accomplished, they justified the production of their video and the misrepresentation of the industry through their own created reasoning.

1 http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/aboutus
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan
3 http://www.jrank.org/quotations/pages/569/Benjamin-Franklin.html

Anti-Animal Production Videos

These two YouTube videos are examples of what many people associate with livestock and animal production. There are many more out there that voice against livestock production and use emotion to try to sway the opinion of those who watch them against the use of animals. However, many of these videos depict uncommon events or do not put the events into any sort of understandable context. Very few of these videos list sources, and those that do often express a clear bias.

On Monday I will post a response to these videos.

*Warning, contain images of a graphic nature.*

Introduction

The words agriculture, animals, production, and industry all evoke controversial and emotional responses, especially when used in conjunction with one another. The agriculture industry, including animal production, faces daily controversy while striving to provide the products which the public demands.

It is these controversial topics that affect the perception of agriculture and animal production. If the industry does not address the practices and management techniques it uses with sound and critical thought, and actions, than these perceptions will never change. With an increasing number of  people demanding that their agricultural products are "natural" and that animal production is as humane as possible, now more than ever is an appropriate time for those involved in agricultural to step up and shed light on the industry.

It is time to thoroughly evaluate the contemporary issues in animal science, and for those involved in the industry to share their insight and opinions with the public.