The Beef Cattle Industry

            The unemployment rate in the United States is currently reported to be a 9.6%, however this number only refers to those individuals receiving unemployment benefits and actively searching for employment. The U6 unemployment rate, which includes people who have run out of benefits and given up on searching for work, is 16%. As a result the food service industry has experienced the greatest monetary decline in has seen in twenty-eight years. Fortunately for producers the demand for beef has not substantially declined, only the value of products. However, as the value of of beef has decreased, the input costs to producers-especially corn, has increased. Corn prices began rising sharply driven by the price of oil, but even after economic downturn corn prices continued to grow, supported by subsidies. These increased prices have forced farmers to find alternate feed sources in an attempt to balance the input costs with the decrease in product value. Farmers have also decreased their herd sizes while increasing the size of individual cows and thus increasing the pounds of beef produced. This however has resulted in increased feed costs, which the producers must be aware of. Despite the decrease in product value, and increase in input costs, producers with cow/ calf herds have a potential to make a profit in the future as feeder calf process continue to increase.

            International trade is also very important to beef producers. The biggest trading partners with the United States, in relation to beef exports, are Mexico, Canada, Japan, Vietnam, and South Korea. These markets have a lot of potential to continue to grow, along with exports to Colombia and Panama; however, in order to effectively establish beef exports to these countries free trade agreements need to be established. Free trade agreements remove the boundaries against trading with a country, such as tariffs, so can be beneficial to the nation as a whole but can also can harm areas that can no longer produce products at the cheapest prices.

            The safety of the food supply is a concern internationally and domestically. In international trade, age verification becomes a limiting factor in exporting meat, especially to Japan, as method used to prevent the introduction of BSE or “mad cow” into the country. Other considerations, such as antibiotic usage in the live animals can affect exports as well as domestic sales. The concern about antibiotic resistance and growing support of “organic” production has greatly affected the beef industry. Organic products receive an average price increase of 73% versus the “non-organic” counterparts. This increase in price is based almost entirely on consumer ideals, although the cost of production to organic producers is increased. The concept of “organic” to consumers goes hand in hand with animal rights. Both of these concepts, however,  result in numerous challenges to all animal production industries. Despite what many animal rights activists and groups, such as PETA and the Humane Society of The Unites States, would have the public believe-producers do their best to ensure that their livestock are healthy and stressed as little as possible, as sick and stressed animals result in profit loss to the producer. Furthermore, PETA and HSUS have stated numerous times that their goal is to abolish all animal agriculture-and neither group actually supports any humane shelters or animal welfare groups.

            The other large concern of livestock industries, including beef production is government regulation. There are numerous governmental challenges to the industry but the two major concerns are currently the change in estate tax that will occur in 2011, and the changes to the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration. In 2011 the estate tax laws will change  in a manner that will increase the tax rate to 55% after the first million dollars. In terms of beef producers with land values currently as high as they are if a farm owner dies next year the resulting estate tax will cause the family to break up the property, and possibly pursue other careers-breaking up family farms. The changes to GIPSA are an attempt to keep pricing between packers and stockyards fair, but will completely remove the price incentives to produce high quality products.

The Sheep Industry

Due to the steady decline in demand for lamb and wool in the United States, the industry has a very small size compared to the other livestock industries. This small size makes the marketing and processing of animals difficult as there is a lack of competition and availability among producers and processing plants. Further compounding this decrease is a lack of production chain incentives, such as value added or superior quality incentives, which causes everything to be valued at the same price regardless of its actual worth. This provides no driving factor to get into the industry or to provide high quality products in a large quantities. Due to the small size, the industry also has very little political clout making it difficult for the industry to stand up for its practices or against limiting regulations. Fortunately the sheep industry can work together with other producers, such as the beef and pork industries, to maintain politics.

The sheep industry faces challenges affecting environmental and animal care and welfare concerns, as all other livestock industries, but has more regional diversity than pork and poultry production. The western flocks are often kept on public lands, such as National Parks, and with that face many challenges that eastern producers do not. With public land use environmental concerns are more focused as the land is shared with residents of the United States for recreational use. In these areas predator control is also evaluated more critically as National Parks are often used as release sites for wolves and other carnivores that enjoy preying on sheep, and because the use of guardian protection dogs in recreational areas can cause many problems with park visitors and their pets.

Predator control is a problem for all producers, regardless of regional diversities. Predators cause a substantial amount of loss to producers,  but methods of predator control are often highly criticized, as they usually result in the death of the predator and in some cases, such as with the Gray Wolf, this might conflict with the Endangered Species Act. As an attempt to help producers recover production losses due to predation, the USDA Wildlife Services provides federal and state funding as compensation. To raise money for predator control funding, Virginia has instituted a check off program, where every lamb sold is taxed 50¢. Although this does provide funding to assist with predator control,  some producers are against the discount creating some internal discourse in the industry.

Another controversy faced by all regions of the industry is that imports of lamb could overtake the domestic supply. Even though on average Americans only consume a pound of lamb per year, current domestic production levels cannot meet this demand. Imports from New Zealand and Australia are often brought in, but since these lambs are produced much more efficiently than domestically produced lambs, they usually result in less cost to the consumer making the imports a more attractive source of lamb. In an attempt to balance the costs the import of lamb gets tariffs, or taxed to be brought into the country, but this affects the United States abilities on the global market. Mandatory price reporting has also been initiated to attempt to keep free market values of lamb, by requiring all product prices be reported thus maintaining industry transparency.

A recent attempt to make all livestock industries more transparent, is not as beneficial however. The USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration, also referred to as GIPSA, requires that all marketing contracts are  made public, alters the definitions of collusion, price fixing, and undue preference in the market and bans packer to packer sale of livestock. Instead of benefiting the livestock production industries GIPSA results in lost opportunities and profits because quality and value added products might fall under undue preference putting the producers at risk to lawsuits. There is also concern that GIPSA violates producers privacy by requiring all contracts be made available to the public and as such GIPSA supports industry consolidation rather than small producers.

Beak Trimming

Within the poultry industry bird aggression and cannibalism result in decreased animal welfare, as well as cost producers a significant amount of profit loss. In an attempt to reduce these behaviors a management practice referred to as beak trimming, or “debeaking”, was developed. In this method up to one half of the upper, or both, mandible(s) are removed mechanically- usually by use of a hot blade (United) or through electric or infrared removal, leaving the beak blunt. Although pain does result from the removal of innervated tissues causing some behavior changes for a period of time (Gentle), the pain suffered from continual attack combined with the continued losses to the producer, by far make beak trimming an advantageous solution for large scale commercial production. Until alternate solutions can feasibly reduce the amount of bird  damage and loss in large flocks with long term maintenance, then beak trimming is a viable and necessary production method. Furthermore if the trimming is performed at a very young age and in a manner that results in no more than one-third of the beak removed-with both mandibles trimmed, than the birds have an easier time feeding and their behavior does not remain as significantly altered for an extended period of time (Gentle).

 Small flock owners, and animal rights and welfare groups provide the most prominent voice against beak trimming, finding the practice distasteful due to the pain and behavioral changes that occur in the post-operative birds (Gentle). These groups often argue emotionally for the end of beak trimming, a method often critiqued hand-in hand with caging and the overcrowding of birds, associated with dense populations used in modern commercial practices. Rather than “mutilating” (United) birds, these groups support ensuring that the birds have ample room, dimmed lights, a balanced high fiber diet and the prompt removal of any birds that are alternately colored, injured, or slow-feathering from the flock (Clauer). These recommendations, while viable methods for diffusing flock aggression, are not practical for large scale flocks which cannot be continuously monitored, or for conditions in which damage to birds may naturally occur such as during mating in breeding flocks.

It cannot be denied that beak trimming results in pain associated with amputation. Numerous studies have shown increased neural damage (Gentle), and observed pain through behavioral changes (Cunningham); However, the intensity of behavioral changes varied with the proportion of the beak removed. It should also be noted that depending on the behavior, observational changes subsided after a five week period. Behaviors such as feeding and drinking showed an initial decrease in studies, but returned to post-operative levels approximately three weeks following the removal of the tip of the beaks (Duncan). This reduction in pecking, and thus weight, is usually attributed to the occurrence of pain in the amputated area, however Gentle et al suggested that this decrease is part of an adjustment period for the bird which must now learn to use its altered morphology and compensate with a shortened beak. It was also shown that the birds which only had one-third of their beaks trimmed were much less affected and showed a quicker return to normal behavior.

Some behaviors, such as increased standing and sleeping and decreased preening also occurred. These behaviors, however remained altered at the end of a five week period of observation (Duncan). Although these behaviors are considered a variant from non-trimmed birds and are thought of as a decrease in the welfare of individual birds, decreased activity may be considered an increase in welfare of the entire flock. If individual birds are content spending more time asleep rather than actively seeking out interactions among their flock mates, then the rate of cannibalism and  aggression amongst birds will decrease. As Cunningham noted, it is important in commercial production operations for the producer to balance the reductions and gains in welfare for the entire flock to maximize the welfare of the entire group.

In the same sense, it is important in commercial production practices to evaluate the practicality of alternative management techniques. While providing ample space with access to the outdoors and a close daily inspection of all birds may be feasible in a small flock, at a commercial level it simply isn’t practical. Some techniques detailed in Clauer’s guide to the prevention of cannibalism, such as maintaining low-intensity lighting and providing adequate diets can be met by producers. However, if these changes cannot ensure a reduction of flock mortalities than beak trimming will continue to be the most accepted practice by commercial producers (Cunningham). By combining various techniques, such as reducing the lights and the amount of beak trimmed, a more acceptable level of individual welfare may be provided while remaining practical for producers.

Flock welfare is a real concern for producers and activist alike. At this time the most practical method of controlling cannibalism and aggression among a flock is the removal of a portion of the beak. In removing only one-third of the beak individual welfare can be improved and when combined with alternative methods of behavior modification- such as dimming the lighting available to the birds, aggressive behavior may be limited without significantly modifying other aspects of behavior or welfare. Although it has been proven that beak trimming does cause pain it is the only method that can ensure a decrease in mortality in commercial flocks at this time. New research is continuously being developed to find alternative methods for aggression control. One such example is a method of gait analysis via computer markers that may be able to determine aggressive tendencies among a flock and identify individuals more likely to cause cannibalism related problems (Laursen). Although this technology remains far from being available, it may one day provide more options for commercial producers or be able to further research to understand flock behavior.

References

Clauer, P. J. 2009 Cannibalism: Prevention and Treatment. Virginia Cooperative Extension http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/2902/2902-1095/2902-1095.html

Cunningham, D. L. 1992 Beak Trimming Effects on Performance, Behavior and Welfare of Chickens: A Review J APPL POULT RES 1992 1: 129-134

Duncan, I. J. H. , Slee, Gillian S. , Seawright, Elaine and Breward, J.1989 'Behavioural consequences of partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in poultry', British Poultry Science, 30: 3, 479 — 488

Gentle, M.J. Hughes, B.O., Hubrecht, R.C., 1982. The effect of beak trimming on food-intake, feeding-behaviour and body-weight in adult hens. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8, 147–159.

Laursen, L. 2010 Computer System Counters Hen Horrors. IEEE Spectrum News. http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/computer-system-counters-hen-horrors

United Poultry Concerns, Inc. Deabeaking. http://www.upc-online.org/merchandise/debeak_factsheet.html

Animals in Research

The use of animals for research is not a new practice, nor has it only recently become controversial. Before the 1860’s anesthetics were not commonly available and all information gained from animals was a result of vivisection- that is the dissection of living individuals. At the time, using live animals was justified in the scientific community by prominent philosophers who claimed that animals could not feel pain, but rather reacted in only a mechanical manner to the response, like a coo-coo clock. The public often reacted against the definite pain inflicted upon the experimental subjects, with outcries lasting until the experiments proved successful- such as the case with Pasteur’s rabies vaccinations. As time passed, concern for the treatment of research animals increased. In 1963 the “Guide for Laboratory Animal Facilities and Care” was published as voluntary to be followed by institutions; however, many institutions chose not to adhere to the guidelines. Around this time activists had been claiming that cats and dogs were being stolen off the street, kept in inhumane conditions and then sold to research facilities. An article in LIFE magazine confirmed all of the claims, and stimulated congressional action to enact involuntary regulation of animal use in research.

            In 1966 the Federal “Laboratory Animal Welfare Act” was published. This act regulated the use of cats, dogs, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, and non-human primates- leaving essentially 92% of all animals used in laboratories unregulated. The act called for yearly, unannounced, inspections as well as thorough paper work and registration of  research institutions. Four years after the initial act was passed, it was amended to include all warmblooded wild mammalian species; this still did not include livestock species or laboratory mice. In 1990 changes were made to include horses and farm animals that were to be used for biomechanical or other nonagricultural research. Biomedical research is considered any research that uses an animal to model human conditions, or any research performed by any medical profession. This creates a grey area, as any research performed by a veterinarian is considered biomedical research even if it only  aims to improve animal production, or to further understanding of the biology, physiology or genetics of an animal; whereas the same research if performed by an agricultural doctorate would be considered Food and Fiber research, and subject to less regulation.

            In 1985 a public health service policy, entitled the “Health Research Extension Act” directed the National Institute of Health to set guidelines for the proper care of animals in biomedical and behavioral research, and included all vertebrate species. Following the creation of the public health policy a voluntary program, called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ,was formed which acted as a local extension of the federal government in charge of improving the protocol for animal research projects for an institution. These committees consists of veterinarians, scientists, non-scientists, and a member of the community which evaluate the protocol, inspect the animal facilities, review any concerns and complaints, and ensure occupational safety. The protocols submitted are contracts between the researcher and IUCAC, and detail the care and research that will be preformed; it must also ensure that all pain, discomfort and stress will be avoided or minimized in the subjects.

            Over the years the care and management of research animals has increased. Up until approximately ten years ago, animals involved in research received more analgesics than most pets. However, the use of animals in research will always be controversial despite the increased welfare of the animals involved. Animal rights activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States continuously attempted to increase public opposition to animal research by publishing inflammatory information and also encouraging animal activists to but in Freedom of Information Act requests that tie-up the intuitions paper-work and force research to slow. Despite continuous opposition all researchers can do is adhere to and ensure the highest standards of animal welfare.

Genetic Modification

Transgenic and cloned animals are often in the news, with the general public concerned about the safety of the food supply and the creation of so-called “franken”-animals. However, the general public has very little understanding of the techniques, processes, results and uses of genetically modified organisms. These process are much too expensive and too difficult to create animals that will go straight into food production, but rather used as breeding stock. Most of the animals created are used for research purposes or for changing the production of the animal into something more beneficial to humans.

Transgenic animals are animals that have had a new, or modified, gene added to their genomes via DNA microinjection. By adding or modifying a gene, these animals can serve an important role in livestock production and in the production of medically important human proteins. A transgenic animal may express more disease resistance or growth than it’s contemporaries, may produce healthier muscle products for human consumption, or may serve as bioreactors in the creation of biomedical products. One example of a transgenic bioreactor, is the creation of transgenic swine that produce important blood clotting factors in their milk. In this case, the  large and complex proteins receive the necessary post-translational modification necessary for their activation in the mammary gland, and can be purified from the milk for human use with no adverse effects to the sow or piglets. Transgenic pigs have also been made which lack the α 1,3-galactosyl cell surface sugar, by using gene-knockout. Since Humans lack the α 1,3-galactosose sugar by knocking out that gene in pigs, which are very similar to humans anatomically and physiology, it may be possible to eventually use pigs as a universal organ donor.

            Once a transgenic animal is created, cloning is a  possible way to maintain the modified genome. Cloning can involve a variety of methods, but the most common is somatic cell nuclear transfer- that is replacing a normal oocyte nucleus with the somatic cell nucleus. A clone is an identical genetic copy of an animal; A clone has the same genome as the somatic cell donor, but the same genes may not necessarily be expressed. Cloning is not only used in maintaining the genetically modified genomes, but may be used to preserve endangered animals, pets, and elite breeding animals. Since cloning creates an identical genomic copy, it reduces genetic diversity, and therefore the viability of endangered species after introducing clones into the population will not increase or may actually be hindered. However, in select cases cloning may be a way to introduce genes that were previously removed from the gene pool. For example, in 2006 the 10-time world champion barrel racing gelding, Scamper, was cloned to produce the stud-colt Clayton. In this manner the gelding’s genes could be used in the population where they previously couldn’t. Geldings or intact males that have been injured and can no longer perform can be cloned and the clone can pass the previously limited genetics along. Cloning is not a guarantee though, that the resultant individual or it’s offspring will produce as well as the original animal due to variations in gene expression and environment.

             The creation of transgenic and cloned animals is an evolving technology with a large amount of potential in the future. By producing clotting factors, universal organ donors, and other biomedical necessities through transgenic and cloned animals allows for a cheaper, and more available resource of products which must otherwise be extracted in a difficult manner. It is imperative, however that the population understands what occurs in both the production of transgenic and cloned animals, if there is any hope of creating products from these animals that can be widely used and accepted by humans.