How to lose the argument on animal welfare

All of us who make our living with livestock are strongly biased on the subject of animal welfare. Unfortunately, it’s a bias that can be our own worst enemy when we debate the topic with someone we disagree with.

This important “stop and think for a moment” reminder comes through loud and clear in “How to lose the argument on animal welfare . . . Top 10 reasons” by Dr. David A. Daley at California State University, Chico. Daley’s arena is the beef industry, but every point he makes is relevant to dairy producers, too:

1. Assuming science will give us all the answers; it only gives us some of the answers. I believe strongly in science, but science doesn’t solve ethical questions.

2. Using economics as the justification for all of our practices.

3. Assuming that you have to defend all agricultural practices, regardless of what they are. I believe you defend those that are defensible. Period.

4. Assuming we can’t do better at animal welfare.

5. Attacking everyone who disagrees with you in a negative, critical manner.

6. Not being willing to listen because we are so busy responding.

7. Assuming that the lunatic fringe is the general public. We spend way to much time focusing on lunatics and not working with the public.

8. Being reactive rather than proactive.

9. Assuming that because someone disagrees with you they are stupid, evil, or both.

10. Not working hard enough to build coalitions that include the public.

11. Bonus: Criticizing/mocking any animal production system that is not “conventional”.

12. Bonus: Trying to lead a parade without seeing if anyone is following. I have surveyed over 200 cattlemen in three locations and 90+ percent of them say, “Animals have the right to be treated humanely and ethically.”

What consumers want

Dealing with consumer perceptions of their food, farmers and, more specifically, animal care was the topic of two presentations during the pre-conference symposium at the annual meeting of NMC, formerly the National Mastitis Council.

“Consumers don’t want ‘industrial’ agriculture, but they want cheap food,” said Wes Jamison of Palm Beach Atlantic University. “They support strict regulations on animal care, but they want cheap food.”

Animal care is not a front-of-the mind issue for most consumers, he believes. But they trust farmers to take good care of their animals and are easily activated by the media. However, the activation is short-lived, said Jamison. The negative impressions usually fade within 48 to 72 hours. However, consumers who have seen some negative publicity about animal care are more likely to get worked up again.

“Consumers trust farmers more than they do other industry representatives or advocates,” said Jamison. “But that trust is eroding," due to the negative publicity such as the Westland/Hallmark slaughter plant abuses and the report about animal care on ABC’s Nightline last month.

People view farm animal care through the same prism they view their pets. “That’s a big problem facing animal agriculture,” said Jamison. “Pets are family.” He explained that, in our urban/suburban society, pets are kept indoors and are considered part of the family. Consumers don’t understand why farm animals shouldn’t have the same care and attention.

“Our industry has a lot of economically valid practices for caring for animals, but we have to decide what is socially acceptable and not acceptable,” said Candace Croney at Ohio State University. We have had gestation stalls for sows, crates for veal calves, cages for layers, and even puppy mills. “They all worked economically or they wouldn’t have existed,” she added. “But it has been decided that these are not acceptable.” Jamison had said that profit is not justification for a practice in the eyes of consumers.

“Now we have to look at lameness incidence and tail docking and ask ourselves what’s acceptable and not acceptable,” said Croney. “We also have to look at mastitis and anything else on farms that causes pain and decide what we are going to do about it.”

Self-regulation can work. Programs such as FARM (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) can raise the bar on animal care and give our industry documentation that animal welfare and care issues are being addressed.

ABC's Nightline makes a direct hit at dairy farmers

Just last night, if you stayed up past your local news and turned on the TV you would have seen a disturbing negative report about the dairy industry on ABC. Before the piece even ran, we were led to believe the piece would be about milk quality, but it was nothing more than an attack on how dairy farmers care for their animals. ABC has posted the story online and has already received 529 comments as of this morning.

Undercover videos were shown of tail docking, as well as dehorning (did you notice the PETA stamp in the corner of the video?). The videos weren't pretty and were undeniably damaging to the dairy industry. You and I may know this is not the status-quo on dairy farms, but, for the average consumer, this may be as close as they ever get to a farm. There needs to be a zero-tolerance for this disappointing animal care shown in the Nightline "investigation."

Tail docking is an unnecessary practice and is not recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association. To see AVMA's stand on the practice, visit them here. AVMA also suggests disbudding along with a local anesthetic for dehorning — not the practice shown in the undercover video.

Chris Galen of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) was interviewed during the report, as well as the dairy farm owner. While the dairy farm owner relayed his belief that tail docking is a standard practice on dairy farms, we believe it is the contrary. Tail docking is now banned in California; however, prior to its ban, a survey of over 200 California producers (average herd size of 2,500) revealed that 89 percent of dairies did not dock tails. Comments from Chris Galen of NMPF were kept to a minimum — likely because he only had positive things to share about dairy farms.

A representative of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) also was interviewed and had the last word when the representative ended the piece with "Got ethics?" as a direct jab at the "Got Milk?" campaign. To answer her question, we say yes. Farms across the country work very hard to produce a safe, and humanely produced product. Let's work together to enforce a zero-tolerance standard for poor animal care.

What did you think of the piece? We'd love to hear your take on it.

Cattle vets focus on industry challenges

THERE likely were some less-familiar faces handling emergency vet calls on farms last week. The reason is that a good many vets were in Omaha for the annual meeting of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. Right at 1,000 veterinarians attended the meeting. There were scores of seminars, workshops, and research reports on topics ranging from effective clothing and footwear for vets to ultrasound basics and from BVD transmission between wildlife and cattle to how to deal with neck, shoulder, and arm problems. Herd checks are hard work.

Many of the general sessions at the AABP meeting this year dealt with issues surrounding responsible drug use. A major focus was on the need for veterinarians and producers to follow drug labels carefully and to be very diligent when using extra-label drug treatments with special emphasis on the need for a valid veterinarian, client, patient relationship.

We heard at the meeting that there are dozens of organizations, most well-funded, but misguided, that want to shut down the U.S. livestock industry. Passing laws banning or severely restricting use of antibiotics is one way they are trying to do that. Never mind that there is no conclusive evidence linking food animal antibiotic use with antibiotic resistance in humans. Those groups also don’t seem to be concerned about how inhumane it is to not treat a sick animal just as it would be unthinkable to not treat a sick person.

A lot of what groups like AABP and the American Veterinary Medical Association do is to go to bat for the food animal industries on issues such as antibiotic use and animal welfare.

Speak loud and clear... our opponents do!

Every producer has a position. You might be opposed to BST use; you might buy BST in bulk. Perhaps you have an organic operation. Maybe you even have a cloned cow or calf on your farm. All of these issues are at the heart of today’s consumer. If you’re walking down the grocery aisle with no prior knowledge of dairy or production practices, would you buy the gallon of milk marked ‘BST-free,’ or would you buy the package without the claim? Consumers make decisions like this every day whether they’re informed or not.

Whose voice enters a consumer’s head when they look at a product?

Surely you’ve seen or heard about the commercials, movies, and other campaigns attacking the way the dairy industry and other agricultural industries operate. Consumers see and hear these negative campaigns, too, and it directly impacts the decisions they make in the store. We, as food producers, must be a voice to be reckoned with when it comes to broadcasting these issues.

Spiral science is a term for the uninformed public hearing and seeing only one side of an issue (usually very vocal and extreme), thinking that everyone else is on that side since it’s the only voice being heard, and changing their view to that of the extreme. The recently blogged-about movie, Food Inc., is an example. The movie will debut, and consumers will watch as claims are made and the agricultural industry and its system will be questioned, but who will talk back? Who will speak truth and reason on behalf of our industry? Make your voice heard— it makes a difference.

Ag advocates start to sound off on Food, Inc.

In just two days, the highly publicized, praised, and criticized movie Food, Inc., will premier in select cities across America. The movie’s website claims that you will never look at dinner the same way again. The website also claims the movie will “lift the veil on our nation's food industry.” But, for most farmers, they won’t need a movie to show them how food is produced. The dairy industry has become a part of the image of the movie, as a Holstein cow with a bar code digitally imposed on her side is the front image on the movie’s website and much of its promotional materials.

From reading the website, the filmmakers suggest adopting a food system in which food is produced and sold locally — using practices like organic. They also call for increased legislation on food safety. Unfortunately, the film’s site also lists an alliance with HSUS, a known opponent to animal agriculture. Several websites (like this one, and this blog) have started to separate the facts from the myths in the Food, Inc., film. Do you think it will have an impact on what consumers demand in the dairy case? Or will producing cheap food, highly efficiently, forever be a trademark of American agriculture?

Online Surveys & Market Research

Another call to action against those who would destroy animal agriculture

Not so slowly, and very surely, a growing number of agricultural spokespersons are taking off the kid gloves when they discuss the threat to all food animal producers that is posed by vegan wolves disguised in animal rights clothing.

A case in point came during the National Dairy Leaders Conference April 20 and 21 in Denver, Colo. That’s when Gatz Riddell, D.V.M., executive vice-president of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, added his voice to the growing chorus urging livestock industries to proactively adopt animal care practices that resonate with consumers – and consider abandoning those that don’t.

“Groups like Humane Society of the United States are never to be believed,” he said. “We have to remember that their true agenda is the abolishment of animal agriculture. Our best defense is to remove our opponents’ offense. We need to identify the “low-hanging fruit” in terms of our procedures and protocols that are easy to take issue with, address them before others do, and correct or eliminate them.”

Riddell cited several practices that are either under increased public scrutiny now or are likely to be in the near future. These include:

• tail docking
• dehorning
• surgical procedures without the use of anesthesia
• lameness
• low body condition
• culling rates
• failure to provide bull calves with colostrum
• disposition of bull calves in general

Tail docking and antibiotics under fire in California

When proposition 2 passed in California, new housing restrictions were placed on egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows. Just last month, California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez introduced a bill that would outlaw tail docking. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) opposed proposition 2 but does not stand behind tail docking.

Just today, we learned of the Majority Leader’s plan to prohibit schools from serving meat or poultry products from animals treated with antibiotics. The bill would also place a ban on antibiotics for non-therapeutic and prophylactic uses. Finally, the bill would require state and local governments, when purchasing meat supplies, to prefer meat supplies produced without the use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives. See the .pdf link below to view the bill.

SB416.pdf

One thing is for certain; farmers and animal agriculture advocates across the country should be ready to educate the public on the measures we take to be good animal caretakers. Comment below to share your thoughts.