As a friend of ag, allow me to weigh in...

Livestock agriculture and animal advocacy groups are in an important battle over how farm animals should be raised. A few years ago, I focused my research efforts upon the farm animal welfare issue because I considered myself a friend of livestock, and I did not like the manner in which agriculture engaged the animal welfare issue. I wanted agriculture to do better, so I have offerred my time. This blog entry is part of this commitment.

Whether the current strategy of livestock agriculture will win in the public perception and the political arena I do no pretend to know. I have enough difficulties being a good economist, that I cannot afford to try and be a good political scientist as well. What I do know is the livestock agricultural agenda is not winning in the intellectual arena.

Consider the recent editorial: Farmers responsible stewards of livestock. Letters like these are getting old and do not reflect the level of enlightenement which I know the authors possess. Livestock agriculture needs to stop repeating its talking points, which are largely designed to make farmers feel better about themselves. Farmers have nothing to feel ashamed about. They are producing the exact commodity the consumer [currently] desires. If animal welfare needs to be increased then it is the consumer who is responsible for demand more humane products and paying the associated premium. Farmers are only doing what every good business is morally charged to perform: producing the good consumers desire.

That said, let us explore why this editorial is an epitome of livestock agriculture's intellectual failings.

Providing good care to the animals on our farms is a second sense within us, because we each have lifetimes of experience doing so. Any good farmer knows that good care also equals profitability. That’s why for years we as farmers have been financing meaningful scientific research through our commodity associations to benefit animals’ behavioral and psychological needs.

When the farm animal welfare debate first appeared back in 1965 Britain, the hypothesis that animal welfare can be measured by productivity and profits was offerred and quickly dismissed in the Brambell Report. Nothing has changed since 1965. Animal welfare is only partially related to animal productivity, and animal agriculture needs to stop pretending it to be otherwise. Moreover, it is arguable that many farmers do not actually understand their hogs needs, and I will offer myself as an example. In my youth I spent considerable time working on confinement hog farms, and it formed a particular impression in my mind about what hogs desire. That impression was later proved wrong when I visited a hog farm that operated under the Animal Welfare Institute guidelines. For the first time in my life, after years of working on hog farms, I saw a hog run. I saw a hog merrily playing in mud even in cold temperatures. At that visit, I realized that I knew how to run a factory farm, but I knew very little about the animals on that farm.

It seems what started with Walt Disney’s personification of animals with Mickey Mouse has evolved into a segment of society that puts the supposed needs of animals above humans. Some people seem to care more about what they call mistreatment of animals than a rash of other societal ills.

These same people are leading the charge across our nation to eliminate livestock agriculture, hunting and even pet ownership. Too often they deliver their deceptive messages as self-appointed experts on animal care. When farmers shrug them off in the face of assault, then the public only hears their exaggerated side of the issue. As they say on the farm, you reap what you sow.

The issue of whether animal welfare should be improved does not depend on whether Wayne Pacelle (CEO of HSUS) is a vegan. I imagine many social workers, after witnessing case after case of child abuse and neglect, wish people would stop having so many children. It would be absurd to suggest that we should not do anything about child abuse because some social workers yearn for a world where parents have fewer (or maybe no) children. It is absurd to suggest that we should not improve animal welfare simply because it will appease those who want us to become vegans. It is equally absurd to assert that giving animals a better life immediately locks us in to subsequent veganism. We can have government without becoming communists, and we can treat animals well without being vegans.

Earlier this spring, when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced it was holding lobbying efforts at over 40 state capitols, including Wisconsin, the Farm Bureau decided it wasn’t going to sit on its hands.

Good. It is important for society that both sides of the issue engage in battle. I am not being sarcastic, this is how real democracy works.

Instead, the HSUS is a slicker version of their friends over at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). As the new, multi-million dollar player of the professional protest industry, HSUS’s playbook is well known. They have successfully passed referendums in other states that ban certain livestock housing practices. Exhibit A of this is California’s passage of Proposition 2 last November. Voters there banned gestation stalls for sows, pens of veal calves, and wire pens for laying hens. It was an example of exaggerated emotionalism winning out over rational thought. Never mind scientific research or economic fallout, HSUS met its goal when emotions ruled the day.

The author is asserting that replacing cage eggs with cage-free eggs or eliminating gestation creates is an example of "exaggerated emotionalism winning out over rational thought." It is here, especially, where my agricultural community is losing the intellectual ground. This statement is made because it has been a talking point used by others, and makes authors feel good about themselves. It is a blatantly false statement! There are scientific studies that show both switching from cage to cage-free eggs and eliminating gestation crates is better for the animals (see here and here), and absolutely zero studies (that I know of) showing otherwise.

There are plenty of good reasons to improve and to not improve animal welfare. The decision is ultimately up to the consumer. It is true that animal advocacy groups are seeking to impose choices on consumers, but when it comes to public goods like animal welfare, that is not necessarily bad, if these animal advocacy groups accurately represent the preferences of their constituents. The suffering of a hog affects compassionate humans irregardless of who consumes the food from that sow. Animal welfare is like the environment, it belongs to everyone and cannot be parsed out like corn.

I beg of you, my livestock agriculture family, who I identify with so strongly, stop using talking points. Start reading. Start listening. Start thinking for yourself. Yes, it does present the danger that you may change your mind. That is the cost of possessing an open mind.

Discussion of Feedstuffs Commentary

Friendly Discussion of Animal Welfare, Animal Care, and Ballot Initiatives: What's The Solution?

In regard to animal care and welfare, animal agriculture’s message is that current animal production systems produce safe, nutritious, affordable food by means of state-of-the-art technology based on sound science. Moreover, that animal production must be protected from special interest groups having vegetarian and other ethical agendas whose legislative efforts are simply attempts to stymie modern animal agriculture.

However, "sound science" has also showed that the methods HSUS is pursuing is superior to the status quo (see here and here)

Results of studies on the behavior and function of closely confined farm animals consistently indicate chronic stress. And behaviors suggestive of negative emotions are often observed.

For the record, however, similar problems can be found to varying degrees in animals kept in the alternative accommodations promoted by humane organizations.

Still, although stress is counterproductive in producing human foods of animal origin, contemporary animal agriculture has prioritized animal health and productive and reproductive performance over freedom to express a wide range of normal behavior patterns.

Conversely, HSUS’s rhetoric has focused primarily on animal behavior. Their message is simple and apparently reasonable: An animal should be able to stand up, lie down and turn around comfortably and easily. Unfortunately, to honor such a dictum would create a financial and logistical nightmare for contemporary U.S. animal agriculture. Furthermore, it would not sufficiently consider other aspects of animal welfare.

Thank you for acknowleding the fact that traditional egg and pork systems have flaws, and thank you for pointing out the other systems have drawbacks for animal welfare as well. However, let us first acknowledge the fact that wanting an animal to be able to lie down comfortably and turn around is not naive. Second, if the alternative system one is considering is comparable in terms of animal welfare to systems where an animal cannot turn around, one should reconsider what that alternative is.

First, the conventional stalls, crates and cages used for much of the country’s livestock and poultry production would have to be either altered or abandoned. The cost of this alone would put many farmers out of business.

Any time one does anything that raises the cost of production, there will be some economic harm. But since those who are put out of business or lose their jobs can always find work elsewhere (unfortunately, this job-hunt can be difficult), people who are opposed to factory farming on ethical grounds will not accept this as an argument. One should not condone unethical behavior just because it makes money.

With that said, it is disingenuous to suggest that the only options for Ohio are either: (1) to make minimal or no changes to livestock and poultry production practices — in other words, to simply defend the status quo, or (2) to risk having food produced that is actually unsafe and unwholesome or so expensive that some Ohioans will starve.

Well said!

The respective parties could instead work together to maintain our safe, affordable food supply and better protect animals and people in the process. This, however, would require each party to state what they are willing to give up as well as to vow to act in good faith to ensure a positive outcome for all stakeholders: win-win-win for animals, consumers and farmers alike. This would require a couple of intentional actions by everyone.

The first would be proactive, sincere consideration of the values held by all stakeholders.

Second, it would require fuller use of current knowledge in animal-welfare and animal-production science, veterinary medicine and agricultural economic

The question facing citizens across the nation nowadays is this: Do we engage in an expensive and protracted battle of faulty referenda or can we put aside personal agendas and create a feasible plan that makes a meaningful difference in the lives of farmed animals and people?

No, it can't work like that. It probably shouldn't. This is a battle for how farm animals are raised. The industry and HSUS have different opinions on what farms should look like. It is pollyannism to think they can compromise, because there is no compromise to be made. This is how a democratic world works; both parties lobby, fight, smear, and persuade for their cause. Both are backed by money representing different desires of the public. People love pork and eggs, and prefer them cheap, hence the industry's political power. People want animals to be treated humanely, hence HSUS's power. The winner will be determined largely by the power of these two constituent groups, by the intensity of these two societal desires. While a bit ugly to watch, allowing this uncoordinated political process to battle is much better than a committee of animal welfare czars.

Thank you Dr. Croney and Dr. Curtis for your thoughts.

Organic Food Is Silly

So why worry about fraud in organic labeling?

Daily Show Interview of Robert Kenner

Daily Show Interview of Robert Kenner (producer of Food, Inc.), on July 2, 2009

I'm summarizing...and comment in green

Jon Stewart: what's wrong with food today?

Robert: food isn't raised on open pastured, instead cows are stuffed into feedlots...

Where every day they receive large portions of a food they absolutely love, and greatly, greatly prefer to grass

Jon: how they raise animals is like the Abu Ghraib of food animals...the animals are stuffed one on top of one

another in the dark, climbing around in their own feces

That is true for many animals, and I see how people can have a big problem with that

Robert: our tax dollars subsidize this by subdiziding corn

That is true to some extent, but no one likes the subsidizies except the farmers and companies, but the payments

to the farmers are to a large extent independent of how much they produce...except for ethanol subsidies,

which are ridiculous but came about because of liberal concerns about fossil fuels

...the price of corn is mostly determined by supply and demand, not subsidies

Robert: food today is basically there to produce salt, sugar, and fat

I know he is intentionally using hyperbole, but even so that statement is a bit ridiculous. Every grocery store has

plenty of nutritious food, but consumers simply don't want much of it, so don't blame the companies.

Jon: if our food is so bad, why are we not dying earlier?

Robert: we will start dying earlier, soon...when I was a kid we spent 18% on food and 5% on health care,

now we spend 9% on food and 18% on health care, so in aggregate food our food is really more expensive.

So first, if the data are not in your favor you simply assert the data will soon change. Second, are you really

prepared to say that ALL of our increases in health care costs are due to a poorer diet? Really? The invention

of better medical technologies and new methods of treatment have NOTHING to do with it? I'll say it, he knows better

than this. Anyone smart enough to write books and produce movies knows better than this.

Jon: don't we have to mass-produce food on some level, given our busy lifestyle and large population and stuff?

Robert: but the system we have now is not sustainable because it relies on gasoline and pollutes the earth...plus 6

billion go to bed hungry right now

So, everything that relies on gasoline and creates any pollution needs to be phased out? Doesn't that mean

we need to stop producing everything? Plus, because North Korean dictators intentionally starve their citizens, and

other countries do the same, that means our food system is broken?...I'm telling you, he is smarter than this, just not

honest

Jon: so what do we do?

Robert: ag cooperations wouldn't talk to us

That is because you are dishonest. I talk to these people all the time. If they think you will be honest and fair, they will

talk to you.I guess you can't make money like that though.

Robert: consumers have more power than they think...Wal-Mart took out milk because it contained rBST and

consumers didn't want it

And consumers didn't want it because people like you lied to them about its safety.

Animals are not helping

Animals should be doing more for the animal rights movement.

Wayne Pacelle on AgriTalk

Wayne Pacelle was recently interviewed on the agricultural talk show AgriTalk (listen here). One lady who is an animal abolitionist provides some escerpts here, and for those who are not aware of how abolitionists think, her comments are educational. The entire transcript is here.

A few of my comments are below.

First, regardless of what you think of animal rights activists, you have to say that Wayne Pacelle does a good job as the CEO of his organization. He must manage the millions of dollars of donations from people with disparate views. The common thread of those views is extending more compassion to animals, and Wayne manages to capture this thread while not exposing the disagreements many HSUS members have by not using words like "animal welfare" or "animal rights". He replaces these words with "human responsibility." Brilliant management.

I was glad to see that they were able to discuss "science". Hopefully the listeners understood that "science" does not in any way support the use of gestation crates or battery cages.

The discussion about hunting was interesting, because Pacelle said that HSUS is not opposed to hunting. He said they only focus on worst abuses in hunting. In my research for my book, however, I found out that as a college student Pacelle would enter the woods where individuals were hunting and make a commotion to scare the wildlife away. This demonstrates that what Pacelle believes and what the HSUS policy is are often two different things.

Interesting Facts From The Interview

• Most of the HSUS board of directors are not vegetarians.
• I had always heard HSUS has a vegan cafeteria, but Pacelle claims they do not have a cageteria.

Last thought: Am I the only one sick of asking whether Pacelle and HSUS managers are vegans are not? Does that have anything to do with the actions of HSUS?

Life in the Wild, and Alan Dawrst

For many, especially those who raise livestock, the notion of animal liberation may seem a farce. These animals can either be raised as livestock (humanely or not) or will not exist (save for a few pets). The idea that they can be set is the wild just seems absurd, as this piece in The Onion illustrates.

What many people fail to consider is the possibility that animals in the wild suffer. From what I have seen in my own experience, and every wildlife documentary I have watched, life in the wild is not pleasant.

Which brings me to this brilliant young thinker, Alan Dawrst, who runs the Reducing Suffering blog. What is best are his essays , one of which concerns suffering in the wild.

Anyone who considers the natural wild the only place in which animals can live without suffering should be reading Alan Dawrst's work first.