Amazing Baby Chick Videos

I have always wanted to see the machines that kill baby male chicks and trim chick beaks. Not from a sadistic point-of-view, but a curiosity. This video shows it. The most amazing thing is how fast the "sexers" can tell the difference between male and female chicks.

HSUS and Meat Eaters

In response to my previous post, I received an email informing me that the majority of HSUS's Board of Directors are meat-eaters, and they can fire and hire the CEO Wayne Pacelle. Moreover, this Board is democratically elected by HSUS members. Furthermore, the HSUS building is occupied by some staff who are vegans, some who are vegetarians, and some who eat meat. The email also informed me that HSUS does promote pet ownership.

This is an important point, and one that needs to be understood by those debating the farm animal welfare issue. Yes, the CEO and many other positions of power within HSUS are filled by vegans who have a history of subscribing to certain animal rights. However, these individuals were elected to run HSUS by a membership that includes many, many meat-eaters. It is probable that the majority of HSUS members are meat-eaters and pet owners, though I do not have the stats to prove it.

The idea that the farm animal welfare debate is a struggle between ordinary people and extremists who have hijacked an organization with a fortunate name may be good propaganda but is not good logic. There is a large base of meat-eating, pet owning Americans who voluntarily elected Wayne Pacelle to improve the lives of farm animals. Those who dismiss animal advocacy groups on the basis of conspiracy theories are insulting the millions of ordinary Americans who simply want farm animals to have a better life.

Note: These posts are not made with the intention of promoting any animal advocacy group. I am not a member of any group, and I have friends on both sides of the issue. The posts are only intended to clarify the farm animal welfare debate so that consumers can better educate themselves.

Is there a "reasonable" group?

I have a number of friends who began following the farm animal welfare debate once they found out I was writing a book on it. Lately, they have all been asking me the same thing: is there an animal welfare group led by "reasonable" people. By "reasonable" people they are referring to meat-eaters who do not believe in bestowing animals with any "rights," but giving them a good life nevertheless.

Indeed, it is difficult to talk to anyone in the livestock industry about the animal welfare issues because they are so opposed to animal rightists that they refuse to acknowledge that the rightists may be right on some issues. "Better not treat chickens better," they say, "or we will start on a slippery slope towards veganism and the abolition of pets."

First, let me say that I know a few people in these groups, and while some may not view them as "reasonable", they are very nice people who I enjoy talking to. It does not surprise me that the most ardent supporters of better animal care also happen to be vegans and animal rightists. The leaders of Mother's Against Drunk Driving also similarly most likely to have extreme views on alcohol, probably in support of a complete prohibition. Moreover, some are not as opposed to farming as you might think. I had a pleasant conversation with Jennifer Fearing once, who was one of the most important promoters and organizers of Prop 2 in California, and she seemed sincerely interested in helping California egg producers comply and prosper under Prop 2.

Frequently I am asked whether there is any group promoting better care for farm animals who are also meat-eaters and who also do not support "rights." The Animal Welfare Institute comes to mind, but I have heard from a good source the leader is a vegan--which is an immediate turn-off to some people. I suppose the American Humane Association might be viewed as a "reasonable" group. The AHA certainly promotes the institution of pets, which animal rightists seem to oppose.

However, one must wonder why, if HSUS is not in the "reasonable" group, why it receives more donations than any other group? Livestock industries like to claim that they raise so much money largely because of their name, which makes people think they support local animal shelters.

If I was HSUS I would actively promote a meat-eater and perhaps a farmer within the organization. Even if it were a facade, I would make it clearly visible that meat-eaters are an important part of HSUS. That would help remove an obstacle to talking about farm animal welfare. Maybe then we could have a legitimate conversation on a large-scale about how farm animals should be treated, instead of allowing conspiracy theories to divide us into two enemy camps.

Streamed Videos Not Panacea

Feedstuffs recently ran a nice story about an interview with Temple Grandin, where Temple argues for live-stream videos of farms to mitigate concerns about farm animal cruelty.

However, most of the concerns about farm animal welfare regard matters that such videos will not address. People are concerned about outright cruelty, such as throwing baby pigs around and kicking chickens, but such behavior is rare and people know it. The support for HSUS's recent intiatives have to do with animal housing, and videos of the typical farm would only garner MORE opposition to conventional housing.

My own research shows that when you show people how layers and hogs are raised they are not pleased. When I show pictures of the typical confinement farm, the majority of Americans express disapproval. Showing videos in addition to pictures will only make this disapproval worse.

The pursuit of public approval is not going to be achieved by bringing Americans into the typical confinement facility. All they will see are animals confined to cramped cages in an unenriched environment, and my survey and experimental work reveals that Americans are strongly opposed to such conditions.

Instead, if PR is all that matters, I would encourage farms to run videos and stories concentrating on the improvements they are making. Americans understand tradeoffs, and they respect efforts to improve animals' lot. Even if these improvements are made on a very small scale, it will make a much better impression on the consumer than showing them videos of layers and hogs in a cage just slightly larger than the animal itself. Then communicate to the consumer that these improvements will require their help (in the form of higher prices, but you don't need to say that, consumers know it). This makes the consumer an accessory to the current system, and consequently, more accepting to the system. Again, this is assuming only PR matters and animal industries do not want to improve animal welfare.

But if you start running videos of layer and hog facilities, you might as well send donations to HSUS as well.

The Great Egg Debate - The Question of Mortality Rates

Consider a thought, which I am unsure of myself. We typically think that lower mortality rates in cage-egg production is good. But if cage-egg production is as horrible for the birds as some people claim, is it better that a bird lives a longer or shorter life if it is suffering? Is it better for one bird to live a year in a cage, or two birds live one-half of a year in a cage? It depends on how suffering in a system relates to time, a question which I have no answer.

...just wondering!

The Great Egg Debate - What Each Side Needs To Admit

My job provides me the luxury of being able to thoroughly research topics which interest me, including the egg debate. Some of my time is spent talking on the phone with animal advocacy groups, some of my time is spent talking with egg farmers, and as anyone who has read my research knows, a very large portion of my time is spent with consumers.

This time doesn't make my views superior to others, but hopefully, helpful to others. Here are some items that both sides of The Great Egg Debate need to understand and admit, in order for this to be a real debate, as opposed to a contest between propaganda machines.

Farmers - Farmers tend to act a bit like the rambunctious attendees of townhall meetings. Knowing that I am an ag professor, they treat me like one of their own. Four out of five egg farmers who have conversed with claim that the animal advocacy groups know nothing about animals, do not care about animals, if I clean up the language. They claim the case for cage-eggs is a slum-dunk-deal. What these farmers are not admitting is that animals do have behavioral needs. Almost all of them contend that a chicken does not want room to walk, dirt to scratch, perches to stand on, and nests to lay eggs. This claim is absurd to anyone who has given the topic a fair and thorough treatment. Farmers need to acknowledge that layers do have behavioral needs, even if those needs sometimes do not serve a practical purpose, and that cage-free egg production meets some of these needs. Now, I understand why they try to ignore these needs (and they do evade the question of these needs, whenever I try to challenge them kindly on the subject they quickly change the subject), once you throw behavioral needs out the window cage-egg production looks much more desirable.

Animal Advocacy Groups - They know perfectly well that mortality and injury rates are higher in cage-free production but are reluctant to admit it. The rates may be higher due to the breed of bird used, the system, or other factors, but it is unambiguously higher in cage-free production. Yes, these rates will fall once farmers develop better cage-free systems and bird genetics more conductive to cage-free production, but currently more layers are going to be hurt and killed in a cage-free system. They too evade this question if I challenge them on it. Of course, whenever I talk to either side I don't challenge them too hard, in fear of alienating them--but I should not have to anger them by raising the topic.

The debate between cage and cage-free production is more than a debate between higher and lower food prices. There is a tradeoff for the birds as well, and this tradeoff needs to be publicly acknowledged. Hopefully Ham and Eggonomics is serving this need. Fortunately, when consumers are informed of the issue, they do recognize this tradeoff, as revealed in my research.

Finally, each side needs to understand that no one person or group has a monopoly of knowledge. Likewise, Ham and Eggonomics has no monopoly of knowledge. Developing a system of social goals for layers requires the participation of farmers, animal advocacy groups, scientists, consumers, and the like.

Climate Change and Food Prices

Readers are becoming increasingly aware that fighting climate change will raise food prices (see below). If we "should" try to curb emissions (which I personally am not so sure), then two things need to happen...

(1) Yes, overall food prices must rise. In the U.S., this would probably be more of a benefit than a cost. We eat too much, and would benefit from a reduction in calories. Emitting less gases does require us to be a little poorer.

(2) But more importantly, the relative prices of goods should change in a manner such that goods which emit more greenhouse gases cost relatively more, and those that emit less emissions cost relatively less.

The fact that food companies are remarking that food prices will rise only indicates that the proposed climate change bill is doing its job. If it did not alter our food consumption behavior through a change in prices, it would not be fighting global warming.

Food Firms Fret Over Potential Impact of Climate Bill

Coalition, Including Agricultural Giants, Plans to Draw Attention to Concerns That Legislation Could Lead to Higher Food Prices

By LAUREN ETTER

Some of the nation's biggest food and agriculture companies are planning to release a flurry of studies in coming weeks that scrutinize the potential impact of climate-change legislation, warning that it could lead to higher food prices.

A group of agriculture giants including Cargill Inc., along with meat company Tyson Foods Inc. and food maker General Mills Inc., is concerned the companies might bear a disproportionate share of the costs of such legislation, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Read More