ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL WELFARE by pengxiuhui

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 40

									 ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUES

Expanding an Awareness to the Concerns of
         Food Animal Producers
                      EXPLORATION OF
A PRESENTATION FOR:
                       FOOD ANIMAL
                        PRODUCTION
                           2005

                       R.W. ELLIS DVM
                        UNL - GPVEC
“ agriculture is man’s oldest economic activity”
    FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION - “CHANGES”

       Technology / Science
       Methods and systems of production
       Consumer demands
       Global marketing system
- accelerated and intensified production levels

        IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT

    Agriculturalists need to be the “premier”
               Environmentalists
•   Farm vs. Non-Farm … Rural vs. Urban

•   Agriculture vs. Environment

•   Right to Farm vs. Urban sprawl

•   Private vs. Public

•   NIMBY Factor – “not in my backyard”
SPECIFIC AG-RELATED ISSUES
  AIR QUALITY

 WATER QUALITY

 INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS
 (ILO – CAFO)

 LAND USE AND PROTECTION
Air Quality
DUST – (Total Suspended Particulate – TSP)
 creates nuisance conditions, traffic hazards,
 environmental contamination, respiratory stress

ODORS – ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, amines,etc.
 4 quantifiable aspects – frequency, intensity, duration
 and offensiveness

 1990 Federal Clean Air Act / proposed EPA regulations
WATER QUALITY

   WATER POLLUTION –
      1) Surface water contamination – total solids,
 volatile solids, nutrients, salts, bacterial organisms,
 organic chemicals, etc.
      2) Groundwater contamination – leaching, open
 well contamination, feedlot surface breaks, backflows
      3) “Point” and “Non-point” sources of
 contaminants
       Human and animal health concerns, land and
 soil sustainability, aquatic and wildlife viability
• Water Quality Parameters
• I. Nitrogen and Phosphorus – major concerns
     Nitrogen: nitrate leaching into groundwater
      - human health concerns
      Phosphorus: waste water run-off into waterways
       - run-off from croplands with waste water/manure disposal
       - “eutrophication” of lakes/rivers
       - enrichment of nutrients causing algae blooms,
          depletion of oxygen, aquatic life threats
   II. Pathogens – contamination, E.Coli-Protozoa-Salmonella,etc.
   III. Organic Chemicals –
        pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones, ionophores,
   IV. Soluble Salts – increases salinity, changes soil profiles
   V. Heavy Metals – copper, zinc, effects on humans and aquatic life
UNL Study – Water Sciences Lab, 2 year study

   • 26 Waste Water Lagoons – 13 sites, 12 active use
      Test: Lagoon water and down gradient groundwater – seepage
      Results: 10 of 12 active lagoons – Neg. levels of indicators
     - (Nitrate, Ammonia, CL, dissolved organic carbon, tot.org. C)
     - high conc. of CL and NH3 are indicators of groundwater
       pollution from livestock waste
     - 2 lagoons – higher levels of NH3 and NO3, these lagoons were
     vulnerable due to high groundwater levels <35’ & soil permeability

        * 11 of 13 sites tested for tetracycline (O-C-T)
                  Positive for trace levels in all lagoons
                  No detectable levels in groundwater samples
                  No detectable seepage
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

  JURISDICTION: CLEAN WATER ACT – NPDS – EPA
  AUTHORITY: WATER POLLUTION – WASTE MANAGEMENT

    >1000 hd. and risks of runoff with stipulated precipitation events
      (proposed changes to 300hd levels)
    Regulation: Permits of Operation
                 Certifications - Inspections
                 Waste control facilities
                 Discharge system
   Proposed: Nutrient Management Plans – manure management
                 Air Quality controls
                 Pathogen controls

   Costs: Incurred by the producer – significant at present time, and newer
    proposals would increase costs
   Benefits: Environmental quality and sustainability, public relations
Study – Agricultural Law Center, Drake University
   • “Size of livestock operation is not related to the
     likelihood of an environmental violation”
   • “most livestock producers, including CAFO’s, are not
     polluting the environment”
   • Study included data from 15 states, commissioned by
     National Pork Producers Council, review of state
     records of violations and enforcements
   • “enforcement actions do occur, so producers careless
     of the design and maintenance of animal waste
     management systems will be penalized
   • “Pork producers are reasonable and caring stewards
     of the environment”
LAND USE AND PROTECTION
STEWARDSHIP OF RANGELANDS
“controlled grass harvest improves the vitality of the grass”

 •   CONTROLLED GRAZING
 •   ROTATIONAL GRAZING
 •   ANIMAL DENSITY
 •   MAINTAIN RIPARIAN
     WATERWAYS
 •   STABILIZE FRAGILE ZONES
 •   WEED CONTROL
 •   TREE PLANTINGS
 •   CONTROLLED BURNS
 •   WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
 •   PLANT DIVERSIFICATION
“the beauty of the mountains, the quiet solitude of big
open spaces - - buying a piece of heaven”

  • All across America people are buying land once used
    for agricultural production for personal retreats
  • This concerns conservationists, ag industry groups,
    and especially the local farmer and ranchers
  • Dilemma: expansion of ranching operations difficult
    because of escalating land prices – but – retiring
    ranchers find a good nest egg with sale at inflated,
    non- economically viable prices
  • “Trophy Ranches” – agriculture potential but also a
    high degree of amenities – “bragging rights”
 URBAN SPRAWL –
        “ESCAPE TO THE COUNTRY”
An attempt to remove oneself from the social and cultural
  pitfalls of “Concentrated Urban Living Arrangements”

  Concerns:
  <Occupation of traditional ag land with residential projects
  < Exposure of people to “normal” livestock atmospheres which
    may annoy or disturb their quality of life
  < Displacement of ag-use water for human usage
  < Disrupt traditional land tax valuations – economic changes
  < Expectation of non-traditional ag land services
  > Potential loss of producers due to land competition
  Global Warming appears to be “Reality”
   - most significant change has occurred during the last
  140 years, highest rate of change during the 20th century

  IMPLICATIONS
            * WHERE WE CAN LIVE
            * WHERE WE CAN GROW FOOD
            * WHAT FOOD CAN WE GROW
            * HOW WE GROW FOOD
            * WHERE OTHER ORGANISMS CAN SURVIVE

CO2 accounts for 75% of predicted increase in greenhouse
  effects> > from fossil fuel burning, deforestation, slash
  and burn agriculture, lumbering, industrial manufacturing
METHANE from ruminants accounts for only 2.89% of
  greenhouse gas emissions (R. Cohen – U. of Saskatchewan)
• Rangelands
  Grasslands comprise a large portion of the United States west
 of the 100th meridian. Although these areas receive too little
 rainfall to sustain a forest, the pioneers that settled the western
 frontier of the United States found dense foliage for grazing
 sheep and cattle.
   The impacts of climate change on grasslands has not been
 studied in the same detail as the implication for forests.
 Nevertheless, the existing research suggests a number of likely
 outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, climate change could
 harm grazing activities on both federal and private lands.
 Availability of water in these areas is often the single most
 important factor determining the value of land for grazing. The
 decline in western water availability suggested by several
 studies would seriously decrease the economic viability of
 grazing on these lands.
“it ain’t what it used to be”
“ advocatesshout in the marketplace of ideas
              about animals –
   the noise they generate confuses the public-
 about the welfare & the rights of animals”



     A Perspective on the Issues of
            Animal Welfare
•   Animal Cruelty - abuse, misuse

•   Humane Care - responsible treatments

•   Animal Welfare – well-being, comfort

•   Animal Rights - freedoms of behavior
“What is so confusing”

 WELFARE: the state of doing well, especially
        in respect to good fortune, happiness,
        well-being, prosperity

 3 levels of definition: (Gonyou 1993)
    LEGAL - PUBLIC - TECHNICAL (Science)

 •
 RIGHT: something to which one has just claim,
     via truth – privilege – or moral approval
Animal Welfare
  “the acceptance of the responsibility for
 compassion and caring for the well-being of
 all animal species – to celebrate the bond
 between animals and humans, to embrace
 the stewardship of animals, and to accept a
 relationship which is mutually beneficial to all”
   NATIONAL ANIMAL INTEREST ALLIANCE www.naiaonline.org


Welfare/Well-Being – (Swanson 1995)
  Dynamic definition, not static, including human
 judgments concerning animal use, socially accepted
 states of animal well-being, and the process of
 scientific assessment using both physiological and
 psychological measures
ANIMAL RIGHTS
-PERSPECTIVES, DOCTRINES, AGENDAS-

• “a movement beginning in the 1960’s – from
  instances of perceived and conceptual animal abuses
  – spawned an advocacy of separation of all
  interaction between humans and animals and an
  opposition to all traditional relationships with animals
  – from eating meats and wearing leather and wool,
  to biomedical research, pet ownership, animal
  breeding, circuses, zoos, hunting, fishing, ranching,
  and learning about animals by hands-on experience”

National Animal Interest Alliance
      Dichotomy: Animal Welfare vs. Animal
                    Rights
• Animal Welfare: the acceptable moderate and mainstream position

• Animal Rights - - - perspective of radicals, extremists, vegetarians

• Emerging “middle” - - - general social thought by affluent, urban
  people of U.S. which have become widely separated from the natural
  world and agriculture, and are easily influenced by media
  representations; the new mainstream philosophy

*Parents Magazine (survey) – 80% of public believes animals have rights
          Companion Animal Paradigm
• “Anthropomorphic” viewpoint – owner’s emotional attachment

• Animal provides companionship, amusement, recreation

• Include animals as a “dependent, obedient, child” in the family

• In extreme, equate them as superior to people

• Model the animal’s life according to human lifestyles

• Is this the mainstream philosophy of U.S. pet owners or an
  extremist position of American culture
      Food Animal Production Paradigm
• “Machinomorphic” viewpoint – the extreme-right of agriculture

• Animal is an economic unit within a production system – only

• An instrument of commerce, livelihood, etc.

• Industrial exploitation as “units”

  Is this the mainstream philosophy of U.S. food animal production or
   an extremist position of “corporate” agriculture?
  Is this a by-product of lifestyle changes, societal changes, or fate?
                     REALITY
• “At which point has each attitude gone too far?”
   Animals as Animals

- - - concerns for animal welfare demand rejection of
  each extreme viewpoint; animals, of course, are not
  machines nor are they children - - -
- - - never lose sensitivity towards animals behavioral
  expressions and the obligation towards providing the
  essential needs for well-being and - - -
                COMPASSION
Realities of social changes to food animal
production
• Economic forces and technological developments
  have accelerated the evolution of the “production
  unit” paradigm of food animals
• Food animal production methods, particularly animal
  confinement density and management of procedural
  causes of pain and suffering, will come under further
  attack
• Economic justification for present production
  methods will be questioned and consumer demands
  will influence changes in production systems
IMPLICATIONS UPON FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION
• Demands and regulations for alterations of “traditional”
  management and production practices
• Demands and regulations for changes in “intensity” of
  production
• Demands and regulations for application of handling and
  transportation of animals
• Demands and regulations for changes in the use of chemicals,
  antibiotics, hormones, i.e. non-therapeutic modalities
• Restrictions upon environmental actions
• Restrictions upon biological and biomedical research upon
  animals
• Effects and shifts upon consumer demand for food products
• Effects and shifts upon economic parameters or profitability
• Effects upon consciousness and alternative lifestyles
Positive Effects
• “Heightened awareness and
  responsiveness to animal abuse and
  welfare issues”
                and
• “Organizational and industry-affiliated
  support of changes which convey a
  proactive concern for welfare issues”
          ANIMAL AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE
  An alliance of agriculture producers and organizations, animal
  scientists and researchers, food animal veterinarians, food
  industry groups and organizations, retail food councils, etc.

National Council of Chain Restaurants and Food Marketing Institute
   - Animal Welfare Advisory Council
Federation of Animal Science Societies
   - committee on Animal Care and Use Standards
American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists
   - Animal Care Certification

- an effort to provide public assurance and to guide public
   perceptions
                Animal Agriculture Alliance

• Initial areas to address:

   1   –   Pre-Harvest conditions for animals
   2   –   Transportation and processing
   3   –   Safeguards for quality and food safety
   4   –   Environmental concerns
              VETERINARIAN’S ROLE
 “seek advances in food animal production which enhance the
  image of a caring, animal-welfare concerned industry
             LEADERSHIP ROLE
 “development and implementation of acceptable humane
  standards”
              ULTIMATE ADVOCATE
 “improving communication and understanding among those
  with divergent views”
              WATCHDOG
 “intolerant of abusive or negligent care of food, companion,
  exotic animals on the farm”
                              exerp: Richard C. Swanson DVM
                                     Executive Board – AVMA 1993
                                     Proceedings of the 1993 AVMA
                                     Animal Welfare Forum
VETERINARY ISSUES
  • EUTHANASIA
  •        APPROVED METHODS
  •         1) GUNSHOT
  •         2) CAPTIVE BOLT
  •         3) BARBITURATE OVERDOSE
  •         4) EXSANGUINATION
  •         5) ELECTROCUTION
  •   PAIN MANAGEMENT
  •   “ELECTIVE SURGERIES”
  •   HOT IRON BRANDING
  •   INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL MEDICINE vs. HERD OR UNIT
      MEDICINE
  •   Confinement – Housing Management
                   CHALLENGE
“The challenge for the livestock industry has been to
 integrate the emerging body of knowledge about clinical
 ethology in food animals, which attempts to document
 and quantify animal distress and suffering, into efficient
 production practices. This integration has not been easy
 because there is definitely an emotional side to the
 debate that sometimes overshadows logic.”

                   “The Veterinarian’s Role in Farm Animal Welfare”
                    A.D. Crook DVM, L.E. Heider DVM
                    1993 AVMA Animal Welfare Forum
                   OPPOSITION

“The meat industry is just one segment of American agribusiness
 food production systems that violates other’s rights in its
 monopolistic game of control”
“Raising farm animals is a crime not just against animals, but
 against rights, nature, Mother Earth, indigenous peoples, the
 environment, migrant workers, spiritual growth, transspecies
 democracy, biodiversity, holism, etc.”

                          Dr. Michael Fox
                          Humane Society of the United States
                    REALITY

“Food animal production is poorly understood by
 affluent, urban people of the U.S.”
“Citification of Americans has separated human
 beings from other animals in the natural world.
 Americans have fallen prey to a view of nature as “a
 simple, uncomplicated, romantic state of happiness
 and virtue – an escapist fantasy.”

                    Ott, R.S. DVM
                    “Veterinary services for animal use in
                     the U.S.: A conflict of paradigms.”
                     JAVMA 1990; 197:1134-1139
Interesting Sources of Opinions
 “Misplaced Compassion: The Animal Rights Movement Exposed”
                        Ward M. Clark 2001
                        Writers Press Club

 “The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication”
                          Stephan Budiansky
                          U.S. News and World Report writer
                          Morrow 1992

 “ Veterinary Services for animal use in the United States: A conflict of
   paradigms”
                            Randall S. Ott DVM MS Dipl ACT
                            Journal of the AVMA
                            1990; 197:1134-1139

 “ A Veterinary Student Survey: Opinions about…medical research, food
   animal production, food consumption …”
                          Large Animal Practice
                          1997, 18:6,30-35

								
To top