Untitled

Try to educate myself on animal welfare topics.

[drferox]

What do you mean by "changing consumer patterns" in order to increase animal welfare? Do you mean going vegan or only buying from small farms?

I mean perceiving an animal product as something you actively choose to use, or even a luxury, instead of a default.

Right now most people would see meat, milk and eggs and part of their staple diet. They’re part of the food pyramids we call get taught, and there’s usually at least one of them in every meal. Because they’re seen as default, there’s a strong pressure to get them as cheap as possible, to make staples affordable for everyone, and this is why and how practices like factory farming came about. People have to eat, and it’s hard to care a whole lot about various welfare implications of different food production systems when you’re overworked and desperately trying to feed yourself and your dependents. 

It is tempting to see high welfare foods - free range meat, permaculture products, kind milk etc- as somewhat elitist, upper class, etc products. And from a certain point of view, they are. At least, right now. Factory farm systems have been slow to improve animal welfare in part because doing so reduces their profitability. The more space you afford an individual animal, the less animals you can fit on your property and the less money you make.

But, if consumers are willing to pay more for a product, take free range eggs for example, then producing that product starts to look more profitable. When you have a demand, supply will attempt to meet it.

You can’t realistically just go and close all the factory farms or other poorer welfare production systems out there overnight. The animals have to go somewhere, and they still supply a huge amount of food and people need to eat. But as there’s more demand for higher welfare production, the supply will change to reflect that.

For some, that means forking out the extra money for free range meat, kind milk, free range eggs, etc. For some it will mean going and buying directly from producers, so they know what sort of production system they’re paying for, or even producing their own food so they can control it directly. For some that will mean not using certain animal products, or animal products at all, because they don’t feel that any production system would have good enough welfare. And all of those choices are fine. 

Society as a whole spending less on low welfare products and being willing to spend more on high welfare products will absolutely change those production systems over time. But not everyone is in a position to make that change immediately and shouldn’t feel guilty about only doing what they can do.

[lechatetlechein]

Even if one just wanted to change the system within a farm, the animals that are used to that system are generally themselves not well off in the new system.

So say a dairy farmer wanted to renovate their barn from tie-housing (where the cows are tied up in their beds, called cubicles) to loose housing. The cows from the tied housing system are used to having all of the food they could want to eat right in front of them, and the guarantee of their own cubicle as they are already standing in it. Whereas a loose housing system, often has a feeding area with limited spots so not all cows may eat at the exact same time which results in some competition among cows,  and even though there are cubicles for every cow, a cow may have to walk the whole length of the barn to lie down. One can imagine how a tied cow, that has always had access to food, must would have to cope with the sudden competition of getting a food spot in the loose housing system. Not to mention that they are not used to the exercise of having to walk to their cubicles from the feeding area. I feel that that would be similar to having to walk to buy one’s groceries when one usually has them delivered (or access to a car).

[drferox]

I'm curious about what procedures you think need to change in the livestock industry?

Practically, or philosophically? There is so much that can be talked about in this field

From a practical standpoint, there are a number of areas where current livestock practices are far from ideal. Farming has a huge history behind it, and many of these practices are ingrained and so difficult to change.

Before I go through the list, I should preface that if you’re not comfortable with the fact that farmed animals die for human benefit, if you just want all farms to stop using animals, then you’re not going to find this list satisfactory. If you’re fundamentally uncomfortable with livestock industries, and you haven’t already questioned why you consume the products it produces or what your alternatives are, then it might be worthwhile.

For now, these industries are not going anywhere. They’re certainly not perfect but we could improve them. Regardless of whether you personally believe all these industries should be ‘just stopped’ you have to agree that will not happen overnight, and that other welfare improvements could happen today.

Pain relief being more widely used. There has historically been an aversion to using pain relief medication in livestock due to expense, drug residues and the lack of products made for and tested in the species. This is beginning to change so there are not more options for pain relief at castration and mulesing , for example, but this needs to be more widely used. Another hurdle to this is that they are prescription products, and in order for a veterinarian to prescribe them they must have been out to that farm within the last year and be familiar with their set up and stock. Not every farm will call out a veterinarian on a regular basis.

Minimize transport time. Transport, whether by road, train, boat or plane, is incredibly stressful for livestock of all kinds. We can measure their physiological stress, so this is definitely not just anthropomorphism. Livestock are more stressed in transport than they are by witnessing death, which is the opposite to what many people would think. 

On-farm slaughter and refrigerated transport. Following on from the previous point, we have the technology to transport chilled carcasses. Performing slaughter on farm removes or eliminates a large percentage of the transport an individual animal needs to be exposed to, and will improve their welfare. Animals don’t perceive death the same way we do, having a mini abattoir at the farm entrance isn’t going to bother them.

Using genetics instead of procedures. It astounds me in this modern day that we still have breeders of hereford cattle that breed the horned version, and then de-horn the calves, instead of selecting stock with the polled (no horns) trait. If you want horns then fine, but if you’re going to cut/burn/cauterize them off anyway when why not remove them genetically? The polled gene exists! Similarly there are a small number of merino sheep with a ‘bare breech’ trait, which don’t need mulesing. It would be ideal to spread this trait through the Australian sheep population, but with millions and millions of sheep and a ram only about to impregnate about 60 a month, that will take time.

Enrichment. Toys. Something for animals to play with, to investigate, to do. This has been historically neglected for a long time because originally animals weren’t though to have souls, or to be thinking, feeling entities. We know differently now. Enrichment only improves the lives of these animals, and often reduces unwanted or destructive behavior, like piglets biting off each others tails.

Dam-neonate bonding in certain industries should be reconsidered. In some situations, the dairy industry in particular, neonates may be taken from their mothers within 24 hours to reduce disease transmission in eradication of certain diseases, like Johnes disease, but in other situations it’s because for some mind boggling reason it is more cost efficient for a farm to sell the mother’s milk and feed the neonate on milk replacer.  

In a similar vein, giving sows enough space to nurse their litter would be great. They’re kept in sow stalls (basically a cage that they can stand up or lie down in that the piglets can run through) so that they don’t squash their piglets and kill them. That’s great and all, except you can accomplish the same thing by giving the sow more space to turn around it and slopes on the wall of the pen.

So, the important question I hope you’re asking is why don’t we do these things already?

There are lots and lots of reasons someone could grab, but the short (and I dare say more honest) reason is this: Money.

Granting an animal more space costs you money because it reduces the number of animals you can stock in your space. Using more pain relief medication costs you money. Calling out a vet costs you money. Providing enrichment costs you various amounts of money. On-farm slaughter and refrigerated transport is more expensive than the current system.

So if this is all about money, is it the fault of greedy farmers? Well, generally no.

Most farmers actually like the species of animal they work with. And most of them, especially with recent droughts, the current political climate and monopolization of the companies that buy their products, are not making big buckets of cash. More and more farms are selling up and small producers are not keeping up.

They are under constant pressure to lower the prices of their animal products because there’s only a few big buyers, and right now it’s the buyers that dictate what price they’re willing to pay. Because these animal products are perishable, you can’t save them for a rainy day if you don’t sell them, and these buyers are big enough, they can hold out and only pay what they want to pay. This severe downward pressure means farmers get paid progressively less, and these companies make more profits while claiming it’s good for consumers.

^ Look familiar?

So we get cheaper food, the company makes more profit, and the individual farms get screwed.

Especially with milk, there was a huge crisis recently where one of the big milk buyers suddenly declared it had been overpaying dairies, and that not only was it now going to pay them much less for the season (on contract mind you), but that all their dairies now owed them thousands of dollars. After years of downward price pressure on their product many farms could not, and can not, afford this. You can get an overview here.

The point I’m trying to get to is that if these industries are gong to improve, then we need to value the individual animal and its experience of life more than we currently do. 

If we value the experiences of the individual animal, and consequently put our money where our mouth is when it comes to their products, then there should be both motivation and financial ability to improve their lives. We could progress from mere ‘prevention of cruelty’ and minimum standards towards animal welfare and good welfare states.

Changing consumer patterns is probably the only way to do this, and it’s quite hard when you’re already paycheck to paycheck, but a in depth rant/discussion about politics/policy/economics etc is beyond my scope, though I would happily add veterinary and industry specific detail to a discussion if someone wants to tackle that side of it.

[kausza]

A note on dairy farming and dam-baby relationships. I work directly with dairy cattle as part of a program at my university–in fact, I’ll be leaving for the dairy here soon to take care of some daily chores. To leave the mother with her offspring for an extended period of time (24+ hours) to then separate them (done to effectively manage both dam and calf) can be much more emotionally distressing/disrupting than removing the calf at 24 hours or less because it allows them to bond. Colostrum is milk that is produced for the first day or so after calving and is essentially a calf’s immune system “starter pack”. These fluids can be saved, bottled and fed to calves whether they are with their mother or not. There have been many studies done on the effectiveness of milk replacer vs. real milk, and although I haven’t looked into the research specifically, I’d just like to point out that just because it is not “real” milk does not mean it is bad for calves to ingest and digest, or that is inferior (though it might be; it seems to have lower fat, protein, etc. contents than milk from a cow would). I can’t believe it would be substantially worse or else producers would not use it–producers do care about their animals getting proper care and feed if only to make sure they produce as well as possible later in life. I’m not sure how common it is for producers to use milk replacer, but for my dairy, as a small operation, we don’t use it at all. Heifers are removed within 1-3 days of being born and from then on we feed them, clean their pens, give them medication, etc. and they do just fine without their mother’s presence. I agree that the livestock industry has some things to work on–the Veterinary Feed Directive, which was put into effect in February 2017 (I believe), prohibits the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in feed, which was sometimes done to increase growth or to prevent illness at the expense of encouraging bacterial resistance. Farming is a very unstable and underappreciated profession, especially if you look at the variability in the prices they get from year to year or even within years. It takes a lot of resources and a lot of money to run an operation, so yes, many decisions are made on economic efficiency as well as management ease for the amount of land and resources that a farmer has. California’s population passed a law that went into effect in 2015 requiring hens for egg-laying production to have enough room to turn around and extend their wings without touching another bird. Egg prices went up and egg production in California went down by a significant amount (I heard by 50% now compared to pre-proposition levels, but I don’t have a source for that). The legislation push was mostly carried out  by HSUS and other animal rights activist groups. Studies have also been done that show depending on the environment a chicken is raised in (crowded or not), they will show preference for that environment whether it is crowded or not. I’m not making a comment on this particular situation for either side (farmers or consumers), but it’s certainly an interesting case about doing exactly what OP is proposing and there may be more nuances than meets the eye.

[lechatetlechein]

I really like the addition of the bonding between the cow and the calf in the dairy industry. That is the reason that I have always heard as to why they separate them almost immediately. The longer they are together, the stronger the bond, and the harsher it is to separate them, since they both vocalize much more. 

I am not surprised though that it is most cost effective to feed the calf on milk replacement. Here in Sweden, there is a colostrum mix that is in the calf’s initial diet. Swedish dairy farmers also get paid not for the amount of milk that is produced but by the fat and protein content (so quality > quantity). So maybe that is why milk replacement is cheaper(?).

Oh and I wanted to add that there is now a commercial dairy farm in Australia that keeps its calves with their mothers! It is called How Now Dairy, and its prices reflect the higher cost of their system.

In regards to Swedish layer chickens, battery cages are outlawed as Sweden is a member of the European Union. Layers are thus in furnished cages or cage free barns. But thanks to the economy, cage free eggs actually work out to be cheaper, so it is more profitable to be a farmer with cage free eggs than the furnished cages. So Sweden is on the move to having caged free chickens. I thought that would be a nice story compared to the California one. 

And yes chickens really do prefer to be in an environment that is similar to the one they were raised in! If a chicken was raised in a cage, it will prefer to be in a cage even if it has the choice to not be in one! Which is shocking as I would think that a chicken would prefer to be cage free regardless of its earlier experiences, but not true!

[drferox]

One Welfare

You’ve probably heard of One Health, a concept where both human and animal health is intrinsically linked, but One Welfare is taking this idea one step further.

The premise of One Welfare is that animal welfare, human wellbeing and environmental sustainability are inextricably linked and can be advanced to the benefit of all parties.

Personally, this is a welcome concept. There’s far to much of the ‘promote animal rights because I hate humans’ mindset which neither considers the bigger picture.

And this concept makes sense. A human does not care whether the dog is starving and what’s happening to the environment if the human themselves is starving, we need to elevate all three areas together.

Some of the ways veterinarians can, and do, work within the One Welfare framework include:

Preventative veterinary care, sparing animals humans and the environment the burden of disease and its waste products

Identifying and communicating the economic and environmental benefits of animal welfare improvements

Promoting environmentally sustainable, high welfare farming

Working with communities to implement feasible approaches to improving animal welfare

One of the main concerns raised with this approach is that by focusing on three things (animal welfare, human welfare and the environment) it dilutes out the veterinary perspective and potentially reduces our focus on animal welfare. I think this concern is largely unfounded. We’re reasonably clever human beings, I’m pretty sure we can think about three things at once. Besides if we start with an animal welfare focus and then branch out to consider the other two points, I think this concept will do well.

I think One Health and One Welfare are part of our future, and I hope these models gain more and more consideration.

[lechatetlechein]

I have been learning about One Welfare and this is great to see others excited about it too!

[lechatetlechein]

I am really interested in this concept and learning more about it.

[theexoticvet-deactivated2022070]

Holistic

[hoh-lis-tik]

Adjective

1. incorporating the concept of holism, or the idea that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts, in theory or practice.

2. Medicine. characterized by the treatment of the whole person, taking into account mental and social factors, rather than just the physical symptoms of a disease.

I have quite a few pet owners looking for holistic medicine without really understanding what exactly that means. For many, holistic is synonymous with acupuncture, herbs, etc. While these things can be incorporated into holistic medicine it is perfectly acceptable and preferable to include Western medicine like medications, blood work and other tests/treatments. Oddly enough, we now know that cats with FIC benefit greatly from a holistic approach and environmental and behavioral modifications must be done along with medication. This approach is now so widely accepted that many pet owners and vets wouldn’t consider it holistic at all.

[lechatetlechein]

Swedish vets I have heard are not legally allowed to treat their patients in a  holistic way. However German vets are allowed to treat with holistic medicine and Western medicine.

I am curious about FIC with cats so I will have to look into that and whether Swedish vets can treat that in a holistic approach.

[drferox]

My dog Khan may have cushings, the final test will be done thursday. If he does have Cushings, what kind of life expectancy am i looking at? His vet says if he does, we caught it fairly early. He is 7, with no other health problems aside from dry eye controlled with drops after eye surgery (a conjunctival pedical graft). He is a large boston terrier, if that is relevant. I do understand you can't give me medical advice, I just want to prepare myself with knowledge in case he tests positive.

It depends entirely on what sort of Cushing’s Syndrome he has. .I’ve discussed Cushings as a good overview, and the two main types in the video below.

Cushings from an adrenal tumor or a pituitary microadenoma have a pretty good prognosis for treatment, but a pituitary macroadenoma, which is relatively rare, will cause neurological symptoms usually within 18 months. Diagnosing that requires a brain scan, but a lot of people choose not to do it and just treat the Cushing’s they can see, as they already decided they would not subject their dog to brain surgery.

[lechatetlechein]

Really interesting video. My family dog got Cushing’s and I have suspected my parents divorce as the trigger for it. My dog, Buffy, used to go out for long walks with my dad before the divorce and then came into my mother’s care during the process. The stress of my mother was feeling and the change in environment I suspect triggered chronic cortisone steroids and a tumour on the pituitary gland.

She did get treatment, pills, and lived for about two more years before passing.

[lechatetlechein]

[urbancheff-deactivated20140928]

Norwegians believe spaying or neutering a dog is cruel   

“You can see he’s still got his balls,” Rolf said in his singsong way as we walked the two and a half miles around Songsvann, a wooded lake on the west side of Oslo.

Rolf was talking about Ennis, his Airedale terrier who was tearing around off lead.

“Why don’t you neuter him?” I asked with some astonishment.

“In Norway we don’t do that,” Rolf explained. “We also don’t clip their ears or cut their tails. We believe it’s cruelty to animals.” Not to spay is considered cruel in America but there’s clearly another way to think of it. Could you imagine a time when every American dog owner was so responsible we would not have to submit man’s best friend to a painful operation?

[howtoskinatiger]

The really interesting thing is that even though dogs aren’t typically fixed in Norway and other Scandinavian countries, there is no overpopulation problem with dogs in those countries. In fact, there are so few dogs needing homes that shelters in Scandinavian countries often have to import dogs from elsewhere in Europe to meet the demand for rescue dogs.

It’s not whether a dog is fixed or not that solves the overpopulation problem but the attitude of the owners and their willingness to take responsibility for their animals. 

[lechatetlechein]

Dogs Afraid of the Stairs

Here is a video showing how to work on getting your dog become less afraid of the stairs and eventually over come its fear.

[the-unpopular-opinions]

This is an opinion brought to you by a rancher, who knows quite a few other ranchers and dairy farms.

I recently watched a documentary called Earthlings, which gets praised on a lot in the Vegan, animal rights, and animal welfare tags.

This documentary is complete, biased, exaggerated, and twisted bullshit (At least when it comes to beef and dairy, which is what I’m talking about)

It opens on beef with branding, showing an animal being hot ironed on the face. In my state, you cannot register to brand a cow on a face. In fact, the face is the least common branding site available, as it can damage the cow’s jaw and make it difficult for her to eat. The most common branding site is the hip, rib, and shoulder, but the documentary simply says, cows are branded on their face.

Does it say why? No. Because obviously we scar our animals for fun, right? Cattle don’t have microchips like a dog. If your dog gets stolen, you can usually find it because of it’s Microchipped. Cows don’t have that. Cows are so expensive, they’re like gold, so often Ranchers brand their cattle. If a cow has a brand, she cannot be sold without the brand owner’s authorization, meaning, someone can not steal young, healthy animals from my pasture, and sell them for slaughter.

Next they go on to dehorning, stating that it is cruel, painful, and often done with simple pliers. HAaha.

If I have an animal, I don’t want to ruin it by painfully tearing off it’s horns. This animal will never let me touch it again!

Most cattle, and I DO mean most, are dehorned either as calves (Less painful, not remembered), or have a shot to numb the area at the base of the horn before it’s CUT off, not YANKED off. This way, the cow can still be handled.

Does the documentary say WHY cattle are dehorned? Does it mention that a cow with horns is a danger to itself, humans, and other animals? No? Of course not!

Beef cattle are not stuffed into trailers until it’s so full the animals die. This makes absolutely no sense. If the animals die before they reach the sale ring or slaughter house, no paycheck for you! You make less money if the animals die before slaughter.

Nothing the documentary covers is explained why. WHY do they do that? It’s biased. It makes it seem like ranchers and farmers WANT to hurt their cattle. They don’t. Most of us get attached to our cows. It exaggerates EVERYTHING

Dairy

According to the documentary, Dairy cattle are CHAINED to their stalls, in their own feces, with no water or food, pumped full of hormones to make them milk more. Wrong.

A dairy barn consists of a long isle down the middle of the barn, with a large alley on each side for the cattle. The cattle can walk down the main alley, or lay in a padded stall. They can stick their head through railings to eat food specially mixed to meet all their needs, or drink water. Dairy barns, because they produce milk that MUST be clean, cannot milk a cow pumped full or hormones and chemicals, and clean their barns daily to avoid bacteria. WOW! It’s almost like we take care of our animals so they produce! WHO KNEW?

Most dairy cattle are allowed to graze in a pasture with their calves, until they’re milked in the morning and the evening. Others keep their cows in a well airated barn. Calves are removed to avoid injury! Calves are often kept it smaller pens, with calf huts, pads, soft bedding, and even blankets! It is counter productive to not care for a calf. A calf is your future cow! Dairy farmers feed them the highest quality milk so the calves grow into strong, productive animals.

Dieing cows are not left in the isles. If a cow begins to appear sick, a vet is called. Simple as that.

The documentary states that a cow’s lifespan can reach 20. WRONG. at the age of 8 or 9, a cow starts to lose her teeth. If you kept a cow alive until 20 she would be malnourished and miserable, unable to eat. The average cow lives until 8 or 9, at which point they are sold. It would be cruel to keep an animal who cannot eat or fulfill it’s own needs.

Cows do not, on average, die at FOUR YEARS OLD because of exhaustion! Four years, at almost any dairy or ranch you visit, is a cow in her PRIME! We do not run our animals to death. We do NOT torture them.

You don’t eat meat? Great! Do your thing! Eat your veggies! That’s fine! But don’t make me out to be devilspawn if I eat meat. Don’t make me out to be cruel, (As stated by the documentary, as cruel as hitler to the jews), because I raise cattle. Fuck. You.

The shit thing about that documentary is it preys on people who have never been on a farm or dairy. If you’ve never been to one, it’s easy to believe things like this. If I made a documentary about how vegans grew their food, and showed it to people who have never met Vegans, or seen how crops are grown, I could easily exaggerate and make Veganism seem horrible, like this documentary does to livestock owners.

Please stop hating on ranchers and farmers. Please?

[sushinfood]

Signal boost because I’m tired of seeing people on this website base all of their “learnings” on farm life through biased cumentaries. Read it. Learn it.

[sweet-chin-musical-deactivated2]

I used to spend every weekend on my friends dairy farm as a kid. It’s NOTHING like the vegan documentaries suggest.

[ivepromisestokeep]

So I saw a post on how American Apparel markets unisex clothing, but I couldn’t actually find a unisex section on their website. I did however notice this. The sweatshirts one is particularly illuminating.

[xtremecaffeine-deactivated20181]

Selling men’s clothes to men, and selling women’s bodies to… ?

[thisisrapeculture]

American Apparel is really fucking horrible for many, many reasons, but here’s another example.

[contrarianbullshit]

Why are you ignoring

All of these

Advertisements?

Tell me again why you need to be naked to sell socks?

Tell me again why you think this is a gendered issue?

[smellyoldblanket]

hot

hot hot hot

hot

want

hot

[lechatetlechein]

Ugh. Why I have love/ hate relationship with American Apparel.

[lechatetlechein]

Dolphins were seen struggling on Sunday trying to unsuccessfully free themselves from ice-packed shores near Cape Ray, in southwestern Newfoundland. (Courtesy of Bert Osmond).

Such a sad story but there was nothing that could really be done to save them.

[lechatetlechein]

[choosehopefortheanimals]

Good news—Go Canada! 

[lechatetlechein]

Yay! Finally the new code of practice for the care and handling of pigs is released. 

[lechatetlechein]

What Assemblyman Richard Bloom should really advocate for Orcas in California

1. Outlaw capturing wild, healthy orcas for entertainment use. Capturing injured orcas to rehabilitate them is exempt. Capturing wild orcas for research purposes would also be exempt.

2. Better housing conditions for current captive orcas. So increasing the size of their tanks.

3. Routinely scheduled public exhibition and any choreographed display or training of orcas should not be outlawed if they train the animals in a humane way, such as using positive reinforcement. No orca should be harmed or abused for public entertainment.

Assemblyman Richard Bloom is currently trying to get support for a bill which I feel does not actually help current captive orcas. I haven't seen Blackfish, but training orcas for performances should not be outlawed if done in a humane way. For example use positive reinforcement training. The idea of returning these animals to the wild as they are incapable of surviving in the wild. Most were either breed in captivity or caught from an early age where they were dependent on their mothers and are not able to find food by themselves. Also wild pods rarely accept a new individual to their group and may kill an orca that is found on its own. Thus returning them to the wild is a death sentence.

This petition says that if they are unable to return to the wild they may be kept in a sea pen that is open to the public. I don't see how that is not keeping them for entertainment as the public may go and visit them just like a marine park.  A marine park with orca shows the public how majestic these creatures are and teaches them why they need to be saved. A marine park can connect the public to orcas in a safe way just as well, if not better, than a sea pen.

This proposed bill does not help current captive bills. Assemblyman Bloom should do much more research on how to help captive orcas in California.

[carldrogothecat]

[rollthevice-blog]

people who wear real fur are scum

it’s so unnecessary given that synthetic fur actually lasts longer than real fur

i think people still buy real fur because they see it as a ‘premium product’, kind of how people view leather as...