Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — December 2017

The Health of Animals Animal Transport Regulations ensures that animals are transported humanely. Transporters, producers, and abattoirs have been charged by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) with not adhering to these regulations. Infractions include overcrowding, insufficient protection from the elements, improper segregation of animals, and improper protection of animals from injury. The routine shipment of Canadian horses to Japan by air for slaughter falls under this regulatory jurisdiction. The CFIA oversees the loading of these large breed horses into wooden shipping containers prior to the horses being loaded onto the aircraft. Horses are commonly shipped with 3 to 4 horses per container, where the larger horses’ heads come into contact with the tops of the crates. These events are in contravention of the animal transport regulations that require horses over 14 hands to be individually segregated and further require that animals’ heads do not come into contact with the tops of the shipping containers. In addition, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Live Animal Regulations do not allow horses to be shipped in wooden containers. Documentation shows that horses have been injured and killed in the course of these shipments. The federal regulatory body effectively enforces the transport regulations when infractions by producers or transporters are noted. How can infractions by the regulatory body itself be addressed?

Submitted by Maureen Harper, Brampton, Ontario

Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: tim.e.blackwell@gmail.com

Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.

Ethical question of the month — September 2017

Groups defending current livestock production practices claim that videos showing abusive handling procedures in livestock facilities are the exception rather than the norm. If this is true, then animal activists have an unexpectedly high success rate videotaping farms with substandard animal husbandry practices. It can be argued that activists are more likely to be hired by large facilities due to staff turnover and therefore animal welfare problems are more likely to be documented on large facilities. Animal agriculture proponents argue that animal welfare problems are not related to farm size. Large facilities can dedicate staff to particular animal care responsibilities, which is a luxury that smaller facilities cannot afford. Should veterinarians consider farm size as a significant risk factor for animal welfare problems?

An ethicist’s commentary on the connection between farm size and animal welfare

This is an issue that cannot be answered in an unequivocal, straightforward manner. There is no question that erosion of good stockmanship and care that is based in acknowledgment of farm animals’ needs and natures is historically associated with the industrialization of animal agriculture. As we have often remarked in this column, good husbandry was the key to success in animal agriculture from its inception until very recently.

Domestication of animals is a key feature in the development of civilization. Some 12 000 years ago, animals congenial to human society were domesticated and, by selective breeding, were further bound up with humans. This resulted in what has been called the ancient contract between humans and animals, wherein both sides, i.e., humans and animals, were able to live an improved life. Humans utilized animals for food, fiber, locomotion, and power. Animals depended on humans for providing environments that suited their biological natures, food during famine, water during drought, protection from predation, help in birthing, and such medical attention as was available.

If the animals’ welfare was not protected, and their needs not met, they failed to produce, which ultimately harmed the farmers. Thus, self-interest, the ultimate motivation for people, drove the perpetuation of good husbandry. The guarantee of a secure and predictable food supply in turn made possible the development of civilization. One of the great ironies in human history is that part of the development of civilization was the rise of agricultural technology, which undercut the very husbandry that made it possible! As I have repeatedly written, husbandry was about putting square pegs in square holes, round pegs in round holes, and creating as little friction as possible doing so. But the rise of “technological sanders” such as antibiotics, vaccines, air handling systems, allowed us to, as it were, force square pegs into round holes, round pegs into square holes, resulting in significant loss of animal welfare without concomitant loss in productivity, thereby breaking the ancient contract.

Associated with the industrialization of agriculture and the major truncation of the space in which animals were kept came a related loss of good husbandry and what has been called “animal smart labor.” As one industrialized hog production manager said to me, “the intelligence is in the system.” We are all aware that “systems” do not display intelligence. Furthermore, confinement feeding, rather than pastoral grazing, allowed large numbers of animals to be produced in small spaces. In essence, capital replaced labor, with industrialized operations being highly capitalized and growing very large.

Perhaps inevitably, with concerns for individual animals tending to be replaced by concern for profit, welfare further suffered. This is clearly evidenced by the history of confinement agriculture. Having said that, however, there is no necessary, logical connection between large operations and poor husbandry. There are in fact good examples of very large operations paying a great deal of attention to the well-being of the animals; these exist, but are regrettably scarce. These constitute exceptions, rather than the rule. It is perfectly conceivable, albeit very difficult, to create large operations that excel in husbandry. On the other hand, my animal agricultural colleagues assure me that they have seen small, even family-owned and family-run operations, whose care and treatment of their animals is abysmal. Inevitably, of course, such operations will collapse under their own weight.

And herein lies the crux of my answer to the question posed. It is certainly conceivable that large industrialized operations operate with a strong commitment to husbandry and thus to good welfare. But it is also unlikely, given the nature of these operations as profit-making organizations. It is equally conceivable that small family units operate against their own interest, and fail to provide good husbandry. But, again, that is unlikely.

As I have argued before in this column, good welfare for farm animals is inexorably emerging as a major societal concern that must be addressed by virtue of producers needing to bend to consumer demand. And such demand will inevitably push in the direction of creating better animal husbandry even in large corporate entities. Indeed, given the significant resources of such corporate entities, they are well situated to effect changes quickly that benefit animal welfare, as occurred in 2007 when Smithfield Farms committed to eliminating gestation crates. Such changes will of course not be easy, but will inevitably occur. And the self-interest that historically dictated good husbandry will now be guided not by the historical connection between productivity and welfare, but rather by equally profound ethical concerns in society, demanding a return to husbandry that will determine the playing field on which animal agriculture plays out.